The BBC - content warnings - very strong language

[Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 19
Forum Member
I've noticed that before movies start on any BBC channels, they warn that a lot of them contain "very strong language" - I have not watched one movie on any BBC channel that actually contained "very strong language". Very strong language is the c word. The worst you hear on most of the crappy movies they put on is a few f-words, but they say "very strong language".
«13

Comments

  • Sharon87Sharon87 Posts: 3,698
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Very strong language doesn't mean any specific words, it's the way it's delivered if someone says really aggressively 'f**k you' that's strong language, if someone says 'f**k you' in a more calm way or jokey way that is just bad language and not very strong language.

    That's what the announcers mean by strong language. I learnt this information when studying and know it to be correct.

    Hope it clears it up for you
  • popeye13popeye13 Posts: 8,573
    Forum Member
    Sharon87 wrote: »
    Very strong language doesn't mean any specific words, it's the way it's delivered if someone says really aggressively 'f**k you' that's strong language, if someone says 'f**k you' in a more calm way or jokey way that is just bad language and not very strong language.

    That's what the announcers mean by strong language. I learnt this information when studying and know it to be correct.

    Hope it clears it up for you

    Erm. . . . . . !

    The content warning broadcast before a programme on UK tv is what they are advised to by the Ofcom Broadcasting Code.
    Fwords with no fore-word, e.g, Mother, is Strong Language.
    F-words that end in 'er', 'ing' and so on as the same, they are defined as Strong Language' Regardless of how they are spoken in verbosity. (Aggressive or jokey)

    F-words with a fore-word, e.g: Mother & the C-word are defined as 'Very Strong Language'
    Its what the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and so on have always worked with and what the viewing public knows, mostly.
    So yes, its VERY much to do with the specific words.
  • mossy2103mossy2103 Posts: 84,307
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    grissom123 wrote: »
    I've noticed that before movies start on any BBC channels, they warn that a lot of them contain "very strong language" - I have not watched one movie on any BBC channel that actually contained "very strong language". Very strong language is the c word. The worst you hear on most of the crappy movies they put on is a few f-words, but they say "very strong language".
    Obviously you have a much narrower (and relaxed) view as to what constitutes strong language, a view that is not necessarily shared by others, and certainly not the broadcasters and Ofcom
  • lundavralundavra Posts: 31,790
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    grissom123 wrote: »
    I've noticed that before movies start on any BBC channels, they warn that a lot of them contain "very strong language" - I have not watched one movie on any BBC channel that actually contained "very strong language". Very strong language is the c word. The worst you hear on most of the crappy movies they put on is a few f-words, but they say "very strong language".
    mossy2103 wrote: »
    Obviously you have a much narrower (and relaxed) view as to what constitutes strong language, a view that is not necessarily shared by others, and certainly not the broadcasters and Ofcom

    Agreed, I don't particularly want to listen to unnecessary 'strong language' (and most is unnecessary). It is usually a good indication that the programme is going to be rubbish so I will avoid it.
  • andys cornerandys corner Posts: 1,664
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    It's all about context, especially with films. If its for example 51st state, I would expect Samuel l jackson's character to f-ing this and you are a c etc, that's the type of character he is in that film, I wouldn't expect him to have an extensive vocabulary to describe anyone that he insults.

    On tv shows like the Inbetweeners are full of language like that, they are teenage boys in the 6th form, so again it is done to be true to life.

    Typically bad guys in films and in real life swear, it's what they do, films have appropriate certificates for a reason
  • Ginger DaddyGinger Daddy Posts: 8,507
    Forum Member
    Jesus, the BBC cant win here can they?

    They put a warning out, people like the OP moan.
    They don't put a warning out, people will moan they didnt put a warning out.

    Yawn!!!
  • PhredPhred Posts: 1,147
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    So why is there no warning before every episode of Mrs Brown's Boys?
  • ftvftv Posts: 31,668
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The one that gets me is on the news where both BBC and ITN say ''The following report contains upsetting scenes'' or similar phrases. But there's no clue what these scenes are (and what upsets one person might not upset another). Surely the editor(s) should do what they're paid for and make the reports suitable for family viewing.
  • gasheadgashead Posts: 13,807
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    ftv wrote: »
    The one that gets me is on the news where both BBC and ITN say ''The following report contains upsetting scenes'' or similar phrases. But there's no clue what these scenes are (and what upsets one person might not upset another). Surely the editor(s) should do what they're paid for and make the reports suitable for family viewing.
    Is that sarcasm, because if it isn't, you realise what you're suggesting, don't you?
  • skp20040skp20040 Posts: 66,872
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    ftv wrote: »
    The one that gets me is on the news where both BBC and ITN say ''The following report contains upsetting scenes'' or similar phrases. But there's no clue what these scenes are (and what upsets one person might not upset another). Surely the editor(s) should do what they're paid for and make the reports suitable for family viewing.

