TOM UTLEY: How bonkers of the Beeb to 改名する a girl called Titty when the airwaves are awash with 本物の smut?

• e-mail

When dear friends decided to christen their baby daughter Candida, I 自白する that I had my 保留（地）／予約s.

Yes, I could see that cleaner, いっそう少なく puerile minds than 地雷 might think it a pretty 指名する, a trisyllable that tripped mellifluously off the tongue.

But then, couldn’t the same be said for Syphilis?

I knew, too, that Candida derived from the Latin word for shiny white, with its virtuous connotations of 潔白 and honesty. But it was no good. When I learned our friends’ choice, I thought of 非，不，無 of this ― nor even of the eponymous ヘロイン of the play by George Bernard Shaw.

No, I could think only of the yeast 感染, more 一般的に known as thrush, that afflicts women’s 私的な parts.

Indeed, I wondered if our friends were 非難するing their adored daughter, from the moment she was dunked in the font, to a life 宣告，判決 of smutty-minded sniggering.

Reader, I needn’t have worried. Candy is a grown woman now ― charming, intelligent, 井戸／弁護士席 balanced, elegant and funny ― and if she’s ever been given any gyp over her distinguished 十分な 指名する, all I can say is that it doesn’t appear to have done her the least bit of 害（を与える）.

For whatever the 推論する／理由, I was 利益／興味d to read that the BBC had made the same 決定／判定勝ち（する） to change Titty’s 指名する before

I hang my 長，率いる. 明確に, my 早期に 保留（地）／予約s 明らかにする／漏らす more about my own one-跡をつける mind than about the 落し穴s parents should 避ける in choosing 指名するs for their young. I せねばならない have remembered and 注意するd the comedian Frankie Howerd’s oft-repeated 指示／教授／教育: ‘Titter ye not.’

Or should I say: ‘Tatter ye not’?

Snickering

I ask because of the BBC’s prim 決定／判定勝ち（する）, 明らかにする／漏らすd this week, to 改名する one of the Walker siblings in Swallows And アマゾンs for its 来たるべき adaptation of Arthur 身代金’s classic adventure story.

In the 1930 調書をとる／予約する, the child ヘロイン was called Titty. In the cleaned-up 見解／翻訳／版 made by BBC Films, she’s called Tatty.

Now, we can only guess what 説得するd the screenplay writers or the 会社／団体’s (n)役員／(a)執行力のあるs to make the change. Did they 本気で believe that Titty was too obscene a word to broadcast to an audience of youngsters? Surely not.

More likely, given what we know about the BBC, they thought it might be 解釈する／通訳するd as belittling women ― and would その為に upset feminists of the sort who spend their lives looking for 推論する／理由s to be 感情を害する／違反するd.

Another 可能性, of course, is that they 恐れるd it would 誘発する childish snickering, which might distract young テレビ視聴者s’ attention from R ansome’s wholesome tale of the outdoor life and derring-do.

But whatever the 推論する／理由, I was 利益／興味d to read that the BBC had made the same 決定／判定勝ち（する） to change Titty’s 指名する before. This was for its 1963 television adaptation of Swallows And アマゾンs ― although on that occasion it called her Kitty instead. As it happens, Tatty seems a more academically respectable choice than Kitty, since 身代金 明らかに based his character on a girl he knew, Mavis Altounyan, who took her 愛称 Titty from the children’s story, Titty Mouse And Tatty Mouse.

The BBC 明らかにする／漏らすd their 計画（する）s this week to 改名する one of the Walker siblings in Swallows And アマゾンs for its 来たるべき adaptation of Arthur 身代金’s classic adventure story

But, really, why on earth change the 指名する at all? 支援する in 1963, the 決定／判定勝ち（する） may have been just about 理解できる ― at a pinch.

After all, this was two years before the theatre critic Kenneth Tynan earned the 疑わしい (and 論争d) distinction of becoming the first person to utter the F-word on TV. And all hell broke loose when he did.

But today? What 考えられる point can there be in 保護物，者ing children from such an innocent little word as Titty, in an age when they are 砲撃するd with 本物の filth every day of their lives?

Indeed, it いつかs seems that the F-word, in its さまざまな 形式s, is the only verb, noun or adjective in the vocabulary of many television dramatists, chefs or 雑談（する）-show hosts and interviewees ― while catch-up TV has made the 9pm watershed even いっそう少なく of a 保護（する）／緊急輸入制限 than ever.

一方／合間, the internet has given today’s Swallows And アマゾンs 世代 ready 接近 to hardcore porn at its vilest ― words and images that belittle, 侮辱 and objectify women a thousand times more grievously than any imaginary offence 身代金 may have given to the sisterhood.

Yet here is Auntie Beeb ― herself the purveyor of her fair 株 of F-words and X-率d scenes ― pursing her lips over the 可能性 that youngsters may draw some 関係 between young 行方不明になる Walker’s 愛称 and the 女性（の） breast.

井戸／弁護士席, there was always that 危険. But then if Auntie is 本気で worried that sniggering schoolboys may see 性の 言及／関連s where they are unintended, why doesn’t she go the whole hog?

In this spirit of tit for tat, she should perhaps take her blue pencil to Countryfile, 教えるing its presenters to talk about blue tats, coal tats and 広大な／多数の／重要な tats.

And what about changing the 指名する of 刑事, hero of Enid Blyton’s Famous Five, to something いっそう少なく likely to raise a puerile chuckle?

Come to that, I notice that Titty’s brother remains Roger in the 会社／団体’s 最新の adaptation. 範囲 for a 二塁打-entendre there, surely. As for the former 影をつくる／尾行する （ドイツなどの）首相／（大学の）学長, the BBC could always 改名する him Ed 法案s. (And don’t let’s even について言及する P.G. Wodehouse’s Stiffy Pinker ― let alone Ian Fleming’s Pussy Galore.)

Of course, this was not the first occasion this week when Auntie attracted ridicule for getting her knickers in a 新たな展開 over a rude-sounding word.

A couple of days before the Titty 審議 broke out, BBC Breakfast presenter Louise Minchin made a 類似の fool of herself ― 侮辱ing her guest into the 取引 ― when she apologised on 空気／公表する for Alan Titchmarsh’s use of the words ‘bastard ざん壕ing’.

As seasoned gardeners will know, this is the 伝統的な 称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 to 述べる digging a ざん壕 to the depth of two spades, to 増加する 国／地域 drainage and aeration.

But to Minchin (or perhaps her bosses, hissing into her earpiece) it was a disgraceful profanity.

‘We just have to apologise,’ she said at the end of the interview, ‘for some of the language used in the last couple of minutes.’

Affectionate

< div class="image-wrap">

Poor Titchmarsh (Tatchmarsh) was 明確に mortified. ‘Oh no, no, no, no, it’s a 称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 in a gardening 調書をとる／予約する,’ he said. ‘I shan’t repeat it, but it’s not 不快な／攻撃 at all'?