Topic: GBeebies (anything about Brillo's propaganda network in here)

[Jiminy Cricket]

The venue doesn't have any rights it's a building but why should one person complaining trump Chubby Browns rights and the rights of the hundreds or thousands of people who wish to pursue happiness and have a laugh at his show ?

At one time it was the right wingers who wanted to cancel people for their views / opininions / jokes like the fascist they are, now the self declared Left have joined them .Maybe it's that Horseshoe theory in action

And it'll be a sad day when the only people standing up for free speech are of the Right.

Brother. The owners of the venue have the right to do (or not do) business with whomever they wish.*

* Of course, the owners could not discriminate against protected groups. This, however, does not preclude them from refusing to do business with an individual. Besides, unless 'c*nt' is now a protected group, this would not apply to Roy Brown.

[Jiminy Cricket]

Its a building with owners, I thought that was obvious.   Those owners evidently have the right to cancel events.  Browns rights to free speech have not been trumped.  He just cant say what he wants in a certain privately owned place.

I could go to a park and hold up a banner saying big boned Rawk members are evil and all would be ok. If I did it in your garden you, as the owner can and should be able to stop me. 

For the record, Im not advocating stopping free speech I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of the right by wanting to remove the rights  big boned Rawk members have in their own garden.

I would have thought so too.

[Jiminy Cricket]

It's always astounding how free speech warriors have a complete lack of understanding what free speech actually is. A private venue deciding not to give someone a platform is in no way a violation of the right to free speech.

Even in the US, where it 'freedom of expression' is a constitutionally protected right, the scale of ignorance around this matter is quite astonishing.

Now, there are some issues in the UK around hate speech (which can be rather expansive in practice) which could be debated. But businesses and individuals can do business and trade with whomever they wish (protected groups excepted).

[thaddeus]

Protected groups being:
- age
- gender reassignment
- being married or in a civil partnership
- being pregnant or on maternity leave
- disability
- race including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin
- religion or belief
- sex
- sexual orientation
(https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights)

I'm surprised nobody's made a religion with Roy Chubby Brown as its deity and 1970s comedy as its creed.

[Nobby Reserve]

It's always astounding how free speech warriors have a complete lack of understanding what free speech actually is. A private venue deciding not to give someone a platform is in no way a violation of the right to free speech.

I think both 'sides' are too simplistic on the subject.

I agree that the owners of venues have a right to refuse to allow people to air views in their venue that the owners consider inappropriate. We can all think of obvious examples, from neo-Nazi groups wanting to hold a conference on Holocaust denial, to Satanists wanting to book St Pauls Cathedral for a mock sacrifice ritual on the altar. Wholly inappropriate.

Yet at the same time, there have been speakers/performers/comedy acts/etc who have had bookings cancelled by venues after complaints/protests by niche groups for some comments that are innocuous to everyone else - I'm thinking scientitsts who have stated scientific fact about what a woman is. An army of 'social justice warriors' set about creating a furore that spooks venue owners and sponsors, and they pull the plug. When it's universities, which are supposed to thrive on alternative viewpoints, I find it worrying.

It also closes down debates on topics that do interest and impact people in everyday life. It creates a sense of "your views don't matter and should be ignored, because *this* is the othodoxy"

Just as I don't want a society where people are vilified and disciminated against for their race, their sexuality, their gender choices, etc; I don't want a society that closes down debate about issues where people have different opinions and viewpoints - even if I don't necessarily agree with those different opinions and viewpoints.

However, in saying all that, 'cancel culture' is very different from 'call-out culture'. Yet many people on the right-wing delibereately confuse the two, claiming they've been 'cancelled' for 'expressing their right to free speech', when they've actually been 'called out' for expressing an opinion that others disagree with, and who have expressed their own right to free speech by giving their opposing views.

[Nobby Reserve]

I'm surprised nobody's made a religion with Roy Chubby Brown as its deity and 1970s comedy as its creed.

There was a religion with The Fonz as its deity. I'm sure of it.

[Kenny's Jacket]

I think both 'sides' are too simplistic on the subject.

I agree that the owners of venues have a right to refuse to allow people to air views in their venue that the owners consider inappropriate. We can all think of obvious examples, from neo-Nazi groups wanting to hold a conference on Holocaust denial, to Satanists wanting to book St Pauls Cathedral for a mock sacrifice ritual on the altar. Wholly inappropriate.

