Frankie
Boyles Tramadol Nights (Katie Price joke)
Channel 4, 7 December 2010, 22:00
Tramadol Nights was a six-part comedy series which was
written by and featured the controversial, alternative comedian
Frankie Boyle. The series featured the comedian in various
stand-up and comedy sketches which covered topics such as AIDS,
cancer, religion, racism, sex, paedophilia, rape, incest, war
and disability.
In the second episode of the series Frankie Boyle made
various comments about the former glamour model and reality TV
personality, Katie Price (formerly known as Jordan), and her
eight year-old son, Harvey, who is known to have a medical
condition and learning difficulties.
Frankie Boyle said:
Apparently Jordan and Peter Andre
[Katie Price's ex-husband] are fighting each other over
custody of Harvey. Well eventually one of them will have to
lose and have to keep him.
I have a theory that Jordan married
a cage fighter [Alex Reid, Katie Price's second husband]
because she needed someone strong enough to stop Harvey from
fucking her.
Solicitors acting on behalf of Katie and Harvey Price
complained to Ofcom that the comments were discriminatory,
offensive, demeaning and humiliating. The solicitors informed
Ofcom that Harvey has a condition called septo-optic dysplasia,
and is also on the autistic spectrum. The solicitors stated that
Harvey has very restricted sight, needs constant medication
and has learning difficulties. Harvey, as a result of his
condition and medication is large and strong for his age.
Ofcom also received approximately 500 complaints about the
comments, including, from the learning disability charity Mencap
and from the Royal London Society for the Blind. In summary, the
complainants stated that it was highly offensive, discriminatory
and abusive to broadcast these comments about an eight year-old
disabled child. The complainants were also offended that the
comments named a child as engaging in rape and incest.
Ofcom considered:
- Rule 2.1 Generally accepted standards must be applied
to the contents of television and radio services so as to
provide adequate protection for members of the public from
the inclusion in such services of harmful and/or offensive
material.
- Rule 2.3 In applying generally accepted standards
broadcasters must ensure that material which may cause
offence is justified by the context (see meaning of
context below). Such material may include, but is not
limited to, offensive language, violence, sex, sexual
violence, humiliation, distress, violation of human dignity,
discriminatory treatment or language (for example on the
grounds of age, disability, gender, race, religion, beliefs
and sexual orientation). Appropriate information should also
be broadcast where it would assist in avoiding or minimising
offence.
Ofcom Decision: In breach
Ofcom was of the view that the material in question appeared
to directly target and mock the mental and physical disabilities
of a known eight year-old child who had not himself chosen to be
in the public eye. As such, Ofcom found that the comments had
considerable potential to be highly offensive to the audience.
It is important to note that the Code does not prohibit the
broadcast of offensive or potentially offensive material, but
requires that it is justified by the context.
Channel 4 argued that the comments were wholly justified
in the context because it gave careful consideration to the
broadcast of the series in advance and applied a number of
measures to ensure its content complied with the Code.
We noted that Frankie Boyle is an established comedian, who
has appeared on a number of comedy television programmes. He is
also well known for his controversial and provocative humour,
which often plays on his negative views of society and
celebrities.
Further, we noted from Channel 4's statement that the
programme was carefully considered by senior editorial staff and
edited in advance of broadcast. We also noted that the programme
had been scheduled to begin at 22:00 to lessen the risk of
offence and was preceded by a clear warning to the audience
about the very strong language and uncompromising adult
content which some viewers will find offensive.
Ofcom considered that, even taking into account contextual
factors such as the nature of the series as a whole, its
scheduling, publicity and the clear pre-transmission warning,
these comments went beyond what would have been expected by the
majority of viewers of a late night comedy show broadcast on
Channel 4.
Therefore, in view of the particular circumstances of this
case, Ofcom concluded that on balance, the context of this
programme was not sufficient to justify the broadcast of this
material.
However, in view of the careful consideration Channel 4 took
in the broadcast of the series overall, Ofcom concluded that the
broadcaster was clearly aware of its responsibilites under the
Code and had attempted to comply with the Code's requirements.
Taking into account the challenging and provocative nature of
the content of the Tramadol Nights series overall, Ofcom did not
consider that these breaches demonstrated a fundamental failure
of Channel 4's compliance procedures. Rather, in Ofcom's view,
this case involved an erroneous decision on a matter of
editorial judgement on the broadcaster's part.
Breaches of Rules 2.1 and 2.3
Complaints about the rest of the series
Frankie Boyles Tramadol Nights (mental health
sketch and other issues)
Channel 4, 30 November 2010 to 29 December 2010, 22:00
Introduction
The second episode of the series included a sketch which
showed a man calmly talking to camera, in what appears to be his
kitchen. He said the following:
I have mental health problems.
There's a lot of stigma attached to mental health, a lot of
people are unfairly stigmatised when their conditions allow
them to lead perfectly normal lives.
The camera then pulls out to reveal the man holding a knife
and images of his dead wife and three dead children covered in
blood on the floor. He then says:
Who the fuck am I talking to?
Ofcom received eight complaints about the broadcast of this
sketch, including a complaint from the mental health charity,
Rethink. The complaints raised concerns that the sketch inferred
that people with mental illness are violent; promoted
discrimination against people with mental illness; mocked people
with mental illness; and was misleading.
