dr who and the politically correct script writers

Bring back the Daleks, Cybermen etc.
The show is missing those “hide behind the cushion” moments.
Whilst the Rosa Parks episode was good and educational, in my humble opinion the rest have been overly “preachy”

In what way was last night’s episode preachy about shopping habits? Perhaps there was a message about automation and humans being replaced by machines but hadsn’t this always been a theme of science fiction? Nothing more chilling than seeing a determined robot/Dalek/ Cyberman walking towards you.
We actually thought the veiled/obvious reference to a well known online shopping giant was quite funny.

Imagine the scriptwriters meeting for last nights episode (18/11), what political/ethical subject haven't we covered??? Let's cover A****n" and the nations shopping habits, this should be escapism, not preachy tv.

Having been a lifelong Dr.Who fan, through my childhood, then with my C and GC, I am struggling with this series and shall probably end my Dr Who "journey"

I probably seesaw between the two, but thank you for your comment Pecs .

Bridgeit I do not know if you identify with any minority group or not. But if you have spent a large part of your life being wary of people because of who you are you can get quite militant or else you can just crumble.

It may be that Day6 feels the same way about your posts mcem but is too polite to say so.
Most of us have some things in common when it comes down to it, in fact I agree with just about everybody on here at different times and on different subjects.

Mcem??

Thanks NFKdumpling, I don’t always have the right way with words , which can be confusing ( even go me?)

I absolutely agree Bridgeit. I often do agree with your posts. Hence my confusion over your apparent endorsement of the earlier post in question!
However, I rarely agree with posts from Day6!

As it happens one of the loveliest weddings I attended was a ‘Gay wedding’ , but it is not something that needs more or less attention or mention than an opposite sex wedding (imo) ie I would say I am invited to A& Bs wedding not I’m invited to a Gay wedding

You’re making perfect sense to me Bridgeit.

Brilliant Day6 after an unpleasant post would seem to indicate approval!
And lemon it's less a case of defending my lovely daughter and more a case of objecting to sweeping generalisations.

mcem you have no need being so defensive about your gay DD....nobody is saying anything at all about her after all.

Thank you Lemongrove

You’ ve lost me now !what did I find Praisworthy,?
I have all manner of friends I don’t care what anyone is as long as they are not cruel, dangerous, violent ,two faced , non tolerant etc etc,

Good posts Day6 and Bridgeit I know exactly what you mean and are saying.??

And my daughter and her wife don't spend time explaining that they're contentedly gay.
No "flaunting and hyping" - which was day6's term.
That annoyed me but you found it not only acceptable but praiseworthy!I

If do not spend time on a daily basis telling people that I am heterosexual & must not be observed, treated differently, treated badly, treated better etc etc.
Sometimes I think some humans who have changed gender or are bi/ trans etc are more sensitive to perceived slights & therefore sometimes become more outgoing & flamboyant in a defensive way, if that makes sense.
Much like a very shy person will either avoid people or adapt a persona as a protection. I can’t explain it exactly, it’s sort inverted behaviour creating a shield.

That's not how I read either your post nor that of day6

No no what I am trying to say is That in our quest to communicate with each other with out causing offence we become stimied & stilted IN case we cause offence, so we become more divided by Fear of causing offence than if we actually did cause offence . ?

A bit puzzled bridgeit.

"Do we have to deny who we are to be who we are?"
AND
Your agreement with day6's statement about homosexuality being "flaunted and hyped".

I ask again about the gay folks I know who are just getting on with their daily lives.

If out and open, are they "flaunting" or by staying in the closet are they "denying who they are"?

Am finding it difficult to reconcile the two points of view.

Eloethan Agree very much with your post. Condoning the status quo by never mentioning them has gone on in the media a great deal. It is the challenges that we notice!

When Dr Who started (with William Hartnell), I was quite young and enjoyed it - and did so for a few years thereafter until I seemed to outgrow it.

I got some Dr Who DVDs for my grandchildren a little while back, remembering how I had enjoyed the programme as a child. However, I found the newer Dr Who episodes to consist almost entirely of violent confrontations and didn't encourage my grandchildren to watch them any more.

I'm still not keen on Dr Who but I did catch a little of the programme featuring Rosa Parkes. It made me think that at last it is covering important and interesting historical issues that still have relevance today.

Some people describe this as being "PC". But programmes have been made throughout the years which quite often reflected and reinforced the status quo, even when that status quo left a lot to be desired in terms of its depiction of women, ethnic minorities, people with disabilities, etc, etc. Or some significant events and issues were almost totally ignored (I was shocked to watch a recent TV dramatic re-enactment of killings that occurred in Ballymurphy before the much more famous Bloody Sunday killings). I think it's good to see subjects being aired that were formerly ignored and the balance being redressed a little.

So we now have to deny who or what we are in order to be uhh who we are ? ?! !!!

day6 what do you mean? All this damage to children based on a word!! If Cbeebies had not announced this decision..or someone had not let it be known... and they had just started using snowpeople, snowmen, snowwomen in programmes, nobody would have batted an eyelid!