Spare us the outrage over the Farage battery acid joke

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,933
1,910
113
No, I don't think Jo Brand should apologise or be sacked by the BBC for joking about throwing battery acid at Nigel Farage. Or investigated by the Old Bill.

The clue is in the word 'joking'. Brand is a comedian. She tells jokes for a living. Whether or not you find her funny is a matter of personal taste.

If you don't like her politics or her material you don't have to listen to her. So spare us the faux outrage.

Yes, Jo Brand's made an ass of herself. But spare me the outrage over her battery acid 'joke': RICHARD LITTLEJOHN says free speech is for everyone... even hypocrites


By Richard Littlejohn for the Daily Mail
14 June 2019

No, I don't think Jo Brand should apologise or be sacked by the BBC for joking about throwing battery acid at Nigel Farage. Or investigated by the Old Bill.

The clue is in the word 'joking'. Brand is a comedian. She tells jokes for a living. Whether or not you find her funny is a matter of personal taste.

If you don't like her politics or her material you don't have to listen to her. So spare us the faux outrage.

Nobody with any sense of proportion can seriously believe she was inciting people to throw acid at Farage.

Brand was talking about the fashion for chucking milkshake over Right-wing politicians. Farage was on the receiving end while campaigning in Newcastle. Salted caramel flavour, I seem to recall.


Brand is a comedian. She tells jokes for a living. Whether or not you find her funny is a matter of personal taste


What Brand actually said on Radio 4's Heresy programme was: 'Why bother with milkshake when you could get some battery acid?'

Then, perhaps realising that her clumsy attempt at edgy humour could be deliberately misconstrued in these hyper-sensitive times, she added quickly: 'I'm not going to do it. It's purely a fantasy.'

But that qualification was conveniently overlooked by those now screaming for her head on a pike.

Even Farage himself had a sense of humour failure, demanding that the police take action against her for incitement to violence.

Given the tsunami of abuse, both physical and verbal, he has to endure daily, Farage's reaction was understandable. He can't even go for a quiet pint without a bodyguard.

But, hey, Nige. You're better than that. Rise above it.

Yes, I know that if this had been a Right-wing comic on the BBC (dream on!) joking about throwing acid at a Left-wing politician, Scotland Yard would have scrambled the 'hate crime' squad, complete with armed back-up.

That comedian would find himself banned for life by the BBC and every other mainstream broadcaster.

Social media warriors would force the cancellation of any upcoming tours or bookings, as clubs and theatres were threatened with boycotts and mass pickets.

But that's no reason for conservatives to sink to the Left's squalid, censorious level. The confected fury aimed at Brand's remark has been ridiculous. And those attempting to link it to the tragic murder of Labour MP Jo Cox by a lone lunatic three years ago should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

It's sheer hypocrisy to complain about the constant hysterical reaction of snowflakes, millennials and assorted Leftists to any opinion they find objectionable, then turn round and behave in exactly the same, deranged fashion when someone utters something not to your taste.


Even Farage himself had a sense of humour failure, demanding that the police take action against her for incitement to violence

Fair enough, the BBC can be accused of double-standards when it comes to deciding whom to defend and whom to dump.

While the Beeb is standing by Jo Brand, it didn't hesitate to sack Danny Baker over his ill-advised posting of picture of a chimpanzee to mark the recent birth of the royal baby.

That's not the main point here, though. If free speech is to survive it must apply to everyone.

Chiselled into the wall of the BBC's London headquarters, there's a famous quote from George Orwell, which reads:

'If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.'

Orwell's words reinforce the maxim often attributed to Voltaire, but actually written by his biographer: 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.'

To be honest, I prefer the Oscar Wilde version: 'I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an ass of yourself.' That's what Jo Brand did. She made an ass of herself. And so are those trying to get her strung up from the nearest lamp post.

Having said all that, here the defence of Brand rests, along with any sympathy I may have earlier expressed.

There's a strong case for saying that she deserves every last drop of the ordure being tipped over her head.

After all, it was Brand (along with Adrian Chiles) who grassed up Carol Thatcher to the BBC and demanded that she was sacked from The One Show over a contentious remark she made in the green room.

Thatcher was accused of racism after saying that a black tennis player looked like a 'huggable golliwog'. That was the end of her career at the BBC.

OK, so the word 'golliwog' has been off-limits since the campaign in the Eighties to remove the golly from Robertson's jam jars.

But the preceding 'huggable' surely indicated that she had no malicious intent. Yet Brand and her detractors chose to ignore it, just as those who would lynch Brand today overlook her assurance that she was only joking and didn't really intend to throw acid at Farage.

And this is where the real hypocrisy kicks in. We live in an age in which free speech in Britain is under sustained attack from all sides.
Social media was supposed to extend freedom of expression, but it has had the opposite effect.

Unwelcome opinions are quickly closed down. Employers and advertisers are pressured to punish alleged offenders. Ludicrous 'hate crime' laws are employed to silence open debate.

Careers are being destroyed and some presumed guilty of 'speech crimes' are actually being arrested, prosecuted and convicted.
Universities 'no platform' speakers whose views might 'trigger' an attack of the vapours in more sensitive souls who are frightened of being exposed to someone with a different worldview.

Our free press, already hampered by some of the world's most draconian libel laws, was subjected to the Leveson show trial and now has to contend with strict limits on what can and can't be printed.

