Southend U3A

Letter to the Editor - Peter Rogers

April 2011

Dear Radio Times,

A short while ago I thought (or possibly imagined) the BBC stated they were cutting down on the amount of, so called, 'strong' language after the watershed and especially between 9 – 10. Yet in reality the opposite would seem to be your policy.

I know your immediate reaction would be, 'Not another Mrs Whitehouse!', but in hindsight, perhaps she wasn't quite as deranged as she's sometimes painted. Who would have thought, back when she started her, 'Clean up TV' campaign, that one day in virtually every program after the watershed four letter words would become commonplace, even, some might say, compulsory or at least expected? The idea would have seemed laughable then.

Curiously enough, for some reason best known to the Beeb alone, national radio seems relatively free of such 'adult' language, though no doubt that will change in good time. (Oh dear, perhaps I shouldn't have put that thought in your heads.)

The natural question arises: would shows like, 'Colditz' or 'Morecombe and Wise' have been any more entertaining with swear words? (or for that matter classic films like, 'Twelve Angry Men', 'Ice Cold in Alex' or 'To Kill a Mockingbird'? The chances of these ever being shown on the BBC again of course being almost zero, even if they had been made in colour.) Is this the reason, one wonders, why the pre-watershed schedules consist almost entirely of soaps, reality or fly-on-the-wall series? Because most current comedy, drama and panel games are (by design?) unsuitable for family audiences?

When it comes down to it, are our lives really any better with the virtual abolition of censorship?

Take an acclaimed series like, 'The Street'. Was the episode where two young friends were involved in a murder and one let the other innocent party take the rap, any worse for having no swearing, unlike most of the others? Was the original Reginald Perrin not so much fun without the occasional; crudity of the re-make? Or by the same token, 'Only Fools and Horses' compared to, 'Rock and Chips.'

Even historical series, it now seems, aren't immune to the BBC's policy of 'anything goes'. Once again, were 'The Seven Wives of Henry VIII' or 'Elizabeth R' any worse for their comparative lack of crudity exemplified by 'Rome' and 'The Tudors' and now 'Crimson Petal and The White'? Would 21st Century viewers not be able to follow them without expletives or explicit sex?

Ok, I know your answer will be that you have to be 'edgy' and push the barriers in drama and comedy. But what possible justification can there be for last Saturday's Ruth James chat show, where she had Dawn French read out an audience member's diary entries where all she seemed to do was slag off various acquaintances of hers in explicit terms? (and, just in case you missed any, the extracts were shown on the screen). The girl was also shown coyly giggling at her highly sophisticated remarks.

Are gratuitously tasteless shows such as this to replace the wit of erstwhile performers like Patrick Campbell, Muir and Norden or Ustinov?

Silly question, I know. All in all, it's really enough to make you sell your TV and decamp to a desert island with eight gramophone records.

Yours Disappointedly,

Peter Rogers