How Were Page 3 Girls Presented in the Media during the 1980s? By Abigail Roberts

The 1960s witnessed significant changes in society and a wealth of ‘permissive’ legislation. However, historians have contested the concept of the ‘permissive society’ to argue that not all of Britain experienced the effects of ‘permissiveness’ at the same time.[1] During the 1960s, the lived experience of the permissive society was limited during to the central hub of permissiveness, London. Other areas of Britain had yet to witness such changes, with the Midlands particularly remaining conservative when it came to attitudes to sex. However, in the 1970s, popular culture and the media across Britain became increasingly sexualised. This essay will analyse ATV and Central TV footage from the Media Archive for Central England (henceforth MACE). It will argue that the media exploited the idea of permissiveness, forging a general attitude that accepted the idea of the ‘Page 3 girl’, promoted by the producers of ATV and Central in the 1980s and how ‘Page 3’ when criticised was defended on the grounds of a ‘permissive society’.

The range of material on topless modelling and Page 3 available in MACE illustrates that such topics must have been popular with ATV and Central producers as well as audiences. The emergence of the Page 3 girl can be placed in the 1960s, as Rebecca Loncraine states that Page 3 had its origins during the 1960s permissive society.[2] The permissive society allowed for the development of female pin-up culture. However, its origins can be examined as part of a long tradition of newspaper pin-up features.[3] Furthermore, Adrian Bingham argues that Page 3 was an evolution from previous practice rather than a ‘revolutionary new development’.[4] This shows how sex throughout the twentieth century had long been a key selling point for newspapers. The 1960s, however, offered a valuable alibi and justification to the editors to defend Page 3 as the period witnessed an apparent ubiquity of toplessness in British culture.[5] Bingham shows how the Sun consistently defended Page 3, with editors arguing that the newspaper was doing no more than responding to the changes in contemporary culture, stating that ‘the Permissive Society is a fact, not an opinion. We have reflected the fact where others have preferred to turn blind eyes’.[6] Loncraine explores how popular newspapers have always included pin-ups, but the Sun exploited the 1960s fashion for public nudity and fused it with an older tradition of popular newspaper female pin-ups, the pictures of ‘pretty girls’ that was pioneered by the Daily Mirror in the 1940s.[7] The Page 3 girl became a regular feature in the Sun from 1970 as its introduction had resulted in an increased circulation. It was heavily publicised in this period, so much so that it became a central part of the paper’s appeal and a ‘defining symbol of British popular journalism’.[8] The breadth of coverage of Page 3 in ATV and Central programming could therefore be seen as an attempt to capitalise on the popularity of sex in the media. Thus, the idea of the ‘permissive’ society was exploited.

Albert ‘Larry’ Lamb, the editor of The Sun who introduced the ‘Page 3 Girl’.

Although ‘provocative’ and ‘suggestive’ stories had been featured in the newspapers since the 1940s, television news reporting tended to avoid ‘sexually explicit’ content and imagery until the 1980s. Jonathan Bignell’s study illustrates that during the 1980s there was an increase in the number of programmes related to sex and sexuality, partly due to the introduction of Channel 4 in 1982.[9] The 1980 Broadcasting Act presented the statutory public service remit which required Channel 4 to be ‘innovative, distinctive, stimulate public debate on contemporary issues, reflect the cultural diversity of the UK, champion alternative points of view and inspire change in people’s lives’.[10] One of the ways Channel 4 did this was by broadcasting increasingly sexual programmes. This commitment to public service and cultural programmes meant that Channel 4 could promote these ‘sexual’ programmes as cultural whilst remaining safely within the realms of ‘respectability’ and ‘acceptability’. Simon Cottle demonstrates that the 1980s was a period that witnessed technological advance, political deregulation and ‘increased competitive and commercial pressures’.[11] Thus, ATV and Central’s preoccupation with Page 3 and topless models seems to be a result of competition with Channel 4. However, the 1981 Broadcasting Bill illustrates the nature of Channel 4 and its relationship with ITV (that operates all regional television), stating that the channels had to ‘maintain a proper balance and wide range in their subject matter’.[12] Furthermore, Cottle explains how ATV and Central incorporated the mission to report major events and happenings in line with generalized news values in the pursuit of ‘respectable news effort’, yet also sought to work with the ‘entertainers’ predisposition for “populist appeal”’.[13] This involved deliberate measures that sought to engage viewers by purposefully ‘fashioning stories in such way as to heighten their human-interest appeal’.[14] Hence, regional programming attempted during the period to appeal directly to the experiences, interests and emotional sentiments of its imagined audience.[15] Moreover, Cottle illustrates that ATV and Central news programmes were to ‘reflect what is happening in the region, likewise, it is dominated by the region’, with the Midlands region being predominantly of a working-class population.[16] Although ATV and Central did not present their programmes on topless modelling as cultural, they did present them as both ‘acceptable’ stories that appealed to the experiences of the audiences, predominantly a working-class audience in the Midlands.

The style in which the subject of topless modelling and Page 3 was broadcast by ATV and Central highlights an openness in presenting sex in the media by sexualising the female body. Many of the news broadcasts in MACE include samples of the Sun’s Page 3 images or interviews with young aspiring models, some of whom are topless. Thus, the model’s sexualised body becomes central to the interviews. Deborah Cameron argues that public debates, whether or not they be on television, about the representation of gender in popular media have tended to focus on images more than words, and especially images of the female body that are presented as a sexual spectacle.[17] The Labour MP for Birmingham Ladywood, Clare Short, drew on the images of Page 3 in a speech she made in the House of Commons in 1986 to state that they ‘portray women as objects of lust to be sniggered over and grabbed at, and do not portray sex as something that is tender and private’.[18] Certainly, Page 3 girls were presented and described in the media as food – ‘luscious Linda Lusardi, ‘dishy Helen Steed’, ‘scrumptious Sandra Jane’, ‘tasty Tracey Elvik’ – thus showing how these women were presented as objects.[19] By broadcasting such images to a wide audience, producers were illustrating their attitudes towards this notion of female toplessness and women as objects of desire. Furthermore, by presenting these images on television, producers were further exploiting the images to present a permissive society, a society which finds these images to a degree as ‘acceptable’. However, it could also be said that by ‘sensationalising’ topless models, producers, especially on Central Weekend, were pushing the topic as a ‘contemporary issue’, playing on the question of what images are private or public. Loncraine demonstrates that Page 3 during this period participated in wider debates about the nature of obscenity, about what was ‘acceptable’ to show in public and in defining what was in fact ‘public’.[20]

Vox pop footage provides us with an insight into the reactions of the general public. This element of gaining public opinion on the streets captured the reactions of both the middle and working classes on the ‘issue’ of Page 3. In a vox pop feature aired on Central Weekend in 1986, there is a lack of a dissenting voice; it is virtually absent. The tone in which this vox pop is presented highlights how Page 3 was viewed as ‘harmless fun’, as playful music is played in the background suggesting that none of the producers took the issue seriously. This is agreed upon when a model suggests that ‘I think you have to look at Page 3 with a sense of humour’.[21] Three working men when asked what they think about Page 3 and whether they found it offensive reply ‘can’t complain about that’ when showed an image of a Page 3 model.[22] It appears that the dissenting voice is pushed aside to some degree. However, some men and women interviews object to Page 3 being in the media, with two men stating, ‘I don’t think it should be in the newspapers’, going as far as to say that ‘I think it trivialises it’.[23] This shows, however, how consideration needs to be taken over how the voices of vox pops are more than likely to have been carefully selected to represent the attitudes of the producers of Central and not the entirety of the Midlands.

