With this headline cropping up today regarding the BBC heavily editing (and removing) episodes of Horrible Histories from iPlayer in light of some of the content being deemed unsuitable, it's reignited something inside me that's been really sad and disappointed for quite a while now that it feels like we're slowly heading down a path of media being erased from existence whenever some loud voices decide they're not happy with it or that it offends them.

Other examples (primarily looking at the BBC alone):

• Huw Edwards being edited out of an episode of Doctor Who (meaning the episode was removed from iPlayer for some time before being added again)

• An episode of Still Game being removed completely from BBC iPlayer after a guest actor in the episode was convicted of sexual assault

• Sketches within episodes of That Mitchell and Webb Look being removed, with the BBC citing they 'don't work'

• Sketches within episodes of Little Britain being removed

• An episode of The Sarah Jane Adventures was withheld and edited before being added to BBC iPlayer due to cultural inaccuracies (despite the fiction of it all)

The BBC in particular seem to be a prime example of a business that are very reactionary, and only really sit up and take notice of things when it might look bad if they do nothing, or simply to appease some people. But where do we draw the line at making edits to TV shows, films, and other forms of media when you're never going to be able to please everybody, or there's always going to be somebody, somewhere that will find something that they don't like?

I say this as a fan of the show too (and being able to appreciate it as something that is very much of its time and could absolutely not be made today), but the fact that Gimme Gimme Gimme is still available in its entirety on BBC iPlayer, yet edits are made to other shows or episodes are removed completely purely because something happens or something is said to trigger it, really baffles me. Let's pat ourselves on the back for responding to concerns about x or y, but let's not actually do a deep dive into our catalogue on iPlayer and take the time to look at what might be perceived in 2026 as inappropriate...

What happens to Series 2 (and some of Series 1) of Doctor Who if anything further happens with Noel Clarke following allegations/charges brought against him? Will there be any consistency from the BBC?

Are there any other examples of this that people are aware of? Do you agree with decisions to heavily edit/remove media when it's deemed offensive or there are certain parts of it or people in them that are deemed inappropriate/have the potential cause upset?

They could put an warning to say that it contains scenes and language of its time before the start of the programme.

5 hours ago, Mack. said:

They could put an warning to say that it contains scenes and language of its time before the start of the programme.

This is my thoughts too, I'm generally against censorship of media unless it's targeted hate speech or openly discriminatory not in the name of comedy, I think some things are naturally going to age worse as time goes on and I think leaving them up with a warning is a good compromise. Ultimately, things like Little Britain or the many examples of gay stereotypes, blackface, the casual use of misogynistic language etc. can be positive to show how far we've come since then. It's the same with the old Looney Tunes and Disney cartoons that contain quite overt racism and propaganda, no one's going to be seeking them out but they were just a product of their time and deserved to be seen as that.

I do also think there is a case for separating art from artist, especially if the actor was hardly the biggest part of the show like in Noel Clarke's case, although likewise things like Jimmy Saville presented shows where they're front and centre, I can see the case for censoring.

I think the BBC don't have consistency and will just take the best path to try to please everyone...and yet they still somehow manage to please no one x

Censorship is a slippery slope that we should not be starting on.

Generally I am very concerned about media preservation in this age of streaming. So much media is vanishing without a trace and it surviving for the next generation is relying again on people with physical media. So many tv shows scrubbed from existence because they weren’t an immediate ratings hit and never to be seen or heard of again. I would love some there to be a requirement for these studios to have to host their content forever. I don’t mind paying for access but I do mind things being deleted at the stroke of a pen because someone didn’t see the value in someone else’s art

I think it depends on the reasoning, if it's being cut because something could cause offense then sure I'd probably agree but the BBC do have a history of cutting things just because it doesn't align with their own "values" - like Bob Vylan's Glasto set etc

I think older comedy shows are a good example as there's a lot of content in some of them that are racist/homophobic/in bad taste as there was a time where shock value humour was eaten up. There are still stand up "comedians" that think making fun of certain demographics is the way forward but that's a topic for another thread 😅 it's good when a broadcaster can recognise what isn't appropriate now that we're less ignorant (mostly). But yea they've got to be clear in what is and isn't okay otherwise they'll end up not showing anything 😂