Originally Posted by kizzy (Post 5072560)

From the man who labelled Susan Boyle a mong

Originally Posted by Locke. (Post 5073347)

:joker::joker::joker:

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

Originally Posted by Ammi (Post 5073351)

..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

Originally Posted by Jack_ (Post 5072906)

Comedy doesn't and should never have any boundaries...because it's simply just that, comedy. There is a discernible between satire and jokes, and remarks made with malicious intent, and I find it odd how some people can so easily confuse the two.

Ricky's shows are about mocking stereotypes, tearing them apart and just being generally satirical. If you don't understand satire, then it's offensive, but if you do, it's not.

And this is coming from someone who is pretty indifferent towards him. I might give this show a chance though.

Originally Posted by Ammi (Post 5073344)

..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

Originally Posted by Ammi (Post 5073351)

..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

Originally Posted by Livia (Post 5073604)

There are a lot of "ifs" in there.

Where are all the people bleating on about free speech? I hate that people think comedy should be censored. This programme hasn't even aired yet and already there are people worrying about it and feeling bad on other people's behalf! Most disabled people don't need someone else to do their thinking and their feeling.

Originally Posted by Jesus.H.Christ (Post 5073638)

What a mongy thread.

Originally Posted by 08marsh (Post 5073668)

I'll use the Frankie Boyle example again. Should he have been allowed to get away with his ridicule of Harvey? Because Harvey himself is most likely unaware of what was said and not really "affected" should Boyle have been allowed to make the "jokes" he did and make that child the centre of attention for being laughed at? I don't think so.

I compare that kind of thing to Jeremy Kyle, he acts high and mighty that he's doing a "service" and helping people through the problems yet all the guests he has on the show are just there to be laughed at, hissed at, screamed at and just treated like crap.

Originally Posted by Niamh. (Post 5073679)

I don't agree with what Frankie Boyle did to Harvey at all, and I don't think he should have gotten away with it. I do think a line needs to be drawn somewhere.

Obviously as I haven't actually seen this show yet it's hard to comment on whether or not it crosses that line but by the sounds of it, it is more taking the piss out of people reacting to the main character rather than he himself

Originally Posted by 08marsh (Post 5073685)

Agreed. That was my point, I don't agree with all the people saying comedy shouldn't have boundaries. When, really, everything has a line you shouldn't cross.

I don't know whether to watch the show or not though because Gervais in general doesn't make me laugh.

Originally Posted by Niamh. (Post 5073679)

I don't agree with what Frankie Boyle did to Harvey at all, and I don't think he should have gotten away with it. I do think a line needs to be drawn somewhere.

Obviously as I haven't actually seen this show yet it's hard to comment on whether or not it crosses that line but by the sounds of it, it is more taking the piss out of people reacting to the main character rather than he himself

Originally Posted by kizzy (Post 5073649)

Why?...If It is being used to ridicule a section of our 'civilised' society then it is wrong.
Do you have any evidence to support this? Who are these 'most' disabled people?

Originally Posted by kizzy (Post 5073661)

You know for a clever person you can say some silly things....

Originally Posted by 08marsh (Post 5073357)

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.

Originally Posted by Dezzy (Post 5073720)

Then it's not free speech then isn't it? There's no half and half you either have the freedom of speech or you don't.

I couldn't give a **** about with Frankie Boyle or Ricky Gervais, I just feel that people who kick up such a fuss about such insignificant things are in desperate need of sorting out their priorities.

Originally Posted by Dezzy (Post 5073720)

Then it's not free speech then isn't it? There's no half and half you either have the freedom of speech or you don't.

I couldn't give a **** about with Frankie Boyle or Ricky Gervais, I just feel that people who kick up such a fuss about such insignificant things are in desperate need of sorting out their priorities.

Originally Posted by Niamh. (Post 5073838)

Well, the example Marsh gave about Harvey I think over steps a mark, it's become personal and taking the piss out of a disabled child personally is wrong and bang out of order imo. If that damages Frankie Boyles right to Free Speech then I couldn't care less to be quite honest, somethings are more important.

Originally Posted by Ammi (Post 5073842)

I didn't actually see the Frankie Boyle thing..or know exactly what was said..but it seems that it was personal..a specific child..and also the fact that it was a child..who is classed as 'vulnerable'..I mean children in general are vulnerable

Originally Posted by Niamh. (Post 5073850)

I didn't see it either but it was something along the lines of him ****ing his mother