Jo Brand and Battery Acid

Alejandrosdog

Wayne Plunger wrote:

The reason there is not more "engineered social outrage" is that Farage is white, male and to my knowledge has never "come out"

If the subject of the joke had been a black lesbian you can be sure the police would have set up a task force by now to investigate.

Ahhh then it would have been a hate crime. I read a comment on one of the bbc channels decrying stale old white men. the context being that middle aged or white or male were part of the brexit problem. Had they said black or gay or something else outrage would have ensued. You either have discrimination laws or you dont.


Brand is deliberately offensive and contentious. I suspect she quite enjoy a free milkshake. shes right on wimin

crispybug2

Interesting point about this is that this remark didn’t go out live, it was pre recorded and edited ( it has now been deleted from the I player)
This does, in my opinion, cast this in a different light as this was clearly signed off by the bbc

rick_chasey

crispybug2 wrote:

Interesting point about this is that this remark didn’t go out live, it was pre recorded and edited ( it has now been deleted from the I player)
This does, in my opinion, cast this in a different light as this was clearly signed off by the bbc

Look it’s comedy.

You can rinse people who are political.

Clarkson picked on tree huggers etc and it was all funny.

It’s not some massive editorial conspiracy.

robert88

They better not pick on us or there'll be trouble.

mr_goo

crispybug2 wrote:

Interesting point about this is that this remark didn’t go out live, it was pre recorded and edited ( it has now been deleted from the I player)
This does, in my opinion, cast this in a different light as this was clearly signed off by the bbc

Exactly. The producers/editors are the ones that should be called into question.
I love Jo Brand's acerbic sense of humour but this was I'll thought and crossed the line for me. Bearing in mind the number of acid attacks that are actually perpetrated and the life changing effects it has on the victim.

Anyway seems to have already blown over. Moving on. When is the summer going to arrive? Solstice in a few days and nights will start drawing in.

john80

There are a couple of issues here. The first is that the joke is rubbish and as a comedian making jokes that are unfunny for the last decade is career limiting as proven by her career. Next point is that would she be happy if I followed her for a week milkshaking her every time she entered a public place then i am pretty sure that she woukd be onto the cops quickly.

As a big believer in treating others as you would wish to be treated then I would not be in the least bit sorry if jo brand spent decades and multiple surgeries recovering from a battery acid attack. My only annoyance would bebthe general tax burden from the jail time of the perpetraitor and brands care. If you wish acid attacks on others then it is good enough for yourself.

rjsterry

john80 wrote:

There are a couple of issues here. The first is that the joke is rubbish and as a comedian making jokes that are unfunny for the last decade is career limiting as proven by her career. Next point is that would she be happy if I followed her for a week milkshaking her every time she entered a public place then i am pretty sure that she woukd be onto the cops quickly.

As a big believer in treating others as you would wish to be treated then I would not be in the least bit sorry if jo brand spent decades and multiple surgeries recovering from a battery acid attack. My only annoyance would bebthe general tax burden from the jail time of the perpetraitor and brands care. If you wish acid attacks on others then it is good enough for yourself.

Well seeing as she specifically didn't wish that (read the full quote including the bit where she said she thought chucking milkshakes at people was pathetic), and you've just said you'd be happy for someone to chuck acid over her, where does that leave you, John?

F***wit.

robert88

rjsterry wrote:

john80 wrote:

There are a couple of issues here. The first is that the joke is rubbish and as a comedian making jokes that are unfunny for the last decade is career limiting as proven by her career. Next point is that would she be happy if I followed her for a week milkshaking her every time she entered a public place then i am pretty sure that she woukd be onto the cops quickly.

As a big believer in treating others as you would wish to be treated then I would not be in the least bit sorry if jo brand spent decades and multiple surgeries recovering from a battery acid attack. My only annoyance would bebthe general tax burden from the jail time of the perpetraitor and brands care. If you wish acid attacks on others then it is good enough for yourself.

Well seeing as she specifically didn't wish that (read the full quote including the bit where she said she thought chucking milkshakes at people was pathetic), and you've just said you'd be happy for someone to chuck acid over her, where does that leave you, John?

F***wit.

Yeah, think his brain was down for maintenance when his keyboard just took over.

john80

Robert88 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

john80 wrote:

There are a couple of issues here. The first is that the joke is rubbish and as a comedian making jokes that are unfunny for the last decade is career limiting as proven by her career. Next point is that would she be happy if I followed her for a week milkshaking her every time she entered a public place then i am pretty sure that she woukd be onto the cops quickly.

As a big believer in treating others as you would wish to be treated then I would not be in the least bit sorry if jo brand spent decades and multiple surgeries recovering from a battery acid attack. My only annoyance would bebthe general tax burden from the jail time of the perpetraitor and brands care. If you wish acid attacks on others then it is good enough for yourself.

Well seeing as she specifically didn't wish that (read the full quote including the bit where she said she thought chucking milkshakes at people was pathetic), and you've just said you'd be happy for someone to chuck acid over her, where does that leave you, John?

F***wit.

Yeah, think his brain was down for maintenance when his keyboard just took over.

