Never heard of the News Quiz
before reading this. unfortunately I've heard of Sandi Toksvig.
The BBC has defended a joke by The News Quiz presenter Sandi Toksvig which, according to the Daily Mail, may have irreparably undermined the very bedrock of decency on which Middle England stands. The quip in question was broadcast last October at 6.30pm, and once again the next day at 12.30pm. Discussing the Tories and child …
before reading this. unfortunately I've heard of Sandi Toksvig.
Johnny Vaughan apologised to any children watching for Dave swearing and Dave simply looked at him surprised and said -
"What do you mean? I learnt all those words from children!"
Top man. Greatly missed. There does appear to be a new agenda of puritanism and stamping on anything that goes against the order of things. Maybe its a secret agenda that the establishment thinks that society is very agitated at the moment and could break bringing their reign down?
A good article about this here: http://tabloid-watch.blogspot.com/2011/06/mail-on-sunday-attacks-bbc-for-word.html
Very interesting blog to read
Since the "chairman's script" is credited to one or more scriptwriters, it probably originated there. Or maybe it was an ad-lib?
I laughed quite considerably. My right-leaning friends were less impressed, but because of the political implications, not the vulgarity.
Times change, standards change, values change. Looking at TV from the '60s, it seems incredibly restrained. Now most soaps have the occasional sh1t, p1ss, no-one seems to mind.
The audience for the News Quiz are, well, Radio 4 listeners, and I doubt many of them were too upset, and Sandi played it for laughs with skill. The fact that there doesn't seem to have been a complaint I think indicates that the outrage from John Whittingdale, Conservative, Maldon is more akin to the reaction I mentioned above.
I think a go forth and multiply is called for to this "outrage".
All the best.
Did you not get "Til Death Us Do Part" round your way?
But I guess thats a diffrent kind of offensive, and of a different kind of people.
A certain Fawlty Towers episode where the Colonel discusses with Basil the time he took a date to the cricket. Certain terms were used in the description of the match participants that wouldn't be acceptable now but were on broadcast tv then so attitudes certainly do change. It's not as if she even used the actually word itself it is just implied. The complainant is clearly a puritanical twunt themselves.
So this is a program called "The News Quiz" on the radio, Radio 4 no less. If they had even one child listening I'd be impressed.
... and it went completely over their heads because of the way it was phrased. It didn't even prompt the usual flurry of questions about something they don't understand.
.. if "that" went over their heads (*).
The one with the Radio 4 podcast, thanks..
(*) joking aside, that was the first thing I thought. If they didn't know what the joke was it would not affect them as it would indeed go over their head (I'll refrain from using the opening for rude jokes, although that was in itself a pun), if they did it would no longer be a problem. So I cannot really see the issue either.
Oh, just your opinion, therefore it must be the truth. Fair enough.
They're politicians, which says a lot about them generically. And it's also actually true.
Typical response from an MP who as we all know are pushing though a load of 'cuts' right now.
Typical response from a cut who ......
(They like to think they're a cut above the rest of us but really their all cut from the same cloth. That's enough cutting wit for now.)
Why do people find King Cnut (former King of England, Norway, Denmark and Sweden) so offensive?
Though I didn't know he was also a Tory responsible for cuts to Daily Mail baiting scroungers and layabouts.....
It's not a good analogy, though, as Cnut ordered the tide to go out as a demonstration to his lords that there were limits to man's power. The Tories have no such delusions of realism.
there are many Kings called Cnut, none of which ruled England, Norway, Denmark, and Sweden *at the same time* (If there were a norse capable, they would heve ruled Scotland, not England at that point anyway)
There's also no link in the name being linked to female genitalia at all.
The disambiguation of your comments does not stand up to any kind of scrutiny, so we can dismiss your drawing a parallel to the current status of the tory cuts as waffle.
Cnut the Great (Old Norse: Knūtr inn rīki; c. 985 or 995 – 12 November 1035), also known as Canute, was a king of Denmark, England, Norway and parts of Sweden.
Plus, you missed the joke you humourless cunt.
"there are many Kings called Cnut, none of which ruled England, Norway, Denmark, and Sweden *at the same time* "
Ah, you Pedant you.
Who was on the throne of England in 1020 (CE or AD, its the same thing)? Where else was this person King? I think you might like to revise what nations were where and who ruled them all.
Who said there was a link between his name and female genitalia?
BTW - nice epic fail there.
1. having gained the throne thanks to with the use of a spear, a privy and very loyal assassin he had the two face git who organised it executed? Possibly for doing it, more likely for mentioning it in public.
2. ordering (albeit unsuccessfully) the kids of the man with a spear in his bottom executed?
3.nicking my village off of the Bishop of London? ( According to the Domesday book, William the Bastard gave it back)
4. being an anagram.
@ Chris Collins
I was wrong with my Cnut history, your right. I apologise for my mistake.
However, your language leaves a lot to be desired, Chris, I hope your phallus* drops off with rot.
Phallus - cock to the uneducated twat.
a cock is a phallus only when it is erect.
Yes they've left Gordon "save the world" Brown and Barack "born on Krypton" Obama far behind.
