So they're forced to pay for a service that offends them. Great.
Oh the power of being an untouchable state broadcaster. The people must accept what they tell them to listen to or else lump it.
Oh no, they heard the word "shit" how ever WILL they survive? <rolls eyes smiley>
Also, it's not like the BBC provides a free catch up service or around 20 other radio/TV stations they could be listening to/watching, is it?
Oh no, they heard the word "shit" how ever WILL they survive? <rolls eyes smiley>
There are things I personally don't find offensive. The trick is to realise that we don't all find the same things offensive/inoffensive and cater for that accordingly (broadcast times and warnings).
Also, it's not like the BBC provides a free catch up service or around 20 other radio/TV stations they could be listening to/watching, is it?
Perhaps the people listening recall when radio 4 was less offensive during the day and hoped to hear a drama they could enjoy?
So they're forced to pay for a service that offends them. Great.
Oh the power of being an untouchable state broadcaster. The people must accept what they tell them to listen to or else lump it.
What about those who do want swearing, for realism? As licence payers, shouldn't they also get what they want?
There are things I personally don't find offensive. The trick is to realise that we don't all find the same things offensive/inoffensive and cater for that accordingly (broadcast times and warnings).
Perhaps the people listening recall when radio 4 was less offensive during the day and hoped to hear a drama they could enjoy?
Perhaps they are also forgetting the days when ITV would broadcast programmes like Please Sir before 9pm, where, whilst not swearing, unacceptable behaviour such as vandalism and smoking marijuana were there, for all the family to see.
Same for Pan's People on TOTP. Raunchy, sexually explicit dancers flouting their curves in a provocative manner at 7:30 on a Thursday evening.
Heck, I think some early episodes of Only Fools and Horses featured swearing before the watershed!
What if they want it before 9pm, as it may be justified language?
E.g. "bastard" is only a swear word when used as an insult to others, for example. As a description of someone's parents marital status at the time that person was conceived, it is a perfectly legitimate word to use.
Just because it *can* be a swear word, doesn't mean it should be taken as such. Context is key.
Anyway, was this a play specially written for radio? Because if not, I'm sure the Mail would be in full-on "the BBC are lefty liberal homo trostky Commie wasting paedos" mode if they did edit out the swear words, probably claiming "cultural vandalism" and blaming it on the "nanny state".
Perhaps they are also forgetting the days when ITV would broadcast programmes like Please Sir before 9pm, where, whilst not swearing, unacceptable behaviour such as vandalism and smoking marijuana were there, for all the family to see.
Same for Pan's People on TOTP. Raunchy, sexually explicit dancers flouting their curves in a provocative manner at 7:30 on a Thursday evening.
Heck, I think some early episodes of Only Fools and Horses featured swearing before the watershed!
Hardly a new phenomenon!
If you want to discuss unruly behaviour of pupils in a comedy about unruly pupils then perhaps another thread may be in order. The producers of "Please, Sir!" did not break any accepted codes of television practice.
TOTP dance routines were indeed raunchy but in those days as long as there was no nudity it was fine. Times have changed largely due to feminism being more accepted and equality laws in place.
The point remains that even at night continuity announcers warn viewers about content. Therefore at 2:15pm either such content should be removed or warnings given. I suggested transmitting it at night. Use some common sense!
What if they want it before 9pm, as it may be justified language?
What if a kid wants one of their shows to be on at 10pm?
There are times for certain types of prgrammes. Listeners and viewers know this. The question is: can the BBC remember the practices?
E.g. "bastard" is only a swear word when used as an insult to others, for example. As a description of someone's parents marital status at the time that person was conceived, it is a perfectly legitimate word to use.
Just because it *can* be a swear word, doesn't mean it should be taken as such. Context is key.
Indeed but in this particular case they weren't discussing genealogy.*
*Shows such as "Who do you think you are?" have always ued the term: "Illegitimate child" to mean "bastard." So tact can be used.
Today it seems perfectly acceptable to swear before the watershed (Especially on talk shows or on C4s The Simpsons) but yet people will complain more about swearing AFTER the watershed.