The footage from MACE reveals how class played a significant role in shaping attitudes towards pin-ups and Page 3 during the period. Teresa Stratford highlights how ‘class is central to the Page 3 issue’.[24] Furthermore, she states that, during the period,

Middle-class people tend not to read the Sun. Middle-class girls tend not to dream about appearing on Page 3. They have no need; most of them have job prospects which promise more interest, more respect and a long career elsewhere. It is no accident that most Page 3 Girls came from working-class homes.[25]

Notions of class are not, at first, evident in the MACE footage. However, close analysis demonstrates that Stratford’s argument can be applied to the evidence in the archival footage. Jill Neville, a young woman who appears in the Central News item ‘Young Model’, appears to have had a hard time convincing her parents that her job was ‘acceptable’.[26] Many found topless modelling ‘acceptable’ if it was presented in a certain way in the media. Neville’s father was accepting of Jill’s choice of career, ‘providing it’s done in good taste’.[27] Another Central Weekend debate in 1986 that discussed the issue of pornography sees another gentleman state, ‘I don’t see anything wrong with girls posing in Page 3. In the Sun that is done tastefully.’[28] This demonstrates editor Larry Lamb’s aim to display sex in the newspapers not in the form of pornography, but in the form of ‘tastefully posed’, ‘ordinary women’.[29] Certainly, sex could be displayed in the period. However, it had to be presented under the disguise of ‘good taste’ and as presenting the experiences of ‘ordinary women’. In the Sun and the ATV and Central footage, the majority of topless models are presented as aspirational working-class figures: attractive women who had been ‘liberated’ by glorying in their sensuality.[30] This is agreed upon by Bingham and Conboy, who state that these models were ‘aspirational figures’, and that the media exploited this image to emphasise how many young women sought to be topless models.[31]

Samantha Fox begins her career as a Page 3 model (image from the Huffington Post)

A Central News East report demonstrates how young models wanted to follow in the footsteps of one of the biggest Page 3 models, Samantha Fox, stating that ‘thousands’ wanted to be a topless model.[32] This illustrates how the younger generation of women were ‘not ashamed to bear all’, highlighting how permissiveness had altered the younger generation.[33] If there was a dissenting voice, then it often came from the older generation, who had more conservative values. Parents and families of models, however, were accepting of the choice of career, as it was a career for working-class women. In an interview, Samantha Fox stated that ‘all of my family is proud of me, we all came from a working-class family, so for one of us to do well has really brightened up the family’.[34] This suggests that there was a lack of opportunities for young women during the period. One model stated that ‘it’s nice to be noticed’, suggesting society’s disregard for working-class women during the period.[35]

The reaction to Page 3 in the 1980s reveals dissent in how women were presented in the media. Bingham demonstrates that Page 3 girls and the debates surrounding them reveal much about the contemporary attitudes to women and to public sexual display.[36] Interestingly, Loncraine highlights how the Sun’s mascot of Page 3 was designed to provoke a response from various groups outside its target readership of the working class. Editors of the Sun clearly wanted a reaction from the middle-class members of society, and they got one.[37] Criticism from establishment figures on moral grounds was welcomed by editors, as it validated the Sun’s aim of being a ‘permissive’ newspaper.[38] However, what was not accepted was feminist criticism, as MP Clare Short found out in the 1986 when she took a bill to Parliament that would ban Page 3 girls from newspapers. Feminists such as Short felt that Page 3 was pornography, emphasising how it ‘institutionalises the sexual subordination of women to a mass market, cheaply and on a daily basis, and should therefore be relegated to pornographic magazines’.[39] The criticisms during the period were not grounded in ‘morality’, but in feminist arguments about women being ‘demeaned’ and ‘stereotyped’.[40] A Central Weekend debate taking place shortly after Clare Short addressed the Commons with her bill reveals how Midlands television wanted to present the attitudes of ‘ordinary’ people, Page 3 models and Clare Short towards the bill the topic of Page 3 in general. The debate draws on how women as Page 3 models were stereotyped as ‘dumb’, ‘topless’ and ‘brainless’.[41]

A protestor objecting to The Sun‘s representation of women.

As a result of these criticisms, the popular press was forced to develop a new language to defend their pin-ups.[42] Stratford shows that the women who criticised the papers for featuring Page 3 girls in contrast were called ‘boring’, ‘dowdy prudes’ and were secretly jealous that they did not possess the girls’ ‘wonderful figures’.[43] Clare Short was the main target of this abuse and was subjected to repeated insults by the tabloid press. Stratford has shown that Short’s objections to Page 3 were described as an ‘overreaction’, and that Short’s bill and the support for the bill by other feminists was treated as a ‘sign of panic’.[44] The tabloid press made many references to Short’s physical appearance, naming her ‘the buxom Ms Short’.[45] The popular press, particularly the Sun went as far as to suggest that she was not quite sane, with its ‘Crazy Clare’ campaign.

The Sun’s campaign suggests how the popular press and Midlands television portrayed the Page 3 girl as part of the ‘fabric of British culture’.[46] Stratford draws on this to illustrate that Page 3 by the 1980s appeared to be firmly entrenched in popular culture, going as far as to state that ‘it seemed an institution’.[47] This can be seen in the footage of Central Weekend, as Page 3 model Lindy states of the bill, ‘I would have thought that it’s a total waste of time. Page 3 has been running very successfully for so many years now.’[48] Moreover, other Midlands television footage demonstrates how Page 3 and topless models were viewed as an institution and a part of Britain’s permissive culture. An ATV Today report from 1976 reveals that pub stripper shows had already ‘been going on for a long time’ in the Midlands, with a father of a topless model interviewed on Central News East suggesting that topless women were the norm by stating ‘that’s life 1986, 1987, in’t it?’.[49] This illustrates how Page 3 during the 1980s was able to withstand the resurgence of the feminist movement, as the female pin-up tradition was firmly entrenched within society and the male-dominated Fleet Street, and their newspapers had enough ‘cultural power’ to deflect the criticisms of Short.[50]

To conclude, the majority of the public accepted Page 3, highlighting that to some degree society had become ‘permissive’ by the 1980s. The Central TV and ATV footage illustrates that there was some level of freedom to display sexualised images on television, suggesting that society had progressed from its conservative views and values during the 1950s and 1960s. This was in part due to the increase of sexualised imagery presented in the media. As a result, the British public became exposed to sex in their everyday lives, whether it was through newspapers or television. Yet, permissiveness did not reach the whole of society and there were still those who objected to Page 3, sexual imagery, and how women were represented in the media. The coverage of Page 3 by ATV and Central by itself cannot suggest a complete timeline of permissiveness. It does, however, demonstrate how the Midlands, particularly working-class people, perceived Page 3. Furthermore, it shows the development of the permissive society by the 1980s. Even though Page 3 faced dissenting voices from both the members of public and feminists such as Clare Short, the institution was able to withstand the backlash. This shows that by the 1980s Page 3 had become so firmly entrenched within society, it had become part of the ‘British way of life’.

