Having personal experience with many of the subjects he jokes about, indeed even having a son about to undergo testing for possible Autism, I can honestly say I've never taken offense at his jokes, and can't ever see myself doing so.
Well you are presumably safe saying that since it is hard to think of a context in which Boyle would make cruel fun of your son's possible autism. But if someone did, suggesting that he is unloveable and odious, perhaps you would not be amused?
Then I can only assume you've never actually seen a performance from one, or both, of them. Nobody familiar with both acts would try to get away with making that statement in seriousness.
As far as I'm concerned KP puts herself out there and if jokes are made at her expense then fair play. What was wrong was picking on her son. Whether he's disabled or not, he's a child and Frankie may think he's being funny and edgy; I think he's a twanker.:mad::mad:
Well you are presumably safe saying that since it is hard to think of a context in which Boyle would make cruel fun of your son's possible autism. But if someone did, suggesting that he is unloveable and odious, perhaps you would not be amused?
I wouldn't state with certainty since it's probably impossible to know beforehand, but I honestly believe I'd try to take in it's intended spirit; a fairly bizarre dark joke. What I wouldn't do is demand a public apology from the joker (or the platform for his jokes). And I most definitely would not be stupid enough to believe I'd have a case for any kind of legal action.
Then I can only assume you've never actually seen a performance from one, or both, of them. Nobody familiar with both acts would try to get away with making that statement in seriousness.
"When there's nothing motivating the venom, the already-slender dividing line between Boyle and Bernard Manning vanishes. His bestselling autobiography revealed a leftwing conscience. Hence, the swipes at bankers and the bombing of Afghanistan. But they're swiftly buried under a landslide of rape gags."
Or...to make his audience laugh.
Having personal experience with many of the subjects he jokes about, indeed even having a son about to undergo testing for possible Autism, I can honestly say I've never taken offense at his jokes, and can't ever see myself doing so.
Will you also find it funny if your son is the direct butt of jokes from other children because of his disability? Will you laugh with them because, well, they're only joking, they don't mean any harm. Meanwhile your son is feeling devasted, confused, angry, demoralised...
^Not sure what to say to you, you seem to have it sewn up how my son will feel and react to things, when you don't know the first thing about him. I myself will be doing my best to teach him the difference between a joke and a genuine attack, something you clearly haven't learned yourself, if this thread is anything to go by.
Then you, sir or madam, are woefully unobservant. Look in any newspaper, any day... look at this website... watch any given TV programme... check any history book. Better still, go to Speaker's Corner, or Parliament Square... then try to imagine that happening in, say, China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia or Burma.
Look in any newspaper...In any newspaper, any day, there are stories of libel suits, defamation suits, censorship suits, OFCOM putting its foot down, broadcasting code breaches. Historically, people have been put to death in the UK for words that offended the wrong people. Books have been censored, movies have been censored...
Look in any given TV program...all TV programs in the UK are subject to strict broadcasting regulations and repeatedly revised for content issues.
Check any history book...yeah, look up Traitor's Gate for a start off.
Forget it, I'm wasting my breath. I've said all this once. Unobservant...christ, thats the pot calling the kettle black.
If you think you've got freedom of speech, go into your nearest city centre and say something controversial or obscene into a microphone for a while. See how long your freedom lasts. Or try it on a TV or radio phone-in.
I look forward to hearing how you get on. Freedom of speech is a myth. It doesn't exist.
"When there's nothing motivating the venom, the already-slender dividing line between Boyle and Bernard Manning vanishes. His bestselling autobiography revealed a leftwing conscience. Hence, the swipes at bankers and the bombing of Afghanistan. But they're swiftly buried under a landslide of rape gags."
Considering his poetic license in declaring that nobody laughed at the Maddie gag, and that there were no calls for an encore (note, carefully avoiding saying there wasn't one), I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that guy is talking shit, which extends to the Manning comparison. I mean all it takes is a quick youtube to see they are nothing alike.
Look in any newspaper...In any newspaper, any day, there are stories of libel suits, defamation suits, censorship suits, OFCOM putting its foot down, broadcasting code breaches. Historically, people have been put to death in the UK for words that offended the wrong people. Books have been censored, movies have been censored...
Look in any given TV program...all TV programs in the UK are subject to strict broadcasting regulations and repeatedly revised for content issues.
Check any history book...yeah, look up Traitor's Gate for a start off.
Forget it, I'm wasting my breath. I've said all this once. Unobservant...christ, thats the pot calling the kettle black.
If you think you've got freedom of speech, go into your nearest city centre and say something controversial or obscene into a microphone for a while. See how long your freedom lasts. Or try it on a TV or radio phone-in.
I look forward to hearing how you get on. Freedom of speech is a myth. It doesn't exist.
You're kinda hyperbole-ing it up here. Freedom of speech does exist in this country and laws regarding do not come close to touching on FB's jokes.
