Peter Hitchens shows the BBC’s strange double standards:
The BBC just loves swearing – until it gets a dose of its own @!X*! medicine
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 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.
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.’
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.’
Kenneth Tynan would be pleased.
The approved ones are allowed to get away with it…
got them bang to rights then,they have said in so many works that what they broadcast was ‘unacceptably abusive or offensive’. or do their swearwords mean something completely different. He should go to the papers and MP;s with this..
It goes to show how limited is the intelligence of some BBC staff that they didn’t realise the idiocy shown by themselves in such a reply.
Oddly enough UK radio doesn’t have a law on watersheds. But trust the BBC to act irresponsibly enough for this programme. You have to wonder if they’re deliberately looking to pick a fight with government?
Classic lack of irony.
Classic lack of their own double standards.
Complete inability to answer even the simplest request without recourse to BlairSpeak…or is it BirtSpeak?…let them decide, the rest of us despise it anyway.
Orwell warned us all about them.
The more the BBC choose to answer bleeding obvious enquiries in StateSpeak…the clearer there`s not a comedian to be found in the whole of its rancid trifle anymore.
Cut and paste handw***ks!
Great post!
Exactly. The ordinary people can’t say such things to the elite BBC but its fine for them to broadcast this to the nation. In this case they pretend they don’t understand that what they broadcast year after year, eventually becomes adopted by society at large. Of course they know full well that this is true, hence the constant diet of liberal left propaganda that they serve up designed to sway voters in favour of Labour or immigration etc.
They are a most despicable organisation that does great harm to our country.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – – that’s all.”
Typical BBC hypocrisy… a classic case of “do as I say, not as I do”.
But it isn’t hypocrisy at all.
Oh no.
When they do it, it is art.
When we do it, it is offensive.
Whilst not defending the programme or the time that it was broadcast I do think that (for once) the Beeb might have a point here.
I would be much less offended by bad language used in a fictional drama played out by actors than I would be by the same language directed at me in a real conversation.
Rather like the difference between watching a shoot-out on the box and somebody pointing a real gun at you?
Yes but the BBC’s poe-faced sanctimonious hypocrisy is still amusing though
They could have said ‘we understand the point you are making with tone of your letter but…’
Instead they went into full self righteous indignation mode .
On the broader issue of the water shed , when did strong language and themes of an adult nature become mandatory after 9pm?
They looked for a ready excuse not to act on the complaint and in their haste shot themselves in the foot.
A combination of arrogance and incompetence funnier than anything their resident commie comics could come up with.
I can’t recall watching a western where the gun told me, the viewer, to f**k off.
I think it’s called moral equivalence, Ember – only ever works in the contorted minds of Lefties.
Funny you should mention guns, John W. Here’s a complaint from a Beeboid about showing gun violence in a Sunday afternoon show when children might have seen it (“Not on Sunday”, currently at the top of the page). The reply was, after the usual load of pointless details, that as it was shown in between the News and Bargain Hunt, mostly older people would have been watching.
He complained about the complaints system as well, with an interesting perspective:
Hopefully none of his superiors saw that as a threat.
‘The reply was, after the usual load’
A classic, that’s what. And to one of their own.
‘Lindsay Currie, head of planning and scheduling daytime, replies: We think very carefully…
We are proud…
…in ways which are appropriate for our audience..
We gave careful thought … (say it often enough)
…so audiences have a strong sense of the type of drama that might be offered in that slot
If you say so, Lindsay.
If he got expedited for getting back and telling her she’s full of pre-watershed colloquial expressions of doubt, does that mean he can go home on full pay?
ps:, Further down, a LOL moment to make my Sunday…
‘I have just taken my Marantz sound recorder to the equipment engineers at nearby Western House, who say they cannot do very much as they do not possess a soldering iron*.
There is a team that can apparently do the job but, rather usefully, they are now based out in Acton
*http://www.maplin.co.uk/p/30w-soldering-iron-mains-powered-n38ac
(free delivery) Or…
http://www.maplin.co.uk/store/great-portland-street
But a trip to Acton on expenses makes much more sense.
It’s not a new system, its been in operation for at least 15years.
You don’t have to make a second call, just call the right number first time.
The telephone number is on the Complaints website.
Interesting new homage choice.
‘It’s not a new system, its been in operation for at least 15years.’
Some may have a different view on what the effective outcome of ‘in operation’ is to the BBC and those seeking to help it improve.
You don’t have to make a second call, just call the right number first time.
If ‘you’ say so. Maybe advice better directed at the BBC staff member also unaware of the smooth process awaiting any seeking genuine resolution?
‘The telephone number is on the Complaints website.’
As, one is sure, is/was any to the then head of complaints. Maybe this still works?:
Helen Boaden, head of BBC news
Email: helenboaden.complaints@bbc.co.uk
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/the-tossers-who-could-win-for-the-tories-425799.html
Helen the hidden
Don’t bother emailing complaints to BBC head of news Helen Boaden. She was at the launch evening for the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism in Oxford last Monday night. Discussion turned to protest groups and lobbying outfits which email their views to senior editors. Boaden’s response: “Oh, I just changed my email address.” So much for the Beeb being accountable.
