ROW DEVELOPS IN THE B.B.C. AS A SEQUEL TO BANNING OF PLAY

Wanganui Chronicle, 17 October 1950, Page 5

ROW DEVELOPS IN THE B.B.C. AS A SEQUEL TO BANNING OF PLAY

LONDON, Oct. 15—Although there is frequent criticism of the BBC it is seldom that the corporation becomes the subject of controversy. At the moment it is not only involved in a sharp controversy which expectedly led to a debate in the House of Commons, but it also appears to be engaged in internal dispute. Both the controversy and the “row” are connected with television. The controversy concerns the banning of the repeat performance of the comedy “Party Manners.” This is an amusing play by Vai Gielgud, but its climax centres round a Socialist Minister who is prepared to publicise atomic secrets which might endanger the country, in order to win an election. This play was passed by Lord Chamberlain, was produced at a London theatre in January, and was broadcast in the home service in June. It was televised on October 1, and there was to have been a repeat performance on October 5. On two mornings following the television performance the Labour newspaper, “Daily Herald,” criticised the play and said it should Kot be repeated. It was subsequently announced that the second performance had been banned—and controversy started. This centred round a discussion whether the BBC had been subject to political influence.

It was also debated whether the BBC should “censor” plays of this description. The next move was a personal statement by Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, chairman of the BBC, who said that the BBC had yielded to no pressure from the Government or any sources outside the corporation, and that he personally had taken the decision that there was to be no repeat performance of the play. This statement was followed by a request to the Postmaster-General (Mr. Ness Edwards) by the Liberal Party for an independent inquiry into the whole affair. The request was refused by Mr Edwards, who said he had no intention of interfering with the usual Government policy of allowing the BBC absolute control of its programme.

Mr. Edwards’ reply was regarded as unsatisfactory by Mr. Clement Davies, Leader of the Liberal Party, who subsequently repeated his demand for an inquiry. RESIGNED POSITION.

On top of this flow of statements and requests came the news that Mr. Norman Collins, the controller of television and author of “London Belongs to Me’’ had resigned from the BBC, and that a new post of director of television had been created and that Mr. George Barnes, director of the spoken word at the BBC, had been appointed. Mr. Collins made a long personal statement, in which he said he had left the corporation because he was unwilling to be associated any longer with a state of affairs which he described as “injurious to the future of British television.” He said that his resignation was over a clash of principles, and not personalities. He considered that television was being forced to adapt itself to the slower tempo of the corporation and that apathy and often open hostility to the new medium were encountered in some parts of Broadcasting House. A BBC spokesman commented that Mr Collins was a candidate for the new post of director of television and did not resign his post of controller until he had been informed that he had not been appointed director. Mr Collins replied: “My resignation had been an open offer to the director general for the past year.” Both the controversy over the banning of the second performance of th? play and the “row” over Mr Collins had caused wide public interest, and there have been several indications by Members of Parliament in both broadcast and television debates that the subject, of the direction of the BBC will provide a debate in the new chamber of the House of Commons.