Censorship - appropriate or questionable?

[Owlswing]

Having a quiet wander around the net, not looking for or at anything in particular, and I happened across a list of books that have been or still are banned in the US.

OK, I can understand some of them, but others . . .?

Let's see what others think - here's the list:

Not surprisingly, to me anyway, the list is headed by Clockwork Orange and Lolita;

But . . .

James and the Giant Peach

Banned for: Inappropriate language, encouraging disobedience to parents, references to drugs and alcohol, and "magical elements". This 1961 children's book by literary legend Roald Dahl definitely has a darker side - as many of his stories do - and that's gotten it into trouble with the censors. The tale of the over-sized fruit and its fantastical inhabitants was deemed unsuitable as recently as the 1990s

The Great Gatsby

Banned for: Offensive language and sexual references. A true giant of American literature, the cautionary tale explores both the thrilling excesses and the gritty underbelly of the American dream. The story of millionaire Jay Gatsby is tame by today's standards but was challenged for depictions of adultery and mild profanities.

Diary of Anne Frank

Banned for: sexual content, homosexual themes, and for being a "real downer". This heart-breaking true account of a young Jewish girl in hiding during WWII found itself challenged after being published in its entirety (the original version omitted passages about the teenager's emerging sexuality). And yes, it really was banned at one point for being a downer.

Golden Compass

Banned for: being written by an atheist and anti-God/Catholic/religion sentiments. The novel is actually called Northern Lights and has won a number of awards for children's literature. That did not, however, stop it from being frequently challenged for openly criticizing institutional religion.

50 shades of Gray (needed to be banned because it is crap and misrepresents the BDSM scene as practised by the majority of its adherents)

Banned for: explicit sexual situations, language, and depiction of BDSM. What started out as Twilight fan fiction became a sensation in the summer of 2011. The story of a young woman's sexual awakening and BDSM relationship sold A LOT of books, even though many libraries were reluctant to carry it

Bridge to Terabithia

Banned for: blasphemy, offensive language, violence, promotion of secular humanism, new age religions, the occult, and Satanism. Also, the main character is not a good role model because she does not attend church. This award-winning work of children's literature is also one of the most challenged in the U.S

Fahrenheit 451

Banned for: depicts the bible being burned, sexual content and offensive language. Another book whose appearance on this list is the height of irony, Fahrenheit 451 tells the futuristic story of a man who is employed to burn books. That it is still being challenged only serves to reinforce how important of a book it is.

Harry Potter – all seven books and all eight films (but not everywhere)

Banned for: themes of occult/Satanism, making witchcraft and wizardry alluring to children. This wildly popular series has been credited for getting kids to read. It also was decried by conservative groups as being a gateway to the occult and devil worship.

Twilight

Banned for: contradiction of religious viewpoints, violence, sexual situations. These sparkly, moody vampires and their pouting teenage girlfriends ran afoul of school board censors as recently as 2009.

Lord of the Rings (3 films)

Banned for: satanic/occult imagery, being anti-Christian/anti-religious. Oddly enough, author J.R.R. Tolkien stated that the epic fantasy was initially shaped by his religion (Catholicism) and that as he revised the work, he consciously included even more religious references and symbolism.

Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein

Banned for: violence, blasphemy (with the good Doctor attempting God-like behaviour - the creation of life).

Go for it folks, which do you agree with and which not?
 

[Brownie]

They are surely not all banned in every State, Owlswing? 

I noted that Anne Frank was banned for a while only, considered to be a real 'downer'  .  Well I've read it, more than once, and imagine most of us have or at least extracts from.   However - I remember when the film came out over here which was a bit later than in the USA, so let's say I saw it advertised when I was aged 10, and the book became popular - my mum (who was not a reader nor a great thinker) said it was not suitable reading for me.  So what did I do?

The Great Gatsby is marvellous.

50 Shades (two books though there might now be a third) I found scary and extremely unrealistic but still glad I picked up both in a charity shop so at least I can form an opinion.

Fahrenheit 451 quite good if you like that sort of thing, my mind wandered a bit.

Harry Potter, very good escapism with some social insight but I only read the first one in the series.

Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" is real gothic!  I loved it.

Lord of the Rings is wonderful.

Not read any of the others though have recollections of 'James and the Giant Peach' from when my son was young.

I do not believe in censorhip.  There are books of questionable taste that I wish had not been written, some are pure 'yeuch', but if we started to ban things it would set a precedent and the limits would change.

