- This topic has 53 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 2 weeks, 1 day ago by
.
- Posts
Perhaps it simply wasn’t particularly funny, par for the course with Walliams. I think we may have said before that you’re more likely to get away with being offensive if it’s at least funny.
it sounds like television executives have had enough of him.
There are those who say that may be the case, so I’ve heard anyway.
I suspect he is not easy to work with.
“Little Britain” is a curious one. The first series was actually quite funny. I wondered if that may be a rose tinted view but I saw it again recently on one of the satellite channels and it was still quite good. Dafydd was quite an astutely drawn character and would be even more pertinent now.
Unfortunately I think the success of the first series went to Lucas and Walliams’s heads somewhat, especially the latter. The next two series were mostly juvenile rubbish without any charm and Walliams has been insufferable ever since (although fair play to him for swimming the English Channel).
I watched an episode of Whatever happened to the Likely Lads the other night on That’s TV.
Still find it hilarious and relevant with two mates who get on well, but do have differences about life, yet still laugh and buy each other a beer.It was the episode where they spend the day trying to avoid the Bulgaria England result before the evening highlights show. It was flooded off and as they put the telly on ice skating came on.
Terry also went thru various nations slagging ’em off for various reasons, in the end concluding he didnt really like anyone outside his front door.That’s TV show it in all its original glory, no cuts, etc – not like Gold lately with some episodes of OFAH and Blackadder.
I wonder what some of today’s ‘offended’ would think of The Likely Lads?
Imagine the trigger warning it would have today!
Superb writing by Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais and beautifully played by Rodney Bewes and the brilliant James Bolam.
There is a thread about the Likely Lads:
They shouldn’t be cancelled but I can’t help feeling they kind of like it that way.
A wiser and wittier Irishman than them knew the score.
An actor from “EastEnders” named Jamie Borthwick is the latest to fall foul of the language police. It seems he used an unacceptable word to describe disabled people and then joked it applied to people from Blackpool.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2qxd1e1pyo.amp
According to the BBC: “Disability charity Scope said Borthwick should reflect on what he said and educate himself.” Which sounds like a threat.
From what I have heard, there is a possibility he will be sacked from “EastEnders” by the BBC.
He has said he is sorry. Why isn’t that sufficient? He hasn’t committed any crime and it doesn’t sound like many people were seriously offended by whatever he said.
Sin against the secular gods of diversity, equality and inclusion and there doesn’t appear to be any possibility of forgiveness or redemption.
Happened in November, Sun reports it seven months later. So basically the Murdoch goons have been sitting on it all that time until the instruction comes to issue a negative story about the hated BBC.
I wonder what he actually said and whether his apology came from the heart, probably advised to just apologise whether he means it or not.
The more I know the less I understand.
He sounded quite contrite. Given some of the genuinely serious crimes which have gone unpunished in recent years, it seems even more wrong when people are harshly punished for what are just words.
I wonder sometimes who is actually offended.
Are many things offensive to the majority, or simply the most vocal.
I have friends who are Muslim, but not one has ever been offended by Christmas trees for example. In fact those with children participate in a non religious aspect of ‘Christmas’ with presents for their children. As they point out, they and other cultures celebrate certain events throughout the year, so why not western culture with their religion and symbols?
Last Saturday I went to see Jim Jefferies.
Now Jim Jefferies wouldn’t quite hit the guidelines for being politically correct and in part of his show, there was a section on disabled people and who would qualify to meet him back stage. Looking in front of where we were seated was an easy accessibility section for disabled and wheelchair users and I noticed they were laughing as hard as anybody at his comments and observations. If anybody has the right to judge the content of his show, it would be those people.To me it’s very simple.
1. It’s comedy and should be treated as such.
2. If you are of a sensitive nature, then don’t go, but leave others to decide for themselves.I saw this on the BBC website and it’s long overdue.
“Speaking directly to students, the director for free speech said: “You should expect to face views you might find shocking or offensive, and you should be aware that’s part of the process of education.”
He added that students should be able to express any view, no matter how offensive it is to others, as long as it is not outside what is generally allowed by law, such as harassment or unlawful discrimination.
The guidelines also make clear that the OfS expects universities to support and protect academics whose views might provoke protest from students, and not to delay speaking up in their defence.
Dr Ahmed told the BBC universities could not sack a lecturer “simply because that person expresses views students find offensive, shocking, controversial or disturbing – and that’s essential to academic freedom.”It is not cancellation but for the offence of making a very lame joke, the manager of Dorking Wanderers has been given a six game touchline ban.
I am not excusing his feeble attempt at humour but isn’t his punishment just a tiny bit heavy handed and disproportionate?
Six games for that? Probably because women can’t take a joke. It’s not an insult, it’s not racist, it doesn’t discriminate, he just repeated an old cliché.
One day this might result in having separate rooms for men and women in cafés, bars, restaurants, cinemas, race-tracks and so on….
As mentioned earlier in the thread, it looks like cancel culture has caught up with David Walliams now.
It seems to be like his star is in the descendant anyway, so it is easy for broadcasters and publishers to kick him when he is down.
Do they expect us to believe they did not know what he was like when he was making them plenty of money?
It’s always about the money. I saw a figure quoted that his books made up 44% of Harper Collins’ 2018 children’s sales. It’s claimed he was kept away from junior staff and women were told to work in pairs around him. But he was making the company money so that’s alright then. As was mentioned in the other thread, you can get away with a lot by making other people money.
Reading between the lines, it seems like the contract may have come to an end and is not being renewed as opposed a termination so possibly it was a convenient moment.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.