So, maybe the definition of ‘works’ may need recalibrating to include BBC policy too?
The BBC exists. Doesn’t mean it is functioning as it should by pointing at what the BBC says should happen.
‘Some may have a different view on what the effective outcome of ‘in operation’ is to the BBC ‘
Very simple pal, there’s a number to ring for complaints, and there’s a switchboard. Its not new, its been there for a long time. That’s not a view, just the reality.
I do say so. And I’d be right.
You’ve mentioned the point about Helen Boaden’s email many times before. I think its fatuous. There is a complaints process, it doesnt include spamming the then head of news with emails. I’d presume she’d use her email for work, that would actually hamper that. It may even crash it. I don’t think there’s any organinisation in the world would do otherwise under those circumstances.
Also, if I remeber correctly, these were lobbying emails from the US about Middle East coverage they hadn’t even seen. So I know you think you were on to something there, but you really aren’t. And Yes, that’s me saying so.
‘Very simple pal’
As we have not been introduced, it may be premature to see me as a pal, yet. At present it comes across as a bit snarky which may seem off-putting to some. Time will tell.
‘That’s not a view, just the reality’
If you say so.
‘I do say so. And I’d be right’
If you say so again. Tell it often enough and who knows?
‘You’ve mentioned the point about Helen Boaden’s email many times before.’
In your Philip Madocian notebook, one is sure. Been monitoring for a while? It’s also actually more than a point; it’s a referenced quote from a national newspaper.
‘I think its fatuous.’
Your thinking noted. And as with your other attempts here, you really are devoting a lot of time in a curious direction.
It may be better to take it up with the editorial guys at the Indy. Let us know how you get on.
‘I don’t think there’s any organinisation in the world would do otherwise under those circumstances.’
You seem very passionate about complaints processes, and very sensitive about the BBC organinisation one. Maybe best check on what you have little knowledge about before not thinking further?
‘Also, if I remeber correctly…
Not that it matters, but do check before resorting to remebering.
‘So I know you think you were on to something there, but you really aren’t’
Seems the Indy thought so. Again, maybe better to task them?
‘ And Yes, that’s me saying so.’
And all the more potent for being committed to print.
Thank you.
But some may be more swayed by the facts shared in such as Pollard, Rose, PAC, Smith, etc, in assessing the trust and transparency such as Ms. Boaden and her colleagues may be accorded, over your repeated say-so.
That’s how it can work outside of certain incestuous bubbles, and help avoid car crashes resulting in less than optimal outings under the spotlight.
Talking of bubbles…..
Yes, its me saying it. Who else would it be?
Hey, Seymour, shouldn’t you be telling that to the BBC employee complaining in Ariel instead? He’s the one appearing to make threats about giving fodder to the BBC’s enemies, not me.
John W
I’m sure psychologists would have an interesting time discussing how being in a studio but broadcasting into the nations homes makes some people drop their guard and say things they wouldn’t say to someone’s face .
In the BBCs case it would be arrogance .
Rather clever of Mr. Harrow to use their own words.
And the reward in the reply is simply priceless. Satire at its most eloquent.
‘‘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.’
CECUTT at its most dishonest and calculating (if they miss points it is never by accident), with the ever present ability to remove the ball from play based on parameters they make up and control… and often change at whim to suit. Like the logic of people getting expedited for complaining because the BBC doesn’t have time to ‘waste’ reading multi-page replies to the multi-page dossiers they spew out trying to make any concern expressed go away. Douglas Adams would approve this one, too.
‘As usual, when caught out in hypocrisy, they couldn’t really understand the question’
However, as they control the edit, and system, and everything, what they don’t understand they can simply ‘vanish’ away like it never happened. Convenient.
As I recall there have been some shares here when the replies to complaints seemed to short-circuit the supervising grown ups and folk got ‘raw’ responses from editorial staff clearly in TGIF mode, and firing back snappy responses from their iPhones to impress the giggling girls round the table, and the women too…. and regretting it when shared here on BBBC as not ‘their little secret’, such that sulky apologies had to be made.
Bit intrigued by this, though, given the topics:
‘Sorry we are unable to accept comments for legal reasons’
Maybe the DM has pulled a leaf out of the BBC’s book and pulled interactivity when it knows there’s a force that can be mobilised that can skew away from the narrative?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/handle-complaint/
In order to use your licence fee proportionately we do not investigate ….complaints which … are gratuitously abusive or offensive. When handling your complaint 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..’
Now who could disagree with that? And how can that be described as ‘dishonest and calculating ‘.
If you pay the telly tax money – I don’t – send it with all their bad language written on the forms .
I don’t suppose the nxxxxxxr word was used , or cxxn , wig , or any other word that this self appointed guardian of the nations morals deems inappropriate .
Of course not. Remember in BBC parlance only ethnic minorities can be offended. Everyone else can (Article 27, section 2b) go to hell.
