Its too racist so can never be shown again.

17810121323

Comments

  • Prince MonaluluPrince Monalulu Posts: 35,900
    Forum Member
    After the Restoration in 1660 Charles allowed it.

    Cross dressing the other way Female as Male seemed to be all the rage after the rules changed (Wiki).

    Why the English enjoy dressing up in womens clothing for all sorts of minor events, usually involving drink is a mystery to me.
    Then again fancy dress leaves me cold and confused too.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 11,688
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Cross dressing the other way Female as Male seemed to be all the rage after the rules changed (Wiki).

    Why the English enjoy dressing up in womens clothing for all sorts of minor events, usually involving drink is a mystery to me.
    Then again fancy dress leaves me cold and confused too.

    My wife is English and she enjoys dressing up in Womens clothes.:p:D:D

    And it's not just the English who enjoy cross dressing. But the Welsh cross dressers seem to be a little more militant.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXXjcYCUB2Y
  • VerenceVerence Posts: 104,578
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    After the Restoration in 1660 Charles allowed it.

    Thumbs up for the King of Bling!!!
  • doom&gloomdoom&gloom Posts: 9,051
    Forum Member
    M@nterik wrote: »
    Booth is a stereotype, even for the time. I do not see how you can see he was typical. Where is your evidence for that ?

    The scripts are not that deep. No kidding :D We can work that out for ourselves thanks :D

    Thought you were talking about Tony Booth in Til Death Do Us Part.

    Now he was like his character.
  • porkpieporkpie Posts: 2,548
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Yes a similar sort of thing to what was happening in George and Mildred when the working class acquired money and moved to a "better" neighbourhood and all the snooty people living there wanted to sell. Nothing much changes (for some people).
    Not really much time to change though as George and Mildred was broadcast the same year that the last series of Love Thy Neighbour was shown.
    alcockell wrote: »

    It would be good *to* re-air it, maybe with a continuity announcement about it being of its time.
    Warnings were given by UK Gold before each episode of Love Thy Neighbour when they showed it advising that some might be offended by the content .
    Unfortunately they forgot to add that those who were offended should get a life and remember when it was made.
    lady_xanax wrote: »
    Yes, that would be racist. Disliking somebody who happens to be a certain race is not racist per se, and the black neighbour would have no grounds for arguing that it was, unless you used racial slurs. I think people can see through the "playing the race card", though to be honest, the assumption that disagreeing with anyone who is black will mean that they think you're racist, could be a form of racism.
    If I intend to insult someone I will deliberately say something that I hope will offend them.
    I might say "You fat ****" or "you ginger ****" but if it was someone black the obvious thing to say would be "you black ****" and it stinks that the only insult which is illegal would be the latter because the authorities would deem it as racially motivated .
    Clearly they are too stupid to understand the concept of insults.
    M@nterik wrote: »
    Booth is a stereotype, even for the time. I do not see how you can see he was typical. Where is your evidence for that ?

    :D

    (I'm assuming your response included a typo - if it didn't it becomes meaningless)

    I love it when someone asks for evidence on something so stupid.
    I could also ask the equally stupid "where's your evidence that he's not"?:rolleyes:

    My evidence is from working with similar people for over 20 years and encountering them throughout my life.

    Not everything can be backed up by Wikipedia:rolleyes:
  • lady_xanaxlady_xanax Posts: 5,662
    Forum Member
    porkpie wrote: »
    If I intend to insult someone I will deliberately say something that I hope will offend them.
    I might say "You fat ****" or "you ginger ****" but if it was someone black the obvious thing to say would be "you black ****" and it stinks that the only insult which is illegal would be the latter because the authorities would deem it as racially motivated .
    Clearly they are too stupid to understand the concept of insults.

    All of those insults are horrible. We all know the concept of insults but that doesn't make it okay. It's unnecessary to say "you black ****"- "you ****" would suffice, I'm sure.

    The essence of this argument appears to be that you wish to exercise your right to insult people based on their race.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,577
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    lady_xanax wrote: »
    All of those insults are horrible. We all know the concept of insults but that doesn't make it okay. It's unnecessary to say "you black ****"- "you ****" would suffice, I'm sure.

    The essence of this argument appears to be that you wish to exercise your right to insult people based on their race.

    The point is people can use the word ginger, fat or any other number of descriptive words along with the insult and that's fine but use the word black and they'd find themselves in prison. So why is it ok to insult people based on the fact they're ginger, fat or whatever but not on the basis of their skin colour (provided that skin colour is black of course).
  • Chris1964Chris1964 Posts: 19,725
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    lady_xanax wrote: »
    All of those insults are horrible. We all know the concept of insults but that doesn't make it okay. It's unnecessary to say "you black ****"- "you ****" would suffice, I'm sure.

