Introduction and Links to other pages Complaint 3 - bad/sexual language, toliet humour One of the things that I admired about the original series of Dr Who was the complete absence of innuendo or bad language. Standards applied by the series were consistent, meaning that the surprises and humour had to come from the stories and characters. 1 June 2005 I am fed up with bad language on television and was looking forward to Dr Who because it was a programme that previously did not rely on it. To my disappointment, the series has adopted bad and sexual language, interspersed with what might be described as "lavatory" humour... Some examples: Episode 1 - Rose 1. Breast implants There was a joke about breast implants; this was that aliens who could take over plastic could also take over breast implants. 2. The "belching" wheelie-bin Apparently, aliens who take over breast implants also make wheelie bins belch. Episode 2 - The End of the World 4. Coarse language/subject matter There is use of coarse language, for example, references to bitchy and prostitutes. I find this intrusive in Dr Who. The terms were not necessary and seemed included for the sake of it. 7. Saliva gag One of the aliens, as a gift, spits at the Doctor and Rose. Episode 3 - The Charles Dickens story 8. Hands up skirts, etc There is a line (Rose to an older male character); "Don't think I didn't know your hand was up my skirt, you dirty old man" (or something similar). Episode 4/5 - Dr Who and the Fart Monsters 10. Farting There were many moments when I felt I was watching The Benny Hill Show. I was dismayed by the line by the lead character, "Do you mind not farting while I'm trying to save the world" which was surplus to requirements and just lowered the tone further. There was a continual use of "farting" long after the joke had been made. 11. Sexual relations The policeman asks the Doctor whether he is having sexual relations with Rose. Like the reference to prostitutes, this seemed included for the sake of it, as if to say, "Look at us, we're referring to sex in Dr Who". I regard this as attention-seeking, and do not feel it benefits the programme or is necessary. 12. Oh, Bol- I think it is reasonable to assume that this was an implied "oh, bollocks", cut short. 13. God & Hell In this story, and the series overall, there are frequent uses of "Oh, my God" and "What the hell" as exclamations. My objection is not on religious grounds (I am not religious) but I do find casual references to God discourteous, as well as repetitive to listen to. I do not want to hear these terms in Dr Who, least of all when used by the lead character. The above list is far from exhaustive. Similar content has been evident in all subsequent episodes. For example, last week's episode referred to threesomes, another to bums, and so forth. Not all the references would have bothered me if in other programmes. For example, I might reasonably expect references to prostitutes in The Bill, or jokes about saliva in Red Dwarf. But I do not see why sexual innuendo, lavatory humour and expletives should be imported into Dr Who. The original series of Dr Who had its own brand of inventiveness and gentle wit. It is frustrating to me that the new producers cannot conceive of how to update the show in terms that do not include what I have listed above. Such content distracts in Dr Who. Bums and farts is not what I watch Dr Who for. I would be grateful for a response. Here is the Information Unit's reply, dated 28 July 2005: The Information Unit's first paragraph assumes that the complaint was based on a concern for children; in fact, the complaint made no mention of children, which suggests that the Information Unit's letter consists of standard responses that are cut and pasted according to the programme concerned. I was also interested in Mr Brigg's suggestion that the success of the series was dependent on the content and humour. This was rather a broad statement and so, on 13 August 2005, I asked Mr Briggs whether the programme's success was reliant on the specific points about which I was making a complaint. He wrote back on 31 August to say that his comments were an assumption. The complaint was submitted to the ECU: 18 October 2005 Dear Sirs The explanation offered by Mr Briggs for the introduction of bad/sexual language into Dr Who is that it is modern, realistic and that, in any event, sexual references go over the head of children. Unless necessary, I do not wish to respond to these assertions in any great detail as they do not really bite on my complaint, which is as follows. Swearing, offensive slang and sexual language is already prevalent on evening television. The lack of restraint on television is in contrast with other public service industries where restraint on bad language is mandatory. For instance, I do not hear bad language from staff in supermarkets, on public transport, or at my local barbers. They refrain because they are conscious that it may cause offence. They are providing a service. In a similar way, when I sit down to watch television drama, I want an entertainment service that does not feature swearing or the possibility of swearing. Such a service has not been offered by the BBC's evening broadcasts for a very long time. It may be the case that people in television take an impersonal