SIGN UP

Answers

81 to 100 of 252rss feed

First Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by agchristie. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
pixie, //who is responsible for children or adult's behaviour?//

You left the easily influenced, those who have a spiteful agenda, and the mentally disturbed out.
The second and third are the same if they resort to violence because of something they see or hear. And so is the first.
Naomi, all criminals have those qualities.. issue is we need to wait to see who acts on them to decide if they’re not worthy of being with Gen Pop

If someone saying something from jo brands position and hearing what Jo said influences them to commit terrorism (because that’s kinda what it is..) then i guess at least now we know who the lunies are
agchristie, just to say that if she'd named a potential target (Farage, Corbyn, whoever) it would have been a different matter. But she didn't, which indicates that she was interested in the exaggeration rather than in any individual, which is what I'd expect of a comedian.

I find 99.9% of comedy unfunny but it doesn't bother me. I was however annoyed by the Jonathan Ross/Russell Brand business because it did target individuals, and ones whose privacy was violated.

Are the Brands related?
Naomi - // naomi - // pixie, //who is responsible for children or adult's behaviour?//

You left the easily influenced, those who have a spiteful agenda, and the mentally disturbed out. //

I return to the point I made at 17.04 - you cannot legislate for anyone using anything said by anyone anywhere as 'incitement' and I did point out a very obvious comparison.

Yes, Ms. Brand's comments may be heard by someone who takes her literally, but that is not only extremely unlikely to be the sole reason why anyone acts on what she said, it also cannot be censored on the basis of what someone unbalanced may or may not do.

If we go down that path, where do we end? Not showing The Night Garden on television in case some deranged parent sets their child adrift in a boat like Iggle Piggle?

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=youtube+iggle+piggle+boat+ride&source=lnms&;tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwje8b74uOTiAhV4BWMBHXNQDoUQ_AUIESgC&biw=1280&bih=601#imgrc=0Rn6_N8LXm2rgM:
pixie. That'll excuse it then.

Ultimately - in my opinion - Jo Brand is a public figure and must be held responsible for what comes out of her mouth and the influence that her words may have. This - again in my opinion - is highly irresponsible.
If we start censoring comedy, I'm not sure what would be left? Even Tom and Jerry is fairly violent...
Comedy is censored.
jno - // Are the Brands related? //

No - I imagine they would be equally aghast at the thought!

Katy Brand is not related to either of them either, and while we are here -

Alan Carr and Jimmy Carr are not related, and

John, Andy, and Roger Taylor from Duran Duran are not related either.

That's it for now!
If you say so :-)
I had said on a previous post that there are certain illnesses/ conditions where people cannot help the way they behave at all times.
It really isn't feasible to blame every crime on something else though. Sometimes, people just need to take responsibility for what they choose to do, without blaming someone or something else.
naomi - // Jo Brand is a public figure and must be held responsible for what comes out of her mouth and the influence that her words may have. //

I think you are on seriously dodgy ground here with both those suppositions.

Jo Brand is not a 'public figure' - she is an entertainer, she is not proposing an agenda, or a political ideology, she is making people laugh, or not, but that is her intention and profession.

As to the responsibility of 'public figures' - who actually genuinely are public figures, such as politicians, you cannot gag people on the basis that someone somewhere may take dubious action based on what they hear, that is censorship on a level that is as impossible as it is undesirable.
Pixie, I do say so - and it is. Perhaps it's just a matter of time before thoughtless rubbish like this goes the same way as Jim Davidson's Chalky White jokes.
Ok, but Jo Brand is a comedian, what she says is not serious. She isn't a politician. We need less censorship and more free speech, not less. And neither should people feel responsible for the actions of others.
Katy Brand is not related to either of them either

she was for a while
Pixie, I’m the last to promote the concept of censorship but a bit of common sense wouldn’t go amiss!
Absolutely, but imo, that doesn't include entertainment, in case of people taking it seriously. Some people do need taking in hand... but I don't think it is the comedians.
She's always seemed to me to be a basket-case, nothing she has ever said has raised even a smile in me. Who told her she was a comedian?
That really is objective, khandro. Personally, I like her and I like most comedians- although not everything they always say.
Subjective:-)
I don't think there's a case to answer for incitement, it's just a rather tasteless nasty remark.

Apparently Farage has asked the police to look into though, which is fair enough. Let's have the legality of it tested. People that make tasteless nasty remarks should be prepared to have them held up to scrutiny.

81 to 100 of 252rss feed

First Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next Last

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.