The Daily Mail have publically stated on numerous occasions they consider the BBC to be their bête noire and as such their reporting of the BBC is unremittingly negative.
In such an instance it seems perfectly reasonable to me to take any reporting of theirs on the BBC with a huge pinch of salt.
And that has nothing to do with being a BBC 'apologist', it is simply taking a balanced, rational, view.
If you want to discuss unruly behaviour of pupils in a comedy about unruly pupils then perhaps another thread may be in order. The producers of "Please, Sir!" did not break any accepted codes of television practice.
TOTP dance routines were indeed raunchy but in those days as long as there was no nudity it was fine. Times have changed largely due to feminism being more accepted and equality laws in place.
The point remains that even at night continuity announcers warn viewers about content. Therefore at 2:15pm either such content should be removed or warnings given. I suggested transmitting it at night. Use some common sense!
If the play being referred to was the very first instance of such language being used at that time then you would have a point.
However such language has been used on occasion during the afternoon play on Radio 4 for at least 20 years probably even longer, and yet, remarkable, it seems it has never, ever, been an issue before.
What if a kid wants one of their shows to be on at 10pm?
There are times for certain types of prgrammes. Listeners and viewers know this. The question is: can the BBC remember the practices?
Indeed but in this particular case they weren't discussing genealogy.*
*Shows such as "Who do you think you are?" have always ued the term: "Illegitimate child" to mean "bastard." So tact can be used.
Kids shows are on at 10pm, on satellite channels.
They can remember the *non-existant* practices for radio. The radio watershed is non-existant, so there are no swearing practices. Pretty easy to remember.
I'm not interested if they were discussing genealogy or not, the fact is swearing is permissable if in context.
If you want to discuss unruly behaviour of pupils in a comedy about unruly pupils then perhaps another thread may be in order. The producers of "Please, Sir!" did not break any accepted codes of television practice.
TOTP dance routines were indeed raunchy but in those days as long as there was no nudity it was fine. Times have changed largely due to feminism being more accepted and equality laws in place.
The point remains that even at night continuity announcers warn viewers about content. Therefore at 2:15pm either such content should be removed or warnings given. I suggested transmitting it at night. Use some common sense!
Try telling that to LWT, where Please Sir was one of their many early shows that courted controversy with the press and the ITA. Under David Frost's leadership, they seemed to thrive on controversy and very nearly went under because of this, as advertisers didn't want anything to do with them
Re: TOTP, many people at the time, including Mrs Whitehouse, complained that TOTP wasn't "acceptable" family entertainment. To me, such dance routines today are just as outrageous/innocent (take your pick) as the swear word that this bloke heard on Radio 4 before the watershed.
If the play being referred to was the very first instance of such language being used at that time then you would have a point.
However such language has been used on occasion during the afternoon play on Radio 4 for at least 20 years probably even longer, and yet, remarkable, it seems it has never, ever, been an issue before.
I wouldn't bother pointing out facts to the OP. This is one of his 'toss of a coin' threads where faux outrage is defined by what The Mail tells him to be outraged about.
I say 'Toss of a coin' because if the The Mail had said 'BBC censors play on Radio 4' and the article was about how the BBC are playing nanny state to adult listeners guess what thread the OP would have started.
Unfortunately for the OP, one prick sending in a letter of complaint is enough of a bandwagon to jump on.
I say prick because that is the only deduction one can gain from the childish phrasing of the letter in question.
Faux outrage on behalf of imaginary others. It is what he does.
If the play being referred to was the very first instance of such language being used at that time then you would have a point.
However such language has been used on occasion during the afternoon play on Radio 4 for at least 20 years probably even longer, and yet, remarkable, it seems it has never, ever, been an issue before.
Neither of us know how many complaints have been made and what policy the BBC uses to stop misbehaving.For a while the BBC has been a law unto itself.
I would expect that complainant to have written similar letters over the years. I suspect any swear words used before have been judicial and not a string of them.
And if true, repeated offence doesn't neutralise the offence! A career burglar isn't admired just because he has been burgling for years!
I would expect that complainant to have written similar letters over the years. I suspect any swear words used before have been judicial and not a string of them.
