Can't believe we haven't covered the Grenfell effigy furore.

[Burney]

So quite a lot of people seem comfortable with the idea that jokes in bad taste are a matter for the police these days.

Thus does freedom die - not with a bang, but with a whimper.

I really am starting to think we need a First Amendment-type thing in this country.

[Monty92]

Let's not shy away from the fact that it was actually quite funny, too.

I mean, if they'd done it apropros of nothing, that would be kinda weird. But in the context of it being done for Bonfire Night, I was rather impressed by the imagination and detail that went into it.




So quite a lot of people seem comfortable with the idea that jokes in bad taste are a matter for the police these days.

Thus does freedom die - not with a bang, but with a whimper.

I really am starting to think we need a First Amendment-type thing in this country.

[IUFG]

Let's not shy away from the fact that it was actually quite funny, too.

I mean, if they'd done it apropros of nothing, that would be kinda weird. But in the context of it being done for Bonfire Night, I was rather impressed by the imagination and detail that went into it.

It isn't funny, really, is it?

Who goes to all that trouble of making the thing for 'a joke'? Then records it and posts it on social media?

Pondlife imo

[Pokster]

Let's not shy away from the fact that it was actually quite funny, too.

I mean, if they'd done it apropros of nothing, that would be kinda weird. But in the context of it being done for Bonfire Night, I was rather impressed by the imagination and detail that went into it.

**** me, you have a strange sense of humour if you think that was funny

[Burney]

Let's not shy away from the fact that it was actually quite funny, too.

I mean, if they'd done it apropros of nothing, that would be kinda weird. But int the context of it being done for Bonfire Night, I was rather impressed by the imagination that went into it.

:nod: Oh, yes. and the work that went into it.

The idea that we're all aghast at the notion of a bad taste joke is just one of the hypocritical nonsenses of the whole thing. I've laughed at much worse - and I know that many of those who are pearl-clutching about it have, too. :shrug:

[Burney]

It isn't funny, really, is it?

Who goes to all that trouble of making the thing for 'a joke'? Then records it and posts it on social media?

Pondlife imo

Why isn't it funny? Because people died? So what? I've heard jokes about any number of disasters and tragedies over the years - from the Challenger disaster, the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster, Hillsborough and 9/11. There is always scope for a joke.

No, the thing that makes people tiptoe around this joke more than others is simply that they fear there's a hint of racism to it and want to distance themselves from that rather than the joke itself.

[Monty92]

:nod: Oh, yes. and the work that went into it.

The idea that we're all aghast at the notion of a bad taste joke is just one of the hypocritical nonsenses of the whole thing. I've laughed at much worse - and I know that many of those who are pearl-clutching about it have, too. :shrug:

The only legitimate question is whether posting that kind of material on social media should be a police matter. I'm open to the argument that it should (in spite of the Pandora's box this would inevitably open), but as you say the hypocritical pearl clutching from people who have doubtless sniggered or made light of tragedies themselves has been utterly hilarious to witness.

[WES]

What's this all about then?

I've been on hols. :-)

[IUFG]

Why isn't it funny? Because people died? So what? I've heard jokes about any number of disasters and tragedies over the years - from the Challenger disaster, the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster, Hillsborough and 9/11. There is always scope for a joke.

No, the thing that makes people tiptoe around this joke more than others is simply that they fear there's a hint of racism to it and want to distance themselves from that rather than the joke itself.

What isn't funny about it, for me, is the effort that they went to make the 'joke'.

A quick quip, about any tragedy, might be humourous. I can agree on that. The joke is in the humourous element not the context of the tragedy.

To go out of your way to make a piss poor Blue Peter version of a tower block then throw it on a fire, then film it while applying 'commentary', then posting it on social media AND then not expecting a backlash?

If I went to all that effort to make a joke about Grenfell and that video was the outcome . . . I doubt I'd win any comedy awards.

[Monty92]

What's this all about then?

