Light-Hearted Offence

The world is filled with morons, and should have a thousand nuclear bombs dropped on it, whilst lions and enraged monkeys rip the faces and limbs from every person who has ever uttered 'erm' in a sentence. In fact, every member of planet Earth should be taken and shot in front of our God for being the stupid, brain-dead twerps that they are. Full stop.

Are you offended by those comments? You should be. I just wrote something offense about a group of people which is nasty, vindictive and inciting hatred. Come on, sue me. Take me to court. Issue a statement saying that I should have all freedom of speech removed from my soul because I use it in a way in which you disagree with.

That is, in fact, an exaggeration; I purely just think that 'the world is filled with morons'. The rest is optional really. So, do you want to know why I am 100% sure that almost every member of human kind is a brain-dead, moronic twerp? Well, let me show you the Oxford Dictionary's 2009 definition of the word 'Comedy':

1 a film, play, or other intended to make people laugh. 2: a light-hearted play in which the characters find happiness after experiencing difficult situations.Synonyms: humour, fun, hilarity, funny side, laughs, jokes.

I could go into many more dictionary definitions, such as humour, amusing, humorist, funny, etc. Either way, it is generally considered that comedy is not to be taken as truth; as the person's actual honest opinion, however offensive it may be.

There have been many comic moments which have had the context of humour removed to make something seem simply shockingly offensive. One example is the Ross/Brand Sachsgate fiasco, in which they phoned up Manuel from Fawlty Towers to inform him that his granddaughter was a bit of a slut. Although he didn't find the funny side, Manuel was not too offended and shrugged it off. However, the 27,000 other people who were in no way involved, were somehow offended, and complained to everyone.

Most stuff which Frankie Boyle says has the comedy element removed and is taken as a blind insult, either at the Queen's vagina, Katie Price's disabled son or Kerry Katona. Personally, I don't find much that he says funny; but that is my OPINION, and therefore NOT FACT. Due to that, I know that those comments, put into context, were meant to be, in some twisted sense, comedy. As I result, I brushed them off, and forget about it without an ounce of offence consuming me.

I do seem to be one of the few people that seems able to distinguish between what is MY OPINION and what is considered to be FACT. Jeremy Clarkson's latest comments have been juggled around the Internet, television, newspapers and radio, as part of journalism reporting the offense which has ensued. Jeremy Clarkson stated on The One Show (BBC 1), that striking public sector workers should be "executed in front of their families". Not the nicest of things to say, I grant you, but it is glaringly obvious that he was presenting a very exaggerated view, which was more than likely for the purposes of trying to be funny.

Yes, Jeremy Clarkson is in trouble again for telling another bad joke.

Where ever the news has been reported, the comments have had all context removed from it. You can view the transcript of his comments here, on The Guardian website, and judge for yourselves. In the first 24 hours, barely 5,000 people had heard the comments and complained, and a majority of that was purely because a 15 second video of him saying those comments, with everything said before and after removed, was passed around the Internet. The BBC removed that particular episode of The One Show from iPlayer, so people could not watch it, and therefore the morons had no way of understanding the context.

Three days after the comments were made, the number of complaints had risen to over 21,000; only 6000 short of the amount received for Sachsgate. Now, maybe I'm being blind sighted, but surely if you've been SO offended by a comment, it wouldn't take you three days to complain. Therefore, I suspect that, just like Sachsgate, a majority of the people 'offended' by the comments, never actually saw the show live, and have, in fact been offended by BBC News repeating, and Twitter spreading, the 15 second clip. Surely, that is just as meaningful as me complaining about the treatment of disabled children in the 19th Century; a hundred years before I was born. If you were not offended at the time, and only after you have been told that something IS offensive, then the complaint should be answered by a gurgling, snot-nosed 6 month old who is sat with the phone in his mouth, for that is the amount attention and respect their complain deserves.

Similarly, Life's Too Short is coming under similar scrutiny, with it apparently being offensive to dwarfs, and therefore people are convinced that Ricky Gervais hates people who have dwarfism just like all other disabilities (people forget that it was co-written with Stephen Merchant). In fact, there is a campaign under way to get Life's Too Short taken off the telly. There was a whole interview with the campaign leader a few weeks back in The Guardian's 'g2' pullout. She has a young son with the disorder. I felt sorry for her until I realised that she too, is a moron.

