Introduction and Links to other pages Appeal result from the Governors Programme Complaints Committee (GPCC), 19 June 2006 This writer would like to thank the so many of you who have sent emails supporting this complaint. Letter from Mr Richard Tait, dated 19 June 2006 Enclosures with Mr Tait's letter A point of interest for Dr Who enthusiasts is the comment by the GPCC that the new series is not a remake of the original series, but a "completely new version"; this confirms Russell T Davies' and Christopher Ecclestone's statements in 2004 and 2005 that the only points of comparsion between the two series would be the name, theme tune and TARDIS. In all other aspects, the programmes would be unrelated. This raises two questions: why is this new series called Dr Who, and will Dr Who, the original series, ever be made again? These questions, though fundamental, lie outside the remit of this website. 8 July 2006 Dear Mr Tait Thank you for your letter of 19 June 2006. 1) My quoting of Mr Davies in my letter of 18 October 2005 was truncated; it continued as follows: … My work is done. Funnily enough, I was queueing up in Tesco's today, and the 12 y/o girl behind me in the queue called her 11 y/o brother a gayboy, in a venomous tone of voice. I turned round and said, if you call him a gayboy one more time, *this* gayboy is gonna smash your face in. Unsubtle, yes. I threatened a girl! But it worked. Activism isn't easy, but it's needed, so I'm delighted you wrote. This part of the quote was removed from my complaint as it was not directly relevant to the onscreen material. However, I am concerned at the threat by Mr Davies to "smash faces in", albeit one of bravado, and the subsequent boasting of it to viewers. I would like an assurance from the BBC that there will be no repeat of either. [Question 2 omitted] 3) Dr Who Office I presume that the Dr Who office would have made a submission to the GPCC in respect of my complaint. If it is in the public domain, I would be interested to see a copy. 4) Standards and guidelines With regards to your comment about standards and guidelines, I acknowledge that the BBC uses both these words and does so interchangeably. My point is that mixed use of these words is inaccurate and potentially misleading: inaccurate, because guidelines are open to opinion whereas standards are not; and potentially misleading, because it gives the impression that the BBC applies standards that cannot be compromised, as opposed to the guidelines which favour those who are in positions of power to exercise opinion. I do not see how this misuse of words can be tolerated and would be grateful for information on how this can be addressed formally. 5) GPCC findings - political references It has not escaped my noticed that the emphasis of my complaint has been altered in the GPCC's response. In the Michael Jackson complaint, the GPCC says that it is, "… the nature of comedy that people have different views of what is and is not funny". I never disputed whether or not the gag was funny, merely that it was inappropriate for the type of programme. Similarly, the GPCC says that my second complaint was about political bias. My complaint did not use this term and did not concern political bias in the sense of what one might observe in a news report. It concerned how Dr Who was used as a soap box to resolve personal issues by the people making it. A further avoidance of the complaint, and an important one, is the GPCC's statement that, "The Committee noted that the new series … was a contemporary family drama-entertainment, of relevance to today's audience". In itself, this statement is meaningless, since (a) all programmes have to be relevant to "today's audience"; (b) there is no other type of audience; and (c) there are many ways in which a programme can be made relevant. However, in saying this, the GPCC provides itself with the same parameter by which to judge content as that chosen by the Dr Who office, hence GPCC remarks such as, "… in keeping with the contemporary style of the series" and "modern themes and issues were part of the narrative of the series", etc. The effect of the GPCC adopting the Dr Who office's own criteria for content is to place a barrier to any complaint which is about content. The GPCC's response can therefore be reduced to four words: "because they want to". This suggests that the complaints process is a rubber stamp for managers. I would be grateful for your response to this observation. 6) The Editorial Guidelines The guidelines with which you supplied me are amorphous. They neither compel nor prohibit, and contain terms that are undefined and open to any interpretation. For instance, the GPCC has taken the reference to individual expression, located in the part referring to drama, art and music, to mean self-expression in a political sense, even though this is covered by a different part of the Guidelines. Even if I am persuaded that this 'pick 'n mix' is a creditable use of the Guidelines, the practice of self expression is not made mandatory, nor do the Guidelines prescribe the extent of it. Presumably, discretion can and should be applied. Had the GPCC wished, therefore, it could have upheld the complaint, or any part of it, to any degree, and still presented its findings as an application of the Guidelines, since the Guidelines are so generalised that they can be interpreted to mean anything the GPCC wishes. Therefore, the question that I would like to put to you is not why the GPCC found in favour of the Dr Who office, but why it interpreted the Guidelines in such a way as to make its decision inevitable. 