I've been on hols. :-)

A bunch of laughing people in a private garden made an effigy of Grenfell Tower, complete with cut out figures of people screaming at open windows, and dumped it on a bonfire for Bonfire Night. A few off colour comments were made while it went up in flames, including calling one of the Burka-clad residents a "ninja" and "that's what happens when you don't pay your rent"

All good and healthy fun had by normal people blissfully detached from our censorious society. But then it got posted on social media :-(

[Pat Vegas]

I find it odd that burning an effigy of a building on a night based on the tradition of burning an effigy of Catholic fella who plotted to blow kill the king would cause outrage.

[Burney]

The only legitimate question is whether posting that kind of material on social media should be a police matter. I'm open to the argument that it should (in spite of the Pandora's box this would inevitably open), but as you say the hypocritical pearl clutching from people who have doubtless sniggered or made light of tragedies themselves has been utterly hilarious to witness.

I'm not open to that argument at all, I'm afraid. It places the power to make a wholly subjective judgement of what is or isn't 'offensive' and thus requiring of police intervention with individual coppers. That judgement is inevitably determined by factors such the political atmosphere and leanings of that policeman's superiors rather than by legal principle and thus becomes a means of stifling legitimate political expression from the side you arbitrarily decide are 'the bad guys'.

[IUFG]

The only legitimate question is whether posting that kind of material on social media should be a police matter. I'm open to the argument that it should (in spite of the Pandora's box this would inevitably open), but as you say the hypocritical pearl clutching from people who have doubtless sniggered or made light of tragedies themselves has been utterly hilarious to witness.

it shouldn't be a police matter.

in years gone by, it would have been a private 'joke' amongst like-minded vermin, that was never mentioned again after the event.

it just goes to prove that once you post something on the internet, you've lost any control over it and it may come back and bit you squarely on the arse.

[Monty92]

What isn't funny about it, for me, is the effort that they went to make the 'joke'.

A quick quip, about any tragedy, might be humourous. I can agree on that. The joke is in the humourous element not the context of the tragedy.

To go out of your way to make a piss poor Blue Peter version of a tower block then throw it on a fire, then film it while applying 'commentary', then posting it on social media AND then not expecting a backlash?

If I went to all that effort to make a joke about Grenfell and that video was the outcome . . . I doubt I'd win any comedy awards.

I spent hours and hours in my 20s with friends in pubs playing Celebrity Death Pool Betting, fastidiously making lists of which celebrities we think are gonna die over the next year :shrug:

[IUFG]

I spent hours and hours in my 20s in pubs playing Celebrity Death Pool Betting, fastidiously making lists of which celebrities I think are gonna die over the next year :shrugL

absolutely hilarious, m.

Would you do the same and post it on social media now?

[Burney]

What isn't funny about it, for me, is the effort that they went to make the 'joke'.

A quick quip, about any tragedy, might be humourous. I can agree on that. The joke is in the humourous element not the context of the tragedy.

To go out of your way to make a piss poor Blue Peter version of a tower block then throw it on a fire, then film it while applying 'commentary', then posting it on social media AND then not expecting a backlash?

If I went to all that effort to make a joke about Grenfell and that video was the outcome . . . I doubt I'd win any comedy awards.

They thought it would amuse their mates - and it did. A joke is only good or bad based on the audience for which it is intended. :shrug:

[IUFG]

I find it odd that burning an effigy of a building on a night based on the tradition of burning an effigy of Catholic fella who plotted to blow kill the king would cause outrage.

:nod: completely anachronistic, f.

[Monty92]

I'm not open to that argument at all, I'm afraid. It places the power to make a wholly subjective judgement of what is or isn't 'offensive' and thus requiring of police intervention. That judgement is inevitably determined by the political atmosphere rather than by legal principle and thus becomes a means of stifling legitimate political expression from the side you arbitrarily decide are 'the bad guys'.

Indeed, hence my reference to opening a Pandora's Box.

But there are already crimes relating to public harassment, etc, that require a subjective judgement of what is or isn't offensive. This isn't ideal either, but there's little option other than to make anything that doesn't involve physical violence -or the explicit threat of it - permissable.