Yet at the same time, there have been speakers/performers/comedy acts/etc who have had bookings cancelled by venues after complaints/protests by niche groups for some comments that are innocuous to everyone else - I'm thinking scientitsts who have stated scientific fact about what a woman is. An army of 'social justice warriors' set about creating a furore that spooks venue owners and sponsors, and they pull the plug. When it's universities, which are supposed to thrive on alternative viewpoints, I find it worrying.

It also closes down debates on topics that do interest and impact people in everyday life. It creates a sense of "your views don't matter and should be ignored, because *this* is the othodoxy"

Just as I don't want a society where people are vilified and disciminated against for their race, their sexuality, their gender choices, etc; I don't want a society that closes down debate about issues where people have different opinions and viewpoints - even if I don't necessarily agree with those different opinions and viewpoints.

However, in saying all that, 'cancel culture' is very different from 'call-out culture'. Yet many people on the right-wing delibereately confuse the two, claiming they've been 'cancelled' for 'expressing their right to free speech', when they've actually been 'called out' for expressing an opinion that others disagree with, and who have expressed their own right to free speech by giving their opposing views.

For the record broadly speaking Im not a fan of cancel culture, If I owned a venue Id let Chubby Brown play.  If you are buying a ticket too his show, you know what to expect. It was more about the hypocrisy of the right.

As one poster put it, so you want to cancel cancel culture.

There are some very unfortunate instances of cancel culture.  Example puling the film from the cinema in Birmingham after Islamic pressure,  Was that the cinema disagreeing with the film or them wanting to avoid a Charlie Hebdo situation. I think its important to separate the two.

[Nobby Reserve]

It was more about the hypocrisy of the right.

Oh, I don't disagree. The right-wing have weaponised 'cancel culture' and will dig up and exaggerate all kinds of stories to whip-up indignation amongst the general public. But many who identify as being left-wing have made it very easy for them.

[Jiminy Cricket]

I think both 'sides' are too simplistic on the subject.

I agree that the owners of venues have a right to refuse to allow people to air views in their venue that the owners consider inappropriate. We can all think of obvious examples, from neo-Nazi groups wanting to hold a conference on Holocaust denial, to Satanists wanting to book St Pauls Cathedral for a mock sacrifice ritual on the altar. Wholly inappropriate.

Yet at the same time, there have been speakers/performers/comedy acts/etc who have had bookings cancelled by venues after complaints/protests by niche groups for some comments that are innocuous to everyone else - I'm thinking scientitsts who have stated scientific fact about what a woman is. An army of 'social justice warriors' set about creating a furore that spooks venue owners and sponsors, and they pull the plug. When it's universities, which are supposed to thrive on alternative viewpoints, I find it worrying.

It also closes down debates on topics that do interest and impact people in everyday life. It creates a sense of "your views don't matter and should be ignored, because *this* is the othodoxy"

Just as I don't want a society where people are vilified and disciminated against for their race, their sexuality, their gender choices, etc; I don't want a society that closes down debate about issues where people have different opinions and viewpoints - even if I don't necessarily agree with those different opinions and viewpoints.

However, in saying all that, 'cancel culture' is very different from 'call-out culture'. Yet many people on the right-wing delibereately confuse the two, claiming they've been 'cancelled' for 'expressing their right to free speech', when they've actually been 'called out' for expressing an opinion that others disagree with, and who have expressed their own right to free speech by giving their opposing views.

I think I agree with all of that. I feel, in the main, and on balance, people should be able to freely express their views. This, of course, does not protect them from criticism. Nor does it mean that venues or individuals should be forced into doing business with anyone they dislike.

In the case of venues cancelling an event, they should be vulnerable to financial penalties. Maybe there should be a law to allow for additional penalties (above demonstrable losses) due to arbitrary cancellation by the venue.

I am generally against cancel culture (in its correct sense) - it is fascistic when pushed to the extreme. Yes, criticise venues who host c*nts, but it often goes too far when venues fear hosting anything vaguely controversial, with the risk of viral campaigns against their business, helped by media who are only too happy to report and amplify the matter to fever-pitch levels. Conversely, what the Right often thinks of as being 'cancelled' (pushback and criticism) is clearly just snowflakery. Both of these groups are weak-minded. As for universities - well - just terrible really. Discourse appears to be dead.

[Jiminy Cricket]

For the record broadly speaking Im not a fan of cancel culture, If I owned a venue Id let Chubby Brown play.  If you are buying a ticket too his show, you know what to expect. It was more about the hypocrisy of the right.

As one poster put it, so you want to cancel cancel culture.