I suspect that he wasn't expecting that language at that time of day. Even if he did stop listening when he heard a couple of sentences does that mean he can't listen to R4 because he doesn't know what language to expect?
No, it means he can choose not to listen to Radio 4 if a few bloody words are going to offend him. Or he can choose to get over it.
If people choose what they watch/listen to based on what kinds of words might be used then that's up to them but I think that's retarded.
So they're forced to pay for a service that offends them. Great.
Oh the power of being an untouchable state broadcaster. The people must accept what they tell them to listen to or else lump it.
This is a ridiculous argument. Anyone can say they're offended by anything, what difference does it make? The BBC giving time to religious points of view on certain programmes offends me but that doesn't make me want to censor them.
If I said I was offended by sports and that the BBC was therefore "an untouchable state broadcaster" where "the people must accept what they tell them to listen to or else lump it", would you agree with that sentiment in that context?
This is a ridiculous argument. Anyone can say they're offended by anything, what difference does it make? The BBC giving time to religious points of view on certain programmes offends me but that doesn't make me want to censor them.
I could say I was offended by looking at a clockface. Which would indeed be a peculiar type of offence taken. However the complaint seems reasonable because many people are offended by swear words and especially a string of them. We have watersheds for broadcasting precisely so that people who are offended by such language can simply not tune in late at night.
If broadcasters decide to pepper afternoon programmes with the same language as used at night then what choice has the afternoon radio listener been given other than to tune out of a service they are forced to pay for?
It therefore seems entirely reasonable that people who are offended by such swear words should be given some programmes of their liking.
solenoid
Regardless of how many times Mr. Harrow has complained it does not negate the fact that there were a string of swear words in "The Paradigm."
So what. No one is denying there were swear words, unfortunately Mr. Harrow likes the attention his ex status brings his ramblings, which lets face it carry no more weight than the usual rambling of the cod outrage brigade. Ex editor of The Mirror..so easily shocked by a play on Radio 4...hmmmm.
Sending off a letter of complaint written in such away to any organisation would favour the same response, but of course he knows this (ex editor and all that)...and there he goes off to the papers....again.
Swearing in Radio 4 plays is nothing new. Maybe Mr. Harrow resents being treated like an adult whilst listening to a radio station aimed at adults.
Are we to believe that this is the first time poor retired Mr. Harrow (ex Mirror group) has heard swearing in an Radio 4 play?
It seems Mr. Harrow is either not adult enough to understand broadcasting on Radio 4 and therefore NO ONE should enjoy it or his ex status gains his faux outrage ramblings a direct line to the papers. I'm for the latter, how about you.
Some of us however are adult enough to listen to Radio 4 plays and not be sent into a panic over the poor children that will be tuning in hoping to hear One Direction.
Again you suddenly appear to offended on behalf of others, much like you were on behalf of victims of the IRA and the BBC lack of coverage.. eh? Your faux concern for others is paper thin.
Why shouldn't someone who found the Toksvig joke biased and offensive not complain?
In this case, front page of the Mail..job done Mr. Harrow.
Why exactly was it biased, do The BBC never make jokes at Labours expense in their 'satirical' shows, or is it just when it is about the Tories it is deemed biased.
Maybe if it featured scantily clad women and fake photographs it might have been more up Mr.Harrow's street.
Perhaps if the BBC wasn't so offensively biased it wouldn't receive complaints?
Presumably in the fact that its programme makers are so blinkered that they prefer to make such dramas and broadcast them well before the watershed.
Do you not agree with me that it would be best to transmit such dramas after the watershed?
(Most reasonable readers of this thread are probably struck by how stubborn some defenders of the BBC really are.)
I could say I was offended by looking at a clockface. Which would indeed be a peculiar type of offence taken. However the complaint seems reasonable because many people are offended by swear words and especially a string of them. We have watersheds for broadcasting precisely so that people who are offended by such language can simply not tune in late at night.
If broadcasters decide to pepper afternoon programmes with the same language as used at night then what choice has the afternoon radio listener been given other than to tune out of a service they are forced to pay for?
