Boris

[SammyInnit]

Nonsense.

No evidence, no point to argue, just a collection of words, based on nothing.

What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Just shown you the case of Markus Meecham. All happened this year.

Remember humour is subjective.

If that's not clear enough for you, crack on, you'll be fine.

 

[JohnD]

we dont need any inflammatory narrative from leaders

nor from incompetent buffoons who want to be leaders.

 

[sodthisforfun]

You're talking about the mainstream ideals of comedic performance. I've just posted a link to the story behind Markus Meecham; subjective it is but conformist, it is not.

Your idea of humour might not be the same as my idea of humour. I still find comedy from the 70s to be amusing, does that mean I'm destined for the gulag because it's not the sort of humour today's comics subscribe to?

That's right, humour is subjective, and I disagree with you saying that comedy and those liking comedy is destined for the gulag like it's some curtail of freedom of speech. What I am trying to point out is that it's not true as most comedy these days, as you said, mainstream, isn't of the racist, sexist cruel kind. So why would comedy become a criminal offense?


The 70's comedy of which you find funny is very much out of date, thankfully we've moved on (mostly). There's a reason there aren't many, if any re-runs on mainstream TV... Those people who grew up with that TV will have some of their humour preferences shaped by what they saw. I should imagine that appreciation of that kind of humour will die out as those generations do.

Markus Meechams video of the dog was tasteless, not comedy at all by todays standards. But I still disagree with the fact that he got a criminal conviction for it.

 

[SammyInnit]

So why would comedy become a criminal offense?

Comedy wouldn't but the content of the gag could well do.

You've said yourself you don't think Meecham should have received a conviction. Take it as a starting point. Tasteless or no (again, subjective - to your taste or not), it is the start of a slippery slope.

 

[sodthisforfun]

Comedy wouldn't but the content of the gag could well do.

One and the same thing as to what you are talking about isn't it?

And Meecham, wasn't comedy, end of. He admitted making offensive material, deliberately. He knew what he was doing, he was trying to annoy his g/f.

I don't think he should've got a conviction because he was basically convicted in being a tasteless idiot and he should be entitled to be a tasteless idiot if he so wishes. Now if you wish to say that you think freedom of speech is being curtailed, then fine. But not comedy.

 

[SammyInnit]

One and the same thing as to what you are talking about isn't it?

And Meecham, wasn't comedy, end of. He admitted making offensive material, deliberately. He knew what he was doing, he was trying to annoy his g/f.

I don't think he should've got a conviction because he was basically convicted in being a tasteless idiot and he should be entitled to be a tasteless idiot if he so wishes. Now if you wish to say that you think freedom of speech is being curtailed, then fine. But not comedy.

Do you not see that one cannot work without the other?

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

And Meecham, wasn't comedy, end of. He admitted making offensive material, deliberately. He knew what he was doing, he was trying to annoy his g/f.

I don't think he should've got a conviction because he was basically convicted in being a tasteless idiot and he should be entitled to be a tasteless idiot if he so wishes.

If his offensive material was only available to his g/f, I would agree with you, a conviction was ott. But as his offensive material was publicly available, and was viewed by others, he contravened the law, and therefore a conviction was appropriate.

You can disagree with the law, or the sentencing, but for someone who has broken that law, and admitted to it, a conviction must follow.

 

[sodthisforfun]

Do you not see that one cannot work without the other?

MOST comedy isn't offensive as I already stated. I was disagreeing with yours and durhamplumbers comments about comedy becoming an offense. It was a sweeping statement.

It's not comedy that is the issue for me because most comedy isn't offensive these days, it's freedom of speech.
I think we're going around in circles!

 

[SirGalahad]

Tasteless or no

Is funding for the Grammar Police being cut? Time to vote for the Punctuation party.

 

[SirGalahad]

MOST comedy isn't offensive as I already stated. I was disagreeing with yours and durhamplumbers comments about comedy becoming an offense. It was a sweeping statement.

It's not comedy that is the issue for me because most comedy isn't offensive these days, it's freedom of speech.
I think we're going around in circles!

Freedom of expression as well, not just speech is equally as important.

 

[Yafo]

I have no idea why people don't just others let live.
I suppose we can ask the same question world over, every race, every religion. However, having a unpleasant view point or habit of trying to upset someone on the street shouldn't be a criminal offense imo. It's a dangerous route to take.

At what point on the street does someones rudeness or offensive or obscene comment become threatening behaviour?

If we concentrated on politeness to others rather than the right to be offensive, there would be no need for such laws. Too many people appear to want the right to say anything to anybody without reason or need.

 

[Bodd]

You made a claim that the ban in Denmark is not racist, but you refuse to back up your claim and put it in context.

(By racist, I am assuming that includes ethnic discrimination).

It's an oppression of Women who are to frightened to speak up in a male dominated religion. Banning it takes the attention away from the women who are forced to wear it. The oppressed women can make out they want to wear it but it's no longer in their control..

I hope Boris is sticking to his guns for the right reasons

 

[JohnD]

I hope Boris is sticking to his guns for the right reasons

he's sticking to his guns because he wants to harvest the racists who may vote conservative.

 

[sodthisforfun]

At what point on the street does someones rudeness or offensive or obscene comment become threatening behaviour?

If we concentrated on politeness to others rather than the right to be offensive, there would be no need for such laws. Too many people appear to want the right to say anything to anybody without reason or need.

Being offended is a personal choice. It's up to the individual if they feel offended or not. You're talking about feelings here, no inciting violence or hatred or making someone feel threatened.

Boris didn't make anyone feel threatened did he? Or the guy with the pug. No, they hurt some people's feelings.
Absolutely, if we concentrated on politeness, maybe teach tolerance more strongly at schools then we can break some of this cycle. Freedom comes with idiots am afraid but I'd rather encounter idiots than have any thoughts quashed by the law.

We can also teach tolerance everywhere, including some tolerance when idiots say idiotic things, instead of being offended or, in the case where it does not directly affect us, be offended on behalf of others as seems to be the trend now.

 

[Judy in the sky]

What I don't understand is those criticising Boris , who have had (surprisingly) different views on the burqa in the recent past. Anna Soubrey said some years ago that she wishes women didn't wear the burqa (whilst supporting Ken Clarke who'd made a comment on the item of clothing). Another critic Emily Thornberry stated publicly some years ago that she wouldn't like someone wearing a burqa , looking after her four year old.
Strange how peoples values change when criticising others.