"I'm kind of thinking why bother with a milkshake when you could get some battery acid." This is what she said. But it is ok because it was just a fantasy for her. I dont go around joking that people should get battery acid in their face as i can predict just how much harm that might cause. Jo on the other hand is happy with the joke. So happy that her apology was along the lines of sorry but i dont think i did anything wrong. Maybe she is being ironic in giving the type of apology a politician might be proud of. I imagine if old tommy robinson had been making this joke against some minority instead of a politician then this forum would be up in arms.

rjsterry

john80 wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

john80 wrote:

There are a couple of issues here. The first is that the joke is rubbish and as a comedian making jokes that are unfunny for the last decade is career limiting as proven by her career. Next point is that would she be happy if I followed her for a week milkshaking her every time she entered a public place then i am pretty sure that she woukd be onto the cops quickly.

As a big believer in treating others as you would wish to be treated then I would not be in the least bit sorry if jo brand spent decades and multiple surgeries recovering from a battery acid attack. My only annoyance would bebthe general tax burden from the jail time of the perpetraitor and brands care. If you wish acid attacks on others then it is good enough for yourself.

Well seeing as she specifically didn't wish that (read the full quote including the bit where she said she thought chucking milkshakes at people was pathetic), and you've just said you'd be happy for someone to chuck acid over her, where does that leave you, John?

F***wit.

Yeah, think his brain was down for maintenance when his keyboard just took over.

"I'm kind of thinking why bother with a milkshake when you could get some battery acid." This is what she said. But it is ok because it was just a fantasy for her. I dont go around joking that people should get battery acid in their face as i can predict just how much harm that might cause. Jo on the other hand is happy with the joke. So happy that her apology was along the lines of sorry but i dont think i did anything wrong. Maybe she is being ironic in giving the type of apology a politician might be proud of. I imagine if old tommy robinson had been making this joke against some minority instead of a politician then this forum would be up in arms.

You literally wrote that your only annoyance would be the extra burden on taxpayers. Is this amnesia or are you saying you meant it. Fair enough if you thought the joke wasn't funny or crossed a line but don't get all pompous about treating others as you would wish to be treated and then actually wish serious injury on someone for telling a joke. I'd suggest you read the whole of the quote, but I feel that might be futile.

Jez mon

john80 wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

john80 wrote:

There are a couple of issues here. The first is that the joke is rubbish and as a comedian making jokes that are unfunny for the last decade is career limiting as proven by her career. Next point is that would she be happy if I followed her for a week milkshaking her every time she entered a public place then i am pretty sure that she woukd be onto the cops quickly.

As a big believer in treating others as you would wish to be treated then I would not be in the least bit sorry if jo brand spent decades and multiple surgeries recovering from a battery acid attack. My only annoyance would bebthe general tax burden from the jail time of the perpetraitor and brands care. If you wish acid attacks on others then it is good enough for yourself.

Well seeing as she specifically didn't wish that (read the full quote including the bit where she said she thought chucking milkshakes at people was pathetic), and you've just said you'd be happy for someone to chuck acid over her, where does that leave you, John?

F***wit.

Yeah, think his brain was down for maintenance when his keyboard just took over.

"I'm kind of thinking why bother with a milkshake when you could get some battery acid." This is what she said. But it is ok because it was just a fantasy for her. I dont go around joking that people should get battery acid in their face as i can predict just how much harm that might cause. Jo on the other hand is happy with the joke. So happy that her apology was along the lines of sorry but i dont think i did anything wrong. Maybe she is being ironic in giving the type of apology a politician might be proud of. I imagine if old tommy robinson had been making this joke against some minority instead of a politician then this forum would be up in arms.

Tommy Robinson doesn't joke though, does he.

But in general, whenever any right wing snowflake is crying about how right wing comedians wouldn't get away with this s*** they should probably look at who is about to get made PM.

robert88

Jez mon wrote:

john80 wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

john80 wrote:

There are a couple of issues here. The first is that the joke is rubbish and as a comedian making jokes that are unfunny for the last decade is career limiting as proven by her career. Next point is that would she be happy if I followed her for a week milkshaking her every time she entered a public place then i am pretty sure that she woukd be onto the cops quickly.

As a big believer in treating others as you would wish to be treated then I would not be in the least bit sorry if jo brand spent decades and multiple surgeries recovering from a battery acid attack. My only annoyance would bebthe general tax burden from the jail time of the perpetraitor and brands care. If you wish acid attacks on others then it is good enough for yourself.

Well seeing as she specifically didn't wish that (read the full quote including the bit where she said she thought chucking milkshakes at people was pathetic), and you've just said you'd be happy for someone to chuck acid over her, where does that leave you, John?

F***wit.

Yeah, think his brain was down for maintenance when his keyboard just took over.

"I'm kind of thinking why bother with a milkshake when you could get some battery acid." This is what she said. But it is ok because it was just a fantasy for her. I dont go around joking that people should get battery acid in their face as i can predict just how much harm that might cause. Jo on the other hand is happy with the joke. So happy that her apology was along the lines of sorry but i dont think i did anything wrong. Maybe she is being ironic in giving the type of apology a politician might be proud of. I imagine if old tommy robinson had been making this joke against some minority instead of a politician then this forum would be up in arms.

Tommy Robinson doesn't joke though, does he.

But in general, whenever any right wing snowflake is crying about how right wing comedians wouldn't get away with this s*** they should probably look at who is about to get made PM.