The laws that do exist in this country say, you cannot print or verbally spread damaging lies about a person, and you cannot make a public speech which incites hatred and/or violence. FB did none of these things.
Look in any newspaper...In any newspaper, any day, there are stories of libel suits, defamation suits, censorship suits, OFCOM putting its foot down, broadcasting code breaches. Historically, people have been put to death in the UK for words that offended the wrong people. Books have been censored, movies have been censored...
Look in any given TV program...all TV programs in the UK are subject to strict broadcasting regulations and repeatedly revised for content issues.
Check any history book...yeah, look up Traitor's Gate for a start off.
Forget it, I'm wasting my breath. I've said all this once. Unobservant...christ, thats the pot calling the kettle black.
If you think you've got freedom of speech, go into your nearest city centre and say something controversial or obscene into a microphone for a while. See how long your freedom lasts. Or try it on a TV or radio phone-in.
I look forward to hearing how you get on. Freedom of speech is a myth. It doesn't exist.
I'm sorry, do you even know what freedom of speech is? Because it's not sounding like you do. It is not about being able to say whatever you like without consequences.
That's the whole point. FoS and the consequences of FoS go hand in hand. By saying it, you accept the response generated by it.
I wouldn't state with certainty since it's probably impossible to know beforehand, but I honestly believe I'd try to take in it's intended spirit; a fairly bizarre dark joke. What I wouldn't do is demand a public apology from the joker (or the platform for his jokes). And I most definitely would not be stupid enough to believe I'd have a case for any kind of legal action.
Whilst we have been in disagreement of late, all your posts in this thread are spot on.
You're kinda hyperbole-ing it up here. Freedom of speech does exist in this country and laws regarding do not come close to touching on FB's jokes.
The laws that do exist in this country say, you cannot print or verbally spread damaging lies about a person, and you cannot make a public speech which incites hatred and/or violence. FB did none of these things.
I never said he did.
And freedom of speech with exceptions is not freedom of speech. Nor is speech which is regulated by a broadcasting authority. It's 'freedom to speak within our distinct boundaries', which is considerably different than being able to say whatever you like.
must admit the joke was kinda cruel but I think frankie boyle is a marmite type of comedian, u either love him or hate him.
The only person who should be outraged by the joke is Katie Price because its her son who he taking the mick out of. Its her son being directly insulted
As far as I'm concerned KP puts herself out there and if jokes are made at her expense then fair play. What was wrong was picking on her son. Whether he's disabled or not, he's a child and Frankie may think he's being funny and edgy; I think he's a twanker.:mad::mad:
Exactly, KP brings a lot on herself but her son hasn't done anything to deserve victimisation, if Harvey was able to respond to the joke then I'd say it was fair game but as it stands it's just another example of BF's cowardly take on comedy.
And freedom of speech with exceptions is not freedom of speech. Nor is speech which is regulated by a broadcasting authority. It's 'freedom to speak within our distinct boundaries', which is considerably different than being able to say whatever you like.
Then 'freedom of speech' exists nowhere on this planet and the phrase itself is void of meaning...
You know exactly what people are trying to say in this thread.
I wouldn't state with certainty since it's probably impossible to know beforehand, but I honestly believe I'd try to take in it's intended spirit; a fairly bizarre dark joke. What I wouldn't do is demand a public apology from the joker (or the platform for his jokes). And I most definitely would not be stupid enough to believe I'd have a case for any kind of legal action.
Ah well, you are sticking honorably by your guns. But I am inclined to think that this is an issue where democracy might rule: the majority of people surely WOULD be very upset if their child's disability was made the subject of cruel public sport, even if the child himself was not capable of understanding what was being said. As was the mother who objected to his side-splitting observations that children with Down's syndrome have ugly faces and voices and "don't have long to live, do they?" I think he is just normalizing the kind of abuse that disabled children get ALREADY, especially if their disability is only too visible because they don't look like their peers. And I think he knows that those particular jokes are not very good - compare them with some of his best (a few of these are good); the downs syndrome/ Harvey Price jokes are poor as jokes; they are more daring people to criticise him. And he is right in a way to laugh at criticism - Ch 4 have refused to apologise to KP, though I think on this occasion they may regret this.
"When there's nothing motivating the venom, the already-slender dividing line between Boyle and Bernard Manning vanishes. His bestselling autobiography revealed a leftwing conscience. Hence, the swipes at bankers and the bombing of Afghanistan. But they're swiftly buried under a landslide of rape gags."
must admit the joke was kinda cruel but I think frankie boyle is a marmite type of comedian, u either love him or hate him.
Yeah, we've already had that line. I didn't agree with it then. I think he is a talented comedian who lets himself down from time to time by attacking the already bullied and disregarded.
The only person who should be outraged by the joke is Katie Price because its her son who he taking the mick out of. Its her son being directly insulted
Why? Do you suggest that no one has any right to take issue with someone else's child being attacked? I hope I don't have to rely on people like you for support if anyone ever has a go at one of my children.