Ofcom Decision: Not in breach
In this case, the sketch depicted a man talking to the camera
who explained: I have mental health problems. He then
talked about how many people with mental health problems are
unfairly stigmatised by others when, in fact, ...their
conditions allow them to lead perfectly normal lives. The
sketch ends as the camera reveals that the man is in fact a
violent murderer.
Ofcom considered that some viewers may have understood the
sketch, on its face, to have been mocking people with mental
health problems by inferring that they are likely to have
violent tendencies. Taken in this sense, Ofcom accepted that the
sketch had the potential to cause offence in that it appeared to
seek to derive humour from ridiculing people with mental health
issues and reinforcing stereotypes about them.
However, Ofcom noted Channel 4's submission that intention of
this particular sketch was in fact to satirise an established
public campaign Time to Change, which aimed to stop
discrimination against people with mental health problems.
Further, Channel 4 argued that the sketch set out to reverse the
concept of the original campaign, which attempted to challenge
the stereotype that those with mental health conditions are
violent.
Ofcom was of the view that the Time to Change campaign
itself was unlikely to be widely enough known to the audience
for the sketch's particular intention to be clear to viewers.
However, Ofcom considered that, whilst the material had the
potential to cause offence, most viewers would have been likely
to understand the nature of the sketch, and importantly, that
its intention was not to ridicule those who have mental health
problems, but to target public information campaigns of this
nature, and society's unease about dealing frankly with the
subject of mental health.
Ofcom considered that the intention of this sketch -- to use
satire and controversy to make a joke about society's attitudes
to mental health - would have been well understood by the
majority of the audience. Ofcom also considered that the sketch
would not have gone beyond what would normally be expected in a
programme of this type, particularly taking into account the
nature of other material in the series which also frequently
used satire and controversy to derive humour from society as a
whole, or its attitudes to particular issues.
On balance, we therefore concluded that the broadcast of the
material was justified by the context, and the sketch was
therefore not in breach of Rule 2.3.
Further, we found that Channel 4 had applied generally
accepted standards so as to provide adequate protection for
members of the public from this material, which was therefore
not in breach of Rule 2.1.
Other issues raised about the series
Ofcom also received complaints from viewers which raised a
number of other issues about the content of the series. In
summary, the complainants were offended by certain content,
which included: references to AIDS and cancer; references to
Jesus and religious dress; comments about rape and paedophiles;
sketches about a quadriplegic stuntman; and the involvement of
children in a sketch which included swearing, sexual abuse and
violence.
Ofcom assessed these complaints and the relevant content of
the series. In view of the nature of this late night comedy
series, and the other relevant contextual factors about the
series as a whole (as set out above), Ofcom concluded that the
material did not raise any issues under the Code.
Ofcom also received approximately 70 complaints from viewers
who were offended by the inclusion of what they considered to be
racist language in the series. Complainants referred, in
particular, to the broadcast of language such as paki,
nigger and black pussy.
Ofcom viewed the relevant content of the series and noted
that in all cases when language of this nature was used it was
clearly positioned as observational comedy, which targeted the
views and attitudes of society rather than particular black and
minority ethnic communities. The language was always presented
as a reflection on a character he was playing.
Ofcom concluded that the material was clearly editorially
justified and in keeping with audience expectations for this
late night comedy programme. The content was therefore justified
by its context, and Channel 4 applied generally accepted
standards in its broadcast.
Not in breach of Rules 2.1 or 2.3
Comment: Background
12th April 2011. From Andrew
For those of you outside of the UK (the only country
apparently willing to put up with her shit), Katie price is a
former glamour model also known as Jordan. Long story short,
this woman has been married 3 times in the same amount of years,
and is popularly known as an egotistical, materialistic, media
whore. Yet now, like so many people in her position, the boot
has switched feet, and the own medicine is not liked.
Katie Price is now moaning about Scottish comedian Frankie
Boyle making a derogatory compliment out her heavily disabled
son, Harvey. Price herself, has milked this disablement to her
advantage over during the tenure of her sons life, to not only
win magazine covers, but also to the point that she has been
publically made out to be a wonderful mother.
Ok, so onto Frankie Boyle. The Scottish comedian is NOTORIOUS
for jokes about taboo subjects, such as child molestation,
racial bigotry, and rape. The chance that Price actually watched
the show in question is very unlikely. Had the joke not been
aimed at her she would have probably laughed along with everyone
else. Anyway she has stated on more than one occasion that she
doesn't understand upper class people or high brow humour.
However,
a gag on a different episode of Mock the Week about Olympic
swimmer Rebecca Adlington was deemed to have broken rules. 
Daily Mail
hacks have been glued to their sets for another episode of Frankie
Boyle's Tramadol Nights.
The
Daily
Mail have caused a little interest from a serial sound bite
nutter. 
Frankie
Boyle, the irreverent host of Channel 4 comedy series
Tramadol Nights, may be the subject of an ongoing Ofcom
investigation – but that hasn't stopped the channel
commissioning the star to produce a new show.
A
poster for a Channel Four comedy show featured the title Tramadol Nights
which was written in the style of the fabric craft toy, fuzzy felt. The poster
also featured fuzzy felt style images of a badger firing a machine gun, two
rabbits attacking each other with hypodermic needles and another who had been
stabbed with knives. The ad also featured an animal holding a chainsaw and pools
of blood. Issue
The
boss of Channel 4 has refused to apologise for airing a joke
about Katie Price's disabled son.