We have tried to bring up our children (and those of others since we are both teachers) with decent Christian standards. I feel that constantly to force upon us scenes of violence and degradation of which the above is only one example, undermines all we strive for.
There must be many thousands of parents, like us, who are deeply disturbed and distressed at what is being brought into our homes. Can you give us no help, no hope? I cannot believe that our concern is unshared.
Yours sincerely,
M.H. (Mrs.)
Aslockton, Notts.
8 November 1965
To: K. Adam, Esq., B.B.C., London
Dear Mr. Adam,
It seems to me that you are in something of a quandary if you are not prepared for the TV to be a mirror. [I]f the TV is to reflect life as it is (this in spite of what you say about using it as a mirror) then there is still [an] obligation on the programme selectors to select which bit of life they reflect. I can, after all, use a mirror to look at a beautiful piece of scenery; I can also use a mirror to look at the bottom of a cesspit. The fact that unpleasant and immoral things take place in contemporary life is well-known, but this does not mean that they are typical or should be selected for entertainment. To select them so frequently (as is done at present) is bound to influence viewers (especially younger ones) to the belief that such scenes not only happen but are normal and acceptable.
The argument, therefore, that the unpleasant scenes happen is no justification whatever for selecting them for TV, it is merely a proof that the TV is a mirror that is being unwisely used.
Yours faithfully,
D. E. S.
Nottingham
4 November 1965
To: Mr Kenneth Adam, BBC, London
Dear Mr Adam,
Last night I read in the Nottingham ‘Evening Post’ an account of what was described as ‘a rumpus’ after which you threatened to walk out of a meeting having been heckled by a member of the Nottingham Branch of the Clean Up T.V. Campaign. Tonight, I see from the same paper that the B.B.C. is in trouble again – the cleaner uppers apparently object to the screening last night of a ‘pornographic, revolting, smutty’ play called ‘Up The Junction’. I only wish I had been able to see it since it appears to have been about life as it is lived.
I do not think you are likely to take too much notice of these self-appointed guardians of our purity but it may help a little to know that there are many of us who whole-heartedly approve of programmes with some punch.
I see a few programmes I do not like but you would have to be a miracle worker to please everybody.
Above all, I am sure you would agree, no-one has any right to dictate what someone else should or should not see or hear.
More power to your elbow!
Yours sincerely,
K. W.
CHAPTER SIX
BAD TASTE
One person’s bad taste is another person’s hilarious comedy or deeply moving drama. The people who find a programme in bad taste tend to write in to complain. The people who do not see a problem do not feel it necessary to write in to let the BBC know that they do not find a particular programme in bad taste. It would therefore be unwise to draw the conclusion from the letters that follow in this section that the BBC was deliberately producing a great many programmes that were in bad taste.
What is possible to see from this section’s letters is that it is the traditional subjects of sex and religion above all which produce the most complaints. Churchmen are well represented in this book because they were extremely active in informing the BBC of their displeasure and the likely impact of its bad taste on the morals of their congregants. There was really very little the BBC could do in response.
Fed up with what he perceived as the BBC’s inability to control its programme makers and at its support of them in the controversies that followed, our first correspondent in this section takes his complaint to the only person he can imagine who might have the power to tell the BBC to restore the country to the path of moral certainty. His letter is echoed by many in the section entitled That Word as it deals with the famous word uttered by the Literary Manager of the National Theatre on a late-night discussion programme called BBC-3, but it is included here because he clearly believes his reader will share his fear for her country’s moral welfare.
Budleigh Salterton, Devon
14 November 1965
To: the Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty, Buckingham Palace, London SW1
Madam,
Your Majesty is perhaps aware that despite continuous protests from many of your subjects the British Broadcasting Corporation is constantly transmitting highly objectionable pictures, language and ideas to the millions of potential listeners and viewers. A civilised person endeavours, of course, to avoid all contact with such transmissions but this is not always possible and in any case is not the answer to this evil.
Last night, by chance, I saw the programme ‘B.B.C.3’ for about 3 or 4 minutes. In that short time a revolting idea was discussed by several people, including a ‘woman’ and a ‘man’ used a word which even the lowest and most degraded man would hesitate to use even to another man. I will not detail my own feelings of disgust and shame. I am sure they would be shared by Your Majesty who would also feel a righteous anger that such insults should be offered by responsible people to you and all decent people.
An hour or so previously Your Majesty was present at a ceremony in the Royal Albert Hall when the name of Almighty God was invoked and the memories of a million dead were honoured. All such memories and all such honour is insulted by people who deliberately seek to shame and disgrace us.
I implore Your Majesty to use every vestige of authority which you possess to stop this shame and to voice your own condemnation of these people. I assure you that millions of your subjects will whole-heartedly support you. I should like to include your husband and your mother in this supplication.
I beg to remain Your Majesty’s loyal subject,
F. S.
Bellewstown, Drogheda
13 November 1960
Dear Sir,
Regarding the Sunday afternoon film ‘They Knew What They Wanted’ which I have just finished watching – do you honestly consider that a film about an engaged girl who is having a baby by another man is a suitable form of entertainment for Sunday afternoon?