[jeremyp]

I think you need to expand on what you mean by "banned". I don't think any of those books have experienced a total ban throughout the USA. For one thing, such a ban would be unconstitutional.

[Owlswing]

They are surely not all banned in every State, Owlswing? 

I noted that Anne Frank was banned for a while only, considered to be a real 'downer'  .  Well I've read it, more than once, and imagine most of us have or at least extracts from.   However - I remember when the film came out over here which was a bit later than in the USA, so let's say I saw it advertised when I was aged 10, and the book became popular - my mum (who was not a reader nor a great thinker) said it was not suitable reading for me.  So what did I do?

The Great Gatsby is marvellous.

50 Shades (two books though there might now be a third) I found scary and extremely unrealistic but still glad I picked up both in a charity shop so at least I can form an opinion.

Fahrenheit 451 quite good if you like that sort of thing, my mind wandered a bit.

Harry Potter, very good escapism with some social insight but I only read the first one in the series.

Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" is real gothic!  I loved it.

Lord of the Rings is wonderful.

Not read any of the others though have recollections of 'James and the Giant Peach' from when my son was young.

I do not believe in censorhip.  There are books of questionable taste that I wish had not been written, some are pure 'yeuch', but if we started to ban things it would set a precedent and the limits would change.

The listing I was looking at does not give the duration of the bans nor does it state if the bans were just a coiple of states or the whole US.

I do know that the Harry Potter ban was, at one time, effective in every Bible Belt state.

[Brownie]

That doesn't surprise me, Owl.  I remember when HP was still 'new', Christian people of a certain type on forums were moaning about the books.  They'd never read a Harry Potter book of course! It did all become something of a craze amongst kids at one time but so do many things, they have a short life, and even children, with their great capacity for fantasy, didn't believe it was all real.

Charming, exciting and harmless stories, imo.  Even though I've only read one  .

[jeremyp]

I do know that the Harry Potter ban was, at one time, effective in every Bible Belt state.

Please give a citation for any banning of Harry Potter by any US State.

[Brownie]

This is an extract from an article in the Huffington Post, four years ago:

"Harry Potter is now the most banned book in America, according to the American Library Association. It is undeniable that themes of death and resurrection abound in the stories, as well as detailed depictions of potions and other hocus pocus. But while there are Christians who decry the celebration of witchcraft, there are other Christians who consider Harry’s journey an edifying allegory for Jesus Christ. That is another problem with banning books: it obscures the diversity of viewpoints within its potential readership. Thankfully at least 450 million copies have been sold, so there is little danger that an eager reader will not be able to drudge up a copy."

The following wiki article is very interesting.  I particularly like the comment from Rabbi Sachs in the Jewish section (probably because I agree with it) :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_debates_over_the_Harry_Potter_series

[Owlswing]

This is an extract from an article in the Huffington Post, four years ago:

"Harry Potter is now the most banned book in America, according to the American Library Association. It is undeniable that themes of death and resurrection abound in the stories, as well as detailed depictions of potions and other hocus pocus. But while there are Christians who decry the celebration of witchcraft, there are other Christians who consider Harry’s journey an edifying allegory for Jesus Christ. That is another problem with banning books: it obscures the diversity of viewpoints within its potential readership. Thankfully at least 450 million copies have been sold, so there is little danger that an eager reader will not be able to drudge up a copy."

The following wiki article is very interesting.  I particularly like the comment from Rabbi Sachs in the Jewish section (probably because I agree with it) :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_debates_over_the_Harry_Potter_series

JeremyP - satisfied?

Just becasue you seem to doubt it does not make it fiction, any more than other posters insistance that things that are posted here are facts makes them so.

[Nearly Sane]

JeremyP - satisfied?

Just becasue you seem to doubt it does not make it fiction, any more than other posters insistance that things that are posted here are facts makes them so.

That isn't a citation for a state wide ban which is what jeremyp was asking about. There are no mechanisms for states banning books.

[Bubbles]

Bridge to Terabithia

Banned for: blasphemy, offensive language, violence, promotion of secular humanism, new age religions, the occult, and Satanism. Also, the main character is not a good role model because she does not attend church. This award-winning work of children's literature is also one of the most challenged in the U.S

How strange!

I saw the film and it was really weird and came across to me as a " Christian" film.

I didn't like it much, thought it was morbid and weird but not worth banning.