Sadly, some of the more right-on sections of the media buy into this sinister assault on freedom of expression. Boris Johnson was quite right this week to slap down the Sky reporter Eleanor Rigby, who was trying to stir up another daft rumpus over his past remarks about women in burkas looking like letterboxes.

Free speech isn't only for those whose opinions we agree with. It must also be extended to those whose views we abhor, provided they really aren't inciting violence.

As Orwell so rightly said, if liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

So conservatives ape the Left's censorship tactics at their peril.

Free speech must apply to everyone, even Jo Brand.



According to the old nursery rhyme, Solomon Grundy was born on a Monday, christened on Tuesday, married on Wednesday etc. Leonard-Valter Tudor is Romania's answer to Solomon Grundy. He arrived in Britain on Friday, was arrested for shoplifting on Saturday, appeared in court on Monday, started a 16-week jail sentence on Tuesday . . . Presumably, he'll be out by Thursday, granted asylum on Friday, and be living on benefits in a council house by Saturday.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/...OHN-Free-speech-hypocrites-like-Jo-Brand.html
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,933
1,910
113
Coffee House

Nish Kumar is Jo Brand’s most obnoxious defender

Ben Sixsmith


Nish Kumar

Ben Sixsmith
15 June 2019
The Spectator

We are all aware that Jo Brand saying battery acid would be a more appropriate liquid than milkshakes to throw at people was a joke. It was a bad joke, but it was a joke.

We are all aware that the chances of a Radio 4 listener hearing the joke and being inspired to hurl battery acid at a right-wing politician are slim to none. It remains such a morbid and mean-spirited jest that it should not be made, let alone by people whose jokes are being funded by the taxpayer, but it is foolish to classify it as incitement.

What rankles is the pungent hypocrisy of Brand’s liberal and left-wing defenders. If the joke had been by a right-wing Twitter troll of Jess Phillips or Jeremy Corbyn the demands to deplatform them would have been ear-splitting. Few of them defended Mark Meechan when he was dragged to court for jokily teaching his girlfriend’s pug the Nazi salute. Few of them defended Danny Baker when he was sacked, by the BBC no less, for posting a photograph of a monkey in a suit and joking that it was the newborn child of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

Making jokes with arguable racist connotations? Sack, if not arrest, the bastard. Making jokes about assaulting British citizens in a manner that happens sometimes on London streets? All fun and games.

Perhaps Brand’s most obnoxious defender has been Nish Kumar. Kumar hosts the satirical news programme The Mash Report, which is so miserably and relentlessly unfunny that it makes The World at War look like a bundle of laughs. Jacob Rees-Mogg is posh. Donald Trump is stupid. Brexit is bad. The only comedy garnish is a form of convoluted whimsy along the lines of, ‘He’s stupid that not only would he fail his exams but he wouldn’t even remember how to get to school.’ You get the picture.

Kumar was outraged by Brand’s critics. ‘Jo Brand is great,’ he tweeted, ‘and Nigel Farage is a sack of shit.’ For such a blunt-seeming tweet it is oddly evasive. Does he mean that Brand is so good and Farage so malign that she is right to make jokes about attacking politicians? If so, come out and say it man! If not – what are you saying?

Ironically, given this blatant side-step, Kumar went on to criticise his peers for not being direct enough with their opinions. He posted:
‘I think it is vital that we as comedians remember that one of the reasons why the public feels alienated now from us all as a breed is because we are muffling and veiling our language.’
A cheap response is that Kumar says ‘we as comedians’ with the same validity that your author might say ‘we as public intellectuals’. Yes, he makes jokes (in a sense) and I write essays (of a kind) but do these terms not denote some kind of quality?

Whatever. I think Kumar has at least something of a point. It is true that comedians often indulge in smug point-scoring of the ‘how is Nigel Farage a man of the people when he went to a private school’ variety. This kind of John Oliverian patting of their viewers’ already handprint-covered backs for being smarter than the right-wing rabble is a boring, lazy exercise in self-indulgence and perhaps comedy would be more interesting if people unleashed their id a little more.

But would it be funny? I am unconvinced that Kumar wants to be a comedian even half as much as he wants to be a commentator. Sure, comedy is not an abstract art form that it can or should transcend the realm of opinions. But there is a difference between a fresh, elegant joke that flies a political course and a weighty idea with comedic packaging.



The biggest reason I dislike most political comedians, which include most right-wingers as well as left-wingers, is the same reason I dislike advertisements that masquerade as art: the dishonesty of presenting one’s commitment to a cause as commitment to a craft.
The problem is that if one puts humour, like the truth, before activism, jokes can take a course of their own, defying one’s policy ambitions with their flights among the absurd, and the obscene, and the insightful.

As pretentious as it sounds to say – trust me, I’m almost fetching as I type this – good jokes take us to unexpected places of observation and understanding. This is why the best comedians, like Nathan Fielder and Norm MacDonald, are incidentally but insightfully political while the worst have no higher ambitions than restating their belief that Nigel Farage is a ‘sack of shit’.

The author would like to acknowledge that Mr Kumar’s tweet was repurposing a quote by Boris Johnson (which he had not known when he wrote the piece), but also to suggest that the joke only makes sense if Mr Kumar believes it does apply to comedians or if he thinks Mr Johnson’s comments are applicable to jokes about inflicting GBH.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/06/nish-kumar-is-jo-brands-most-obnoxious-defender/