Boris 'Boaty MacBoatface' Johnston?

rolf_f

rjsterry wrote:

john80 wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

john80 wrote:

There are a couple of issues here. The first is that the joke is rubbish and as a comedian making jokes that are unfunny for the last decade is career limiting as proven by her career. Next point is that would she be happy if I followed her for a week milkshaking her every time she entered a public place then i am pretty sure that she woukd be onto the cops quickly.

As a big believer in treating others as you would wish to be treated then I would not be in the least bit sorry if jo brand spent decades and multiple surgeries recovering from a battery acid attack. My only annoyance would bebthe general tax burden from the jail time of the perpetraitor and brands care. If you wish acid attacks on others then it is good enough for yourself.

Well seeing as she specifically didn't wish that (read the full quote including the bit where she said she thought chucking milkshakes at people was pathetic), and you've just said you'd be happy for someone to chuck acid over her, where does that leave you, John?

F***wit.

Yeah, think his brain was down for maintenance when his keyboard just took over.

"I'm kind of thinking why bother with a milkshake when you could get some battery acid." This is what she said. But it is ok because it was just a fantasy for her. I dont go around joking that people should get battery acid in their face as i can predict just how much harm that might cause. Jo on the other hand is happy with the joke. So happy that her apology was along the lines of sorry but i dont think i did anything wrong. Maybe she is being ironic in giving the type of apology a politician might be proud of. I imagine if old tommy robinson had been making this joke against some minority instead of a politician then this forum would be up in arms.

You literally wrote that your only annoyance would be the extra burden on taxpayers. Is this amnesia or are you saying you meant it. Fair enough if you thought the joke wasn't funny or crossed a line but don't get all pompous about treating others as you would wish to be treated and then actually wish serious injury on someone for telling a joke. I'd suggest you read the whole of the quote, but I feel that might be futile.

Don't worry, I'm pretty sure he was just joking. Oh, no, sorry - I just noticed. He says he doesn't joke about such things. I guess he must really mean it (unlike Jo Brand who was joking)......

slowbike

Rolf F wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

john80 wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

john80 wrote:

There are a couple of issues here. The first is that the joke is rubbish and as a comedian making jokes that are unfunny for the last decade is career limiting as proven by her career. Next point is that would she be happy if I followed her for a week milkshaking her every time she entered a public place then i am pretty sure that she woukd be onto the cops quickly.

As a big believer in treating others as you would wish to be treated then I would not be in the least bit sorry if jo brand spent decades and multiple surgeries recovering from a battery acid attack. My only annoyance would bebthe general tax burden from the jail time of the perpetraitor and brands care. If you wish acid attacks on others then it is good enough for yourself.

Well seeing as she specifically didn't wish that (read the full quote including the bit where she said she thought chucking milkshakes at people was pathetic), and you've just said you'd be happy for someone to chuck acid over her, where does that leave you, John?

F***wit.

Yeah, think his brain was down for maintenance when his keyboard just took over.

"I'm kind of thinking why bother with a milkshake when you could get some battery acid." This is what she said. But it is ok because it was just a fantasy for her. I dont go around joking that people should get battery acid in their face as i can predict just how much harm that might cause. Jo on the other hand is happy with the joke. So happy that her apology was along the lines of sorry but i dont think i did anything wrong. Maybe she is being ironic in giving the type of apology a politician might be proud of. I imagine if old tommy robinson had been making this joke against some minority instead of a politician then this forum would be up in arms.

You literally wrote that your only annoyance would be the extra burden on taxpayers. Is this amnesia or are you saying you meant it. Fair enough if you thought the joke wasn't funny or crossed a line but don't get all pompous about treating others as you would wish to be treated and then actually wish serious injury on someone for telling a joke. I'd suggest you read the whole of the quote, but I feel that might be futile.

Don't worry, I'm pretty sure he was just joking. Oh, no, sorry - I just noticed. He says he doesn't joke about such things. I guess he must really mean it (unlike Jo Brand who was joking)......

In (very slight) defense of John80 - he wasn't joking, but wasn't (IMHO) inciting people to violence either - he was mearly suggesting that perhaps Brand should consider the consequences if what she suggests being done to others is done to herself... and he (john80) wouldn't be sorry if it did happen to her - other than the additional burden on the taxpayer to fund healthcare and prosecution. It's just an expansion of the religious text "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

rolf_f

I think he is right re consequences (as I commented on earlier) - it's all part of a slow process that seems to make things ever more acceptable but the consequences do seem more serious these days.
But I would hope that John80 actually would be sorry if Jo Brand was attacked with acid. Even if somehow that joke did lead to such an attack happening it is the people who carry out the attacks that are responsible for it; nobody else. I find it hard to believe that a fair punishment for a joke is having "decades of surgery" as a result of an acid attack that someone else chose to carry out and I hope that John80 deep down would agree with that. Ultimately it is pretty much thought police in action and we are heading down a path where nobody will dare say anything about anything. And then we'll all be in trouble.
I do wonder if John80 would have been more sympathetic had the comedian been one he finds funny. Of course, the way things are going that comedian could well be next to blurt out something they shouldn't. Lynch mobs in any form are ugly things.

rjsterry

Slowbike wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

john80 wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

john80 wrote:

There are a couple of issues here. The first is that the joke is rubbish and as a comedian making jokes that are unfunny for the last decade is career limiting as proven by her career. Next point is that would she be happy if I followed her for a week milkshaking her every time she entered a public place then i am pretty sure that she woukd be onto the cops quickly.

