LORD Dubs, chairman of the Broadcasting Standards Commission, this week criticised soaps for using increasingly shocking storylines to improve viewing figures.

He said the programmes were undermining the 9pm watershed. Beverly Greenberg gives her opinion.

I REMEMBER the first time I heard someone swear on television. My brother and I were almost in our teens and we gasped in delight at the shock of it all.

"Did you hear what he said?" we turned to ask each other.

Likewise, I remember sitting in my mid-teens squirming in embarrassment at a television drama which depicted a couple having sex.

The room fell eerily silent as I wished I could just disappear, while my mother and father sat stoney faced, wordless, probably wishing for the same vanishing potion.

These instances were fairly few and far between, and thankfully the one essential family viewing programme -- Coronation Street -- posed no such threats.

In fact, it was in 1983, I was aged 17, when the most shocking Coronation Street storyline had tongues really wagging -- two of the main characters (Derider and Mike) had an affair.

I remember the conversations in college -- would she stay with her husband, "boring Ken", or would she leave him for "dashing Mike"?

The impact was enormous and viewing figures rocketed. So what did programme makers do? They did what most of us would do in their shoes, they began repeating the formula.

But what they forgot -- or did not realise -- was to question just why the storyline had captured the public's imagination. It had shock appeal.

Inevitably today, almost 20 years -- and almost certainly dozens of "soap opera" affairs -- later, the notion of a married female character seeing another man barely raises an eyebrow among viewers.

So the stakes have got higher.

Affairs are instigated between in-laws and best friends -- and in Brookside between brother and sister -- and must have some sort of tragic consequence. Affairs mixed with violence rate highly, but resulting in death is even better.

And still Coronation Street and its contemporaries are shown in prime family viewing spots.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. In addition, we are now "treated" to drug abuse, prostitution and countless acts of violence.

That is all very well when it is shown after the 9pm watershed, but these programmes are screened before most youngsters go to bed.

And it is all such simple television. Writing sensationalist storylines must be so very easy compared to the subtle scripts which made Coronation Street the popular programme it was when it first started.

The only problem is the public becomes hardened to it all. Violence becomes less shocking, swearing a more acceptable part of everyday life.

No one is advocating that programmes should revert back to the stilted speech that used to feature in television's early days, or that genuine issues should not be tackled.

But take a look at some of the most popular programmes on television today; Only Fools and Horses, Dad's Army, Fawlty Towers, all feature in our favourite all-time programmes and all are suitable for young and old.

And take a look at the more recent success of period dramas such as Pride and Prejudice. The extreme success of the latter caused great surprise among television chiefs. Why? The writing is sharp, the story excellent, and it gives out a terrific feel-good factor. Furthermore, it was suitable for the entire family.

I am not in favour of a "nanny state", nor do I get offended by strong language or violence. But I do worry that we are bringing up a generation immune to the shock of a "bad swear word" being spoken on television -- or the school playground.

Youngsters are becoming indifferent to the excessive violence which spills over from the small screen and into real life. This issue was brought up by Lord Dubs, chairman of the Broadcasting Standards Commission this week. He too felt that the battle for television ratings had led to a "creeping undermining" of the 9pm watershed.

He said: "The more competitive the atmosphere, the more people want to push the boundaries to get the audiences, not only by using bad language, but sex and violence too."

And he singled out the role the soaps play, saying: "Soaps do have a positive role as long as they don't overstep the mark. You can't always have them totally cosy and they have to push their subject matter, but I don't think they would lose their popularity if they reined themselves in a bit."

He is right, but I cannot help feeling that it is going to take a brave soap opera producer to take that gamble.

THEN: Coronation Street's love triangle shocked viewers

NOW: Domestic violence and rape feature with these characters -- just another storyline in Eastenders