Jimmy Carr - Offensive jokes

[MK-2]

Also, not replying, eh? You didn't manage to stay away for long.

 

shopping with the wife, it could have been MUCH longer than i expected!

[X-13]

shopping with the wife, it could have been MUCH longer than i expected!

 

Good, Lord, Man!

 

Are you trying to get yourself killed! Going shopping with your missus is asking for trouble! [/Joke Statement][/EXCLAMATION MARK]

[localzuk]

Ok, from my notes - it is based on simple public order (so, section 5). Basically, racism would be classed as threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour likely to cause alarm, harassment, or distress to anyone who is nearby, even if they aren't. So, whilst there isn't a specific law, what they say is correct. If someone finds racist words/behaviour abusive or insulting, even if it isn't directed at them, and it causes them alarm/distress, then arrests/prosecution can happen.

[synaesthesia]

The most likely people to be offended by a racist term are people NOT of that race concerned that someone of that race may be offended by said racist term. In effect, the people worried about persons of other race being offended by racist things are in actual fact, being racist in their intent.

[witch]

In effect, the people worried about persons of other race being offended by racist things are in actual fact, being racist in their intent.

How on earth is that being racist?? I do agree that PC takes things a bit far but worrying about people being offended can hardly be described as being racist. And how do you know, anyway? I know many people of mixed race who are very offended by racist comments

 

I have been pondering this 'insulting joke' question and what I wonder is, why would anyone find, for example, a joke about people with Downs Syndrome actually funny? Other than the shock value, that is.

I don't mean "how dreadful, what terrible people you are" I genuinely mean how is anyone amused by a joke about something like that - to me, it just isn't amusing in any shape or form.

[SimpleSi]

Words can only be offensive if you allow yourself to be offended by them

 

Sanctimonious twaddle uttered by a twit!

 

Most violence is caused by offensive words - of course if you are a santimonious twit then please feel free to turn your other cheek round but don't let your halo slip in the process.

Plonker!

Si

[pcstru]

Ok, from my notes - it is based on simple public order (so, section 5). Basically, racism would be classed as threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour likely to cause alarm, harassment, or distress to anyone who is nearby, even if they aren't. So, whilst there isn't a specific law, what they say is correct. If someone finds racist words/behaviour abusive or insulting, even if it isn't directed at them, and it causes them alarm/distress, then arrests/prosecution can happen.

 

What are you on about now? Section 5 - of *what*?

 

What you said (that I characterised as rubbish) :

 

"So, if 2 black people were using the N word with each other and a white person overheard and complained to the police, those 2 people could be arrested and prosecuted for a race related crime."

 

A prosecution happening because someone overhears some banter - you're off your rocker! Try calling up the police and describing your horror at hearing two black people using that language and demanding their arrest - I'll wager they will give you and your trainers a rather short hearing.

 

Perhaps a band of BNP chanting racist abuse might fall foul of "incitement to racial hatred" but your example is typical Daily Mail fodder.

[localzuk]

What are you on about now? Section 5 - of *what*?

 

What you said (that I characterised as rubbish) :

 

"So, if 2 black people were using the N word with each other and a white person overheard and complained to the police, those 2 people could be arrested and prosecuted for a race related crime."

 

A prosecution happening because someone overhears some banter - you're off your rocker! Try calling up the police and describing your horror at hearing two black people using that language and demanding their arrest - I'll wager they will give you and your trainers a rather short hearing.

 

Perhaps a band of BNP chanting racist abuse might fall foul of "incitement to racial hatred" but your example is typical Daily Mail fodder.

 

The offence is created by section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986:]Error"(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he:(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby."This offence has the following statutory defences:

(a) The defendant had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be alarmed or distressed by his action.(b) The defendant was in a dwelling and had no reason to believe that his behaviour would be seen or heard by any person outside any dwelling.© The conduct was reasonable.

 

So, basically, if someone could be offended within sight or hearing of the action/sound, you can be arrested and prosecuted for it.

 

Seriously, I do actually know about this law. I've been on the receiving end of several arrests from it, all of them dropped due to misinterpretations by the arresting officers.

