Jump to content
Total Rugby League Fans Forum
Sign in to follow this  
JohnM

Danny Baker

Recommended Posts

Anyone know where we are with Danny Baker post his expulsion from the BBCs airwaves?

Now that it's OK on live radio  to call for acid to be thrown at Nigel Farage, maybe Baker will be allowed back.

We know already that some people advocate milkshaking those they don't agree with. We surely remember Jo Cox.

So why the muted and weasel response by the BBC to Brand, and why the forum silence. Could it be because of Brands political stance compared with Bakers? 

Surely not.

Clearly Brand can be very effective at satire, and really good as a comedienne, but as someone who heard her comment on Tuesday, I'm surprised (not) at the lack of response, never mind condemnation on here.


Four legs good - two legs bad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Snowflake.

  • Like 4

I can confirm 30+ less sales for Scotland vs Italy at Workington, after this afternoons test purchase for the Tonga match, £7.50 is extremely reasonable, however a £2.50 'delivery' fee for a walk in purchase is beyond taking the mickey, good luck with that, it's cheaper on the telly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, JohnM said:

Anyone know where we are with Danny Baker post his expulsion from the BBCs airwaves?

Now that it's OK on live radio  to call for acid to be thrown at Nigel Farage, maybe Baker will be allowed back.

We know already that some people advocate milkshaking those they don't agree with. We surely remember Jo Cox.

So why the muted and weasel response by the BBC to Brand, and why the forum silence. Could it be because of Brands political stance compared with Bakers? 

Surely not.

Clearly Brand can be very effective at satire, and really good as a comedienne, but as someone who heard her comment on Tuesday, I'm surprised (not) at the lack of response, never mind condemnation on here.

We always hear people talk about 'context and intent' John. 

Context.

The comedian, Jo Brand, was on the Radio 4 show (described by the BBC as "Discussion programme which challenges established ideas and questions received wisdom" ) making joke comments about the milkshake incidents. 

Intent.

To entertain the audience and make them laugh (it worked, they did laugh, because they understood it was a joke).

Had the context been that she was at a political rally, I could maybe understand some of the criticism as that could be deemed incitement perhaps, but the context and intent is perfectly clear here, and those complaining are well aware of that. 

I think Baker's (and Argyle's) context and intent was much less clear and difficult to defend. They should be free to say and do what they did, but they are then open to challenge.

I'm a fan of both Baker and Brand, I am comfortable with how Baker was treated, mainly because his response was poor, Brand in no way deserves any action from the BBC and I am glad they are defending her.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

baker is a white middle age English man with plenty to say , or as they are now known," the new enemy of the modern society"

 


the grass may be greener on the other side of the fence but the crows are just as black

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's also okay for Nigel Farage to say he would be prepared to pick up a rifle to ensure Brexit would happen.

And be invited back to the BBC multiple times.

It's almost like it's never completely black and white.

  • Like 1

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im a stout defender of free speech, and find both Baker and Brand creatively funny and certainly think neither of them should be sacked.

However,  why has the BBC removed Brands comment from the podcast/Sounds edition?

The problem with the context/intent point is that you don't actually know who was listening and who might take Brands comment as permissive.

In any case, I had perhaps wrongly, thought that Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 said that the intent of the speaker in this case was not the point, but the recipients interpretation was what counted. 

In fact, my issue is the difference in the BBC's Baker and Brand response, and the silence of some of the forums milkshake-sdvocating Farage haters.


Four legs good - two legs bad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JohnM said:

the silence of some of the forums milkshake-sdvocating Farage haters.

Nope. I commented here.

 


Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The snowflake whining on this is unbelievable... an unfunny comedian makes an idiot joke and instantly, according to the snowflakes, Brand becomes completely linked with the “left” and we’re all the same.

It’s infantile absolutist behaviour that would be tedious in young children and beyond ridiculous in grown adults who get all princessy when their ridiculous positions are challenged by anyone. Same as the idiot overreactions to Baker, both Brand and Baker had utterly unwarranted whining by people who DELIBERATELY took it out of context because it suits their idiot political agenda.

Brand doesn’t represent me, she made an idiot joke that really deserves criticism, just as Baker made an idiot joke that really deserved criticism.

