Channel 5 has had to pay damages following one of its nasty, prurient programmes that takes delight in invading people’s privacy for the sake of cheap entertainment.
Channel 5 will pay ‘substantial damages’ to an 88-year-old optometrist left distraught after featuring in an episode of the TV show Can’t Pay? We’ll Take It Away!
Brian Hitchin launched legal action after he appeared in episode 16 – broadcast to almost 12 million people – of the programme’s fourth series.
He claimed there was ‘misuse’ of his private information through the ‘filming, making and multiple broadcasts’ of the episode from October 2016 until April 2021, and sought damages.
On Friday, a hearing at the High Court in London before Mr Justice Saini was told the dispute has been resolved through a settlement.
It transpires that this man did not owe the money being sought and that the writ was issued incorrectly. However, this doesn’t really matter. The programme relies on salacious, voyeuristic broadcasting of a process that has no place on television. It relies on the distress caused for entertainment value. It is made by scumbags who delight in the misery they cause for the sole purpose of making trash television. Shame on them and shame on those who tune into the execrable programme and those like it.
A new set of Commandments is born…
1) Never take part in Reality Television
2) Never speak to the Police without legal representation
3) Prenuptial agreements are desirable
4) Never take anything through Customs for anyone else
5) Don’t take or appear in photographs when naked
6) Don’t comment on Social Media
7) Write comments on blogs as if they are going to be available to anyone, for ever
8) Don’t seek fame or celebrity
Plus two spares foy your individual circumstances.
Basically the Epicurean advice to ‘Live unknown!’
Desirable maybe, but totally worthless in the UK unless you’re a multimillionaire or better. For the plebs, even if done correctly, they are simply overridden, overruled or ignored.
In the case of this individual, he was filmed and the footage used without his consent. Hence the legal action.
Having previously been on TV, I had to sign a consent form. Not sure why that isn’t the case for reality TV, but also why anyone on a programme such as this would ever consent?
Back in the days of Candid Camera this one cropped up. The TV company expected people to be happy to be publicly humiliated for no recompense. I can’t recall who gave it, but the advice was to demand a proper fee and mean it or they don’t use the footage. However, all too often, the TV company is right in its assessment. People will do anything for their fifteen minutes. In this case, I don’t know. Clearly the man was unhappy from the start, so I very much doubt he signed any waiver.
You are of course absolutely right but they’ve been broadcasting this stuff endlessly for more than 10 years so frankly I doubt that they give a shit about one upset old geezer and a little fine.
You’re probably right. Unfortunately, people want to watch this gutter trash, so they will keep on doing it.
There is an axiom in American business which goes along the lines of ‘if you’re not being sued you aren’t doing it hard enough’ which I suspect applies in this case, i.e. just a cost of doing business