Have we got bad language for you?

But this problem is, to a large extent, the same one as the ever-present metropolitan bias, and an assumption that attitudes and mores in London and within the M25 represent the rest of the country.

I can't be too sanctimonious as I enjoy films and books that have large amounts of strong or bad language. The Dirk Bogarde Letters turns it into something of an art form.

But that is not the same as wanting to actually listen to the same language to someone on the train. It is a bit like smoking.

One thing to have a choice about going to a bar which allows it [although of course you cannot do that now.. ] but to be forced to put up with smokers on a train where it is banned would be quite another.

Today's story about a pub that is banning swearing - altogether - suggests that people do want more of a choice about being able to avoid listening to swearing.

Swearing is part of the language that we speak some people find it unpleasant as they do not know what most of it means I hate the white middle class " Its Pants" for everything and I notice much of this came from those dreadful films Bridget Jones and why I can not get anyone to care for me and ten weddings and Hugh Grant. We could have the American swearing which is also contrived. Because it is used in the wrong place in the wrong context then it comes across as unpleasant and is used all the time now. We can not go back as we have opened the Pandora box and allowed the rant of the religious right to have a say. Mrs Whitehouse is long dead it never stopped it she just drew more attention to it.

As the television allows it and encourages in all programmes as if everyone speaks like this all the time they do not many do not swear and others do but not much and others do not know how to say anything with out swearing what the excuse of the TV is I do not know but Clarkson is belligerent by nature so your on a loosing streak with him and Ross is a man/child who as to be the centrer of attention so a good smack on the legs and sent to be would help .

And Marina Hyde's views seem strangely relevant to the debate as well...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/01/comment-debate

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/24/bbc-refuses-gaza-appeal

It does rather make me wonder what happened to the investigative reporting of people like John Ware so that Panorama is now reduced to reporting about swearing.

And on TV as well - it is an important topic, but this sort of navel gazing when debates over Gaza are due to be held in the House of Lords does seem rather inward-looking.

As a young girl I clearly remember my father chastising two young men at a bus stop for using the 'F' word in front of his daughter.
They did apologise.

In this world of political correctness when normal language of a decade ago is forbidden it is unfathomable to someone like myself to hear this word freely and sometimes overused on TV.

I'm no Mary Whitehouse but I still find it totally objectionable to hear children using it as part of normal day speech.

Double standards now appear to be part of normal day life but I have to wonder what sort of people are actually setting these standards.

Inconoclastic chav-speak is always with us. The boundaries move as the most frequently used expletives lose their power to shock.

Swearing and foul language is often appropriate in private conversation - indeed sometimes essential in telling jokes. Not in public or on TV and radio.

At least the use of such words publicly identifies the utterer as an oik.

2. At 5:38pm on 29 Jan 2009, DeniseCullum222 wrote:

"Swearing is part of the language that we speak some people find it unpleasant as they do not know what most of it means ... " (there's more but it's all equally uninelligible).

Yes, dear. How opening our mouths says so much about us!

I always believed that using "real" expletives was a part of coming-of-age, the ritual of growing and proving that you are now REALLY grown up. Except when you at last get over the other side of the growing up hump you realise that all your efforts were very adolescent, even puerile.

As for swearing on TV or radio it divides into that contained in fiction and that contained in reality. The Ross-Brand affair seems to me to be every bit as adolescent and puerile as my attempts to prove how BIG I was when I was actually very small indeed. That only one of the perpetrators decided it was time to move on says everything about him and the other offender who did not. But that episode was not so much about bad language as to how to be deliberately offensive to someone who did not deserve it.

Drama, comedy and action programs and movies do not, in my view, surprise. The level of swearing seldom surprises me and I have seen some exceptionally impressive acting in films that contain exceedingly bad language. However, like the comment in #4 above I am troubled by the use of the "f" word by children especially those who cannot be more than eight or nine years old.

It seems coming-of-age occurs at an ever younger age and that is a damning indictment of how we are failing our children. We are only "innocent" once in life and, as adults who had our chances to be naively curious, we owe it to children to make innocence last as long as we can.