 

  • Like 4

“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime" - Mark Twain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the perfect example of how context doesn't matter anymore, it is all about which side you are on.

Either you can make rape jokes and jokes about throwing acid or you can't.

It really is that simple but it's amazing how many people seem to engage in incredible amounts of mental gymnastics to excuse one but not the other. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, ckn said:

The snowflake whining on this is unbelievable... an unfunny comedian makes an idiot joke and instantly, according to the snowflakes, Brand becomes completely linked with the “left” and we’re all the same.

It’s infantile absolutist behaviour that would be tedious in young children and beyond ridiculous in grown adults who get all princessy when their ridiculous positions are challenged by anyone. Same as the idiot overreactions to Baker, both Brand and Baker had utterly unwarranted whining by people who DELIBERATELY took it out of context because it suits their idiot political agenda.

Brand doesn’t represent me, she made an idiot joke that really deserves criticism, just as Baker made an idiot joke that really deserved criticism.

 

I think this is the crux of the problem. People are deliberately and knowingly misusing these jokes for a political purpose.

The same as even true about Carl Benjamin/Sargon of Akkad. Yes his comments were crude and mean spirited but he also clearly wasn't advocating that rape was OK or trying to make fun of rape victims. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, JohnM said:

Im a stout defender of free speech, and find both Baker and Brand creatively funny and certainly think neither of them should be sacked.

However,  why has the BBC removed Brands comment from the podcast/Sounds edition?

The problem with the context/intent point is that you don't actually know who was listening and who might take Brands comment as permissive.

In any case, I had perhaps wrongly, thought that Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 said that the intent of the speaker in this case was not the point, but the recipients interpretation was what counted. 

In fact, my issue is the difference in the BBC's Baker and Brand response, and the silence of some of the forums milkshake-sdvocating Farage haters.

I read a decent article on this over the last 24hrs, and ultimately, anybody who takes a comment from a comedian on a comedy discussion show on Radio 4 as an instruction to act would have issues that are not caused by Jo Brand.

On the point of the Section 5 Public Order Act you refer to, who is the recipient?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, ckn said:

The snowflake whining on this is unbelievable... an unfunny comedian makes an idiot joke and instantly, according to the snowflakes, Brand becomes completely linked with the “left” and we’re all the same.

It’s infantile absolutist behaviour that would be tedious in young children and beyond ridiculous in grown adults who get all princessy when their ridiculous positions are challenged by anyone. Same as the idiot overreactions to Baker, both Brand and Baker had utterly unwarranted whining by people who DELIBERATELY took it out of context because it suits their idiot political agenda.

Brand doesn’t represent me, she made an idiot joke that really deserves criticism, just as Baker made an idiot joke that really deserved criticism.

 

Unusually I disagree with much of this tbh, although not the overall point you are making. 

I don't think there was an over-reaction to Baker. He made a joke that was hard not to be seen as racist - this wasn't people clutching at straws. Using a picture of a monkey to represent a mixed-race baby deserves the criticism it got. Even then, he could have sorted it with an apology, but he doubled down on it with an arrogant and nonsense apology. He did properly respond 24hrs later. It was a direct insult aimed at an individual.

Brand, on the other hand was making a rather generic joke, pretty much like any 'string them all up' or 'they should all face the firing squad' kind of quip that is not particularly unusual. I'm not sure this joke deserves any criticism in the slightest, nor an apology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dave T said:

I read a decent article on this over the last 24hrs, and ultimately, anybody who takes a comment from a comedian on a comedy discussion show on Radio 4 as an instruction to act would have issues that are not caused by Jo Brand.

On the point of the Section 5 Public Order Act you refer to, who is the recipient?

I often like Jo Brand. She has a form of self-deprecating humour that often appeals to me.

But on this occasion what she said wasn't actually a joke, in that it didn't have a punchline. It was simply a reprehensible statement that could be interpreted by some listeners as an incitement. For some reason, the members of the audience seemed to think it was funny.

To say that she should be excused responsibility for what she said because she is a comedian is actually quite insulting to her.

