Who is he discriminating against?

He's playing the part of a disabled person, shall we pretend disabled people don't act in a certain way in case we're 'discriminating' against them?

I disagree, and I feel your view is not taking into account the need for a positive attitude towards the disabled in this country.
As for your 'disdain' it is unfortuate you feel that way, anything for a laff eh?...

No...
I'm sure she was thrilled.

The disabled..
Not according to him he isn't...have you read the OP?

So you'd rather if no one sees the show he has written about disabled people?

Well if he isn't trying to portray a disabled person what's the problem? I don't understand. Are you saying he's discriminating against disabled people by playing the part of a non-disabled person? How does that work then?

How do you know the show is offensive though if you haven't seen it?

We haven't even seen the show yet but he's discriminating against the disabled? How so?

I would rather him not claim it was satirical, and then backtrack and claim that the character is not disabled.

?...Just read the article.

.

Just read the article, I have said about all I can on the subject , untill it is shown I would just be repeating myself....

I really don't think you should watch the show Kizzy. I think it would do nothing but annoy you.

I read the 'article', extremely badly written and completely flammatory. I'm shocked it was written for the Guardian and not the Daily Mail as it's sole aim seems to be to stir people into a needless rage. The fact that the writer can't grasp the basics of Irony, Satire or sarcasm shows that he's a hack that's trying to make the show seem more controversial then it actually is in order to stir the foolish readers who can't think for themselves into complaining about it so that they can do a follow up article about the public opinion.

Pretty much the basic tools of a terrible tabloid 'journalist'. I've discarded it from my mind since it's a terrible excuse of an article and it should be taken seriously by no one.

I have thanks, and many other articles about the series too, and I will reserve any comments I may have about the context of the show until after I have watched it, and save the psychoanalysis until such a time I have more of the facts to hand.

I have, I still see no proof that he's discriminating against the disabled. The article's obviously biased.

Were Lucas and Walliams discriminating against the disabled too with Little Britain (Andy and Lou)? Where does it start and where does it stop?

That's the thing with comedy. It's to each individual's taste.

She...

Clutching at straws, or what?

I apologise, SHE'S a hack writer that's a disgrace to Journalism.

Is that better?

How so?...
The 'Little Britain' depiction...I did not find this discriminatory, as andy is not actually disabled is he?
It is.....Not much to be said till thursday then.....

No...I disagree she highlights his contradictory statements, It shows his 'satire ' argument for what it is....rubbish.

Are you really gonna try and argue that it's not biased..? Really?

Neither is Derek...

It's a deal :)

What?..

Yes really...
Have you seen it?...

Derek is a work of fiction is it not? It's not meant to be a statement so why treat it like it is?

The thing with fiction is that it allows for people to inhibit different perspectives, I could write a story from the point of view of a hack tabloid writer. Would that make me a hypocrite because I don't like them in real life? No it just means I'm writing from a perspective I've never explored before. Why does it make him a hypocrite? He's just writing from a different perspective. A writer's work doesn't have to embody their own beliefs.

That article is just a piece of **** that's intended to cause a reaction, it's points are forced, moronic and senseless and it's just fodder for the idiotic masses that can't think for themselves.

From the OP

I can't be arsed with this anymore, it's going around in circles :joker:

Exhibit.
Seeing as I quoted from what he actually said and not the article it's hard to discredit that....
It has caused quite a reaction in you...Maybe you have a point?...

Quote:
"Derek is a fictional character and is defined by his creator. Me," he says. "If I say I don't mean him to be disabled then that's it.

Then why suggest it is a satirical look at disability?...If he is not in any way disabled?.....

If you're more content with correcting my grammar rather then dealing with the points I've laid out then it just shows how weak your own stance is on the subject.

As the brother of someone with cerebral palsy, I find that disgusting.

No it doesen't...
Im perfectly happy with my stance thankyou. I don't feel it is weak.

Agreed...But apparently theres a new meaning, that someone is just a 'complete idiot'....

It just goes too far a lot of the time. I'm not the kind of person to complain about TV or comedy, I can enjoy "near the knuckle" jokes but there is a line where you can go too far. I don't agree with whichever poster said that there shouldn't be any boundaries.

Take Frankie Boyle's recent attention over his comment about Katie Price's son, can anyone actually defend what he said? Comedy stops being appropriate when it's making someone a complete laughing stock, when their not equipped to defend or stand up for themselves. He literally put Harvey up for ridicule.

As for Ricky Gervais, I enjoyed parts of the office but other than that I've never found him remotely funny. Like Russell Brand his relative success made his ego balloon out of proportion, which made him even less likeable. However, I won't comment on "Derek" until I've seen it.

..I don't really find Ricky very funny anymore..I liked 'The Office' and 'Extras'..I don't know if it's me or whether his comedy has changed..
..I saw a trailer for this..and it didn't look anything special..I like Karl Pilkington so I'll give it a try
..I don't see the point in complaining about prejudice..when it hasn't been aired yet..when you think about it..disabilities are raised in lots of ways on TV..dramas..documentaries..etc..and comedy is just a different form..it all brings awareness and that's good..if it's not funny I wont watch..as to whether it offends..well I can't say without watching it
...After actually giving it a few weeks to see what it's like..maybe do a survey of disabled people..and ask them if they are offended..rather than assume things on their behalf

I don't think disabilities being portrayed on TV are what kizzy's problem is Ammi. It's the chances of them being put there for ridicule, to be laughed at.

Not saying this is true of Gervais, like I said earlier I'll watch before making comment.

:joker::joker::joker:

He's a bit hit and miss for me, but that did get a laugh

..yeah I see that..as you say..first thing to do is watch it..and then isn't it more up to the disabled to decide if they think they are being ridiculed..if a large number of disabled compained..were outraged..that's the time to address it

:shocked:

I wouldn't think so. If someone is being ridiculed, and if Gervais does that in this show, then I would think it would be blatantly obvious to everyone that it is the case. You don't need someone disabled to say "I categorically deduce he is making fun of me and people like me".

Take Frankie Boyle's comments about Harvey, you don't need to have any of his conditions to know that he used the kid to get a laugh, and to ridicule him.