 

Notes:

[1] See Dominic Sandbrook, White Heat: A History of Britain in the Swinging Sixties (London, 2006) and Arthur Marwick, The Sixties: Cultural Revolution in Britain, France, Italy and the United States, c. 1959-1974 (Oxford, 1999).

[2] Rebecca Loncraine, ‘Bosom of the Nation: Page Three in the 1970s and 1980s’, in Mina Gorji (ed.), Rude Britannia (London, 2007), 96-111 (96).

[3] Adrian Bingham, ‘Pin-Up Culture and Page 3 in the Popular Press’, in Maggie Andrews and Sallie McNamara (eds.), Women and the Media: Feminism and Femininity in Britain, 1900 to the Present (New York, 2014), 184-198 (185).

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Adrian Bingham, Family Newspapers? Sex, Private Life and the British Popular Press 1918-1978 (Oxford, 2009), 222.

[7] Loncraine, ‘Bosom of the Nation’, 97.

[8] Bingham, Family Newspapers, 202.

[9] Jonathan Bignell, An Introduction to Television Studies (London, 2004), 239.

[10] ‘What is Channel 4?’ [online source] https://www.channel4.com/corporate/about-4/who-we-are/what-is-channel-4 accessed on 3 May 2018.

[11] Simon Cottle, TV News, Urban Conflict and the Inner City (London, 1993), 38.

[12] ‘Broadcasting Act 1981’, 1981 [online source] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/68/pdfs/ukpga_19810068_en.pdf, accessed on 3 May 2018.

[13] Cottle, TV News, 64.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Ibid., 65.

[16] Ibid., 67.

[17] Deborah Cameron, On Language and Sexual Politics (London, 2006), 29.

[18] Clare Short, Commons Sitting, 12 March 1986, Parliamentary Debates, Commons, Vol. 93 (1986), c. 937-940.

[19] Teresa Stratford, ‘Page 3- Dream or Nightmare?’, in Kath Davies, Julienne Dickey and Teresa Stratford (eds.), Out of Focus: Writings on Women and the Media (London, 1987), 57-62 (60).

[20] Loncraine, ‘Bosom of the Nation’, 96.

[21] Central Weekend [Programme 11], ‘Page 3 Debate’ (ITV, 18/4/1986), Media Archive for Central England (hereafter MACE), University of Lincoln, https://vimeo.com/240812056 (log-in required).

[22] Central Weekend, ‘Page 3 Debate’.

[23] Central Weekend, ‘Page 3 Debate’.

[24] Teresa Stratford, ‘Women and the Press’, in Andrew Belsey and Ruth Chadwick (eds.), Ethical Issues in Journalism and the Media (London, 1992), 130-136 (131).

[25] Ibid., 131.

[26] Central News East, ‘Young Model’ (ITV, 17/11/1986), MACE, University of Lincoln, https://vimeo.com/152979170 (log-in required).

[27] Ibid.

[28] Central Weekend [Programme 18], ‘Pornography Industry Debate’ (ITV, 20/6/1986), MACE, University of Lincoln, https://vimeo.com/236076287 (log-in required).

[29] Patricia Holland, ‘The Politics of the Smile: “Soft News” and the Sexualisation of the Popular Press’, in Cynthia Carter, Gill Branston and Stuart Allan (eds.), News, Gender and Power (London, 1998), 17-33 (23).

[30] Bingham, ‘Pin Up Culture’, 193.

[31] Adrian Bingham and Martin Conboy, Tabloid Century: The Popular Press in Britain, 1896 to the present (Oxford, 2015), 158.

[32] Central News East, ‘Penthouse Roadshow’ (ITV, 9/5/1986), MACE, University of Lincoln, https://vimeo.com/153085506 (log-in required).

[33] Central News East, ‘Penthouse Roadshow’.

[34] ‘The Story of Page 3 Girls’ (1985), YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aT5HUzz06k.

[35] Central News East, ‘Penthouse Roadshow’.

[36] Bingham, Family Newspapers, 203.

[37] Loncraine, ‘Bosom of the Nation’, 104.

[38] Bingham, ‘Pin-Up Culture’, 194.

[39] Clare Short, Dear Clare… This Is What Women Feel about Page 3 (London, 1991), 43.

[40] Bingham, ‘Pin-Up Culture’, 186.

[41] Central Weekend, ‘Page 3 Debate’.

[42] Bingham, ‘Pin-Up Culture’, 186.

[43] Stratford, ‘Women and the Press’, 131.

[44] Ibid, 132.

[45] Ibid.

[46] Bingham, ‘Pin-Up Culture’, 184.

[47] Ibid.

[48] Central Weekend, ‘Page 3 Debate’, https://vimeo.com/240812056 (log-in required).

[49] ATV Today, ‘Lunchtime Strippers’ (ITV, 11/2/1976), MACE, University of Lincoln, https://vimeo.com/153086574 (log-in required); Central News East, ‘Young Model’.

[50] Bingham, ‘Pin-Up Culture’, 195.

Vox Pop Interviews Concerning Enoch Powell in the 1960s and 1970s. By Willem Lewis-Henderson

Controversial Speech by Enoch Powell, Midlands News (ATV, 27/8/1968), MACE, University of Lincoln. http://www.macearchive.org/films/midlands-news-27081969-controversial-speech-enoch-powell

During the twentieth century, Britain experienced the arrival of thousands of peoples moving into the country from around the world. Most of these people were from the British Commonwealth and a large amount of these people were non-white immigrants after the 1948 British Nationality Act gave commonwealth the right to settle in the country. The West Midlands, in particular, received the greatest number of non-white immigrants from the West Indies.[1] The area was already facing crises in housing and job shortages, but the arrival of a large amount of people into the area caused tensions in local communities. From these tensions, political figures rose to prominence, such as Enoch Powell, who used and sometimes stoked these tensions for political advantage by speaking what others ‘don’t have the nerve to say’, according to some local people.[2] The Media Archive for Central England (MACE) holds a great deal of material related to Powell from vox pop interviews to recordings of his speeches, for which he is best known. This essay will use a selection of clips, including some short interviews, to analyse how Powell and his views on non-white immigration were presented on Midlands television. Alongside this, it will argue how this form of primary source material is both interesting and important for studies of this kind because it provides a unique window onto the views of everyday people. Also, studies of Powell and immigration in this period are of particular relevance today because of the recent Windrush scandal, as well as some people, such as Tomlinson, arguing that the current political climate resembles that of Powell’s day, with parties like UKIP who see ‘themselves to be the victims of a globalisation that has outsourced jobs outside the country and to immigrants inside’.[3] Additionally, with help from scholarship, this essay will contextualise the archive material used. The clips analysed range from 1968 to 1974, which are the years in which Powell was most outspoken in his views on the large amount of immigration facing Britain.

