Naked Romans Lead Unholy Trinity into Battle
A play that sent shock waves through Britain and became a legal battleground is back, set to cause further controversy. The Romans in Britain is one of a series of events making theatres, actors and an art gallery prepare for major protests from the religious right. The male rape scene in The Romans in Britain prompted standards campaigner Mary Whitehouse to bring an infamous but ultimately doomed private prosecution against its director.

Next month, Howard Brenton's play is to be revived in the first major production since its National Theatre premiere in 1980, directed by the respected stage and film actor Sam West. Mrs Whitehouse brought a private prosecution against the play's director for having ‘procured' an act of gross indecency. Although discontinued, (the case) did establish that an offence under the Sexual Offences Act could be committed in the Theatre.

mediawatch-uk, the organisation that Whitehouse founded, believes that the new production is merely a marketing muse. "It is a pity that (Mr West) is simply exploiting the controversy," said John Beyer. Mr West said: "The Romans in Britain shows us the British people both as invaders and invaded, depicting the sometime brutal consequences of these dual roles with rare humanity, wit and sensitivity." Mr Brenton said his themes will "resonate", with parallels to be drawn between America and Rome: "In our country, so sickeningly supine to American influence, an imperial superpower barging around the world is as dangerous and deadly as Caesar's legions," he said.
Independent on Sunday 15/1/2006

Sam West Reignites Censorship Row
Samuel West is playing with fire in his first season as the artistic director of Sheffield Theatres. The highbrow actor is to revive The Romans in Britain by Howard Brenton, which can (justifiably) be described as the most controversial play of its era. Its premiere, at the National Theatre in 1980, prompted Mary Whitehouse to prosecute Michael Bogdanov over a scene depicting homosexual rape. Her case was eventually withdrawn, but established a legal precedent - that the Sexual Offences Act applies to theatre - which (until now) prevented any venue from reviving the play.

I gather that Whitehouse's former organisation, mediawatch-uk, has got wind of West's forthcoming production, scheduled for February. "Any revival will have to take 1980 very seriously," they say. "The precedent set then still stands, so they'll have to consider if it's worth including this scene." West is unlikely to give way. Stand by for a legal showdown early next year.
The Independent 30/6/2005

'Romans In Britain'
Twenty-six years ago Howard Brenton's play 'Romans In Britain' was staged at the National Theatre and - according to Sir Peter Hall, the NT's Director at the time - became the notorious theatrical event of the year. The depiction of male rape and nudity upset some audience members and at one point there was even an unsuccessful attempt to bring a private prosecution against the play's director, Michael Bogdanov, under the sexual offences act. With Sheffield Crucible theatre mounting the first major revival of the play - Mark Lawson talks to Howard Brenton and to the Crucible's director Sam West.

The new production of The Romans in Britain was the subject of a discussion on BBC Radio 4's programme Front Row on Monday 16 January 2006. In the course of the an interview with Sam West, the director of the Crucible Theatre in Sheffield, where The Romans in Britain is being staged, Mark Lawson asked Mr West if mediawatch-uk were the people who had contacted him threatening to picket the theatre. Mr West stated falsely: "Yes, among others." At the end of the programme on Wednesday 18 January Mark Lawson concluded the programme with a "footnote to Monday's programme" saying, without apologising to mediawatch-uk or for listeners being misled, that Mr West had been "mistaken".
From the BBC's Arts and Drama Website

BBC Perpetuates the Myths by John Beyer
On Friday 18 February 2005 the BBC transmitted a play at 9.00pm by Mark Lawson entitled ‘The Third Soldier Holds His Thighs'. This was a dramatic reconstruction, on the 25th anniversary, of the prosecution of the play The Romans in Britain presented at the National Theatre in 1980.

The transmission began with the following warning: "Now our Friday play which is written by Mark Lawson. The play dramatises the notorious theatrical censorship case from the early 1980s and contains very strong language and graphic sexual descriptions. It's based on interviews with many of the living participants and draws on diaries and newspaper reports and official transcripts. But the exact dialogue especially in the private scenes is often imagined. We present The Third Soldier Holds His Thighs." We note the BBC's description of the case as a 'notorious theatrical censorship'!

In our opinion the BBC's reconstruction seriously failed to present an accurate account of the conclusion of the trial and conveyed some misleading impressions about the integrity of the late great Mary Whitehouse CBE and her associates. I

In particular the BBC play stated: "Ian Kennedy has told the judge and Mrs Whitehouse he can no longer go on with the case. Next morning in a moment of legal theatre, almost never seen before, Ian Kennedy withdrew the prosecution and the Attorney General sent to the court a representative of the Queen to enter a plea of nolle prosequi. Although Mrs Whitehouse insisted that the judge had supported her legal principle before the case collapsed no play was ever subsequently prosecuted for obscenity. And in her memoir ‘Quite Contrary', published in 1993, she made no mention of the case."

