[Update] Ofcom raps Channel 4 over Frankie Boyle's Harvey Price 'joke'

[Kymmy]

Last two posts deleted..

Can any further posts please have more relevant content apart from "Oh Yes you did" and "Oh no I didn't"

---------- Post added at 15:46 ---------- Previous post was at 15:26 ----------

Any more "Off Topic" posts may be infracted

[chill_fm]

there has been some jokes he has done in the pass
i did not understand it
an iam scottish
but i hate Katie price she is to big headed an its just a joke
get over it Katie an get a sense a humour

[Flyboy]

But having a flake and an idiot for a mother does mean that her eight year old disabled child is fair game.

[simples145]

Originally Posted by danielf

I saw part of the show, and it was incredibly rude. Now, I'm fairly thick skinned and am not easily put off by rude humour, but the problem with that show was that it wasn't particularly funny. Which just leaves rude. Not something to watch again imo.

Spot on: I have no moral issue with him telling a joke that may offend - Ms. Price puts herself in the public eye and so she is a fair target. My problem is the same as yours - why make a joke that isn't funny?
It seems he has prioritized offensiveness over comedy. Not good, and I was a huge fan of Frankie's - I even bought one of his stand-up dvd's!

[Flyboy]

The problem with that is Ms Price wasn't the target, it was a disabled eight year old child, who was the target. The fact the his mother is an attention seeking idiot, is not his fault and he shouldn't be ridiculed because of it.

[simples145]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

The problem with that is Ms Price wasn't the target, it was a disabled eight year old child.

Spoken like someone who didn't actually watch the show. The joke was:
"the only reason she married a bodybuilder was so she had someone to stop Harvey from raping her.."

Ms Price is clearly the target of the joke - she is the subject, the show was aired after 10pm with several warnings that minors should not watch. If anyone lets their eight year-old kid watch shows of that nature, at that time of night, it is the parent's fault for exposing them to it.

To try and argue he was attacking the kid is stupid - maybe if he said it on daytime kid's tv I would agree with you.

Originally Posted by simples145

To try and argue he was attacking the kid is stupid - maybe if he said it on daytime kid's tv I would agree with you.

Not half as stupid as failing to see what might be a little bit dodgy about suggesting a disabled child is likely to attempt to rape his mother.

Or are you from a planet where that sort of thing is ok?

[simples145]

Originally Posted by Chris

suggesting a disabled child is likely to attempt to rape his mother.

He didn't seriously suggest anything - it was a joke on a comedy show, I have already agreed that it wasn't funny but it was still a JOKE.

ie: creating a ridiculous situation for the purposes of comedy.

Or are you from a place that has no concept of comedy?

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by simples145

Spoken like someone who didn't actually watch the show. The joke was:
"the only reason she married a bodybuilder was so she had someone to stop Harvey from raping her.."

Ms Price is clearly the target of the joke - she is the subject, the show was aired after 10pm with several warnings that minors should not watch. If anyone lets their eight year-old kid watch shows of that nature, at that time of night, it is the parent's fault for exposing them to it.

To try and argue he was attacking the kid is stupid - maybe if he said it on daytime kid's tv I would agree with you.

One does not have to actually see, or hear, what was said to have an opinion about it. There are lots of things I don't need to see or hear to able to do that.

The remark came from a whole diatribe about the child, for example, the current case regarding custody. It was suggested, whomever was successful in obtaining a residency order, will be the "loser," implying that neither Ms. Price nor Mr André wanted the child.

Originally Posted by simples145

He didn't seriously suggest anything - it was a joke on a comedy show, I have already agreed that it wasn't funny but it was still a JOKE.

ie: creating a ridiculous situation for the purposes of comedy.

Or are you from a place that has no concept of comedy?

Can we get something straight: do you now accept that Harvey was the target of this 'JOKE'?

[simples145]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

One does not have to actually see, or hear, what was said to have an opinion about it. There are lots of things I don't need to see or hear to able to do that. The remark came from a whole diatribe about the child, for example, the current case regarding custody. It was suggested, whomever was successful in obtaining a residency order, will be the "loser," implying that neither Ms. Price nor Mr André wanted the child.

True, you can have an opinion about anything you like. However an informed opinion is likely to be worth listening to, whilst one based on hearsay is likely to be prejudiced by public opinion.