'Substitute the word "dwarf" with that of another minority or disability' Kirstina Gray says, 'and the BBC would probably find itself in court'.

Why is it that every individual of this planet seems put upon by the comments of another human being? I personally don't think the BBC would find itself in court as it is comedy, and if it is offending, then get over it; it's not intentional (unless the comedian is Frankie Boyle, then chances are, he was purposefully trying to offend). In the 'Mockumentary', Warwick Davies plays himself as being a selfish prick. It's acting. The comedy is in no way pointing fun at his size, just merely using it to enhance the humour. The story line is based around that, just like there are films based around 40-year-old virgins.

If people from minorities or with disabilities, want to be treated as equals to the rest of the populace, then they have to be able to be subject to comedy, because that is what happens in most walks of life when everyone is equal. People make fun of others, and vice versa. I'm sure there are a majority of people in these 'categories' that can have fun; be subject to 'banter', and not get offended, but there are is a small selection of people, who are either so highly strung they could bungee jump, or are not properly informed, and think they should be offended. Those people ruin comedy, and life, for the rest of us. I refuse to live a world where people believe in political correctness.

As for Ricky Gervais using the word 'mong', and using it in its traditional sense before it became an insult for people with disabilities; it's no different to me saying 'I'm gay because I've finished my Uni essays'… It doesn't mean I'm going to have sex with another man in celebration.

And as for Jeremy Clarkson's other comment about people who commit suicide in front of trains being selfish; well it just so happens I have long held that same opinion. They cause disruption to hundreds of people, and there is usually a team of people that have to clean that person up, as well as the sadness that person causes the people they leave behind. A sad, tortured soul or not, it's still a pretty selfish act to commit… IN MY OPINION.

Also, just to redistribute a quote from Stephen Fry back in 2005:

'It's now very common to hear people say, "I'm rather offended by that", as if that gives them certain rights. It's no more than a whine. It has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. "I'm offended by that." Well, so fucking what?'

And if you're offended by what I've said, either participate in a healthy, educated, well-written debate with me, or complain.

They Cancelled Corrie!

Unless you are a hermit who has absolutely no contact with anyone and your TV, Radio, Computer and Phone all broke this week, you will be aware that in Cumbria on Wednesday 2nd June 2010 a man shot many innocent people in Cumbria, killing 12 people, including his twin brother and injuring many more before turning the gun on himself. It is very sad when things like this happen, but unfortunately these are crimes no-one can predict and therefore cannot be stopped.

This event also coincided with ITV's ‘gripping week of television’, in which crazed mad-mad Tony, escapes from prison to seek revenge. By Tuesday he had taken 2 people hostage and shown them a gun, but the episodes on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday all got postponed because the gun gets used. Yes, how unlucky were ITV. This was going to be the week when they unveiled how brilliant their programs are in High Definition with Britain's Got Talent concluding and an exciting week on Corrie, but because the storyline in Corrie very slightly reflected an awful event that happened in real life, got ruined.

Never fear Coronation Street fans though, instead next week is going to be the ‘gripping week of television’ instead, in which they are somehow going to try and show two weeks’ worth of episodes in the one week. I am going to be fed up of Coronation Street by the end of next week I think. Anyway, this blog is not supposed to be me moaning about Coronation Street not being on this week, it is instead supposed to be a giant moan at the media - yet again.

You can ask ANY leading psychologist and they will tell you this kind of coverage on tragic events like this actually fuels many similar attacks. We live in a society where the media love to sensationalise every piece of news they come across, whether it is the BP oil spill and Barrack Obama having a moan at them or if it is Adrian Chiles leaving the BBC for ITV, they have to make it attention grabbing. News like a mass shooting is matched with dramatic music, big swoosh’s as text runs across the screen and journalists looking sternly down the camera while stood in front of the crime scene with same police tape showing behind them. This makes mass murdering appealing to any possible serial killers.

Every news report about the 'rampage', as they like to call it, starts with a dramatic shot of police officers walking around the crime scene. It looks exciting and thrilling. Then they try sequence the events which happened, in this case they separated the attacks into three different phases. I honestly do not see why they need to do this. What good is coming from the news telling us where he was at certain times and how many people he had shot at each scene? This is only because we now have 24 hour news, meaning they have too much time fill up with useless information.