I know the exorcist was banned for being too scary at one time.

I have never managed to watch it all the way through because it's so slow and boring I keep nodding off, I read the book though when I was about 14.

I thought that it was a load of old rubbish.

Different things scare different people I suppose.

I'm more offended by films like Titanic that portray real people in a negative light when they have living relatives and there is no truth in the portrayal.

I wouldn't ban a film, most of them are so crap they don't deserve it.

The exorcist is one of the most boring films I've not seen 

The book isn't much better, overuse of foul language, writing intending to shock by being unnecessary foul.

The scariest books build up an atmosphere and are subtle and creepy.

The clockwork orange I seem to remember is written in lower case with no punctuation.

I read that at 14 too, and thought that was hard work and rubbish too.

Stephen King or James Herbert know how to tell a story and they don't need to resort to foulness or shock tactics.

I'm stunned someone would ban Anne Frank given the story it tells.

I'm glad I don't live in the Bible Belt  if the banned Harry Potter.


If you want to ban a book because it contains the occult or describes weird sexual behaviour or is a bit of a downer, they could start by banning the bible.

It's all in there, sex with fathers, getting drunk, sticks turning into snakes, talking donkeys........

I'm not in favour of banning anything really, but disapprove if films take real life situations and portray real people in ways that are untrue, if they have living relatives.

I think that's tasteless.

As long as we have a good description and it's labelled U or PG or 18 so we can avoid the things we individually don't like, that's fine.

 

[Harrowby Hall]

I think you need to expand on what you mean by "banned". I don't think any of those books have experienced a total ban throughout the USA. For one thing, such a ban would be unconstitutional.

One source of banning is school boards and library committees - particularly in the "bible belt".

A historical example of what I suppose might be considered "cultural censorship" was of Rodgers & Hammerstein's "South Pacific", one theme of which is racial prejudice. There were large areas of the southern states of the USA where theatre managements (and later cinemas) refused to allow it to be presented.

[Owlswing]

One source of banning is school boards and library committees - particularly in the "bible belt".

A historical example of what I suppose might be considered "cultural censorship" was of Rodgers & Hammerstein's "South Pacific", one theme of which is racial prejudice. There were large areas of the southern states of the USA where theatre managements (and later cinemas) refused to allow it to be presented.

That is precisely the "state-wide" that I was referring to. There are State committees for both school boards and library committees who often make banning recommendations to State legislatures, or so one of my few American friends (a pagan) has told with regard to non-Christian writings.

The website which printed the list is American and would, I presumed, know more about which books were banned and why than an Englishman/woman would. South Pacific was one of the books on the list, which quoted a total of 40 banned books which had been made into films that I omitted; as I wasn’t aware that there was a book of the story I thought that it was only a film. Quelle ignorance!

[Owlswing]

Bridge to Terabithia

Banned for: blasphemy, offensive language, violence, promotion of secular humanism, new age religions, the occult, and Satanism. Also, the main character is not a good role model because she does not attend church. This award-winning work of children's literature is also one of the most challenged in the U.S

How strange!

I saw the film and it was really weird and came across to me as a " Christian" film.

I didn't like it much, thought it was morbid and weird but not worth banning.

I know the exorcist was banned for being too scary at one time.

I have never managed to watch it all the way through because it's so slow and boring I keep nodding off, I read the book though when I was about 14.

I thought that it was a load of old rubbish.

Different things scare different people I suppose.

I'm more offended by films like Titanic that portray real people in a negative light when they have living relatives and there is no truth in the portrayal.

I wouldn't ban a film, most of them are so crap they don't deserve it.

The exorcist is one of the most boring films I've not seen 

The book isn't much better, overuse of foul language, writing intending to shock by being unnecessary foul.

The scariest books build up an atmosphere and are subtle and creepy.

The clockwork orange I seem to remember is written in lower case with no punctuation.

I read that at 14 too, and thought that was hard work and rubbish too.

Stephen King or James Herbert know how to tell a story and they don't need to resort to foulness or shock tactics.

I'm stunned someone would ban Anne Frank given the story it tells.

I'm glad I don't live in the Bible Belt  if the banned Harry Potter.


If you want to ban a book because it contains the occult or describes weird sexual behaviour or is a bit of a downer, they could start by banning the bible.

It's all in there, sex with fathers, getting drunk, sticks turning into snakes, talking donkeys........

