Frankie Boyle

Grasshopper said:
I suggest none of you ever get tickets for Gerry Sadowitz. Boyle is a flaming queen in comparison.
Click to expand...


Not half. Few TV stations will work with Frankie Boyle now - NONE WHATSOEVER have dared work with Jerry Sadowitz for a long time. The stuff that did get commissioned, such as BBC2's The Pall-Bearer's Revue was Sadowitz-lite, but even that was as pitch-black as you'll get to see on telly. Never repeated since, as far as I'm aware.

gc
 
Last edited:
Grassy, no, you've got me all wrong. I put up some ghastly examples of what I think are not funny 'jokes' because they lack humanity, or empathy with human tragedy. I see how police, the military and emergency services personnel - in fact, anyone connected to the awfulness of the ways we despatch each other and ourselves at times - develop a black humour to deal with what they have to experience through their chosen careers. What I don't get is poking fun at the afflicted. We stopped selling tickets to see the demented of Bedlam a century ago, so why should we sell tickets to shows which provide almost the same sort of 'the mad - aren't they hilarious?' jibes?

I think I've made clear where I draw the line (it's back a page or two). It's when you demean the innocent, the people who can't help being what they are. If you wouldn't sit next to someone with Down's Syndrome and say, "So, seriously, what's life like for mongs like you?" why would you roar with laughter at someone making jibes about their condition?

Of course it's funny to take the **** out of total filth like the Nazis, Pol Pot, Mao, and a host of other pigs who've murdered and maimed millions of innocent lives. They should be parodied and ridiculed as much as we like. Lesser but important targets like the assortment of bigotries we may hold, pomposity, hypocrisy, self-importance, cruelties, vanity - yes, all of those ought to be lampooned. But not people suffering from afflictions they can't possibly help having. That's a line I do draw.

Having said that, there are some comics who've used reverse provocation, like Richard Pryor referring to 'niggers' in his stand-up - because he was a negro and could get away with such a derogatory reference as part of a very satirical act. The point was, of course, to ridicule those who use that word as an insult, throwing it back at them. I'm getting on now so I'm beginning to get used to jokes about 'old women' - there's nothing innately wrong with that, because I'll be old and I am a woman. But to make fun of me because I was crippled, old, and a woman would be unacceptable. (Unless my name was Goebbels, and then all bets would be off!)
 
Last edited:
Of course it's funny to take the **** out of total filth like the Nazis, Pol Pot, Mao, and a host of other pigs who've murdered and maimed millions of innocent lives.
Click to expand...

Often wondered a bit about that. Does it lighten the atrocities to do so?
 
Nothing can 'lighten' what happened to the people, can it? But perhaps it helps us to deal with things which are so ENORMOUS in their horror, by reducing the perpetrators, making them small by ridiculing them. Otherwise, the alternative is to probably go totally out of our collective minds. It's like reducing a huge job down to tackling its smallest parts. It makes it seem less overwhelming. Well, something like that!

I don't think it minimizes the appalling things these savages did, if that's what you meant? In our hearts, we know that they are dark, evil creatures, heartless and ruthless beyond the understanding of normal life. But it doesn't do any harm to take the mickey out of their posturing, their pomposity and grandiosity, at the same time that we either blow them to hell, execute them, or bang them in jail for life. Perhaps for the survivors of their dreadful eras, the freedom to mock them is a little cathartic?
 
But also it was a bit like some of the satire surrounding bin Laden. Treating him as almost a comic figure and a bit of a laugh really.

Even on this forum, his death was seemingly mourned by some. Clearly they didnt have any idea what the man was about.

I suppose it didnt make any difference but on the other hand the 'oh i think its unfair they killed him' brigade seemed to have forgotten BL would (and tried to... but being thick was hideously ripped off) have detonated a nuclear weapon in western europe at the drop of a hat

He was not a very funny man...
 
