but I didn't really fancy it and never tuned in. But now I'm interested. Was it really that bad?

It didn't bother me, I really enjoyed the show. I don't tend to watch BBC crime-drama often, so it's difficult to compare, but now that you mention it 'Luther' did seem perhaps more violent than your average TV detective show (which is of course not what it was). I did watch 'Messiah' though, and that was quite nasty in parts. Is it more an issue of the broadcast time perhaps? I think scenes of violence are quite acceptable in the right context of drama, though there obviously needs to be some indication of what to expect. I have no problem with it being on post-watershed, though I think the concept of a watershed is a bit lost these days, when for example, you look at the cuts ITV make to the swearing in 'Die Hard' (it's dubbed to "yippie-kay-yay kimosabe" even late at night).

I watched it but don't remember being terribly shocked at the violence - densensitised perhaps?

However, I got the heebeegeebees when I was told (I haven't seen it) how a character on Spooks was tortured via deep fat fryer. Google tells me that was back in 2002.

showing a terrified woman kidnap victim having parts of her body cut off?

Are we having fun yet?

shown after the watershed. Whats the problem?

Filmdom seems to have abandoned itself entirely to children so I'll give a hearty cheer to unsavouriness on TV which rug rats and nuns shouldnt be watching.

I'm deeply bored with the tyranny of infantilism which is increasingly taking over popular culture and the adult protectors of children and bedwetters need to learn whats for grown ups and what isnt. If I want to watch upsetting violence then I will without a care for who else, underage or over sensitive, may be watching. They shouldn't be watching it. And if any wilting violet doesen't like it they can change channel and stop crying.

We watched the first few but the one with him draining the girl's blood and drinking it whilst keeping her locked up in a freezer, terrified, was somewhere beyond my entertainment threshold I'm afraid. I actually found it quite depressing that anyone thought it was entertaining, but hey, takes all sorts.

THIS is violent...

but mainly for the performances of Idris Elba (who knew he could do such a convincing London accent, yo?) and the brilliant Ruth Wilson as the deranged but frankly damned attractive Alice Morgan.

I did find the violence unnecessarily gratuitous. Didn't add anything to the series whatsoever.

The drinking blood character was played by Paul Rhys, who appeared recently as Macca in the wonderful 'When Harvey Met Bob'. That's versatile, although I have to say I found him more convincing as a serial killer...

A wise man (may even have been a certain Mr. Hepworth) once wrote that the more comfortable and safe our lives in general have become, the more violent and abrasive popular culture has become. This series is but one example of this phenomenon.

Being born & raised in Canning Town possibly helped him with that!

The point of my original post was not to open up a debate on censorship and DougieJ has made the point I wanted to make. The violence in Luther is often gratuitous. His example is a good one and I'd add the 'smashing a hammer into the back of someone's head whilst being filmed in slow motion' to the mix.

The problem for me is that I like the series in general but I'm not sure I can take the violence, much of which seems unnecessary to me.

the ratings are instructive - Luther started with 5.8 m views and declined steadily. The Bill at its peak drew 16m viewers and even when it was axed was steadily drawing 5 - 7m. Maybe sadism isn't as popular as the Beeb thought it might be. No blood drinking in Sun Hill.