There are some very unfortunate instances of cancel culture.  Example puling the film from the cinema in Birmingham after Islamic pressure,  Was that the cinema disagreeing with the film or them wanting to avoid a Charlie Hebdo situation. I think its important to separate the two.

This is the kind of thing to which I object. Jerry Sadowitz* being cancelled at the Fringe is another.

* I am no fan - but this, surely, should be irrelevant. It seems that people are being cancelled simply because a sizeable group disapprovers go on the rampage or pursue a social media campaign.

[Elmo!]

There was a recent example at the Edinburgh Fringe this year where Jerry Sadowitz had his show cancelled by the venue, citing complaints from audience and staff members.

The free speech crowd were up in arms, saying you shouldn't go to a Sadowitz gig if you were easily offended (this of course ignores the staff complaints.

Turned out he had got his cock out and was waving it right in the face of a woman in the front row - which is sexual assault.

[Riquende]

As Marina Hyde points out today, Cleese was complaining about the BBC not hiring him whilst being interviewed by the BBC, and that it was only 3 years ago when he was starring in a sitcom (Hold the Sunset apparently... no, me neither) broadcast by... the BBC.

[So… Howard Philips]

As Marina Hyde points out today, Cleese was complaining about the BBC not hiring him whilst being interviewed by the BBC, and that it was only 3 years ago when he was starring in a sitcom (Hold the Sunset apparently... no, me neither) broadcast by... the BBC.

Well the BBC have never had any problem hiring Palin or Jones so…….

[Black Bull Nova]

Alex Jones had free speech in relation to Sandy Hook


There has to be a line

[Black Bull Nova]

As Marina Hyde points out today, Cleese was complaining about the BBC not hiring him whilst being interviewed by the BBC, and that it was only 3 years ago when he was starring in a sitcom (Hold the Sunset apparently... no, me neither) broadcast by... the BBC.

He's not been funny for 40+ years, his style got tired

[thaddeus]

As Marina Hyde points out today, Cleese was complaining about the BBC not hiring him whilst being interviewed by the BBC, and that it was only 3 years ago when he was starring in a sitcom (Hold the Sunset apparently... no, me neither) broadcast by... the BBC.

I watched the first two episodes and it was really middle of the road stuff.  If Cleese thinks that's the height of modern comedy output from the BBC then I can see why he's dismissive of it.  There are, of course, lots of much better comedies on the BBC.

In defence of Cleese he had no part in the writing or direction but show-cased his razor sharp wit when re-using the same Brexit gag about a dozen times on Twitter.  "*Insert international catastrophe*... that'll be because of Brexit"

[Jiminy Cricket]

Alex Jones had free speech in relation to Sandy Hook

There has to be a line

Actually, his comments were libelous, and malicious. Which why his victims were successful in their lawsuits and the compensation figures so high. He's not some comedian taking the piss out some politician. These were private individuals, grieving the loss of their children, and Jones claimed that they were actors involved in an elaborate conspiracy. Further, hundreds of thousands - maybe millions - of people believed him.

[Riquende]

I watched the first two episodes and it was really middle of the road stuff.

All BBC1 sitcoms are middle of the road stuff, and always have been. He presumably knew what sort of show it would be when he agreed to be in it, and had seen some scripts.

But does Cleese think that a production company making 'edgier' comedy should be beating down the door of an 82 year old man who hasn't managed to keep himself relevant for the last 40 years?

[Black Bull Nova]

Actually, his comments were libelous, and malicious. Which why his victims were successful in their lawsuits and the compensation figures so high. He's not some comedian taking the piss out some politician. These were private individuals, grieving the loss of their children, and Jones claimed that they were actors involved in an elaborate conspiracy. Further, hundreds of thousands - maybe millions - of people believed him.

Yes, they were way past the line which is why victims were easily able to mount a libel case. This is not possible for most people, except Cliff and Elton.


The law helps place boundaries around free speech, quite rightly, but only usually for the rich.

[Jiminy Cricket]

All BBC1 sitcoms are middle of the road stuff, and always have been. He presumably knew what sort of show it would be when he agreed to be in it, and had seen some scripts.

But does Cleese think that a production company making 'edgier' comedy should be beating down the door of an 82 year old man who hasn't managed to keep himself relevant for the last 40 years?

All? what of Blackadder, Red Dwarf (when it was good), Fawlty Towers, Yes Minister, Porridge, The Office, Rab C.,  Steptoe and Son, The Royale Family, The Young Ones, The League of Gentlemen, etc. OK, maybe there are ten Vicar of Dibleys and Allo Allos to each good sitcom with some novelty or edge, but some of the best sitcoms ever written aired on the BBC.