I have agreed, and will agree again that the joke was tasteless and not funny. But people on here are trying to claim some sort of moral high-ground as if Mr Boyle was a public servant.

He's a comedian, well known for his offensive humour. If you can't take what he is saying as a joke (however offensive that may be) then it is your problem, not his.

[Blackened]

What on Earth has the time of day/kids TV got to do with anything?? It's an adult showed aimed at adults aired after the watershed - what are you on about kids being exposed to it and parents at fault? Deary me..

"the only reason she married a bodybuilder was so she had someone to stop Harvey from raping her.."

And you don't think Boyle was suggesting with his joke that Harvey is autistic and capable of raping his mother? Of course the kid was the butt of the joke. Sober up ffs.

Originally Posted by simples145

True, you can have an opinion about anything you like. However an informed opinion is likely to be worth listening to, whilst one based on hearsay is likely to be prejudiced by public opinion.

I have agreed, and will agree again that the joke was tasteless and not funny. But people on here are trying to claim some sort of moral high-ground as if Mr Boyle was a public servant.

He's a comedian, well known for his offensive humour. If you can't take what he is saying as a joke (however offensive that may be) then it is your problem, not his.

Frankie Boyle isn't a public servant, but he was broadcasting on a public service channel - and one that is, incidentally, State-owned. i.e. ours. People are entitled to be heard if they have a view on any licenced broadcast service, especially those that have privileged PSB status, and foremost among those the BBC and C4.

[simples145]

Originally Posted by Chris

Can we get something straight: do you now accept that Harvey was the target of this 'JOKE'?

No I am saying you are taking it too seriously and his whole show is full of jokes. To take it out of context and accuse him of attacking a child is simply wrong. He was IN the joke yes, but the "target" was his mother and her stupid actions - would we even know who Harvey was if it weren't for her constant public appearances/magazine deals? No.
There are plenty of celebrities with children I have never heard of, he wouldn't make a joke about someone's kids if they weren't in the media - what would be the point? And whose fault is it if Harvey appears in the public eye? His mum's - the TARGET of the joke.

---------- Post added at 15:04 ---------- Previous post was at 15:02 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

Frankie Boyle isn't a public servant, but he was broadcasting on a public service channel..

Channel 4 is not a public service channel - it is paid for by advertising.

I just bought a tv licence - it pays for the BBC only.

---------- Post added at 15:09 ---------- Previous post was at 15:04 ----------

Originally Posted by Blackened

What on Earth has the time of day/kids TV got to do with anything?? It's an adult showed aimed at adults aired after the watershed - what are you on about kids being exposed to it and parents at fault? Deary me..
And you don't think Boyle was suggesting with his joke that Harvey is autistic and capable of raping his mother? Of course the kid was the butt of the joke. Sober up ffs.

A previous poster asserted that Harvey would be "ridiculed" beacause of the show - my point was to show how ridiculous that claim was.

Even if he was the butt of the joke (personally i still think it was aimed at his mother for placing him in the limelight) it was a JOKE.

Lighten up ffs.

Originally Posted by simples145

No I am saying you are taking it too seriously and his whole show is full of jokes. To take it out of context and accuse him of attacking a child is simply wrong. He was IN the joke yes, but the "target" was his mother and her stupid actions - would we even know who Harvey was if it weren't for her constant public appearances/magazine deals? No.
There are plenty of celebrities with children I have never heard of, he wouldn't make a joke about someone's kids if they weren't in the media - what would be the point? And whose fault is it if Harvey appears in the public eye? His mum's - the TARGET of the joke.

---------- Post added at 15:04 ---------- Previous post was at 15:02 ----------



Channel 4 is not a public service channel - it is paid for by advertising.

I just bought a tv licence - it pays for the BBC only.

---------- Post added at 15:09 ---------- Previous post was at 15:04 ----------



A previous poster asserted that Harvey would be "ridiculed" beacause of the show - my point was to show how ridiculous that claim was.

Even if he was the butt of the joke (personally i still think it was aimed at his mother for placing him in the limelight) it was a JOKE.

Lighten up ffs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_4


So I can be offensive as I like about anyone in regards to their sexuality,race,religion,gender,height,disabilty but as long as I claim it is a joke that excuses me from any litigation or responsibility?

Nice world you live in.