As a big believer in treating others as you would wish to be treated then I would not be in the least bit sorry if jo brand spent decades and multiple surgeries recovering from a battery acid attack. My only annoyance would bebthe general tax burden from the jail time of the perpetraitor and brands care. If you wish acid attacks on others then it is good enough for yourself.

Well seeing as she specifically didn't wish that (read the full quote including the bit where she said she thought chucking milkshakes at people was pathetic), and you've just said you'd be happy for someone to chuck acid over her, where does that leave you, John?

F***wit.

Yeah, think his brain was down for maintenance when his keyboard just took over.

"I'm kind of thinking why bother with a milkshake when you could get some battery acid." This is what she said. But it is ok because it was just a fantasy for her. I dont go around joking that people should get battery acid in their face as i can predict just how much harm that might cause. Jo on the other hand is happy with the joke. So happy that her apology was along the lines of sorry but i dont think i did anything wrong. Maybe she is being ironic in giving the type of apology a politician might be proud of. I imagine if old tommy robinson had been making this joke against some minority instead of a politician then this forum would be up in arms.

You literally wrote that your only annoyance would be the extra burden on taxpayers. Is this amnesia or are you saying you meant it. Fair enough if you thought the joke wasn't funny or crossed a line but don't get all pompous about treating others as you would wish to be treated and then actually wish serious injury on someone for telling a joke. I'd suggest you read the whole of the quote, but I feel that might be futile.

Don't worry, I'm pretty sure he was just joking. Oh, no, sorry - I just noticed. He says he doesn't joke about such things. I guess he must really mean it (unlike Jo Brand who was joking)......

In (very slight) defense of John80 - he wasn't joking, but wasn't (IMHO) inciting people to violence either - he was mearly suggesting that perhaps Brand should consider the consequences if what she suggests being done to others is done to herself... and he (john80) wouldn't be sorry if it did happen to her - other than the additional burden on the taxpayer to fund healthcare and prosecution. It's just an expansion of the religious text "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

Do you really think Brand actually suggested throwing battery acid over people? I mean, if a programme is broadcast, called Heresy, where the whole premise is to tell topical jokes that are 'unsayable', then I think you can take it for granted that the content are just jokes. Possibly in poor taste, possibly make people uncomfortable, but very definitely jokes. Add to that that Brand's next line after the acid comment was, "...That’s just me. I’m not going to do it. It’s purely a fantasy, but I think milkshakes are pathetic, I honestly do, sorry." and it's pretty clear that only a very stupid person would take that as an incitement to violence.

John appears to actually mean that he would take pleasure in Brand being injured solely because he doesn't like her jokes. He's stated very clearly that he doesn't joke about such things. That's not what "do unto others" means, is it?

slowbike

rjsterry wrote:

Do you really think Brand actually suggested throwing battery acid over people? I mean, if a programme is broadcast, called Heresy, where the whole premise is to tell topical jokes that are 'unsayable', then I think you can take it for granted that the content are just jokes. Possibly in poor taste, possibly make people uncomfortable, but very definitely jokes. Add to that that Brand's next line after the acid comment was, "...That’s just me. I’m not going to do it. It’s purely a fantasy, but I think milkshakes are pathetic, I honestly do, sorry." and it's pretty clear that only a very stupid person would take that as an incitement to violence.

I don't listen to it - I've no idea of the context - but, in any context would saying "I think all [insert minority group here] should be stoned" be acceptable? Then any suggestion of substituting acid for milkshake is equally unacceptable. Suggesting substituting anything for milkshake as it's a waste of a perfectly good milkshake may have been a bit "funnier" as it's saying that Farage isn't worth the price of a milkshake.

rjsterry wrote:

John appears to actually mean that he would take pleasure in Brand being injured solely because he doesn't like her jokes. He's stated very clearly that he doesn't joke about such things. That's not what "do unto others" means, is it?

Ah - so you're quite happy to interpret John's comments in a way that you think, but he (and others) are wrong in their interpretation of Brand's poor choice of words ...
Don't get me wrong - I don't agree with John on many/most things - but I do agree that the "Joke" shouldn't have been made and she should retract it as being entirely inappropriate - there've been better "jokes" on here about the incident - but then Brand has always been crass.

pblakeney

I think I will watch double bill of life of Brian and Blazing Saddles.
Oh, the outrage!......

rjsterry

Slowbike wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Do you really think Brand actually suggested throwing battery acid over people? I mean, if a programme is broadcast, called Heresy, where the whole premise is to tell topical jokes that are 'unsayable', then I think you can take it for granted that the content are just jokes. Possibly in poor taste, possibly make people uncomfortable, but very definitely jokes. Add to that that Brand's next line after the acid comment was, "...That’s just me. I’m not going to do it. It’s purely a fantasy, but I think milkshakes are pathetic, I honestly do, sorry." and it's pretty clear that only a very stupid person would take that as an incitement to violence.