[Burney]

I find it odd that burning an effigy of a building on a night based on the tradition of burning an effigy of Catholic fella who plotted to blow kill the king would cause outrage.

Well, yes. But - critically, the catholic was white.

[IUFG]

They thought it would amuse their mates - and it did. A joke is only good or bad based on the audience for which it is intended. :shrug:

Then keep the joke in that circle of friends? Don't share it with the world :shrug:

[Monty92]

absolutely hilarious, m.

Would you do the same and post it on social media now?

Sorry, you're asking *me* whether I'd post anything contentious on a public forum? :hehe:

[Burney]

Indeed, hence my reference to a Pandora's Box.

But there are already crimes relating to public harassment that require a subjective judgement of what is or isn't offensive. This isn't ideal either, but there's little other option other than to make anything that doesn't involve physical violence permissable.

Yes. And those are bad laws. They should be held up as negative examples rather than seen as creating a precedent for more bad laws.

[IUFG]

Sorry, you're asking *me* whether I'd post anything contentious on a public forum? :hehe:

well, since you put it like that... :hehe:

[Monty92]

Then keep the joke in that circle of friends? Don't share it with the world :shrug:

We don't know how it ended up being shared. It may not necessarily have even been with the consent of the protagonists.

[Monty92]

Yes. And those are bad laws. They should be held up as negative examples rather than seen as creating a precedent for more bad laws.

So you don't think there should be any limit to what someone is allowed to say in public that doesn't directly threaten violence?

[IUFG]

We don't know how it ended up being shared. It may not necessarily have even been with the consent of the protagonists.

Ah, I see, one of those present filmed it then outed their mates on social media as being a bit distasteful.

thanks, m :judge:

[Burney]

Then keep the joke in that circle of friends? Don't share it with the world :shrug:

People make the assumption that their 'friends' on Facebook are actual friends and don't think about how quickly something can disseminate outside that group.

Also, saying 'they should have kept it to themselves' doesn't really take into account how these things work. Maybe they wanted to? We don't know if the person who filmed and uploaded it was one of the people behind it or just a spectator who disseminated it without their knowledge.

What you are positing is a world in which nobody dares to make an off-colour remark for fear that some cùnt is filming it and will upload it to Facebook. That sounds pretty bleak to me.

[Monty92]

Ah, I see, one of those present filmed it then outed their mates on social media as being a bit distasteful.

thanks, m :judge:

I've literally no idea and nor do you. There are probably about 100 permutations for how and why it got shared.

[Burney]

So you don't think there should be any limit to what someone is allowed to say in public that doesn't directly threaten violence?

No. I haven't always felt that way. I've often thought the First Amendment was a rather blunt instrument, in fact. However, social media and the ever-increasing censoriousness of our times make it clear to me that it's the only way to guard against the term 'hate speech' being abused to persecute anyone whose opinions do not chime with a political orthodoxy.

[Monty92]

No. I haven't always felt that way. I've often thought the First Amendment was a rather blunt instrument, in fact. However, social media and the ever-increasing censoriousness of our times make it clear to me that it's the only way to guard against the term 'hate speech' being abused to persecute anyone whose opinions do not chime with a political orthodoxy.

I find it a little hard to believe that you truly think someone walking alongside a black person incessantly bellowing at that them that they're a "****ing nigger" shouldn't be a police matter.

[Burney]

I find it a little hard to believe that you truly think someone walking alongside a black person incessantly bellowing at that them that they're a "****ing nigger" shouldn't be a police matter.

Well such a person would be guilty of harassing the individual personally - which is an arrestable offence. But should someone be allowed to appear in public and call black people that? Yes. Because the alternative is a world of double standards. After all, there seems to be no restriction on the number of people who are allowed to go on TV and in the media and talk about how white males/white people are the root cause of all problems and to demonise them endlessly.

[Monty92]

Well such a person would be guilty of harassing the individual personally - which is an arrestable offence. But should someone be allowed to appear in public and call black people that? Yes. Because the alternative is a world of double standards. After all, there seems to be no restriction on the number of people who are allowed to go on TV and in the media and talk about how white males/white people are the root cause of all problems and to demonise them endlessly.

