Because it is Irrelevant?

Lesbians and bisexuals have significantly lower representation on television than gay men, who are also under-represented on our screens according to a new report by the BBC.

This is the kind of crap the license fee is being wasted on. When I watch a drama, I am not concerned about what the characters get up to in bed or with whom unless it is relevant to the plot. So a character who is gay, bi or trans would be invisible –  they are a character in a programme acting out their part. That’s it. There is no need to tell us what their sexual preferences are because we don’t need to know unless it is relevant to the plot development. Not least, because, unless it is relevant to the plot development, most of us don’t want to know thank you very much.

In drama, the report called for more story lines where a character’s sexuality is incidental to the plot and not the driving-force behind their actions.

No, thank you. Because I don’t want to know. Unless it is relevant to the plot development.

The report also recommended that the BBC should incorporate LGB characters into its children’s programming to familiarise audiences and “validate children who are going through their formative years and who may be LGB”.

I’m sorry… What!?! Is it just me, or does that send a chill down the spine?

24 comments for “Because it is Irrelevant?

  1. john in cheshire
    December 14, 2012 at 3:30 pm

    No, LR, it’s not just you and yes, it does send a chill down the spine. Why can’t they keep their filth hands off our children?

  2. Tatty
    December 14, 2012 at 3:31 pm

    Only LGB and no T ? What, no trannies allowed ?? What would Tatchell say !

    TPTB are obsessed with “children and sex”….two words that should never be in the same sentence, frankly.

    They’re stretching this out now to “children’s sexuality”. So what next ?” Children having sex” ?

    Given the amount of “teen” dramas where they’re at it like knives it’s not that far-fetched. Slowly slowly catchy monkey.

    In drama, the report called for more story lines where a character’s sexuality is incidental to the plot and not the driving-force behind their actions.

    Lots of comments in the mail asking how anyone would know the sexuality of a character unless they were stereotyped (which would be offensive) or wore a label. Good question.

    • December 14, 2012 at 4:57 pm

      Or introduced themselves as such. Not too far fetched; a colleague of mine was running a training course and one of the delegates did just that. My own thoughts are “too much information” but he seemed to think it okay.

    • Furor Teutonicus
      December 14, 2012 at 6:59 pm

      XX TPTB are obsessed with “children and sex”….two words that should never be in the same sentence, frankly. XX

      And then they stamp their feet and scream until they are sick, when Queer is linked with Peado….woder WHY that could be?

  3. December 14, 2012 at 4:17 pm

    S’obvious. Everyone in telly land to wear a symbol – put it on an armband – then we can check the proportions as req.

    • Tatty
      December 17, 2012 at 4:22 pm

      I wonder what happens if they lie ??

      I mean, just how much proof will an applicant be required to provide at interview ??

      A practical demonstration, perhaps ??


      • December 17, 2012 at 9:44 pm

        Ah, now, I suggested single symbols for narrative purposes i.e. the armbands will reflect the character’s sexual orientation, not necessarily the actor’s.

        But we could go one further than that and have two armbands with different background colours so as to make it easy for the checkers. The narrative armband is not set by the actor – that’s down to the writer or director to dictate what orientation (if any) the character is to portray.

        The actor armband is going to have to be optional initially but ultimately will be compulsory disclosure based on medical records.

        The aim will be to make it impossible to appear on telly if you don’t have both your armbands verified. In the case of non-narrative presenters such as news anchors, there will obviously be only one armband.

        For radio we are going to need separate noises – buzzers, bells, etc to indicate the orientation of both the character and the actor or presenter.

        Expect Carols from Kings to sound like a New York traffic jam.

  4. mona
    December 14, 2012 at 4:44 pm

    How can we rid ourselves of this Marxist organisation, I never had a licence once someone called to enquire about buying such a thing, I told him to f–k off and slammed the door in has face, the problem was that the glass fell out of the door, and through the holes where the glass was, he said, I will get a search warrant, I said you come into my house I will beat you to a F–king pulp, I meant it, but we dont all have a violent disposition, do we?

    • December 14, 2012 at 6:18 pm

      Great stuff, Mona.

      • mona
        December 14, 2012 at 7:17 pm

        Thank you james, however two years later a woman came to my door, she said, I am from BBC licencing do you have a Television?, I said I’m not sure there may be one in my bed would you like to come up and look?, she declined my offer,I cant think why.. I would use the Moran psycho defence.