I'm not in favour of banning anything really, but disapprove if films take real life situations and portray real people in ways that are untrue, if they have living relatives.

I think that's tasteless.

As long as we have a good description and it's labelled U or PG or 18 so we can avoid the things we individually don't like, that's fine.

Sorry Rose, but the list was of books that had been banned that has subsequently been turned into films; the only filmed that were specifically mentioned that had been banned, I think, I'll check, as both books and films were the Harry Potter.

Anne Frank was banned, apparently, because the full version contained Anne's writings about her exploration of her becoming aware of her sexual awakening with a similarly aged male relative, cousin, I think   

[floo]

I like the HP books they seem to be more moral than the Bible, as at least we know who the baddies are. In the Bible the so called goodies do very bad things, as does their god.

[Brownie]

Owlswing:  Anne Frank was banned, apparently, because the full version contained Anne's writings about her exploration of her becoming aware of her sexual awakening with a similarly aged male relative, cousin, I think   

You are probably right about that though it was quite touching, she fell in love.  They didn't do anything!   She also mentioned reaching puberty in, by today's standards, a coy way, but that too was touching.   What stupid things people objected to!  What you have said is probably the reason my mum didn't want me to read the book, she never read it for herself of course but when the film came out there were reviews in the paper with extracts.  Naturally the extracts concerned her falling in love and starting to menstruate.

We all have different ideas about what is shocking and what is acceptable;  I agree with Rose that the Exorcist was boring but when I saw bits of it on TV, my reaction was different to when I first saw it at the cinema:  I thought it was quite revolting and obscene.  A girl masturbating with a crucifix and blood coming out, yeuch.   First time around I was determined to find it acceptable because so many didn't  .  Wouldn't want it banned though, certainly not because of my sensitivities.

'Lady Chatterley's Lover' was banned here for a while on the grounds of obscenity (Forget-me-nots and four letter words).  I can remember the book being circulated at school.  At 12 and 13 I didn't know much but thought it was beautifully romantic and tried to write something along the same lines!
As an adult, I had a different view:  I felt very sorry for Sir Clifford and could see that D H Lawrence had little respect for women in the way he spoke about them.  That comes across in other books of his.

Another book, from before my time but which I first read as a teenager, is 'The Well of Loneliness, by Radcliffe Hall:  the Classic Novel of Lesbian Love'.  I read it avidly wanting to find out what two women would actually do- and didn't find out anything of the sort!  I remember being in floods of tears when poor Stephen's horse, Rafferty iirc, had to be put down.  That still moves me and having read the book a couple of times as an adult, many things in the story move me:  Stephen's isolation, referring to herself and others like her as an "invert", her heartbreak, countless things.  It's a lovely novel but there is nothing remotely salacious about it.

There have been books, films and stage plays that various religious groups have objected to (even flipping Lloyd Webber  , often because they haven't understood the meaning behind them.  Art is supposed to push boundaries and I cautiously approve of that though I abhor gratuitous violence.

I caught a newsflash earlier about the TV programme, Question Time.  Apparently the producers wanted an EDL person on the panel and they have been censored because of race relations.  Personally I wouldn't mind seeing such a person up there, especially if the audience was a North London one, a cross section of society of course but a few carefully selected from the intelligentsia....

Different strokes for different folks but censorship can know no bounds if it is allowed.

Edit:  Rose, just read your recent posts.  I always understood soft porn required some form of sexual activity, with either one person or more than one, but not the 'full monty'.  Nudity and posing is not considered to be soft porn.
However, one man's porn is another man's sausage, so Freud or somebody said, or words to that effect.

[Aruntraveller]

I caught a newsflash earlier about the TV programme, Question Time.  Apparently the producers wanted an EDL person on the panel and they have been censored because of race relations.  Personally I wouldn't mind seeing such a person up there, especially if the audience was a North London one, a cross section of society of course but a few carefully selected from the intelligentsia....

Not at all sure about the slant you are putting on that. For a recent QT one of the 'audience recruiters' specifically targeted the EDL in Boston (I think) whilst ignoring many other groups in the town. As a result it was one of the most disgracefully imbalanced QT's I've ever seen.

Not a programme that I would ever accuse of choosing 'a few carefully selected inteliigencia'.

The right wing bias of the show is becoming ever more evident. and I speak as a former fan of the programme.

