The BBC's Removal of Old Mitchell and Webb Sketches Was a Reasonable, if Imperfect, Response to Shifting Social Norms
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/profile/brianlogan. "What’s funny, what’s offensive? And are Mitchell and Webb comedy villains now? | Brian Logan | The Guardian." September 27, 2026. www.theguardian.com
The Gist
The author argues that the BBC was reasonable to quietly remove a handful of old, edgy Mitchell and Webb sketches (involving blackface and jokes about sensitive topics) from a streaming rerelease, since such content is now seen as hurtful regardless of its original satirical intent, and the comedians themselves seem fine with it. He suggests that instead of getting outraged over this minor editorial pruning, we should focus on making sure the BBC keeps funding new, boundary-pushing comedy.
Conclusion
The BBC's decision to remove 11 sketches from That Mitchell and Webb Look was defensible, and the real cultural priority should be investing in new comedy that takes similar risks, rather than relitigating this narrow editorial choice.
Premises
- The removed sketches contain material (blackface, jokes about Jimmy Savile, a scene mocking the recently deceased Bill Oddie) that is now considered irreducibly hurtful to portions of the BBC's audience regardless of satirical intent or context.
- Precedent exists for withholding such content without major controversy, as with It Ain't Half Hot Mum and Little Britain, the latter disavowed by its own creator.
- Mitchell and Webb themselves apparently sanctioned the sketches' withdrawal, suggesting the comedians do not view this as an affront to creative integrity.
- The BBC, as a mainstream, licence-fee-funded platform, occupies an 'impossible position' requiring it to balance historical comedic value against contemporary audience sensitivities.
- Comedians generally do not treat old material as sacrosanct and are aware that social attitudes shift over time.
- The removal is a limited, surgical edit (unlike the more totalizing edits to Roald Dahl's texts) that leaves the rest of the series intact.
Assumptions
- Audience offense at certain content (blackface, racial slurs) is a legitimate editorial consideration even when the original intent was satirical or anti-racist.
- The BBC's institutional caution (erring on the side of care) is a reasonable response to potential harm, rather than excessive censorship.
- Comedians' own acquiescence to edits is a meaningful indicator that the edits are acceptable, rather than a sign of institutional pressure or self-censorship.
- There is a meaningful moral/practical distinction between removing individual sketches from a larger work versus altering an entire text (as with Dahl).
- Preserving space for 'uncomfortable' comedy in new productions is more culturally important than preserving unedited access to old sketches.
- The public will not be significantly misled about historical norms simply because a few sketches are pulled without extensive disclaimers.