There are so many excellent films which sex does not enter into. And today particularly, being Armistice Sunday, would not one of the many marvellous war films have been more appropriate for both adults and children?
I was only thankful that my 3 children are still too young to watch TV seriously – but what of the thousands of families who have 10–15 year olds at day school and presumably in this cold winter weather spending the afternoon indoors?
P. G.
Blandford Forum, Dorset
15 July 1963
To: Stuart Hood, Director of Programmes, B.B.C. Television
Dear Mr. Hood,
I have never written a letter to the B.B.C., containing adverse comments of one of its programmes, but I am doing so now in respect of the programme ‘Sex and Family Life’ in your series ‘This Nation Tomorrow’.
We live in a free country and expression should be allowed to all but it is surely the duty of the BBC to see that this freedom of expression is not used in an entirely irresponsible way. Dr. Alex Comfort’s thesis that sexual intercourse should be considered entirely normal amongst teenagers and that the intrusion of a third person in a relationship should be accepted has surely shocked thousands of ordinary adults. But – and this is my real complaint – it will have inflicted considerable harm on teen-agers as well.
It was regrettable that two of the questioners were to a certain extent supporters of Dr. Comfort and I greatly admired the moral courage of Ruth Robinson, who spoke for many of us, who, in various ways, are trying to help the young people at a difficult and bewildering stage in their lives.
Yours sincerely,
A.T.J.
Penrith Presbyterian Church of England
6 February 1961
To: the Director General BBC Broadcasting House London W1
Dear Sir,
Further to my letter of 20th January forwarding a resolution in connection with the continued lowering of the standard of programme being put on by the B.B.C., [it] was concerned with the general tendency of programmes over the last year or two to include degrading and sordid details, and to deal with promiscuous sexual relationships in an off-hand, matter-of-fact way, which was considered to be degrading and demoralizing.
It may be relevant to state that the Session of this Church includes men of experience and responsibility, including a Doctor, the Chairman of a magistrates’ Court, Business men, a Retired Senior Civil Servant and three Senior Police Officers. I mention this to indicate that this resolution has not been passed by an irresponsible body of men but by a group of people of wide experience who are seriously concerned about the effect of this kind of feature on the new generation.
Yours faithfully,
R.M.
Clerk
London W5
11 October 1961
To: Kenneth Adam Esq., Director of Television Broadcasting, Broadcasting House, London W1
Dear Sir,
‘TONIGHT’ TELEVISION PROGRAMME
On the 3rd October my wife wrote a letter of remonstrance about the sketch in the ‘Tonight’ programme on the 2nd and she received a duplicated letter addressed to ‘Dear Viewer’ and carrying the duplicated signature of Miss Kathleen Haacke. Surely, if you had enough complaints to warrant duplicating a reply it might have been very much better for Mr. Michelmore to have offered an apology in the next programme.
Miss Haacke expressed the hope that we would still watch the programme. We have done so, so far, only to be disgusted once again by the representation on 10th October of Noah speaking to God with the cheap familiarity an adolescent might use towards someone for whom he had nothing but contempt, and finally implying criticism of God’s behaviour. Both this and the previous example of irreverence would disgrace a group of conceited schoolboys. Coming from supposedly intelligent adults they are utterly nauseating. Moreover, to very many people, my wife and I among them, this kind of thing is blasphemous and causes real distress.
This programme has commanded great respect in the past and this latest trend is quite beneath the producers and the cast. I suggest it would be better for them to close down before damaging the goodwill they have build up both for themselves and for the Corporation.
Yours faithfully,
M.S.
Chartered Architect & Surveyor
London W5
26 October 1961
To: Kenneth Adam Esq., Director of Television Broadcasting, Broadcasting House, London W1
Dear Mr. Adam,
Many thanks for your friendly letter of the 20th.
All you say is perfectly reasonable and, now that the heat of the moment is passed, I agree that the Andre Obey adaptation did not overstep accepted standards of decency. Neither the original piece nor the adaptation are in any way remarkable against the general background of the literature and drama of our time and I agree that their production does not necessarily show intentional irreverence or bad taste. My wife and I and very many other people find this state of affairs very disturbing indeed.
I am quite sure that humour and a sense of fun is a good thing in all our activities including religion but I am equally certain that flippancy directed towards the Bible is utterly incompatible with reverence towards God. The increasingly widespread acceptance of this kind of thing as good entertainment and the freedom with which entertainers supply it are distressing to many people. I am sure that no-one could be better aware than yourself of the effect that such bodies as the BBC have on the formation of public opinion and even the thinking of individuals.
I know that you do take your responsibilities very seriously indeed and I hope you will not think me impertinent in saying I only wish you could see this matter as my wife and I do.
Yours sincerely,
M.S.