I don't listen to it - I've no idea of the context - but, in any context would saying "I think all [insert minority group here] should be stoned" be acceptable? Then any suggestion of substituting acid for milkshake is equally unacceptable. Suggesting substituting anything for milkshake as it's a waste of a perfectly good milkshake may have been a bit "funnier" as it's saying that Farage isn't worth the price of a milkshake.

rjsterry wrote:

John appears to actually mean that he would take pleasure in Brand being injured solely because he doesn't like her jokes. He's stated very clearly that he doesn't joke about such things. That's not what "do unto others" means, is it?

Ah - so you're quite happy to interpret John's comments in a way that you think, but he (and others) are wrong in their interpretation of Brand's poor choice of words ...
Don't get me wrong - I don't agree with John on many/most things - but I do agree that the "Joke" shouldn't have been made and she should retract it as being entirely inappropriate - there've been better "jokes" on here about the incident - but then Brand has always been crass.

The context is critical. If you go and watch, say, Jimmy Carr make jokes about his girlfriend, you know that that is just part of an act and not real. If he made a similar comment as jcarr68 on here, you would assume he was telling you about his actual relationship with his girlfriend. In any case, Brand didn't say "I think all [insert minority group here] should be stoned" or anything close to that. Once again, here is the full quote.

‘Certain unpleasant characters are being thrown to the fore, and they’re very, very easy to hate.

Then she added: ’I’m kind of thinking, why bother with a milkshake when you could get some battery acid?

‘That’s just me, sorry, I’m not gonna do it, it’s purely a fantasy, but I think milkshakes are pathetic, I honestly do. Sorry.’

Clearly a joke regardless of whether it's funny or in poor taste, and Brand immediately clarifies what she actually thinks about physically attacking Farage or Yaxley Lennon. If John thinks that's crass or unfunny then fine. But he didn't stop there: in the same post he suggested he'd be happy for Brand to be doused in acid, after making a point of saying he wouldn't joke about such a thing. Either he means it, in which case it's a bit rich to moan about people just making a joke about it. Or he doesn't mean it, in which case he's suggesting that Brand shouldn't joke about the subject, but it's perfectly alright for him to make public 'jokes' in the same vein. Which is it?

john80

rjsterry wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Do you really think Brand actually suggested throwing battery acid over people? I mean, if a programme is broadcast, called Heresy, where the whole premise is to tell topical jokes that are 'unsayable', then I think you can take it for granted that the content are just jokes. Possibly in poor taste, possibly make people uncomfortable, but very definitely jokes. Add to that that Brand's next line after the acid comment was, "...That’s just me. I’m not going to do it. It’s purely a fantasy, but I think milkshakes are pathetic, I honestly do, sorry." and it's pretty clear that only a very stupid person would take that as an incitement to violence.

I don't listen to it - I've no idea of the context - but, in any context would saying "I think all [insert minority group here] should be stoned" be acceptable? Then any suggestion of substituting acid for milkshake is equally unacceptable. Suggesting substituting anything for milkshake as it's a waste of a perfectly good milkshake may have been a bit "funnier" as it's saying that Farage isn't worth the price of a milkshake.

rjsterry wrote:

John appears to actually mean that he would take pleasure in Brand being injured solely because he doesn't like her jokes. He's stated very clearly that he doesn't joke about such things. That's not what "do unto others" means, is it?

Ah - so you're quite happy to interpret John's comments in a way that you think, but he (and others) are wrong in their interpretation of Brand's poor choice of words ...
Don't get me wrong - I don't agree with John on many/most things - but I do agree that the "Joke" shouldn't have been made and she should retract it as being entirely inappropriate - there've been better "jokes" on here about the incident - but then Brand has always been crass.

The context is critical. If you go and watch, say, Jimmy Carr make jokes about his girlfriend, you know that that is just part of an act and not real. If he made a similar comment as jcarr68 on here, you would assume he was telling you about his actual relationship with his girlfriend. In any case, Brand didn't say "I think all [insert minority group here] should be stoned" or anything close to that. Once again, here is the full quote.

‘Certain unpleasant characters are being thrown to the fore, and they’re very, very easy to hate.

Then she added: ’I’m kind of thinking, why bother with a milkshake when you could get some battery acid?

‘That’s just me, sorry, I’m not gonna do it, it’s purely a fantasy, but I think milkshakes are pathetic, I honestly do. Sorry.’

Clearly a joke regardless of whether it's funny or in poor taste, and Brand immediately clarifies what she actually thinks about physically attacking Farage or Yaxley Lennon. If John thinks that's crass or unfunny then fine. But he didn't stop there: in the same post he suggested he'd be happy for Brand to be doused in acid, after making a point of saying he wouldn't joke about such a thing. Either he means it, in which case it's a bit rich to moan about people just making a joke about it. Or he doesn't mean it, in which case he's suggesting that Brand shouldn't joke about the subject, but it's perfectly alright for him to make public 'jokes' in the same vein. Which is it?

The first line is as close a view you will get for Jo Brand on politicians that do not share her views i.e. that of hatred. The second line suggest battery acid as a good tool presumably to stifle the first line's type of person. The third line is her basically admitting in a world without consequence this is what she would have a good go at. I would suggest to you that is it the likely legal ramifications of the action that prevent Brand from following through rather than the empathy of imagining what it would feel like to be that victim of the acid attack. I might not agree with Farage's or other politicians views but nor do I feel the urgent need to dehumanise politicians to the point that these sort of attacks are almost inevitable.