Swearing in itself is not the problem, it merely reflects a lack of vocabulary in someones attempt to express themself. When as is often the case with television " personalities " it is a misconception that the use of filth and invective somehow makes them " hip " or 'with it ". Sadly it does neither, Ross, Oliver, Brand and company merely make themselves into oddities. There are however some comedians who use invective and yet still are funny and give no offence,Connolly for one uses the F word a lot but without it being used as an attempt at impressing anyone with his " with it ness ". It's just part of his act and accepted as such.

"But the fall-out from the Ross-Brand affair has had a wider impact on what the BBC does. "

If only that were the case, we would hopefully see a reduction in needless offensive language across the BBC.

But the firm treatment handed down to Ross/Brand was not due to their coarse language but solely because it was used against an identifiable victim.

They and many others had been allowed to use coarse language for years without censure - and remember the case where the use of the word 'gay' to mean something like 'unpleasant' was investigated and found acceptable.

I was glad to see this edition of Panorama as I was beginning to wonder if it was just me slowly turning into Mary Whitehouse. Now I'm happy to know that I am not the only one with concerns about the use of bad language on television.

I'm the mother of a young child and I don't want him coming out with inappropriate language he has picked up from the television or his friends (also from the television). Naturally, we monitor what he is allowed to watch but since the 9 o'clock watershed has become so eroded this is becoming more and more difficult. (I was a bit depressed to hear the man from Ofcom be so vague about what is and isn't acceptable in terms of language use before 9pm). The watershed was set up because it was a good idea - and it's still a good idea now!

It was great to hear how Frank Skinner had experimented in taking the swearing out of his live shows. The audience was still laughing - he is still funny and engaging.

Come on now! Let the rest of our TV entertainment be as imaginative!

Many years ago I went to a stag do where there were the usual comediens but only one stood out from the crowd. His act had no swear words at all, it was just cleverly written and performed and although rude enough for a stag do it he bought the house down. As far as I'm concerned the use of obscenities to get a laugh is the sign of of a bunkrupt act. In straight plays it is different and the action may demand street language but so often the writers seem to sink to using swear words simply because they are not clever enough to think of any alernative.

Do you need swearing to attract a young audience? It's interesting that the film The Dark Knight - a major hit with 12 - 30 year olds didn't contain any strong swear words ('For God's sake' is as strong as it got), nudity or sex.

At the end of the Panorama programme there was what sounded like justification for 'edgy' comedy i.e. comedians using bad language along the lines of: 'The BBC needs to attract teens and twenties or else faces losing this audience of the future to 'edgy' material on YouTube etc.'
I have reservations about this argument, not least that much of the most popular material on YouTube I’ve seen doesn't contain swearing; so that isn't the main reason for this audience switching to it.
Nor is it the reason why I'm not watching TV tonight, it's that there's nothing on the terrestrial channels that interests me, but that's probably middle age ennui; surely I can't be alone in this?

Bad language, offence etc always will be a contentious issue. I don't mind swearing, in a context. I don't particularly mind it in say Rome or Shameless, but not every drama needs it just to try to be 'realistic'.
Popular dramas (Heroes) attract audiences for different reasons.
Have I Got News For You/Mock the Week etc don't need swearing, but I don't object it occasionally slips in, providing it is occasional.
I don't like Gordon Ramsey's programmes, but that's largely because I don't like Ramsey's whole attitude.

As for 'boundary pushing' and ‘edgy’ (words that make me cringe). The comedies that I thought most pushed boundaries in recent years were The Green Wing and Spaced; because of how they tapped deeper into surrealism in comedy.
I enjoyed BBC 3's The Wrong Door for the same reason, didn't mind the swearing (but the nudity in one scene was gratuitous).

I also think Clarkson has a point.
There's bound to be jokes/opinions that are counter to my beliefs, but should some beliefs and sensibilities be privileged with protection?
There is a difference between causing offence and causing harm. An insult doesn't actually harm me; I may not enjoy it but I can choose whether or not to take offence or just shrug it off; even if I’m offended does it mean I’m harmed?
Offence is subjective, harm is objective.
I'm not sure all pressure groups that might complain - left or right, religious or non religious - would agree, but they should consider that point.

It is however important to distinguish between expressing criticism, even if in humour, of a set of ideas and hatred of groups of people that hold this viewpoint.
I find all religious beliefs bizarre for example, but I don’t hate those that hold them.