Do you mean nigger?
I can never understand why the sensibilities of those who dislike effing and blinding are ignored by the BBC, yet the sensibilities of those who don’t like the word ‘nigger’ are treated as sacred. There are many people who pay their licence yet find much of the BBC’s output unwatchable because of the bad language. These people are studiously ignored by the BBC. They pay, yet they are disenfranchised.
Further to that, something occurred to me as I watched TV tonight. The programme was preceded by a warning that it contained ‘strong language’. So why not allow the use of words like ‘nigger’ and have a warning, ‘This programme includes racist language’?
‘‘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.’
Well, no he knows different now doesn’t he?
This is a Non-story. The two (a play and an official letter of complaint) are very different contexts. If you write an official complaint using language like that why would any public body respond differently? They invite you to resubmit your complaint in appropriate language.
And its not ‘The metropolitan sophisticates of the Corporation ‘, as you’re describing people who work in BBC Audience Services in Belfast. The response is an automated one sent in response to correspondents who use bad /abusive language. Someone might have realised the point the listener was making and judged not to send that response, but I can understand why they did.
I learned a while ago not to rush to judgement on things I know nothing about. There’s often a very different perspective when you actually have a little knowledge.
The context of which you speak Seymour is one that says
‘ don’t do as I do, do as I tell you’
The automated response line is a scarlet fish too.
Face it, one rule for albeeba and one for the victims of its protection racket.
The inevitable response to the topic of BBC complaints is always interesting. If predictable.
‘This is a Non-story.’
A belief you have.
Expressing it does not make it so.
‘The response is an automated one sent in response to correspondents who use bad /abusive language.’
The BBC already is in a few pickles with automated defaults, so given what you write next…
‘Someone might have realised the point the listener was making and judged not to send that response, but I can understand why they did.’
…while there is clearly no doubt you are of an understanding nature, how things work outside the bubble can see belief meet reality with less positive consequences for the BBC default response ‘system’ when highlighted for its primary function of simply making stuff go away by being judge, jury and case closer.
‘There’s often a very different perspective when you actually have a little knowledge
Clearly, but it can still be dangerous if using words like ‘might’ when otherwise being very definitive.
My point about context is summed up in the BBC’s response from the Mail article actually:
‘‘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.’
.’
The point about automation; to be clear – that explains the wording of it – its standard. But the decison to apply that response to it is a human judgement.
You might think it a mis-judgemet ie. that the reader didin’t appreciate the point the listener was making and that’s fair enough – but to think this is somehow representative of a ‘metropolitan sophisticate’ just isn’t anywhere near the truth.
Love the smell of an angel’s pinhead dance topic in the morning.
‘My point about context is summed up in the BBC’s response’
No doubt.
But what the BBC ‘think’, can and has been shown to on occasion not be what those forced to uniquely fund it think.
Hence while dealing in belief can be an interesting insight into where someone is coming from, it may not be that persuasive if observing from outside the bubble.
What is claimed as truth on a forum usually needs more than a poster’s word to gain traction.
‘to think this is somehow representative of a ‘metropolitan sophisticate’ just isn’t anywhere near the truth’
And to tell anyone what they are thinking is not true on such a basis, especially about BBC practices, is these days asking a lot.
Currently in this we have been presented with the evident quoted opinion (some may say more of a teasing nature, hence further po-faced reaction is more than ironic) of a professional journalist, and in counter your (provenance uncertain) thoughts.
Why would yours prevail?
Metrolpolitan sophisticates end up like Philip Seymour Hoffman.
Here is a section on the webpage devoted to “BBC Editorial guidelines for TV and Radio”
BBC Guidelines for radio
Which makes it clear that the BBC’s blinkered view of Britain is that the listening public (at times of ‘adult material’ transmissions) consists entirely of either adults accustomed to such obscenities or deaf pre-school children (who can’t hear such material).
Bizarre.
The swearing is endemic nowadays because people like the BBC want it to be . Watch an old film from the forties and they don’t use language like that . The radio was enjoyed by millions yet no profane language was used on a day to day basis .
Why is it necessary now Seymour ?
The problem is you have two extremes:
1)People who can hear swearing in any context and don’t care.
2)People who are offended when they hear any strong swear words.
Now if people from group 1) are running radio stations and transmit to people from group 3) then there is a problem caused by a disconnect. 1) is serving itself and not being inclusive in its services.
Typical BBC leftist attitude, “Do as we order and not as we do.”
To bombard, unannounced, an audience of tens of thousands with profanities is perfectly acceptable to the BBC but to write a letter containing only a few of those profanities to only be seen by a small handful of BBC employees. Unless they were so shocked the passed it all round their offices so everybody could delight in displaying their shock and horror.
Of course, the BBC couldn’t possibly be using the wording of the letter as a feeble excuse to sweep the complaint under the carpet rather than having to deal with it, could they.
This sort of language is quite common on Radio4 during the day. My wife has turned it off on more than one occasion, especially during school holidays when our grandchildren are often here.