Enoch Powell is an important figure for exploring the effects of non-white immigration into the Midlands and Britain as a whole. He is representative of many of the tensions which emerged in the region, particularly the West Midlands in the Birmingham and Wolverhampton areas where Powell represented in parliament as MP for Wolverhampton.[4] He is most well known for his 1968 speech known as the ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech. Powell argued that further integration of non-white immigrants into Britain would cause violence. Thus, he argued that stricter immigration laws should be introduced and that immigration should actually be reversed to some extent. Although the speech was considered controversial at the time by many, Powell was supported by many people in his local area, as will be seen in interview clips analysed.[5] Joe Street believes Powell was able to ‘tap into the latent fears of dark strangers’ in the West Midlands.[6] As well as this, he was able to build on the views which developed from the MP for Smethwick (near Birmingham), Peter Griffiths, whose campaign during the 1964 general election criticised non-white immigration to gain his seat in Parliament. The criticisms of immigration into the West Midlands targeted issues such as shortages in housing, employment and schools, even though, as Lindsey points out, the region was already facing these shortages before the large amount of immigration and thus the area follows the trend of blame being placed onto non-white minorities.[7] It is interesting to see how these views are expressed by members of the public in some of the clips analysed. Focusing the research on Enoch Powell allows an insightful look into how racial tensions manifested in the West Midlands during the twentieth century. It is clear that Powell was a very recognised person in the area because there is a lot of material in the archive concerning him. Furthermore, there are numerous vox pop interviews on the subject of Powell and none of the interviewees do not know who he is.

The clips used in this essay are mostly vox pop interviews. ATV News, from which the clips are taken, began using vox pops in 1956 and used them very frequently throughout the twentieth century. Kathleen Beckers, Stefaan Walgrave and Hilde Van den Bulck have described a vox pops as ‘an apparently randomly chosen, ordinary individual with no affiliation, expert knowledge or exclusive information, who is interviewed by journalists and gives a personal statement in a news item’.[8] They are simple, quick and easy ways for television journalists to engage with public opinion on news stories and topics. They are somewhat symbolic of ATV’s style of gathering news stories at the time, as they had a limited budget and had to gather local stories for broadcast quickly. The vox pop also allowed journalists to record and present the views of more ordinary people rather than the more elite sources which had been used traditionally. Vox pop interviewees can be replaced by any other member of the public.[9] This makes the interviews useful for historians because the views of ordinary peoples are particularly targeted whereas in many sources that view is left out. Additionally, the television journalist and broadcaster has full control over the balance of the views presented in news clips containing vox pops. This is useful because we can see if the reporter has attempted to make reports balanced or not. This could be through having a balanced number of ‘for or against’ interviewees, or by having a range of different types of people interviewed. This is important for this era of television broadcasting because BBC and ITV were attempting to keep news broadcasting balanced and not present any one point of view too strongly. Therefore, vox pop interviews are useful for presenting the views of ordinary people while also showing us how balanced or unbalanced certain topics were reported on.

Enoch Powell Vox Pops, ATV Today (ATV, 26/7/1965), MACE, University of Lincoln. http://www.macearchive.org/films/atv-today-26071965-enoch-powell-vox-pops

The first of the clips analysed has simply been labelled ‘Enoch Powell Vox Pops’ by the archive. Like many of the clips found in MACE it is not a complete news report. However, the questions and answers from interviewees are as they would have appeared in the broadcast. The questions in this clip are focused on asking residents of Wolverhampton whether or not they think Enoch Powell would make a good leader of the Conservative Party. This video is from 1965 which is three years before Powell’s controversial speech which made him well known, nevertheless it is clear from the clip that Powell is familiar in the area. Of all the eleven people interviewed on the street, only one is not in favour of Powell becoming the party leader. The majority believe him to be ‘strong’, ‘dynamic’ and would be able to show the rest of the Commonwealth that ‘England is wonderful’ if he was to become the leader of the party in 1965.[10] It is interesting to see that Powell was already an established name in the area before his ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech made him well known across the country. It is unclear from this clip if the interviewees were in favour of Powell due to his views on immigration because they only go as far as to mention his characteristics and not his political views. This shows that Powell may have been widely respected by people in the West Midlands before he made his views on immigration explicit in 1968. It is clear from these, however, that the interviewer was not wholly attempting to supply a balanced report with these vox pops. It could be that the reporter was unable to find many people who were against Powell becoming Conservative Party leader, but the overwhelming opinion presented in this clip is supporting Powell, which does not present a balanced account of views. Alongside this, in response to his own question being directed back at him, the reported says that he also has ‘hope’ that Powell will be successful. This without doubt shows an unbalanced report and furthermore implies that Midlands television represented Powell in a positive way, in this occasion supporting him possibly becoming Conservative Party leader. Powell was unsuccessful in his bid for party leadership and Edward Heath became the Conservative leader in 1965.[11]

Vox Pops on Latest Enoch Powell Speech, Midlands News (ATV, 10/6/1969), MACE, University of Lincoln. http://www.macearchive.org/films/midlands-news-10061969-vox-pops-latest-enoch-powell-speech

Powell made many speeches against immigration during the 1960s and 1970s after the ‘Rivers of Blood’. Many were considered just as controversial and were reported upon in Midlands News. The second clip takes place in 1969 in response to suggestions that the government could pay for non-white immigrants to travel back to the countries from which they migrated.[12] Again, this clip is comprised of vox pop interviews, but this time the interviewer has seemingly targeted non-white immigrants to represent their view on the idea. This in some way goes against the idea that a vox pop interviewee can be replaced by any member of the public, however the interviewees are not prepared for the interviews therefore it can still be considered vox pop interviews.[13] There are mixed reactions: some say they will go if they are paid to leave and all of their property is paid for. Others say they would not go home even if the government paid the full amount. They say that there is nothing for them ‘back home’ and some say that they enjoy living in England and so would not leave. A student says he will probably return home after his studies. One woman says that if she wants to go back she will pay her own way so it would be her own choice. This clip is interesting because it shows a great range of different peoples from a shopkeeper to a student. This implies that to some extent the views of non-white immigrants are represented well by ATV in this instance. This could be important for studying racial tensions caused by immigration in the Midlands during the 1960s and 1970s because it shows how not everyone was supportive of Powell’s views. Powell was not supported on the whole nationally either, as newspapers from the time show how even his own political party saw him as tending to ‘stir up’ racial tensions.[14] The Daily Express reported that members of the same Shadow Cabinet Powell was a part of ‘did not agree’ with the way Powell made his arguments.[15] Although not shown in this clip, many people in the Midlands did support Powell. Therefore, it can be said that the Midlands is important for looking at racial tensions in the period because views similar to Powell’s were not reciprocated by politicians from other areas of Britain and thus evidence of particular racial tensions could be missed without the Midlands. The clips analysed, however, do not make reference to how Powell was not supported by his party in regards to his controversial views on immigration. The second clip shows how Midlands television was attempting to represent the views of non-white immigrants during the period. Although, again it can be argued that the clip was not balanced as it only shows the perspective of immigrants.

