Ooh, matron! Carry On cut as Britain's censors crack down on classic comedy

Telegraph

05-05-2025

Sarah Cronin-Stanley, who runs a TV channel with her father, Noel, from an office in their Hertfordshire garden, has an important decision to make.
Talking Pictures TV, which specialises in 'golden oldies' films and TV series, is preparing to air an episode of 1970s drama A Family at War for the first time in years.
The last time she did so, Cronin-Stanley was hauled in front of regulator Ofcom over her refusal to censor the racist insult 'w-g'. Now, she must decide whether to broadcast the word again with a warning to viewers in advance – or cut it out completely.
It is a familiar challenge not just for Talking Pictures TV, which is approaching its 10th anniversary, but also for a handful of other channels that have carved out a niche among audiences looking for a nostalgic trip into the annals of entertainment history.
There is no doubt that some language and themes from those days are no longer acceptable in the modern era. But critics say Ofcom's 'suffocating' guidelines raise the risk that classic hits will gradually be whittled down and ultimately lost.
'I think people have a thicker skin than maybe Ofcom gives them credit for,' says Jonathan Moore, who runs Rewind TV. 'It's the nanny state, isn't it, really? It's one rule to try and dictate taste for everyone rather than allowing the audience to make their own choices.'
While nostalgia TV remains a relatively small niche in the broadcasting landscape, the genre has built up a loyal following through its re-runs of classics such as Are You Being Served?, 'Allo 'Allo! and the Carry On series.
Figures from official ratings agency Barb show Talking Pictures TV, which claims to be the biggest independent channel in the country, had an audience of around 3.3m in March. Rewind TV attracted 1.4m viewers, while That's TV pulled in 3.7m.
'Good, clean fun'
Despite their popularity, these channels have often found themselves at loggerheads with Ofcom. While the regulator does not have a blacklist of banned words and phrases, it issues guidelines on offensive material based on a public survey carried out every five years.
Ofcom uses these findings to assign language to one of three categories: mild, moderate and strong.
Words that fall into the first category are considered unlikely to trouble audiences, while moderate language has a greater potential for offence. Words ranked 'strong' are perceived to be highly offensive and require a 'clear and strong contextual justification for broadcast'.
Rather than acting as an outright censor, Ofcom gives guidance on how broadcasters should approach language then leaves them to make the decisions. If audiences are unhappy, they are entitled to complain to the regulator, as on occasion they have.
For some TV bosses, however, the rules are overly prescriptive. Critics argue that the ever-evolving nature of language and social norms means channels are being held to an arbitrary and constantly shifting set of standards.
Ofcom's latest guidance, published in 2021, ranks 'whore' as moderate language, whereas the Americanised equivalent 'ho' is deemed mild. Following 2016's survey, 'bloody' was considered mild language. As of 2021, however, it has been upgraded to moderate.
Other words such as 'queer' split opinions among survey respondents. It has been used in the past in a derogatory way but has now been adopted in the acronym LGBTQ+.
'T--ser', 'slut' and 't--t' are among the words that have been cleaved out of classics including Carry On Laughing (a TV compilation of clips from the film series), Please Sir!, On The Buses and Whose Line is it Anyway?.
'It's a little bit arbitrary, to be perfectly honest,' says Moore. 'Offence is partly in the eye of the beholder, isn't it? One person's offensive word might be another person's completely acceptable word.'
Broadcasting bosses agree that some topics, such as outright racism or homophobia, are beyond the pale.
'There is some stuff that's just not funny any more,' says Cronin-Stanley. 'If you're going to watch a film from 1958 you're going to hear language from 1958. But if it is so outrageously rude, we'll take it out.'
Other elements are more nuanced, especially in light of their context. Films such as the 1959 crime drama Sapphire contain racist language precisely because it is a critical study of racist attitudes in London at the time.
In the world of comedy, meanwhile, the offending characters are often being sent up for their unsavoury views, or will ultimately get their comeuppance as a result of them.
Robert Ross, an author and comedy historian, says: 'No producer, no actor, no writer of that generation of comedy set out to be malicious or offend on purpose. It was all for good, clean fun.'
Ofcom says it is not a censor and takes context into account when considering complaints.
Cronin-Stanley insists that after almost a decade of broadcasting, her channel has found a 'happy medium' to stay within the regulator's rules, though she says any move to edit programmes sparks an angry response from viewers.
Free speech fears
Others are less sanguine. Moore argues that Ofcom's approach means classic programming is at risk of being cut beyond all recognition as broadcasters self-censor, warning that this could ultimately lead to extinction.
'The last thing we want is a whopping great big fine coming in the post because we've let something slip,' he says. 'So we're very aware and very nervous about that and we probably do go a bit further than we should, maybe, because of that fear.'
Critics point to similar examples in the publishing industry where the works of children's authors such as Enid Blyton and Roald Dahl were revised to avoid causing offence. Blyton's Famous Five books were subsequently reverted to their original language after the edits flopped.
Campaigners are now calling on Ofcom to grant an exemption for classic comedies, much in the same way that vintage cars become exempt from MOTs and road tax once they turn 40 years old.
Such a move would free old-school programmes from language restrictions on the proviso that viewers were given adequate prior warning about the content.
Ross argues it is vital to keep broadcasting these films and programmes to preserve a window into a Britain long gone, and that a trigger warning is a small price to pay.
'If that's what's needed to actually let this stuff out of the vaults, then that's good,' he says.
The debate over free speech comes as Ofcom is already facing criticism from Donald Trump's administration over its crackdown on online harms.
US officials are believed to have raised concerns that the new laws, which are designed to protect children from harmful material circulating on social media, target American companies and impinge on free speech.
It comes amid a broader campaign by Trump's administration, which cites free speech in its efforts to overturn what it describes as censorship on social media platforms.
In a speech in Munich in January, JD Vance, the vice president, launched a ferocious attack on Europe, accusing the bloc of abandoning 'some of its most fundamental values' and claiming free speech was 'in retreat'.
He said: 'What no democracy, American, German or European will survive, is telling millions of voters that their thoughts and concerns, their aspirations, their pleas for relief, are invalid or unworthy of even being considered.'
An Ofcom spokesman said: 'Ofcom is not a censor. Freedom of expression is at the heart of our broadcasting rules which do not prevent the broadcast of content that may be offensive or controversial to some audiences.
'There is editorial freedom for each broadcaster to decide how it covers any issue, topic or programme type.
'In our research, audiences recognise offensive language can play an important role on TV and radio. But viewers and listeners still want broadcasters to take care with potentially offensive terms, particularly so children are protected, and especially when discriminatory language is used.
'Our rules and research help broadcasters to strike the right balance.
'We've explored people's views on the acceptability of outdated or discriminatory content being broadcast in older programmes. Our research reflects that viewers welcome being warned about this kind of content at the start of programmes whilst still being given the opportunity to watch and enjoy older material.'
Beneath the discussions about censorship and the nanny state, however, is a desire among these channels to preserve a piece of the past.
'It's not a nice thing to be responsible for when effectively you are butchering shows,' says Moore.
'We're not just here for a quick buck, we actually deeply care about the programming and we want to preserve what is, at the end of the day, history and historical artefacts – that's how we view them.'