[Bubbles]

Edit:  Rose, just read your recent posts.  I always understood soft porn required some form of sexual activity, with either one person or more than one, but not the 'full monty'.  Nudity and posing is not considered to be soft porn.
However, one man's porn is another man's sausage, so Freud or somebody said, or words to that effect.

I've always thought of  soft porn as  something visual used to excite someone sexually. Which is what page three girls are doing.

But so is a half naked woman draped over a motorbike.

Critics usually consider Page 3 to demean and objectify women, as softcore pornography[20] that is inappropriate for publication in a national newspaper readily available to children. Some campaigners have sought legislation to have Page 3 banned. Others, wary of calling for government censorship of the press, have sought to convince newspaper editors and owners to voluntarily remove the feature or modify it so that it no longer featured a topless female model.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_3

I think it is, because its appeal is to arouse men by looking at pictures of women. If it is to make men feel horny then I'd class it as soft porn.
However, I see no point in banning it, because men will always get turned on by looking a well developed women.

Advertisers know this too.

But it is all soft porn, because it's used to excite men.

It's just very subtle in a few cases, and not so subtle in others.

If you go to motorbike shows or car shows you get the same sort of thing.

It's selling sex and thrills with motors.

Isnt going to appeal to your average housewife, even if she rides a motorbike.

I'm still waiting for the Chippendale look alike in a throng when I need a new washing machine or iron 

If they advertised washing machines by having half dressed Chippendale type men draped over them, to excite women into buying one or associating it with said sexy men, men would probably be upset to see their wives getting excited and hot under the collar!

 

Selling things with sex or exciting people sexually IMO is porn.

It is a sort of prostitution.

It's just buying goods ( newspaper/ motorbike/ washing machine) for a sexual thrill.

For me that's what defines porn.

Is porn wrong?

That's another question.

[jeremyp]

This is an extract from an article in the Huffington Post, four years ago:

"Harry Potter is now the most banned book in America, according to the American Library Association. It is undeniable that themes of death and resurrection abound in the stories, as well as detailed depictions of potions and other hocus pocus. But while there are Christians who decry the celebration of witchcraft, there are other Christians who consider Harry’s journey an edifying allegory for Jesus Christ. That is another problem with banning books: it obscures the diversity of viewpoints within its potential readership. Thankfully at least 450 million copies have been sold, so there is little danger that an eager reader will not be able to drudge up a copy."

The following wiki article is very interesting.  I particularly like the comment from Rabbi Sachs in the Jewish section (probably because I agree with it) :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_debates_over_the_Harry_Potter_series

Which US state has ever banned Harry Potter books?

[jeremyp]

JeremyP - satisfied?

Just becasue you seem to doubt it does not make it fiction, any more than other posters insistance that things that are posted here are facts makes them so.

No what makes it fiction is not being able to cite any bans of the Harry Potter books in the USA. The truth is that any such ban would be blatantly unconstitutional.

[jeremyp]

That is precisely the "state-wide" that I was referring to. There are State committees for both school boards and library committees who often make banning recommendations to State legislatures, or so one of my few American friends (a pagan) has told with regard to non-Christian writings.

The website which printed the list is American and would, I presumed, know more about which books were banned and why than an Englishman/woman would. South Pacific was one of the books on the list, which quoted a total of 40 banned books which had been made into films that I omitted; as I wasn’t aware that there was a book of the story I thought that it was only a film. Quelle ignorance!

Ah right, so the book has never been subject to a state-wide ban but has been prohibited from being stocked by libraries and schools. You should have come clean about this in the first place.

Banning a book in libraries is not a state-wide ban. As a private individual, I would still have been able to possess a copy, read a copy, buy or sell a copy or lend a copy. That's not a ban.

Please name some specific instances of school boards or libraries banning the books.

[Owlswing]

Ah right, so the book has never been subject to a state-wide ban but has been prohibited from being stocked by libraries and schools. You should have come clean about this in the first place.

Banning a book in libraries is not a state-wide ban. As a private individual, I would still have been able to possess a copy, read a copy, buy or sell a copy or lend a copy. That's not a ban.

Please name some specific instances of school boards or libraries banning the books.

I just quoted an article - you want this kind of detail YOU find it - I am not that interested.

[Bubbles]

Harry Potter has been banned here too.

We also have our religious nut jobs.

Apparently it:

The most prominent objections to Harry Potter fall into three categories: they promote witchcraft; they set bad examples; and they're too dark. Let's take a look at each of those.

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/banned-harry.html

Normally I'm not against faith schools but..........