It therefore seems entirely reasonable that people who are offended by such swear words should be given some programmes of their liking.
The thing is . . . there's no radio licence.
So how are they forced to pay for it? Who says the complainant has a TV?
Then shouldn't there be a watershed for radio? It seems odd that TV has one but not radio. Radio programmes should be signposted if bad language occurs and in the case of "The PAradigm" it wasn't.
Comments
Oh no, they heard the word "shit" how ever WILL they survive? <rolls eyes smiley>
Also, it's not like the BBC provides a free catch up service or around 20 other radio/TV stations they could be listening to/watching, is it?
Perhaps the people listening recall when radio 4 was less offensive during the day and hoped to hear a drama they could enjoy?
What about those who do want swearing, for realism? As licence payers, shouldn't they also get what they want?
They usually get that after 9pm.
Perhaps they are also forgetting the days when ITV would broadcast programmes like Please Sir before 9pm, where, whilst not swearing, unacceptable behaviour such as vandalism and smoking marijuana were there, for all the family to see.
Same for Pan's People on TOTP. Raunchy, sexually explicit dancers flouting their curves in a provocative manner at 7:30 on a Thursday evening.
Heck, I think some early episodes of Only Fools and Horses featured swearing before the watershed!
Hardly a new phenomenon!
What if they want it before 9pm, as it may be justified language?
E.g. "bastard" is only a swear word when used as an insult to others, for example. As a description of someone's parents marital status at the time that person was conceived, it is a perfectly legitimate word to use.
Just because it *can* be a swear word, doesn't mean it should be taken as such. Context is key.
Anyway, was this a play specially written for radio? Because if not, I'm sure the Mail would be in full-on "the BBC are lefty liberal homo trostky Commie wasting paedos" mode if they did edit out the swear words, probably claiming "cultural vandalism" and blaming it on the "nanny state".
If you want to discuss unruly behaviour of pupils in a comedy about unruly pupils then perhaps another thread may be in order. The producers of "Please, Sir!" did not break any accepted codes of television practice.
TOTP dance routines were indeed raunchy but in those days as long as there was no nudity it was fine. Times have changed largely due to feminism being more accepted and equality laws in place.
The point remains that even at night continuity announcers warn viewers about content. Therefore at 2:15pm either such content should be removed or warnings given. I suggested transmitting it at night. Use some common sense!
There are times for certain types of prgrammes. Listeners and viewers know this. The question is: can the BBC remember the practices?
Indeed but in this particular case they weren't discussing genealogy.*
*Shows such as "Who do you think you are?" have always ued the term: "Illegitimate child" to mean "bastard." So tact can be used.
The Daily Mail have publically stated on numerous occasions they consider the BBC to be their bête noire and as such their reporting of the BBC is unremittingly negative.
In such an instance it seems perfectly reasonable to me to take any reporting of theirs on the BBC with a huge pinch of salt.
And that has nothing to do with being a BBC 'apologist', it is simply taking a balanced, rational, view.
If the play being referred to was the very first instance of such language being used at that time then you would have a point.
However such language has been used on occasion during the afternoon play on Radio 4 for at least 20 years probably even longer, and yet, remarkable, it seems it has never, ever, been an issue before.
Kids shows are on at 10pm, on satellite channels.
They can remember the *non-existant* practices for radio. The radio watershed is non-existant, so there are no swearing practices. Pretty easy to remember.
I'm not interested if they were discussing genealogy or not, the fact is swearing is permissable if in context.
Try telling that to LWT, where Please Sir was one of their many early shows that courted controversy with the press and the ITA. Under David Frost's leadership, they seemed to thrive on controversy and very nearly went under because of this, as advertisers didn't want anything to do with them
Re: TOTP, many people at the time, including Mrs Whitehouse, complained that TOTP wasn't "acceptable" family entertainment. To me, such dance routines today are just as outrageous/innocent (take your pick) as the swear word that this bloke heard on Radio 4 before the watershed.
I wouldn't bother pointing out facts to the OP. This is one of his 'toss of a coin' threads where faux outrage is defined by what The Mail tells him to be outraged about.