view of bad language since they are not in the physical presence of their customers when using it. From my perspective as a viewer, however, it is very personal because the language is being imported into my private living space. I was therefore looking forward to Dr Who's return because, among other things, it was a programme which did not feature or rely on bad language. It was not part of the equation. I have provided examples of offending language in my original complaint. It struck me while watching Dr Who that the writers were working their way through a list of words to use, as each new episode featured a new one. It was as though there was an intention to "shock the audience". Bitch - Bum - Fart - Threesomes - [as if to say] we're being rude in Dr Who! The "oh, bol-" was particularly self-indulgent. The writers and producers are presumably not permitted to use "bollocks", so they used as much of the word as they could and implied the rest. There was also an example of ambiguous delivery. During a scene in (I think) End of the World, Rose tells the Doctor to stop "*ucking about". The Doctor replies very clearly, "I'm not mucking about". A case of poor sound during Rose's line? Or was the writer deliberately trying to suggest the use of f-word on the part of Rose, while not actually doing so? Mr Briggs of the Information Unit has explained that the standard of language and content is set by writers and producers. As a viewer, however, I look to the programme to identify standards relating to language. I imagine that writers and producers circulate through many different programmes during their careers, and it seems to me highly inconsistent from the viewers' perspective that each writer and producer can take his or her own set of standards from show to show. In the case of Dr Who previously, bad or sexual language was not part of the vocabulary. Questions of writing were confined to matters of quality, not whether such-and-such a word should be used. The programme simply did not go there. The benefit for me as a viewer is that I knew exactly what I am going to get when I switched on the TV. I could mentally remove bad language from my expectations and settle into the programme. After this year's series of Dr Who, I do not know what to expect, since the standards appear to be set by rotating writers and producers rather than being tied to the programme. The tail is wagging the dog. If the Dr Who writers continue in a similar vein as to that they have started, then the bad language and sexual references will escalate, as they have nowhere else to go. In support of this complaint about bad language in Dr Who, I would like to make the following additional points: » According to interviews with actors and production staff, one of the aims [of the new series] was to dispense with correctly spoken or delivered English. For instance, rather than Rose saying "Give it to me", she might say, "Gizzit 'ere". I believe the Dr Who office was wrong not to implement a distinction between naturalizing speech in terms of pronunciation and accent on one hand, and bad language on the other. The two are not synonymous. It is not necessary, for example, to say "Gizzit 'ere, bitch". » The bad/sexual/lavatory language may account for only 2% of the overall script but, for viewers such as myself who are conscious of it, it casts a cloud over the whole series. Viewers who are not sensitive to language would not have missed it had it not been there. The script could quite easily have been amended. For instance, the scene where the tree woman asked the Doctor, of Rose, "Is this your prostitute?" could have been, "Is this your grandmother?" Similarly, the "farting" was not necessary. I noticed that, when the alien returned in a later episode, the breaking of wind had been modified to stomach rumbling. This could have been adopted from the outset; the overall effect would have been the same but the tone of the show would not have been lowered. » The BBC Information Unit said in their responses to me that the success of the series suggests that the bad/sexual language was popular with viewers. However, when I asked whether they could substantiate this view, they could not. Mr Briggs said: "…the suggestion in my last letter to you regarding the audience enjoying the humour and content was an assumption on my part". There is no evidence that viewers were demanding bad language as a pre-condition of Dr Who's return. Other factors that may have contributed to the show's success include its cinematic feel, the fast scene changes, transformed special effects and that fact that many viewers wanted Dr Who back. Here is the ECU's reply, dated 10 November 2005.   What is striking about this reply is the complete irrelevance to it of a programme that was once on British television called Dr Who. The ECU's response is couched entirely in terms of what might be described as "contemporary television". The ECU sees nothing out of place with the inclusion in Dr Who, implied or otherwise, of the expression "b*llocks". Many people are irritated by this language in any programme, never mind Dr Who. Although the ECU is meant to be impartial in its assessment of programmes, its response displayed noteable partiality towards the Dr Who office. Click to read indications of ECU complaint avoidance.