All of these points were fully answered (see 17 March 1982) by Mary Whitehouse and we reproduce extracts from her diaries written at the time and published in her autobiography ‘A Most Dangerous Woman', published in 1982 by Lion Publishing (ISBN 0 85648 408 3). Very curiously, the playwright, Mark Lawson, did not refer to this autobiography or contact mediawatch-uk where a file of newspaper cuttings and correspondence on the case is kept. This is all the more puzzling because much of the script for Mary's part in Mark Lawson's play was adapted from her account as published therein and from other papers published on our website without any acknowledgement.

We do wonder why due credit was not given and instead the impression was given that Mary came to regret this legal action and it was a subject that she wanted to avoid or just forget. This is very far from the truth and the judge's conclusion to this case, reinforced by Sir Michael Havers, QC, in the House of Commons, that the Theatre is not immune from the Sexual Offences Act, remains in force. Mr Lawson chose to overlook this fact too.

MARY'S DIARY
Provides an Account of the Case as it Happened.....

17 October 1980
Press Association rang, just as I was sitting down to my lunch, about the new play at the National Theatre, The Romans in Britain. Three Roman soldiers are apparently tearing off all their clothes and raping three young male Britons in full view of the audience! Would I like to comment? I said if they'd ring back at 3pm I might be able to. In the meantime read the reviews - extremely critical.

Then there was the interview on The World at One with Felix Barker the theatre critic. He was also extremely critical. Sir Horace Cutler and other members of the Greater London Council have called for the cutting of the National Theatre's grant. Decided to ring New Scotland Yard - spoke to a member of the Obscene Publications Dept. and he said he would draw it to the attention of Chief Inspector Shepherd (one of those I met when I went to the Yard with John Court). He rang me back and said that he had studied what the leader writers had had to say and was going to ask the DPP to look at the play!

When Press Association rang I told them what I'd done, though I didn't mention the DPP; that was for the Yard to say. After about half an hour all the papers began to ring. BBC News did an interview with me and ITN rang to ask what I felt: ‘This brings Soho pornography on to the National stage and its effect could be profound and very far reaching.'

Hope I've done the right thing, but one really can't let this happen without doing something. We haven't given it publicity; it had already had that.

One journalist told me that Peter Hall had said that the things seen in the play had actually happened and people needed to be shown them explicitly so that they would know. I said, ‘That's ridiculous and arrogant. It has been known for 2,000 years how the Romans - some of them - behaved in Britain. We haven't needed to wait all those years for the National Theatre to come and show us what the words homosexual, rape, etc. mean!'

18 October 1980
The Romans in Britain gets atrocious press; not a single paper has a good thing to say for it and all of them carry the story of our asking the police to take action. We all laughed at The Times front-page headline - WHITEHOUSE TAKES ON THE ROMANS. As though I've taken on everything else and now it's the turn of the Romans!

A number of complete strangers rang today to ask what they could do to help, so I suggested letters of support for Horace Cutler and the Obscene Publications Squad at the Yard. It is really very difficult to believe that the Attorney General will not take action. If this is not obscene then nothing could be.

24 October 1980
Saw in today's Daily Telegraph that the Attorney General was sending a lawyer to see The Romans in Britain tonight. Ernest said, ‘Why don't we do the same?'

Rang Robert Standring (National VALA's Executive Chairman) and discussed the matter with him. He felt we should go ahead and that Opinion would probably cost about £200. So I rang Mr Graham Ross-Cornes who entirely concurred with the plan. He rang Mr John Smyth QC, who said that he would get back in time from Southampton to go to the theatre - incidentally, no problem about tickets in spite of all the talk about a ‘sell out'.

While all this was going on, BBC2's Newsnight rang to say they were doing a feature tonight on the play and were linking it with tomorrow night's Lady Chatterley's Lover trial dramatisation - wanted to a vox pop of people coming out of the play. Would I be part of a panel to discuss the play? Some panel! Just Harold Hobson, the theatre critic, and me on the balcony of the National Theatre.

At this point Mr Smyth came out of the theatre and passed his advice to me in the form of a handwritten note. It read, ‘having seen the play I have no doubt whatever but that a prima facie case exists that a criminal offence has been committed'. (This note is held in mediawatch-uk's archive on the case as is Mr Smyth's Opinion.) He advised that ‘the Attorney General should be asked to take action or give permission that action should be taken'. This opinion I read to camera but in the event it was cut out.

Incidentally, when I arrived I was hastily hidden in the BBC's outside broadcast van - they didn't want News at Ten (who were there) to talk to me and since they had paid for my overnight stay I couldn't very well demur! In the event the TV interview was certainly not worth the effort involved. But Queen's Counsel's visit most certainly was.

25 October 1980
Counsel told me this morning that he would never have believed that what went on on that stage could ever have happened - clearly very shaken. Says he will advise that Graham Ross-Cornes writes to the Attorney General - the DPP was informed that Counsel was attending on our instructions by phone before he went - and ask him to take action or, failing that, to give permission for us to take action.

By this time I was wondering what on earth we were letting ourselves in for, not least financially. But Counsel assures me that, since action cannot be taken without the Attorney General's permission, if he grants it this shows that the action is in the public interest and the Crown will bear the cost, or the defendants!

