Skip to content

Jeebus people, get a grip

The BBC has put episodes of the comedy The Thick of It featuring convicted sex offender Chris Langham back on its iPlayer digital catch-up service.

The decision comes at a time when the corporation is under close scrutiny following its handling of the Huw Edwards affair, after the high-profile presenter was identified as being at the centre of an alleged sex scandal.

Armando Iannucci, the writer and creator of The Thick of It, announced on social media the BBC’s move to make the show available, tweeting: “Oh, by the way, every episode of The Thick Of It now back up on BBC iPlayer.”

All four seasons of the Whitehall satire – which originally aired between 2005 and 2012 on BBC Four and BBC Two – were re-added to the streaming service on June 20, two years after being taken off the platform in April 2021.

Victims groups have questioned whether it is appropriate for the two series of The Thick of It featuring Langham to be promoted and made available for viewers.

He had piccies. Bad piccies, illegal piccies. But to claim that someone will be traumatised by seeing someone who had bad piccies is ludicrous.

17 thoughts on “Jeebus people, get a grip”

  1. Can’t they use “AI” to pixellate him out and replace his voice, perhaps with the Swedish Chef’s from the Muppets.

  2. I’ve recently watched some old Top of the Pops shows from the 1960s and 1970s on YouTube and they had lots of unmentionables on there. Jimmy Savile, Jonathan King and the Glitter Band, who are presumably guilty by association. I haven’t noticed feeling traumatised in any way.

  3. Perhaps if NAPAC (National Association for People Abused in Childhood in case you’re wondering) would just shut up about this stuff, people wouldn’t even notice it.

  4. “But to claim that someone will be traumatised … is ludicrous.”

    When did “traumatised” come to mean ‘a bit miffed’, ‘somewhat upset’, …?

    P.S. Use of appropriate/inappropriate should be classed as deserving a jail sentence. Stalinist weasel words.

  5. “the Huw Edwards affair, after the high-profile presenter was identified as being at the centre of an alleged sex scandal.”

    An alleged sex scandal? Ignore the potential illegality for now, whats left is absolutely a sex scandal. Middle aged married with kids senior BBC newsreader pays young men for sexy photos? Pretty much the definition of a sex scandal I’d say.

  6. Please Jim. Sweet Huw is the victim in this. Don’t you read the opinions section of the papers?

  7. “I used to be traumatised by watching Jonathan King long before he was sent down for noncery.”

    Credit where it’s due though, he wrote the melody of a famous Wurzels song about cider.

  8. No Jim.. Alledged sex scandal.

    Not because of “Poor Hew”.
    It’s simply because there’s nothing scandalous about it when it’s basically par for the course for the BBC isn’t it?
    If our Moral Superiors that Bring Us The News ( and the Correct Way to Feel/Think about Things.. ) do something, anything, it’s at best Eccenttric, possibly Innovative, maybe controversial ( but you can’t expect the hoi-polloi to understand their Great Thoughts and Plans..).

    But never scandalous..

    And let’s be fair.. the “Married, with Kids” thing isn’t even special. That’s far more common than people realise, or want to admit.
    Almost.. Thradithional.. in fact.
    I, and my brothers, and in fact… a hella lot of people I know from my generation would not have been around if it wasn’t for that particular bit of social camouflage. Period.

    Middle-aged successful celebrity plays around with young thots ( any gender)… Dime a dozen.
    Hell.. you have to be careful of Youthful Sharks even if you’re not a successful celebrity, and simply middle-aged, fit, and to their mind affluent enough..
    Not quite an industry in and of itself, but the Sugar-Daddy scene is a Thing.. A quite common Thing..
    Potentially stupid on several levels, but hardly scandalous.

    Not my cup of tea, but only “scandalous” to the Screaming Harpies and curtaintwitching pantytwisters, and the commercial mob that feeds their appetite for offended rage.

  9. I don’t object to Langham being on the Telly, because I don’t watch it.

    About the only sensible objection that might be made is in doing so he’ll be due residuals and other payments (wasn’t he also a writer?), which wouldn’t be due if it wasn’t shown.

    Bit tough on the rest of the cast, but still.

  10. JG: That’s the thing. If you memory-hole everything that would pay Langham residuals, you also punish every other cast member who would also receive residuals.

  11. The possessing or looking at pictures thing is just silly. I understand it still applies to pictures created artificially rather than just photos, which have an identifiable victim. Paintings. CGI. Hentai. Things created with no actual direct harm to anybody. And then there will be AI-generated picture. ‘Make me a mucky picture of an eighteen-year old. Fine. Make it look like someone seventeen and a half? Criminal. Make it and show me it on the screen but don’t save it. Possession or not? This is the result of ‘something must be done’. Nonsensical.

    This is NOT so to that thenonces are not disgusting. But in the absence of an identifiable victim the punishment should be public shaming, and ‘No actual evidence of law-breaking’ isn’t a reason to withhold if there is evidence of noncey behaviour.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *