As for the plot, this is how the BBC themselves see it - "On a stormy sea crossing, way back in the 10th century, Sigurd the Viking falls from his longship and ends up washed ashore in the present day. Finding himself in the seaside town of Flotby, Siggy hides in local B&B called the Viking Hotel, run by Keith and Penny Ellis (with the help of their children Tim and Zoe). Meanwhile, famous archaeologist Mrs Tibblethwaite comes to stay at the guesthouse. She's a Viking expert - but will she recognise Siggy as the genuine article? Siggy is a Viking - the real McCoy: big, hairy, smelly and straight out of the 10th Century. He was a look-out on a Viking longship on a 10th Century raid when he fell from his boat and somehow got washed up in the present day. Siggy is not your average Viking. In fact a lot of people would say he is your below-average Viking! It's not that Siggy means to be bumbling and incompetent. In fact, he means well. It's just that somehow, in his eagerness to please, things seem to go wrong somewhere. Siggy is a passionate soul and tends to wear his heart on his sleeve. Like a child, he can laugh or burst into tears in the space of a few seconds. So he takes it hard when his instant and passionate love for Mrs Tibblethwaite is unrequited!" Oh dear. Again. I think it's a safe bet to say that if this show would have been written for an adult audience rather than aimed primarily at kids that they would have had Sigurd systematically raping his way through Flotby's female population.

We missed the first five 15 minute episodes of this nonsense, and if episode 6 was indicative of the quality of the first 5, we can only be thankful that we did. I find it astonishing that the BBC, who pride themselves on being educators as well as entertainers could make a show so dire. It seems as though this kind of programme caters for a deep seated need in the Anglo-Saxon people to ridicule, through the use of stereotypes, those who differ in whatever sense from a neat boxed set of characteristics and attitudes that can be thought of as Anglo-Saxon. In the 70s black, Jewish and Asian people were all considered fair game, but in these more civilised times another target has to be selected. What is also rather sad is the way that the show injects a few choice factual tid-bits in an attempt to lend it some semblance of credibility, for example Sigurd has a sword with a name ("Nose-picker"!) a common Viking practice, and yet will fall back on surely the most over-used and yet totally incorrect image of the Viking age, yes, *stifles huge yawn*, the horned helmet.

This paradox was neatly demonstrated in the episode we saw, where a guest at the Viking Hotel was considered to be a Viking expert because he complained that if it were a true Viking hotel they would be using mined salt rather than sea salt, and yet the same man never batted an eyelid when confronted by Sigurd and his ridiculous helmet! Another aspect of the show we found a bit odd was the contradiction between the setting and characters as described in the plot, and the actors used to portray the characters. "Flotby" is the name given to the town in the show, the "by" suffix placing the town, reasonably enough, somewhere in the Danelaw, ie giving it a Viking influenced name. The Professor of archaeology, Mrs Tibblethwaite , has a surname ending with a suffix most common in the North of England, particularly Yorkshire. We also learn that Professor Tibblethwaite is in Flotby on an "archaeological dig", and as she is a "Viking archaeologist" ie only likely to be working on sites where the Vikings were once active that would also most likely seem to place Flotby in Northern England. Despite all these dropped hints that the action is taking place in Northern England, all the actors spoke with Southern English accents.

A Scottish based drama would not have characters speaking in Southern English accents, so why does everyone in Flotby? I doubt very much whether it was a question of budget, ie that the BBC could not afford to film on location in Yorkshire, more likely another case of contempt for historical accuracy, it was probably not considered worthwhile getting the setting and characters right, which if you consider the usage of that helmet would seem about right. The whole project seems like a wasted opportunity - the core idea behind the programme has a lot of potential. The makers could have gone for historical accuracy and dropped the heavy handed stereotypes, and still created real drama and comedy from the 10th / 21st century culture clash, entertaining and educating at the same time. Sorry BBC, but "There's a Viking in my Bed" gets a huge "Raven and the Rose" thumbs down. 3 out of 10, could do better. See me after class.