Erasing "wrong-uns" from history

[Western Lord]

I suppose crime is a contemporary thing. You cannot judge figures from history for committing crimes under today's law that were not crimes in those historic times.

However, there are figures in history who committed acts which are crimes by today's law and therefore would result in the censorship we are discussing for today's criminals.

See Shakespeare's plays (for example)

Anybody who worked in an office with men and women in the 60's and 70's would have seen behaviour which would probably have the perpetrator arrested today.

 

[birchesgreen]

Why would you stop the person getting royalties? If the royalties have been legitimately earned through some activity that is legal and has nothing to do with the crime, then I don't see any ethical grounds to deny the person those earnings. Or are we saying that once you've been committed of a crime, you shouldn't in the future be allowed to earn a living?

(Of course if it's income that directly results from the crime, then it's a different matter)

Its a sop to people who don't want the media to be available at all.

 

[nw1]

I would suggest that not having these people in push-based systems is probably a sensible compromise. Don't show a rerun of Top of the Pops with Jimmy Saville on late-night TV, for example; but still have it in the Archive if people want to go and find it to, say, see the first time they saw their favourite band perform.

With TOTP they could potentially edit out the bits with Savile and still show the performances and the chart rundown.

 

[Ashley Hill]

With TOTP they could potentially edit out the bits with Savile and still show the performances and the chart rundown.

I’ve often noticed that some of the TOTP repeats on BBC4 are advertised as “edited”. Sometimes a band advertised to appear in the TV guide doesn’t appear on the programme. I can understand it with Glitter as it’s only a short edit but episodes featuring Saville or DLT are never shown as the edited shows always feature other presenters.

 

[birchesgreen]

The problem with TOTPs especially back then is the presenter was pretty prominent throughout the show.

 

[Ashley Hill]

I take it that old episodes of Have I Got News For You featuring Angus Deayton will never be repeated. Presumably they still exist.

 

[ainsworth74]

I think it's dubious to be editing people out of media. I would suggest the compromise is to avoid pushing them (as someone pointed out, don't replay episodes of Top of the Pops that are fronted by Jimmy Saville) but to make them available in the relevant archive but with a simple warning along the lines of "This programme contains work by X, it was eventually shown that X had committed Y offence. As an organisation we deplore their actions but their work was an integral part, at that time, of this programme so is made available in its original form here today." Basically similar to the kind of racism/prejudice warning that goes up in front of some old episodes of Looney Toons. It's then up to the individual if they want to proceed and watch the programme depending on their own views and feelings.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Many will no doubt be aware now of the downfall of Huw Edwards over the last week. I'm not planning to discuss the specific behaviour he got up to, but with news that the BBC are now removing him from their archives, wanted to ask the question about how much of history involving someone, who later turns out to have been up to no good, should be removed?

Off the top of my head, I would say the only circumstances in which I can see grounds for removing history/footage of people who it turns out have been up to no good is if that footage turns out to contain lies or propaganda related to whatever that person has been doing, or in some way glorifies that person in a way that is obviously inappropriate/unfair in the light of whatever they'd been doing. Even then, I'd err towards keeping that footage available but with a warning to viewers, as so many other people here have suggested.

In the particular case of Huw Edwards, as far as I can make out, his broadcasting activities had nothing to do with his crimes/bad behaviour: They were two separate parts of his life, and there's therefore no justification for removing the material from the BBC archives.

 

[Ashley Hill]

I think it's dubious to be editing people out of media. I would suggest the compromise is to avoid pushing them (as someone pointed out, don't replay episodes of Top of the Pops that are fronted by Jimmy Saville) but to make them available in the relevant archive but with a simple warning along the lines of "This programme contains work by X, it was eventually shown that X had committed Y offence. As an organisation we deplore their actions but their work was an integral part, at that time, of this programme so is made available in its original form here today." Basically similar to the kind of racism/prejudice warning that goes up in front of some old episodes of Looney Toons. It's then up to the individual if they want to proceed and watch the programme depending on their own views and feelings.

Exactly this.

 

[dangie]

I know they probably won’t be played on radio or video’s shown on television, but have songs by Gary Glitter been removed from the pop charts?

 

[Ashley Hill]

I know they probably won’t be played on radio or video’s shown on television, but have songs by Gary Glitter been removed from the pop charts?

