A Guide to UK Profanity

[tinturtle]

Attitudes to potentially offensive language and gestures on TV and radio: Quick reference guide

Tonight I found this publication from Ofcom, the government entity in charge of communications in the UK. It provides ratings of the relative offensiveness of bad words used in the UK, as well as other information. The publication was put out in 2016, so the content is not a perfect match to the Pros era. (The attitudes toward what the guide calls discriminatory language have no doubt changed the most.) Nevertheless, I think I will find it helpful. Profanity and insults are the things that I find hardest to parse in British media. ("What does this mean literally? How offensive is it? In what context would you use it?")

ETA: The full report can be found here. It has lots of additional details, and also tables sorting the words by offensiveness.

Comments

[unbelievable2.livejournal.com]

Thanks for digging this up. I found it both interesting, as a current record of language and censorship attitudes, and also more than mildly hilarious. The moral of it seems to be that you will always offend someone somewhere.

More specifically, I think if one were thinking of using this as a reference for Pros fic, for instance, it's not terribly helpful as it's wildly out of period. There are an awful of of US-derived words there which were not in common parlance in the UK in the 70s.
One other thing to factor in is that we are dealing with a drama that was produced at a time when language, which today is seen as unacceptable, was commonplace. That is something to be grateful for, at least! But it does mean that you can't divorce the language from the period (IMHO). It's why Britpicking is so essential for Pros fic.

Having said that, I think Pros, working within the censorship constraints of the time, reflects really well actual speech in the period, with regular use of pretty low-grade words like slag, cow, tart, git, tosser, nutter, sod, bugger and bloody (despite the quite extreme origins of some of them).
Like the poor, these words are always with us.
It crashes spectacularly in "In the public Interest", with what always seems to me to be an unease with relevant terms, and let's not mention Klansmen...

However from dramatic point of view, I always feel that restraint in language generally means that when a stronger word is used it has more impact. The general prevalence of "strong words" in drama nowadays means we lose that effect, IMHO. So when in DIAG Bodie rasps at the dying Doyle "For Chrissake, Ray! Who was it?" it's like a punch to the gut.

[tinturtle]

More specifically, I think if one were thinking of using this as a reference for Pros fic, for instance, it's not terribly helpful as it's wildly out of period.

I would mostly try to use it as a reference when reading Pros fic, hoping that the relative strength of curses, at least, is similar now to what it was then. That is one of the things I am often confused about, as I said.

It's why Britpicking is so essential for Pros fic.

Not just Britpicking, but era-editing, no? I read Man from U.N.C.L.E. fic, and if asked, I could weed out Britishisms*, but I couldn't do much to make the dialog match the way people actually talked in the 60s. Sometimes I worry about the fact that someday there will be no one left in the fandom who can do that. On the other hand, I suppose that at that point, there will be no one left who will notice, either. :(

(*Is the inverse of Britpicking actually practiced? I read an awful lot of MFU stories, even polished ones from careful authors, that definitely haven't had that kind of attention. Some of them have "flat"- and "lift"-level departures, which suggests that their authors simply aren't interested in Americanizing their language even to the extent that they can themselves.)

I think Pros, working within the censorship constraints of the time, reflects really well actual speech in the period, with regular use of pretty low-grade words like slag, cow, tart, git, tosser, nutter, sod, bugger and bloody (despite the quite extreme origins of some of them).

Yes, your curse words are weird that way.

It crashes spectacularly in "In the public Interest", with what always seems to me to be an unease with relevant terms

In the Public Interest is coy about that part of its premise. For instance, although tolerance of gay people is one of its messages, there are no actual gay characters in it (unless we assume that Pellin was meant to be lying). People have suggested that was a matter of making it acceptable to the censors, so possibly the language was as well.

[tinturtle]

I wonder if anything similar to this is available that was produced in the 70s. There must have been some kind of document created laying out the standards that would be applied, even if there were no surveys conducted.