Mmm, all food for thought. I think it's a bit about what psychologists call 'coping mechanisms' - part of us was probably aware of the terrible things to come that were being planned (or had some sort of an idea) and were relieved that that particular threat was over. As a country which has given up capital punishment, it may have struck some people as 'unfair' that he couldn't have been brought to trial and then banged up for life. By that, they probably couldn't reconcile the seeming dichotomy of a country's penal system which eschews a literal eye-for-an-eye ethos, versus a rigid fundamentalist (who sought to destroy anyone he considered unworthy of existence) being put to death because he upheld contrarian views. But we don't put people to death because of their upholding of contrarian views - our military and the military of other countries gives fair warning of their intention to track down and punish these miscreants in whatever way seems appropriate at the time. Well, it was going to be damn difficult to just ask the Pakistanis to open up BL's compound and walk in with a clipboard, so the alternative measure had to be taken.

Oddly enough, a colleague and I were having a talk about some similar issues today and he, an ex-copper, said that he refused to give a penny to a fund the British police were getting up for American colleagues killed in 9/11, and American firemen who died at the site. No way, he said. Not when I know that New York coppers have been helping to send funds to NORAID - now they've had a taste of terrorism themselves, perhaps they'll understand what they were actually funding. He said that following 9/11, funds from the usual sources in the USA dried up.

I've no doubt someone will now correct me on that, but I can only repeat what he said. So, for those who thought bin Laden should've been spared, they should think of how his time in a nice, humane Western jail would've been spent: he would not be denied anything because of his 'human rights' and I've no doubt he'd have continued campaigning, supporting, and helping to channel funding for another big terrorist surprise.

As for making him a figure of fun, again, I think it's a belittling exercise - think of it in terms of the ancient wars where your opponent's head was cut off and made into a football for a bit of light recreation. Actually, now I think about that... would it be Man Disunited?
 
Hes in a strong position making jibes about someones looks isnt he? I mean i really doesnt look like someone who doesnt have to pay for sex or fiddles with kids does he?

and being a true socialist, he his naturally respectful of women isnt he?
 
Last edited:
Confuscious says: Those with the thinnest shoe leather must walk the easiest paths.

Well actually I just said it, but it amounts to the same thing. He has no talent, he isn't a funny man, so he chooses the lowest form of wit to entertain the lowest form of mind.
 
When I saw this thread reactivated, I was hoping that he had topped himself or someone had shot him in the face No such luck.

He's a "comedian" who made jokes about Katie prices kid sexually abusing her. Clearly a fantasy a of his and clearly on his mind. Clearly a piece of filth himself
 
including alleging sexual abuse re kids?

really?

Its not even like the guy is worth making a statement like that for..no one is really..but a numpty like him?

we are certainly turning into a strange society.

i can't stand the girl by the way.

but he isn't a funny man..never has been.
 
What a revolting view. She puts her kids "on film" (and although I hardly follow that media I haven't seen that there is anything controversial about it) so that makes it ok for a "comedian" with clear paedo fantasies to make "jokes" about he disabled kid sexually abusing her.
 
clivex said:
What a revolting view. She puts her kids "on film" (and although I hardly follow that media I haven't seen that there is anything controversial about it) so that makes it ok for a "comedian" with clear paedo fantasies to make "jokes" about he disabled kid sexually abusing her.
Click to expand...

As far as I can gather, the joke in question is that she only married Alex Reid to stop Harvey from raping her. I would suggest that the "point" of that joke, if there is one, revolves around her activities, rather than her sons disability. Still not funny mind.

But the other stuff in the article I read about him is mostly splendid, funnier than I remember him being. I especially like the way the article calls one joke "unprintable", then goes on to print it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbi...outhed-Comic-Relief-rant--AXED-broadcast.html
 
Yes. All a bit silly Daily Mail outrage

Not that hes worth the time of day but he does seem to have a thing about abusing women (verbally...but who knows?) and especially if they are English it would seem

Rejection?

He made a "joke" about Rebecca Adlington's looks. Fortunately he does so from a position of strength given that women are horny for bitter short arsed creepy pig ugly ginger misogynists.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top