Resignation of Enoch Powell, ATV Today (ATV, 8/2/1974). MACE, University of Lincoln. http://www.macearchive.org/films/atv-today-08021974-resignation-enoch-powell

The third clip is concerned with Powell’s resignation from the Conservative Party in 1974 and shows how some of the local sentiment remained unchanged from the first clip from 1965. This meant that Powell left his office in Wolverhampton and the clip begins with an interview with Robin Pollard, the Conservative agent for Wolverhampton.[16] This clip was broadcast in colour, which ATV began to do in 1969. Pollard praises Powell for the work he did for his constituency. He is not worried about getting a new candidate to replace Powell but says it is unlikely that there will be someone as individual and successful as Powell. Pollard represents what can be considered an ‘elite’ source for news interview as he is qualified on the subject and cannot be replaced by anyone.[17] The second half of the clip turns to vox pop interviews to find the views of ordinary people on the street. They begin with a lady outside a local shop, who is ‘heartbroken’ and says Powell is a ‘far-seeing man’. A second woman says he spoke his mind on issues and expressed what many people felt, which seems to mirror the views of the man from the first clip. Kassimeris and Jackson explain that Powell was seen by many as the politician that was ‘courageous’ enough to speak the opinions of the ordinary working-class person on the issues of immigration.[18] A man says he has worked hard for Wolverhampton for a very long time, which suggests this man supported Powell before and during his ‘Rivers of Blood’ controversy. Another woman says he was a ‘sick man’ so thought it was coming, which seems to show some balance in a report with mostly positive things to say about Powell. A final man also says that Powell said what a lot of people were thinking and just had the nerve to speak out, which supports Kassimeris and Jackson. Independent television, like the clips found in the MACE archive, quickly became popular after its creation in 1955 and was able to break the BBC’s monopoly on broadcasting.[19] As well as this, television had grown to have more authority than other forms of mass media during this stage of the twentieth century.[20] Therefore, news reports such these are important for the ways they represent views on topics. Especially considering Beckers, Walgrave and Bulck’s argument that views expressed in vox pops by ordinary people are more likely to be agreed with by viewers because they feel their views are supported by others.[21]

To conclude, it has been shown through news clips taken from the MACE archive why the Midlands is important for the study of racial tensions during the 1960s and 1970s caused by non-white immigration. The clips show how controversial views expressed by one of the region’s most prominent and controversial politicians were represented and dealt with on local independent television. Furthermore, it has been considered why vox pop interviews are important as they help to indicate the views of ordinary people as well as indicating how news broadcasters attempted to balance their news reports. Additionally, the clips help to show to what extent ATV was attempting to represent the large amount of non-white people who had immigrated into the region during the twentieth century.

 

Notes

[1] Lydia Lindsey, ‘The Split-Labor Phenomenon: Its Impact on West Indian Workers as a Marginal Working Class in Birmingham, England, 1948-1962’ The Journal of Negro History 78(2) (1993), 83-109, 86.

[2] ‘Enoch Powell Resignation’, ATV Today (ATV, 8/2/1974), Media Archive for Central England (MACE), University of Lincoln, http://www.macearchive.org/films/atv-today-08021974-resignation-enoch-powell.

[3] Sally Tomlinson, ‘Enoch Powell, Empires, Immigrants and Education’, Race Ethnicity and Education 21(1) (2008), 1-14.

[4] Robert Shepherd, Enoch Powell: A Bibliography (London, 1996), 78-103.

[5] Amy Whipple, ‘Revisiting the “Rivers of Blood” Controversy: Letters to Enoch Powell’, Journal of British Studies, 48(3) (2009), 717-735 (717-718).

[6] Joe Street, ‘Malcolm X, Smethwick, and the Influence of the African American Freedom Struggle on British Race Relation in the 1960s’, Journal of Black Studies 38(6) (2008), 932-950 (933).

[7] Lindsey, ‘The Split-Labor Phenomenon’, 86.

[8] Kathleen Beckers, Stefaan Walgrave and Hilde Van den Bulck, ‘Opinion Balance in Vox Pop Television News’, Journalism Studies 19(2) (2018), 284-296 (284).

[9] Beckers, Walgrave and Bulck, ‘Opinion Balance in Vox Pop Television News’, 285.

[10] ‘Enoch Powell Vox Pops’, Midlands News (ATV, 26/7/1965), MACE, University of Lincoln, http://www.macearchive.org/films/atv-today-26071965-enoch-powell-vox-pops.

[11] Chas Early, ‘July 27, 1965: Edward Heath is the surprise new leader of the Conservative Party’ On This Day BT.com 28 April 2017 [Online Resource] http://home.bt.com/news/on-this-day/july-27-1965-edward-heath-is-the-surprise-new-leader-of-the-conservative-party-11363994287360 Accessed 17 March 2018.

[12] ‘Vox Pops on Latest Enoch Powell Speech’, Midlands News (ATV, 10/6/1969), MACE, University of Lincoln, http://www.macearchive.org/films/midlands-news-10061969-vox-pops-latest-enoch-powell-speech.

[13] Beckers, Walgrave, Bulck. ‘Opinion Balance in Vox Pop Television News’, 285.

[14] Arthur Butler, ‘”Curb Immigrants” Powell Sensation’, Daily Express, 10 February 1968.

[15] Arthur Butler, ‘Challenge to Powell’, Daily Express, 4 October 1968.

[16] ‘Enoch Powell Resignation’, http://www.macearchive.org/films/atv-today-08021974-resignation-enoch-powell.

[17] Beckers, Walgrave and Bulck, ‘Opinion Balance in Vox Pop Television News’, 285-288.

[18] George Kassimeris and Leonie Jackson, ‘Negotiating Race and Religion in the West Midlands: Narratives of Inclusion and Exclusion during the 1967-69 Wolverhampton Bus Workers’ Turban Dispute’, Contemporary British History 31(3) (2017), 343-365 (343).

[19] Catherine Johnson and Rob Turnock, ‘Introduction: Approaching The Histories of ITV’, in Catherine Johnson and Rob Turnock (eds.), Independent Television Over Fifty Years (Maidenhead, 2005), 1-13: 1.

[20] Gavin Schaffer, The Vision of a Nation: Making Multiculturalism on British Television, 1960-80 (London, 2014), 67.

[21] Beckers, Walgrave and Bulck, ‘Opinion Balance in Vox Pop Television News’, 285-288.

How Were Post-war Youth Sub-cultures Represented in the Media? By Sarah Bothamley

Cheltenham Mods and Rockers, ATV Today (ATV, 28/9/1965), MACE, University of Lincoln. http://www.macearchive.org/films/atv-today-28091965-cheltenham-mods-and-rockers

Throughout the post-war era, Britain witnessed unquestionable improvements to living standards through full employment and comprehensive welfare provisions, which mainly benefitted the young.[1] Young people in the 1960s were perceived to be iconic figures, not only because of what they achieved but how they personified so many issues of society.[2] To outline what this essay means by ‘young people’, Mark Abrams’s comprehensive definition asserts that youth was limited ‘from the time they leave school until they marry or reach 25’.[3] Throughout this period some young people organised themselves into a succession of youth sub-cultures: the Teddy Boys, Mods and Rockers. In an analysis of three videos from ATV Today and Midlands News from the Media Archive for Central England (MACE), this essay will explore how these youth sub-cultures were presented in the media by news programmes from the 1950s to the 1970s. The first clip is a recording from Midlands News on a Ted’s speech at the Teddy Boys Conference, who wants to form a youth association, first broadcast on 3 November 1958.[4] The second video from ATV Today examines Teddy Boys in Birmingham after the post-war era shown in 17 August 1973.[5] The final footage, also from ATV Today, investigates the tensions between the Mods and Rockers after the recent disturbances, aired on 28 September 1965.[6] All three clips reveal the growth of youth sub-cultures within the post-war era, or at the very least amongst those in the Midlands.