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

Of course other rules or not, the Pros scripts have this on their covers:
(https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/byslantedlight/8284114/4165935/4165935_original.jpg)
The lads and others didn't always stick to it... *vbg* I'm sure I read something about this in either Bob Rocca's book or the Network dvd books (possibly both). And I definitely remember an lj discussion about whether or not the lads just mouthed curses on some occasions - you can almost hear Doyle swearing when the two lads confront him from the phonebox in Acorn Syndrome, and Bodie when he can't remember Pippa's number at the end of Blind Run. *g*

I found this introduction to a 2001 research document — not specifically addressing language, but interesting:
"The concept of a ‘Family Viewing Policy’ is shared by all British broadcasters
and broadcast regulators. It goes back to the 1970s, but has its origins well
before that, arguably in Television and the Child, the report of research
conducted by Professor Hilde Himmelweit of the London School of Economics,
with funding from the Nuffield Foundation, published in 1958. Following much
public discussion, Himmelweit looked at the influence of television on children.
The research drew on observations by parents and teachers, but principally on a
study of more than 4,000 children. The report accepted that after 9pm very few
children remained in the television audience, but said that before that time
parents alone could not be responsible for children’s viewing. It suggested ways
in which television producers could take action to share this responsibility,
including programme balance (avoiding, for instance, a concentration of crime
programmes before 9pm); looking carefully at the presentation of violence; and
undertaking further research.
But, fully formulated and in the public domain, the Family Viewing Policy,
including the nine o’clock watershed, designed to help parents to protect their
children from material that might harm or distress them, dates from the 1970s.
Family Viewing Policy as currently applied is a ‘contract’ between, on the one
hand, the broadcasters and the regulators, and, on the other hand, viewers, that:
* What is shown on television up to 9pm in the evening will be broadly
suitable for children under the age of 16 to see without the need for parental
supervision.
* After 9pm, material unsuitable for children will be shown only progressively,
with the more unsuitable programming shown at progressively later hours.
* Nine o’clock is the ‘watershed’, but it does not mark a ‘waterfall’ ie after
9pm programmes may progressively contain material unsuitable for children,
but there is not a sudden switch to wholly unsuitable material.
In the 1970s, the great majority of homes had a single television set, only a
minority of which could receive colour, and so the family viewing experience was
a comparatively simple affair. A Family Viewing Policy made immediate sense.
With the arrival of multichannel commercial television delivered by satellite or
cable in the 1980s and 1990s came dedicated film channels. For those channels
the nine o’clock watershed was, in time, replaced by two watersheds, one at
8pm before which films with a British Board of Film Classification (BBFC)
classification of ‘15’ could not be shown, and a second at 10pm before which
those rated ‘18’ could not begin. Then, with the advent of individual films being
available on a Pay-Per-View (PPV) basis, with access protected by the mandatory
use of a personal identification number (PIN) and with itemised billing for the
films viewed, films with any BBFC classification could start at any time of the
day or night on PPV services. But still, for the overwhelming majority of
viewing, the nine o’clock watershed has remained"

[tinturtle]

Cockney and pronounced accents of any kind (particularly regional) are not acceptable in this series.

I didn't know about that restriction. What's that about? Hard for viewers to understand? Offensive to people with those accents if the portrayals are negative? Corrupting to the speech of young viewers?

The passage about the history of watersheds is interesting. Here, cable and satellite are not regulated, but when looking up confirmation of that, I found that advertisers sometimes influence the scheduling of mature content. I also learned that the fact that the US has several time zones has been an issue in the past; restricted shows broadcast after the watershed on the East Coast sometimes ended up being aired before the watershed farther west.

Another document from the 70s that might exist somewhere is a summary of British profanity for language learners. A friend of mine was given something similar in a university Italian course (in the mid-80s, I think). It had a star rating system for the offensiveness of the terms, plus definitions. (I think it's a big mistake to teach no profanity to language learners. If they use the new language, they will hear curse words, and they are in obvious danger of picking them up and using them inappropriately if they don't know what they mean. On the other hand, I can see why it's hard to approach the topic in secondary school.)

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

I didn't know about that restriction. What's that about?
I think just from way-back-when (i.e., a historical thing), when Received Pronunciation/"the Queen's English" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Received_Pronunciation) was considered a neutral/"the proper" way to speak English. England (never mind Wales, Scotland, NI, etc.) comprises hundreds of regional accents, but when radio and then tv were growing there was an idea that "RP"/"the Queen's English" was the "correct" way to speak. It was only around the 1970s that it became more acceptable for people on tv/radio to speak in more natural regional accents/dialects, and even so it took a long time for the idea of "proper English" to die out. Lots of people still believe in it, and I think alot of countries still think there's a single "English" accent — which there isn't. But for a long time it was considered "vulgar" to speak with any accent/dialect than RP, and people would try to "fix" their accent to speak "properly" when they went to job interviews and so on. In the mid-1980s my mum was horrified when I came back from Manchester pronouncing it "oom-brella" rather than "uhm-brella", because I wasn't speaking "properly".