Good luck on this one, you'll never be able to please everyone.

At home, back in the 50's and 60's (we never joined the flower people) if our parents heard us swearing we were threatened with a mouth wash of carbolic soap. In those days it was mild swear words like "bl...y" and "bu..er". The "f", "c" and "t" words were never used. Well I say never but I mean not in my hearing and I had four brothers. A good look in a dictionary to learn what these words actually mean may help some inveterate swearers to stop using them. It is very sad that some people cannot put 6 words together without having to interject with the "f" word for no apparent reason. Swearing is totally unnecessary unless you hit your finger with a hammer!

you are joking right? people actually care about this pointless argument, swearing is personal choice, just like smoking, drinking etc, its not like swearing harms anyone is it, not really unless people allow it, i swear - too much sometimes admittedly, thats usually when I'm not in a good mood but it doesn't mean i can't go a sentence without swearing, and its not needless swearing - Billy Connolly THE greatest comedian ever(opinion not fact) swears alot and hes extremely popular i dont think people could associate him without swearing, it doesn't mean he's unintelligent tho', people need to grow up and face the fact that swearing is part of our language(and others) i don't understand the middle finger or the "V" sign though, the V sign was a mock gesture to the french when we didnt get on so well.... and the would cut our fighters fingers off.... but now its just a pathetic way to cause offence and why? because people cant see its just two fingers....

Surely the main problem was that live recording to someone's personal voicemail is never a good idea. Neither is naming people you have had relationships with on air unless you are 100% certain you have their consent? How about just banning those particular practices across the BBC?

The furore about RossBrand was indeed symptomatic of wider concern over standards, although taste and decency were only part of the issue, I think 'cruelty' in broadcasting is of concern to many, as we witness the rise of cruelty TV such as Big Brother and the humiliation in the early stages of X Factor et al - as these are on commercial stations the audience feels it has less power than the BBC - who supposedly have to at least listen to complainers.

#12

I think you are absolutely correct in pointing out the very marked difference between "offence" and "harm". New Labour has liberally sprinkled the law books with legislation based on offence, an abstract that is felt but has know substantive evidence to back the feeling. No effort has been put into studying how and why we allow ourselves to be offended, nor has anyone attempted to determine if offence can indeed be controlled by the individual. The political correctness syndrome is specious. Where does offence end? And what is going to happen when we have to be silent and yet still offend by being so? What will happen if "that certain look" becomes illegal?

Communication is 99% body language and one percent spoken which is why sight gags are often so rib tickling funny. It is why the best comedians do not have to say anything - they just look. It is why we are so very wrong to get caught up in a debate about what words can do.

But what about harm, real harm? When offence is repeated often enough does it or can it cause harm? Do we as some will claim become desensitised by regular exposure to stimuli? If communication truly is as complicated and compounded as we believe it to be then isn't it impossible for the same thing to happen in an identical way twice? Isn't something always going to be different when the comedian is doing the second, third or fourth performance? Certainly the audience is different. And is that between shows snack delivering different chemicals to the comedian's body?

Please don't let us dumb down everything in life to its lowest form because treading that path really will screw us up completely.

Why must you push the boundaries downwards. Why not push them upwards for a change?

Perhaps you consider the use of swearing to shock to be 'smart, or perhaps you simply regard your target audience with contempt. Perhaps it's easier just to let go. Perhaps, all three?

I use swearwords in private conversation, but I don't like hearing it in public, in pubs or on trains for instance. Or on TV. It works beautifully in 'Father Ted' but unfortunately most writers don't approach that level of craftsmanship and seem to think that if you just throw a few swearwords into a script it will make it funny... and nobody seems to be prepared to tell them that it isn't, presumably because they think that the audience will think that it is. And in my opinion that's really dumb.

They are only words, just a string of sounds produced by our vocal cords and enunciated using our lips and tongue. I really don't think that society is going to crumble into ruin just because somebody might use the phrase indicated by the Spoonerism 'cupid stunt' on-air.