    The essence of this argument appears to be that you wish to exercise your right to insult people based on their race.

    I agree, and personally I have never insulted anyone based on race. However in the heat of a desperate moment people search for something they know will cause someone the most hurt, this can be you lanky ********, you ginger whatever, and maybe colour presents itself. I dont know how you rid the world of this.
  • Chris1964Chris1964 Posts: 19,725
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    LTN is on BBC2 now.........I love 1972.

    The cast all in agreement that it was a child of the seventies and should be left there.
  • Valene1Valene1 Posts: 1,033
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I'm watching and I'm surprised BBC2 haven't edited it at all but I supposed it's better so others can see how, as has been said, it was of its time - well in the past. All the cast look have aged well.
  • Chris1964Chris1964 Posts: 19,725
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Valene1 wrote: »
    I'm watching and I'm surprised BBC2 haven't edited it at all but I supposed it's better so others can see how, as has been said, it was of its time - well in the past. All the cast look have aged well.[/QUOTE]

    Certainly agree there.
  • porkpieporkpie Posts: 2,548
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    lady_xanax wrote: »
    All of those insults are horrible. We all know the concept of insults but that doesn't make it okay. It's unnecessary to say "you black ****"- "you ****" would suffice, I'm sure.

    The essence of this argument appears to be that you wish to exercise your right to insult people based on their race.

    If you understand the concept of insults why then go on to post such nonsense
  • porkpieporkpie Posts: 2,548
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Chris1964 wrote: »
    LTN is on BBC2 now.........I love 1972.

    The cast all in agreement that it was a child of the seventies and should be left there.

    Are you sure?
    Not watched this episode for a while but last time I saw the 2 black actors interviewed they were more than happy for the show to be repeated - although the white actors disagreed, this was on a BBC2 documentary about 70's comedy, not sure if that predates I Love 1972
  • Prince MonaluluPrince Monalulu Posts: 35,900
    Forum Member
    Chris1964 wrote: »
    LTN is on BBC2 now.........I love 1972.

    The cast all in agreement that it was a child of the seventies and should be left there.

    I didn't see it, but I've been told on these threads where LTN is mentioned that Rudolph Walker and other cast members thinks it should come back, be repeated.

    Not that it matters too much what the cast think.
    Lots of actors think they're on an award winning project and it turns into a turkey.
  • allafixallafix Posts: 20,683
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    porkpie wrote: »
    If you understand the concept of insults why then go on to post such nonsense
    We all know what an insult is, do you know what offensive means? Why do you want to watch people hurling racial insults at each other? It may well be realistic and in character, but it also offends the audience.
  • Chris1964Chris1964 Posts: 19,725
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    porkpie wrote: »
    Are you sure?
    Not watched this episode for a while but last time I saw the 2 black actors interviewed they were more than happy for the show to be repeated - although the white actors disagreed, this was on a BBC2 documentary about 70's comedy, not sure if that predates I Love 1972

    Well I dont have any problem with the repeats because they are part of tv history(and you can get DVD's anyway)although they will never be seen on the main channels-I think they were talking about the impossibility of doing the same sort of show today.
  • porkpieporkpie Posts: 2,548
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I didn't see it, but I've been told on these threads where LTN is mentioned that Rudolph Walker and other cast members thinks it should come back, be repeated.

    .
    As I said above , the black actors have said repeats would be ok but the white actors didn't which backs up the point that most of this PC bull is usually whingers worrying on behalf of others
    allafix wrote: »
    We all know what an insult is, do you know what offensive means? Why do you want to watch people hurling racial insults at each other? It may well be realistic and in character, but it also offends the audience.
    Nobody ever got hurt by being offended.
    And why should history be changed or programmes banned simply because some softies can't handle it?


    Unless its personal as in Frankie Boyles jokes about Katie Price and her son I can't see why you'd be offended about something fictional.

    Who gives a shit if something is offensive.
    Change channels ? Move on ?Get a life?
  • allafixallafix Posts: 20,683
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    porkpie wrote: »
    Nobody ever got hurt by being offended.
    And why should history be changed or programmes banned simply because some softies can't handle it?


    Unless its personal as in Frankie Boyles jokes about Katie Price and her son I can't see why you'd be offended about something fictional.

    Who gives a shit if something is offensive.
    Change channels ? Move on ?Get a life?
    No one's changing history and no one is being soft. The programme was made and shown, but it doesn't have to be repeated now. Attitudes change (though clearly not in your case). It's not as if LTN was typical of public attitudes even back then. Eddie was supposed to be a monster. Racism was more common then, but it wasn't the norm. Even then racism was rare on TV.

    Why should a mainstream comedy programme be deliberately and grossly offensive? If you have to listen to that kind of racist language all day, why would you want to listen to it on TV too? Maybe if you aren't one of a minority you might not realise how bad it can make things.

