Jo Brand and Battery Acid

tangled_metal

Sh1t comic gets comedy awards. Is that not a little bit funny?

rjsterry

Tangled Metal wrote:

Sh1t comic gets comedy awards. Is that not a little bit funny?

Like I said, I'm no great fan of her comedy, but liked her acting. I'm sure there is someone you think is brilliant that someone else will think is crap. But if she was that bad she wouldn't have been able to make a career out of it. I don't think you get invited back to a venue if nobody laughs.

As for some jokes being beyond the pale, that's the whole point of comedians - to say the things you can't say in normal life. And to requote: some people may be upset, but it's clearly a joke.

Pross

Surely a lot of comedy isn't 'joke' focussed anyway or certainly not in the form of one-liners that read nicely on the internet. The few times I've been to see comedians or visited comedy clubs I wouldn't be able to remember the things that made me laugh the most or, if I did, and tried to tell other people it just wouldn't work. That's the art of the comedian.

tangled_metal

rjsterry wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Sh1t comic gets comedy awards. Is that not a little bit funny?

Like I said, I'm no great fan of her comedy, but liked her acting. I'm sure there is someone you think is brilliant that someone else will think is crap. But if she was that bad she wouldn't have been able to make a career out of it. I don't think you get invited back to a venue if nobody laughs.

As for some jokes being beyond the pale, that's the whole point of comedians - to say the things you can't say in normal life. And to requote: some people may be upset, but it's clearly a joke.

I think she's funny not to my taste but she has a good sense of humour and can get it out well enough. It's just that I might be naive here is that she's got awards for comedy and comic acting which should mean she's better than the average comedian. Not someone you can dismiss as not funny. At most someone can say her humour isn't to their taste I reckon.

earth

rjsterry wrote:

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.

I follow the line of your argument here but I don't agree with the assessment of sentences.

You are correct about the first line:

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

Good to have highlighted the word hate when we have developed the term 'hate speech'. This is a straight up admission of hate.

The assessment of the second line:

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

is correct.

But you have missed an important point in the third line:

'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.'

In that sentence she is referring to herself - 'I'm not going to do it'. But this is irrelevant because the subject of the second sentence was not herself.

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

In the second sentence she is referring to those people - not herself - who have thrown milkshakes. She did not say 'I could get some battery acid' despite all other references in the sentence being to herself. Instead she changed the subject of the sentence from I to you. So the statement 'I'm not going to it' is irrelevant because she was encouraging others to do it.

A ^clear^ incitement to violence.

What is equally as worrying is that the authorities either do not have the mental capacity to have understood what was said or they do not want to uphold the law equally when it is broken by some people.

earth

And the argument that it was on a 'comedy show' called Heresy where you can expect controversial talk means it is ok?

So by that logic if an acid attacker video's the attack, puts it on YouTube entitled 'Acid Attacks Volume 4' along with some canned laughter then it is not a crime? Because you know what to expect when you watch it.

It's not a crime if you say what you are going to do before hand?

earth

At the very least I suggest Jo Brand does not perform on this programme again. If the the programme is supposed to be controversial but within the law then she has failed to construct a joke that meets the criteria. This programme clearly requires a comedian with more intellect of course being funny would be a bonus!

bompington

:roll:

rjsterry

earth wrote:

At the very least I suggest Jo Brand does not perform on this programme again. If the the programme is supposed to be controversial but within the law then she has failed to construct a joke that meets the criteria. This programme clearly requires a comedian with more intellect of course being funny would be a bonus!

If you just don't like Jo Brand, why not just write that and save the bother of all that pseudo-textual analysis.

earth

rjsterry wrote:

earth wrote:

At the very least I suggest Jo Brand does not perform on this programme again. If the the programme is supposed to be controversial but within the law then she has failed to construct a joke that meets the criteria. This programme clearly requires a comedian with more intellect of course being funny would be a bonus!

If you just don't like Jo Brand, why not just write that and save the bother of all that pseudo-textual analysis.

I think it is serious. Bad behaviour is escalating.

If you don't judge peoples speech on the words they say then how else can you judge it?

kingstongraham

earth wrote:

And the argument that it was on a 'comedy show' called Heresy where you can expect controversial talk means it is ok?

