Frankie Boyle Says Not All Comics Are Lefties. Is This His Best Joke Yet?

Left-wing comedian Frankie Boyle has written an article in the left-wing Guardian explaining to his amen corner of left-wing readers that all his left-wing contemporaries who play left-wing comedy sets at left-wing comedy clubs, perform on left-wing TV panel shows and appear on left-wing comedy programmes on left wing BBC Radio 4 aren’t in fact left-wing at all but hold a broad array of political opinions.

Nice one, Frankie. One of your funniest.

You can tell his heart’s really not in the joke, though, because he keeps undermining it at every turn with sentences like this:

“Comedians, being decent sorts deep down, maybe just don’t take kindly to what they see as their fellows being targeted because of their race or gender.”

To appreciate fully what is so very wrong with this statement, you need to know the context of Boyle’s article. It was written in response to a very brave post on Facebook by comedian Andrew Lawrence having a dig at the “moronic, liberal back-slapping on panel shows like Mock The Week where aging, balding, fat men, ethnic comedians and women-posing-as-comedians, sit congratulating themselves on how enlightened they are about the fact that UKIP are ridiculous and pathetic.”

Boyle, it should be noted, is a middle aged and, though not balding or fat, has been a regular on Mock The Week, a comedy show so gag-destroyingly right on it might have been scripted by Polly Toynbee, Harriet Harman and Yasmin Alibhai Brown.

Understandably, Lawrence’s comments hit a raw nerve.

Read the rest at Breitbart London

Related posts:

  1. Comedian Frankie Boyle is a bully and a politically correct coward. Wish I’d never stood up for him.
  2. Spectator: Women can’t do comedy
  3. Television: Weekly shockers
  4. Nick Clegg’s riot inquiry panel is beyond a joke

 

From Farage to Freud: How the Cultural Marxists Are Murdering Our Language

The other day on BBC Radio 4’s Any Questions, I made a point which unfortunately went right over the heads of my booing audience. It had to do with the way lefties like my fellow panelists Chuka Umunna MP and TUC leader Frances O’Grady too often choose to misrepresent the meaning of perfectly harmless words and language for nefarious political ends.

We were discussing Labour’s confected furore over Lord Freud’s remarks on the disabled. As is now abundantly clear to anyone even halfway acquainted with the background to the story – the fact, for example, that his comments were addressed sympathetically to the father of a severely disabled daughter – Lord Freud’s intentions and meaning were unimpeachably honourable and decent.

So instead his critics resorted to that well-tested lefty fallback position: distortion and misrepresentation. In this case, Lord Freud’s remarks about disabled people being thought by employers to be not “worth the full wage” were twisted so as to mean that he thought disabled people were “worthless.”

This is a weasel trick and when Labour MP Chuka Umunna tried it on Any Questions, I called him out on it. Umunna has his faults but unutterable stupidity is not one of them. Suppose, I put it to him, that he had heard someone in the pub after a rugger match boasting about having “murdered” the opposition. Would he call the police?

Of course he wouldn’t because like anyone born into our richly allusive English-speaking culture he would have understood that our language depends as much on tone and context as it does on the words themselves. That verb “murder” is a perfect example of this. Sometimes, it can indeed mean literally “kill”. But on many other occasions it can mean something innocuous like desperation for a drink (“I could murder a pint”) or abject defeat in a board game (“he murdered me at Scrabble”).

And the amazing thing is that despite the fact that depressingly large sections of our population have low IQs, are functionally illiterate, and are almost totally uneducated thanks to our dumbed-down education system, even the most unutterable thickos among us are yet capable of grasping these semantic nuances – even though they wouldn’t know what a “semantic nuance” was if it bit them on the arse.

So if even the thickest of thick native English speakers can understand basic concepts like the fact that even though “worth less” and “worthless” sound the same but actually mean something different – why can’t a bright, articulate, Manchester- and Burgundy-University-educated, City lawyer like Chuka Umunna?

The answer, of course, is that it suits him not to – in much the same way it suited Nigel Farage’s various lefty-feminist critics not to at the time of his supposedly contentious remarks earlier this year about women in the City.

What Farage said, you may remember, was this:

“And if a woman has a client base, has a child and takes two or three years off work, she is worth far less to the employer when she comes back than when she went away because her client base will not have stuck rigidly to her.”

This is a fairly straightforward economic point which, I’m quite sure, any City employer would tell you (albeit guardedly, lest they seem in any way “discriminatory”) is no more than the ground truth.

Yet the truth was no defence for the likes of Labour MPs such as Harriet Harman who naturally piled in to accuse Farage of saying something he had never actually said: that female employees are, to some degree, “worthless.”

Of course I understand why the Harmans and the Umunnas of the world play this game: it’s a useful way of circumventing the awkward fact that the left rarely has any useful arguments.

But what astonishes me is our cultural tolerance for it…

Read the rest at Breitbart London

Related posts:

  1. How the malign, totalitarian left played the ‘disability’ card to brand an innocent man a thought criminal
  2. The fake disabled are crippling our economy
  3. Treating Islam with special reverence is cultural suicide and just plain wrong
  4. If we’re going to rage against cultural atrocities, let’s make sure we target the right ones

 

The ineffable wrongness and stupidity of Harriet Harman

“Ageist” BBC must reinstate Arlene, says Harman.

Until I read that headline, I thought I knew exactly where I stood on l’affaire Strictly Come Dancing. I’m old enough to remember getting jolly excited watching lovely Arlene Phillips and Hot Gossip pouting and bottom-waggling their way through I Lost My Heart To A Starship Trooper, so I’m also old enough to be bothered by talented people losing their jobs as a result of “ageism”. (Though the BBC, of course, denies that this was the reason it decided to replace Phillips, 66, with sexy, pouty, hot, vixen-babe, pop-star, baby-doll, nymphette, chick Alesha Dixon, 30.)

Now that Harriet Harman has intervened, however, I have shifted my position completely. Everything this bossy, interfering, and – for a QC and an ex Paulina – quite astonishingly thick class traitor ever says in that dreary fake-pleb accent of hers is stupid and wrong, be it on the subject of  female equality or television game show casting. If she told me sharks were vicious, deadly maneaters I would confidently dive into a tank full of ravening great whites, secure in the knowledge that I would come to no harm.

It is for this reason, I can now declare with absolute certainty that Arlene Phillips is a lame old hag who totally had it coming to her, that there’s no one on earth who less deserves to be a Strictly Come Dancing judge and that anyone would have done the job than her better up to and including Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong Il or the late Dame Thora Hird.

Sorry, Arlene.

Related posts:

  1. On Plimer, climate change and the ineffable barkingness of George Moonbat
  2. Stung into stupidity – or heroism
  3. What BBC Radio 2’s Chris Evans thinks about global warming
  4. 10 Reasons Why We Shouldn’t Be In Libya