Response letter to Job advert.

07/06/2017

To whom it may concern,

I was browsing the internet looking for jobs when I came across your advert for the position of a digital video production producer, and I have noticed some things within this advert that are quite concerning and I would like to address them in this letter. If I was applying for this job and my application were to be successful, I would expect to see that my contract has confidentiality clauses and exclusivity clauses. I must point out that it is extremely unfair if the job hours are between 10 – 45 hours a week and then you cannot go an apply for other jobs in the media industry if the application is successful. Not fair at all.

Within your advert, it says that you are looking for “male/female (aged below 30)” and are looking for people who are Christian. This is wrong because it infringes The Equality Act (2010). The equal opportunities legislation states that discrimination on grounds of race, gender or age is illegal. This advert goes completely against this statement. It should not matter how old you are whether you are below or above 30, everyone should have the same chance at getting the job no matter what age. In addition, saying that you have to be Christian is completely unnecessary and unfair to anyone who is not a Christian. It really should not matter what religion you are and it should not stop you from getting a job. As part of the application process, you state that one must plan and produce a short documentary that promotes the ‘No means No date rape campaign’. I believe this has to be one of the most outrageous requirements for a job I have ever seen. There are so many things wrong with this request. First, showing this kind of subject is highly frowned upon and is morally wrong, No one is their first year of high school would really want to see anything to do with rape. Secondly, the employers’ liability and employees’ rights have not been taken into consideration at all. For example, if someone were to go out and try to film this documentary and you did somehow manage to get hold of either a female victim or a male offender, what if something they say offends the interviewee and then the interviewer gets into trouble. Are they going to be protected? No, because they are not employed by you yet. It will be difficult to even get hold of an offender and even if you do how do you guarantee that this person is going to tell the truth? You can’t, and there is no way of getting someone to do so either. Another point is if someone goes to an institution in which there may be more offenders to interview, what if you’re attacked, once again you won’t be protected. Other complaint I have on this specific subject is that what if one of the female victims have horrid memories because of what had happened or what if the interviewer has a hard time making this film as it is a touching subject. All of this also links in with the Health of Safety legislation. Nothing is risk assessed and that could be bad for anyone and everyone. I have noticed that you have stated that it is "Female Victims" and "Male offenders". You should not be demonizing males as the only one who do these kinds of acts. Females also do these kind of acts as well, I'm not saying that females can be rapists too, all I am saying is that when it happens to a man, it is never reported.

This advert creates a few ethical issues, for one being the contents of the documentary that may be made. You should really take into consideration the fact that for everyone who wants to apply for this job and sees this advert, they will all be going to try to film this documentary and so this could be horrible for the people who are going to be interviewed. That is why the codes of practice and the policies and procedures were put in place to stop any legal issues.

The documentary that people will have to make will most likely go against the OFCOM broadcasting code, and particularly the protecting the under 18s and harm and offence sections. For example, OFCOM states “Material that might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of people under eighteen must not be broadcast”. This does link in with your requirements as filming something like this could have an emotional impact on the girl. And in the harm and offence section it states, “Generally accepted standards must be applied to the contents of television and radio services and BBC ODPS so as to provide adequate protection for members of the public from the inclusion in such services of harmful and/or offensive material.” Also links in with the safety of the victims. Just take note that OFCOM exists because of the Communications Act 2003) and The Broadcasting Act (1990). This documentary could also be counted as obscene because of the content involved and that would go against the Obscene Publications Act (1959). Let us say this video was made and was planned on being released, I think the video would get a mature rating such as a 15 because rape is not a subject that children should really be learning about at their age. As I have previously stated, this is a touching subject that could bring back horrible and traumatic memories for victims and so this would lead to the BBFC giving it a 15, this I must add is in my opinion. My final complaint is that you ask to add a popular soundtrack over the top of the documentary, which will most likely have a copyright claim, and you say that we will be recompensed up to the value of £20 for the production of the video. First of all, using music that has a copyright mark on it breaches the Intellectual Property Law. Furthermore, £20 is way too low to even consider making this documentary, you can’t really expect anyone to use music that has a copyright claim on it and get £20 pounds to compensate for it. Saying that you have to use a popular music track could encourage people to break the law and use music that has a copyright claim on it, and so if one person starts to use music that has a copyright mark on it, it will cause a chain of events and then everyone who applies will eventually be breaking the law.

Yours sincerely,

Luca Hawes.