Broadcasting ‘offensive language’

0
Have your say

From: Fr Neil McNicholas, St Gabriel’s Parish, Ormesby, Middlesbrough.

HUGH Rogers (Yorkshire Post, November 30) states that “the BBC is not known for admitting its mistakes as any edition of Points of View will amply demonstrate”. How right he is.

I recently had occasion (one of many) to complain to the BBC about what they euphemistically call “strong language”, i.e. obscene language, being included in their programming. When I eventually received a response it was the usual waste of space.

I usually find myself making the same points when I complain to the Corporation: firstly that I object to “strong language” on television anyway but especially on the part of a public broadcaster funded by our/my money and, secondly, I object to 
a warning being given immediately before a programme for which I may have been waiting, unaware that I would have to turn it off.

I make the usual and, I feel, perfectly reasonable suggestion that they include a rating scale in the TV magazine listings as happens with films, so that viewers are warned in advance.

The Beeb offered their usual banal comment that people have differing standards of what they consider offensive.

Well yes they do, but so what? The fact that they warn people before a programme is an admission that the “strong language” it contains is going to be offensive, otherwise why would they mention it?

There is no justification for broadcasting offensive material – indeed there is no need for such programme content. It’s like salting food – once it’s in you can’t remove it. Let those who don’t mind or don’t care watch cable TV.

The letter also indicated that they were aware I had written to complain on the subject before.

Nice to know they keep such records – a bit 1984-ish though don’t you think?

No doubt they had a much longer list when the late Mary Whitehouse was on it and I am consoled by knowing that I am in such good and principled company.

Too permissive for some

From: Phyllis Capstick, Hellifield, Skipton, North Yorkshire.

WE all know that the age of innocence went out of the window (or windows?) decades ago.

People of my generation can see how things have changed over the years, and are able to say “not always for the better”. We live and learn, and continue to do so.

The permissive society, gender equality and the compensation culture in which we all live, have gone too far, and need to be redressed, onto an even keel, or the “ship” will sink.

When equality is what they want, how can three women, serving in the RAF be allowed to claim £100,000 each, on top of thousands of pounds of compensation already agreed, for being unable to march in time with the men without pain and discomfort?

Obviously this craving for total equality of the sexes has done many women no favours. Yet, there again, one can always sue for a fortune if problems occur.

This must mean that equality of the sexes has gone too far and does not work at this level.

Then we have a hard-working husband and wife team, running a bed and breakfast establishment, having to sell their home and source of income, because they are not allowed to abide by their principles.

Do they not have their human rights to do just that? Are they being discriminated against because of their beliefs? Or is the law a complete ass?

Two-tier NHS driven by cash

From: Peter Claydon, Beckett Road, Dewsbury.

ROBERT Heys (Yorkshire Post, November 23) is concerned that Calderdale’s residents face the prospect of a two-tier A&E service. In North Kirklees local residents face the same NHS agenda, the downgrading of A&E, maternity and paediatric services at Dewsbury & District Hospital in favour of a centralised service delivered from the Pinderfields site in Wakefield.

Given that North Kirklees is a deprived area, with a growing population, relatively low household income levels and a complex pathology of difficult health issues, it should be a candidate for NHS investment – not for NHS disinvestment.

But, in centralising services, the financially troubled Mid Yorkshire Hospital Trust wants to give priority to Pinderfields, a decision that is probably not unconnected with the Trust’s financial obligations in respect of an expensive PFI contract at that site, a PFI contract that was signed in 2007 and that still has another 30 years to run.

The sad truth is that in the new two-tier health service that NHS England is introducing, to satisfy consultant and health care specialist aspirations and Government driven financial exigencies, the losers will be people in poor health living both in deprived areas like North Kirklees and in rural areas like much of Calderdale.

What happened to the notion that the customer or client should come first?

A nightmare neighbour?

From: Linda Lawson, Mill Lane, Foston on the Wolds, East Yorkshire.

OH, how my friend and I agree with Jean Winn with reference to Sue Woodcock (Yorkshire Post, November 30). I feel sorry if Sue Woodcock has immediate neighbours with five barking 
and seemingly boisterous dogs. She must be a nightmare to 
live near.

She readily admits that they 
run off the minute they are released from the car – through woods and anywhere else she thinks fit to let them run. I assume she does not take dog poo bags with her – it would take a bit of clearing up.

And, as she says, they are often out of sight!

For someone who is supposed to be a country lover, she seems to impose herself and her dogs on walkers, riders and farmers at will. Apart from this, do we have to read of another day of eating, charity shops and visiting her numerous friends?