I’m not sure how cover versions fare either. The original Human League covered his song Rock & Roll on their Holiday 80 ep and appeared on TOTP in 1980. I’ve only seen that episode repeated once many years ago but their appearance is on YouTube.

 

[dangie]

I know they probably won’t be played on radio or video’s shown on television, but have songs by Gary Glitter been removed from the pop charts?

Addition: Or Rolf Harris?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I know they probably won’t be played on radio or video’s shown on television, but have songs by Gary Glitter been removed from the pop charts?

No, the songs are listed in the charts. See for example, https://www.officialcharts.com/artist/14601/gary-glitter/. Since the charts back in those days were basically lists of which records were estimated as having sold the most each week, it seems a bit implausible that songs could be removed from those logs. But as you say, probably not gonna find the recordings being shown by the BBC any more.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

But as you say, probably not gonna find the recordings being shown by the BBC any more.

Channel 5 have made programmes showcasing the biggest hits of the 1970s. They try to jump rapidly to the next one when the countdown features Rolf Harris (Two Liitle Boys) or Gary Glitter.

 

[brad465]

Channel 5 have made programmes showcasing the biggest hits of the 1970s. They try to jump rapidly to the next one when the countdown features Rolf Harris (Two Liitle Boys) or Gary Glitter.

There was a programme I recall several years ago that counted down top Christmas hits of all time by number of records sold. One of Glitter's appeared in it and the narrator just explained the fact of the chart position without talking about the song at all, in what was easily the quickest hit run through of all the hits covered.

 

[Busaholic]

There was a programme I recall several years ago that counted down top Christmas hits of all time by number of records sold. One of Glitter's appeared in it and the narrator just explained the fact of the chart position without talking about the song at all, in what was easily the quickest hit run through of all the hits covered.

Once you start going down this road there's no end in sight. You really will get the modern equivalent of 1984's factory churning out amended newspapers with long-past dates on, eliminating any inconvenient news or person to 'prove' the prevailing viewpoint was followed even then. So now your internet search shows a 'past' article that was in fact just cobbled together today.

The subject also reminds me of Margaret Thatcher's attempts to deny Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness of the IRA 'the oxygen of publicity' by banning their voices being broadcast on the BBC! It was a widely derided idea that probably achieved nothing.

 

[JamesT]

In the particular case of Huw Edwards, as far as I can make out, his broadcasting activities had nothing to do with his crimes/bad behaviour: They were two separate parts of his life, and there's therefore no justification for removing the material from the BBC archives.

I thought there had been allegations of bad behaviour towards colleagues, though not the same degree of severity. Though I can’t immediately find an article to substantiate that.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

There used to be a railway society called NCTS - Northern Counties Transport Society. They have their own website which gives the history. Unfortunately, a very key member ( president etc) was a wrong un . However, you can’t tell the history without mentioning him. It really is a difficult situation To remove people like that.

 

[Purple Train]

What worries me most of all - if the BBC do go down the road of all-but-literally airbrushing him out of history, on which I concur with those who have suggested just putting in a warning - is the potential that this would simply result in erasing their institutional memory such that repeat incidents could occur.

Let there at least be something learned from this episode, rather than pretending it never happened.

 

[gg1]

I take it that old episodes of Have I Got News For You featuring Angus Deayton will never be repeated. Presumably they still exist.

Angus Deayton's activities were very minor in comparison to the other people mentioned in this thread, nothing that didn't involve consenting adults.

I think HIGNFY episodes only tend to be repeated for a few years after the initial air date anyway, it's been a very long time since I last saw one dating back to the Blair/Brown years.

 

[Merle Haggard]

There was a story - possibly not fact based - that the historic copies of Izvestia kept in libraries were updated every time an important figure fell out pf favour (or maybe an upstairs window ) and the photos showing them were re-touched removing them. Allegedly result was puzzling pictures of important meetings of the rulers that had only a few figures, well spaced out in a large room; or even just a completely empty one.

It was the case that ships and railway engines were only named after people who were then dead, to avoid the problem of the O.P. . I recollect that the M.D. one of our important customers , not a universally popular figure, suggested that a 47 might bear his name, and my boss was happy to point out the first stage in this process...

