sadoldgit

You can laugh at what you like Badger. If you went to live in Africa and were one of the few white people living in the town, would you feel comfortable if the locals made fun of you because of your colour? Blazing Saddles was making fun of racism wasn’t it? Just as Mel Brookes poked fun at the Nazis in The Producers. I am sure you are bright enough to know the difference.

Don’t you know people outside of your own house and family? Well of course you do. Although I can imagine that many of them would rather avoid you.

We (the forum) has had this discussion before. Black people have appropriated it for their own use. When white people use it it is racist. I used to laugh at a lot of things in the 60’s and 70’s that aren’t remotely funny in 2026. Times change and most change with them don’t they? I know we still have some posters rooted in the last century though. Is the first joke funny? No. It is just not remotely funny even if it were told in the 1970’s. Is it offensive? Not to me. Maybe to gay people, but then the ones I know don’t have a problem with making fun of their sexuality. It raises another point. Just because something is not offensive to one person, it doesn’t mean it isn’t offensive to someone else? Where do you draw the line? For the younger generations, they won’t know what humour was like in the 60’s and 70’s so will have a completely different attitude towards what is socially acceptable. We would probably sit stony faced through comedy acts from the 20’s and 30’s. Is there anything intrinsically funny about people with different colour skin or sexuality? Of course not. It is all about attitudes. Attitudes change.

Would you laugh at a joke using the n word? There are plenty of things we laughed at in the 70’s but we wouldn’t dream of laughing at now. Bob Monkhouse was of that era. We have no idea about the content of the book, but someone has made the call that some of the jokes could be seen as offensive now.

Oh dear, here we go again. Just when I think that nutty nic is the dimmest poster in here, up you pop. My comment was made in relation to the fact that the BBC ran the Edwards story as the main feature every day for the best part of a week. Now perhaps you agree with the BBC News editor that the story was the most important news item both nationally and internationally for the best part of a week? I don’t. After a day or two there was no reason to continue use it as the lead story. It seems to me that the BBC overreacted because they were scared of the kick back from anti BBC types. As for the not the crime of the century comment, it clearly wasn’t. As abhorrent as being in possession of indecent chill images is, it is not considered, under the law, as serious as murder. That is why murder cases are tried in the Crown Court and attract longer sentences and the case that he was charged with was heard in the Magistrate’s Court. As said, he received a suspended sentence. If he had committed a more serious act under the law, do you think he would have avoided a custodial sentence? I have explained this all previously. Clearly it went over both your and your mate’s (hypochondriac) heads. As regards disturbing behaviour, following people around on the internet on a daily basis and desperately trying to score points off them by dredging up long past posts and twisting them into something they weren’t seems to me to be disturbing behaviour. You even managed to drag another poster’s wives into one of your stalky posts a while back! At a time when the misuse of social media is coming under such scrutiny, you might like to consider the fact that someone your age really should not be using public forums to deal with your own personal insecurities and issues.

No he wasn’t, but that’s not to say that some of the jokes weren’t offensive according to today’s sensibilities. There were plenty of comedians who used family friendly material for TV and “blue” material for their “adult” live acts. Some also used to pass on their stronger material to other performers in order to preserve their family friendly image. Given the way that some people love to give the BBC a kicking, can you imagine the grief they would have gotten if it came out that they had repaired a book full of racist, homophobic or whatever material? I’m intrigued to know what the jokes were, I’m guessing that they are a bit stronger than “take my mother-in-law. Please.”

Thats correct. Apparently both men are British nationals.

Which would be absolutely spot on if I had said he shouldn’t be allowed to vote, which I hadn’t. Still, I guess you have taken a lead from Trump when it comes to “fake news.” As for insulting their views, guilty as charged. Anyone supporting Farage and his cronies deserves to have their views insulted. As you say, freedom of speech etc which, apparently, Farage is all for (unless he is on the receiving end of things he doesn’t like). 😘

I do actually have a Democrat supporting friend who lives in Oregon (and hates Trump with a passion). As far as I know she hasn’t had a rock thrown through her windscreen yet though. 😎

I’m not sure how this would work? https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/world-news/trump-negotiating-himself-iran-mock-36918786# The two biggest dummies on the planet in negotiations, what could possibly go wrong?

I’m wondering when the last time someone committing the “Crime of the Century” was given a suspended sentence in a Magistrate’s Court?

I know that a few people are getting very rich off the back of him, but most Americans are certainly not profiting financially from the tango tyrant. They are worse off and his attempts to Make America Great Again are just turning the USA into a laughing stock, but his supporters just stick their heads in the sand and pretend that all is going great. Quality trolling by the Iranians.

It makes you wonder what happened to this country since the Victorian times. They built a superb railway system 200 years ago. We can’t even fill potholes in the roads.

Not so much the art of the deal, more the art of the grift. Anyway, I hadn’t come across this before but it certainly explains how Trump gets away with so much and why it is so difficult to persuade those who support him or excuse his behaviour that he is the monster and fraud the rest of us know he that is (the same goes for the Poundshop Trump, Farage). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini's_law It explains the old adage that it is foolish to argue with an idiot because they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.