I watched a program about her last night and maybe I'm getting old but in some respects she was ahead of her time. Her big statement that she kept repeating was;

Libertarians are the new tyrants.

Given the way the woke persecute anyone who disagrees with them, maybe she had a point.

She was a victim…..all a bit sad really.

Nice bit of historical revisionism there but Mary Whitehouse was a smut obsessed crank. She couldn't come to terms with the 'permissive' 60s and 70s and blamed the BBC for "the propaganda of disbelief, doubt and dirt that the BBC projects into millions of homes through television screens."

She was trying to impose cancel culture on society 50 years before the current crop of unlovely zealots - just coming at it from a different political perspective.

Which Mary Whitehouse are we talking about here….? The school teacher or someone who had opinions some people couldn’t allow to be expressed. Most things revised historically have little real connection to what we thought they were. Trouble was, rather than debate with her, she was mocked and held up as a reactionary figure, especially by the BBC.
She was a problem they created.

It was an interesting watch, I came away with the view that she was trying to hang on to a world of the past. Some of the programmes that she was outraged by wouldn’t even raise an eyebrow now, “I, Claudius” for one.

Another favourite target of Mrs Whitehouse was “Till Death Us Do Part”, not particularly for Alf Garnett being a racist or anything but for Johnny Speights use of such profanities as “bloody”, “silly moo”, “Scouse Git”, etc. The first programme to use “bloody” apparently, outrageous eh?

I see where you’re coming from, but to them in the space of ten years the BBC went from Mr Cholmondley Warner in Dinner Jacket reading the news to a complete contrast….. it’s change, you get a kick back, but at least her organisation never had a militant wing.
Her Dame Edna glasses were the closest they had to lethal weapons, just a brief footnote in history, no one got hurt.

Oh, I got very confused between Mary Whitehouse and Mary Millington there ...

Made the thread very bizarre

now we really are talking exploited.

She was just another for me who never realised their was an off button or another channel you could turn to on your telly. there are many programmes that i cannot wait to turn off that usually have the word celebrity or reality associated with them, but who am i or anyone else for that matter have the right to deprive others of watching them.

She freely admitted that she refused to watch half the things she wanted banned - it was enough for her to hear what they might be about. She was a self-appointed guardian of the nation's morals. Lifelong fan of Jimmy Savile though - she had no problem with the BBC employing him!

To be fair, EVERYONE was a ‘fan’ before he was uncovered….and the BBC seemed happy to tolerate him funnily enough ……… even though……..?

got to a point that saying you didn,t like savile made you some sort of crank. if he wasn,t your cup of tea you just kept quiet about it. cilla black was another you dare speak no ill of at the time.

People who weren’t around then can’t understand how he got away with but he did, they say you can’t fool all of the people all of the time, but he got damn close to it.
Funny how no one was keen to investigate at the time.

people forget how very clever the man was. friend of politicians as well as the police so its hardly surprising his actions were kept under wraps. hardly the time when social media was as rife as it is today and he was bound to find others with the same interests as him in top places who were very keen to protect him. he was hardly going to be thrown under the bus if people wanted to keep their own little secrets to themselves. the only way anything will come out is when they all eventually die as i,m sure if he was still alive now we would not be talking about him.

I suspect nowadays social media would expose him. Look how kept in the dark we were about football before social media… a letter to the Footy Mail once a week published and nothing to frighten the horses.

just a thought about that. why are things believed when they come up on social media but if they were mentioned in a pub no one believed a word that was spoken.

Hmmmm it’s like people see it on the news so it must be true. Must it?

especially the BBC for some unknown reason.