UK TV and Radio News

The Benny Hill Show is a 1969-89 UK TV comedy series
Starring Benny Hill, Henry McGee and Jackie Wright

A sketch-comedy series in which Hill would often play multiple characters and satirize popular British and American performers and stars. Common themes in the show were the husband-beating wife, buxom women, and silent, high-speed chase scenes between Hill and the other characters.

That's TV Gold channel is currently re-showing edited versions of The Benny Hill Show in the That's Entertainment slot with a warning at the beginning to the effect that This show contains outdated opinions that some people may find offence.

Surely by now people know what to expect from this show and if are offended by such humour they shouldn't watch it.

The Warriors is a 1979 US action thriller by Walter Hill
Starring Michael Beck, James Remar and Dorsey Wright    

Exists as a Theatrical Version and a Director's Cut.

Cyrus, the leader of the most powerful gang in New York City, the Gramercy Riffs, calls a midnight summit for all the area gangs, with all asked to send nine unarmed representatives for the conclave. A gang called The Warriors are blamed for killing Cyrus as he gives his speech. They now have to cross the territory of rivals in order to get to their own 'hood. The Warriors slowly cross the dangerous Bronx and Manhattan territories, narrowly escaping police and other gangs every step of the way.

  The theatrical version of The Warriors on Channel 31 (Five*) has suffered some dialogue cuts, some minor ones for swearing, but the main one being a potential offensive word...

Ajax: What's the matter...going FAGGOT?

As a fan of old films and TV and a product of a certain generation it still manages to irk me whenever this happens, as constant pandering to certain lobby groups can only embolden them to continue their misguided agenda to make everything they disagree with obsolete.

I say live and let live and if you don't like what you see, do t watch it but let those who enjoy such things to do so.

Update: Black-face

13th December. Thanks to Philip

Earlier on tonight I was watching yet another edited episode of The Benny Hill Show and came across yet another trigger warning.

This was for Black-Face and featured a hospital sketch where in one scene Benny gets multiple bed-baths from a sexy nurse by disguising himself by various methods (Bandages, false moustache made from a broom etc.) One of which used a mop head and a tin of shoe polish as the patient was a Rastafarian. Benny is caught out however as he forgot to boot-polish something, much to the nurses confusion and shock.

Update: Pinch yourselves

30th December. Thanks to Philip

Just been watching The Benny Hill Show on channel 7 and have just noted a deliberate censorial cut.

There was a sketch where Benny Hill is playing vicar and is being interviewed by Patricia Hayes where they talk about a bishop who Benny's character knew.

At the end of the sketch the light fades but not the sound and the two can be heard talking. Hayes mentioned that when she interviewed the bishop last he pinched her bum but not in this version and there is a very noticeable pictorial and sound cut in the sketch.

As there have been warnings prior to the programme starting, wouldn't it have been better to leave the sketch intact?

Sky TV have published a detailed plan about how the company educate, propagandise, nudge, nag and bully viewers into submitting to right think and right behaviour when it comes climate change.

Dana Strong Group Chief Executive, Sky explains:

At Sky, we believe in a better world, and we're committed to reducing our impact on the environment by transforming our business to become net zero carbon by 2030.

As Europe's largest media and entertainment organisation, we also want to accelerate our industry's efforts to drive global progress towards net zero. However, it is now widely accepted that we must shift the behaviour of millions of people to deliver on our collective net zero goals.

That's why when we became the Principal Partner and Media Partner for COP26, we were clear we wanted to lead the way in new standards for the broadcast industry, and to invest in research to better inform our collective approach.

Building on the work of BAFTA's albert consortium, and Sky's own Planet Test, the next frontier for our industry will be thinking not just about how we can reduce our own carbon footprint, but how we can encourage our viewers to do the same.

We know that what we broadcast has the power to change how we as consumers feel and act. What we see on our screens can shock us, inspire us, educate us, and entertain us.

