Bleeping out, (or should I say redacting) strong language is a bit ****ing ridiculous if you ask me. Which you didn’t.
It’s not so much the ****ing gratuitous bad language that the BBC ought to be ****ing-well worried about, it’s the general decline in quality and morality.
For one thing, this token exercise merely draws unnecessary attention to something wretched, and for another…. I think that one’s ebleepingnough for now.
Will ‘toning down sex and swearing’ be enough to reverse the moral decline? No it will not.
“Viewers also expressed concern about pre-watershed programmes, including EastEnders, which often dealt with adult themes.”
Why call themes featuring self-obsessed misfits and retarded, immature, maladjusted inadequates with narcissistic personality disorders, ‘adult’?
Enough about Newsnight, as Bruce Forsythe might quip.
‘Adult’ is clearly a euphemism, a bit like ‘gay’. By all means let’s have adult themes in the old fashioned sense, i.e. for adults with a brain. And before, after and during the watershed, introduce quality, originality, wit, wisdom, entertainment, information and substance. Surely someone somewhere is capable of providing that for all the £illions we fork out.
Ann Widdecombe thinks the BBC should reduce bad language, (not bleep it out) implement the watershed, (not merely treat it as the go-ahead for violence, titillation and inanity) and NOT put stuff before (or after) 9pm that most of us do not want to see, and show families that are ‘together’ instead of drug taking, broken and dysfunctional.” My words are in brackets, above.
If they do that, as far as I’m concerned, the swearing will take care of itself.