It is annoying, though. Especially when it comes at the start of programmes such as 'Saving Lives at Sea' or 'Air Ambulance' or 'Police Interceptors', where the body-cam content is carefully edited and and curated to remove any actual blood or violence.

But the point I am making is that people are or should be fully capable of self-curating what they do and don't see. Yes, if the content is especially disturbing, a warning is fair. But if things go on this way, we'll be getting warnings before the 'Great British Bake-Off' that the programme may contain scenes of people preparing and eating sugary or non-vegan foods!

It's in the same league as "Warning, Contents Hot!" on a coffee cup. If you are aware you have trauma about something, then you would surely avoid anything containing it as part of the subject matter? So that a traumatised combat veteran should know not to go and see a war film, for instance.

Cinnamon makes me throw up, so if I detect the smell or taste of cinnamon in food, I don't eat it. I do not expect or require the manufacturer to notify me in big letters that the prduct contains cinnamon. If I do accidentally eat the stuff and am sick, I don't blame whoever served the food or cooked it. They weren't to know and if I was stupid enough not to check or detect it, it's my own silly fault, right?

By the same token, I had an abusive mother and have been in combat. If I suspect that a media product might contain themes or scenes that will aggravate my trauma, I don't watch them, and I don't need a trigger warning to figure it out. I'm not a kid to be protected from myself.

All I'm asking for is an acknowledgement somewhere down the line that people are responsible for themselves and that grown-ass men and women should be smart enough to know what might or might not trigger them without having to wait for Nanny to tell them it's all right!