<-- See icon
... a cock is a phallus whenever it's long enough to dangle, hard or soft. You're propagating a phallusy.
It's revenge for the Danes sleighting Marmite. Yup, two groups of loony nationalists making life less pleasant for the rest of us.
Sandy Toksvig made a joke that I actually find funny!
it wasn't actually tremendously funny. But when they passed round a bottle of the notorious Buckfast cheap "tonic wine" (caffeinated so that when you should pass out, you don't), and apparently all got impressively quickly drunk, -that- was most terrifically funny. It's deceptively strong stuff.
But I rather dislike the C-word when so used, partly because I gather that in the U.S. it has a different and more unpleasant secondary meaning, in the neighbourhood of "slut and/or whore". In Britain it basically means "inconsiderate", but it is provocatively rude.
So maybe it was funnier than I felt it to be.
> Sandy Toksvig made a joke that I actually find funny!
Yeah, but she nicked it from Private Eye.
I feel so sorry for him.
He obviously found it quite Harrowing....
Ok. Coat got.
Sounds like kittens!
will someone please think about the kittens?
So let me get this straight, she didn't actually SAY the word, just alluded to it... Some people need to get a sense of proportion. Silly twats!
...but she didn't say it last October!
Lets see how many complaints Bel Mooney and the Daily Mail can whip up. From people who clearly didn't even hear the broadcast.
Saying there is an N in Cuts means that the letter N could appear anywhere in that word. It is the filthy mind of Mr Harrow that created the rude word in his head, so he is actually complaining about his own dirty mind!
Whilst I agree that there are some terms that can be used in a humerous manner at an early hour, that particular word (IMHO) in no way has lost any shock value over recent years and is no way suitable for ANY hour of the day over broadcast media, or in any other aspect of life for that matter. In fact it is the only word that when used in conversation will make me firmly take issue with the user of it.
And to the BBC : If it has lost this "shock value" then why aren't you broadcasting it more often?
Perhaps if the BBC spent less time broadcasting shit, and concentrated more on quality then this country wouldn't be going down the pan in terms of how we all talk to one another in a respectful manner.
it's A WORD. A combination of sounds. You're shocked by it? Then I envy your life cause you don't know what shock is.
Should BBC use it casually? Probably not, because of people like you. Should they be penalized for it, should anyone really care? I think not.
Get a life.
I demand that my arbitrary choice of ranking of offensive phenome groups be given the proper respect it deserves.
Well expressed and unfortunately true.
You deserve one Sir (or Madam) for a succinct truism.
...since you managed a sh1t in something the children might read. Either that, or you're an inconsistent daft laddie.
They do. It was recently used on the Today show in an item about a Tory minister
According to Merriam-Webster on-line so "that particular word" as you put it has been around since the 14th century. Since it has survived in more or less common parlance since then I don't think an attention-seeking MP and a few linguistically anal moralists are going to have much of an effect.
I find throwing a wobblie about the slip in moral fibre against your ephemeral and mostly-historically-inaccurate behavioural standards works very much better if you abide by your own cobbled-together standards.
Also, probably because as the BBC are aware, words with lots of 'e's are far more common.
'Humorously'. And the 'H' is redundant, unless you're often given to spouting opinions you only pretend to hold.
I take exception to people taking exception to my choice of words. Words only have their power, contrary to V, because their speakers give them such.
You put the 'D' in ick.
Words are words, language is language. It should be celebrated for it's diversity rather than being censored.
A word on its own can't hurt you, you fool.
CUNT! Anyone's ears bleeding? Skies falling? Nope? OK then...
Words are given impact by context, not spelling. Restricting what someone can say, or even imply, based on some puritan notion of there being "special words" is ridiculous at best, and marks you out as being quite narrow-minded and fragile.
By the way, I take great offence at the usage of the word "respectful", in any context, when used in conversation with me. As a result, I demand you remove the above post from the forums. Wouldn't want to be disrespectful now, would you? Think of the children!
I find you use of the word Broadcasting offensive and shocking in this context.
I find the disrespectful manner in which you discuss the BBC to be equally offensive and you, sir, are singlehandedly contributing to the decline of this once great nation and its empire.
I also find the fact that you have alluded to a word you havent actually used to be mortally offensive and not something that can be tolerated. Just because you havent put "twat" in words in your post doesnt mean I cant be offended by the twattish nature of your post.
Please cease immediately and issue a formal apology (obviously ensuring it is in a manner that will offend absolutely no one).
Chill out you daft cunt
So wouldl these years be more or less recent than the years when threadneedle st was known as grab cunt lane?
mines the one with a punnet of 'peaches' in the pocket
I find your use of the word "shit" shocking
Ah just FCUK of and get a life
From what I heard on this, no offensive words were ACTUALLY said, other than "Tory".
Simply implying a word or using suggestive innuendo is not, and never will be swearing.
It was said with humorous intent and worked. Obviously the Daily Hate and Fear reader has had their statutory sense of humour bypass completed and the overwhelming sense of moral outrage translplanted instead.
Also, the absurdity of your use of Shit in a post complaining about the shock value iof a word which was not said defies all logic.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017