British Comedy Guide

Regulations Page 3

Avatar

Chris Hallam

  • Thursday 24th October 2019, 8:10pm
  • Exeter, United Kingdom
  • 286 posts

Who would you like them to be attacking?

Avatar

Rood Eye

  • Thursday 24th October 2019, 9:15pm [Edited]
  • England
  • 3,852 posts

The only restriction I'd place upon comedians with regard to who and what they joke about is that inoffensive individuals should not be targeted.

Everybody and everything else is fair game.

Who qualifies as inoffensive?

Where there is doubt, each case should be decided on an individual basis.

It's not and never will be an exact science but it does form the basis of my view on what is permissible and what isn't in stand-up comedy.

Avatar

chipolata

  • Thursday 24th October 2019, 9:36pm
  • England
  • 30,066 posts
Quote: Rood Eye @ 24th October 2019, 9:15 PM

The only restriction I'd place upon comedians with regard to who and what they joke about is that inoffensive individuals should not be targeted.

Everybody and everything else is fair game.

Who qualifies as inoffensive?

Where there is doubt, each case should be decided on an individual basis.

It's not and never will be an exact science but it does form the basis of my view on what is permissible and what isn't in stand-up comedy.

So who do you find 'offensive' that you would like to see targeted?

Avatar

Rood Eye

  • Thursday 24th October 2019, 9:44pm [Edited]
  • England
  • 3,852 posts

I have no wish to see any particular individual targeted.

Absolutely anybody will do - as long as that person is not entirely undeserving of attack, and the joke is funny.

Avatar

Chris Hallam

  • Thursday 24th October 2019, 9:50pm
  • Exeter, United Kingdom
  • 286 posts

No one specific then?

Avatar

chipolata

  • Thursday 24th October 2019, 9:51pm
  • England
  • 30,066 posts

You're very coy all of a sudden. You clearly believe some groups warrant targetting but currently aren't, yet you seem unwilling to name any.

You're very coy all of a sudden. You clearly believe some groups warrant targetting but currently aren't, yet you seem unwilling to name any.

Avatar

Rood Eye

  • Thursday 24th October 2019, 10:02pm [Edited]
  • England
  • 3,852 posts
Quote: Chris Hallam @ 24th October 2019, 9:50 PM

No one specific then?

It appears you understand the meaning of the expression "anybody and everybody".

Quote: chipolata @ 24th October 2019, 9:51 PM

You clearly believe some groups warrant targetting .

I do not believe some groups warrant targeting.

I believe all groups warrant targeting.

As far as I'm aware, there isn't a group of people on earth who do not represent a source of comedy material for a comedian talented enough to recognise it.

Avatar

Chris Hallam

  • Friday 25th October 2019, 6:36am
  • Exeter, United Kingdom
  • 286 posts

So you feel TV comedy is strangled by restrictive regulations but when pushed cannot think of anything at all which it is restricted from covering?
Am finding it hard to get worked up about this one.

Avatar

Rood Eye

  • Friday 25th October 2019, 7:58am [Edited]
  • England
  • 3,852 posts
Quote: Chris Hallam @ 25th October 2019, 6:36 AM

So you feel TV comedy is strangled by restrictive regulations but when pushed cannot think of anything at all which it is restricted from covering?

As ever, Google is your friend here.

If you or I or anybody else wants examples of jokes that have dropped comedians into hot water, a quick search on Google will yield plenty - and several of them are from Frankie Boyle in his pre-sell-out days.

Quote: Chris Hallam @ 25th October 2019, 6:36 AM

Am finding it hard to get worked up about this one.

There's really not a lot to get worked up about.

"Nothing and nobody immune from comedic comment but all comments to be within the law and not hurtful to the innocent"?

It isn't the most exciting of policies.

Oh well, moving along . . . how do you feel about Brexit?

Avatar

Billy Bunter

  • Friday 25th October 2019, 9:04am
  • The Sussex Coast, England
  • 1,226 posts
Quote: Chris Hallam @ 25th October 2019, 6:36 AM

Am finding it hard to get worked up about this one.

One would never have guessed it from the thirteen posts you've felt moved to post on the subject to date!

Avatar

Chris Hallam

  • Friday 25th October 2019, 9:10am
  • Exeter, United Kingdom
  • 286 posts

Only posted a few on that one, Mr 942!

Avatar

chipolata

  • Friday 25th October 2019, 10:18am
  • England
  • 30,066 posts
Quote: Rood Eye @ 24th October 2019, 11:33 AM

Just to convince myself that I'm not alone in thinking Frankie's gone soft, I've googled the issue and have come up with an article from The Spectator (April 2019) which asks why he's gone soft.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/04/why-has-frankie-boyle-gone-so-soft/

I'm not suggesting The Spectator is the voice of objective fact with regard to Frankie's transformation but I'm certainly relieved to find that my views on the subject are not unique.

For BCG members too busy to read the article in its entirety, I offer the following snippet:

"Boyle has moved up in the world. He's on the third series of his own show -- Frankie Boyle's New World Order -- yer actual BBC this time (Thursdays), rather than lowly Channel 4.

As comics tend to do when they're endorsed and promoted by our state broadcaster, he has amassed a respectable fortune (estimated at £3.3 million). And all he had to do to achieve this was to sell his soul, stop taking risks and renounce every last scintilla of his comedic integrity."

I couldn't have put it (much) better myself.

This is kind of bollocks. Frankie could make way more money away from the BBC - ITV, Channel 4, Netflix, Amazon etc - would all give him far more than the Beeb for his services. So in sticking with the BBC, he's actually losing money. Lots of money.

Quote: Rood Eye @ 24th October 2019, 1:33 PM

Accordingly, live stand-up comedy is the last bastion of free speech in Britain.

Don't forget the Internet, which you can pretty much say anything you want. And I mean anything.

Avatar

Chris Hallam

  • Friday 25th October 2019, 10:32am [Edited]
  • Exeter, United Kingdom
  • 286 posts

Most of that article is bollocks. It reveals far more about James Delingpole and The Spectator's attitude to the BBC than anything else.