Im sorry if I was using pejorative terms. I didnt think I was; but anyway I try not to. As opposed to gentle teasing and ribbing, whose cathartic power I strongly believe in.

secondly, now who’s using perjorative terms to thus colour the debate? eh?

The 8000 figure is wildly untrue; not everyone who bandied it about was aware it was untrue; they were just repeating what they had been told. The true figure was about 200 was it? What is so clever about 200? Pre-c1967 there was no such swearing on tv. This proves that that is achievable. As Eric Sykes says, to be on tv is to be invited into ppl’s living rooms – including those who are flicking thro’ channels – with all that that entails in terms of politeness.
One can move goalposts, but this represents an move of thousands of percent in the wrong direction (ie the uncivilised direction) within a single programme.

My point was not that no lies have circulated (whether intentionally or not) but what people make of the true statements which have also circulated.

This musical, notorious for containing over 8000 expletives

The show’s artistic director admits that it is a deliberate attack on “good taste”, and the BBC concedes that the intended broadcast “pushes back the boundaries of taste and decency”.

No: not lies. If lies are ever repeated, then we can disregard the charge.

The two claims above were both outright lies. The first could be called an exaggeration, but it is so extreme and ludicrous an exaggeration to make it more of an outright lie.
The second contained made-up quotes, the second of which was probably from Stephen Green (see the Bloggerheads link in this piece to see why). This is a lie.

As you, so rightly say, in the 3rd quote above, If lies are ever repeated then we can disregard the charge. People were fed lies to whip up a controversy to impose the views of mediawatch and other similar organisations onto the rest of the public. These were lies, plain and simple. You may feel that the end justified the means, but by your own admission, the charge can be dropped because it was built on a tissue of lies.

If your so-called god is so weak that it can’t take a few digs then you should get a better one. nobody was harmed, but your ilk stirred up a controversy with lies to try to get the programme banned. that is what was so very wrong with what you and your lot did, and if you can’t see it, then doctorates must be getting easier to obtain these days than ever before

It’s like me complaining about sermons in a CofE church, since my tax quids go into funding the lifestyle of the head of the church and its bishops (who can claim attendance allowances at the house of lords).