[punky]

Originally Posted by Chris

I'm not trying to claim anything. I am trying to establish (as I have stated at least 3 times now) what you meant by 'always'. I asked a question. That's all.

And I have answered. My answer is within the context of this thread - i.e. telling jokes. Comedians should always have the right to a joke without having to risk punishment because they stepped on some fobidden area - be it black people, disabled people, sexuality, kids, religion, royals etc. A joke will always have to have a butt. The butt shouldn't always have to be healthy, white heterosexual men. Otherwise, where is their right to complain?

I referenced what Ignition said because I thought it was a succinct way of putting across what I was trying to say in this thread. If you want a catchy slogan that encompasses comedians telling jokes and BNP members commiting hate crimes I suggest you go back to him.

Wilful misunderstanding is pretty poor as a debating tactic. I know you're more intelligent than this and I am having a hard time accepting you didn't understand my first post, the first time you read it.

There is nothing wilful about it. I'm genuinely having a hard time grasping what you are trying to get at.

If you honestly don't instinctively see the wider context of the discussion at hand I'm not about to waste my time trying to explain it for you. However, once again I'm not going along with this. You fully understand the wider implications of Boyle's comments and the response to them, but you prefer not to engage with those implications. Well, fine, ignore that strand of the discussion if you choose.

I fully understand the wider implications but prefer not to engage in those implications? Again, what?

Maybe i'm just not as smart as you but I can only do my best replying to what I think you are trying to say. If you think i'm being obtuse (deliberately or otherwise) then fine, don't reply. I never asked you to in the first place.

Interest groups are constantly lobbying for their view to be acknowledged and legislated for. Why do you find it astonishing when there are so many real-world examples? The recent controversy over Catholic adoption agencies and whether they were allowed to refuse to place children with homosexual couples is a good example of one 'community's' outlook being legislated for at the expense of an (arguably larger) one.

I don't find it astonishing that special interest groups exist. However I don't expect the NBPA (to name but one example) to be able to speak for every black police officer.

Also, I fail to see what this has to do with Boyle telling a joke about Harvey. Jordan has every right to speak on Harvey's behalf as his guardian. Lobbying groups doesn't come into it.