7) GPCC findings - bad language The GPCC does not seem to have grasped this complaint at all. The complaint does not concern the "strength" [sic] of the language, as referred to by the GPCC, any more than it does the frequency, as referred to by the ECU. The complaint is about the presence of bad language in Dr Who. It makes no difference whether a word used is bitch, bitchy, bitched, bitchiness or any other derivative. It makes no difference whether implying "oh, bollocks" is a technique that is "well established", or whether 'fart' is used on children's television. It is because these words/devices are well worn which is why the complaint was made, i.e. there need to be reliable and consistent alternatives for viewers who regard this kind of writing as a cheat and who do not wish to be exposed to it. Lack of complaints is cited by the GPCC as one of the reasons for rejection, inferring that absence of complaints indicates positive support. Is the GPCC saying that had it received, say, 25 complaints, the appeal would have been upheld? What about 250 complaints? Or a thousand? In the case of Jerry Springer, the BBC received 50,000 complaints, yet the GPCC said that the number of complaints should not be a compelling factor in its decision, because the "artistic significance of the programme outweighed the offence which it caused". It seems to me that, if the GPCC regards bad or blue language as artistic, then programmes without bad or blue language must also be artistic. If one is to be protected, then so must the other, and not just as part of some afternoon arrangement for children. There are thousands of words in the English language, leading to millions of possibilities. References to genitalia, toilets, excrement, sexual acts, etc do not need to be a permanent and irremovable possibility for the purposes of creativity. It is extremely frustrating, switching on to all manner of programmes, to hear the same old references as if it is the first time it's ever been done. Programmes such as the original series of Dr Who, that exclude the possibility of such content and therefore extend the range of creativity, should not be a threatened species. The GPCC's response does not come close to addressing my complaint, and I would be grateful for your comments as to how this can be resolved by the BBC. According to the GPCC's remit, it is to, "ensure that any comments, proposals and complaints made by viewers and listeners of the Home Services are given due consideration by and are properly handled by the Corporation". Yours sincerely, etc Mr Bruce Vander replied on Mr Tait's behalf on 25 July 2006: [Point 2 omitted, as this refers to a separate matter] Obviously, Mr Vander does not know what "truncated" means. That's what happens with BBC television dumbs down the standard of English. 31 August 2006 Dear Mr Vander Thank you for your letter of 25 July 2006. 1) With reference to my first point, you did not supply the details of the relevant BBC management. I would be grateful if you would provide this. [Question 2 omitted, as this refers to a separate matter] 3) Dr Who Office I am amazed that the Dr Who office is not required to make a submission to the GPCC as part of the appeals process. For the GPCC to act independently, it must treat opposing parties equally. This means obliging BBC management to explain their interpretation of the Guidelines and why it should predominate in the face of a viewer complaint to the contrary. Without this requirement, the complaints process is not worth the paper it is written on. Is the BBC going to give this aspect of its process a fundamental rethink? 4) Standards and guidelines We are talking at cross-purposes here. I have not asked the GPCC to revisit the wording of the guidelines themselves, but how the guidelines are described on the BBC website. If the BBC is confident that the complaints process is meaningful, then there is no reason to use language that is potentially misleading as to its means of operation. You acknowledge that the Guidelines are not rules; therefore, words such as 'standards' and 'strict' are not appropriate. The BBC must be accurate in the presentation of its process. 