DB7

Caught a bit of this last night and thought Davidson's 'un pc' excuse predictable and lame. On tv, he was mostly regarded as a 'family entertainer' and should know how to behave on peak-time ITV and adjust accordinly. Neither am I sure it was ever 'on' to abuse some of those he has a record of upsetting; domestic violence for starters.

Dame Starry

Don't forget his panto - or whatever it is - 'Sinderella'. Has he ever really been a family entertainer - apart from 'The Generation Game'? Other than that, I've only ever really seen him telling x-rated or sexist jokes - especially on all the shows he used to do for the troops; maybe he's spent too much time with them!
He doesn't like or trust women - but it's all his own fault because he never works at relationships. Probably why he didn't work well in a team in HK.

Starry x.
(Marriage Guidance - Wednesday
Plumbing - Friday)

The Christmas countdown has begun - don't leave it all until the last minute!

samkydd

The problem is that comedians of his ilk earn a lot more than alternative comedians, and army camps etc want that sort of non-PC stuff. Even an unknown mainstreamer will pick up three or four hundred quid per gig for spouting off other people's material, whereas comedy clubs pay peanuts for good acts using original material. Some alternatives abandon their principles and go on the mainstream circuit to earn extra money doing the non-PC stolen gags. It's just necessity in most cases.

"...the chairman of Littlewoods stores made a Keynote speech!"

Dame Starry

As far as I know, he did the shows for the troops for nothing.
I think maybe he's like me - of an age where anything was permissable in the 60's/70's to barely being able to open your mouth now!
I'm not sticking up for him at all but, of course, that's why he's gone out of fashion as far as his 'career' goes; it's quite daunting when it all changes so quickly - and so much!

Starry x.

The Christmas countdown has begun - don't leave it all until the last minute!

DB7

I certainly wouldn't class him as a 70s comic like Benny Hill. I think he's very much a product of the 80s and one unable to allow his act to evolve.

Dame Starry

No - I was just commenting on the era he grew up in.
Like me, he was very young in the 70s, but the times were very different. The problem is that those are the 'formative' years which form the basis of us as adults. It's quite hard to shake them off once they're embedded in us. You're young enough to have this constant 'evolution' embedded into you and are, probably used to it.
It's nobody's fault - it's a sign of the times. However, it has created quite a generation gap that I certainly didn't have with my parents when I was young. My son, who's 29, appears to live on another planet!
I've got to that age where I am sick of the constant changes that we live under - I don't think my parents reached that until they were in their 60s! Oh well, not long to go........!

YDS x.

The Christmas countdown has begun - don't leave it all until the last minute!

Carmel

No matter what generation common courtesy is all we ask when Jim was told he offended Brian the first time Common courtesy why didn't he just stop being offensive i have Gay friends and never would i ever talk to them like that yes we joke about but we dont offend. My mother and Father where brought up in a different era and never would talk to someone with the contempt that Jim talked to Brian. My Gay friends are my sole friends although i am straight and i think are the apple of the earth they treat me like a lady and we have a laugh so Jim offended a whole lot of people not just Gay's but people that have gay people as friends.

Dame Starry

Carmel, are you saying that you only have gay friends?
In the 70s, I worked in a part of telecommunications where the majority of men were gay. Interestingly enough, they were often the first to make certain remarks themselves - a lot of which I couldn't actually repeat to you and were, in fact, embarrassing to me as I was very young at the time! Gay men are much different now than they were then, mainly because they no longer have to hide the fact that they are gay the way that they used to. Times have changed considerably - homosexuals of both sexes can even get married now and be divorced for adultery. In the 70s and 80s, who would ever have thought that would be allowed?

The Christmas countdown has begun - don't leave it all until the last minute!

penfold

I'm with Carmel here...Political Correctness is purely good manners....my parents and I had a gay couple living next door for around thirty years, from the early sixties, and there is no way on earth my parents would have said anything against them, to their faces or behind their backs. Davidson can kiss what remained of his mainstream TV career goodbye.

Bit of a Bay Window, what??

batman

In it's original form 'political incorrectness' was a Marxist-Leninist term which was intended to convey the belief that an individual could not have 'extreme' political ideas and still be thought of as a good party member. The individual had to be 'politically correct' to be able stay in the party.

The term was hi-jacked by various US pressure groups in the 70s and 80s as a convenient way to try and convince people that their ideals were 'right'. Anyone who spoke against them was deemed to be 'politically incorrect'.

I don't believe 'political correctness' is purely good manners. Good manners are about having respect for others in all circumstances. They have nothing to do with 'political correctness' which seeks to impose subjective rigid views and ideals on others.

Jim Davidson and others of his kind are ill mannered, but who is to say they are 'politically incorrect'. It depends on one's own politics. A BNP member may say they are 'politically correct'. I say he is simply 'a lout' which by definition is 'a person who behaves in a rude, offensive and sometimes violent way'.

IMHO 'political correctness' has done more harm than good. Democratic societies find their own way of coping with issues that can cause conflict within them. They usually result in agreed changes being made. 'Political correctness', as practised by pressure groups, councils etc takes the idea back to its origins by imposing subjective rules on individuals and groups.

One example ....

How many non-Christians actually find the celebration of Christmas offensive? In my experience very few. Yet many schools in this area are not allowed to celebrate Christmas in the traditional way. It has been adapted as a 'seasonal celebration of winter', so as not to offend or exclude non-Christians. Many of the non-Christians I know reacted by saying they were angry that this was done without consulting the parents of the children, or the children themselves. They wanted their children to be part of traditional Christian celebrations and were also keen for Christian children to understand and enjoy non-Christian religious festivals etc.

This was a subjective decision made by the LEA with the intention of not offending a specific group, without consultation with that group or any of the others involved. They thought they were being 'politically correct' but IMHO they were being 'politically incorrect' (and ill-mannered) by not talking with anyone, thereby not showing respect for any of the people involved.

'Political correctness' is redundant as a useful tool for good purposes. It is seen by most people as a tool simply to impose subjective views on others, whether they agree with them or not.

So let's not give Davidson and his ilk the get out clause of claiming 'the 'politically correct' crowd are out to get me', let's call them what they really are .... louts.

Bats.

"Boom boom a baby .... Banham Zoo .... Banana pants! Hahahaha"

Steve Crook

First, check if this really was the case. This sort of thing is often reported in the newspapers but when the authorities concerned are asked they deny they ever even considered it.

Then, if it really did happen, did anyone actually object? Or did they just grumble?

Steve

batman

Yes, it was the case. I was personally involved in one such incident. Many parents took their objections to the school and then on to the LEA. The LEA claimed there had been a 'misunderstanding' (even though the parents had seen letters sent to the school by the LEA) and backed down.

Bats.

"Boom boom a baby .... Banham Zoo .... Banana pants! Hahahaha"

Steve Crook

Glad to hear it. Common sense prevailed. There are some occasions like that where it's basically just thoughtlessness and someone making wrong assumptions about what people want.

But there are also many cases where such things are reported where there's not a hint of truth in them

Steve

Dame Starry

I don't think that anybody would deny that - but it was already well and truly over and I think he knows that. His time has passed.

Well said too, Bats. Spot on.

The Christmas countdown has begun - don't leave it all until the last minute!

batman

Absolutely, you have summed up my thoughts exactly.

Bats.

"Boom boom a baby .... Banham Zoo .... Banana pants! Hahahaha"