The 1950s and 1960s were both the outcome and personification of the wider cultural as well as social changes. Before the 1960s men were expected to get a job, get married, have children and live a happy life.[7] The departure of this societal expectation enabled young men to have the freedom to experience their youth. Moreover, this notion of new-found youth was motivated by the increase of real earnings unconstrained by the responsibility to contribute to the overall family wage. Certainly, young male manual workers benefited the most from this change.[8] Whilst young men witnessed a transformation in disposable income, young women’s jobs within domestic service were replaced with clerical work, which expanded to employ in 1964 nearly 40 per-cent of girls aged 15 to 17.[9] Despite this expansion, young women continued to earn less than their male peers. Yet, most young people had sufficient spending money, and the newly created ‘teenage girl’ became vital to the success of the consumer market.[10] Evidently, the freedom from the expectation from contributing to the family encouraged young people to spend their money on consumer goods. However, Mike Brown argues that some families still relied on their children wages.[11] This suggests that not all teenagers experienced complete freedom to spend their wages as they pleased. Nevertheless, it did signify a difference from the austerity witnessed during the previous decade, when it would have been considered sheer luxury not to contribute to the family income. Therefore, teenagers had limited freedom to spend their wages on consumer items. Although consumerism was not a new concept in the post-war era, Britain’s position within world trading had declined with the domestic consumer market becoming progressively dominant to the economy.[12] Instead of buying ‘white goods’ (televisions and fridges) which had dominated adult consumerism in the 1950s, teenagers now spent their money on records and clothes.[13] The development of consumerism which propelled an affluent society combined with the emerging youth sub-cultures was vital to the transformation of the teenager. Though, Richard Grayson maintains that the affluent teenager was problematic for several reasons: ‘it made young people less subject to parental control, as they became financially independent at a younger age and it promoted a sense of individualism focused on material acquisition’.[14] Yet Selina Todd discredits this by contending that post-war teenagers were ‘not constructed by the popular or social investigator but by the aspirations of working-class parents’.[15] Evidently, the encouragement from parents demonstrates that they supported the active nature of youth culture. Although both historians disagree over whether teenagers were perceived to have a positive impact on society, they do agree that the concept of the teenager had been firmly established by the post-war era. Ultimately, the framing of young people as consumers in conjunction with being involved in youth culture as a social problem has focused on the moral and cultural disorder.

Teddy Boys Conference, Midlands News (ATV, 3/11/1958), MACE, University of Lincoln. http://www.macearchive.org/films/midlands-news-03111958-teddy-boys-conference

Teddy Boys were the first collective youth sub-culture to make their mark with defiance and anger, thus promoting moral panic with society as well as the media.[16] Teddy Boys in the early 1950s wore clothes that were intended for young upper-class men. Nevertheless, Tony Jefferson noted the adoption of the upper-class style as representative of an illogical ideal from the Teddy Boys, ‘who were destined for lower paid jobs and manual labour’ but attempted to raise their status through buying clothes.[17] Hence this suggests that Teddy Boys were predominately from working-class backgrounds and were ambitious to move up social classes. Indeed, Arthur Marwick argues that, despite their intentions for social mobility, it was only (the later) Mod style that spread up the class structure, whereas Teds were excluded.[18] Failure of the Teddy Boys to utilise social mobility demonstrates that not all youth sub-cultures could disguise their class origins. Furthermore, this confirms that Teds could not promote social progress unlike other youth groups, thus this group was not as influential as previously thought. Regardless of this, Teddy Boys began to emerge in the media in the early 1950s, with the first mention within the press being in The Times on 25 June 1954, describing how ‘a 13-year old boy who established a reign of terror and carved the initials T.B (Teddy Boy) with a knife on the arms of four schoolmates’.[19] This concept that a Teddy Boy cut into the flesh of his ‘innocent’ victims conveys a powerful image, which strongly enforced the idea of the delinquent youth in 1950s mainstream culture.[20] The media played a vital role in cultivating this troublesome image through describing the moral and cultural disorder in their reports which focused on Teddy Boys’ actions of criminality, violence and sexual promiscuity. Indeed, the speech by a Ted at the ‘Teddy Boy Conference’ captured by Midlands News on 3 November 1958 revealed how the group would gather on ‘street corners and be moved on by the police’.[21] Though this broadcast provides an insight into how the sub-culture came to be associated with troublemakers, it also highlights how the Teddy Boys wanted to be more organsied into a collective group. The Ted speaker further claims how they want to ‘form an association including our friends at Leamington and other places, we will be as one body’.[22] Midlands News’s coverage of the Teddy Boy Conference is similar to the national press, with both reports revealing how the Teds have been perceived to be a problem within society. Both reports have publicised the disorder created by the Teddy Boys. Yet the Midlands News report does differ from the national news by presenting an alternative stance of the Teds, aspiring to belong to a united youth sub-culture, which indicates the intention for them to be not only considered more influential within society but to also distance themselves from the troublemaker persona that the national and to an extent regional media has created.

Birmingham Teddy Boys, ATV Today (17/8/1973), http://www.macearchive.org/films/atv-today-17081973-birmingham-teddy-boys

However, this call for unity in 1957 came at a time when Teddy Boys were in decline, as tastes in fashion had changed and the popularity of the group was being overshadowed by the emergence of the Mods and Rockers.[23] Despite the decline of Teddy Boys, ATV in January 1973 confirmed that Teddy Boys continued to be a functioning group within Birmingham. Reporter Chris Tarrant exposed how the Teddy Boys, or rather now men, continued to embrace the fashion identity and distanced from modern fashion. By the 1970s the majority of people who partook in youth sub-cultures had got married and settled down ‘like everyone else’.[24] Whilst most of the older Teds in the report are married, they continue to a part of this group. The continual existence of the Teddy Boys even after its heyday confirms that the Ted movement continued to be appealing. Indeed, ATV Today and Midlands News’s coverage of the Teddy Boys confirms that they were a popular topic in both television and newspapers, even after the post-war era. Although ATV presented their pieces on the Teds as cultural, they also confirm how this youth culture continued to be influential despite the growing and eventual surpassing of the Mods and Rockers. Midlands News’s use of revealing a different narrative of the Teds highlights that the group had support from both its members and some of society, at a time when the movement was generally opposed. Moreover, the coverage of the Teds being influential validates the purpose of the Teds of not what they did, but the importance of popularising their youth culture and the ones that followed. Although the media focused on the Teds creating moral and cultural disorder, their actions were not as dramatic as those depicted in the clashes between the Mod and Rockers.

