Fair enough then - you disagree.

I would still ask you to stop attributing motives or remarks regarding skin colour to either myself or Asuarlim, since neither of us made any such reference - ANY post.

Apologies, Asarualim for mis-spelling your name.

quote:

Originally posted by Sheik Yahbouti:
Apologies, Asarualim for mis-spelling your name.

No worries.

quote:

Originally posted by Sheik Yahbouti:
Fair enough then - you disagree.

I would still ask you to stop attributing motives or remarks regarding skin colour to either myself or Asuarlim, since neither of us made any such reference - ANY post.

I didn't attribute the remarks to you!

I was answering the following point and another which has since been deleted;

quote:

Originally posted by Nephilim:
Here's a funny thing though. Bremner and just about every other satirist on the block have been doing jokes about Iraq (100,000 brown people dead and counting) and Darfur (300,000 black people dead and counting) for years and no one's batted an eyelid.

However, they make one joke about one little white girl who may not even be dead*, and suddenly it's like a maiden aunt convention in here.

quote:

Originally posted by Bizzie Lizzie:

quote:

Originally posted by Asarualim:

quote:

Originally posted by Bizzie Lizzie:
Put it this way, if Madeleine had been a black child, do you think the reaction to the joke would have been different?

I'd hope not and don't see why it would be because THE JOKE WAS ABOUT GORDON BROWN, NOT MADDIE!

I was answering the points about skin colour being an important factor in whether people were shocked or not.

I am not denying that the 'joke' was aimed at Gordon Brown, as I've made clear. You seem to think this negates any problem with using a real child's personal tragedy to make the point. I happen to disagree.

Ok, we disagree. So, do you think this joke (no need for any 's as it was a joke, and quite a funny one in my opinion) should have been censored out of the show, or that the show should be punished for it's insensitivity? Or perhaps you can suggest an alternative joke they could have used to make the same point, bearing in mind the cultural significance and media storm over Madeline which contributes to the poignancy and impact of the joke?

I have nothing to do with this nephilim - the point he makes is valid - what has it to do with Victoria Climbie?, a tiny child tortured to death and neglected and failed by Social Services?

Ah, it is her skin colour which makes her a valuable addition to your argument?

quote:

Originally posted by Sheik Yahbouti:
I have nothing to do with this nephilim - the point he makes is valid - what has it to do with Victoria Climbie?, a tiny child tortured to death and neglected and failed by Social Services?

Ah, it is her skin colour which makes her a valuable addition to your argument?

Yet again you try to twist my argument!
I mentioned skin colour in answer to another post mentioning skin colour. I'm not sure how I could have done so without mentioning skin colour!

I'll give you an example of how a tortured and neglected, murdered child could have been used in a 'joke' aimed at Gordon Brown:

Gordon Brown denied that the child had been let down by the services in this country, by pointing out that her autopsy had noted the excellent state of her teeth.

Funny?

No - there was nothing remotely funny about the catalogue of failures which lead to this lovely child's death - and I am resolute in my opinion that not only the murderers should have gone to prison arising out of the circumstances.

However, none of this was ever germane to a comic sketch on the Rory Bremner show.

quote:

Originally posted by Bizzie Lizzie:
I'll give you an example of how a tortured and neglected, murdered child could have been used in a 'joke' aimed at Gordon Brown:

Gordon Brown denied that the child had been let down by the services in this country, by pointing out that her autopsy had noted the excellent state of her teeth.

Funny?

No, not really. It lacks the impact of the original joke, there's no subtlety to it and it's pretty one dimensinal, unlike the original joke. I think you should stick to promoting censorship on the internet and leave Bremner et al to the comedy.

I'm not a comedian, but thanks for your advice!

I think people's thoughts on the parents are actually clouding their judgement. Anyone with any empathy for people in this situation will feel disgust at the use of such a tragedy in a comedy show. The 'joke' could have been made without resorting to this.

quote:

Originally posted by Bizzie Lizzie:
I'm not a comedian, but thanks for your advice!

I think people's thoughts on the parents are actually clouding their judgement. Anyone with any empathy for people in this situation will feel disgust at the use of such a tragedy in a comedy show. The 'joke' could have been made without resorting to this.

You're welcome.

You may have a point that a lack of empathy to Maddy's parents in this case may be influencing people's opinion on this, but I can honestly say that the only factor influencing my opinion on this is who the target of the joke is. If the target of the joke actually was Maddy I may feel differently, but as she was used only as a device to make a point about the lengths that Brown would go to to win favour (which your joke failed to do) then I think it's justified. I think to come out against this, or any other kind of joke because it may offend someone is a slippery slope to censorship because in reality, all jokes could offend someone, and I think humour is an incredibly powerful weapon in the battle against pompousness and over-inflated egos when used with a bit of nous, as I believe Bremner et al did in this case. I think as part of a topical, satirical comedy show, bearing in mind the audience it was aimed at, the joke was incredibly effective and using any other device wouldn't have been anywhere near as powerful. The whole McCann soap opera was the biggest story of last year and is still ongoing, so it seems to me fair game to use it in this way, to make the implications it does about Brown, which work on several levels.

P.S. analysing comedy really spoils it doesn't it?

quote:

Originally posted by Asarualim:
The whole McCann soap opera was the biggest story of last year and is still ongoing, so it seems to me fair game to use it in this way, to make the implications it does about Brown, which work on several levels.

The idea of it being a 'soap opera' and therefore 'fair game' is a good example of why it disgusts me. I'm afraid that I would never see it as a vehicle of humour - satirical, or not. I still think the point could have been made without resorting to this.

quote:

Originally posted by Bizzie Lizzie:

quote:

Originally posted by Asarualim:
The whole McCann soap opera was the biggest story of last year and is still ongoing, so it seems to me fair game to use it in this way, to make the implications it does about Brown, which work on several levels.

The idea of it being a 'soap opera' and therefore 'fair game' is a good example of why it disgusts me. I'm afraid that I would never see it as a vehicle of humour - satirical, or not. I still think the point could have been made without resorting to this.

Well, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree as it's unlikely either of us are going to convince the other of our points of view, but thankfully Ofcom agree with me and not you which ultimately is what counts in the issue of censorship.

quote:

Originally posted by Asarualim:
Well, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree as it's unlikely either of us are going to convince the other of our points of view, but thankfully Ofcom agree with me and not you which ultimately is what counts in the issue of censorship.

I haven't actually said that I am pro censorship. I am, however, all for audiences registering their disgust, if needed - surely a basic tenet of Free Speech also?

quote:

Originally posted by Bizzie Lizzie:

quote:

Originally posted by Asarualim:
Well, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree as it's unlikely either of us are going to convince the other of our points of view, but thankfully Ofcom agree with me and not you which ultimately is what counts in the issue of censorship.

I haven't actually said that I am pro censorship. I am, however, all for audiences registering their disgust, if needed - surely a basic tenet of Free Speech also?

You think that they shouldn't have told this joke though - to stop them would require some kind of censorship, even if it was self censorship.

And the audience had every opportunity to register their disgust - they complained to Ofcom who investigated and said there was no case to answer.

quote:

Originally posted by Asarualim:
You think that they shouldn't have told this joke though - to stop them would require some kind of censorship, even if it was self censorship.

And the audience had every opportunity to register their disgust - they complained to Ofcom who investigated and said there was no case to answer.

I'm all for some self censorship. In fact, I think it is necessary for society to function in a reasonable manner. I would hope that entertainers would give some thought to how their 'jokes' are going to affect their audiences.

I can understand OFCOM's decision, but am still pleased that the audience has some way of registering their complaints.

I feel that this part of OFCOM's ruling, could equally be applied to comedians;

The idea that politicians might be insensitive enough to attempt to exploit the tragedy surrounding the disappearance of Madeleine McCann to their advantage was consistent with the general purpose of the sketch.

quote:

Originally posted by Bizzie Lizzie:

quote:

Originally posted by Sheik Yahbouti:
Fair enough then - you disagree.

I would still ask you to stop attributing motives or remarks regarding skin colour to either myself or Asuarlim, since neither of us made any such reference - ANY post.

I didn't attribute the remarks to you!

I was answering the following point and another which has since been deleted;

quote:

Originally posted by Nephilim:
Here's a funny thing though. Bremner and just about every other satirist on the block have been doing jokes about Iraq (100,000 brown people dead and counting) and Darfur (300,000 black people dead and counting) for years and no one's batted an eyelid.

However, they make one joke about one little white girl who may not even be dead*, and suddenly it's like a maiden aunt convention in here.

Other than specious comments about Victoria Climbie, no one has yet explained why jokes about events which have involved the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people do not result in Ofcom being deluged with prissy mewling but a joke containing a brief reference to one almost-certainly-dead girl has.

The "it might upset the parents" argument is piffle. By way of a parallel, one of the frequent targets on BB&F has been shortage of body armour amongst British troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. These jokes might well be upsetting for parents or relatives of soldiers killed through the lack of proper protective equipment, but no one has seriously suggested that they should not be made.

The issue here is the fact that this country goes fruit loop bonkers on any issue involved kids. Look at the response to the Brass Eye Paedophilia special. The target there was the media's ludicrous behaviour on the issue of kiddie fiddling, and Chris Morris skewered it bang on. Obviously, this did not stop Ch4 getting a boatload of complaints from halfwits who were either too dumb to understand the show, or hadn't even watched it. The response merely underlined the point that Morris was making, and the response to BB&F's joke has simply emphasised it further.

Now, I'm quite prepared to consider that the increasingly freakish "Where's Maddie?" game being played by the media is already beyond satire (She's in Morocco, She's in Corsica, She's been kidnapped by gypsies, She's been kidnapped by a man disguised as Paul Calf, the parents did it, the parents didn't do it, no, actually the parents did it after all, etc, etc ad nauseum), but this behaviour is exactly the kind of thing that Morris was on about when he got Dr Fox to say that paedophiles are more genetically similar to crabs than they are to human beings. It's crying out to be satirised, crying out like a hungry, angry baby, but if Ofcom have to rule on one throwaway refernce to Our Maddie, can you imagine what the response would be if someone actually tried it properly? The population would be decimated by an epidemic of indignation-induced aneurysms.

Nephilim - My 'specious' comments about Victoria Climbie, were to counter your implication that the outrage was due to the nationality, or skin colour, of the child concerned.

You would have to specify which jokes you feel should be met with outrage in the interests of fairness, but I think jokes involving specific victims, and especially child victims, will always outrage people.

I suspect the jokes you mention would probably be seen as 'on the side' of those victims you mention and not just exploiting the story of their suffering to make a point.

quote:

Originally posted by Nephilim:
I'm guessing this is the audience for the old "What's the difference between Madeleine McCann and Pope John Paul II?" joke, then.

Sorry, Neph:
Not heard that one.
I don't get out much, these days.
Do enlighten me.

quote:

Originally posted by Bizzie Lizzie:
I feel that this part of OFCOM's ruling, could equally be applied to comedians;

The idea that politicians might be insensitive enough to attempt to exploit the tragedy surrounding the disappearance of Madeleine McCann to their advantage was consistent with the general purpose of the sketch.

Exactly!