[Elmo!]

All? what of Blackadder, Red Dwarf (when it was good), Fawlty Towers, Yes Minister, Porridge, The Office, Rab C.,  Steptoe and Son, The Royale Family, The Young Ones, The League of Gentlemen, etc. OK, maybe there are ten Vicar of Dibleys and Allo Allos to each good sitcom with some novelty or edge, but some of the best sitcoms ever written aired on the BBC.

Pretty sure most, if not all of that was BBC2.

They put the edgier stuff on there, and the broad appeal bland stuff on BBC 1.

[bigbonedrawky]

Its a building with owners, I thought that was obvious.   Those owners evidently have the right to cancel events.  Browns rights to free speech have not been trumped.  He just cant say what he wants in a certain privately owned place.

I could go to a park and hold up a banner saying big boned Rawk members are evil and all would be ok. If I did it in your garden you, as the owner can and should be able to stop me. 

For the record, Im not advocating stopping free speech I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of the right by wanting to remove the rights  big boned Rawk members have in their own garden.

And if the building in question are  owned by a Trust funded by tax payers and it's an employee or a council membe who makes the decision based on 59 signatures on a farcebook group should 1800 signatures in favour of the show be ignored ?

As for your right to protest I uphold your right to protest just don't stop people entering my property.

Should Jimmy Carr be banned from a similar venue ?

[Red Beret]

Pretty sure most, if not all of that was BBC2.

They put the edgier stuff on there, and the broad appeal bland stuff on BBC 1.

Blackadder was always BBC 1. Red Dwarf started out on 2, but 1 nicked it because it was doing so well.

[So… Howard Philips]

And if the building in question are  owned by a Trust funded by tax payers and it's an employee or a council membe who makes the decision based on 59 signatures on a farcebook group should 1800 signatures in favour of the show be ignored ?

As for your right to protest I uphold your right to protest just don't stop people entering my property.

Should Jimmy Carr be banned from a similar venue ?

Just buy the DVD and save yourself a fortune in ticket prices.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Roy-Chubby-Brown-everyday-COVID-19/dp/B081QQPCFB/ref=asc_df_B081QQPCFB/?tag=googshopuk-21&linkCode=df0&hvadid=463099271885&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=12313620097668310006&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9046483&hvtargid=pla-1074854621685&psc=1

[Jiminy Cricket]

Pretty sure most, if not all of that was BBC2.

They put the edgier stuff on there, and the broad appeal bland stuff on BBC 1.

Yeah, I missed the '1' qualifier, even though it was highlighted. Red Dwarf was on 2 - I don't know about the rest.

[bigbonedrawky]

It's always astounding how free speech warriors have a complete lack of understanding what free speech actually is. A private venue deciding not to give someone a platform is in no way a violation of the right to free speech.

Is prosecuting a comedian in Scotland for telling a joke a violation of the right to free speech and would you compare it to prosecuting people for saying "Not my King" or "David Cameron you've got blood on your hands" which apparently offends those Right Wing cancel culture snowflakes. Are you OK with that ?

[Jiminy Cricket]

It's always astounding how free speech warriors have a complete lack of understanding what free speech actually is. A private venue deciding not to give someone a platform is in no way a violation of the right to free speech.

Is prosecuting a comedian in Scotland for telling a joke a violation of the right to free speech and would you compare it to prosecuting people for saying "Not my King" or "David Cameron you've got blood on your hands" which apparently offends those Right Wing cancel culture snowflakes. Are you OK with that ?

Not sure how you think that's relevant to Elmo's comments. That's quite the strawman you constructed there.

[Elmo!]

Is prosecuting a comedian in Scotland for telling a joke a violation of the right to free speech and would you compare it to prosecuting people for saying "Not my King" or "David Cameron you've got blood on your hands" which apparently offends those Right Wing cancel culture snowflakes. Are you OK with that ?

Which comedian do you refer to?

[Kenny's Jacket]

And if the building in question are  owned by a Trust funded by tax payers and it's an employee or a council membe who makes the decision based on 59 signatures on a farcebook group should 1800 signatures in favour of the show be ignored ?

As for your right to protest I uphold your right to protest just don't stop people entering my property.

Should Jimmy Carr be banned from a similar venue ?

For the record Brown was literally an example.  I didnt realise until reading your post that it had happened. I dont know the specifics of this case. Presumably the Trust have procedures for making decisions.
Why are you against the ban, did the trust not follow procedure? Is there a reason why you want to remove the trusts autonomy?

