I am not adverse to writing a contemporary drama that has strong undertones and is contentious, opposed to what is normally expected with the current view of society. The practicalities of having such a worked staged would be insurmountable if a literary manager deemed it offensive. Censorship will rear its ugly head in the near future when all works will be closely scrutinized for irregular material. The words spoken by any actors are not to be taken out of context when they are spoken within the structure of the play. The onus is on the audience and, although I use the term advisedly, it is how they have been exposed to conflicting views within society and what they believe to be offensive may not be judged the same by others. The page title is taken from a bleak drama I wrote a while ago and was read by a number of people, but  many were disinterested because of the subject matter. Mansel Fetterman is an embittered old man living with his wife in a run-down terraced house in the valleys. The title is what his father called a preacher from the a different valley who came to preach at his chapel during the 1920s.

Fetterman:    The old girl is asleep at last. I have spent the last twenty minutes sitting on a bowl  of hot water trying to shrink the buggers. They are aching like bloody hell. I will probably sit on a bowl of ice-cubes tomorrow if this does not work. I am unseen. That is what I have always believed. How can anyone know my thoughts? To think is to be. That is what I have always believed to be the dominant nature of man. This is what gives us our capabilities to be emotional and pout afterwards. (Laughs). People are strange. I am going into hospital the day after tomorrow for my haemorrhoids and I am going to give that waster a piece of my mind when I see him in six hours time. They have thought up a policy that would give Adolf and his boys a run for their money. What the hell were they thinking of with this socialist bullshit? Presumed consent? Do they believe they are untouchable? This is eugenics under a different name. What right has a politician to decide how a body is treated after death? Morality does not appeal to them. This decision, if it was ever debated, should have been heard in Parliament, not by those stupid bastards in Cardiff. I blame public apathy and the BBC which doesn't know its arse from it elbow when it comes to debate today. (Chuckles). I would not like to have my bits and bobs harvested while I was on a life-support system. What silly swine would go to a hospital if they thought their lives were in danger? There's nothing to stop an unscrupulous surgeon from deliberately harvesting a patients organs and flogging them abroad. You only have to think of the film "Coma" and what happened to poor old Tom Selleck. . .