Her defence in that the above is a joke is about as embarrassing as the quality of the joke because it does not work on any level. Maybe making jokes about some of the policies she does not like would get better results as a comedian.

bompington

john80 wrote:

I might not agree with Farage's or other politicians views but nor do I feel the urgent need to dehumanise politicians to the point that these sort of attacks are almost inevitable.

Neither does Brand. Your inability to understand this is symptomatic of the problem.

rolf_f

Jo Brand wrote:

‘That’s just me, sorry, I’m not gonna do it, it’s purely a fantasy, but I think milkshakes are pathetic, I honestly do. Sorry.’

john80 wrote:

The third line is her basically admitting in a world without consequence this is what she would have a good go at..

Do you really think that? Do you understand what fantasies are? Do you understand what you are saying?

And why do you keep banging on about her being unfunny or unsuccessful (which sounds exactly like the stuff that Trump comes up with)? It's not relevant. Or do you mean that it's ok to suggest someone deserves acid chucking on them if you do it in a form that john80 finds funny or that at least that it is not so bad.

slowbike

rjsterry wrote:

Once again, here is the full quote.

‘Certain unpleasant characters are being thrown to the fore, and they’re very, very easy to hate.

Then she added: ’I’m kind of thinking, why bother with a milkshake when you could get some battery acid?

‘That’s just me, sorry, I’m not gonna do it, it’s purely a fantasy, but I think milkshakes are pathetic, I honestly do. Sorry.’

Clearly a joke regardless of whether it's funny or in poor taste, and Brand immediately clarifies what she actually thinks about physically attacking Farage or Yaxley Lennon. If John thinks that's crass or unfunny then fine. But he didn't stop there: in the same post he suggested he'd be happy for Brand to be doused in acid, after making a point of saying he wouldn't joke about such a thing. Either he means it, in which case it's a bit rich to moan about people just making a joke about it. Or he doesn't mean it, in which case he's suggesting that Brand shouldn't joke about the subject, but it's perfectly alright for him to make public 'jokes' in the same vein. Which is it?

ok - it's clearly a very unfunny joke - regardless of context. Does anyone fantasize about throwing battery acid at people? Then broadcast it to the "nation"?

I didn't read John's continuation as being happy to see Brand being doused in acid - just that he would have little sympathy should it happen now she's made that "joke". But that's just how I read it....

rick_chasey

Yes jokes are always best when they've been taken out of context and then examined to oblivion.

It's curious how certain commentators, usually those who complain bitterly about the 'snowflake generation' and who made out Jo Cox's murder to be the act of a lone mad-man are so upset by this.

rolf_f

Slowbike wrote:

I didn't read John's continuation as being happy to see Brand being doused in acid - just that he would have little sympathy should it happen now she's made that "joke". But that's just how I read it....

Happy versus ambivalent; does the distinction make much difference?

rjsterry

john80 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Do you really think Brand actually suggested throwing battery acid over people? I mean, if a programme is broadcast, called Heresy, where the whole premise is to tell topical jokes that are 'unsayable', then I think you can take it for granted that the content are just jokes. Possibly in poor taste, possibly make people uncomfortable, but very definitely jokes. Add to that that Brand's next line after the acid comment was, "...That’s just me. I’m not going to do it. It’s purely a fantasy, but I think milkshakes are pathetic, I honestly do, sorry." and it's pretty clear that only a very stupid person would take that as an incitement to violence.

I don't listen to it - I've no idea of the context - but, in any context would saying "I think all [insert minority group here] should be stoned" be acceptable? Then any suggestion of substituting acid for milkshake is equally unacceptable. Suggesting substituting anything for milkshake as it's a waste of a perfectly good milkshake may have been a bit "funnier" as it's saying that Farage isn't worth the price of a milkshake.

rjsterry wrote:

John appears to actually mean that he would take pleasure in Brand being injured solely because he doesn't like her jokes. He's stated very clearly that he doesn't joke about such things. That's not what "do unto others" means, is it?

Ah - so you're quite happy to interpret John's comments in a way that you think, but he (and others) are wrong in their interpretation of Brand's poor choice of words ...
Don't get me wrong - I don't agree with John on many/most things - but I do agree that the "Joke" shouldn't have been made and she should retract it as being entirely inappropriate - there've been better "jokes" on here about the incident - but then Brand has always been crass.

The context is critical. If you go and watch, say, Jimmy Carr make jokes about his girlfriend, you know that that is just part of an act and not real. If he made a similar comment as jcarr68 on here, you would assume he was telling you about his actual relationship with his girlfriend. In any case, Brand didn't say "I think all [insert minority group here] should be stoned" or anything close to that. Once again, here is the full quote.

‘Certain unpleasant characters are being thrown to the fore, and they’re very, very easy to hate.

Then she added: ’I’m kind of thinking, why bother with a milkshake when you could get some battery acid?

‘That’s just me, sorry, I’m not gonna do it, it’s purely a fantasy, but I think milkshakes are pathetic, I honestly do. Sorry.’

