Silent Minority

It was reported in Glasgow Herald that British health officials protested release of the documentary, and that Health Minister Sir George Young attacked the film as not being a true representation of such hospitals. ATV announced making changes to the film's commentary due to these protests, and Charles Denton of ATV stated that film director Nigel Evans admitted that hospital administrators were deceived during the project's filming, but stated that such deception was "in the public interest". Evans had been granted access to the facilities and was allowed to shoot individual patients only if he obtained consent of their family members. When some families did not consent, Evans destroyed six reels of footage, but health officials determined he deliberately concealed other footage. These officials granted that the film footage was accurate, but complained that the narration was not, thus resulting in ATV modifying the commentary.[1] After the film's airing, it was reported that the film had already raised controversy and that it might have been seen as too "harrowing" by some viewers. Objections were raised based upon Health Ministry statements that the film presented a slanted viewpoint, but there was concession that even if the film's examples were not typical, it was believed that they were "unlikely to be the only exceptions to an otherwise admirable system" and, even if atypical, that they exist at all "is a matter of grave concern." Producer/director Nigel Evans was praised for the film's conclusions showing that the issues can be addressed, ATV for the film's creation, and IBA for refusing to ban it.[6]

Controversy about the film reached the British Parliament, with questions in the House addressed to Norman Fowler, Secretary of State for Social Services.[7] Fowler, while appreciating that the film drew attention to the plight of handicapped patients within the British health system, felt that concentrating "its attention on certain categories of the most severely handicapped", gave an "unrepresentative picture both of the two hospitals and of the care given by National Health Service staff to mentally handicapped people in general." But he expanded that the concerns brought forward by the film were being addressed through the creation of smaller facilities better able to address patients' needs.[8]