Jimmy Carr -  If the venue doesn't want to house him, then  so be it, if they do , they do. 

[Kenny's Jacket]

Is prosecuting a comedian in Scotland for telling a joke a violation of the right to free speech and would you compare it to prosecuting people for saying "Not my King" or "David Cameron you've got blood on your hands" which apparently offends those Right Wing cancel culture snowflakes. Are you OK with that ?

False equivalence.

[So… Howard Philips]

False equivalence.

Unless the ‘comedian’ was Micheal McIntyre.

[Max_powers]

I just find it funny when rich and famous people moan about free speech. Free speech is about government stopping citizens from having an opinion and sharing it. Private citizens can do whatever they want (within legal limits), they can like what they want, they can not like what they want. Is Cleese being persecuted by a right-wing government?

Also fame and money is "speech" in modern world. The cancelled John Cleese is getting on a show where 1000s of people will be listening to him, where as uncancelled big boned rawky who is defending him, is on RAWK where maybe 10-15 people will read his posts. Who is cancelled and who is not, which one of those two have more free speech? 

[Riquende]

That's quite the strawman you constructed there.

The Right have to construct strawmen, because when you actually look at real life examples they're often easily explained. Better to just get ragin'.

[Riquende]

Yeah, I missed the '1' qualifier, even though it was highlighted. Red Dwarf was on 2 - I don't know about the rest.

To be fair, some great comedy may have squeaked onto BBC1 due to a big name being attached. But my memories of comedy growing up mainly include anything good being on BBC2, and stuff for families on BBC1 (Vicar of Dibley, Keeping Up Appearances, all that).

The point was that Cleese would have known what he was about to appear in, and took the money anyway.

[Riquende]

should 1800 signatures in favour of the show be ignored ?

I didn't realise that questions that involved ethics and morality could be decided via appeals to the majority.

[Elmo!]

And if the building in question are  owned by a Trust funded by tax payers

Would you not say that free speech also includes the right to not say something? And that forcing venues to host people they don't want to because they are funded by the government is therefore encroaching on ther right to free speech?

[bigbonedrawky]

False equivalence.

No it's a seperate question which is seemingly hard to answer.
The conversation is evolving  from cancel culture, to your right to protest and free speech.
So what do you think about "Not my king" and "you've got blood on your hands " ? etc
In other words where do you stand on free speech ?

Which comedian do you refer to?

Why would it matter we judge the cryme not the person How many have you prosecuted up there ? #Scotlands shame 

Would you not say that free speech also includes the right to not say something? And that forcing venues to host people they don't want to because they are funded by the government is therefore encroaching on ther right to free speech?

Along with Kenny's right to protest I'm in favour of your right to silence or "the right to not say something" as you put it because silence is the door of consent .
So what are your thoughts on prosecuting people for telling jokes or saying things like "Not my King" "Blood on your hands" etc etc ...Of course you don't have to answer you have a right to silence.

btw Jimmy Carr is appearing at the same venue in Sheffield where Chubby Brown was cancelled tickets are still available and I think he funnier than Chubby Brown But if you don't like having a laugh and a good time it's pretty simple don't fucking go...

[Elmo!]

Why would it matter we judge the cryme not the person How many have you prosecuted up there ? #Scotlands shame   

It matters becasue I'm not aware of any, so presumably you have an example you are thinking of?

Along with Kenny's right to protest I'm in favour of your right to silence or "the right to not say something" as you put it because silence is the door of consent .
So what are your thoughts on prosecuting people for telling jokes or saying things like "Not my King" "Blood on your hands" etc etc ...Of course you don't have to answer you have a right to silence.

I'm completely against that, but it wasn't what I was discussing with you - maybe you meant to ask this of someone else? I was discussing venues rights whether or not to give someone a platform.

[KillieRed]

In other words where do you stand on free speech ? Why would it matter we judge the cryme not the person How many have you prosecuted up there ? #Scotlands shame   

A quick google and i couldn`t find any actual prosecutions, but a lot of fear mongering amongst the right-wing English (or of you prefer British) nationalist newspapers. And Laurence fox. It`s also interesting that some of those articles are almost word for word across the different "sources".

Whilst we are at it, you should reconsider using that hashtag as it doesn`t mean what you think it means.

[Riquende]

Posts:3,121 (0.725 per day)
Gender:Male
Age:537
Location:Off junction 22 of the Liverpool Way.

Well, they do say you get more right wing as you get older...