Also, politicview, I know very well what the 'Big Three' swear-words mean, and I still use them. I'm also female. I don't mind the slang words for that part of my anatomy, because frankly it's a horrible, stupid-looking body part, and likening somebody to it through use of the 'c' and 't' words is quite appropriate. Remember, we also have swear-words based on the slang for a part of the male anatomy.

#16. It's probably worth clarifying what I meant by 'offence'. The word has two distinct, separate meanings:
A) The act of causing anger, resentment, displeasure, or affront. Leading to the state of being offended.
B) A transgression of law; a crime.

I meant - A.
And in the context here of humour on TV/Radio.
By 'harm' I mean; Actual physical or psychological injury or damage.

An Act of Parliament, such as the Sexual Offences Act, refer to acts that cause actual harm or trauma.

So if, for example, you say ~ "only stupid idiots don't believe in Biblical Creationism"
- as I am someone that believes that evolution offers a more credible explanation than creationism, this statement would possibly cause me offence - if I choose to take it.
It's not breaking any laws, it's just your opinion. Should I complain* or just shrug it off?

Punch me on the nose, graffiti my house or sack me from my job (or threaten to) - or incite others to - for not believing in Biblical Creationism, that's harming me (or threatening to).

NB: At work or elsewhere persistent insults, abuse etc, particularly on the basis of colour, gender, disability etc can be construed as bullying or harassment (creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for an individual or community), this can be an offence (in the second meaning (B) of the word) under UK law.

*Complaints relating to 'offence' (displeasure, or affront) in broadcasting are currently dealt with by OFCOM and the ASA. Needless to say, politicians, lawyers and philosophers have debated widely as to the differences between 'harm' and 'offence' in different contexts.

What I am saying is that perhaps the public as a whole (Mail readers to Guardian readers et al) should become a little more robust about tolerating opinions/jokes we don't like on TV and Radio, rather than leaping to complain (censor) every time.
Differences of opinion/belief/humour are part-and-parcel of a democracy.

This problem has largely been caused by the lowering of standards at the BBC led by the arrogance of the the senior management who refuse to listen to the majority views of their audience. As for the ineffective BBC Trust who should be holding them to task words fail me.

#20

Although I think we are mainly on the same track I believe there is a problem with laws that are not objective. Your example about bullying and harassment is important since the complainant must prove that the perpetrator was solely acting with intent to discriminate along the lines you indicate. That is a pretty tough thing to prove in a tribunal as many victims have discovered. The road to a tribunal is not only time limited, it is also littered with sucker traps all along the way.

And so do discrimination laws seek to prevent offence, harm, both or neither? The answer is all of them depending on how good the evidence is. Evidence is often hard to collect especially in a personal battle between two characters - the bully and the victim. It is very easy to turn a conversation around and so it becomes hard to tell who the "bully" is. Time limiting also means that the perpetrator can pace their attacks over a very long period.

The intention in using "bad" or "offensive" language in entertainment is multi-faceted but hinges around artistic license in fiction, and getting close to the knuckle in live or recorded shows. The intention to cause harm is clearer when it is physical but much less clear when it is psychological. The debates about comments from football fans directed towards players or referees is indicative or how blurred the margin between being a crime or not being a crime is. It is also worthwhile to record the abuse offered by players toward other players and referees which goes largely unchecked - so why pick on fans?

If we are to set boundaries on behaviour then they must be clear, simple, and logical. In broadcasting then it is the job of the producer to ensure that the boundaries are consistent and obvious. The problem I perceive with political correctness is that it is a pernicious attempt to push boundaries to the point where they collapse making life very much tougher and more obscure for those who still believe in freedom of speech or, put another way, the ability to turn the on-off switch or the other cheek.

"I don't mind the slang words for that part of my anatomy, because frankly it's a horrible, stupid-looking body part,"

-Speak for yourself, dear!

#22 I think it would be useful to have a blog debate about what 'political correctness' actually means?
PC has become a term used as a general-catch all to encompass anything and everything something someone doesn't like; often both the cause and effect.
As a term, PC has become so devalued it can mean anything and everything.
What some see as 'political correctness' in the use of language when referring to others for example, I merely see as old fashioned politeness and courtesy.