    I still don't understand why you think racial insults are OK. If you include "black" as part of an insult you clearly are saying that being black is a negative thing. On a TV show that attitude transmits itself to the audience, either reinforcing such negative attitudes among the white majority, or repeating the negativity to the black audience.
  • porkpieporkpie Posts: 2,548
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    allafix wrote: »
    I still don't understand why you think racial insults are OK. [/B] If you include "black" as part of an insult you clearly are saying that being black is a negative thing.[/B] .

    You just don't get it do you.
    The concept of what an insult is clearly eludes you.
    They are said with the intention to offend.
    Calling someone a "black...." is said specifically to offend.
    How does saying it even remotely allude to black being a negative thing except in the mind of the recipient of the insult ?
    And that is the intention of an insult - it would be said to make the black person think that is what you were trying to say.

    The point is , why are racial insults any worse than any others?


    I'm moving on now
  • misha06misha06 Posts: 3,378
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Maybe I am over thinking this, but LYN, and to an extent Alf Garnet were rather about peoples fears/worries/the unknown/different, as opposed to outright dislike of other races.

    Today, with society be what it is, showing such a show as LYN would just be a battle cry to meatheads.
  • porkpieporkpie Posts: 2,548
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    misha06 wrote: »
    Maybe I am over thinking this, but LYN, and to an extent Alf Garnet were rather about peoples fears/worries/the unknown/different, as opposed to outright dislike of other races.

    .
    Agreed.
    Both were designed to show the bigot as the idiot which is what always happened.
    Unfortunately many people can't see past the casual name calling that litters the scripts of both.

    Alf Garnett though was an altogether more intelligently written and produced show than LTN
  • allafixallafix Posts: 20,683
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    porkpie wrote: »
    You just don't get it do you.
    The concept of what an insult is clearly eludes you.
    They are said with the intention to offend.
    Calling someone a "black...." is said specifically to offend.
    How does saying it even remotely allude to black being a negative thing except in the mind of the recipient of the insult ?
    And that is the intention of an insult - it would be said to make the black person think that is what you were trying to say.

    The point is , why are racial insults any worse than any others?


    I'm moving on now
    Repeating your crass point doesn't make it any truer. It actually says far more about your own attitudes than it does to help defend LTN. If you use black as a racial insult you do so because you regard that being black as negative. Yes it would be more insulting, but not only is the black person going to be offended they are going to think the person insulting them (you) is a racist. Do you want people to think you are a racist?

    Any insult based on someone's appearance is OTT, but if it's to do with something they can't change (such as their race, or being disabled) then it's goes from being OTT to being totally unacceptable.
  • allafixallafix Posts: 20,683
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    porkpie wrote: »
    Agreed.
    Both were designed to show the bigot as the idiot which is what always happened.
    Unfortunately many people can't see past the casual name calling that litters the scripts of both.

    Alf Garnett though was an altogether more intelligently written and produced show than LTN
    Yes that's true, but the problem at the time was that people who were racist saw characters like Alf and Eddie as heroes, not bigots. So the satire was self-defeating, it helped reinforce the attitudes it was trying to mock.

    Also kids would naturally repeat the language they'd heard on TV in the playground, making it more commonly in use than it already was.
  • Prince MonaluluPrince Monalulu Posts: 35,900
    Forum Member
    porkpie wrote: »
    As I said above , the black actors have said repeats would be ok but the white actors didn't which backs up the point that most of this PC bull is usually whingers worrying on behalf of others

    No it doesn't, back your point, because he didn't have to listen to all the insults repeated back to him at School or Work the next day.
    Lots of people didn't like it the first time round and don't want to see it again.

    Of course, they're all wrong and you're right, because you want to watch this old tut.
  • M@nterikM@nterik Posts: 6,982
    Forum Member
    porkpie wrote: »

    (I'm assuming your response included a typo - if it didn't it becomes meaningless)

    Yes there is a typo in thre, or should that be there, thanks for taking the time out of your very heavy schedule to point it out to me. I will try harder in future :rolleyes:

    porkpie wrote: »
    I love it when someone asks for evidence on something so stupid.
    I could also ask the equally stupid "where's your evidence that he's not"?:rolleyes:

    My evidence is from working with similar people for over 20 years and encountering them throughout my life.

    Well that's conclusive :D:D

    I asked for you to back the point up because my experience is different to yours. You only have to answer the point instead of resorting to cheap digs.

    After all you have the PC brigade and the "softies" to rant against :D
    porkpie wrote: »

    Not everything can be backed up by Wikipedia:rolleyes:

    No kidding Sherlock.

    Any more Damascene revelations :D:D:D:D

    Thanks for your effort though.
Sign In or Register to comment.