Yes It should..If he had made those comments on the street it would have been a very different story.

No it would not...You cannot be personally offensive and then cry 'It's OK I was only joking!'

Your attempt to justify this to me has failed....But I respect you and your right to your opinion.

:hugesmile: I wouldn't mind, people have different opinions that's how the world works but when someone completely misunderstands what you're saying it gets frustrating. But I suppose that's to be expected when we only have the written word to communicate. lol

08marsh are you a chick or a bloke

You've asked that 50 times in the last month. It stopped being funny before the first time. Either remember what I've told you each and every time or stop trolling.

Freedom of speech is the right to tell someone something they don't want to hear, I obviously don't support racism but I wouldn't stop someone who was a racist from airing their views, because you can make them look foolish if they broadcast their opinion but you give them power by censoring it.

If it was my son I'd have the common sense to turn the other cheek and not give Frankie Boyle the attention he's after. Jordan only went after him because she saw the potential for a pay cheque and the chance to look sympathetic in the press for once. The show in which Frankie Boyle made those comments was failing and had a low viewership and there weren't any complaints made about it until Jordan made a fuss about it. Nobody cared about it until then and even then it was only the sheep that made the biggest noise. Also you can't take any apologies from a Media outlet seriously, they were just doing it for damage control and to appease the moronic masses rather then actually change anything about their content. If Jordan hadn't had seen pound signs then they'd have repeated that particular show with little incident, because nobody cared. Frankie Boyle has his niche audience and who are you to dictate to them what they can watch just because it offended you? What's so difficult about turning over the channel and not giving it the time of day?

Calling it bullying is nothing but an insult to victims of real bullying and I hate nothing more then when people try to use it to justify their views using it when it doesn't apply. It's a low move and I will reject anyone that thinks they can use it as a valid argument. You're just using the guise of bullying in order to force what you consider acceptable and unacceptable on others.

It's satirical mostly. He makes fun of the awkward situations and stereotypes that a lot of the country hold and encounter, and makes them easier to talk about. A prime example was the casting of Francesca Martinez in the 'Kate Winslet' episode of Extras. The actress herself has cerebral palsy and obviously so does her character, and her disability, whilst initially unknown to Gervais' character and others, is dealt with lightly and she makes jokes that, if anything, break boundaries.

However, 'Life's too Short' was just too boring and predictable. I'm cautiously optimistic for 'Derek'.

I never said that Frankie Boyle was right, of course he wasn't. But yes, Katie Price has thrust her kids into the public eye in order to line her own pocket, and so she does have to take some responsibility. Kids, and especially vulnerable kids, have no place in the "celebrity" freak show.

Your final analogy, about the playground... makes no sense in this case. A kid in the playground isn't the same as a kid in Heat magazine.

That's because you still haven't answered me :joker:

I'm sorry I wasn't aware that free speech didn't cover people who get miffed over being offended. Silly me.

Wrong...And in my opinion just keeps getting wronger....

Ridiculing people and making them a laughing stock is a form of bullying, so for you to try to distinguish between that and "real" bullying shows you don't really think before you type things like that. Bullying can go beyond physical beatings. Yet, I find it funny you proclaim it may be "offensive" to victims and yet parents of children being made fun of for adults to get their laughs from should just deal with it and change the channel in the name of "free speech", something which you don't seem to understand fully yourself.

I read the first sentence in your last post and I disagree again, so on that I'm not going to bother responding to all of your points as we'll go around in a circle again. We have very different views on it, and as I said I've already addressed all of my opinions and feelings on it in countless posts throughout the thread including what you are discussing in that last post. I've no desire to repeat myself endlessly so we'll just agree to disagree and move on.

..Please don't patronise me Kizzy..it's completely unnecessary...I think it's a good idea to allow disabled people to give their own views on whether Ricky Gervais' new show offends them or not..after it's been aired

So in your first post you ask for evidence... I say, that's a little rich etc. and then you say you didn't ask for evidence. I've already given you my opinion and I don't feel my opinion rises in value if I repeat it over and over and over again. However, just for your own clarity, my opinion is this: I don't think there's any point in getting all outraged over something you have not seen because it isn't even aired yet.

Do a bit of research, find out what free speech actually means and we can discuss it.

Oh so you're disregarding most of my post? Well in that case to hell your opinion then, I think it's short sighted, foolish, ridiculous and completely self righteous.