So by that logic if an acid attacker video's the attack, puts it on YouTube entitled 'Acid Attacks Volume 4' along with some canned laughter then it is not a crime? Because you know what to expect when you watch it.

It's not a crime if you say what you are going to do before hand?

You have misunderstood the word logic.

Also, thought about it too much.

Lagrange

How do you get battery acid - I thought that all batteries were sealed - certainly mine on my Ford Focus is sealed. Maybe she's got an even better car.

robert88

Lagrange wrote:

How do you get battery acid - I thought that all batteries were sealed - certainly mine on my Ford Focus is sealed. Maybe she's got an even better car.

You don't need to know.

Anyway, all this reminded me of Bernard Manning. How times have changed!

rjsterry

earth wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

earth wrote:

At the very least I suggest Jo Brand does not perform on this programme again. If the the programme is supposed to be controversial but within the law then she has failed to construct a joke that meets the criteria. This programme clearly requires a comedian with more intellect of course being funny would be a bonus!

If you just don't like Jo Brand, why not just write that and save the bother of all that pseudo-textual analysis.

I think it is serious. Bad behaviour is escalating.

If you don't judge peoples speech on the words they say then how else can you judge it?

It's not a written joke. You should listen to the recording to judge it in context - but you can't because it's been taken down. If you really do think it's serious go and complain via the usual routes but as you already know, the police have already looked at this and determined there is no case to answer (one assumes with barely concealed eye-popping). The day the Met institute a Offensive Jokes Unit is probably the day to pack your bags and find a less idiotic country to live in.

bompington

rjsterry wrote:

The day the Met institute a Offensive Jokes Unit is probably the day to pack your bags and find a less idiotic country to live in.

Well, at least one poster clearly thinks the country isn't idiotic enough for him yet

earth

KingstonGraham wrote:

earth wrote:

And the argument that it was on a 'comedy show' called Heresy where you can expect controversial talk means it is ok?

So by that logic if an acid attacker video's the attack, puts it on YouTube entitled 'Acid Attacks Volume 4' along with some canned laughter then it is not a crime? Because you know what to expect when you watch it.

It's not a crime if you say what you are going to do before hand?

Also, thought about it too much.

It's certainly true that have to switch the brain off to listen to Jo Brand

earth

rjsterry wrote:

earth wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

earth wrote:

At the very least I suggest Jo Brand does not perform on this programme again. If the the programme is supposed to be controversial but within the law then she has failed to construct a joke that meets the criteria. This programme clearly requires a comedian with more intellect of course being funny would be a bonus!

If you just don't like Jo Brand, why not just write that and save the bother of all that pseudo-textual analysis.

I think it is serious. Bad behaviour is escalating.

If you don't judge peoples speech on the words they say then how else can you judge it?

The day the Met institute a Offensive Jokes Unit is probably the day to pack your bags and find a less idiotic country to live in.

So we are back it's ok to commit a crime if it's a joke. Except it isn't unless you are of a particular persuasion.

rjsterry

earth wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

earth wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

earth wrote:

At the very least I suggest Jo Brand does not perform on this programme again. If the the programme is supposed to be controversial but within the law then she has failed to construct a joke that meets the criteria. This programme clearly requires a comedian with more intellect of course being funny would be a bonus!

If you just don't like Jo Brand, why not just write that and save the bother of all that pseudo-textual analysis.

I think it is serious. Bad behaviour is escalating.

If you don't judge peoples speech on the words they say then how else can you judge it?

The day the Met institute a Offensive Jokes Unit is probably the day to pack your bags and find a less idiotic country to live in.

So we are back it's ok to commit a crime if it's a joke. Except it isn't unless you are of a particular persuasion.

Someone else has already alleged this. It's been determined that it didn't meet the criteria* for incitement to violence so there was no crime. It's not a crime just because you say it is.

You're free to disagree but as far as the law is concerned they're done.

*Here's the critical bit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serious_Crime_Act_2007

pblakeney

earth wrote:

I think it is serious. Bad behaviour is escalating.

If you don't judge peoples speech on the words they say then how else can you judge it?

Bad behaviour is not escalating, taking offence is.
Also, I learned a long time ago to judge a person by their actions rather than their words.

earth

PBlakeney wrote:

earth wrote:

I think it is serious. Bad behaviour is escalating.

If you don't judge peoples speech on the words they say then how else can you judge it?