 

I was arrested outside a Vodafone shop during a protest, where banners were displayed which contained animal rights information, which the officer said had alarmed someone (but they didn't follow through with the 'must be threatening abusive or insulting' part.).

 

So, you can still carry on thinking you know what the law is, or you can listen to someone who actually has experienced this law, knows about it and is speaking from experience, based on legal advice and discussions with solicitors.

 

And, you'll also note Section 31 of that act... So, rather than claiming its all Daily Mail nonsense, why not research? A simple google search for Section 5 (which is one of the most commonly used laws in the UK to arrest people), would have given you this info.

Edited November 25, 2011 by localzuk

[Chris_Cook]

At what point are comedians responsible for what comes out of their mouths? Or are you basically saying they have freedom to say whatever offensive things they like? What's the limit?

 

The problem with letting the audience decide, is that there are plenty of sick, twisted people out there who will laugh at this sort of joke (and far worse).

[synaesthesia]

How on earth is that being racist?? I do agree that PC takes things a bit far but worrying about people being offended can hardly be described as being racist. And how do you know, anyway? I know many people of mixed race who are very offended by racist comments

.

 

 

Hehe sorry Witch, don't worry it was a slightly terrible attempt at being funny.

In general though it's often true - I'm not going to start nitpicking but there are certain words "the N word" for example that I really couldn't condone regardless of some people's insistence on using it regardless of their own race/colour/creed etc. It came to a head for our school when we had a logon screen that said "Happy St. Paddy's Day!" and we instantly had a request to remove it in case it offended one of the many Irish members of staff here. Every single one of those members of staff came to us later that day and asked why it was removed/who asked for it to be removed because it made their day and they *all* enjoyed it.

 

I don't know what to say on the idea of people using such material in their routines though. If someone, for example Chris Rock can use the N word here there and everywhere, does it mean it's right for others to follow suit? Should he not be doing it in the first place to make people think it's alright?

It's a touchy subject in total and I suspect it's rather to do with how we are moving "forward" as a human race - in days gone by it was more than acceptable to mock people with serious disabilities and based on the colour of their skin. It doesn't mean we should continue to do so - we are hopefully moving towards being better as humans and treating eachother with the deserved respect. Using history shouldn't be an excuse to continue an act, otherwise we'd still be lopping off people's hands for stealing things.

[pcstru]

So, basically, if someone could be offended within sight or hearing of the action/sound, you can be arrested and prosecuted for it.

Section 5 of the Public Order Act deals with "Harassment, alarm or distress". The words used in the act are important. "Harassment, Alarm or distress" (as the title of the section) and in the actual section "Threatening, abusive or insulting". The words set the bar for prosecution. Merely taking offence to words being used in a normal conversation will not meet that bar and be clear, THAT is what you were suggesting. How could overhearing the word "nigger" possibly cause someone to be threatened or harassed?

 

Seriously, I do actually know about this law. I've been on the receiving end of several arrests from it, all of them dropped due to misinterpretations by the arresting officers.

So all of your example arrests have resulted in charges dropped (and this is evidence in support of your assertion?!). Presumably they were dropped because no one actually thought they would stand a snowballs chance in hell of succeeding as an actual prosecution? You can be arrested for almost anything - sometimes police will abuse their powers and there is very little you can do about it at the time. Such abuse of police power and position does not count as evidence that there are actual laws that could see two black people arrested AND prosecuted because a white person overheard them using the word "nigger" and found it offensive. Credible evidence of that would be successful prosecutions and sentences. You have presented no such evidence and will find none.

 

You obviously think you know about it, but equally obvious is that you have taken what you think you know and conjured it into something ridiculous.

And, you'll also note Section 31 of that act... So, rather than claiming its all Daily Mail nonsense, why not research?

I would note Section 31 but as you can see from the actual legislation, it is under amendment. Perhaps rather than directing people to do your research for you (again) you should take the time to put into words what you want to convey to them.

A simple google search for Section 5 (which is one of the most commonly used laws in the UK to arrest people), would have given you this info.