I say 'Toss of a coin' because if the The Mail had said 'BBC censors play on Radio 4' and the article was about how the BBC are playing nanny state to adult listeners guess what thread the OP would have started.
Unfortunately for the OP, one prick sending in a letter of complaint is enough of a bandwagon to jump on.
I say prick because that is the only deduction one can gain from the childish phrasing of the letter in question.
Faux outrage on behalf of imaginary others. It is what he does.
Neither of us know how many complaints have been made and what policy the BBC uses to stop misbehaving.For a while the BBC has been a law unto itself.
I would expect that complainant to have written similar letters over the years. I suspect any swear words used before have been judicial and not a string of them.
And if true, repeated offence doesn't neutralise the offence! A career burglar isn't admired just because he has been burgling for years!
http://laughlines.net/complaints-to-bbc-about-joke-rejected/
http://nuseinternational.co.uk/2011/06/bbc-lambasted-for-not-broadcasting-the-c-word/
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/police-called-in-over-joke-about-squirrels-7165366.html
http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade+michael-parkinson (mid page Mail titles taken to task - again)
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/police-called-in-over-joke-about-squirrels-7165366.html
Seems like an attention seeking buffoon. Oh hang on..ex Mirror Group.
Regardless of how many times Mr. Harrow has complained it does not negate the fact that there were a string of swear words in "The Paradigm."
Why shouldn't someone who found the Toksvig joke biased and offensive not complain?
Perhaps if the BBC wasn't so offensively biased it wouldn't receive complaints?
If people choose what they watch/listen to based on what kinds of words might be used then that's up to them but I think that's retarded.
This is a ridiculous argument. Anyone can say they're offended by anything, what difference does it make? The BBC giving time to religious points of view on certain programmes offends me but that doesn't make me want to censor them.
If I said I was offended by sports and that the BBC was therefore "an untouchable state broadcaster" where "the people must accept what they tell them to listen to or else lump it", would you agree with that sentiment in that context?
If broadcasters decide to pepper afternoon programmes with the same language as used at night then what choice has the afternoon radio listener been given other than to tune out of a service they are forced to pay for?
It therefore seems entirely reasonable that people who are offended by such swear words should be given some programmes of their liking.
So what. No one is denying there were swear words, unfortunately Mr. Harrow likes the attention his ex status brings his ramblings, which lets face it carry no more weight than the usual rambling of the cod outrage brigade. Ex editor of The Mirror..so easily shocked by a play on Radio 4...hmmmm.
Sending off a letter of complaint written in such away to any organisation would favour the same response, but of course he knows this (ex editor and all that)...and there he goes off to the papers....again.
Swearing in Radio 4 plays is nothing new. Maybe Mr. Harrow resents being treated like an adult whilst listening to a radio station aimed at adults.
Are we to believe that this is the first time poor retired Mr. Harrow (ex Mirror group) has heard swearing in an Radio 4 play?
It seems Mr. Harrow is either not adult enough to understand broadcasting on Radio 4 and therefore NO ONE should enjoy it or his ex status gains his faux outrage ramblings a direct line to the papers. I'm for the latter, how about you.
Some of us however are adult enough to listen to Radio 4 plays and not be sent into a panic over the poor children that will be tuning in hoping to hear One Direction.
Again you suddenly appear to offended on behalf of others, much like you were on behalf of victims of the IRA and the BBC lack of coverage.. eh? Your faux concern for others is paper thin.
In this case, front page of the Mail..job done Mr. Harrow.
Why exactly was it biased, do The BBC never make jokes at Labours expense in their 'satirical' shows, or is it just when it is about the Tories it is deemed biased.
Maybe if it featured scantily clad women and fake photographs it might have been more up Mr.Harrow's street.
In what way was it biased.
Do you not agree with me that it would be best to transmit such dramas after the watershed?
(Most reasonable readers of this thread are probably struck by how stubborn some defenders of the BBC really are.)
The thing is . . . there's no radio licence.
So how are they forced to pay for it? Who says the complainant has a TV?
Something went wrong at the BBC. Again.