If I'm reading you correctly - 'a pernicious attempt to push boundaries to the point where they collapse' - means you interpret this as pushing boundaries of what is acceptable outwards?
I think that if anything 'political correctness' pulls boundaries inwards, or protects some beliefs, by excluding those which it considers unacceptable - and when it comes to opinions regarding taste etc this can apply equally to a Daily Mail reader as it does to a Guardian reader.
That's what I meant in my first post #12 in the question "should some beliefs and sensibilities be privileged with protection?"
I think the BBC could be braver in allowing a wider range of opinions and views to be expressed in its programmes – as they are here - but in return the audiences should be less touchy when they come across views it doesn't agree with.

To use an example from C4. When C4 evicted contestants from Big Brother for using a racist term, I think it would have been better to have left them inside the house and let the house-mates argue and debate it through. After all, this is what people have to do in everyday society. Trying to hide or exclude issues doesn’t make them disappear.

Returning to the original point that Panorama made about how the BBC is to attract a younger audience?
Thinking of what media, films and programmes that attract them have in common?
I'd say originality, freshness and some cleverness. Don't underestimate the audience.

#24

You are "right" and "wrong"! I meant pushing boundaries of what is UNacceptable ever outwards until they collapse.... but pulling inwards does just as well.

I do agree that the first step towards having people become more in touch with the effect of their language or their demeanour is to have them face the immediate consequences of it - rather than have a court battle some time later.

I do not think anyone can be clear about what PC means because isn't it designed to be a "catch-all" when all else fails?

The biggest problem with broadcasted presentation on the whole is that there is inadequate clarification of what is being said.

This makes a compounded ambiguity to the audience.

Couple this with the recent fashion of presenters talking to the 'audience' on a person to person level and you have a huge problem of comments being taken personally by those receiving them, singly, in groups or 'en masse'.

The first rule to teach in anger management is "Do not take anything personally and immediately act on it". Think.

The art of conversation is getting lost through misunderstanding of what is being said in the first place, especially when the speaker 'assumes' that everyone knows what 'he' 'she' is talking about. Half an explanation is given and the rest taken for granted. Wrong!.

Time schedules determine how many words can be spoken on any given subject and if too much is trying to be fitted in in too short a time the whole portrayal of the subject is misunderstood, where "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". The rest of the knowledge becomes confabulated, imagined or worse still wrong completely.
The work of balancing all this correctly for the BBC has never been easy but one thing I do know -

"Quality is better than Quantity".

I am highly ambivalent about the use of bad language. I enjoy 'adult' programmes such as 'Have I got news for you', and think it is a vibrant part of the language.

But I also think that the BBC has just gone too far and licence has turned to 'licentiousness'.

I turned on the TV on a Saturday morning a couple of years back and witnessed a kid's TV segment called 'Have you got the Balls'. One of my best friends, with perhaps the most 'anything goes' sense of humour that I know, found that his niece with cerebral palsy was being teased at school after the Little Britain sketches of the guy in the wheelchair, a show that went on to make jokes about pedophilia. I watch the leering late night comic Graham Norton parade a bunch of 12-13 year old boys in front a panel of judges include several open homosexuals (nothing wrong in that in itself except...) in a show entitled 'I'd do anything', with Norton's inuendo dripping own tag 'A search for a Nancy'.

I actually always used to enjoy Jonathon Ross's shows especially Film 200X, and defended this guy to my father, and enjoyed Brand's outrageous appearances on Big Brother. But I was utterly repulsed and disgusted by the whole Andrew Sachs phone call.

What has really got me even more is that Ross is re-instated for an offense which in any company in this country would have got him dismissed for gross misconduct, then the BBC makes a sickening display of trying to cover itself by issuing these guidelines.

If these were scurrilous underpaid young comics I wouldn't mind, but the likes of Ross, Norton and the loutish Chris Moyles are middle aged men paid millions for behaving like teenagers.

Yes some more restraint needs to be exercised, but what is most sickening is the way a certain section of the BBC seems to think it can just behave in any way it likes and expect to get away with it (and apparently does!!!)

Britain is suppose to be an affluent society. We should set an example by giving programme, which have some thing good to offer. I am great fan of BBC and admire some of the programmes, like Discovery, Panorama, childrens programmes, food and cooking. However, it break my heart to see that increasing number of new films and comedy programmes are undesirable, with foul language and violence.
We both are pensioner and at times we do not watch T V, due to the undesirable programmes.