Ah well, you are sticking honorably by your guns. But I am inclined to think that this is an issue where democracy might rule: the majority of people surely WOULD be very upset if their child's disability was made the subject of cruel public sport, even if the child himself was not capable of understanding what was being said. As was the mother who objected to his side-splitting observations that children with Down's syndrome have ugly faces and voices and "don't have long to live, do they?" I think he is just normalizing the kind of abuse that disabled children get ALREADY, especially if their disability is only too visible because they don't look like their peers. And I think he knows that those particular jokes are not very good - compare them with some of his best (a few of these are good; the downs syndrome/ Harvey Price jokes are poor as jokes; they are more daring people to criticise him. And he is right in a way to laugh at criticism - Ch 4 have refused to apologise to KP, though I think on this occasion they may regret this.
You, the OP and a few others need to read my post #123 because you're just not getting what comedy is about here.
Comments
'perfectly normal urges' to rape your mother eh? well, whatever gets it up for you mate.
More unintended depth. I meant sexual urges. I REST MY CASE
Same type of humour. Frankie is the new Manning.
Well you are presumably safe saying that since it is hard to think of a context in which Boyle would make cruel fun of your son's possible autism. But if someone did, suggesting that he is unloveable and odious, perhaps you would not be amused?
"When there's nothing motivating the venom, the already-slender dividing line between Boyle and Bernard Manning vanishes. His bestselling autobiography revealed a leftwing conscience. Hence, the swipes at bankers and the bombing of Afghanistan. But they're swiftly buried under a landslide of rape gags."
Frankie Boyle review- Hammersmith Apollo- The Guardian 3rd Nov 2010
Too painful to answer my questions?
Best thing on TV I would say!
Look in any newspaper...In any newspaper, any day, there are stories of libel suits, defamation suits, censorship suits, OFCOM putting its foot down, broadcasting code breaches. Historically, people have been put to death in the UK for words that offended the wrong people. Books have been censored, movies have been censored...
Look in any given TV program...all TV programs in the UK are subject to strict broadcasting regulations and repeatedly revised for content issues.
Check any history book...yeah, look up Traitor's Gate for a start off.
Forget it, I'm wasting my breath. I've said all this once. Unobservant...christ, thats the pot calling the kettle black.
If you think you've got freedom of speech, go into your nearest city centre and say something controversial or obscene into a microphone for a while. See how long your freedom lasts. Or try it on a TV or radio phone-in.
I look forward to hearing how you get on. Freedom of speech is a myth. It doesn't exist.
You're kinda hyperbole-ing it up here. Freedom of speech does exist in this country and laws regarding do not come close to touching on FB's jokes.
The laws that do exist in this country say, you cannot print or verbally spread damaging lies about a person, and you cannot make a public speech which incites hatred and/or violence. FB did none of these things.
I'm sorry, do you even know what freedom of speech is? Because it's not sounding like you do. It is not about being able to say whatever you like without consequences.
That's the whole point. FoS and the consequences of FoS go hand in hand. By saying it, you accept the response generated by it.
Whilst we have been in disagreement of late, all your posts in this thread are spot on.
I never said he did.
And freedom of speech with exceptions is not freedom of speech. Nor is speech which is regulated by a broadcasting authority. It's 'freedom to speak within our distinct boundaries', which is considerably different than being able to say whatever you like.
The only person who should be outraged by the joke is Katie Price because its her son who he taking the mick out of. Its her son being directly insulted
Exactly, KP brings a lot on herself but her son hasn't done anything to deserve victimisation, if Harvey was able to respond to the joke then I'd say it was fair game but as it stands it's just another example of BF's cowardly take on comedy.
Then 'freedom of speech' exists nowhere on this planet and the phrase itself is void of meaning...
You know exactly what people are trying to say in this thread.
Ah well, you are sticking honorably by your guns. But I am inclined to think that this is an issue where democracy might rule: the majority of people surely WOULD be very upset if their child's disability was made the subject of cruel public sport, even if the child himself was not capable of understanding what was being said. As was the mother who objected to his side-splitting observations that children with Down's syndrome have ugly faces and voices and "don't have long to live, do they?" I think he is just normalizing the kind of abuse that disabled children get ALREADY, especially if their disability is only too visible because they don't look like their peers. And I think he knows that those particular jokes are not very good - compare them with some of his best (a few of these are good); the downs syndrome/ Harvey Price jokes are poor as jokes; they are more daring people to criticise him. And he is right in a way to laugh at criticism - Ch 4 have refused to apologise to KP, though I think on this occasion they may regret this.
Thank you.;)
Why? Do you suggest that no one has any right to take issue with someone else's child being attacked? I hope I don't have to rely on people like you for support if anyone ever has a go at one of my children.
You, the OP and a few others need to read my post #123 because you're just not getting what comedy is about here.