    Yes I agree, they should send an email to all war zones and ask that anyone killing people make sure the dead bodies are nicely arranged and dressed in the latest fashion for the cameras so as not to upset anyone.
  • calico_piecalico_pie Posts: 10,060
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    So here in 2013, strong language has been reduced to one single word.

    Presumably, even if some people don't mind effing and blinding, there are still likely to be other people who may well be.

    On the line of where people may or may not take offence, I don't think the BBC can be criticised for not drawing that line at the point where only the c word remains on one side of that line.
  • ftvftv Posts: 31,668
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    skp20040 wrote: »
    Yes I agree, they should send an email to all war zones and ask that anyone killing people make sure the dead bodies are nicely arranged and dressed in the latest fashion for the cameras so as not to upset anyone.

    They warn you about flash photography but just to say the report includes pictures that are upsetting is useless unless they say why. I understood the BBC did not show dead bodies before 10 pm in response to your point about e-mails.
  • mossy2103mossy2103 Posts: 84,307
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    ftv wrote: »
    The one that gets me is on the news where both BBC and ITN say ''The following report contains upsetting scenes'' or similar phrases. But there's no clue what these scenes are (and what upsets one person might not upset another). Surely the editor(s) should do what they're paid for and make the reports suitable for family viewing.

    So you want the news sanitised then? Which is pretty much censorship.

    Because that is in effect what you are asking for.



    And if there is a warning regarding upsetting scenes, then it is a clear indication for those of a sensitive nature (sensitive to blood & torn clothing on the road, sensitive to children crying, sensitive to pictures of death, sensitive to animals in distress, sensitive to people crying in anguish etc) to turn away or to leave the room. allowing the news reporters and editors to bring everyone else the news reports that tell the story.
  • calico_piecalico_pie Posts: 10,060
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Assuming they've already mentioned what the story is, it should be pretty bleeding obvious what any upsetting scenes might be.

    If its about a major accident, there might be a bit of blood.

    If its about drought in Africa, there might be malnourished children.

    If its about Tiddles and his wayward adventures, there might be a cute, but distressed, cat stuck up a tree.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,373
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Phred wrote: »
    So why is there no warning before every episode of Mrs Brown's Boys?

    I thought an announcement about adult humour and strong language was used before each episode.
  • Sid LawSid Law Posts: 4,663
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I thought an announcement about adult humour and strong language was used before each episode.

    I bet they don't have a warning before it is broadcast on RTE. So called "strong language" is de rigeur in normal conversation in the republic.
  • Peter the GreatPeter the Great Posts: 14,225
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    grissom123 wrote: »
    I've noticed that before movies start on any BBC channels, they warn that a lot of them contain "very strong language" - I have not watched one movie on any BBC channel that actually contained "very strong language". Very strong language is the c word. The worst you hear on most of the crappy movies they put on is a few f-words, but they say "very strong language".
    Motherf***er is also classed as very strong language.
  • degsyhufcdegsyhufc Posts: 59,251
    Forum Member
    They should put the warning before HIGNFY then they wouldn't have to resort to bleeping
  • IzzySIzzyS Posts: 11,045
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    mossy2103 wrote: »
    So you want the news sanitised then? Which is pretty much censorship.

    Because that is in effect what you are asking for.



    And if there is a warning regarding upsetting scenes, then it is a clear indication for those of a sensitive nature (sensitive to blood & torn clothing on the road, sensitive to children crying, sensitive to pictures of death, sensitive to animals in distress, sensitive to people crying in anguish etc) to turn away or to leave the room. allowing the news reporters and editors to bring everyone else the news reports that tell the story.