By partnering with the Behavioural Insights Team, we aimed to answer a simple question: how does the content we see on our screens influence the sustainable choices we make in our daily lives? In this study from BIT and Sky, we spoke to 3,500 people in all the six markets in Europe where Sky operates. We are hopeful the results of this study will be the beginning of a growing data set that will inspire broadcasters and content creators to work in partnership to encourage - and normalise - less carbon use by consumers.

For the first time, we have the empirical evidence to help broadcasters understand how change can be achieved if we work together. We believe that by feeling closer to our planet, to the problems that it faces, and to the solutions available to protect it, consumers will truly feel empowered to act. Now we must all commit and work to deliver this.

Offsite Comment: Big Media is turning into Big Brother

8th November 2021. See article from spiked-online.com by Brendan O'Neill

TV news used to be about informing people. Now it's about manipulating us. Now it's about socially engineering us to make us more green. Now its ambition is to be a powerful tool of persuasion in order to transform viewers from the polluting pests we currently are into the eco-switched-on citizens of the future. At least that's the conclusion one is forced to draw from the deeply chilling report commissioned by Sky and authored by the Behavioural Insights Team, which is part-owned by the Cabinet Office.

Viewers and listeners have told Ofcom they are generally more relaxed about most swearing on TV and radio, particularly if it is accidental and an apology swiftly follows, according to our latest in-depth research study.

Audiences say they still want broadcasters to consider carefully when, and how, offensive language is used. But many people recognise that, in the right context, it can play an important role in programmes.

Participants in the study felt that, in line with freedom of expression, offensive words can be used to create dramatic impact, bring humour, reflect real life, or even to inform and educate. In 2020, only 1% of total broadcasting complaints were about swearing. 8% of complaints were about racial discrimination.

They had limited concerns so long as the strongest language was broadcast after the watershed and parents were given sufficient warnings and information to help them decide what their children see and hear.

Timely, genuine apologies were also important to viewers and listeners in cases where offensive language was accidentally broadcast live on-air. Discriminatory language and stereotypes

By comparison, audiences told us they had more serious concerns about discriminatory language on TV and radio -- particularly around race.

In our focus groups, viewers and listeners pointed to the underlying attitudes that discriminatory language reflects, and had higher expectations about this being avoided, including during live broadcasts. Audiences said that, when strong forms of discriminatory language do appear in programmes, they expect broadcasters to do all they can to carefully put it into context and so protect viewers and listeners from the offence it can cause.

Opinions on older programmes containing potentially problematic content and language were mixed. Many participants said that they did not want to see these types of programmes disappear from screens completely -- arguing that history should not be censored or sanitised and that audiences would be aware they were from a different era.

Other participants suggested that older programmes containing outdated views could cause unnecessary offence and reinforce stereotypes. Most participants agreed, however, that clear and specific warnings about the type of language and content that might cause offence were important in helping audiences make an informed choice.

Adam Baxter, Director of Standards and Audience Protection said:

People's views on offensive language can change significantly over time. So to ensure we're setting and enforcing our rules effectively, it's essential we keep up to date with how viewers and listeners think and feel.

Broadcasters' and audiences' right to freedom of expression is important. These findings will help us to strike the right balance between protecting audiences -- and children in particular -- from unjustified offence, while still allowing broadcasters the creative freedom to reflect real life in their programmes.

This year, we've engaged with a larger and more diverse selection of viewers and listeners than ever before. This included more than 600 people of all ages and backgrounds, living throughout the UK, as well as those from a range of minority groups and communities. We also expanded our focus groups to include dedicated sessions with members of the Jewish and Chinese communities for the first time.

There is no absolute right not to be offended by things broadcast on TV and radio. Consistent with rights to freedom of expression, broadcasters can include material in their programmes that is potentially offensive -- but, to stay within our rules, they must make sure they provide sufficient context and adequate protection to audiences.

These findings will help broadcasters to better understand audience expectations about the use of potentially offensive language in their programmes, and what steps they may need to take to protect viewers and listeners.