orpheum

I seem to recall that she was pals with aright wing tory mo for wimbledon Sir Cyril somethinorother.He was one of thehang em and flog em brigade.I bet he had a weekly rendezvous with Miss Whiplash.

Welcome To Highbury The Home Of Football

penfold

Perhaps, then, that was her impact.....by bringing ridiculous prosecutions on people and institutions she disapproved of from her religious (and to an extent, political) extremism, she actually, because of the backlash, helped make this a somewhat more tolerant society? Still a way to go of course....

Bit of a Bay Window, what??

Steve Crook

Cyril Black.
He was succeeded by Michael Havers (Nigel's dad) and then another Tory before Wimbledon went red in the 1997 landslide.

It was only in the '97 landslide and the '45 landslide that Wimbledon's ever had anything but a Tory MP. But I still like to live here

Steve

Steve Wigan

I met Mary Whitehouse a couple of times in the 80s....and the reality was a little different from the popular perception. On one occasion we were standing on the steps of the Queen Elizabeth Hall, having just attended a meeting that would eventually lead to the Video Recordings Act and remember saying to her (and this is the absolute truth) 'Mary...what would your reaction be if I told you a pretty risque joke right now ?' She looked around and said 'There are no children here so, whats the joke ?'
Her main purpose was the protection of children ...but the media ,as the media does, categorised her as an enemy of freedom.

Far worse, in those days, and in my opinion, were the then Chief Constable of Greater Manchester, and others, whose strict ,over the top implementation of the Video Recordings Act resulted in decent , innocent people losing their livelihood. Anyone who was around in those days, trying to run a legitimate video movie business, will know exactly what I mean.

CaptainWaggett

I'd be interested to know how many children were corrupted by The Romans in Britain. It certainly wasn't advertised as suitable for school trips.

Steve Wigan

I'm quite sure that since the dawn of television, children have watched programmes that were not intended for them. In the 1980s there was no such thing as a parental control button on TVs. These days it is far easier for adults to control their childrens viewing habits, at least in their own home. Whether some of them do is another matter.

CaptainWaggett

The Romans in Britain was a a play performed at the National Theatre to an audience of adults (I'd be very surprised if there weren't plenty of explicit warnings about its unsuitability for children and they may well have refused entry to under 16s). Whitehouse bullied the DPP into a ludicrous court case about a play she hadn't seen based on one of her minions being too cheap to buy a decent ticket and therefore mistaking a thumb for a rather more raunchy part of the male anatomy. How did prosecuting a theatre producer prevent any children from being corrupted?

Steve Wigan

I respect your opinion, and would say this....the play (which incidentally was panned without mercy by the majority of critics), did in fact contain a fairly explicit scene of homosexual rape(am I allowed to say that on this forum ?). That was the point of the private prosecution brought by Mary Whitehouse. The case was never completed, and no action was taken. The play was a poor attempt at being controversial, to sell theatre tickets, and a proportion of the audience was offended by the depictions on stage. The case was very little to do with mistaking a thumb for something else. It was the depiction of homosexual rape which was the key issue, and this is what was offensive(in 1980 !). Mrs. Whitehouses actions were not simply based on the report of 'a minion'....the controversial aspect of the play had been well publicised.....it was hardly a major theatrical event, merely an attempt to court controversy to sell tickets. Pornography disguised as art has always been around, and should be seen for what it is.
In the 1980s the whole of the Greater Manchester police force raiding video stores and seizing and destroying harmless Bugs Bunny cartoons, in the name of the law (at least their interpretation of the law), was a far worse 'crime' than an individual exercising her right to object to a public display of obscenity ..remember, this was 1980...we've moved on in 20 odd years, although The Romans In Britain, for some strange reason,was revived a couple of years ago.
Naked bodies in Oh Calcutta and Hair were not offensive to many, because there was no intention to portray obscenity, unlike The Romans in Britain.........

CaptainWaggett

Whitehouse seemed to believe that a sexual act had actually taken place on stage which is why the confusion between a thumb and a penis is important (yes, it did really happen). Bogdanov was actually prosecuted for procuring not for any offence involving porn. Whether the play is any good or not isn't really the point. It's not as if anyone who saw it wouldn't have known the subject matter in advance (as you say, it was extremely well publicised, helped in part by Mrs Whitehouse).

Obviously she had a perfect right to object to the play (it wouldn't be my first choice for a fun evening out!) but to bring a private prosecution that dragged on for a year or so? What on earth was the point? How would it have made the world a better place if a talented director had gone to prison for pimping?

earlb

CAPTAIN WAGGETT and STEVE WIGAN.
I've found your reasoned comments to be of great interest. My comment is "Congrats to you both for being so civilised in your discussion without it turning into a slanging match - that's what I like about this forum -reasoned discussion."

I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous.

Steve Wigan

All references I've seen refer to a DEPICTION of the sex act...not the actual act (we still don't get that far in 2008 ...as far as I know !). I'm off on holiday now but shall pick up this discussion when I return, on Friday week. Thanks for your time !

GRAEME

No.

She was an enemy of freedom. She hated freedom.

She wanted ALL TV/film/plays/literature to be content-safe for any child of any age.

No adult-only content was acceptable to her in any public medium.

Therefore all of it had to be at a level that was unambiguously safe for kiddies. That means 99.9% of everything we discuss on these forums would have been banned or censored if she had been in charge.

She was entitled to her opinion. But her opinion was wrong.

All men leak.

tali122

Whilst people found MWs outrage annoying , i found the mock outrage from hypocritical controversial directors lapping up the free publicity far worse

I hear the Union Jack still remains.I see Namijira in custody
and I see Truganini's in chains.