There have been many comments - often critical - on the fact that I have not seen the play. But quite apart from the fact that both our legal adviser and leading Counsel advised against it, what was the point? Because of the enormous press coverage everyone, including me, knew what happened on the stage. The important thing was not what I thought about it but whether it broke the law - only legal minds could decide that. Either way, I know I was for it! If I had seen it the cry would have been - has it corrupted her? If not, why should she think it would corrupt anyone else? And if it has - where does that leave poor Mrs Whitehouse?

25 November 1980
Phone call from Graham - he's been told the Attorney General's office that a letter had been sent to him which said that the AG is not going to give permission to take action against The Romans in Britain. So now what do we do? What do we say? Wondered if something could be done in Parliament in view of the Solicitor General's statement, at the passing of the Theatre's Act, to the effect that the clause which stated that the AG's permission had to be sought before any individual can take action must not be used to inhibit action by serious and responsible people - it was only intended to prevent frivolous actions being brought!

26 November 1980
Conference at John Smyth's chambers. The Attorney General's letter had still not arrived. Graham's assistant solicitor Helen Corbett went round to his office to pick up a photostat - what a tatty, unsatisfactory thing it was - not from the AG himself, a word crossed out, no reason given why he would not prosecute, no indication that he'd actually read John Smyth's weighty submission to him, no apology for the fact that two pages of that document had been destroyed ‘by accident', no indication either that the Attorney General, the DPP or anyone acting on their behalf had seen the play. The whole thing thoroughly discourteous - almost contemptuous.

27 November 1980
I gather that the AG was quite cross yesterday when tackled by an MP on why he would not bring a prosecution. He said he did not believe there was any chance of a successful prosecution. The MP replied that that was no reason for not having one. If the law was really so bad the ‘let's have a case and let it be lost so that the public can see what a disaster it is and then something can be done about it!' He told the AG that there was an enormous groundswell of concern about these matters in the country and it would not do for him or the Home Secretary to ‘sit in the middle and compromise'. ‘Well, there's Williams (Report of the Committee on Obscenity and Film Censorship) you know - it's very difficult.' Yes, indeed, there is Williams.

17 December 1980
Went to London for another legal conference on The Romans. A great deal of research has been done and it is clear that we can do nothing at all to challenge the Attorney General; only Parliament can do that.

However, a completely new approach was decided upon. Since we can do nothing under the Theatres Act, I could take a private prosecution against the director of the play, Michael Bogdanov, under the Sexual Offences Act, which makes it a criminal offence to procure persons for acts of gross indecency in a public place. Graham, Jeremey and Helen will take a flashlight because she will need to check that the script is followed! As the scene of homosexual rape, which is the only part of the play concerned, lasts only a minute or two it won't need to be on very long. Graham will ask to speak to Bogdanov and ask him whether or not he directed the play; his name on the programme is not sufficient evidence. (Emphasis added).

10 January 1981
One of the things that I find myself anxious about from time to time is that people think I'm taking action against the National Theatre out of spite - ‘determined to get them' as it were. But examining my heart honestly as I can, I don't think there's anything in that at all. I realize I'm laying my head on the chopping block but it comes back to what God would have me do. All the great reformers - Wilberforce, Shaftesbury and the others - saw and used the law for the maintenance and upholding of God's will. The law is - or should be - the interpretation of that will and without it we are all immensely at risk and so is the cohesion of our society.

11 January 1981
I have felt troubled because I'm lacking in regard to The Romans prosecution the same sense of identification with Jesus that I felt in the blasphemy case. That was very personal; this is not. But of course they are quite different by their very nature. Last time it was an expression of love, this time a matter of law. Which brings me to the heart of the matter - how important is it to God that the law is upheld? In that such material on stage degrades not only those who play but those who watch - it is important. I need to see this action as one step - even if we lose it will perhaps serve to show the nation how far it has fallen, that it no longer is concerned that such things happen in its midst.

The other thin, and this is central to our decision to take the case, is that by refusing to take action the AG has effectively given the go-ahead to productions like The Romans all over the country.

The National Theatre is the National theatre. It is financed by our money, therefore we all have a responsibility for what is done on that stage. If no action is taken, without doubt ‘the boat' will be pushed even further out. It is our culture as much as our national morality which is at stake, and that is important to us all, whether or not we go anywhere near the theatre.

12 January 1981
By one of those ‘happy coincidences' my Bible reading this morning was Joshua 1: 1-9, especially, ‘Be strong and very courageous' and ‘be careful to obey all the law my servant Moses gave you; do not turn from it to the right or to the left for the Lord your God will be with you wherever you go'. Just what I needed. And as far as what happened in The Romans is concerned - the act of simulated sodomy: ‘Do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God?' In this sense such a scene as grossly violates the holiness of God as did the blasphemous poem in Gay News. There I must leave it.

29 June 1981
Hearing of our charge before the magistrate at Horseferry Road Court. Had to wait till about 3.30 for any news of the case. Michael Bogdanov defended by Lord Hutchinson, defence lawyer in the Lady Chatterley's Lover trial in 1961, who claimed, I gather, that there was no case to answer, that the Theatres Act is meant to cover the theatre and that it was never Parliament's intention that the common law Sexual Offences legislation should be applied to it.