Unfortunately some comedians do think they are being funny simply by making outrageous statements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

I often like Jo Brand. She has a form of self-deprecating humour that often appeals to me.

But on this occasion what she said wasn't actually a joke, in that it didn't have a punchline. It was simply a reprehensible statement that could be interpreted by some listeners as an incitement. For some reason, the members of the audience seemed to think it was funny.

To say that she should be excused responsibility for what she said because she is a comedian is actually quite insulting to her.

Unfortunately some comedians do think they are being funny simply by making outrageous statements.

This isn't the 70's Martyn, comedians aren't just telling traditional jokes with traditional punchlines.

Of course it was a joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Unusually I disagree with much of this tbh, although not the overall point you are making. 

I don't think there was an over-reaction to Baker. He made a joke that was hard not to be seen as racist - this wasn't people clutching at straws. Using a picture of a monkey to represent a mixed-race baby deserves the criticism it got. Even then, he could have sorted it with an apology, but he doubled down on it with an arrogant and nonsense apology. He did properly respond 24hrs later. It was a direct insult aimed at an individual.

Brand, on the other hand was making a rather generic joke, pretty much like any 'string them all up' or 'they should all face the firing squad' kind of quip that is not particularly unusual. I'm not sure this joke deserves any criticism in the slightest, nor an apology.

I see where you're coming from but context is everything.  Baker's point was one he really should have known better and would have seen almost anyone sacked from their job, regardless of intent.  Same with Brand, it's a joke that should be out of bounds and she should know it.


“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime" - Mark Twain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don’t fully know the context of Bakers ‘joke’ as he changed his own mind multiple  times within hours.

The people saying it was racist were the real racists, he didn’t see a monkey as being racist, he didn’t know she was black, he didn’t know which royal had given birth, etc.  That was before any full apology.

We know the context of Brands joke (before the BBC deleted it) because it was in a comedy show, with words before and after, with people laughing.  


With the best, thats a good bit of PR, though I would say the Bedford team, theres, like, you know, 13 blokes who can get together at the weekend to have a game together, which doesnt point to expansion of the game. Point, yeah go on!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Unusually I disagree with much of this tbh, although not the overall point you are making. 

I don't think there was an over-reaction to Baker. He made a joke that was hard not to be seen as racist - this wasn't people clutching at straws. Using a picture of a monkey to represent a mixed-race baby deserves the criticism it got. Even then, he could have sorted it with an apology, but he doubled down on it with an arrogant and nonsense apology. He did properly respond 24hrs later. It was a direct insult aimed at an individual.

Brand, on the other hand was making a rather generic joke, pretty much like any 'string them all up' or 'they should all face the firing squad' kind of quip that is not particularly unusual. I'm not sure this joke deserves any criticism in the slightest, nor an apology.

Nail on the head when it comes to Brand.

There is a fine line that is often lost in this debate and that is about what should be legally allowed and what should have a consequence. In my opinion, Benjamin, Baker and Brand should all have been legally allowed to say what they did without the prospect of any prosecution.

However, I also think that Benjamin's reputation should have suffered for the joke he made and how he has subsequently handled it. I'm undecided on Baker, although if it was proven that he knew full well what the picture implied, then it was sufficiently distasteful to put his job in jeopardy. I also think that Brand's was not really any different than many many jokes like that you would hear without controversy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

This isn't the 70's Martyn, comedians aren't just telling traditional jokes with traditional punchlines.

Of course it was a joke.

“Certain unpleasant characters are being thrown to the fore, and they’re very, very easy to hate, and I’m kind of thinking, why bother with a milkshake when you could get some battery acid?

"That’s just me, sorry, I’m not gonna do it, it’s purely a fantasy, but I think milk shakes are pathetic, I honestly do. Sorry.”

That's certainly not a "traditional" joke, as you put it.

But can you explain how it is a joke at all.

I suspect the audience laughed because what she said confirmed their prejudices, rather like a comedian telling racial jokes in the 70s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ckn said:

I see where you're coming from but context is everything.  Baker's point was one he really should have known better and would have seen almost anyone sacked from their job, regardless of intent.  Same with Brand, it's a joke that should be out of bounds and she should know it.