For many people, they find it impossible to talk about the Mods without also discussing their famous rivals, the Rockers. Mod culture developed in the early 1960s and by 1964 the embodiment of what had become associated with continental culture and fashion had been replaced by the more widely known second incarnation. This version of Mod became instantly recognisable within youth sub-cultures. The typical second-wave Mod wore a smart shirt, short boxed-shaped jacket, narrow trousers, gleaming black boots and hair cropped neatly.[25] In comparison, the Rockers took their inspiration from America. They wore leather jackets, often with metal studs, white t-shirts, tight blue jeans, cowboy boots and wore their hair long and greasy.[26] Yet the differences in appearance also extended to geographical and class divisions. Although both groups emerged during the early 1960s from London suburbs, the Mods started from a small group of fashion-conscious teenagers in North London, whereas the Rocker originated predominantly from South London.[27] Therefore, both groups were distinctly opposite in almost every way, apart from their intention to partake in youth sub-cultures. By 1962-3 the Mods and Rockers divisions already existed, but by 1964 this had greatly intensified.[28] The lack of amicability between the two groups, signified partly the typical gang rivalries, but also the genuine class division. To the middle-class Mods, the Rockers were backwards, primitive and uncouth; to the working-class Rockers, the Mods were pretentious, precious and effeminate.[29] This division can readily be found in both newspaper and television reports. Daily Mail reporter Brian Saxton revealed that a Rocker described Mods as ‘lots of sissies. Some of them wear make-up. Right lot of pansies they are! Rockers hate Mods-nothing serious mind you’.[30] Although Saxton highlights the divisions between the groups, the Rockers downplay that it is serious, thus suggesting it is more of a rivalry. Indeed, the ATV report on ‘Cheltenham Mods and Rockers’ shown in September 1965, at the height of the division, also supports this notion with a Rocker stating, ‘Mods put lipstick on their face. They’re pansies’.[31] Both regional and national news confirm that the Rockers belittled the status of Mods within youth sub-culture. The ATV report focuses on the reactions to the recent disputes in the Montpellier district of Cheltenham. Both groups claim that the other started the fight with the Rockers claiming that ‘ten Mods beat up a Rocker’, whilst the Mods maintain that ‘we don’t cause any trouble, but then the greasers started causing trouble, kicking scooters, pushing around smaller people than them’.[32] The ATV report concentrates on sensationalising this incident through capturing the hostility to strengthen the perception that youth sub-cultures were a negative aspect of society. This national and regional youth debate can be viewed as another way of discussing the post-war society.[33] Yet this youth debate intensified with the increased clashes between both groups both on locally and nationally.

Cheltenham Mods and Rockers, ATV Today (ATV, 28/9/1965). http://www.macearchive.org/films/atv-today-28091965-cheltenham-mods-and-rockers

Many of the media reports relating to the clashes in seaside towns were greatly exaggerated. This is supported by Dominic Sandbrook, who argues that most teenagers caught up in the Clacton conflict of April 1964 had not come to fight, but to wander around with ‘the intention of meeting girls’; they were bored and directionless rather than crazed and looking to fight.[34] Evidently, the moral panics generated from the exaggeration of supposed disturbances like Clacton were not so much about the Mods and Rockers dispute, but about the post-war affluence and sexual freedom they represented.[35] Rockers were left behind from this post-war affluence: they were unfashionable and unglamorous because they appeared to be class-bound. Imagery projected by the media conveyed them as thugs which they had inherited from the Teds; in comparison, Mods were seen to the lead youth sub-cultures.[36] Hence Mods were considered by themselves and society to be superior to the Rockers. Regardless of this opposition, both groups were responsible for facilitating thousands of young men and women to mobilise to create the first successful collective geographical youth sub-cultures in Britain.[37] Whilst the expression of Mods was real enough, the commercial exploitation of fashion and television programmes such as Ready Steady Go! enabled them to dominant.[38] The dominance of this youth sub-culture encouraged the Mods to become a wide spread national movement which not only inspired fashion and television programmes but also enabled ordinary people to participate. For many young people like Marilyn who identified a Mod, her involvement was based on the ‘music and fashion’ she enjoyed, and not because she was involved in the disputes with the Rockers.[39] Clearly, this account demonstrates Marilyn enjoying her youth and being on the edge of Mod sub-culture. Hence enjoyment in conjunction with freedom was central to the popular memory of 1960s youth sub-culture. This is supported by Becky Conekin, who contends how this sub-culture offered a ‘more complex subcultural opportunity for girls’ mainly because it was located within working-class teenage consumerism.[40] Most youngsters who linked themselves with these sub-cultures were manufactured by consumerism rather than the rebellion, and their main interests, therefore, reflect those dominant values and are no means are in opposition.[41] Consequently, this dilutes the original ideas of what it was to be either a Mod or Rocker. Teenage cultures were evolving in the post-war era with the consumerism focus of Mods paving the way for the introduction and acceptance of the teenager as a social category.

To conclude, both regional and national media played heavily on the image of the delinquent youths when discussing 1950s and 1960s youth sub-cultures. This diverse range of youth groups in post-war Britain was not limited to class and or gender.[42] By itself, the coverage from ATV Today and Midlands News cannot completely reveal the impact of youth sub-cultures in the Midlands. However, it does determine how all three group were presented within the media, particularly focusing on the division from both the rest of society and other youth sub-cultures. Moreover, Midlands News does differ from national media by presenting a more sympathetic stance, revealing how the Teddy Boys were frustrated with police attention and wanted to unite to form a coherent group. The development of consumerism throughout the post-war era was vital to cultivating the ‘affluent teenager’. Evidently, this focus on the teenage market did not only promote youth sub-cultures but also changed the ideals of these groups as they became more mainstream. However, further study would be required to evaluate the impact youth sub-cultures had on society and how different television programmes aired by the BBC and other regional news programmes depicted these groups.

 

Notes

[1] Stephen Brooke, ‘Gender and Working-class Identity in Britain during the 1950s’, Journal of Social History 34 (2001), 773-795 (773).

[2] Dominic Sandbrook, White Heat: A History of Britain in The Swinging Sixties (London, 2006), 205.

[3] Mark Abrams, The Teenage Consumer (London, 1959), 3.

[4] ‘Teddy Boys Conference’, Midlands News (ATV, 3/11/1958), MACE, University of Lincoln. http://www.macearchive.org/films/midlands-news-03111958-teddy-boys-conference

[5] ‘Birmingham Teddy Boys’, ATV Today (ATV, 17/8/1973), MACE, University of Lincoln. http://www.macearchive.org/films/atv-today-17081973-birmingham-teddy-boys

[6] ‘Cheltenham Mods and Rockers’, Midlands News (ATV, 28/9/1965), MACE, University of Lincoln. http://www.macearchive.org/films/atv-today-28091965-cheltenham-mods-and-rockers

[7] Alright in the 1960s (Channel 4, 5/1/2018), BOB National Archive. https://learningonscreen.ac.uk/ondemand/index.php/prog/0AF0DEDE?bcast=125853939#

[8] Bill Osgerby, ‘“Well, It’s Saturday Night an’ I Just Got Paid”: Youth, Consumerism and Hegemony in Post-War Britain’, Contemporary Record 6 (1992), 287-305 (293).

[9] Andrew August, ‘Gender and 1960s Youth Culture: The Rolling Stones and the New Woman’, Contemporary British History 23 (2009), 79-100 (81).

[10] Ibid, 81.

[11] Mike Brown, The 1960s Look: Recreating the Fashions of the Sixties (Sevenoaks, 2016), 58.

