Quote: Kenneth @ October 26 2009, 2:57 PM BSTAKA Stephen G. Tallentyre.
No that was her pseudonymn when she liked to cross dress as a ball boy.
Too Far, Jimmy Carr? Page 9
Quote: Marc P @ October 26 2009, 2:38 PM BSToveram in tennis?
Yeah, but that was before sheep were banned from the courts 
Quote: Kenneth @ October 26 2009, 2:21 PM BSTNo Black Knight defence yet?
This sketch is a disgrace, our brave knights laid down their lives to spread the word of Christendom in the lands of the heathens and all these so called comedians can do is mock with their clever dick college boy humour.
Quote: Tim Walker @ October 25 2009, 5:07 PM BSTThis story is covered in several of the Sunday papers today...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/6427618/Anger-over-Jimmy-Carrs-joke-about-war-amputees.html
Personally, I think that it's a joke that isn't funny or clever enough to warrant the offence that it has given. Yes I know Carr always does these jokes, the audience should know what to expect and, yes, it didn't have any real malice. But it's like my whole problem with a lot of Mock The Week stuff... it's a joke that many of us could have come up with, but it's putting a desperation for laughs above a sense of humanity. Comedians shouldn't be censored, but the best ones have a set of ethics that they use to regulate themselves on what jokes they should and shouldn't use. I suppose that what I'm saying is that the very best comedians, IMO, show themselves to be human over and above the gags they tell. That's why Jimmy Carr all too often leaves me cold. It seems that a lot of comics, proud of the fact they don't do racist or sexist material (unlike the old "dinosaurs" of comedy), hypocritically seem to think pretty much anything else is fair game.
What strikes me is that there's no comment from people who were in the audience. Presumably as none of them complained or took offence. The commentators are the usual busybody types who make comment without any knowledge or understanding of the context. Cold, on-the-page like that it's not funny, but I'm pretty sure I've heard him use that line before, and I laughed at it. I can certainly imagine finding it funny when in his set.
Quote: Tony Cowards @ October 26 2009, 10:52 AM BSTI've done plenty of gigs for squaddies and other service personnel and I can say that if Jimmy Carr did that joke at a military gig they would p*ss themselves laughing (and indeed Jimmy Carr has visited injured troops in hospital and I wouldn't be surprised if he;d told the joke to service personnel, possibly even amputees).
Military personnel have very robust senses of humour, it's a defence mechanism for dealing with the things that they have to deal with on a day-to-day basis.
Another very good one-liner comic called Gary Delaney has done a load of army/navy gigs with me and he has done similarly dark/slightly tasteless jokes which have gone down a storm and with no complaints just cheering and applause.
The fact is that these things ARE happening, making jokes about them is much better than sweeping them under the carpet IMHO and from my experience service men and women would rather we, as comics (and writers), tackled these subjects rather than treat them with kid gloves and skirt around the issues.
Jokes of that ilk must also be a nice, refreshing contrast to the patronising touchy-feely treatment they must get from every other person they come into contact with.
Quote: Tony Cowards @ October 26 2009, 12:17 PM BSTWhat I don't understand is why this has come to prominence now when Carr has been doing this joke for quite some time?
Slow news day or the Government trying to shift blame about why troops are getting injured (and is the timing of this, in the run up to Remembrance Sunday, a bit fishy) and becoming amputees (poorly and ill-equipped troops being asked to do a job without being fully supported by a penny pinching Government who'd rather spend £80 Billion on nukes we'll never use but not a fraction of that on armoured vehicles, helicopters and body armour which would actually save soldiers lives and limbs)?
I'm not sure how much blame we can place on the Government for bringing this joke to our attention - but the timing particularly being in the middle of a storm about TA training and funding, it's somewhat suspicious, yes.
Quote: Tony Cowards @ October 26 2009, 1:04 PM BSTAlso I'd like to point out the irony in this 'controversy' being stirred up by the Daily Express, a newspaper that has so much respect for amputees that they've twice been forced to apologise, by the PCC, to Heather Mills for printed unsubstantiated slurs about her.
But were those "slurs" related to her having one leg, or about her being an annoying twat?
Quote: Tim Walker @ October 26 2009, 1:24 PM BSTTenuous.
"Say what you like about these servicemen amputees from Iraq and Afghanistan, but we're going to have a f**king good Paralympic team in 2012."
"servicemen amputees" - bad thing.
"f**king good Paralympic team" - good thing.
Bad, good. Contrast. In what possible way is that not highlighting the silver lining coming from a terrible situation?
I'm epileptic (bad thing), but at least I get a free Oyster card (good thing).
Bad situation, silver lining. Simple.
Quote: Aaron @ October 29 2009, 4:21 PM BSTI'm epileptic (bad thing), but at least I get a free Oyster card (good thing).
You get a free Oyster card for epilepsy? That's a touch.
Although the joke was in bad taste, strangely for Jimmy Carr, he managed to make an accurate social observation.
Quote: Ronnie Anderson @ October 29 2009, 4:24 PM BSTAlthough the joke was in bad taste, strangely for Jimmy Carr, he managed to make an accurate social observation.