(19) stop-start.
I am so sorry to learn that you resort to foul-mouthed language to get your point across. Also as another poster has said, I don't consider my body parts to be ugly or stupid, an odd word, that, to use for a body part.

Is 'golliwog' in a private conversation considered to be 'bad language'? Or do you consider that every child who owns this doll to be a racist? I still have a knitted one in a cupboard, does that make me a racist? If the sacking of Carol Thatcher from 'The One Show' for the use of the word merely to describe someones hair is considered racist, where is the BBC going to go next? Surely all your news casters should now be sacked for repeating this so called outrageous word in every newscast since Chiles snitched. I always used to watch the One Show but now cannot bear to look at Chiles's face knowing what he is. Now lets be fair, you have removed C Thatcher now you should remove J Ross otherwise you are blatantly operating double standards.

Swearing is proof of an untamed tongue. I have noticed that when people have tried to stop swearing, their whole demeanor changes. For example, when my swearing colleagues are around children or someone in authority, they don't swear. It seems that swearing is linked with respect. I prefer people not to swear around me as I prefer not to swear and, it is contagious. I would never ask anyone not to swear in front of me - because I value freedom of speech above the dictates of my own personal life, but I have also noticed that people feel to say sorry when they swear around me. This further suggests that not swearing shows a sign of respect. I am grateful that people try harder to not swear around me as I do find it offensive. Coincidently, the only people who do not find it offensive are those who swear.

The BBC seems more concerned about political correctness and dumbing down, than bad language.

Compare and contrast the treatment of Carole Thatcher to Jonathan Ross - I rest my case.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Double standards for Auntie

Ah so the foul mouthed J Woss is still on the box and causing the back room staff in the editing suite loads of work deleting his foulness before being fit for broadcast and no doubt still insulting the guests , Sack the plonker and give his job to a decient person with some respect for others , while you are at it get rid of Joe foul mouthed Brand also , the green room incident with Carol Thatcher is yet another shabby deal from the Beeb.
For heavens sake Beeb clean your act up now before it gets out of hand and you are sold off as you are playing into the hands of those who like to sell you off to fill the coffers of the treasury.

Your survey about swearing doesn't say that people think its too high, just "unacceptable" - these are two different things - I, for example think that swearing is unacceptably low.. Of course we should be considerate of those (mainly older) people who don't want to hear the full range of the English language. But later at night, when they're safely tucked up in bed, people should be allowed to swear normally.

One of the most annoying reasons given against swearing is that kids might hear it. I'd like to see the figures for how many children complain at hearing swearing. In my experience, one of the places with the most swearing was in the school playground, and I think that children's programmes patronise their viewers by not reflecting this.

Personally, I generally don't find the need to swear, but I think that those who do, should be accurately presented in the media. Of course, swearing is no replacement for content and saying something offensive to someone is wrong.

The worst thing about swearing is when its replaced by a highly annoying beep. If you're not going let us hear swearing, then don't let the people you're recording swear.

I find it ironic that someone who calls themselves Anti-pc-Brit (no.34) wants the BBC to censor itself

(presumably the PC refers to 'political correctness' not police constable or personal computer)

So less censoring of 'politically incorrect' language, and yet more censoring of 'foul' language - sounds a bit subjective to me

others could call that bigotry

Dear Tom,

I am from Germany. When I moved to Wales 10 years ago, the swear word was the f-word - now it's the c-word. You all know what I mean.

It depends how one uses swear words and towards whom / which group you are in.

In the past, Britain was known for the "feine Englische Art", transl. as "fine English manners" - now you associate drunken and noisy, not very well behaved people with many of the English (esp in groups). Already children swear. Not all - some. Some are very polite.

Maybe swearing is a relief for some in this broken society. To get it out! To say it.

Where good conversation skills are not being taught anymore - and you do not have proper meals around a table - what is to be expected? I can understand some of the people who swear. I say the s-word sometimes - just to myself or in a conversation.

On the other hand, I prefer people who say it as it is (incl. a swear word!!) than hypocrisy - talking middle-class English without using bad language who are dishonest and unlikable in the own way.

Good night, Annette from mid-Wales