That's priceless. A simple google search for "Section 5" returns "About 218,000,000 results" and that should include every single piece of legislation on statute (I can't think of any with less than 5 Sections). But hey, of course I will manage to pick the needle of the one you mean from that haystack of results. And let's face it, I have all the time in the world to research YOUR claims and prove to myself that they are not as I think they are, risible, Daily Mail style rubbish, so why on earth should YOU bother.

[synaesthesia]

Can I seriously suggest we leave this thread here? We all have a healthy amount of respect for eachother professionally and let's keep it that way. "Shock Humour" does exactly as it says on the tin and we can either take it or leave it. It will always divide opinion and cause controversy, I'm sure we can all agree that.

[localzuk]

Stuff

 

Believe whatever you want to believe, you obviously are unwilling to actually listen.

[dwhyte85]

Might be worth listening to his Absolute radio interview.

 

Play nice

[Hightower]

you obviously are unwilling to actually listen.

 

That's a classic case of the kettle calling the frying pan. Absolute classic. Thank you, you have made my day

[localzuk]

That's a classic case of the kettle calling the frying pan. Absolute classic. Thank you, you have made my day

 

Don't see how. I've presented a law, been giving training on the subject, and have experience of that law. As yet all I've had in response is 'that's rubbish' and 'reading too much Daily Mail'.

 

I don't see what else I can do to clarify what the law actually states.

 

Section 5 is very clear that all someone has to do is be threatening, abusive or insulting within sight or hearing of someone 'likely to be cause alarm, harassment or distress thereby'. Section 31 extends it, making a further offence if the behaviour or speech are:

 

racially aggravated causing fear or provocation of violence

racially aggravated intentional harassment alarm or distress

racially aggravated causing harassment, alarm or distress

 

So, I don't get where the 'blah blah, Daily Mail' responses are coming from, the law is clear. Throw in some 'mens rea', and you end up with people who know that words are likely to cause alarm, harassment or distress if used in public have intent in the eyes of the law.

 

A bit more information on the specifics of the law about racially aggravated crimes can be found here

 

Anyway, all of this is kinda missing my original point. Why should racism be treated differently to the same behaviour towards any other group in society, be it someone with an illness, or people of a different gender etc...?

 

EDIT: On the bit about my personal experience of the law, the arresting officers made the mistake of only paying attention to the alarm, harassment or distress part of the law, and didn't first look to see if we were being threatening, abusive or insulting. We weren't, so the arrests were wrong. If we had been, even if no-one had complained, we were on a high street and could have been arrested and charged with Section 5 offences.

Edited November 26, 2011 by localzuk

[Hightower]

Don't see how. I've presented a law, been giving training on the subject, and have experience of that law. As yet all I've had in response is 'that's rubbish' and 'reading too much Daily Mail'.

 

I was more talking about you in general, rather than this thread. You listen to nobody and constantly think you are correct in quite literally everything. Sort of like a forum know it all. That's what made me chuckle, the fact you tell someone he doesn't listen when you prove time and time again that you care about nobodies opinions except yourself. And that, I find offensive.

[localzuk]

I was more talking about you in general, rather than this thread. You listen to nobody and constantly think you are correct in quite literally everything. Sort of like a forum know it all. That's what made me chuckle, the fact you tell someone he doesn't listen when you prove time and time again that you care about nobodies opinions except yourself. And that, I find offensive.

 

You're welcome to your opinion, but making comments like this are off topic and basically 'forum stalking'... I present evidence, and await counter evidence. If people don't provide counter evidence, and simply rely on arguments based on 'nah! that can't be true' then to me, that is a poor way of discussing something. The same thing happened in a meeting I was in on Friday - someone stated that Google Apps was not legal for schools to use as an email hosting platform for schools in the EU, due to EU data protection laws. Providing him with evidence to the contrary, pointing out that Google are a SafeHarbor signatory and the ICO has determined that this is fine (as has the European Commission) resulted in 'no, that's not right'.

 

So, I'll continue with my same way of presenting my arguments, and hope people who respond actually provide counter evidence.

 

I am 100% willing to listen, I don't hold grudges, and I don't forum stalk. So, I don't see it as a big problem to continue doing what I do.

[witch]

This thread is going round and round in circles.