Apparently John Smyth challenged that by saying if that is so why did Parliament not say so? Graham was in the witness box for an hour and a quarter - instead of me - having seen the play on my behalf. Peter Hall appeared for Michael Bogdanov and said The Romans was a ‘very moral play'. Talked about the anal rape as signifying ‘penetration' of Britain by the Romans. I thought that was incredible! After a couple of thousand years this is apparently the only way the National Theatre in 1981 can make us understand that this happened. Graham thinks it will finish by lunchtime tomorrow. Covered by radio and TV news - photographs of Bogdanov, John Smyth, Lord Hutchinson and me. Couldn't sleep - 2.30am before I got off - not worried - just overwhelmed.

30 June 1981
Photographer from London's New Standard arrived at the door unheralded early this morning, but didn't want to see him. ITN and various papers rang: where would I be when the verdict came? Here. Nearly one o'clock when the phone began ringing with the news that Bogdanov had been committed for trial. I gather it had all been heavy going - press thought it would go the other way because of the brilliance of Jeremy Hutchinson, who tried to turn it into an obscenity trial. But in the event Mr Harrington, the magistrate, was out for only three minutes.

Feel tremendous sense of relief; a very great burden lifted. I think the strain of these events takes more out of me than I realize. I do not consciously worry and I do not think or talk about them beforehand, not least because I am so busy with other things, but I think, deep down, they must take their toll. But so far, so good. Graham says that Jeremy Hutchinson was very persuasive and if he was like that in the magistrate's court, one can imagine how he would work on a jury!

Very interested, and encouraged, to read the piece by Fenton Bresler, The Daily Mail legal expert, this morning:
‘Whatever the outcome of the case may be, Mrs Whitehouse - and/or her legal advisers - have achieved a brilliant legal manoeuvre in persuading a London stipendiary magistrate that there is a case to answer against Mr Bogdanov. Most lawyers would have said till now that the Theatres Act of 1968 was designed to cover all possible prosecutions with regard to allegedly obscene or indecent stage performances.

And the Act, passed during Roy Jenkins' ‘liberal' regime at the Home Office, requires the consent of either the Director of Public Prosecutions for a State prosecution or the Attorney General for a private prosecution. Both Sir Thomas Hetherington QC, the DPP, and Sir Michael Havers QC, the Attorney General, have already declined to act. So Mrs Whitehouse has neatly by-passed theatrical law and has now successfully launched a private prosecution under the ordinary criminal law, invoking Section 13 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956. Unlike the Theatres Act and the 1959 Obscene Publications Act, the claim of ‘public good' or artistic licence provides no defence.'

2 July 1981
The Romans still very much in my mind. I know the trial will be the theatrical trial of the century - bound to put an enormous strain on all involved - not least, I imagine, on Bogdanov himself. I constantly need the assurance that this is what the Lord would have me do and I need to know this, not only intellectually but with deep spiritual conviction, then, whatever happens, my mind will be at peace. But what an extraordinary situation I find myself in! For a woman of 71, mother and grandmother, to challenge an act of simulated buggery at the National Theatre in the full publicity which would attend this trial - what a comment on the days in which we live!

4 July 1981
Wimbledon and the garden a great help! Lots of messages of support; everywhere that Ernest goes he brings them back. Charles Oxley rang to say that he spoke at a large Church of England Men's Society meeting yesterday. Tremendous amount of support for our work and the Bishop prayed specially for me at this time. Actually feel more public support - and Christian support - than I did over the blasphemy case. This time, of course, the papers have spelt out exactly what happened on the stage, whereas no one - except Nicholas Walter et al! - could print the Gay News poem. Funny thing is that The Times spelt it out in detail; something unbelievable not very long ago.

25 February 1982
John Smyth rang today to tell me that he will not be able to conduct our case at The Romans trial! As he told me several days ago he is suffering from some kind of virus and has lost over a stone in a month. The consultant and his own GP have now strongly advised against him handling the case and of course I understand. But now the question is who will take his place? How sad I feel, but must trust.

28 February 1982
In this morning's post I received a copy of the leaflet issued by the Theatre Defence Fund whose aim is to raise funds for Michael Bogdanov's defence. Although I'd seen it before, this was the first time I'd noticed that one of the signatories was Lady Plowden, DBE, formerly Chairman of the IBA! (Independent Broadcasting Authority) I really felt as though I had been kicked in the stomach, and my mind went back to the day, not long after her appointment as Chairman when we had met privately at a mutual friend's house, and I had come away with the strong impression that she was in many ways sympathetic to our cause. That she should now be prepared to campaign in support of productions like The Romans in Britain was to me almost unbelievable. I can't help but think this accounts for a lot!

14 March 1982
Arrived back today from the Scilly Isles where Ernest and I have had a week's holiday. My fall, broken rib, and the shock associated with it had really knocked the stuffing out of me. But being away from everything has been good for us both. Standing by myself one day as force 9 - 10 gales enraged the ocean in a most spectacular way while the sun shone upon it all - one had the sense that the islands only existed by courtesy of the sea! - I experienced an overwhelming sense of the power of Almighty God, a certainty that everything is in his hands, that what he wills will be. Not only must I trust in him but also I must rejoice in him. My heart was at peace - I don't think that ever before had I experienced such a sense of his power and his caring about our, oh so minute, affairs compared with the mightiness of the universe.