The only potential problem with Brand's joke is the mention of acid during a time when acid attacks are on the rise. As Dave T pointed out, we hear comments about stringing people up and the like and there is zero controversy. It was insensitive at this time and she should have apologised about that aspect. Any idea that people might act on it is beyond ludicrous and purely being made for political reasons.

As I've said with Baker, it hinges on whether he knew what it implied or not before he did it. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on it purely because you'd have to have been living in a box for the last 30 years not to know what the reaction would be.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Maximus Decimus said:

As I've said with Baker, it hinges on whether he knew what it implied or not before he did it. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on it purely because you'd have to have been living in a box for the last 30 years not to know what the reaction would be.

As was said at the time, I don’t think Baker is a racist or intended to be racist, he was wasn’t thinking about it in that way.  It was however his reaction that did for him, as it was incoherent and made it much much worse.  


With the best, thats a good bit of PR, though I would say the Bedford team, theres, like, you know, 13 blokes who can get together at the weekend to have a game together, which doesnt point to expansion of the game. Point, yeah go on!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

“Certain unpleasant characters are being thrown to the fore, and they’re very, very easy to hate, and I’m kind of thinking, why bother with a milkshake when you could get some battery acid?

"That’s just me, sorry, I’m not gonna do it, it’s purely a fantasy, but I think milk shakes are pathetic, I honestly do. Sorry.”

That's certainly not a "traditional" joke, as you put it.

But can you explain how it is a joke at all.

I suspect the audience laughed because what she said confirmed their prejudices, rather like a comedian telling racial jokes in the 70s.

The main laugh comes directly after she says that it should be battery acid instead of milkshake.

Call it what you will, but it was a punchline and it was funny because it was extreme. 

It has literally no comparison to a racist joke from the 1970s. Literally none.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Maximus Decimus said:

I'm undecided on Baker, although if it was proven that he knew full well what the picture implied, then it was sufficiently distasteful to put his job in jeopardy. I also think that Brand's was not really any different than many many jokes like that you would hear without controversy.

I think it would be a tough defence to claim that somebody didn't understand that using a monkey to represent a mixed-race baby would be controversial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been pointed out by many today that Brand made this comment a few years back to no controversy.

I’ve got a soft spot for Nick Clegg. Face down on Hackney marshes.

Maybe somebody could explain why this is fundamentally different to the joke on heresy? Is she inciting people to go an murder Nick Clegg? Are people only laughing because of their inbuilt prejudices against Lib Dems?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think it would be a tough defence to claim that somebody didn't understand that using a monkey to represent a mixed-race baby would be controversial.

The defence is that he himself didn't make the association before he posted it. After all, if he did see it then he'd have to be incredibly stupid not to realise that it was going to get him in a whole world of bother.

As I said at the time, so obvious was the association and what I've heard of his subsequent reaction (I never saw it myself), there was always the possibility that he was trying to create faux outrage to make a point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

“Certain unpleasant characters are being thrown to the fore, and they’re very, very easy to hate, and I’m kind of thinking, why bother with a milkshake when you could get some battery acid?

"That’s just me, sorry, I’m not gonna do it, it’s purely a fantasy, but I think milk shakes are pathetic, I honestly do. Sorry.”

 That's certainly not a "traditional" joke, as you put it.

But can you explain how it is a joke at all.

I suspect the audience laughed because what she said confirmed their prejudices, rather like a comedian telling racial jokes in the 70s.

It is a joke because of the delivery, style and the fact that it is an exaggerated 'fantasy'. The fact that the characters she is referring to are the likes of Tommy Robinson and Nigel Farage makes it easy to play to a crowd and it is humorous, whether it is your personal taste or not.

Frankie Boyle came under fire (not literally) for a violent joke recently:

"Theresa May has offered to resign if she can get her deal through... it's probably a relief for her. I mean, she spent the weekend at Chequers with her worst enemies - like Boris Johnson, Jacob Reese Mogg, Michael Gove, Iain Duncan Smith, all in one place. Where the f*** are the IRA when you need them? All these groups that keep getting back together. What about the guys that would really help us?"

Offensive, sure. It will be a poorer world if we stop comedians being able to be offensive and shocking.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  



×
×
  • Create New...