To, Flipside Media

To whom it may concern,

I am writing this letter in response to your advert for a position at your company. I'm not seeking to apply; instead I intend to point out a number of flaws with your advert in hopes that you can rectify them.

Contracts (and agreements in general) are essential to any form of job, and to that end it's important that both parties fully understand the contract and what it entails. As such, it would make sense to try and not alienate people with vague terms of employment such as salary and hours. Applicants won't know whether they'll be getting £15k or £35k per annum, or whether they'll be working 10 or 45 hours a week, or whether these two variables are linked or not.

According to the Equality Act of 2010, two people applying for the same position at a company, with the same qualifications and experience should expect similar pay and hours to each other, and according to this advert this isn't guaranteed.

It's also mentioned that you are seeking someone "male/female aged below 30". Age discrimination legislation within the Equality Act mentions that it is "unlawful to discriminate on the basis of age unless the practice is covered by an exception from the ban"; for instance if one is looking for someone young to play a certain role in a film or play. In this case however, age has no effect on the performance of a Producer, and as such there is no particular reason to actively seek someone younger for this role.

In this advert, you ask applicants to make a "short documentary that can be shown to children at high school promoting the No Means No date rape campaign." Aside from the obvious issues regarding subject matter and audience (which we will discuss later), putting a brief like this in a job application to start with is already problematic. If an applicant were to go out and make this documentary, they would not be covered by the usual health and safety codes of practice of your company since they would not actually be employed by you at that point in time. That, and in your brief for the short documentary, you mention interviewing "female victims and male offenders". This is a little presumptuous, and it does lend itself to misrepresent people through assuming all offenders are male and all victims are female, especially considering the idea was to show this documentary to young people in high school. It's really important to note the effect that showing people in a certain light has on society's collective perception of a group of people, and as media producers it's our job to make sure that that image is wholly justified, understandable, and not slanderous. This is also backed up by OFCOM, which is a broadcast regulator that came about because of the Communications Act 2003 and the Broadcasting Act 1990, under the Harm and Offence code:

"Factual programmes or items or portrayals of factual matters must not materially mislead the audience."

Furthermore, the topic in question isn't exactly appropriate for young audiences, especially considering that you ask for "re-enactments and dramatizations". OFCOM's Harm and Offence code has a little bit relevant to this aswell:

"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." [...] "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)."

Such broadcasting of offensive imagery to underage people is exactly what you intend applicants to do with this documentary. OFCOM also has a section on Protecting the Under-Eighteens which has a bit regarding sexual material:

"Broadcasters must ensure that material broadcast after the watershed which contains images and/or language of a strong or explicit sexual nature, but is not 'adult sex material' as defined in Rule 1.18 above, is justified by the context."

Since the proposed documentary isn't "adult sex material", but does feature sexual violence (such is the nature of reconstructions), the BBFC would probably give it a 12A rating, based on the following rules:

"Sexual activity may be briefly and discreetly portrayed. Moderate sex references are permitted, but frequent crude references are unlikely to be acceptable." [...] "There may be moderate violence but it should not
dwell on detail. There should be no emphasis on injuries or blood, but occasional gory moments may be permitted if justified by the context. Sexual violence may only be implied or briefly and discreetly indicated, and its depiction must be justified by context."

Failing that it would probably be an 18:

"Where sex material genuinely seeks to inform and educate in matters such as human sexuality or safer sex and health, explicit images of sexual activity may be permitted."

But still wholly unsuitable "to be shown to children at high school". You're asking applicants to tread a difficult line here.

You also mention that you're seeking someone of Christian faith to fill this role. Why? Aside from once again being discrimination for the sake of discrimination, you also state that applicants should try to "promote the ideals of the Christian faith and encourage young people to contact [you] for further guidance". OFCOM have a piece on religion, stating that one must not 'seek to promote religious views or beliefs by stealth' or 'seek recruits'. Your wording here rather implies both of these.

For the brief, you ask applicants to use a "popular music soundtrack", yet only offer to recompense £20 for the entire production. Therefore you've given applicants a bit of a false ultimatum in that if they use a popular music soundtrack they will not be able to pay for it with £20, but they might be forced to use it anyway if they want to follow the brief and get the job. Then there would be an issue with copyright, as permission is always required if something is entering the public domain. So, in order to stay within the law, they might be forced to forgo the soundtrack, and then they wouldn't be following the brief so they would risk not getting the job.