    I was once shown news footage in a psychology class which was really graphic, it showed dead bodies including that of a pregnant mother with her unborn feotus having been pulled out, shall we say and a massacre in a church - from the gulf war in the early 1990s :( horrendous footage that has stayed with me ever since. I think its important to not overly censor news and make people aware of whats going on but a part of me did question why they had to film such extreme things...I almost feel as if, its hard to explain but in a sense the pregnant ladies dignity was lost by broadcasting that, she deserved some privacy in some sense. I know it doesn't really make sense but thats sort of how I felt(?). I would have only been about 16 or 17 when I saw it, it shocked me - as if movies about concentration camps weren't enough but at least those movies were acted by actors and actresses, even though their based on true events.

    Having said all that, yes its important that some things are shown and that TV isn't overly censored. It irks me a bit thinking back to school that they'd say if they were going to put on upsetting footage and ask if anyone didn't want to see it, to put their hand up and they could go outside and wait - I'd never do that because I wouldn't like to be ridiculed/laughed at for it and I didn't want to feel like I was somehow punished by having to stand outside so as not to see it, so I'd watch it anyway :-/ thats a whole other issue though I guess(!).

    ETA - regarding strong language, when I was in primary school, I was really unhappy at one time and swore quite alot and I got in trouble with the principle about it and was made to write a paper explaining why swearing is wrong. I did it because I was angry/worried/unhappy at the time but nowadays excessive use of swearing annoys me and I try and be careful not to swear near kids etc. some teenage students where I work swear like there's no tomorrow and don't seem to think twice about it or even realise their doing it half the time (though I could be wrong). Its a shame if people are like that these days, use very strong language almost all the time as if its nothing, for little reason... (I must be getting old talking like this(!))
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 717
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I have no problem with broadcasters giving pre-broadcast warnings, it's far better than turning society into a giant nursery where grown up content never happens. Watched South Park yesterday and they blurred out scenes where people held up one finger. Doesn't Mr Bean do that in the film where he goes to America?
  • popeye13popeye13 Posts: 8,573
    Forum Member
    degsyhufc wrote: »
    They should put the warning before HIGNFY then they wouldn't have to resort to bleeping

    I read a story that was quoting the exe producer Richard Wilson saying the reason its bleeped now, is because he got so sick and tired of fighting with the BBC on a weekly basis to include the words uncut.
    And because the BBC has such a moronic manner in how strong language is passed for broadcast, the fact HIGNFY is filmed on a Thursday evening, meant by the time clearance came, it was to late and the final edit had been rendered and to go back then unedit it, would be to costly and the BBC wouldn't agree to that either.
    Most of the time, the BBC would deny the request anyway. It was the days where even Friday Night With Jonathan Ross show was bleeped way past 11pm at night. Fearing one petty whino instead of realizing that actually, were adults and don't need censorship the likes of US tv!
    (The process currently for strong language for BBC is..
    Exec producer sends request form to the BBC channel controller, who will review it, then send to the BBC Vision director who has final say, if declined, no go for uncut airing)
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 736
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    HIGNFY doesn't really need strong language. It's not gritty drama or dockers fighting. Panellists rarely lose their cool. If anything it's what is said about people's reputations and intent that is far more contentious.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,488
    Forum Member
    Cyclist wrote: »
    I have no problem with broadcasters giving pre-broadcast warnings, it's far better than turning society into a giant nursery where grown up content never happens. Watched South Park yesterday and they blurred out scenes where people held up one finger. Doesn't Mr Bean do that in the film where he goes to America?

    Early seasons of South Park were self-censored, because the producers worked out that if they bleeped it themselves they'd be able to pass more uncut than if Comedy Central bleeped it (though on occasion Comedy Central have re-bleeped episodes). In later seasons they produced uncut international versions and bleeped US versions.

    But they still need permission from Comedy Central to release the uncut version, which is why an uncut version of "201" has never surfaced.
  • lundavralundavra Posts: 31,790
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Fairness wrote: »
    HIGNFY doesn't really need strong language. It's not gritty drama or dockers fighting. Panellists rarely lose their cool. If anything it's what is said about people's reputations and intent that is far more contentious.

    It does seem unnecessary on the programme, usually second rate stand up "comedians", it would be better if they just stop using them on the programme.
  • degsyhufcdegsyhufc Posts: 59,251
    Forum Member
    For some it's every day language and it doesn't matter if you're a comedian from the east end or an actor who went to eton and cambridge.

    Kirsty Young has a lovely swearing voice.
Sign In or Register to comment.