Bad behaviour is not escalating, taking offence is.
Also, I learned a long time ago to judge a person by their actions rather than their words.

That's the whole point. She is encouraging others to do it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8HpHM1bGkM

rjsterry

earth wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

earth wrote:

I think it is serious. Bad behaviour is escalating.

If you don't judge peoples speech on the words they say then how else can you judge it?

Bad behaviour is not escalating, taking offence is.
Also, I learned a long time ago to judge a person by their actions rather than their words.

That's the whole point. She is encouraging others to do it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8HpHM1bGkM

I trust you were also straight on the phone to report an assault when Vic and Bob hit each other over the head with frying pans.

pblakeney

earth wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

earth wrote:

I think it is serious. Bad behaviour is escalating.

If you don't judge peoples speech on the words they say then how else can you judge it?

Bad behaviour is not escalating, taking offence is.
Also, I learned a long time ago to judge a person by their actions rather than their words.

That's the whole point. She is encouraging others to do it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8HpHM1bGkM

Eh, no she wasn't. And that is the whole point, if you pay attention to the whole story.
And that is just words on a satirical programme, not actions. Context.

Wayne Plunger

PBlakeney wrote:

earth wrote:

I think it is serious. Bad behaviour is escalating.

If you don't judge peoples speech on the words they say then how else can you judge it?

Bad behaviour is not escalating, taking offence is.

"Taking offence is"

Probably the most valid statement on here in many years.

mfin

Jesus christ, she just made a shît joke during a chat. All sorts of people take part in podcasts and radio shows that are a stream of chat to provide some sort of entertainment for the listeners, a lot with some humour whether professional comedians or not. So what if someone slips up a little, it would be very very clear if Jo Brand was actually advocating chucking battery acid on people, and because it isn't it shows it was nothing but a very likely unscripted, off the cuff comment.

I think most people here get that, but a few get pissy as they feel they have a higher level of principles or think their opinions are a good barometer and indicator of what actually is offensive. Some people are so busy body when it comes to subjective things like taking offence.

It clearly wasn't an incitement to violence either, and I'm sure the (actually unfunny) Jo Brand would hear anyone convinced that it is and rightly think "what a twàt".

Stevo_666

mfin wrote:

I think most people here get that, but a few get pissy as they feel they have a higher level of principles or think their opinions are a good barometer and indicator of what actually is offensive. Some people are so busy body when it comes to subjective things like taking offence.

Careful now, you might offend someone with a statement like that.

robert88

mfin wrote:

Jesus christ, she just made a shît joke during a chat. All sorts of people take part in podcasts and radio shows that are a stream of chat to provide some sort of entertainment for the listeners, a lot with some humour whether professional comedians or not. So what if someone slips up a little, it would be very very clear if Jo Brand was actually advocating chucking battery acid on people, and because it isn't it shows it was nothing but a very likely unscripted, off the cuff comment.

I think most people here get that, but a few get pissy as they feel they have a higher level of principles or think their opinions are a good barometer and indicator of what actually is offensive. Some people are so busy body when it comes to subjective things like taking offence.

It clearly wasn't an incitement to violence either, and I'm sure the (actually unfunny) Jo Brand would hear anyone convinced that it is and rightly think "what a twàt".

Must you blaspheme and use bad language?

(Didn't know you could get away with pissy. Standards are slipping.)

mfin

Robert88 wrote:

Must you blaspheme and use bad language?

(Didn't know you could get away with pissy. Standards are slipping.)

Well, there's no such thing as blasphemy as there's no such thing as god. I'll apologise for the bad language, although it was hardly that bad, sorry.

...you're joking though of course. Next thing people will get offended by Jo Brand making a throwaway comment won't they

kingstongraham

earth wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

earth wrote:

And the argument that it was on a 'comedy show' called Heresy where you can expect controversial talk means it is ok?

So by that logic if an acid attacker video's the attack, puts it on YouTube entitled 'Acid Attacks Volume 4' along with some canned laughter then it is not a crime? Because you know what to expect when you watch it.

It's not a crime if you say what you are going to do before hand?

Also, thought about it too much.

It's certainly true that have to switch the brain off to listen to Jo Brand

Please analyse that joke word by word. I find it offensive.

rjsterry

Here we go again. That Farage guy really does think that everything is about him.

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radi ... the-rabbit