Chartered Architect & Surveyor
Waterloo, Liverpool 22
2 October 1961
To: The Director General, B.B.C., London
Sir,
I beg to refer to the last but one item on the ‘TONIGHT’ programme of Monday 2nd October in which there was a caricature of two ordained priests of the Church of England standing on a lectern and reading in the language of the Bible some stupid silly diatribe which I gathered was intended to be a skit on advertising.
I am appalled and disgusted that your programme department should engage in, what to me is such depravity and sacrilege.
As a practising member of the Church of England I protest most strongly and shall be glad to know that steps are taken to cease such sordid exhibitions.
I and many others feel strongly about this lack of good taste.
May I solicit the favour of your early reply, please?
Yours faithfully,
S.K.W.
Fareham, Hants
20 October 1962
To: the BBC London
Sir,
It is with great regret that in spite of our correspondence [of last month] in connection with [the drama] Stamboul Train, I find it necessary to draw attention to another slip of good taste.
This evening, Oct 20th, at about 7.47–7.49pm you were showing a young man who appeared to be a Pop singer walking to a bar in a club that was empty except for the bar tender. His words mentioned this as he began to croon. The barman then offered him a drink as he seated himself on a tall stool. He raised the glass: tossed the drink down his throat: and then in a brassy manner half spat, half dribbled the liquid down over his chin as though this was a most respectable and socially acceptable way in which to behave.
The detail that was objectionable was the slobbering.
All the viewers who may not have been trained to proper ways of handling their drinks have absorbed the unconscious suggestion that it is proper for an artist of good repute to be seen behaving in this manner. It is now quite inevitable that some of the younger viewers will have gained the notion that that is a fine way to behave.
This is highly disturbing and it seems that your methods of vetting productions stands in need of serious overhaul.
Yours sincerely,
(Rev.) G.C.N.
Copy to Cardiff Education Authority
Romiley, Cheshire
10 November 1963
To: The Director General, The British Broadcasting Corporation
Dear Sir,
As members of the Catholic ‘Look Listen’ Movement representing Catholics throughout Lancashire, we are gravely disturbed by a situation existing at the present time [that] compels us to state our grievance in the form of a protest, viz:
We protest to the British Broadcasting Corporation that it is violating its charter by permitting the broadcasting of material on Radio and TV which is offensive by reason of its being:
a. immoral; e.g. sex ‘jokes’ (these are an insult to God and an offense to family life) and the morbid highlighting of unsavoury news items
b. irreligious; e.g. the guying of religious institutions and persons
c. anti-social; e.g. the ridiculing of heads of state and persons in authority. The BBC is bound by charter to uphold authority.
We see this departure from the fit standards laid down for the BBC by charter as originating in the TV programme billed as ‘That was the week, that was’ and gradually spreading to other programmes.
We conceive this lapse to be the fault of an irresponsible minority of BBC Governors, Directors and Producers and call upon their colleagues to repudiate it. We consider the BBC ‘air’ belongs to the community and not the entertainment industry and that there is no room in it for ‘dirty’ night club entertainment. The BBC belongs to us and our families, and even as a minority we have a right to demand that it shoul
d not harm them. We believe also that we speak for many others who know of no way to make their views known. We have chosen this way. If it is unsuccessful we shall have to find other methods.
Yours faithfully,
M.D.S.
North West Look Listen Committee
Bournemouth
21 May 1964
To: Hugh Greene Esq., Broadcasting House, London W1
Dear Sir,
Referring to your letter of the 27th ult. Those [plays] that I have seen I have endeavoured to forget; but the same low moral attitude of mind is also seeping into and permeating even the children’s programmes.
It was said by the reader of the letters, deputising for Robert Robinson, in Junior Points of View. A little girl, aged five, had evidently been viewing parts of Lorna Doone and had enjoyed seeing the cattle in one of the country scenes. She concluded her letter by writing ‘and now we have a cow called Lorna’. The reply to this was, ‘It’s interesting to know because I have a bull called Doone. We must see that they are put together.’ There was not the slightest justification on any count for such a remark.
I recall another instance of a quite unnecessarily degrading presentation, viz: The Beggars Opera. I remember Sir Nigel Playfair’s production, this was delightful entertainment. The B.B.C. production was lewd, bawdy and ugly; one couldn’t enjoy even the good singing.
May I suggest that the principles laid down by the first Governor of the B.B.C. that ‘the people, inclining their ear to whatsoever things are honest, beautiful and of good report may tread the path of wisdom and righteousness.’ At one time the B.B.C. obeyed these principles and won the admiration and respect of the listening world. There has been for a long time a subtle but determined intention on the part of foreigners to belittle, degrade, humiliate and even ridicule Britain. The B.B.C. can lift its head and stand firm by its original principles.
There is one other defect – poor and loose enunciation mostly on the part of women announcers. There is not one on BBC1 who knows how to speak clearly.
Yours faithfully,
D.W.L. (Miss)
The Mothers’ Union Westminster SW1
22 September 1964
I'm Sure I Speak For Many Others... Page 8