15 March 1982
Romans in Britain case opened. Ian Kennedy QC who is taking John Smyth's place did very well - emphasised from the start that this ‘was not a case about censorship' as had been suggested, that it was very important that we had ‘a free theatre to challenge and, if need be shock' but that did not mean that the theatre and those who worked in it should be above the law. Graham, cross-examined by Lord Hutchinson denied that he had attended the play to look for the ‘worst possible things' he could find. He would ‘have been much happier if what I had seen of the play had not been sufficient to justify prosecution'.

When Lord Hutchinson later suggested that it was perfectly legitimate nowadays to depict rape on stage, if it was done in one way rather than another, Graham said: ‘I would consider that an explicit scene of homosexual rape is grossly indecent.' Quite a number of journalists rang to ask where I was. ‘We've missed you,' one said! I told them, which was true, that I was very anxious that the case should not be presented by the media and a Whitehouse/Bogdanov confrontation. It was also true that Mr Kennedy felt very strongly that I should not be there as the case had moved into the Regina v. Bogdnaov sphere,

16 March 1982
Very wide coverage in the papers this morning. What the respectable readers of The Daily Telegraph thought of the detailed reporting of Ian Kennedy's description of everything that was said and done in that particular scene one can only imagine but, at least, no one who reads it can have any doubt about what happened. All the papers carried the judge's warning that their reporting of the case should not be, in any way, in contempt of court. Call after call from journalists.

The Daily Express's man wanted to come and spend the day with me while I shopped and cooked! ‘While I did what?' I asked. Shopping and cooking were the last things on my mind! (I discovered later that this was because the press and the jury were out for most of the day while legal points were being debated.) We've apparently come to crisis point - Lord Hutchinson for the defence is claiming that there's no case to answer. I'm told he put his case very powerfully. Ian Kennedy has begun his contention that there is, and will complete it in the morning and the judge will retire to make his judgement on whether or not the theatre is covered by the Sexual Offences Act. If he finds for the defence, that will be the end of the case.

17 March 1982
What a remarkable and memorable day! At around midday Graham rang to tell me that the judge's statement was all we could have desired. He had told Lord Hutchinson that he found his submission that there was no case to answer quite unacceptable, that the existence of the Theatres Act in no way exonerated it from the rest of the law and that the Sexual Offences Act most certainly applied to the theatre. How marvellous: Graham said that we are now faced with a choice: we can either continue with the case or withdraw it.

I asked him what the defence, and Bogdanov in particular, thought about the case being withdrawn. ‘Oh, they're very pleased too,' said Graham. ‘Then most certainly let's withdraw,' I said. We had established a very important legal verdict and there seemed to me absolutely no point in prolonging Michael Bogdanov's agony. To withdraw seemed advantageous to us all. (I did not know till the following day that in fact the decision to withdraw had already been made by Ian Kennedy. Neither did I know till later that strictly speaking a private prosecution cannot legally be withdrawn by the person initiating it once the judge has ruled that there is a case to answer.) (Emphasis added).

Later in the evening Graham rang again to tell me the case would finish in the morning and asked me to come to the Old Bailey. He told me something else - a note from Ian Kennedy to Hutchinson crossed with a note from Geoffrey Robertson (Supporting Defence Counsel) to Kennedy, both containing the suggestion that the case should be withdrawn.

18 March 1982
Left home this morning feeling very happy, but before long I began to suspect that all was not as simple as it had seemed last night. We were met as expected at the Old Bailey with a barrage of TV cameras and press, but, as agreed, I made no comment. Inside Court No 1 I exchanged friendly smiles with defence barrister Geoffrey Robertson, John Mortimer's number two in the blasphemy case. I heard afterwards that he was telling his friends in court how he'd nearly knocked me down (a gross exaggeration) when I was picking blackberries in the lane outside our house a year or two ago. ‘Imagine what a lot of trouble we'd all have been saved if I had,' he joked.

The atmosphere when the judge started to speak was electric - everyone knew something dramatic was about to happen. He first stated his judgement in the matter of the law, declaring that our claim that the theatre could be covered by the Sexual Offences Act was entirely correct.

He then went on to deal with what he termed the ‘wholly improper' situation that had arisen as a result of Michael Bogdanov having been informed by Counsel that the case against him was being withdrawn and that he would be discharged. Such an initiative had, the judge said, pre-empted his function as a judge. This had created a unique, indeed unprecedented, situation in which the Attorney General's advice had been sought. The judge made it abundantly clear that if events had taken their proper course he would not have allowed the case to be withdrawn. Now, however, Chief Treasury Counsel had a statement to make on the Attorney General's behalf that was to the effect that the Attorney General had intervened and issued a nolle prosequi. Within a few moments - or so it seemed - the case was over.

