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

[Flyboy]

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.

There are many things that I do not want to watch, or hear, that would be swayed by public opinion in order for me for me to dislike it. For example, I wouldn't want to watch a public execution, but by me objecting to it, doesn't mean it is because lots of other people don't like it either.

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.

I can't see that to be honest. Everyone seems to be objecting to it, because they find the ridicule of a disabled eight year old boy, to be rather unpalatable.

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.

No, the issue is rather very much his problem. He is the one who seems to find the thought of disabled children to be offensive, otherwise why make fun of them.

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.

Congratulations on the most tortured, sloppy reasoning I've read anywhere on any forum for some considerable time. I think your comments stand pretty well as their own rebuttal, so I'll leave them be.

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.

'Public service' refers to the conditions and privileges that derive from the licence the channel has from OFCOM, not the TV licence you just bought.

Furthermore, Channel 4 is entirely State-owned, and always has been. A fact you really ought to be aware of if you're going to get involved in a discussion like this and castigate other people with words like:

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.

Here, why not go and read this, it might help inform your own opinions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_4

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by simples145

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.

Oh dear.

[simples145]

Fair point, it was still a joke tho :P

[Flyboy]

No....no it wasn't.

Jokes are supposed to be funny. Please can you point out where the humour was.

[Stuart]

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?

Whether it was suggested seriously or not, the fact that it was suggested at all means it can still cause offence.

Whether or not he was the butt of the joke is irrelevant.

Ask yourself this. How would *you* feel if you had a disabled child and some comedian made a reference to them raping you? Hurt? Angry? Would it being a joke make any difference to you?

[Blackened]

Originally Posted by simples145

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

What??
Again, I'll ask you - what does the aired time and mentioning people exposing their kids to it have to do with anything? It's almost as if you said this with without thinking.

Oh, wait..

[dan dority]

katie price isnt exactly mum of the year
shes the last person in the world who should be taking the moral high ground.

She is taking it on behalf of her disabled son, not herself - different thing altogether, imho.

[joglynne]

I just thought this extract from OFCOM Audience Complaints list may be of interest.

Complaints

It is not possible for us to list every complaint we have received – but here is a list in alphabetical order of those programmes that received more than 10 standards complaints last week (we do not include fairness and privacy complaints in this list).

Report covers complaints received between: Tuesday 7 December 2010 to Monday 13 December 2010

Channel 4 News, Channel 4, Sunday 5 December 2010: 65
EastEnders, BBC 1, Thursday 9 December 2010: 13
EastEnders, BBC 1, Monday 13 December 2010: 16
Frankie Boyle's Tramadol Nights, Channel 4, Tuesday 7 December 2010: 469
The X Factor, ITV1 London, Sunday 5 December 2010: 192
The X Factor, ITV1 London, Saturday 11 December 2010: 1,350

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/enf...ce-complaints/

Unfortunately it could be sometime before we know the outcome of any official ruling as the latest published results of OFCOMs investigations into complaints only cover programmes broadcast up to the end of September 2010.

http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/2010/1...t-bulletin-36/

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by dan dority

katie price isnt exactly mum of the year
shes the last person in the world who should be taking the moral high ground.

Who she is, and her parenting skills are irrelevant. She still has a right to be offended on behalf of her son.

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by dan dority

katie price isnt exactly mum of the year
shes the last person in the world who should be taking the moral high ground.

But Harvey has no say in what his mother does, why he should be the one to be punished for his mother being a flake.

[dan dority]

Originally Posted by Stuart

Who she is, and her parenting skills are irrelevant. She still has a right to be offended on behalf of her son.

she will say or do anything to get in to the papers
a media whore of the highest order.
all she is doing is promoting herself , her tv show or her latest biography.
she should be thanking frankie boyle for the free advertising.
if she was that worried about harveys feeings maybe she would not have included him in her reality tv show,as other celebs have done in similar shows.

[Flyboy]

Maybe you could explain to us, how you think that should prevent her from making a complaint on her disabled eight year old son's behalf?

[dan dority]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

Maybe you could explain to us, how you think that should prevent her from making a complaint on her disabled eight year old son's behalf?

shes just making it worse , she should have just let it go for harveys sake .
now harvey will face more media attention when he should be just a kid getting on with his childhood.