5) GPCC findings - political references I have nothing to add on this, other than that, for reasons offered under point 3 of this letter and elsewhere, I do not believe the GPCC has adjudicated correctly or independently. Dr Who was used by the producer for acting out a string of personal grievances and this is not what a public broadcasting service should be about. I am sorry that the GPCC is unwilling to see this. 6) The Editorial Guidelines I do not feel that you have quite grasped the essence of my question, so I shall provide an example to illustrate. You say in your letter: "The Committee is advised by the guidelines which state: "Judgements about its use [bad language] are difficult because they depend on tone and context. There is no consensus about words that are acceptable, when, and by whom". The GPCC has interpreted this to mean that, as different people have different tastes, my complaint should not be upheld. However, people who work in other public services, and the retail sector, draw precisely the opposite conclusion from the same words, that is, there is no consensus, therefore, they adopt neutral, inoffensive language that eliminates not merely offence but the risk of offence. Such judgements in language are not, as the BBC suggests, "difficult", but simple, as illustrated in the original series of Dr Who. My question is therefore: why is it that the GPCC failed to implement the latter interpretation of the Guidelines, in favour of the former? 7) GPCC findings - bad language I am not satisfied with your response to this point. My complaint regarded thresholds, certainty and the right to a television service without bad language outside the children/afternoon slot. The complaint is not resolved by the GPCC giving words scores out of ten. My complaint does not draw a distinction between "oh, bol-" in Dr Who at 7pm or "wank" on Jonathan Ross at 10pm. Some of your comments were written as though the complaint applied to all programmes; it does not. The complaint is that there should be alternatives for viewers who do not wish to hear bad language in evening television. Dr Who was one such alternative; now, it is not. If a writer can imply "oh, bollocks" in this programme, then it follows that all programmes are now exposed. Perhaps we can expect lines in Dr Who like: "Oh, testicles! The Dalek has shot me in the bum" or "This planet is piss poor" or "Shit! It's a Cyberman!" (this latter example already appearing on the Dr Who DVD range). The element of certainty that existed previously is gone. I can well understand that BBC employees regard themselves as outspoken and challenging but, to viewers such as myself, this is as challenging as a three-year old saying poo because it is 'naughty'. It limits the range of drama and comedy. A three-year old will grow out of it; even an individual writer may find that the novelty wears thin. But the BBC as a whole can never grow out of it because each year brings new staff wanting to prove that, they too, can "break boundries". Therein lies my point about 'rotating writers', which is the basis of this complaint. This complaint was expressed to the ECU on 18 October 2005, yet ignored in their response. I wrote to Frazer Steel on 28 December 2005, drawing his attention to the complaint and, again, he failed to address it. I made the complaint to the GPCC and, to make sure there was no misunderstanding, I enclosed my 28 December letter and directed the GPCC's attention to point 10. Yet, inexplicably, the GPCC's one-page summary did not include it and Mr Tait's letter of 19 June 2006 did not address it. You explain that the matter is "contentious". But the GPCC has a duty to hear complaints; the more contentious an issue is, the greater that duty becomes. So, I am putting the ball back in your court. What is the GPCC going to do in light of its having failed to consider my third complaint? Yours sincerely, etc [the relevant extract of the letter to Mr Steel on 28 December, copied to GPCC as part of the appeal, was attached] Even if it is true that most viewers want to hear the words such as "bum" and "bollocks" (and the research you cite falls short of establishing this), it does not follow that viewers wish to hear them in every programme. I am interested in the question of 'thresholds'. Since there is no prospect of bad language receding on the BBC in the foreseeable future, I am obliged to make choices before viewing. If someone asked me a year ago which programme would be least likely to have bad language, I would have said Dr Who since there was no precedent for it; it was not part of the Dr Who "landscape". It now seems to me that if bad language can be adopted in Dr Who, solely at the will of incoming producers and writers, then I do not see how any other evening or even early drama or comedy can be relied upon not to have bad language. My complaint therefore arises (in part) because the treatment of Dr Who breaks an important threshold, in that a programme with no history of bad or unpleasant language is apparently considered due for it. You say, "Our viewing of the programmes found these elements used very sparingly". The actual quantity of bad language is not the basis of concern. It does not matter whether the offending word occurs once, twice or even half a dozen times; the point is that the language is there. It is present. It signifies that the standards are set by writers, rather than writers working within a set of standards. This is my point about "rotating" writers and producers spreading bad language across different types of programme. It is not a question of quantity. If the BBC is to persist in bad language and swearing, then I in return want consistency and thresholds. This seems to me to be a very pertinent point and the ECU has just blanked it. To be continued ... Go to the Links page, or back to the Homepage.