After the jury left Lord Hutchinson asked for Michael Bogdanov's costs and they were granted. Ian Kennedy did not ask for costs for us. And that was that. Partly because of the delicacy of the situation which had been created and partly because, having achieved a not inconsiderable success, we felt it would be more becoming we decided I should go straight home.

However I had first to get out of the Old Bailey! The police, about a dozen of them, would not let me leave until they had provided safe conduct for me. Not only, I was told, were there hordes of media people outside but there was also an ‘anti-me' demonstration. When my taxi arrived, its door opened and two of my colleagues already seated inside, I was rushed out at great speed, strong bodies surrounding me and firm hands holding my head down as I was pushed inside. The taxi door was banged to so quickly that Graham was left outside on the pavement! Quickly recovering him, we shot away, cameras following us as fast and far as they could.

I suppose the next forty-eight hours were amongst the most harassing of all my campaigning years. I arrived home to discover that ‘the whole world had been on the phone', and indeed it literally never stopped ringing. And what did everyone want to know? ‘Why did I withdraw my case?' (And this after Ian Kennedy had made it abundantly clear in court that our decision to withdraw was his and his alone.) ‘Was I upset about the case ‘collapsing'?' (And this after the judge had found for us.) ‘Hadn't John Smyth pulled out of the case and gone on holiday because he knew we could never win?' (What nonsense) And on and on and on.

I listened to a recording of the feature on the case in The World at One in which it was claimed that Mr Kennedy had admitted in court that our case had collapsed. I rang PM to ask if I could reply to that travesty of the truth and they interviewed me over the phone. After that David Dimbleby rang to see if there was a chance of me going on Nationwide - but I'd just got in and didn't feel I could turn round and travel the 60 miles back again. This meant, of course, that Michael Bogdanov had it all his own way on the programme. By this time he was ‘very angry' that the case had been withdrawn and once again the same false picture of what actually happened cam across, as it did in the programme and of course paper after paper next day.

By this time I'd decided that coming home so quickly after the case had been a mistake, and when both BBC TV news rang and ITV rang to say that TV crews were on their way, I agreed to be interviewed. But the interviews were inevitably very short and rushed. In the meantime a car had arrived to take me back to London to appear in BBC2's Newsnight - what a drive that was! I was rushed into the studio where the programme had already well advanced (it was now eleven o'clock); no time for make-up, hair-do or anything. Everyone said afterwards that I looked awful - strained and lined, and I'm sure I must have done. By the time I finally got to bed I'd had a 21-hour day, from 5.30am to 2.30am!

After a few hours sleep the phone began ringing again, only the main question this time was, how was I going to pay my costs? Figures of £20,000, £40,000 even £60,000 were being plucked out of the air by the various journalists. Of course 'I did not know' was the honest answer. I did not even know what the costs were. Having been granted costs at the Magistrates' Court, and the case having been sent by the magistrate to the Old Bailey because it was of such public interest, there had seemed little doubt that I would be granted costs at the end of the trial. Now, of course, the case had been stopped in mid-stream, as it were, and a completely new situation had arisen.

However, I told the papers quite simply that in this matter, as in all our work, we trusted that all our needs physical and spiritual and material would be met. ‘You're saying that the Lord will provide' said the Sunday Times' reporter and that was the headline next day. Many other papers made the same point.

In the meantime the Attorney General had joined in again. This time ‘a reliable source' claimed - and he didn't deny it - that he was ‘very angry' with me. He said he believed I had never intended to go through with the case. I found that incredible. How on earth could he read my mind? Such a thought, in fact, had never entered into it.

But I gather the ‘anger' was nothing new. He'd apparently been angry with me for initiating the private prosecution after he had refused to take action. What is more he had, I understand, been asked by the defence to issue a nolle prosequi after the magistrate at Horseferry Road court had sent the case for trial at the Old Bailey and he had refused. Now he found himself back in the same situation and being forced by circumstances to do so, and I can understand his annoyance.

In fairness it has to be said that, in the end, he was angry with Michael Bogdanov too! In reply to a question in the House of Commons Sir Michael took issue with Mr Bogdanov over his reported comments that he was ‘very angry' that the trial had ended in the way it had, with nothing decided.

He went on: ‘There was no way that the wish of the prosecution, which I was told had the express agreement of the defendant, could be effected without my intervention and since it could have been oppressive to the defendant to put him again in jeopardy after he had been told that the case was to be stopped at that stage, I thought it right to enter a nolle prosequi. I should like to make it clear that this was entered with the express agreement of the accused, in spite of comments in the Press.' He also made it clear that the judge's finding that the theatre is liable to prosecution under the Sexual Offences Act ‘stands'. (Emphasis added)

Letter to Mark Thompson
21 February 2005
Mr Mark Thompson
The Director General, BBC

Dear Mr Thompson,

On Friday evening at 9.00pm BBC Radio 4 transmitted a play entitled ‘The Third Soldier Held His Thighs' which was said the be a dramatic reconstruction of the prosecution mounted by Mary Whitehouse against the National Theatre production ‘The Romans In Britain'.

I am very concerned and dismayed about the impression conveyed by the BBC production which I my opinion cast doubt upon the integrity of the late Mrs Whitehouse, the founder of this organisation, by perpetuating certain untruths that became evident at the time. The opening announcement declared, wrongly, that the prosecution was a "notorious theatrical censorship case".

