Skip to main content

Get real, Mumsnet

I gather that that mighty political force in the land, the Mumsnet website, has been moaning about a storyline in BBC 1's flagship soap opera Eastenders. I'm afraid I don't watch this programme (life is miserable enough without having misery for entertainment, Coronation Street please note), but it appears that around Christmas, Eastenders featured a storyline involving a cot death and the grieving mother swapping her baby for another.

The BBC had several thousand complaints, apparently in some large part due to a campaign by Mumsnet, and as a result has curtailed the storyline. It seems this storyline was disliked by the site because of the combination of a distressing theme which would impact on some of their readers and the unlikeliness of the substitution story.

This really isn't good enough - either that anyone should think this argument worth listening to or that the BBC should actually respond to it. It is a fact of life that we all go through unpleasant experiences, and when we do it seems the TV is full of dramas related to it. When I have been bereaved, suddenly everything I saw on TV seemed to be about loved ones dying. Of course it is distressing - but we can hardly say there should never be any dramas about anything nasty happening to people because someone will be going through it at the time and will be upset. That's ludicrous.

As for the juxtaposition of unlikeliness argument this is just bizarre. Why aren't these people complaining about Midsomer Murders? After all, having a loved one murdered is at least as distressing as a cot death, and no one could argue that the Midsomer Murders set up or storylines are likely. The whole genre of murder mysteries would have to be banned, as well as any serious drama, if these emotion police had their way.

For goodness sake, Mumsnet people, understand the difference between fiction and real life. And as for you, BBC, don't be such a wimp. Next time, don't roll over and give in at the first moan. In an internet world where a site can generated hundreds or thousands of email complaints in no time there is no need to take such complaints as anything more than an indication that you are doing your job right. This is just the modern version of Mary Whitehouse moaning that Dr Who is too scary. You didn't give in to that, and you shouldn't give in to this.


  1. Mumsnet's big complaint wasn't that they were confusing fiction and real life, but that others can and do. Remember the campaign to free Deirdre Rachid? Many people will take this to be the normal and expected reaction of a bereaved mother, vilifying a group of people already pushed to one side because their experience makes others uncomfortable.

  2. Does that fact that some sad deluded people can't tell the difference between fiction and real life mean we should censor fiction with anything that could possibly be confused? Again, practically any fictional storyline bends the truth one way or another. It sounds what Mumsnet should be campaigning for is better education so people can tell the difference between fiction and real life.

  3. There are 'off' or 'change channel' buttons on most remotes which can be used should anyone not be entertained by any station at any time.
    Drama is the same as humour, not everyone gets the same thing.
    Vive la différence, its what makes us interesting!

  4. I find this really worrying. Most writers have internal censors and accept that we have to think very carefully about the possible consequences of what we write. But making this subject off limits on those grounds cannot be justified IMO.

    I'm always applauding the power of the net as a force for good and for mobilising support for vital issues, but I'm afraid Mumsnet seem to have got this one wrong - and BBC even more so by caving in.

  5. I didn't see the episodes, but I would be very surprised in any case if Eastenders was vilifying the mother - soaps are very good at showing the points of view and psychology of people in trouble. While snatching babies is clearly not the usual result of experiencing cot death, isn't it true that mums who do snatch babies very often do have some similar psychological trouble or trauma in their past fuelling their action? Do Mumsnet think we should simply vilify, rather than understand THEM?

  6. Sorry, I should have said 'women who snatch babies', not 'mums', because often they are trying to fulfil an unfulfilled need and have miscarried or can't have children. In any case, though, they are usually suffering some kind of tragedy.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope