Originally Posted by Saturn:
“I'm a gay male and I thought it was hilarious.”
“I'm a gay male and I thought it was hilarious.”
Think most gays would have found it funny....its just the straight pc brigade who dont.....
sausage comment
3 of 4
Craig must have a sense of humour to have agreed to be the face of British Sausage Week so I am sure he is more than capable of handling a few quips about it, especially from someone who has also endorsed the campaign.
I really do think people are reading far too much into it!
I really do think people are reading far too much into it!
Originally Posted by galentine:
“Even bearing the Sausage Week context in mind, it was still a sh*t joke from an old dinosaur.”
“Even bearing the Sausage Week context in mind, it was still a sh*t joke from an old dinosaur.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...tly-judge.html
Am I right in thinking the Daily Mail have used my quote?! I spose somebody could have said something similar on Twitter.
Even though I stand by what I said about this incident (i.e. that it was a rubbish joke, though I didn't find it offensive!), I am horrified that the Daily Mail could be using my comments for an anti-BBC article. I LOVE THE BBC!
Oh well, you post anonymously on a public forum, and that's the risk you take...
Good God. I'm gay and I don't think it was remotely homophobic. Some people really need to get a life.
I *really* don't like Paul Daniels.
But y'know. Craig deliberately camps it up on Strictly. It's on purpose. It's agreed with the producers. Bruce tells him off as agreed with the producers. The camera shots are pre-arranged, for heavens sakes. Bruce says Craig is mean. Immediate cut to Craig doing his sucking a lemon campy face. In fact, it's so obvious that by the end of each show this weekend I was saying to myself once or twice is enough dears, we don't need ten cuts to Craig doing his sucking a lemon campy face to get it.
Craig = bitchy queen is a hallmark of the show. It's intended to be a) funny and b) get as close to the line as pre-watershed TV can get in order to provoke a reaction from the audience. Paul Daniels does a pun involving Craig and sausages. It's what he's SUPPOSED to do, for heavens sakes.
You can take the view that the humour of it all isn't your cup of tea, but you really can't imagine that there's any genuine venom or homophobia behind any of it. People are just playing their parts.
But y'know. Craig deliberately camps it up on Strictly. It's on purpose. It's agreed with the producers. Bruce tells him off as agreed with the producers. The camera shots are pre-arranged, for heavens sakes. Bruce says Craig is mean. Immediate cut to Craig doing his sucking a lemon campy face. In fact, it's so obvious that by the end of each show this weekend I was saying to myself once or twice is enough dears, we don't need ten cuts to Craig doing his sucking a lemon campy face to get it.
Craig = bitchy queen is a hallmark of the show. It's intended to be a) funny and b) get as close to the line as pre-watershed TV can get in order to provoke a reaction from the audience. Paul Daniels does a pun involving Craig and sausages. It's what he's SUPPOSED to do, for heavens sakes.
You can take the view that the humour of it all isn't your cup of tea, but you really can't imagine that there's any genuine venom or homophobia behind any of it. People are just playing their parts.
As usual its got all blown out of proportion and now its in the paps today about him being racist FFS
Cant anyone say anything these days!
Cant anyone say anything these days!
Anyone that took offence to this really needs to liven up.These people that complain are the old dinosaurs here.
Like I said the same night, it could be construed as homphobic but if Craig didn't think it was then that should be that.
I'm sure Craig has heard the same joke many times from his own friends. He seemed to have a not again look when Paul made the comment and took it well. He didn't look offended and maybe knew that Paul had been involved with the sausage campaign before him.
Wouldn't have helped Paul's score though.
Wouldn't have helped Paul's score though.
Originally Posted by galentine:
“http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...tly-judge.html
Am I right in thinking the Daily Mail have used my quote?! I spose somebody could have said something similar on Twitter.
Even though I stand by what I said about this incident (i.e. that it was a rubbish joke, though I didn't find it offensive!), I am horrified that the Daily Mail could be using my comments for an anti-BBC article. I LOVE THE BBC!
Oh well, you post anonymously on a public forum, and that's the risk you take...”
“http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...tly-judge.html
Am I right in thinking the Daily Mail have used my quote?! I spose somebody could have said something similar on Twitter.
Even though I stand by what I said about this incident (i.e. that it was a rubbish joke, though I didn't find it offensive!), I am horrified that the Daily Mail could be using my comments for an anti-BBC article. I LOVE THE BBC!
Oh well, you post anonymously on a public forum, and that's the risk you take...”
Typically shoddy piece of 'journalism' from that paper. Trying to make out it's something it wasn't, only clarifying the sausage week context way down the article, repeatedly mis-spelling Ola's name, mis-attributing quotes from this site (yours and one other) to make it seem they were posted on 'an official BBC' site...
Originally Posted by galentine:
“http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...tly-judge.html
Am I right in thinking the Daily Mail have used my quote?! I spose somebody could have said something similar on Twitter.
Even though I stand by what I said about this incident (i.e. that it was a rubbish joke, though I didn't find it offensive!), I am horrified that the Daily Mail could be using my comments for an anti-BBC article. I LOVE THE BBC!
Oh well, you post anonymously on a public forum, and that's the risk you take...”
“http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...tly-judge.html
Am I right in thinking the Daily Mail have used my quote?! I spose somebody could have said something similar on Twitter.
Even though I stand by what I said about this incident (i.e. that it was a rubbish joke, though I didn't find it offensive!), I am horrified that the Daily Mail could be using my comments for an anti-BBC article. I LOVE THE BBC!
Oh well, you post anonymously on a public forum, and that's the risk you take...”
Exactly as I predicted.
How utterly typical that the Daily Heil would pick up on this. Again, it would appear their idea of journalism is to trawl internet forums looking for people's opinions they can build their prejudiced stories around. Whatever happened to investigative reporting? Clearly it doesn't exist at that 'newspaper'.And, just as expected, a publicity opportunity for the cynical PD.
This isn't a card he can play that often. And I would guess that Ann may hoover up the sympathy vote, leaving him vulnerable. Hence him resorting to this.
So what's his next trick, then?
Originally Posted by gorlagon:
“I *really* don't like Paul Daniels.
But y'know. Craig deliberately camps it up on Strictly. It's on purpose. It's agreed with the producers. Bruce tells him off as agreed with the producers. The camera shots are pre-arranged, for heavens sakes. Bruce says Craig is mean. Immediate cut to Craig doing his sucking a lemon campy face. In fact, it's so obvious that by the end of each show this weekend I was saying to myself once or twice is enough dears, we don't need ten cuts to Craig doing his sucking a lemon campy face to get it.
Craig = bitchy queen is a hallmark of the show. It's intended to be a) funny and b) get as close to the line as pre-watershed TV can get in order to provoke a reaction from the audience. Paul Daniels does a pun involving Craig and sausages. It's what he's SUPPOSED to do, for heavens sakes.
You can take the view that the humour of it all isn't your cup of tea, but you really can't imagine that there's any genuine venom or homophobia behind any of it. People are just playing their parts.”
“I *really* don't like Paul Daniels.
But y'know. Craig deliberately camps it up on Strictly. It's on purpose. It's agreed with the producers. Bruce tells him off as agreed with the producers. The camera shots are pre-arranged, for heavens sakes. Bruce says Craig is mean. Immediate cut to Craig doing his sucking a lemon campy face. In fact, it's so obvious that by the end of each show this weekend I was saying to myself once or twice is enough dears, we don't need ten cuts to Craig doing his sucking a lemon campy face to get it.
Craig = bitchy queen is a hallmark of the show. It's intended to be a) funny and b) get as close to the line as pre-watershed TV can get in order to provoke a reaction from the audience. Paul Daniels does a pun involving Craig and sausages. It's what he's SUPPOSED to do, for heavens sakes.
You can take the view that the humour of it all isn't your cup of tea, but you really can't imagine that there's any genuine venom or homophobia behind any of it. People are just playing their parts.”
I agree. SCD is the last show in the world which should be 'shocked' by having gay quips in it. They're in there every week!!
I dont think the joke was spectacularly homophobic. If 2 gay men had said it to each other, in indeed a gay man and a close (straight) friend had had that banter there's still be no real controversy.
This is typical press OTT reaction to bash SCD (and Paul). Cheeky double certainly, but highly offensive? Hardly!
This is typical press OTT reaction to bash SCD (and Paul). Cheeky double certainly, but highly offensive? Hardly!
Originally Posted by Servalan:
“Exactly as I predicted. How utterly typical that the Daily Heil would pick up on this. Again, it would appear their idea of journalism is to trawl internet forums looking for people's opinions they can build their prejudiced stories around. Whatever happened to investigative reporting? Clearly it doesn't exist at that 'newspaper'.
And, just as expected, a publicity opportunity for the cynical PD.
This isn't a card he can play that often. And I would guess that Ann may hoover up the sympathy vote, leaving him vulnerable. Hence him resorting to this.
So what's his next trick, then?”
“Exactly as I predicted.
How utterly typical that the Daily Heil would pick up on this. Again, it would appear their idea of journalism is to trawl internet forums looking for people's opinions they can build their prejudiced stories around. Whatever happened to investigative reporting? Clearly it doesn't exist at that 'newspaper'.And, just as expected, a publicity opportunity for the cynical PD.
This isn't a card he can play that often. And I would guess that Ann may hoover up the sympathy vote, leaving him vulnerable. Hence him resorting to this.
So what's his next trick, then?”
What do you expecct though? The producers didn't have to ask Paul Daniels on the show. No one expects a 74 year old to be a stunning dancer. He's there to entertain by bad dancing and to be trading barbs and quips and amusments with the judges and Bruce.
Having people like Paul Daniels and Ann Widdlecombe there is just there for the pure panto and saturday night entertainment. CRH has build his entire 'reputation' on the show by being the prissy sarastic queen with the cruel put-downs.
It's just a little hypocritical of SCD to make use of these for the last 7 years, then for people to throw their hands up in horror when a straight guy uses a fairly harmless double entendre (referencing something which they have both been invovled in). If Julian Clary had done the same, no one would have blinked twice.
Just seems like a little bit of double standards to me.
Originally Posted by starsailor:
“I agree. SCD is the last show in the world which should be 'shocked' by having gay quips in it. They're in there every week!!”
“I agree. SCD is the last show in the world which should be 'shocked' by having gay quips in it. They're in there every week!!”
It definitely has a strong undercurrent of Carry On/seaside postcard humour and Paul Daniel's double-entendre, whether deliberate or not, fell into that category. I didn't see it as anything for people to 'get their knickers in a twist' about.
Originally Posted by starsailor:
“What do you expecct though? The producers didn't have to ask Paul Daniels on the show. No one expects a 74 year old to be a stunning dancer. He's there to entertain by bad dancing and to be trading barbs and quips and amusments with the judges and Bruce.
Having people like Paul Daniels and Ann Widdlecombe there is just there for the pure panto and saturday night entertainment. CRH has build his entire 'reputation' on the show by being the prissy sarastic queen with the cruel put-downs.
It's just a little hypocritical of SCD to make use of these for the last 7 years, then for people to throw their hands up in horror when a straight guy uses a fairly harmless double entendre (referencing something which they have both been invovled in). If Julian Clary had done the same, no one would have blinked twice.
Just seems like a little bit of double standards to me.”
“What do you expecct though? The producers didn't have to ask Paul Daniels on the show. No one expects a 74 year old to be a stunning dancer. He's there to entertain by bad dancing and to be trading barbs and quips and amusments with the judges and Bruce.
Having people like Paul Daniels and Ann Widdlecombe there is just there for the pure panto and saturday night entertainment. CRH has build his entire 'reputation' on the show by being the prissy sarastic queen with the cruel put-downs.
It's just a little hypocritical of SCD to make use of these for the last 7 years, then for people to throw their hands up in horror when a straight guy uses a fairly harmless double entendre (referencing something which they have both been invovled in). If Julian Clary had done the same, no one would have blinked twice.
Just seems like a little bit of double standards to me.”
I think you are missing the point I am making but you raise an interesting one yourself.
I think the remark itself was a little tacky but harmless. However, the manner in which it was made - sour grapes - and the reason PD chose to make it - to gain publicity for himself in the face of the Widdinator - are dubious, to say the least.
If Julian Clary had done the same, it would have been much funnier, because his delivery would not have been so bitter. PD was clearly irked by what Craig said and knows he (PD) is in a vulnerable position.
Don't forget there is a financial incenive to stay in the competition now and I can't see people queuing up to employ him ...
Originally Posted by Servalan:
“I think you are missing the point I am making but you raise an interesting one yourself.
I think the remark itself was a little tacky but harmless. However, the manner in which it was made - sour grapes - and the reason PD chose to make it - to gain publicity for himself in the face of the Widdinator - are dubious, to say the least.
If Julian Clary had done the same, it would have been much funnier, because his delivery would not have been so bitter. PD was clearly irked by what Craig said and knows he (PD) is in a vulnerable position.
Don't forget there is a financial incenive to stay in the competition now and I can't see people queuing up to employ him ...”
“I think you are missing the point I am making but you raise an interesting one yourself.
I think the remark itself was a little tacky but harmless. However, the manner in which it was made - sour grapes - and the reason PD chose to make it - to gain publicity for himself in the face of the Widdinator - are dubious, to say the least.
If Julian Clary had done the same, it would have been much funnier, because his delivery would not have been so bitter. PD was clearly irked by what Craig said and knows he (PD) is in a vulnerable position.
Don't forget there is a financial incenive to stay in the competition now and I can't see people queuing up to employ him ...”
There were some things which were a 100% certainly though
1) PD was going to be rubbish
2) CRH was going to be rude about the dance 'dis-ast-er darling' (which he was overdoing the 'darhlings' last night)
Now given that, theres 3 ways which you can go from there:
1) accept it meekly and try to improve (
2) have a rant about it (al a Jan Ravens)
3) Have a witty retort pricking the judges
4) Do the 'admit I'm crap, but I'm having a good time (al a Ann Widdlecombe)
Now, PD was always going to go down the number 3 route.
Now, whether it was witty or funny, or wether people were going to get it was questionable. but I don't think it was designed to be offensive.
I think it was a joke which probably just fell a bit flat, but then that happens to every 'entertainer', (just look at brucie).
When there is still homphobic of a much more serious nature in this country having 'shock horror' at a joke in SCD seems to have a little misplaced priorities, (but then is is the Daily Mail which are making the fuss, so to be expected for them)
Originally Posted by starsailor:
“There were some things which were a 100% certainly though
1) PD was going to be rubbish
2) CRH was going to be rude about the dance 'dis-ast-er darling' (which he was overdoing the 'darhlings' last night)
Now given that, theres 3 ways which you can go from there:
1) accept it meekly and try to improve (
2) have a rant about it (al a Jan Ravens)
3) Have a witty retort pricking the judges
4) Do the 'admit I'm crap, but I'm having a good time (al a Ann Widdlecombe)
Now, PD was always going to go down the number 3 route.
Now, whether it was witty or funny, or wether people were going to get it was questionable. but I don't think it was designed to be offensive.
I think it was a joke which probably just fell a bit flat, but then that happens to every 'entertainer', (just look at brucie).
When there is still homphobic of a much more serious nature in this country having 'shock horror' at a joke in SCD seems to have a little misplaced priorities, (but then is is the Daily Mail which are making the fuss, so to be expected for them)”
“There were some things which were a 100% certainly though
1) PD was going to be rubbish
2) CRH was going to be rude about the dance 'dis-ast-er darling' (which he was overdoing the 'darhlings' last night)
Now given that, theres 3 ways which you can go from there:
1) accept it meekly and try to improve (
2) have a rant about it (al a Jan Ravens)
3) Have a witty retort pricking the judges
4) Do the 'admit I'm crap, but I'm having a good time (al a Ann Widdlecombe)
Now, PD was always going to go down the number 3 route.
Now, whether it was witty or funny, or wether people were going to get it was questionable. but I don't think it was designed to be offensive.
I think it was a joke which probably just fell a bit flat, but then that happens to every 'entertainer', (just look at brucie).
When there is still homphobic of a much more serious nature in this country having 'shock horror' at a joke in SCD seems to have a little misplaced priorities, (but then is is the Daily Mail which are making the fuss, so to be expected for them)”
I agree with a fair bit of your assessment but I would say that PD falls somewhere in between categories 2 and 3: he wanted to have a rant but thought he should try and crack a joke about it at CRH's expense.
I completely agree that there is homophobia of a much more serious nature in this country but I don't think the purpose of the 'joke' was to be homophobic. I think it was to generate publicity for PD and garner sympathy for himself. He knew full well that his choice of words could be interpreted on two levels and that one of those would potentially generate some controversy that might get him some media coverage. AW is so much the focus of attention that he needs some means of stealing some of her limelight and that was this week's effort.
I don't think PD wants to win - but, given the financial incentives now in place, it's in his interests to stay in for as long as possible. His dancing won't earn him many fans, so he might as well go for this route instead.
Paul Daniels has shown himself up as a rather thoughtless and foolish little man, whether or not he intended to make a homophobic remark, he should have realised that it could have been taken as one against Craig and was certainly not suitable for an early evening show.
Hope he gets voted off first rather than somebody like Anne Widdecombe who has entered into the spirit and fun of the programme with gusto.
Hope he gets voted off first rather than somebody like Anne Widdecombe who has entered into the spirit and fun of the programme with gusto.
As soon as he said it, my boyfriend turned to me and said "he's having a go at him for being gay". I wasn't offended but I do think it showed what kind of person Paul Daniels is. He meant it to be offensive, which says a lot. It's the same opinion I've had of him ever since I saw the Louis Theroux docu about him and his wife a few years ago. Sad, petty little man.
Originally Posted by Karl Marks:
“It was homophobic and he should be booted.
]
It came after CRH saying something like 'let's not get technical darling.'
No, on second thoughts let's leave him in so we can laugh at him for a a couple of weeks.”
“It was homophobic and he should be booted.
]It came after CRH saying something like 'let's not get technical darling.'
No, on second thoughts let's leave him in so we can laugh at him for a a couple of weeks.
”
Are you trying to be ironic or sarcastic? Needs a lighter touch.
The Greater British Public, aka the readers of the Daily Spittle, will seize on anything to have a chance to be censorious. Remember the P*** remark of last year, which was overheard and leaked to the press repeatedly until it "took"?
Originally Posted by gorlagon:
“I *really* don't like Paul Daniels.
But y'know. Craig deliberately camps it up on Strictly. It's on purpose. It's agreed with the producers. Bruce tells him off as agreed with the producers. The camera shots are pre-arranged, for heavens sakes. Bruce says Craig is mean. Immediate cut to Craig doing his sucking a lemon campy face. In fact, it's so obvious that by the end of each show this weekend I was saying to myself once or twice is enough dears, we don't need ten cuts to Craig doing his sucking a lemon campy face to get it.
Craig = bitchy queen is a hallmark of the show. It's intended to be a) funny and b) get as close to the line as pre-watershed TV can get in order to provoke a reaction from the audience. Paul Daniels does a pun involving Craig and sausages. It's what he's SUPPOSED to do, for heavens sakes.
You can take the view that the humour of it all isn't your cup of tea, but you really can't imagine that there's any genuine venom or homophobia behind any of it. People are just playing their parts.”
“I *really* don't like Paul Daniels.
But y'know. Craig deliberately camps it up on Strictly. It's on purpose. It's agreed with the producers. Bruce tells him off as agreed with the producers. The camera shots are pre-arranged, for heavens sakes. Bruce says Craig is mean. Immediate cut to Craig doing his sucking a lemon campy face. In fact, it's so obvious that by the end of each show this weekend I was saying to myself once or twice is enough dears, we don't need ten cuts to Craig doing his sucking a lemon campy face to get it.
Craig = bitchy queen is a hallmark of the show. It's intended to be a) funny and b) get as close to the line as pre-watershed TV can get in order to provoke a reaction from the audience. Paul Daniels does a pun involving Craig and sausages. It's what he's SUPPOSED to do, for heavens sakes.
You can take the view that the humour of it all isn't your cup of tea, but you really can't imagine that there's any genuine venom or homophobia behind any of it. People are just playing their parts.”
Totally agree - it may be going out live - but it HAS been rehearsed.
I hadn't a clue what the fuss was all about as the remark went right over my head. 
Originally Posted by daisydee:
“Totally agree - it may be going out live - but it HAS been rehearsed.”
“Totally agree - it may be going out live - but it HAS been rehearsed.”
That was a totally rehersed quip. I watched the show tonight after seeing the furore that has been raised and it just looked to pat to not be rehersed, especially having the camera on Craig's face afterwards. I also suspect the beeb of planting the story with the MOS etc as all headlines promote a show.
3 of 4