In fact it was a prosecution under the Sexual Offences Act. Moreover, it was stated in the BBC play that only: "Ian Kennedy has told the judge and Mrs Whitehouse he can no longer go on with the case and that Ian Kennedy withdrew the prosecution and that the case collapsed." At the conclusion of the BBC play it was stated that Mrs Whitehouse "in her memoir ‘Quite Contrary', published in 1993, made no mention of the case".

The whole truth, that the BBC chose not to acknowledge, is that Mrs Whitehouse published a full account of these events in her earlier autobiography, ‘A Most Dangerous Woman', published in 1982. I enclose a copy of the chapter which dealt with the case and its conclusion and why the Attorney General was forced to enter a nolle prosequi. There was much more to this than the BBC play stated in Mark Lawson's misleading account. The BBC play omitted a number of very important facts which had they been included would have cast a very different light on the outcome of the trial.

This is very puzzling because much of the script for Mrs Whitehouse's part is taken from her autobiography - and from our website - which was not acknowledged at all. Neither was it acknowledged that the judge's important conclusion - the Theatre is subject to the provisions of the Sexual Offences Act - was later upheld by the Attorney General in the House of Commons.

I have today checked with Mrs Whitehouse's family that Mr Lawson did not contact them nor did he contact us seeking advice or access to the files of cuttings and original correspondence that we hold on this case.

In order to correct the misrepresentation I believe that the BBC should issue an apology and ought to provide an opportunity, for example in Radio 4's Feedback this week, for us to put the record straight in the public interest. I hope you will agree.

With all good wishes,
Yours sincerely,
John C Beyer
mediawatch-uk Director

Reply from Mark Thompson
8 March 2005

Dear Mr Beyer

Thank you for your letter of 21 February about the Third Soldier Holds His Thighs. I asked the Controller of Radio 4, Mark Damazer, to look into the issues you raised in it.

He informed me that the phrase "notorious theatre censorship case" to which you object was not part of the play but was spoken in an announcer's statement, intended to warn the audience of strong content, as it is the BBC's policy to do.

He also said that, while it is true that Mrs Whitehouse always claimed to have no censorious intent, the result of a victory for he would have been taken by many as a very significant advance for those who would have wished for more censorship and therefore we believe the phrase was fair. In the body of the play, it is made very clear that, as you point out, the legal means Mrs Whitehouse employed was the 1956 Sexual Offences Act.

The description of the circumstances in which the trial collapsed follows the view of the majority of legal authorities and commentators then and now. Mrs Whitehouse herself stated in a BBC Two Newsnight interview on the day the trial ended that Ian Kennedy, QC, has suggested to her that he wished to stop the prosecution and that she had agreed to this. Sir Ian's statement in court in the play was taken from a trial transcript. The play included Mrs Whitehouse's belief that the judge had ruled in her favour before the trial collapsed.

Mark Damazer said that while it is true that Mrs Whitehouse has made reference to the trial in an earlier book, the writer is correct to state that she omitted the proceedings entirely from her fullest (and, as it turned out, final) work of autobiography: a book which ranged over her whole life and career. Mark Lawson's depiction of Mrs Whitehouse drew on a range of sources - including Mrs Whitehouse's earlier biography.

Because Mrs Whitehouse's part in the play was based entirely on words and actions in the public domain and did not seek to dramatise her private life in any way, the production team believed there was no need to consult Mrs Whitehouse's living family or her professional successors. All the interviews conducted during the research were with living witnesses to the actual events dramatised and because, for example, Sir Ian Kennedy declined to be interviewed, no attempt was made to dramatise private scenes between him and Mrs Whitehouse beyond what is established on the record.

We are sorry that you did not enjoy the play but do not believe that it "casts doubt upon the integrity of the late Mrs Whitehouse". Everything her character in the play says or does is based upon her own words in the public domain. You have identified in your letter only interpretations with which you disagree and further details you would have liked to be included. You have not identified errors of fact.

It is always difficult to judge dramatisations of events in which you have a personal or professional involvement. For example, at least one representative of the National Theatre side believes that the play was too critical of their position and too tolerant of Mrs Whitehouse's.

I hope this clarifies the matters you have raised

Yours sincerely,
Mark Thompson

Reply from John Beyer
18 March 2005

Dear Mr Thompson,

Thank you for your letter of 8 March concerning the Radio 4 production The Third Soldier Holds His Thighs.

Whilst it may be true that there were no errors of fact in Mark Lawson's play my concern was that the omission of other facts, also in the public domain and that he was aware of, were ignored giving a false impression to listeners of the trial and its outcome.

For example, it was not stated in the programme that Mrs Whitehouse dealt fully with the trial in her earlier autobiography ‘A Most Dangerous Woman'. It was evident from the play, and now your letter, that Mr Lawson had referred to her account. Why was this not acknowledged? Why was it not stated in the play that the defence and prosecution counsel had BOTH agreed that the case should be withdrawn?

