[Update] Ofcom raps Channel 4 over Frankie Boyle's Harvey Price 'joke' - Page 5

Gary L · 11-12-2010, 20:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyboy

Hopefully he will end up on the same pile that Jim Davidson and Bernard Manning did.

Jim Davidson was funny. why would you think that anyway. wasn't they supposed to be racist. or is it because Boyle has offended that you think he should be treated the same?

Flyboy · 11-12-2010, 21:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre

I'll pick up the baton,

Communities may well come to a concensus about what actions or words they deem offensive and within their community they may agree to not undertake such offensive deeds.

But that doesn't mean they can push those ideals onto wider society.

Why not?

---------- Post added at 22:00 ---------- Previous post was at 21:57 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by punky

It doesn't matter if anyone thinks it's funny or not but Frankie Boyle delivering a what essentially is a private-performance. He deserves to do so without interference. whether people like it or not shouldn't impact that.

She can ask C4 for an apology. That's fine, and its a PR issue which i'm sure they'll gush over. What would reporting to OfCom do? Can the ban re-transmission of the material? Fine Boyle? OfCom have a duty to address material which I guess would be illegal of which Boyle's material here shouldn't be.

This was not, in any context that any reasonable person could imagine, a private performance.

Pierre · 12-12-2010, 15:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyboy

Why not?

Why should they?

not much of a discussion if each sentence starts with Why?

**Chris** · 12-12-2010, 15:27

I'll take that baton if I may

Communities and interest groups have been pressing for their shared outlook to be adopted by wider society pretty much forever - from the suffragettes and post-1960s feminism through racial equality and sexual orientation discrimination.

People press for their ideas and values to be widely adopted because they believe in the cause - they are convinced that what they believe in is good for wider society as a whole. They can, and should be allowed to, 'push' for their ideals to be adopted. And as we live in a free society, that society may over a period of time accept or reject those ideals.

Pierre · 12-12-2010, 16:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

I'll take that baton if I may

Communities and interest groups have been pressing for their shared outlook to be adopted by wider society pretty much forever - from the suffragettes and post-1960s feminism through racial equality and sexual orientation discrimination.

People press for their ideas and values to be widely adopted because they believe in the cause - they are convinced that what they believe in is good for wider society as a whole. They can, and should be allowed to, 'push' for their ideals to be adopted. And as we live in a free society, that society may over a period of time accept or reject those ideals.

A fair and reasoned comment - others note.

And I accept what you say, and to a point agree with it.

But what I object to, are people who try and tell me what

Quote:

is good for wider society as a whole

where, in my opinion, their values are neither qualified or welcomed.

But because they are a large group i.e. church, society,community etc they think they have the mandate to be our moral compass. This is dangerous, again in my opinion.

I do not agree so much with

Quote:

They can, and should be allowed to, 'push' for their ideals to be adopted

In so far as, if they do indeed obatin support from the masses and do indeed obtain a mandate and then lobby government to have laws introduced - fine.

But not by influencing the media, or applying pressure in other ways so that their views are brought in via the back door.

**Maggy** · 12-12-2010, 18:22

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11976410

Hmm! Very brave of them..But if Ofcom find against them?

**Damien** · 12-12-2010, 18:45

Quote:

Channel 4 has defended the right of comedians to make jokes which "push boundaries" after reality TV star Katie Price complained about Frankie Boyle.

It was a joke about a named mentally disabled child sexually assaulting his mother. Channel 4 claim it's "pushing boundaries"?!

Stuart · 12-12-2010, 18:54

If he'd made a similar sort of joke, but without making it personal (by naming both Katie and Harvey Price), I'd be inclined to agree it is just Frankie trying to push boundaries. He didn't.

It wouldn't necessarily be funny (although, TBH, I didn't consider it funny anyway), but it wouldn't be a personal attack.

Gary L · 12-12-2010, 19:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

Channel 4 claim it's "pushing boundaries"?!

Does that mean the jokes about people without white skin will come back?

**Hugh** · 12-12-2010, 19:29

Why, Gary - do you miss them?

Gary L · 12-12-2010, 19:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh

Why, Gary - do you miss them?

Goodness gracious me, yes.

**Hugh** · 12-12-2010, 20:19

You're a man out of time, Gary - bless.....

**Chris** · 12-12-2010, 22:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh

You're a man out of time, Gary - bless.....

[img]Download Failed (1)[/img]

Gary L · 12-12-2010, 22:52

He reminds me of my grandad.

Stuart · 12-12-2010, 22:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary L

Does that mean the jokes about people without white skin will come back?

They never went away. Look up Andi Osho, Shappi Khorsandi (although she tends not to talk about race as such) or Omid Djalili (who can be funny, but his depictions of iranians could be called offensive).