I'm Sure I Speak For Many Others...
Page 15
We would urge you to ignore the present fuss and allow the whole matter to die a natural death.
Yours faithfully,
K. H.
Telegram from Altrincham, Cheshire sent to Harold Wilson, House of Commons, London SW1
17 November 1965
APPALLED BEYOND DESCRIPTION WITH BBC PROGRAMME LAST SATURDAY AND URGE STRONGEST ACTION AGAINST THOSE RESPONSIBLE STOP APOLOGY MADE BY BBC COMPLETELY INADEQUATE
Romford, Essex
25 November 1965
To: BBC Programme Planners
Wake up BBC and clean up our screens, or this family will have to get rid of its TV set when our children are old enough to join us for evening viewing.
Whatever Kenneth Tynan and his fellow ‘intellectuals’ may think, his expression means something very sordid to most people in this country – it lost its ancient meaning years ago.
I don’t belong to any organised pressure group, I am just a young mother trying to bring up my children in a Christian home. Let these so-called intellectuals keep their permissiveness and low moral standards, but let them be much quieter about it, and let the vast majority of people in this country carry on trying to lead decent normal lives and bringing up their children to do the same, unhindered by this tiny, but far too noisy minority.
Yours faithfully,
C. J. (Mrs.)
London SW10
15 November 1965
To: British Broadcasting Corporation, Langham Place, London W1
B.B.C.3 13th November 1965
Dear Sirs,
Knowing full well the virulence and energies of reactionaries among the British public, as opposed to the lazy middle-of-the-road type like myself, I feel sure that you will have been inundated with letters in the majority condemning Kenneth Tynan’s use of ‘the Word’.
I do not take a stand on the moral issue of whether the ‘word’ is to be used or not. I am indifferent to its use. All I know is that it is a word used frequently in the English language by all classes of society from schoolboys to old men. I have reservations as to whether or not it is used by women as a whole, but some do use it in certain contexts.
Nobody wants the media or the arts to be solely a projection of swear words, but I can see that the use of the ‘Word’ in certain contexts would be ideal for a playwright.
This is the point that Tynan was trying to make and I feel he should not be slandered by misinformed and misguided people when they take what he says out of context. There is as well, the matter of British hypocrisy which comes into play with a word like this.
Yours sincerely,
D.B.J.
Eastbourne, Sussex
14 November 1965
To: The Director General, The B.B.C., London
Dear Sir,
This is the first letter of protest I have written to you as I am not given to rushing into print. In company, however, with a great many others (from whom you have no doubt heard by now) I find it no longer possible to keep silent over such episodes as occurred on BBC 3 last night. The deliberate use of obscenity and the statement by Mr. Kenneth Tynan that he could see no objection to sexual intercourse being depicted on the Stage is one more step in what appears to be your Department’s attempt to thrust decadence down the public throat.
This is a great disservice to the Country by a wonderful medium which could in fact, if it so chose, be a source of strength and of stiffening to the present rotting fibre.
I also wish to protest against yesterday’s unkind mimicry of Her Majesty the Queen. She is in no position to answer back and her whole attitude is one of service to her people.
Can the same be said of your attitude?
Yours truly,
R.H.L.
London SE3
18 November 1968
To: Sir Hugh Greene, Director General, BBC, London
Dear Sir,
I write to tell you that Mr Tynan did not offend me, nor, so far as I can discover, any of my friends when he said fuck on T.V.
A pity the BBC felt compelled to apologise.
Yours faithfully,
W. R.
Bishop’s Stortford, Herts.
15 November 1965
To: Director General B.B.C. London W1
Dear Sir,
Out of a sense of social responsibility and because of my revulsion at the failure of your staff to observe normal standards of decency in speech, I am writing to say that I and my wife both support the widespread attacks made on you for the abysmally wretched example of vocabulary recently used in ‘B.B.C.3’.
Over and over again your corporation declines to accept responsibility for moral leadership [with its] apparent readiness to thrust cruder and cruder language into our homes. Please do not reply to the effect that we ‘can always turn it off’. This is an argument that evades the issue. The damage is often done before one could reach the switch. It certainly was the case last weekend. And please do not think that I cannot ‘take it’. I had five and a half years as a private infantry soldier including 15 months in a P.O.W. camp and know all the words; but I do not subject my family and friends to such language in my home.
Your corporation has reached an incredibly low level and has defiantly done this in the face of decent opinion for years. It is a great shame on you, Sir, that you and your senior staff are so pusillanimous and devoid of either intellectual or moral perspicacity in this matter of standards in speech and drama. We have had a bellyful of filth, violence and smut.
When will you see that these are not letters from cranks and ‘fuddy duddies’ but the expressions of people who are not prudes, but people with a normal sense of the standards of decency which bring respect to the real character of this country?
Yours with tarnished respect,
W.J.G.W.
Glasgow
15 November 1965
To: Controller, B.B.C. London
Dear Sir,
The work of the schools is being undermined by certain B.B.C. programmes.