Then they have to talk to eye witnesses to get a perspective from an inbred idiot of what happened. Of course, we learn nothing we did not already know from these eye-witness accounts because the media has gotten to them first. They have watched the news already, so instead just start repeating what the newsreader had previously said, just with a bit more slurring and less coherent. With any eye-witness account of an event like this, there has to be mobile phone footage of the murderer holding a gun, or indeed driving through country roads. These are shaky and of bad quality, and these, along with the idiot talking with fear in his voice, trigger something in a unstable mind who is watching the news as if it were a religion, and beginning to froth at the mouth at the thought of the blood.

Then in an attempt to make everyone become full of empathy and sadness, they name and show pictures of the victims looking happy. This is done with such dignity which should be applauded as they are announced as bland as possible. However, they read the names out slowly, and it makes the name become slightly imprinted on the listener’s memory, and with each name you can hear the beat of gun. However, in the unstable mind of the one or two viewers, this begins to sound like a triumph, and each name being read out slowly sounds like a triumph.

Also, the media are strangely keen to uncover the reasoning for this outburst of bullets in the direction of unsuspecting and innocent people. Rarely have I read or listened to any report on the subject of these killings without the question of 'Why?' being shouted like a vicar giving an emotional sermon in church about the devil and his sins. 'Why did the 52-year-old taxi driver shoot 12 people dead in Cumbria before shooting himself on Wednesday?' 'What were the triggers for Derrick Bird's murderous outburst?' Time after time these questions are being shouted at us, while the media slowly uncover facts like him being probed over tax issues. Continuously, there is this question of 'Why?' and again, in some mind in the country this is all triggering something which could end in more attacks.

I do not want to sound as if I am trying to preach to you blog readers that the media are the cause of these kinds of attacks, because they are not. Certainly, they are not helping the issue, but it is to do with the individual who has some kind of mental problem. I can offer you numerous case studies of this being the case. We all remember the shootings in a German High School, where a teenage shot his own peers and teachers, before turning the gun on himself a few years ago. This was covered in pretty much the same way by our media as these Cumbria shootings are.

The attack at the German High School came soon after all those High School shootings in America, which seemed to happen quite a few times at different school in a small amount of time. Their media, yet again, covered each story in pretty much the same attitude as our media did then and now - in fact, probably worse. We all know how emotional American's can get about this kind of thing and they have a history of sensationalising every negative event in their country and with religion always being the key. These are prime examples of the media trying to cover a big news story for the public, but sensationalising it make it sound like an extraordinary and history making event.

Obviously, the media should cover these stories as the public do have a right to know about these events. Sure, the media should be sure to constantly emphasis how terrible and life changing this event is. I just think they need to cover these kinds of stories with a bit more care, and shouldn't fill an entire half hour news show on this one event. I personally think dramatising and sensationalising everything is just going to make events like this a more common occurrence, and do we want a world with spontaneous killings like in Grand Theft Auto?

These kinds of killings are almost impossible to predict and in reality, are rather uncommon in the UK. The fact that this killing spree was not planned and was purely spontaneous after something triggered in his mind to do such an awful thing. Now the new ConDem Government want to enforce tougher rules against guns. I can't see this helping in the slightest bit. The more you restrict people from having guns; chances are the amount of gun crimes will increase. Restricting what kind of guns everyone is allowed to own just because one man lost the plot and killed a few people, is not necessary. Maybe the police should just be more prepared for attacks of this nature. We've already heard on the news how it took police three hours to find him - and by then he had shot himself. That is what needs changing - not the rules against guns.

I also think that cancelling Coronation Street was a step too far as well. This is a prime example of ITV trying to be as politically correct as possible and trying not to offend anyone, because they know we live in a very PC Country and people are easily offended. Sure, in the episodes which have been moved to next week will include a gun and two people being killed, but this is in a soap where everything that happens is almost completely taken away from the real world. I really do think it is a shame that we live in a PC World (shut up, I do not mean the computer shop, I do mean 'a Politically Correct World) where we must tip toe around every subject in society, just in case we make some person cry. I blame the media and the 27,000 people who phoned up to complain about the Ross/Brand fiasco nearly 2 years ago. I hope they are happy with what they have done to our lives.