The Trouble with Magic
One school to ban Harry Potter was St. Mary's Island Church of England school in Chatham, Kent. Head teacher Carol Rockwood explained that "The Bible is very clear and consistent in its teachings that wizards, devils and demons exist and are very real, powerful and dangerous and God's people are told to have nothing to do with them." She added that "I believe it is confusing to children when something wicked is being made to look fun."

Rockwood is not alone. Her opinion is shared by others who believe that real witchcraft exists, and that all witches are evil. They fear that any books which have good witches or good magic—like the Harry Potter series—will lead people not to take the threat of real witchcraft seriously, and possibly lead them to take the Bible's teachings in general more lightly. They might even lead readers to become witches themselves.

 

I could change my mind! A head teacher at that. 

And as for this......

Setting a Bad Example
Some people find the Harry Potter books to be inappropriate reading because of the way Harry and his friends behave. Some note that Harry "lies, breaks rules, and disobeys authority figures, including the professors at Hogwarts," and that he ends up being rewarded and praised for his actions. They feel that heroes should be entirely good people who do as they're told and respect others.

Others feel that Harry's rule infractions are part of a long tradition in storytelling. A bit of rule-bending is necessary to get to a story outside of the ordinary, they say, but children can understand that behavior that makes a good story is different from behavior that's good in general. They also point out that Harry's rule-breaking does not go without any punishment. And some note, as Mike Hertenstein does in his review of the first Potter film, that "much of Harry's rule-breaking... involves the principle of disobeying a lower law to keep a higher one—not to say he's Rosa Parks, but who could criticize Harry's violation of the no-fly rule to broom his way

Many many children's stories feature rebellion!

Some people think that the Harry Potter books—especially the later ones—are too dark and scary for children to handle. The series begins as Harry is orphaned, and he soon learns his parents were violently killed. There are intense battles. Good people die, suddenly and horribly. This, some say, is the stuff of nightmares, not something to be handed to kids as entertainment.

Hansel and Gretal isn't exactly meek and mild is it? putting children in ovens and throwing the witch in to die.....

 

I have to say, I'd have objected most strongly to that daft teacher in the primary school in Kent.

Not sure I'd have wanted her anywhere near my kids.

All Witches are evil?  Someone needs to point out to that school that they do need to cater for other faiths, even if they are a "faith school"

Paganism counts as a faith and. Would expect it to be treated the same as any other faith, within a school.

They wouldn't  be allowed to teach a Muslim child that Mohammed was false, why should they be allowed to do that to a Pagan by labelling all witches as evil.

It's just ignorance.

No faith school should be able to teach about another faith in that ignorant way.

[Owlswing]

Paganism counts as a faith and. Would expect it to be treated the same as any other faith, within a school.

They wouldn't  be allowed to teach a Muslim child that Mohammed was false, why should they be allowed to do that to a Pagan by labelling all witches as evil.

It's just ignorance.

No faith school should be able to teach about another faith in that ignorant way.

Thanks Rose!

[Brownie]

Trent, I honestly haven't noticed a right wing bias on QT.  Always strikes me as quite balanced when it comes to the panel but a lot depends on where the programme is made, eg the week before last, in Boston, I would describe the majority of the audience as right wing. 

However we all perceive things differently so no matter.   On Thursday I will try to watch it from a different perspective.
-----------
Rose, nothing that comes out of Chatham surprises me!  However, there's nothing "wicked" about the Harry Potter stories.  Of course there are nasty characters but so there are in any books.  Most are quite agreeable.   People forget, the HP stories are fiction, fantasy, designed to entertain.  From the little I've read and seen, they are "Wikid!".

[Aruntraveller]

Trent, I honestly haven't noticed a right wing bias on QT.  Always strikes me as quite balanced when it comes to the panel but a lot depends on where the programme is made, eg the week before last, in Boston, I would describe the majority of the audience as right wing. 

However we all perceive things differently so no matter.   On Thursday I will try to watch it from a different perspective.
-----------
Rose, nothing that comes out of Chatham surprises me!  However, there's nothing "wicked" about the Harry Potter stories.  Of course there are nasty characters but so there are in any books.  Most are quite agreeable.   People forget, the HP stories are fiction, fantasy, designed to entertain.  From the little I've read and seen, they are "Wikid!".

Well as a recent meme on FB has it "There's always an extra Tory on QT" Referring to the ever so unbiased Mr Dimbleby.