Clearly a joke regardless of whether it's funny or in poor taste, and Brand immediately clarifies what she actually thinks about physically attacking Farage or Yaxley Lennon. If John thinks that's crass or unfunny then fine. But he didn't stop there: in the same post he suggested he'd be happy for Brand to be doused in acid, after making a point of saying he wouldn't joke about such a thing. Either he means it, in which case it's a bit rich to moan about people just making a joke about it. Or he doesn't mean it, in which case he's suggesting that Brand shouldn't joke about the subject, but it's perfectly alright for him to make public 'jokes' in the same vein. Which is it?

The first line is as close a view you will get for Jo Brand on politicians that do not share her views i.e. that of hatred. The second line suggest battery acid as a good tool presumably to stifle the first line's type of person. The third line is her basically admitting in a world without consequence this is what she would have a good go at. I would suggest to you that is it the likely legal ramifications of the action that prevent Brand from following through rather than the empathy of imagining what it would feel like to be that victim of the acid attack. I might not agree with Farage's or other politicians views but nor do I feel the urgent need to dehumanise politicians to the point that these sort of attacks are almost inevitable.

Her defence in that the above is a joke is about as embarrassing as the quality of the joke because it does not work on any level. Maybe making jokes about some of the policies she does not like would get better results as a comedian.

And what's your defence, John? Clearly you think making flippant comments about such things, whether intended to be jokes or not, is beyond the pale, so why did you resort to more or less the same thing yourself?

slowbike

Rick Chasey wrote:

Yes jokes are always best when they've been taken out of context and then examined to oblivion.

It's curious how certain commentators, usually those who complain bitterly about the 'snowflake generation' and who made out Jo Cox's murder to be the act of a lone mad-man are so upset by this.

Having been in the audience who booed a comedian off stage for being completely unfunny I don't think some "jokes" need to be taken in or out of context - they're just not funny.

Reference was made to Jimmy Carr earlier - I've been looking at some of his "funniest jokes" or "most offensive" ones .. pretty much the same list - the thing is, most of his "offensive" jokes are ones that make you think about the words used in an alternative way - here you go - one that could upset quite a few ...

jimmy carr wrote:

There's been a lot of talk about genetic engineering I was wondering, is it wrong to breed piglets specifically for the purposes of weaning paedophiles off babies, only I'm thinking of starting a company called "they'll squeal, but not to the cops"

I can see why that may upset some people - but it's clearly a joke ...

slowbike

Rolf F wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

I didn't read John's continuation as being happy to see Brand being doused in acid - just that he would have little sympathy should it happen now she's made that "joke". But that's just how I read it....

Happy versus ambivalent; does the distinction make much difference?

er yes - one is a very definite positive thought - the other mixed views ...

john80

rjsterry wrote:

john80 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Do you really think Brand actually suggested throwing battery acid over people? I mean, if a programme is broadcast, called Heresy, where the whole premise is to tell topical jokes that are 'unsayable', then I think you can take it for granted that the content are just jokes. Possibly in poor taste, possibly make people uncomfortable, but very definitely jokes. Add to that that Brand's next line after the acid comment was, "...That’s just me. I’m not going to do it. It’s purely a fantasy, but I think milkshakes are pathetic, I honestly do, sorry." and it's pretty clear that only a very stupid person would take that as an incitement to violence.

I don't listen to it - I've no idea of the context - but, in any context would saying "I think all [insert minority group here] should be stoned" be acceptable? Then any suggestion of substituting acid for milkshake is equally unacceptable. Suggesting substituting anything for milkshake as it's a waste of a perfectly good milkshake may have been a bit "funnier" as it's saying that Farage isn't worth the price of a milkshake.

rjsterry wrote:

John appears to actually mean that he would take pleasure in Brand being injured solely because he doesn't like her jokes. He's stated very clearly that he doesn't joke about such things. That's not what "do unto others" means, is it?

Ah - so you're quite happy to interpret John's comments in a way that you think, but he (and others) are wrong in their interpretation of Brand's poor choice of words ...
Don't get me wrong - I don't agree with John on many/most things - but I do agree that the "Joke" shouldn't have been made and she should retract it as being entirely inappropriate - there've been better "jokes" on here about the incident - but then Brand has always been crass.

The context is critical. If you go and watch, say, Jimmy Carr make jokes about his girlfriend, you know that that is just part of an act and not real. If he made a similar comment as jcarr68 on here, you would assume he was telling you about his actual relationship with his girlfriend. In any case, Brand didn't say "I think all [insert minority group here] should be stoned" or anything close to that. Once again, here is the full quote.

‘Certain unpleasant characters are being thrown to the fore, and they’re very, very easy to hate.

Then she added: ’I’m kind of thinking, why bother with a milkshake when you could get some battery acid?

‘That’s just me, sorry, I’m not gonna do it, it’s purely a fantasy, but I think milkshakes are pathetic, I honestly do. Sorry.’

Clearly a joke regardless of whether it's funny or in poor taste, and Brand immediately clarifies what she actually thinks about physically attacking Farage or Yaxley Lennon. If John thinks that's crass or unfunny then fine. But he didn't stop there: in the same post he suggested he'd be happy for Brand to be doused in acid, after making a point of saying he wouldn't joke about such a thing. Either he means it, in which case it's a bit rich to moan about people just making a joke about it. Or he doesn't mean it, in which case he's suggesting that Brand shouldn't joke about the subject, but it's perfectly alright for him to make public 'jokes' in the same vein. Which is it?

