R4 Raunchy Sex Scenes and Swearing During Day

[Teddy Bear]

I usually don't listen to Radio 4 plays for any length of time, but sometimes while driving I catch a few minutes of them coming up to the news.

I have noticed more and more the use of swearwords in these plays in the afternoon. Words like tits, cock, balls, bollocks, dick, seem to be used on a regular basis.

So what do the BBC think they're contributing to society with these? Do they really believe that any children listening to this will benefit, perhaps believing that it is an acceptable way of talking in general company.

As if our society doesn't have enough problems already.
I'm no prude, and I'm not offended by the use of swear words, I do believe that our media has a responsibility to consider who may be listening and ensure that the content of programmes is suitable for all the potential audience at a given time.

The BBC reflect their general total disregard for upholding society values. I hope one day I will see a BBC presenter walking with their children on the street. I will make sure that they and their children hear my opinion of them and see how they like it.

No more sex! Listeners protest after racy scenes in The Archers were broadcast during the school holidays

• Listeners offended by steamy scenes and swearing on other programmes
  
• Listeners complained of 'sexual noises' during The Diary of Samuel Pepys
  
• The station's editorial standards editor has stood by the material

By Ben Spencer

The BBC has defended broadcasting ‘edgy’ sex scenes in The Archers during the school holidays after a flood of complaints.

Listeners were offended by steamy scenes and swearing on other usually sedate Radio 4 programmes, including Woman’s Hour which is broadcast in the morning.

The station’s editorial standards editor Roger Mahony stood by the material, insisting Radio 4 is ‘adult-orientated’ and would not change its content for the long school holidays.

Listeners complained to the station’s Feedback show of ‘distinct sexual noises’ during drama The Diary Of Samuel Pepys, ‘grunts and grinds’ during The Archers and swear words in a Woman’s Hour play.

One complainant, offended by recent sexual scenes in the station’s flagship rural drama, said: ‘I’m an Archers’ listener and I’m not a prude but please can all the grunts and grinds [be removed] – we don’t need that. We’d rather hear the pigs doing it.’

Another described a love scene as going a ‘step too far’. She said: ‘It became a Joanna Trollope novel. It was so clichéd and not something I wanted to hear.’

And one listener from Worcestershire, complained about the Woman’s Hour 15-minute play. He said: ‘I heard a four-letter word that referred to a male sexual organ.

‘Today we have children at home during the school holidays. If they hear bad language on the street and then hear it on Radio 4 it could be assumed that the use of such words is acceptable.’

Mr Mahony insisted the BBC is ‘very sensitive’ to the school break, but said it was not practical to adjust programming over such a long period and given the differing holiday dates across the country.
Next month former television director Sean O'Connor, whose CV includes shows such as Hollyoaks (pictured), takes over as editor of The Archers

Next month former television director Sean O'Connor, whose CV includes shows such as Hollyoaks (pictured), takes over as editor of The Archers

He suggested that the problem was not the ‘edgy’ content, adding: ‘The solution here is not actually to start changing the nature or the mix of programmes and subjects, but perhaps to start to inform the audience and make sure they’re aware of the types of programmes that are coming up.

‘Parents can take their own decisions about what they want to have on while their children are listening.’

He added that ‘taste does evolve’ and that the issues were a ‘matter of judgment’, but conceded that the station ‘may have to recalibrate’ if it received more complaints.

And more complaints could be forthcoming. Next month former television director Sean O’Connor takes over as editor of The Archers, the world’s longest running soap. His CV includes racy TV shows such as Hollyoaks, Eastenders and Footballers’ Wives.

[steevo]

I get into discussion like this about the raunch in media or even from the mouths of politicians every so often and I find fortunately, most adults and even a number of teens don't like it when it's spoken freely in a public forum. People see it as distasteful and inappropriate. It's the celebrities and some media as always trying to push the envelope...

and just pull the rug out: ‘taste does evolve’ and that the issues were a ‘matter of judgment’

[Teddy Bear]

He suggested that the problem was not the ‘edgy’ content, adding: ‘The solution here is not actually to start changing the nature or the mix of programmes and subjects, but perhaps to start to inform the audience and make sure they’re aware of the types of programmes that are coming up.

‘Parents can take their own decisions about what they want to have on while their children are listening.’

The tail is wagging the dog!

It is not for the BBC to disregard the fact that parents with children might be listening and air programmes at that time that might be inappropriate. If they want to go private, and I wish they would, they can air what they like. So long as they are a publicly funded company they should be following what the licence fee payer wants

[Teddy Bear]

As I noted above at the beginning of this thread, something that I've noticed myself quite a bit is the swearing on the occasions when I'm listening to Radio4 during the afternoon play. They've even had simulated sex scenes and one time I heard a child actor swearing. Bollocks, screw, crap, tits, arse, wankers, knob, prat, prick, piss, and shit are just a few of the expressions I've heard used, and this is not a programme I much listen to often, just when I happen to be driving, and usually for less than 15 minutes at a time.