Of course in real life people mostly carried on with their own English accents and dialects, because if everyone else around you spoke like that, then what was the problem? *g*

Oh, here — have some of my favourite English accents, from Auf Wiehdersehn, Pet made from 1983 onwards, so just after Pros...

I watched this by accident late at night when I was finishing my homework in Australia — the first few times I thought it was a foreign tv show, but eventually I realised they were actually speaking English in different dialects. *vbg* Around 30 minutes in you get a variety of English accents... *vbg*

[unbelievable2.livejournal.com]

Yes I think you are absolutely right about RP — and this would have been a Clemens view as well as that of the production company, I expect. Old Skool.
I can't recall whether this was the case, but the standardisation of accents may have been something to do with sales to other countries? The example of Cowley calling crisps "potato chips" in First Night has always implied to me that they were looking for a US export market.

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

the standardisation of accents may have been something to do with sales to other countries
Yes, it's definitely been mentioned in interviews etc. that they originally hoped to export to the US, so that probably did contribute...

[tinturtle]

We have an analog of this, too, of course. It's only been in the past 15 years or so that it's become acceptable for news reporters to have regional or ethnic accents. It still startles me a bit when I hear them on the radio.

Also, unbelievable2 may be right that part of the purpose was to make the show suitable for export. I once watched an independent film set in Birmingham. I could understand maybe 40% of the dialog.

[tinturtle]

I don't think regional or ethnic accents were ever forbidden in TV fiction in the US, though. They were just used to indicate that a character was stupid (or sometimes malevolent).

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

I don't think they were technically "forbidden" over here either, just that people were discouraged from having them - and yes, the same in the US too, I have read about that. Accents were also used in the same way over here, to indicate someone "lower class" — i.e. stupid or malevolent...

There was definitely a hope that Pros would export more to the US, that's been noted in various interviews with Clements and the other makers. The whole "potato chips" thing strikes me as odd though - the idea that Americans couldn't work out what "crisps" were when they're shown a child with a bag of them, never mind that it's somewhat alienating to the UK audience. But then there's been debate over the use of "pants" too, because that is used to mean trousers in some parts of the UK, and in fact that plays back into the regional/accent thing — the idea that people in London would only ever hear/use London words, even when they're not originally from London, which none of our three are! So maybe Cowley had a specific reason for using "potato chips" to do with his own background (okay, I doubt it, but not impossible! *g*)

Did you try watching the vid that I embedded? The three main characters are all from Newcastle (NE England), but later there's Barry (Birmingham), Wayne (London cockney), Bomber (Devon)... all very different, and none of them using RP!!

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

(*Is the inverse of Britpicking actually practiced? I read an awful lot of MFU stories, even polished ones from careful authors, that definitely haven't had that kind of attention. Some of them have "flat"- and "lift"-level departures, which suggests that their authors simply aren't interested in Americanizing their language even to the extent that they can themselves.)
I've definitely seen offers for American-picking - but I presume that, like Brit-picking, authors can't or don't always avail themselves...!

[unbelievable2.livejournal.com]

Oh I'm not suggesting that every writer Brit-picks or American-picks (which, as you say is just as essential). Just that they darn well should, in my book!
But a wrongly chosen word can just ruin a story for me, as it shows me that the writer hasn't properly researched, or immersed themselves in the characters, or the era, or the geographical location. But I know I am probably at the extreme end of this attitude!

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

I'm right with you at that extreme end. As soon as the lads start talking about putting "cream" in their tea or coffee (when it's just ordinary tea and not somewhere that might actually offer cream rather than milk), or worse still "creamer", or putting "gas" in the car, or... Or someone being a "sophomore"... well, you know. *g*

I can forgive older writers more, because they didn't have access to the internet — although even then you'd think if you loved a show enough to write for it, you'd probably have read enough books/paid enough attention to the actual show, to avoid most mistakes — but there's not much excuse nowadays. Obviously if you don't know you're getting it wrong because you don't know there's a difference then things can happen, but not the really obvious things...

[signaturefarms.livejournal.com]

“ (*Is the inverse of Britpicking actually practiced? I read an awful lot of MFU stories, even polished ones from careful authors, that definitely haven't had that kind of attention. Some of them have "flat"- and "lift"-level departures, which suggests that their authors simply aren't interested in Americanizing their language even to the extent that they can themselves.)”