Everyone's first reactions to this story are of being distraught and completely upset by it. Mine? It didn't affect me at all; in fact I am not even sure I cared in the slightest bit. You see, I had been drinking; two bottles of Champagne at a friend’s house, and the news was announced to a drunken me by some woman on the CBBC channel reading the news. Whether it didn't affect me because I was drunk or because CBBC carefully white-washed over how awful this event was, I will never know.

Anyway, that brings an end to my rant about the media. Hopefully, I am completely wrong about it all and there will be no repeat killings this time. Also, just because I can and it makes me sound brilliantly kind, my respects go to those families who were affected by the loss of someone special at the hands of Derrick Bird, even though I know none of you will ever read this...

Personal Computers Gone Mad - Is It Politically Correct to say 'Gone Mad'?

You often hear of people saying “Oh, that’s political correctness gone mad I tells ya”, although has it really gone made, or is everyone just exaggerating it so that the word ‘black’ is now racist and making a joke about a disability or being gay, is met by the audience gasping in shock. Also, I think it’s quite easy to agree that the picture of a Golliwog I’ve put, demonstrates my point of political incorrectness ‘going mad’ so to speak.

Someone who is often on the receiving end of some form of ‘Political Correctness’ is Jade Goody, who made a passing comment on Big Brother, which offended the entire country and led to being called a ‘British Disgrace’ by the media. The comment wasn’t even that bad, and wasn’t really much different to what people sitting at home watching, might say carelessly. Then of course the media done a metaphorical U-turn and started to call her ‘The Nation’s Princess’ when she got cancer and died. Then it was politically incorrect apparently to say anything, which might possibly offend, about her. It got to the point on Twitter, where every time I said something about her, I got bombarded by angry people telling me to show respect. Jade Goody, for now, is the icon of ‘PC gone mad.’

If we travel back in time a few months, and we arrive at the start of the Ross/Brand fiasco with the prank calls, they were considered ‘Politically Incorrect.’ Apparently you’re not allowed to phone up the grandparent of a whore, and refer to her as a whore. Maybe I’ve exaggerated that a little, but the basics of the argument are still there. Political Correctness hasn’t gone mad, it’s just there are lots of grumpy people who sit watching the news, and as soon as they get offended by anything, they call up OFCOM.

‘Black’ isn’t offence. Black is an adjective, describing a very dark shade. In fact, how many black people do you see? You see people with darker skin, but never do you see someone walking down the street that has actual black skin – if you see what I mean. And as for making jokes about disabled people, gay people or gay, disabled people, why is that any different to someone making a joke about someone with ginger hair, or a politician?

And going back to racism – this ‘politically incorrect racism’ does seem to be part of our culture. When my Nan is talking about an Asian person, she doesn’t call them Asian, she refers to them as a ‘Darky’, but does that mean my Nan is racist? No, it just means she’s part of an older generation, who come from a different culture to now, and who didn’t live under fear of political incorrectness. There is nothing offensive about ‘Darky’.
When its Christmas time and the whole family are gathered, the culture has always been that someone sitting in the corner says something, which can be misconstrued as being racist. In my family, you usually find my Step-Sister is the one who makes them comments. She’ll regale us in tale which happened during the year which involves a Muslim neighbour, or some kid who can’t speak English at the Primary school she works at, which usually ends in one of two sentences. “If they want to live in our country, then they’ve got to learn to speak English” or “Why don’t they just go back to where they came from.” Yet, in no way do I think she is being racist in any shape or form, but merely expressing an opinion. Which, last time I checked, you’re still allowed to do. When someone moans about a building having to have disabled access, they’re allowed to do so as part of ‘Freedom of Speech’ which includes expressing your opinion, and not everyone is going to like it – but that doesn’t mean they have to sue that person and get £1Million in compensation because his feelings have been hurt.

Political Correctness hasn’t gone mad, and in fact, I don’t even think political correctness even exists, and was a creation by the media, to put fear into people every time they speak their mind, and make people turn around and check the coast is clear before telling their friend a joke, which, out of context, could possibly be taken the wrong way and considered ‘Politically Incorrect’ to say so.

Another strong opinion, put across by me, but hey. I hope no-one has read this and think me and my family are racist.
Toodles m’dearys.
xXXx