The first line is as close a view you will get for Jo Brand on politicians that do not share her views i.e. that of hatred. The second line suggest battery acid as a good tool presumably to stifle the first line's type of person. The third line is her basically admitting in a world without consequence this is what she would have a good go at. I would suggest to you that is it the likely legal ramifications of the action that prevent Brand from following through rather than the empathy of imagining what it would feel like to be that victim of the acid attack. I might not agree with Farage's or other politicians views but nor do I feel the urgent need to dehumanise politicians to the point that these sort of attacks are almost inevitable.

Her defence in that the above is a joke is about as embarrassing as the quality of the joke because it does not work on any level. Maybe making jokes about some of the policies she does not like would get better results as a comedian.

And what's your defence, John? Clearly you think making flippant comments about such things, whether intended to be jokes or not, is beyond the pale, so why did you resort to more or less the same thing yourself?

Whats the one thing that Acid can improve the looks of? Jo Brands Face. Its only a joke but given the leeway Brands been given on this forum I am sure you will have no problems with the joke. Should I add some rubbish about it being a fantasy and maybe an apology that goes along the lines of Sorry but I don't think I have anything to apologise for. Works for Brand so it should work for everyone.

rjsterry

john80 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

john80 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Do you really think Brand actually suggested throwing battery acid over people? I mean, if a programme is broadcast, called Heresy, where the whole premise is to tell topical jokes that are 'unsayable', then I think you can take it for granted that the content are just jokes. Possibly in poor taste, possibly make people uncomfortable, but very definitely jokes. Add to that that Brand's next line after the acid comment was, "...That’s just me. I’m not going to do it. It’s purely a fantasy, but I think milkshakes are pathetic, I honestly do, sorry." and it's pretty clear that only a very stupid person would take that as an incitement to violence.

I don't listen to it - I've no idea of the context - but, in any context would saying "I think all [insert minority group here] should be stoned" be acceptable? Then any suggestion of substituting acid for milkshake is equally unacceptable. Suggesting substituting anything for milkshake as it's a waste of a perfectly good milkshake may have been a bit "funnier" as it's saying that Farage isn't worth the price of a milkshake.

rjsterry wrote:

John appears to actually mean that he would take pleasure in Brand being injured solely because he doesn't like her jokes. He's stated very clearly that he doesn't joke about such things. That's not what "do unto others" means, is it?

Ah - so you're quite happy to interpret John's comments in a way that you think, but he (and others) are wrong in their interpretation of Brand's poor choice of words ...
Don't get me wrong - I don't agree with John on many/most things - but I do agree that the "Joke" shouldn't have been made and she should retract it as being entirely inappropriate - there've been better "jokes" on here about the incident - but then Brand has always been crass.

The context is critical. If you go and watch, say, Jimmy Carr make jokes about his girlfriend, you know that that is just part of an act and not real. If he made a similar comment as jcarr68 on here, you would assume he was telling you about his actual relationship with his girlfriend. In any case, Brand didn't say "I think all [insert minority group here] should be stoned" or anything close to that. Once again, here is the full quote.

‘Certain unpleasant characters are being thrown to the fore, and they’re very, very easy to hate.

Then she added: ’I’m kind of thinking, why bother with a milkshake when you could get some battery acid?

‘That’s just me, sorry, I’m not gonna do it, it’s purely a fantasy, but I think milkshakes are pathetic, I honestly do. Sorry.’

Clearly a joke regardless of whether it's funny or in poor taste, and Brand immediately clarifies what she actually thinks about physically attacking Farage or Yaxley Lennon. If John thinks that's crass or unfunny then fine. But he didn't stop there: in the same post he suggested he'd be happy for Brand to be doused in acid, after making a point of saying he wouldn't joke about such a thing. Either he means it, in which case it's a bit rich to moan about people just making a joke about it. Or he doesn't mean it, in which case he's suggesting that Brand shouldn't joke about the subject, but it's perfectly alright for him to make public 'jokes' in the same vein. Which is it?

The first line is as close a view you will get for Jo Brand on politicians that do not share her views i.e. that of hatred. The second line suggest battery acid as a good tool presumably to stifle the first line's type of person. The third line is her basically admitting in a world without consequence this is what she would have a good go at. I would suggest to you that is it the likely legal ramifications of the action that prevent Brand from following through rather than the empathy of imagining what it would feel like to be that victim of the acid attack. I might not agree with Farage's or other politicians views but nor do I feel the urgent need to dehumanise politicians to the point that these sort of attacks are almost inevitable.

Her defence in that the above is a joke is about as embarrassing as the quality of the joke because it does not work on any level. Maybe making jokes about some of the policies she does not like would get better results as a comedian.

And what's your defence, John? Clearly you think making flippant comments about such things, whether intended to be jokes or not, is beyond the pale, so why did you resort to more or less the same thing yourself?

Whats the one thing that Acid can improve the looks of? Jo Brands Face. Its only a joke but given the leeway Brands been given on this forum I am sure you will have no problems with the joke. Should I add some rubbish about it being a fantasy and maybe an apology that goes along the lines of Sorry but I don't think I have anything to apologise for. Works for Brand so it should work for everyone.

Ooooooooh, so you do think it's acceptable to make jokes about throwing acid over someone. Then we're good.