Do you act offended because you are? Or because you think you should be?

I am child of the early 70s.  I grew up with tv shows such as Love Thy Neighbour, On The Buses, George & Mildred, Man About The House, Rising Damp, The Benny Hill Show and The Black & White Minstrel Show.  

I grew up with Page 3 and builders wolf-whistling women (not me, obviously) and none of it offended me.  

And it still doesn't.

Yet it seems that these days we should be offended by all of the above, and more, and yet not offended by things that would have been met with disgust back in the day.

Why is a bare breast acceptable when it has a baby attached to the nipple, and let's be honest, not everyone is as discrete as they could be when nursing, but not when it is printed in a newspaper?  This is a fairly recent change, previously breastfeeding has been seen as a private act.

Why is it acceptable these days, that when you leave the house, every other word you hear is an expletive?  Why is it acceptable that companies can advertise and sell expletive covered products?

Why is it acceptable that illegal drugs can be openly smoked in public with no risk of punishment?

Why is it acceptable for people, who have probably never been further west than Wolverhampton, to speak as though they have just stepped off the Windrush?

The Benny Hill Show, horror of horrors, a portly middle aged man chasing half naked young women about?  How many times did he catch them?  How many times did they lead him into falling down a ditch, or knocking himself out by running into a tree?

Love They Neighbour, the white man was always trying to show his black neighbour up, but he always came off worse, showing himself up instead.

I like Jeremy Clarkson, I think he is funny, I like Jim Davison for the same reason.  They don't offend me.

I am offended by the Government and high ranking officials apologising for things that happened decades or centuries ago.  That was how the world worked then, you cannot judge past events by today's moral, or perceived, standards.

I have probably offended some of you, dear readers, with my comments, and if I have I apologise, but please, don't be offended because you think you should be.

There are no new complaints, they are all recycled.

It was pointed out to me that some of my younger readers may not be familiar with 'Outraged of Tunbridge Wells' so I thought I had better explain.

The term is shorthand for the most provincial, narrow-minded grouch, the sort who pens angry letters to local newspapers. I always imagine a retired Colonel type, a blustery gent whose monocle drops out of his eye at the sight of a lady's ankle.

I was googling to try and find a copy of such a missive to illustrate my point, and I came across this.

SIR – On behalf of the menfolk who, either having their hour’s break for lunch, or, in many cases, having had sandwiches for the midday meal, wait for a bus to take them home to a well-earned hot meal, I protest that it is sickening to see the buses come in loaded chiefly with women returning from shopping during the lunch hour or between 5pm and 6pm.

I, myself, this week on one occasion had to let five buses go and not until the sixth was I able to get on.

No doubt if you publish this a good many women will want to pull my hair out, but I take that chance, knowing full well the menfolk will agree I am correct.
So come along, ladies, look after your husband. Shop early and help him get home in comfort and good time.

RT Corden
December 5 1947

Now, substitute 'working people' for 'menfolk', and 'the unemployed and mothers with pushchairs and children in tow' for 'women' and you will have a modern day issue for many a current bus user.

It just shows that there are no new complaints, they are just updated and recycled.