        • Twenty_Rothmans
          December 15, 2012 at 1:58 pm

          Bwahahaha I wish I had thought of that. 😉

  5. December 14, 2012 at 5:40 pm

    On your link page I noticed this horrifying cr*p –

    “A spokesman for Families Together, a charity serving the families of children with disabilities, said…..’Not all children have mummies and daddies, some people have two mummies. All aspects of diversity- black mother white father, father without a leg. BBC has to get their heads round creative programmes being done in a sensitive way’.”

    Charities have to toe the PC line in order to get public funding. 😈

    • Twenty_Rothmans
      December 16, 2012 at 9:25 am

      “some people have two mummies”

      Howard Carter?

  6. Steve Brown
    December 14, 2012 at 9:53 pm

    … “validate children who are going through their formative years and who may be LGB”.
    Children know nothing about any form of ‘sexuality’ unless it is force-fed to them.
    Young boys consider girls to be yuccky (until the boys get older).
    Girls think that boys are nasty (until the girls grow older).
    It’s nature, it’s natural. Teaching children that women can be carpet-munchers and that men can be burd-turglars is totally wrong. All it can do is cause irreparable confusion.

  7. Twenty_Rothmans
    December 14, 2012 at 10:25 pm

    “Yes son?”
    “You know how you told me where babies come from?”
    “Yes. Do you have any questions?”
    “Well, yes, Our teacher was telling us about gay people today”
    “I see”
    “What does gay mean?”
    “Well, it means that insatead of being attracted to the opposite sex, you are attracted to your own”
    “So do they fall in love?”
    “I guess so”
    “So you said the man and the woman fall in love, get married and have babies. Can gay people have babies?”
    “Not directly, they can get someone to help”
    “But it’s not a real baby, you told me I was a bit of you and a bit of Mum”
    “And can they get married?”
    “Not at the moment.”
    “So they shouldn’t have children”
    “Well they can’t anyway, really”
    “So why do they want to get married?”
    “Dad, you said the man puts his penis into a woman’s vagina”
    “What do gay men do?”
    “Well, they use their anus like a vagina”
    “Where my poo comes out?”
    “It must hurt”
    “At first, I guess”
    “It must stink with all that poo”
    “They seem to like it”
    “But what about two women, Dad, what do they do? They don’t even have a penis”
    “Sit down, son, Dad will just bring something up on redtube for us both to watch”

    • James Strong
      December 15, 2012 at 7:49 am


      Thank you.
      One of the all-time great posts.

    • Tatty
      December 15, 2012 at 1:01 pm

      I lol’d lots 😆

    • December 15, 2012 at 4:28 pm

      That’s the kind of education children need. Well, except for the last bit. 🙂

      From parents, not groups funded by the state with their own agendas.

      • Twenty_Rothmans
        December 15, 2012 at 11:59 pm

        Thank you, I am welling up.

        This is an embellished version of what I asked my own father about homosexuality (no marriage being discussed).

        And bugger, no redtube in those days. No scissoring.

  8. Myke
    December 14, 2012 at 10:40 pm

    Pretty much ties in with children, education, sex.

    OK, grab your tinfoil hats!
    If in some nightmarish future it has become the norm for adults to have sex with children, how could this come about? I think there would be two main parts to this process. One would be the emergence of the nonpracticing paedophile, pushing the idea that it is perfectly natural to have sexual feelings towards children and that it is acceptable as long as no one acts on those feelings.
    The other part would be to get children interested in having sex and then to get them interested in having sex with adults. Now this is basically grooming, which is a problem because it’s illegal. So the grooming would have to be disguised as, say, education in alternative sexuality or something, and carried out by some impersonal institution. Eventually an adult and child couple would appear on This Morning talking about their loving platonic relationship, and then………

    • Tatty
      December 17, 2012 at 4:37 pm

      The other part would be to get children interested in having sex

      Wear your tinfoil hat with pride.

      The only difference between the dirty old man next door displaying his porn collection in public and your child’s PSHE teacher is one is fully government-sanctioned and protected by law from prosecution.

  9. moonrakin
    December 15, 2012 at 12:45 am

    Starve the beast

  10. Derek
    December 15, 2012 at 10:20 am

    Is there no one in this country who can put a stop to all this crap.

    • Tatty
      December 15, 2012 at 1:03 pm


      Unfortunately, we’re outnumbered by breeders.

Comments are closed.