[12] Osgerby, ‘Well, It’s Saturday Night an’ I Just Got Paid’, 290.

[13] Jonathon Green, All Dressed Up: The Sixties and the Counterculture (London, 1999), 3.

[14] Richard Grayson, ‘Mods, Rockers and Juvenile Delinquency in 1964: The Government Response’, Contemporary British History 12 (1998), 19-47 (23).

[15] Selina Todd and Hilary Young, ‘Baby-boomers to ‘“Beanstalkers”: Making the Modern Teenager in Post-war Britain’, Cultural and Social History 9 (2012), 451-467 (463).

[16] Stanley Cohen, Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The Creation of Mod and Rockers (London, 2002), 204.

[17] Nick Bentley, ‘New Elizabethans: The Representation of Youth Sub-cultures in 1950s British Fiction’, Literature & History 19 (2010), 16-33 (25).

[18] Arthur Marwick, The Sixties: Cultural Revolution in Britain, France, Italy, and the United States 1958-1974 (Oxford, 1998), 77.

[19] ‘Initials Carved on Arms of Schoolmates’, The Times, 25 June 1954, 3.

[20] Bentley, ‘New Elizabethans’, 18.

[21] ‘Teddy Boys Conference’, http://www.macearchive.org/films/midlands-news-03111958-teddy-boys-conference

[22] Ibid.

[23] Grayson, ‘Mods, Rockers and Juvenile Delinquency in 1964’, 25.

[24] Brian Saxton, ‘Down among the Young Ones’, Daily Mail, 6 April 1964, 12.

[25] Sandbrook, White Heat, 206.

[26] Ibid, 207.

[27] David Fowler, ‘From Jukebox Boys to Revolting Students: Richard Hoggart and the Study of British Youth Culture’, International Journal of Cultural Studies 10 (2007), 73-84 (75).

[28] Cohen, Folk Devils and Moral Panics, 210.

[29] Sandbrook, White Heat, 207.

[30] Saxton, ‘Down among the young ones’.

[31] ‘Cheltenham Mods and Rockers’, http://www.macearchive.org/films/atv-today-28091965-cheltenham-mods-and-rockers

[32] ‘Cheltenham Mods and Rockers’, http://www.macearchive.org/films/atv-today-28091965-cheltenham-mods-and-rockers

[33] Osgerby, ‘Well, It’s Saturday Night an’ I Just Got Paid’, 288.

[34] Sandbrook, White Heat, 206.

[35] Arnold Hunt, ‘“Moral Panic” and Moral Language in the Media’, British Journal of Sociology 48 (1997), 629-648 (631).

[36] Cohen, Folk Devils and Moral Panics, 211.

[37] Fowler, ‘From Jukebox Boys to Revolting Students’, 75.

[38] Cohen, Folk Devils and Moral Panics, 211.

[39] Helena Mills, ‘Using the Personal to Critique the Popular: Women’s Memories of 1960s Youth’, Contemporary British History 30 (2016), 463-483 (473).

[40] Becky Conekin, ‘Fashioning Mod: Twiggy and the Moped in “Swinging” London’, History and Technology 28 (2012), 209-215 (211).

[41] Osgerby, ‘Well, It’s Saturday Night an’ I Just Got Paid’, 290.

[42] Bentley, ‘New Elizabethans’, 16.

Midlands News: Rutland Protest March at Leicester (ATV, 1/7/1960). By Ashley Diack

Watch the clip on the MACE website

This analysis will focus on the Rutland protest march at Leicester during July 1960. It will also provide insight into why this clip was filmed by ATV news and how it was significant to the overall struggle for Rutland to retain their independence. There is not an overwhelming amount of research that has been conducted on the campaign that existed alongside this protest however, this analysis will attempt to provide insight into the historical context of this television news broadcast and how it was received by the public.

It is important to first identify what is being filmed during this clip before analysing the historical significance to Rutland in order to evaluate who was involved in the protest march and why they were involved. This clip shows a protest march in the centre of Leicester with both men and women holding signs that state ‘Rutland fights for minority rights’, which is in reference to their unitary status being attacked in the 1960s. This protest began the fight for Rutland County Council to remain responsible for almost all local services in Rutland and the campaign was created to prevent it being reconstituted as a district of Leicestershire. It is clear to see from this clip that the individuals protesting were local to the area of Rutland with a population at this time of 3,500, showing that it was, and still is a small county.[1] The contribution of local people to this protest alongside the involvement of the Rutland County Council shows that they were invested in keeping their community positive and close.

Both regional and national television found the struggle for Rutland’s independence to be newsworthy. BBC and ATV cameras were present for a clear majority of campaigns, protests and public meetings regarding the unitary status of Rutland. This issue was seen as important to broadcast to the public as it directed public opinion across the nation toward a sympathetic approval of Rutland’s struggle to retain independence.[2] This is shown by some of the letters received from Britain and overseas in correspondence files.[3] These letters show an outcry of support for Rutland and shows the approval of the people of Rutland continuing under unitary rule.

The significance of this protest in 1960 cannot be underestimated as it began the continuing campaign for Rutland to remain independent spanning from 1960 to 1972. Throughout those years Rutland remained independent from Leicestershire. However, in 1972 it was reconstituted as a district of Leicestershire leading to the defeat of the campaigners of the 1960s and to the devastation of the councillors in Rutland as they believed that they had secured the independence until the local government act came into force in 1972.[4] The reason why this clip was significant was due to the media coverage that they received leading to more support developing for the county.

ATV provided an alternative to other commercial television and included Midlands News which broadcast footage of the protest march. Part of the appeal for this television broadcaster was the division of the UK. Separate regions could access programmes that were designed for more local viewers. This made the protests in Leicester more accessible to the locals interested in the fight for independence in Rutland from home.[5] This gave them a sense of pride and belonging to their own county. This was extremely significant to bringing the people of Rutland together over a mutual campaign that improved the lives of the individuals in Rutland.[6]

To conclude this brief evaluation of the protest for Rutland’s independence this clip is significant to aiding the continued struggle to retain this independence from Leicestershire. It began the discussion of the reasons for the people of Rutland to be invested in creating a county community for themselves and their families. It was believed by the protesters that remaining separate would lead to a better quality of life during the 1960s as the county council could remain responsible for all of the local services, leading to local individuals being employed by the council of Rutland. Historically this protest is celebrated in Rutland to this day, as is evident from the Rutland Living magazine released in 2017.[7]

[1] Rutland Living: Anniversary special, celebrating 20 years of Rutland’s independence (2017): https://issuu.com/bestlocalliving/docs/rl_april-2017_/21  

[2] H. Crowden, ‘Rutland: The development of a county community within the modern age’, unpublished PhD thesis (Leicester, 2017).

[3] Uncatalogued file of letters and press cuttings kept at Rutland County Museum. 1980/62.

[4] LGCE, Final recommendations for the future local government of Leicestershire (1994).

[5] D. Buxton, Transdiffusion Broadcasting System: the independent broadcasting authority since 1954 (2008): https://www.transdiffusion.org/2008/05/11/atv_today_a_mid

[6] Crowden, ‘Rutland’.

[7] Rutland Living.