I’ve read a lot of fics about a show set in NYC and a surprising amount are written by non-Americans. I’ll admit it’s a bit jarring to be reading about the main character and suddenly have him chewing on the end of his biro or asking what’s on the telly. I’m guessing just as jarring for Americanisms to pop up in British shows.

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

Wow, interesting list! Of pretty limited use for Pros though, as there are alot of modern terms, various US-based terms, and the acceptability of some has changed since Pros times!

Fascinating to see from the perspective of today though - I didn't even recognise some terms in the tables (having looked some up or guessed, I don't want to!). Which list is the longest? That for gay people. And how in the world can they say "some see it as not problematic" about some words, and then point out that the people they're offensive to find them offensive?! So it's still considered okay to be offensive to that particular group, according to the people who wrote this... *big frown*

[tinturtle]

there are alot of modern terms, various US-based terms

I suppose that they must have asked about US terms partly to help decide when it was acceptable to schedule imported US programs.

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

I suppose that they must have asked about US terms partly to help decide when it was acceptable to schedule imported US programs.

To be honest, I doubt it — I suspect it was much more organic than that. People here (and the world over) picked up Americanisms from Hollywood films and from American tv series and so on. Lads Bodie and Doyle's age would have gone to the cinema as kids (and after) and picked up slang etc. It happened/happens the other way around too, but I'd imagine less so, because US focus is generally more inward than outward.

Waaaay back when I was a wee kiddie in Australia, in primary school (elementary school *g*) we had parents (usually mums) who would come in to help classes with their reading — so as a kid you'd get to read stories to them. I remember being corrected about the pronunciation of "laboratory" in a book I was reading. I was only five or six, and although I'd read the word, I'd only ever heard it pronounced in Batfink — so I read it "lab-ra-tor-y". Of course Brit-English pronunciation is "lab-o-rat-or-y", and the parent pointed that out to me. I think that was probably the first time I knew there were different kinds of English! *g*

Imported US programmes were tv just like tv from anywhere - no different as regards whether it was okay to show them than programmes from any other country, foreign or domestic.

[tinturtle]

Imported US programmes were tv just like tv from anywhere - no different as regards whether it was okay to show them than programmes from any other country, foreign or domestic.

I didn't mean imported US programs generally. I meant that if you know that your viewers consider certain US terms only to be appropriate post-watershed, then you would know to show US programs containing those terms only post-watershed. I can understand that US curse words might gain currency in countries that import a lot of US media, though. I start saying all sorts of weird things if I've been watching too much British TV. A similar thing happens when I read a lot of old books from the same era.

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

I think terms were considered in general as regards whether they were appropriate post-watershed, it didn't make any difference where they came from. So it wouldn't have been a case of deciding about specific US terms, it would just have been about what a term meant. Obviously there's only so many English-language countries in the world though, and only so many making tv/films, and the biggest of those by a huuuuuuge mile was Hollywood and US tv, so most came from there. *g*

[tinturtle]

The UK has more offensive gestures than US. I'd noticed that before, but I never knew there were quite so many as are mentioned in this guide.

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

In that table I only see two gestures I'd think of as from the UK (wanker and two-fingers) — the others I associate with other countries. But there's only six gestures in the table — are we looking at the same thing?!

[tinturtle]

There is only one obscene gesture I have ever seen used in the United States.

(ETA: Except possibly what the guide calls the Iberian slap, used in media by people from elsewhere partly to emphasize that they are from elsewhere.)

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

Ah, interesting... Okay, so, here's what I'm seeing/interpreting:

Blow job
Not sure what this is! I'm guessing it might be the gesture where someone's holding something to their mouth and making a movement as if something's being rubbed against their cheek from inside their mouth, which I've seen mostly in US-based films/tv shows — so I've always assumed this was American.

Iberian slap.
Presumably Spanish-based.

Middle finger
American, as far as I always knew.

Two fingers
English - often explained as connected to English beating French via archery, where two fingers were used for bowstring, but who knows if that's true...

Two fingers with tongue (cunnilingus)
Not related to the above two fingers, that I've ever known, and I associate this with American tv/gestures.

Wanker
English again.

Like you say, I've seen various of them used in films/tv from other countries, but mostly to emphasise that someone's from elsewhere...