In particular I refer to the Saturday night programme – B.B.C. 3 – in which Kenneth Tynan made an obscene remark.
In addition the remark nausiated [sic] me. It was the first time such a work [sic] had been heard spoken in my house.
It is essential that you take action in this matter by sacking all those responsible.
Yours faithfully,
J. McC.
Headmaster
Swansea
15 November 1965
To: Lord Normanbrooke, Chairman, B.B.C., London W1
Dear Sir,
What is happening to this decent Country of ours that the very air should be sullied by such filthy remarks as used by Mr Tynan on Saturday? It was just sheer luck that the younger members of my family were not listening.
I see from the Press that the Producer Ned Sherrin said, ‘It was not arranged beforehand’. This shows slackness at some level and if it continues the younger generation will soon be deprived from ‘viewing’ at all. Obscenity isn’t the sign of an advanced mind, it is on the contrary – decadence.
The old phrase ‘There is something rotten in the state of Denmark’ is all too applicable to us today. There is certainly something rotten in the state of England and the sooner we deal with it, the better.
Yours faithfully,
D.M.S.
Horsham, Sussex
15 November 1965
To: Lord Normanbrooke, Chairman, B.B.C. London W1
Dear Sir,
When in the name of God will you rise up and say the B.B.C. will be used to build a Britain clean and strong and free? If you don’t fight, it will all be farmyard in two years time.
Saturday’s B.B.C. 3 was a disgrace to you and Britain.
Yours truly,
L.M.
Woodford Green, Essex
15 November 1965
To: Sir Hugh Carleton Greene, B.B.C. London
Sir,
I have never had occasion to write to you before, in fact I had ho
ped that it would be unnecessary on this occasion for before writing this letter I have been waiting for some official expression of regret regarding the obscene performance of Kenneth Tynan on B.B.C.3 on Saturday 13th November 1965, but it appears that you, and the Corporation by it’s [sic] silence, entirely agree with the obscenity perpetrated. Many viewers, of which I am one, have in the past endured the almost constant flow of bad language in the vain hope that the B.B.C. would grow up but it seems that if one doesn’t complain the filth will get worse.
I would remind you that the four letter word used by Tynan if used in the street to the annoyance of any person would lead to his arrest, having regard to this I would be obliged to know exactly what action you contemplate, if Tynan is not to be prosecuted I would like to know why not?
In conclusion as you are a State employee I intend to take this matter up with my Member of Parliament for it appears to me that your directions in the matter of programme content leave very much to be desired.
Yours disgustedly,
J. S.
Renfrewshire
16 November 1965
To: The Controller of Programmes, BBC, London
Dear Sir,
It was with regret that I read in my morning paper the apology issued by the BBC for Mr. Tynan’s choice of vocabulary in last Saturday’s ‘B.B.C.3’ programme.
The discussion was, as you admit, a serious one and it should be difficult to discuss anything involving emotional and moral opinion without offending someone!
My own reaction was, I hope, not unique. The immediate reflex was: ‘Gosh, he’s been and gone and done it now – what a chump!’ but this was followed by a realisation that to develop the argument with the, at times, almost painful sincerity that Mr Tynan displayed, he had chosen the best possible word for the context. He forced me, at least, to realise perhaps more sharply than anyone before what is involved in rejecting censorship. Protest from the expectedly monotonous quarters was to be expected; what is disappointing is to find these pressure groups obtaining the comfort of an official apology.
Yours truly,
G. T.
M.A. (Oxon.)
Farnham, Surrey
15 November 1965
Dear Mr. Wheldon,
I have just been reading in my newspaper the report on ‘that word’ used by Mr. Kenneth Tynan in the BBC3 programme on Saturday night.
I am very glad that Mr. Robert Robinson who comperes the show says, ‘I didn’t expect such a word. I don’t think Mr. Tynan should have used it’. I was watching with my son aged seventeen and that is exactly my feeling. I did NOT like that word being used.
When I see the remark attributed to you in this morning’s newspaper I feel I must protest. You are reported as saying, ‘It was quite germane to the subject’. I don’t see what that has to do with the use of this particular word. Mr. Tynan could have used another word which would have expressed his meaning quite adequately.
What might be acceptable amongst men on their own is not, under any circumstances, acceptable amongst mixed company. Would your wife, or your mother, allow this word to be used in her company with young people present?
I am very disappointed that you did not come right out and say that it was an unpleasant word, and that you were sorry it had been used.
Yours sincerely,
Mrs. B.M.G.
Wigan, Lancs.
19 November 1965
Dear Sir,
I have already written to my M.P. to protest constant attacks on Christian morality and decency.
The cause of my complaint was the recent use of a word – the filthiest in the vocabulary of human swine, which seems only to have stirred a ripple in official B.B.C. quarters. I am a veteran of the First World War and used to rough company but never have I heard the word used in such a shameless, barefaced way.
I consider it Your Duty, as a monopolistic corporation, to maintain a high standard on television and to protect the public from a crew of evil men who admit to no standards of right and wrong.