Did he? For one thing, expecting the 2012 British para-Olympic team to benefit from the last few years of servicemen amputees is a bit of an optimistic comment. It implies that rehabilitation from these type of injuries is almost straightforward and battle-scarred men (both physically and mentally) will instantly transform themselves into top athletes. The reality is that battlefield related traumatic amputations have a very high rate of complications during rehab (using relating to infection) and that mental recovery (which is vital for rehab) does not necessarily progress at the same rate as physical recovery. The papers will only ever tell you the upbeat stories of the optimistic and well-adjusted amputee soldiers, usually in the early days of their recovery when their expectations are high.
A more realistic view of what happens to a lot of maimed and traumatised ex-soldiers who have fought for this country is to be found in various hostels, mental institutions, prisons and talking to the homeless on our streets. This is the reality of where so many ex-servicemen end up. The after-care for our soldiers - both physically and mentally - after leaving combat has historically been woeful.
Maybe the 2016 British para-Olympic team benefiting would have been a more socially accurate observation. 
Nonetheless there are quite a lot of injured soldiers who are training for the paraolympics.
I agree that this wasn't something that should have been joked about but part of the reason I didn't find it funny apart from it being sick was that he was sort of stating the obvious.
Quote: Tim Walker @ October 26 2009, 2:31 PM BSTThe difference for me is that none of his material is truthfully personal, really about him, and he has nothing much to say about the world.
Good. With 95% of stand up routines being along the lines of "The other day, I was..." it's nicely refreshing to have something that isn't (or isn't mostly) personalised.
Quote: Tim Walker @ October 26 2009, 2:31 PM BSTHis jokes wouldn't be any more or any less funny if you just read them on the page.
Disagree a lot.
Quote: john lucas 101 @ October 26 2009, 2:49 PM BSTI prefer my comedians wth a little more fibre, such as Stewart Lee.
Yes, there is a lot of shit in Stewart Lee's act.
Quote: john lucas 101 @ October 29 2009, 4:24 PM BSTYou get a free Oyster card for epilepsy? That's a touch.
Well strictly speaking it's because I'm (at least at present) unable to drive, rather than just because I'm epileptic. But you get the point.
Quote: Tim Walker @ October 29 2009, 4:34 PM BSTDid he? For one thing, expecting the 2012 British para-Olympic team to benefit from the last few years of servicemen amputees is a bit of an optimistic comment. It implies that rehabilitation from these type of injuries is almost straightforward and battle-scarred men (both physically and mentally) will instantly transform themselves into top athletes. The reality is that battlefield related traumatic amputations have a very high rate of complications during rehab (using relating to infection) and that mental recovery (which is vital for rehab) does not necessarily progress at the same rate as physical recovery. The papers will only ever tell you the upbeat stories of the optimistic and well-adjusted amputee soldiers, usually in the early days of their recovery when their expectations are high.
A more realistic view of what happens to a lot of maimed and traumatised ex-soldiers who have fought for this country is to be found in various hostels, mental institutions, prisons and talking to the homeless on our streets. This is the reality of where so many ex-servicemen end up. The after-care for our soldiers - both physically and mentally - after leaving combat has historically been woeful.
Maybe the 2016 British para-Olympic team benefiting would have been a more socially accurate observation.
It was supposed to be a joke. lots of people found it funny, lots found it offensive. I think you're trying to analyse it too seriously now.
Quote: Chappers @ October 29 2009, 6:10 PM BSTIt was supposed to be a joke. lots of people found it funny, lots found it offensive. I think you're trying to analyse it too seriously now.
I was merely responding to those who have asserted that it was a socially conscious joke. I think it was just a badly-misjudged gag with no particular higher motive.
Quote: Aaron @ October 29 2009, 4:43 PM BSTWell strictly speaking it's because I'm (at least at present) unable to drive, rather than just because I'm epileptic. But you get the point.
Unfair I can't drive! Because I'm too lazy to learn.
Is this discussion still going?
Quote: Tim Walker @ October 29 2009, 7:03 PM BSTI was merely responding to those who have asserted that it was a socially conscious joke. I think it was just a badly-misjudged gag with no particular higher motive.
I don't think for a minute he had a higher motive. But that isn't the point, the core difference in opinion it seems is that some people take the joke to have "amputee servicemen" as victims of the joke and others don't. I'm very much in the latter camp, and I think those in the former are looking for something that's not really there. Yes, amputee servicemen can be thought of as victims, but before the joke actually starts and not victims of the joke itself.
I don't think it's a great joke, but I don't get all this kerfuffle either.
Anatomy Of A Kerfuffle:
Reporter goes to gig.
Carr tells joke.
Reporter writes it down.
Reporter calls for comment mother of brain-damaged amputee soldier, neither of whom saw gig.
Reporter calls friendly Tory MP who wasn't at the gig for hypocritical comment.
Newspaper publishes story.
Other newspapers copy, embellish, story.
Government decides it needs to comment also, to prevent losing defence brownie points to Cameron.
It's horseshit, beginning to end. It's the reason that comics are not even allowed to banter off-mic at recordings any more (according to Richard Herring on Newsnight last night).
Quote: Kevin Murphy @ October 29 2009, 8:43 PM BSTAnatomy Of A Kerfuffle:
Exactly. The absence of any quotes from anyone claiming to have been at the gig is really quite telling. If anyone has been offended and upset it is not by Carr telling the gag, it is by the newspapers reporting it, as they knew and intended. Hypocritical scum.