It was stated that only the prosecution counsel had sought to withdraw. The fact that Sir Ian Kennedy QC declined to be interviewed by Mr Lawson surely required that Mrs Whitehouse's published account of events should have been given more weight and at least acknowledged at the end of the production rather than the "fact" that her later autobiography ‘Quite Contrary' had not referred to the trial.

I would respectfully draw your attention to the ‘Thought for the Day' by Dom Anthony Sutch broadcast on The Today Programme yesterday. In it he draws attention to the use of words and it struck me as he delivered it how good it would be for you to hear his thought which concludes: "making sure we speak the truth is about more than not telling lies. It is about our duty to use words carefully to ensure that we do not give the wrong impression".

Yours sincerely,
John C Beyer

Reply from Mark Thompson
8 April 2005
Dear Mr Beyer,

Thank you for your letter of the 18 March. I am glad you acknowledge that there are no errors of fact in the play The Third Soldier Holds His Thighs broadcast by BBC Radio 4.

I asked Mark Damazer, Controller of Radio 4, to address your additional points. Firstly, he accepted that you did not consider it significant that Mrs Whitehouse omitted the Romans case from her final and fullest memoirs but pointed out that the playwright thought it worthy of remark. As long as they stay within the law and BBC policy guidelines (as this play did), writers must be allowed the freedom to interpret and comment on history.

He also queried the significance of the fact that the defence agreed to the prosecution decision to withdraw the case as, in his view, any responsible defence lawyer would always do so, given that they had never wished the case to proceed in the first place. You ask again why it was not publicly stated that Mrs Whitehouse's writings had been consulted during the research for the play. In fact, this was implicit in the opening statement that the drama was based on books, diaries, transcripts and interview. Where a play is based on many dozens of sources, rather than a formal adaptation of a single book, it is not practical to list all of them.

I hope this fully deals with your points.

Best wishes,
Mark Thompson

Woman's Hour Misleads?
Following a feature on the 40th Anniversary of the launch by Mary Whitehouse of the Clean-up TV Campaign John Beyer wrote to Woman's Hour correcting some false impressions:

"You stated in the introduction, without qualification, that she "attacked Jackanory" and " the Chuck Berry song My Ding-a-Ling". I have investigated both assertions. In a letter to Sir Charles Curran on 24 August 1974 Mrs Whitehouse referred four programmes to him about which complaints had been received by her from the public. One of these was a Jackanory programme screened in 26 July 1974 at 4.40pm. This included "unnecessarily offensive" illustrations of a dog urinating down a tree and of a naked man showing his private parts. The correspondent felt that this was "very dubious" for such a programme. Rather than "attacking" the programme herself, Mrs Whitehouse was merely passing on comments to the then Director General.

"Mrs Whitehouse objected to the suggestive actions by Chuck Berry in the film of him performing 'My Ding-a-Ling' on 'Top of the Pops'. On its own the record would have been unexceptional. Not to have made this distinction was misleading. Moreover, to have referred only to these relatively trivial programmes, and ‘Til Death Us Do Part, without referring to the very substantial complaints about some very offensive and disturbing programmes is at least mischievous. Over the years Mrs Whitehouse went out of her way to praise excellent programmes some of which were recognised by our Annual Awards. To pretend that we did not appreciate and applaud good programmes shows an imbalance in your presentation.

"You also stated that the public meeting on 5 May 1964 was held "on the steps" of the Birmingham Town Hall. Over two thousand people attended the meeting which packed the inside of the Town Hall. Press reports in The Times and the Birmingham Post on 6 May recorded the huge attendance.

"Mrs Whitehouse was particularly critical of the BBC because of the way the Corporation is funded. Because of the obligatory nature of the licence fee the responsibilities on the BBC were greater than those placed upon Independent Television. This again is an important distinction you failed to mention.

"Mrs Whitehouse, in fact, wrote six books, four of which were autobiographical. The most recent 'Quite Contrary' was published in 1993 more than twenty years after ‘Who Does She Think She Is?' mentioned by Ms Kenny.

"I would like to point out that 'The Romans In Britain' was put on at the National Theatre. For this reason it had a prestige far beyond its worth. Ms Kenny criticised Mrs Whitehouse for not seeing the play and omitted to say that it was seen by Queen's Counsel on her behalf. Moreover, the prosecution against the play was brought under the Sexual Offences Act and so the story and literary merit was not relevant. Nobody denied what took place on stage which was supposed to represent the hostile invasion of Britain by the occupying Roman army.

"I can tell you that Mary Whitehouse was at times deeply hurt by some of the verbal abuse and misrepresentation she suffered. However, she always remained optimistic and resilient as well as retaining a good sense of humour.

"You omitted to mention that she always had the support of her beloved husband Ernest, me her right-hand man and a strong Executive Committee. You omitted to mention that the organisation she founded, now called mediawatch-uk, is her continuing legacy and we are still campaigning for better broadcasting of which A.L.Kennedy would be proud.

"You omitted to mention many other things too but I realise the limitations of a ten-minute feature. I trust that these lengthy remarks will be helpful and demonstrate that your feature could easily have been accurate had you involved me. I would be pleased to assist you should this matter ever be revisited in the future."