I have wondered, just when did this all change? It used to be that before the watershed, when it was likely that children might be listening or watching, that swearing was banned on TV and Radio, as well as sex scenes and excessive violence. I'm certainly no prude, but I fail to see how allowing it can possibly be thought by anybody to be improving our society. If the play being aired needs really to have swearing for realism, then perhaps the producer should be looking at different themes of plays to air at that time. We see an increasing descent of standards within society, and making swearing the 'norm' can only make it worse.

I'm glad to see Peter Hitchens has picked up on it too, and he shows the hypocrisy of the BBC, because when somebody wrote a complaint to them about the swearing in one of the plays, and used exactly the same words that had been used in the play in his complaint, the BBC refused to accept the complaint because of his language.

Just one more reason to close it down.

PETER HITCHENS: The BBC just loves swearing - until it gets a dose of its own @!X*! medicine

By Peter Hitchens

The BBC have refused to accept a complaint about bad language transmitted on national radio – because the complainer’s letter used exactly the same words that they had used on air.

They told Colin Harrow that his letter’s tone and language were ‘unacceptably abusive or offensive’.
In other words, the BBC are ready to transmit words into our homes which their staff are not prepared to read.

The Corporation’s complaints staff are supposed to be more sensitive to bad language than (say) elderly ladies or young children.

The programme involved, a Radio 4 play called Paradigm, was broadcast on Tuesday, January 21 at 2.15 pm, long before any sort of watershed.

No warning of bad language was given. An 80-year-old spinster, or a small child, could have been exposed without notice to a dialogue including the words p***, s*** (lavatory expressions), s*** (a sexual expression), b******s, b****r , b*****d, and some other crudities I’ll omit.

It’s striking that the BBC’s relaxation of rules on foul language has reached the point where expletives of this sort can be broadcast without any apparent sense of caution, let alone shame, in the early afternoon, on the country’s main serious speech station, at your expense and mine.

Mr Harrow thought he would treat the Corporation as they had treated him. He opened his letter with the same words and a similar tone (he did not use asterisks, but I have).

‘This afternoon’s play was sh***. It p***ed me off. The b*****d who wrote it needs sh****ing. Perhaps the b****r should be kicked in the testicles while stark b****** naked.’

He added: ‘I hope whoever reads this is not offended by the language used so far, but then if they work for the BBC why should they be?

'After all, every swearword and obscenity was used, some several times over, in this “afternoon” play, so I guess the BBC regards them as perfectly acceptable, including, I’m sure, in letters of complaint.’

Oh no they didn’t.

The metropolitan sophisticates of the Corporation (in my experience well used to every rude word in the language and then some) drew up their skirts like Victorian maiden aunts, and primly rejected the complaint, saying they felt ‘unable to circulate it more widely to our colleagues’.

‘When handling your complaint,’ they continued piously, ‘we will treat you courteously and with respect. We expect you to show equal courtesy and respect towards our staff and reserve the right to discontinue correspondence if you do not.’

They then offered to consider the complaint if Mr Harrow resubmitted it ‘using more acceptable language’.

He has. I contacted the BBC to ask them how they squared their rules on letters of complaint with their willingness to transmit the language of the lavatory wall, without warning, into the nation’s homes.

I was careful to asterisk the offending words in my letter to them, and began it with a warning in bold type that there was offensive language in what followed.

As usual, when caught out in hypocrisy, they couldn’t really understand the question. Totally unable to see themselves as others see them, BBC officials gobbled like affronted turkeys.

First of all, they claimed that listeners are ‘accustomed to the use of realistic, at times challenging language in the context of contemporary dramas’ and uselessly admitted that ‘in hindsight we could have taken further steps to signal the nature of the drama to listeners’.

Then they missed the whole point of the complaint, saying they understood that ‘listeners make their complaints in colourful ways when they are angry’, when in fact this complaint was a thoughtful satire on them, and not angry at all.

It is interesting that when they see such words in cold print, they immediately feel their menacing power – a power they ignore or belittle when they transmit them.

Finally, they said: ‘We think most people would appreciate there is a difference in how language is used in a fictional drama and how it is used in correspondence between real people.’

Real people? Don’t the BBC regard their listeners as real people? I rather suspect they don’t, seeing them merely as faceless serfs who can be relied upon to pay the licence fee and endure whatever liquid manure they choose to pump out through their transmitters.

Complacency of this kind, and on this scale, is usually followed by revolution. Will they listen? No, I swear they won’t.