Certain members of the public and prominent pressure groups were beginning to get a sniff of something in the air with Action. They set out to thwart it, whilst obviously doing it in the name of child protection…

The revenge of the critics and moralists, when it came, was very effective. There had been signs of outrage almost immediately. The London Evening Standard got in on the act early, featuring the comic when it was only two issues old (‘AARGH lives – but the blood is printed red’ – February 23rd 1976). The Sun ran a double page spread on Action (‘The Sevenpenny Nightmare’ – April 30th 1976). Its article was a bit tongue-in-cheek, half admiring Action for its grosser aspects – though these were understood just as “violence”; but it did include a sizeable defence of Action from one psychologist, suggesting that children just pass such stuff as fantasy. At the time, the staff on Action took comfort from this defence – someone, it seemed, was slightly on their side!

Both articles were notable for the strong defence mounted by John Sanders, who compared Action with the diet of films and television available, and found the comic tame by comparison. The articles were also notable for the names ranged on the other side: Mary Whitehouse (of course) and Denis Gifford, probably the best-known historian of British comics. Gifford was brought in as the “comics expert”, and compared Action with his pre-war favourites like Happy Days when “the most violent thing was someone slipping on a banana skin. Nothing but fun from beginning to end.” Oh dear… In addition, there were some sharp radio and TV interviews in the early months, ominously drawing comparisons between Action and the 1950s horror comics. It was a nonsensical comparison, since they were quite different from each other; but the worry lay in the fact that the horror comics were, of course, banned by Act of Parliament. But these early rumblings were nothing to the row which erupted in September.

The September 18th issue of Action had two things in it which provided powerful ammunition to Action’s enemies. The new Kids Rule O.K. story gave a young Carlos Ezquerra the opportunity to display his talents as a cover artist. His picture was of a vast urban bombsite, with a menacing gang advancing across it. In the foreground, a chain-wielding figure loomed over a fallen man – possibly a policeman. Inside the comic, Look Out For Lefty was climaxing with Lefty’s first outing with the first team. There was trouble on t’ terraces. And one of the other players from his own team, determined to get Lefty dropped, was playing all kinds of dirty tricks on him. Spotting the grossest of these – a deliberate kick on Lefty’s ankle – Lefty’s tough-cookie girlfriend Angie picks up a cola bottle. Hurling it onto the pitch, she clonks Lefty’s attacker and knocks him out, leaving Lefty free to play his game for real. This all happened at a time when football violence was once again hitting the news headlines, culminating in a riot at a “friendly” between Aston Villa and Glasgow Rangers. Seizing the opportunity, the critics went for the throat. The Football League and leading officials were primed to complain: “World Cup referee Jack Taylor denounces comic!” – gosh, he would clearly be an inside expert on such things…. The Daily Mail ran a major attack (‘Comic Strip Hooligans’, September 17 1976). Parents wrote, or phoned their complaints. And a frenzy, equal to any of Hook Jaw’s feeding bouts, set in.

It may well be that under any circumstances at all, stories and pictures like these would have stirred up some kind of a row – whether rightly or wrongly. But the particular time at which this all happened served to multiply the power and fury of the campaigners. One of the things that “hanged” Action was the renewal in the 1970s of the activities of moral pressure groups such as Mary Whitehouse’s National Viewers and Listeners’ Association, and the Responsible Society (of which, paradoxically, Tom Tully, writer of Look Our For Lefty, told me he was a member for a time). These two groups were the most vociferous, representing the kind of new moralism associated by many with the rise to power of Margaret Thatcher.

But other groups also burgeoned. most of them involved in the growing mythology of “the child”. This was the period when the protection of children was becoming a business in its own right, one invested with all kinds of myths, symbols and powerful meanings. Of course there are a hundred ways in which children were and are badly treated, and I am not questioning the importance of safeguarding children from, for example, violence, sexual assault, and the like. But part of this new mythology had a great deal to do with protecting children from themselves. The “innocence” of children now meant that they couldn’t possibly know what was good for them. Therefore new forms of censorship would have to protect them from corruption because “innocence” now meant a strange combination of ignorance and corruptibility.

One of the groups, which wrote in complaining about Action epitomised this new attitude. The Delegates Opposing Violent Education (DOVE) threatened to black Action by writing to booksellers and newsagents demanding its withdrawal, and even by defacing copies with its own stickers. The stickers read:

“CAUTION. This is a BLACKED publication. Certain writings in this work are not cleared by DOVE as being pro-child, in that they are either by direct meaning, context or by implication, an incitement for adults to breach the primary FUNDAMENTAL written principles of the Children & Young Persons Act 1933 Section 1 (1) which clearly prohibits: ‘Assault. ill-treatment, abandonment. neglect and/or mental derangement’ of the child to age 16. In the interests of Free Speech this publication remains undamaged. DIRECT ACTION by DOVE. Totnes, Devon. ‘On the side of the child only – Britain’s Future‘.”

This mélange of ideas, grouped around the near mystical figure of “the child” powerfully informed the campaign against Action.

• About the Author
• Latest Posts

John Freeman

John  is the founder of downthetubes, launched in 1998. He is a comics and magazine editor, writer, and Press Officer for the Lakes International Comic Art Festival. He also runs Crucible Comic Press.

Working in British comics publishing since the 1980s, his credits include editor of titles such as Doctor Who Magazine and Overkill for Marvel UK, Babylon 5 Magazine, Star Trek Magazine, and its successor, Star Trek Explorer, and more. He also edited the comics anthology STRIP Magazine and edited several audio comics for ROK Comics; and has edited several comic collections and graphic novels, including volumes of “Charley’s War” and “Dan Dare”, and Hancock: The Lad Himself, by Stephen Walsh and Keith Page.

He’s the writer of  comics such as Pilgrim: Secrets and Lies for B7 Comics; “Crucible”, a creator-owned project with 2000AD artist Smuzz; and “Death Duty” and “Skow Dogs”, with Dave Hailwood.

• Dan Dare returns to Finland
• Angoulême to host “Censorship & Freedom in Creating Comics” conference
• Mechanical Comics makes limited edition debut from comics advocate Ernesto Priego