Yours faithfully,
J. G.
London W5
Sunday
Dear Huw Wheldon,
As a family man of 51 and a past president of a Chamber of Commerce with no pretence of being prudish and easily shocked, I was dismayed and disgusted to listen to Kenneth Tynan and Mary McCarthy using television to give themselves notoriety by using words which they knew would cause indignation and disgust.
There is little excuse as Robert Robinson was equally to blame for putting the question. It would certainly seem to me that the 3 people concerned need more censorship, certainly not less. If your comment is correct as reported in the Sunday Express I can only say that you too should be dismayed and certainly appalled!!
If you think it was a reasonable discussion I can only say that the majority of viewers will consider you ‘out of tune’ with their ideas of the type of people that should be allowed to televise [be on television?]
I am writing to the minister concerned, also to my M.P. to air my views.
Yours in disgust
T.E.G.
P.S. The next suggestion would be that Homosexuals would be allowed to perform their act on the stage without censorship!
We can only assume that by ‘their act’ he didn’t mean a rather cheery rendition of the song ‘YMCA’.
Rotherham, Yorkshire
15 November 1965
To: The Director General BBC
Dear Sir,
My wife and I wish to protest in the most vehement terms about certain pornographic language used in ‘BBC3’ on Saturday evening. This took place in a discussion on censorship!!
Please censor your ‘so called’ unscripted programmes to ensure that the barrack room doesn’t encroach into our sitting rooms with or without giving us due warning. We can switch off only after the event if not warned. We have no desire to be ‘modern’ or ‘with-it’ if this is what is entailed.
Has the BBC gone completely SEX mad? Please grow up, BBC.
Bitterly disappointed, I am, Sir,
Yours sincerely,
J.G.G.
Purley, Surrey
15 November 1965
Dear Mr. Wheldon,
I see from the newspapers you are receiving protests about Mr. Tynan’s language on Saturday night.
I hope you will pay no attention to these. The word was used in the course of a serious discussion and I see no reason why the adult section of the population should be expected to live at the mental level of children.
I do not understand why some people watch an outspoken programme and then at the end of it protest. Instead of licking their lips they could switch off.
Yours truly,
R.G. R-H.
London SW1
15 November 1965
Dear Sirs,
I protest that without my knowledge or consent unacceptable language is brought into my home.
As the notepaper indicates I am in the entertainment industry and quite familiar with dirt. I transferred to record the tapes of ‘the trial of Lady Chatterley’ for Pye, a recording which featured the four letter word. I also handled the ‘Rugby Songs’ before and after the filth which existed from beginning to end was bleeped out. It is, however, a matter of indifference to me who buys these records. If people decide to play them in their homes that is their affair. But to allow this sort of stuff to be broadcast indiscriminately is deplorable.
‘Network of the Nation’ it used to be – why not drop all pretence and call yourselves ‘Network of the Gutter’?
Yours faithfully,
J.R.H.
Leicester
15 November 1965
To: B.B.C. London
Dear Sirs,
I must write to say how utterly disgusted we were with the programme on Saturday evening.
Whilst I think Mr. Tynan’s language is absolutely revolting why was he asked such a question in the first place? Whatever is happening to England, when a family sit
during an evening for entertainment that’s the filth that is handed out?
Most of the plays seem to bring a bedroom scene which I think is most unnessary [sic] and also most embarrassing with a teenage family.
Best of luck to Mary Whitehouse.
Yours faithfully,
B.E.H. (Mrs.)
Whitstable, Kent
15 November 1965
To: Sir Hugh Carleton Green [sic] B.B.C., London
Dear Sir Hugh,
Although the four letter word used by Mr. Tynan is not particularly edifying, and when used commonly suggests a limited vocabulary, I would far rather listen to Mr. Tynan – four letter words and all – than to the aggravating sounds that come forth from people like [Sunday Telegraph journalist] Peregrine Worsthorne and [novelist] Tom Stacey!! Can they not be replaced?
Sincerely,
Mrs. J. G. H.
Eastbourne, Sussex
15 November 1965
To: The Director General BBC Broadcasting House, London
Sir,
I wish to vigorously protest about the filthy expression used in the BBC3 last Saturday night. My family, and my son’s family were aghast and completely embarrassed. Do you pay people to proceed with the disgusting work of breaking down decency and dignity?
I have served in the crew of an oil tanker and a front line private soldier so am qualified to discuss this sort of off colour programme, which seems to be getting more and more frequent on BBC programmes.
In my judgement someone should be made to pay for this breach of trust as I regard it.
Yours truly,
J.W.A. L-W
Bradford
20 November 1965
To: The Director General, B.B.C., Broadcasting House, London W1
Dear Sir,
I wish to protest most strongly about the use of a four-letter word by Tynan on TV last week.
Someone on the executive of the BBC must have known that Tynan was a ‘risk’ and yet he was allowed on the programme.
I think that you have lost control. In my view, you ought to resign now.
A drive must be made to ‘clean-up’ T.V. and all kinky literary and theatrical types kept off the air.