But this is where the Pandora's Box of subjectivity opens. Presumably you also think, for example, that you should be allowed to walk up to a Grenfell survivor laughing and calmly say "your probably didn't pay your rent and deserved to die".

So at what point should such behaviour be considered harassment? If you follow them down the street repeating it? Or say it in an aggressive manner?

It *has* to be arbitrary and, therefore, subjective. And what we can and can't post on social media has to be too.

[IUFG]

People make the assumption that their 'friends' on Facebook are actual friends and don't think about how quickly something can disseminate outside that group.

Also, saying 'they should have kept it to themselves' doesn't really take into account how these things work. Maybe they wanted to? We don't know if the person who filmed and uploaded it was one of the people behind it or just a spectator who disseminated it without their knowledge.

What you are positing is a world in which nobody dares to make an off-colour remark for fear that some cùnt is filming it and will upload it to Facebook. That sounds pretty bleak to me.

Facebook? Well, exactly. Does anyone invite their 2,000+ close friends to weddings, parties and other social events?

You can't post something to the internet and not expect to be judged (take this thread for example).

Whilst this world is already pretty bleak, if you present a certain type of behaviour or opinion in a public arena, someone will judge you.

[Monty92]

Facebook? Well, exactly. Does anyone invite their 2,000+ close friends to weddings, parties and other social events?

You can't post something to the internet and not expect to be judged (take this thread for example).

Whilst this world is already pretty bleak, if you present a certain type of behaviour or opinion in a public arena, someone will judge you.

There's a hell of a big difference between social punishment (being "unfriended", etc) guided by social norms about what is and isn't appropriate behaviour and legislative diktat.

[Burney]

But this is where the Pandora's Box of subjectivity opens. Presumably you also think, for example, that you should be allowed to walk up to a Grenfell survivor laughing and calmly say "your probably didn't pay your rent and deserved to die".

So at what point should such behaviour be considered harassment? If you follow them down the street repeating it? Or say it in an aggressive manner?

It *has* to be arbitrary and, therefore, subjective. And what we can and can't post on social media has to be too.

Harassment is defined as behaviour targeting an individual without any just cause and/or with a credible threat of violence. Of course there is a subjective judgement to be made (as with breach of the peace, etc), but the point is that those judgements should be kept to a minimum and as far as possible be constrained by legal precedent. At the moment what we have is a police force increasingly empowered by bad legislation to act on their own recognisance in areas that should be no concern of theirs.

In the case of your example, I absolutely believe it should be legal for someone to go up to a Grenfell survivor and say that. However, that behaviour should be taken as mitigation in any response the Grenfell survivor makes.

[Burney]

Facebook? Well, exactly. Does anyone invite their 2,000+ close friends to weddings, parties and other social events?

You can't post something to the internet and not expect to be judged (take this thread for example).

Whilst this world is already pretty bleak, if you present a certain type of behaviour or opinion in a public arena, someone will judge you.

But we don't know that it was their choice to upload it. :shrug:

Have you never said or done something that you're deeply glad wasn't filmed and uploaded to social media? I know I have. The problem is that your attitude of 'they've only themselves to blame' is a tacit acceptance of this appalling culture in which you'd better make damn sure you never say anything contentious for fear social media might get hold of it. That's an awful way to live.

[Sir C]

It isn't funny, really, is it?

Who goes to all that trouble of making the thing for 'a joke'? Then records it and posts it on social media?

Pondlife imo

Hundreds of people work for months on the various effigies burnt at Lewes every year. They can't all be pondlife.*

* Maybe they are, how would I know?

[Burney]

There's a hell of a big difference between social punishment (being "unfriended", etc) guided by social norms about what is and isn't appropriate behaviour and legislative diktat.

I read plenty of comments saying that these people's lives should be ruined for doing this. Nobody seemed to consider that there would be innocent victims of such ruination - not least their kids. But there's nothing as ruthless and repulsive as the self-righteous mob.