I think a lot about what I post and that's why I'm not moronic enough to use bullying as a way to make my points stick. It's completely disgusting that you throw around accusations like that in order to press your own opinion of what's decent and what isn't on others.

But fine, we'll agree to disagree. :xyxwave:

If you feel I did I apologise, you're right lets see after thurs.

Yes Kizzy, as usual you are reading it wrong.

I never said I had no idea what Frankie Boyle said. What I said was "I don't have the full story on what Frankie Boyle said" but I got the gist. That's not the same thing as having "no idea". Try reading what I actually write. She is not responsible for the comments, she is responsible for putting a vulnerable child into the Celebrity Freakshow. So, she is not responsible for the comments per se, but she has to take some responsibility.

Good one, resort to childishness.

Again, If you'd bother to actually read my posts (by the way I've edited my original post) you'd know that I didn't want to respond to your points because I feel I've already addressed them several times in the thread previously. NOT because I'm disregarding your points but I don't want to be constantly typing the exact same things over and over. As I'm sure you don't either.

I was under the impression I brought our discussion to a polite impasse but your attitude in that last post has me baffled.

May I ask you what accusations I've made that you find disgusting?

I asked for evidence to back up your point....You didn't provide any...
How many times are you going to repeat we have not seen the show....When all that is in discussion in the OP is the concept of the show?

Please don't patronise me.
No she doesen't...She did not put those words into his mouth, and it is disgusting in my opinion to suggest that she should accept that abuse.

You want evidence of how many disabled people get annoyed at people being outraged on their behalf? Well, I can only speak from experience of chatting to the disabled people I know and interact with. I have a friend who has cerebal palsey, a brilliant career and a great sense of humour and she for one will make up her own mind what she can or can't laugh at.

How many times I'm going to repeat the fact that she show isn't aired yet is dependant on how many times you're going to ask me for my opinion. Hopefully you may have got it this time.

I thought you didn't want to discuss this further? Make up your mind.

Of course I'm going to respond to that post in a hostile fashion, you threw most of it aside after only reading the first sentence. I'm not going to be respectful to someone who is so disrespectful to me. I despise your opinion but I respect your right to it so before I commented on the posts you've made in this topic I've read every single one through before tackling your points. You just threw my post aside because you didn't want to deal with it.

You know what you're doing on the bullying front, you're applying the bully label to people to give your own argument more weight which I find despicable. Is Frankie Boyle a bully? No he said one off colour joke that's never going to be repeated yet you're slinging mud like that just to get your point across. It's an insult to victims everywhere because you're trvialising it by flinging it around so easily.

You asked me "or am I reading this wrong". It's a question you've asked me a few times before and you often misquote me. So yes, as usual, you are reading it wrong. I write in quite simple, plain English so the fact that you seem to miss my point regularly is not my fault. Do try to stop turning everything into a massive drama because I don't agree with you.

Once again, because you seem to have misinterpreted what I said.... I never said she should accept the abuse, I said she has to take some responsibility for thrusting a vulnerable child into the limelight in order to make a buck. That's what's disgusting.

I said ridiculing people is a "form of bullying" because you responded as though making someone a laughing stock couldn't be bullying. Yes it can.

I never said Frankie Boyle was a bully, please read my posts properly, in some I'm giving my general opinion on boundaries within comedy and not on specifics but on what I find acceptable generally.

Again, I've not labelled anyone a bully so don't patronise me and put words in my mouth which you've been doing quite a lot in the thread.

As for your previous post, I didn't disregard it. I may have worded it wrong but I DID READ YOUR POST. I meant that even after the first sentence I disagreed and by the end of your post I didn't feel the need to make any responses as I'd already given my side previously and repeatedly. I'm not going to type them all up again, as I'm sure you wouldn't want to yourself so to prevent our conversation going round in circles it was best to bring it to a close.

I edited the post after I'd noticed you'd responded to kizzy and mentioned me, to which I then added more of a response to clarify my opinion further.

Once again, I've not labelled anyone a bully I merely brought up that some elements of baiting, ridicule, putting someone up in a public spotlight to be laughed at is a FORM of bullying, as you seemed to think it wasn't. I don't appreciate you jumping to one huge conclusion, as you've done many times with my stance on "free speech", and making assumptions about me which are completely untrue.