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Let there at least be something learned from this episode, rather than pretending it never happened.

On the lines of --- those that don't learn the lessons of history, are doomed to repat them?

 

[Trackman]

Angus Deayton's activities were very minor in comparison to the other people mentioned in this thread, nothing that didn't involve consenting adults.

I think HIGNFY episodes only tend to be repeated for a few years after the initial air date anyway, it's been a very long time since I last saw one dating back to the Blair/Brown years.

Angus Deayton was the partner of the excellent screenwriter Lise Mayer, (I suppose most famous for the Young Ones/Fast Show) for about 25 years, but they didnt split up when it all kicked off.

 

[GordonT]

Angus Deayton's activities were very minor in comparison to the other people mentioned in this thread, nothing that didn't involve consenting adults.

I think HIGNFY episodes only tend to be repeated for a few years after the initial air date anyway, it's been a very long time since I last saw one dating back to the Blair/Brown years.

I think the programme would be quite happy to have him back but he has said he would decline if invited back. I'd be surprised if any embargo on reshowing old episodes was anything to do with Deayton's exploits. More to do with the absence of topicality I would have thought.

 

[Strathclyder]

I think the programme would be quite happy to have him back but he has said he would decline if invited back. I'd be surprised if any embargo on reshowing old episodes was anything to do with Deayton's exploits. More to do with the absence of topicality I would have thought.

If any HIGNFY episodes were/are barred from being re-broadcast, it would be the ones featuring Savile, Clifford & Rolf Harris.

 

[rapmastaj]

I think it's dubious to be editing people out of media. I would suggest the compromise is to avoid pushing them (as someone pointed out, don't replay episodes of Top of the Pops that are fronted by Jimmy Saville) but to make them available in the relevant archive but with a simple warning along the lines of "This programme contains work by X, it was eventually shown that X had committed Y offence. As an organisation we deplore their actions but their work was an integral part, at that time, of this programme so is made available in its original form here today." Basically similar to the kind of racism/prejudice warning that goes up in front of some old episodes of Looney Toons. It's then up to the individual if they want to proceed and watch the programme depending on their own views and feelings.

I agree. It's better to acknowledge the issue without trying to rewrite history, than to airbrush the archives so we never have to feel uncomfortable.

In a similar vein, putting Colston's graffitied statue in the M Shed museum in Bristol, lying on its side as part of an exhibition that discusses slavery and the statue's toppling, is a far better solution than just removing the statue.

 

[zero]

Why would you stop the person getting royalties? If the royalties have been legitimately earned through some activity that is legal and has nothing to do with the crime, then I don't see any ethical grounds to deny the person those earnings. Or are we saying that once you've been committed of a crime, you shouldn't in the future be allowed to earn a living?

(Of course if it's income that directly results from the crime, then it's a different matter)

It could be argued that had their crimes been known at the time, they would have been sacked, so would have not had the opportunity to make (some of) the royalty-earning programmes.

I think clips with the offending presenters should not be broadcast for now, but perhaps 30 or so years after the death of the presenter, they can be broadcast as originally aired with an explanation of the crimes.

 

[gg1]

If any HIGNFY episodes were/are barred from being re-broadcast, it would be the ones featuring Savile, Clifford & Rolf Harris.

I've seen clips of the Savile episode on YouTube, there are a few very creepy moments there where he actually alludes to his crimes in a way that makes it seem like a throwaway joke.

 

[SargeNpton]

Strange how some people's records never get played, and their radio/TV appearances never get reshown: Gary Glitter, Jimmy Saville, Rolf Harris, Stuart Hall, Jonathan King, Philip Schofield, and so on...

...but for some who have been determined to have carried out similar acts those acts get ignored. You still hear Michael Jackson songs being played despite the numerous allegations that he abused under-age boys.

 

[birchesgreen]

Strange how some people's records never get played, and their radio/TV appearances never get reshown: Gary Glitter, Jimmy Saville, Rolf Harris, Stuart Hall, Jonathan King, Philip Schofield, and so on...

...but for some who have been determined to have carried out similar acts those acts get ignored. You still hear Michael Jackson songs being played despite the numerous allegations that he abused under-age boys.

Well some acts are cooler than others and get away with stuff others were destroyed for.

Bill Wyman *cough*