[Burney]

Hundreds of people work for months on the various effigies burnt at Lewes every year. They can't all be pondlife.*

* Maybe they are, how would I know?

Yes, but those people are middle-class and their targets are usually those it would be considered acceptable to lampoon on a Radio 4 panel show. This makes them exempt from such criticism.

These perpetrators were working class, white, had estuary accents, probably left school at 16 and - worst of all - were mocking brown people whom the media has effectively canonised.

[Sir C]

Yes, but those people are middle-class and their targets are usually those it would be considered acceptable to lampoon on a Radio 4 panel show. This makes them exempt from such criticism.

These perpetrators were working class, white, had estuary accents, probably left school at 16 and - worst of all - were mocking brown people whom the media has effectively canonised.

I confess I find it all rather troubling and not a little frightening.

[redgunamo]

I read plenty of comments saying that these people's lives should be ruined for doing this. Nobody seemed to consider that there would be innocent victims of such ruination - not least their kids. But there's nothing as ruthless and repulsive as the self-righteous mob.

Sure, but those comments can be blandly made precisely because nowadays, it's practically impossible to ruin anyone's life.

Lose your job? Bof! Just get another one. Wife? Family? Never liked them much anyway. And so on.

[Burney]

I confess I find it all rather troubling and not a little frightening.

I must admit I do wonder whether people will eventually realise that the risks engendered by being on social media are not matched by its rewards and will start to desert the platforms in droves. Then maybe we could return to a sane society?

Probably wishful thinking, of course. People are fùcking idiots.

[Burney]

Sure, but those comments can be blandly made precisely because nowadays, it's practically impossible to ruin anyone's life.

Lose your job? Bof! Just get another one. Wife? Family? Never liked them much anyway. And so on.

But imagine being the sort of person who actually wants to ruin someone's life! Imagine being that bloodlessly vindictive? I can understand - even sympathise with - hating someone so much you wish them dead, but there's something so repulsive about wanting to see someone's life ruined.

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

it shouldn't be a police matter.

in years gone by, it would have been a private 'joke' amongst like-minded vermin, that was never mentioned again after the event.

it just goes to prove that once you post something on the internet, you've lost any control over it and it may come back and bit you squarely on the arse.

And I rather hope that the unspeakable ****s that posted the video are susbsequently ruined.

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

I must admit I do wonder whether people will eventually realise that the risks engendered by being on social media are not matched by its rewards and will start to desert the platforms in droves. Then maybe we could return to a sane society?

Probably wishful thinking, of course. People are fùcking idiots.

We are all peoples b, including you.

[IUFG]

Hundreds of people work for months on the various effigies burnt at Lewes every year. They can't all be pondlife.*

* Maybe they are, how would I know?

I don't know. Maybe people that have bonfires in the back garden of their terraced house qualify as pondlife? :shrug:

[redgunamo]

But imagine being the sort of person who actually wants to ruin someone's life! Imagine being that bloodlessly vindictive? I can understand - even sympathise with - hating someone so much you wish them dead, but there's something so repulsive about wanting to see someone's life ruined.

It's just a figure of speech, I think ;-)

[Burney]

I don't know. Maybe people that have bonfires in the back garden of their terraced house qualify as pondlife? :shrug:

Of course. This is a class thing. Nobody, of course, wants to see it as a legitimate expression of contempt for and exasperation with the way in which the media and political classes have cynically weaponised Grenfell as a tool for furthering a broader and unpopular pro-multicultural, pro-immigration agenda. It is that, of course. But nobody wants to acknowledge that.

[redgunamo]

Hundreds of people work for months on the various effigies burnt at Lewes every year. They can't all be pondlife.*

* Maybe they are, how would I know?

I'd never heard of the festival. Impressive, I thought, like Carnival, Hoppediz.

[71 Guns - channeling the spirit of Mr Hat]

I must admit I do wonder whether people will eventually realise that the risks engendered by being on social media are not matched by its rewards and will start to desert the platforms in droves. Then maybe we could return to a sane society?

Probably wishful thinking, of course. People are fùcking idiots.

Shared amongst a private group on whatsapp supposedly - one of whom decided it would be a great idea to share it further, whether for shìts n giggles or to stir things up it isn't clear.

[Viva Prat Vegas]

I like IUFG's avatar

[7sisters]

And I rather hope that the unspeakable ****s that posted the video are susbsequently ruined.

Well said H. It was a disgusting thing to do. There’s absolutely no humour element in it whatsoever. The effort that went into it says it all. It’s far more than a casual quip that follows a disaster.
It reminds me of the type of c*nt who laughs at animal cruelty, packaged as entertainment.

[Monty92]

Well said H. It was a disgusting thing to do. There’s absolutely no humour element in it whatsoever. The effort that went into it says it all. It’s far more than a casual quip that follows a disaster.
It reminds me of the type of c*nt who laughs at animal cruelty, packaged as entertainment.

But there are many people who would consider your "casual quips following a disaster" to be disgusting too.

It doesn't have to be either disgusting or funny. It can simply be banal. Which is pretty much the worst I'd say about this particular incident.

[IUFG]

But there are many people who would consider your "casual quips following a disaster" to be disgusting too.

It doesn't have to be either disgusting or funny. It can simply be banal. Which is pretty much the worst I'd say about this particular incident.

ah yes, but much easier to say 'sorry' (if necessary) for a quip than it is it to explain how you and your wife made a cardboard miniature tower block and took it around to your friends to burn on a bonfire for a laugh...

[Monty92]

ah yes, but much easier to say 'sorry' (if necessary) for a quip than it is it to explain how you and your wife made a cardboard miniature tower block and took it around to your friends to burn on a bonfire for a laugh...

But it's not always much easier. It was only a few months ago that someone was PUT IN PRISON for a "quip" that involved him getting his pet dog to do impressions of Hitler. A quip that probably took a similar amount of time to set up as the Grenfell effigy.

[Burney]

Well said H. It was a disgusting thing to do. There’s absolutely no humour element in it whatsoever. The effort that went into it says it all. It’s far more than a casual quip that follows a disaster.
It reminds me of the type of c*nt who laughs at animal cruelty, packaged as entertainment.

Of course there's humour in it. The sheer trangressive nature of it has comedic worth. Anyone who's ever laughed at one of Jimmy Carr or Frankie Boyle's edgier jokes is laughing in no small part at the 'unsayable' nature of what they've said. This is no different. The whole point is the bad taste.

[Luis Anaconda]

But it's not always much easier. It was only a few months ago that someone was PUT IN PRISON for a "quip" that involved him getting his pet dog to do impressions of Hitler. A quip that probably took a similar amount of time to set up as the Grenfell effigy.
Um - if you're going to emphasise a point by putting it in capitals, you'd think you'd check your facts. Assuming you are referring to Count Dankula, he wasn't put in prison

[Arsenal Alcoholic Review]

Why isn't it funny? Because people died? So what? I've heard jokes about any number of disasters and tragedies over the years - from the Challenger disaster, the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster, Hillsborough and 9/11. There is always scope for a joke.

No, the thing that makes people tiptoe around this joke more than others is simply that they fear there's a hint of racism to it and want to distance themselves from that rather than the joke itself.

Yes but the victims here were brown people so it's off limits.

[Alberto Balsam Rodriguez]

What are we upset about here?

Is it a joke that may or may not have been in poor taste or that the police have got involved?




So quite a lot of people seem comfortable with the idea that jokes in bad taste are a matter for the police these days.

Thus does freedom die - not with a bang, but with a whimper.

I really am starting to think we need a First Amendment-type thing in this country.

[Burney]

What are we upset about here?

Is it a joke that may or may not have been in poor taste or that the police have got involved?

The involvement of the police in what was supposed to be a private joke is egregious and fairly chilling, don't you think?

Also, the determination of the mob to figuratively lynch anyone who dares step outside the arbitrary orthodoxies of 'decency' is getting very fùcking wearing.