Joke with a mutual jag?

A person is invited to deliver a humourous after dinner speech. It’s a smoke filled room. He begins by saying “Fuck sake has another pope died?”. Bad taste? A good opener? Free speech? Blatant sectarianism? Anti-sectarianism and Roman Catholic groups are calling for action. Others believe it is free speech and objections charaterise Catholics as humourless and narrow-minded. The Faculty of Advocates is having to decide .

  • I’d find it hard to envisage such a fuss being made had a Catholic speaker made a similar joke at the expense of Protestantism.

    I would not wish to attend events to hear these kind of jokes, but I’d fully defend Mr Findlay’s right to make them.

  • iain

    its obviously bad taste to joke about the death of somebody! the fact (which you leave out) that it was told at a Rangers supporter event i think increases the likelyhood of a sectarian overtone.

  • Dave allen is art hostages hero

    Jesus are we analysising our humour now. It’s a JOKE ffs!! Laugh. Bernard Manning died yesterday, he wasn’t very PC but he sure was funny.

  • Someone gets offended at something they weren’t even there to see and somebody’s career potentially hangs on a thread because of something said at a… Rangers’ Club in Larne. What a waste of everyone’s time, except for the miserable old git who brought the case who obviously has little enough else to fill his days with.

  • Aaron S

    It’s disingenuous to discuss this without referencing Findlay’s past behaviour.

  • kensei

    “It’s disingenuous to discuss this without referencing Findlay’s past behaviour.”

    Zing.

  • I see Mr Lynch, the complainant comes from Larbert in Stirlingshire, which is quite a distance from Larne and which he didn’t actually hear himself. (Now what does that remind me of?) It all seems a bit pathetic: if Findlay had made a joke about religion in general, which is OK in PC terms, I suspect Mr Lynch would not have run squealing to the Faculty of Advocates.

    Oh and Findlay’s joke was certainly offensive although I hardly expect refined humour at a social event in a supporters’ club.

    Here’s a Donald joke of my own. He was once asked what GRFC could do after winning 9 titles in a row. He scratches his beard and says, “Now we’re going to sue the historians who claim King Billy was gay.”

  • Cruimh

    Joke in poor taste. No big deal.
    Mr Findlay is being harassed.

  • shoe on other foot

    looks harmless to me…just like…”hey, its very smoky in here, did more dog club people die”

  • foreign correspondent

    Believe it or not a lot of Catholics have no time for the Pope so couldnt care less if he is the butt of jokes. Only thing is if you give it you have to take it, so are all things Protestant fair game as joke material as well? If they are that´s ok and there is no problem.

  • Cruimh

    “Only thing is if you give it you have to take it, so are all things Protestant fair game as joke material as well?”

    Well, a lot of bums made some dodgy cracks about Paul Berry !

  • Juan

    Is it contrite to mention the 4 inches of press dedicated to a certain chaps antics in the hatfield bar ?

    should we look at Anto MacIntyre’s assertion that north Antrim Protestants are !”mentally deranged hill billies” ?

    if it is offence to make jokes on the subject of religion, why are art galleries up and down the country displaying provocative and offensive desacrations of Christian imagery ?

    Or is it only offensive when Protestants make these sorts of remarks ?

    This is not about freedom of speech, freedom of speech has never exsisted in Britian, it is about the constant presecution of particular groups to the letter of the law so that they may suffer losses of liberty and restrictions of expression that there is no call for hte rest of society to bear. It is discrimination pretending to take umbridge at offensive language, but only it seems, when the offensive language is employed against things they value by people they have clear track record of defamation against. The mans coments are little more than a political conveinance for a program of hostility that exsisted before and will exsist after this incident. the answer is for prods to scrutinise the comments made by prominant Catholics and demand that the law be applied universally.

  • joeCanuck

    If the guy is being “tried” on the basis of that one joke, then it is a ridiculous affair.
    Most Catholics that I know would have laughed at it.
    But perhaps I keep odd company.

  • Frank Sinistra

    I think you’ll find there are two aspects to this case. One is the part FD notes, complaints from the public (two people not one as the link states).

    The others is a Faculty of Advocates investigation for bringing the Faculty into disrepute. Which he most certainly has and as it is a pattern of behaviour that lead to the Faculty fining him for sectarian actions in the past I hope they throw the book at the habitually bigoted big-mouth.

    Just a joke you say? Well in some jobs you just aren’t allowed to be a publicly sectarian and bigoted twat, the law is one and he knew it having been fined before.

    Tough titty.

  • foreign correspondent

    Juan, no offence, mate, but you need to use a spellchecker.
    PS is Umbridge anywhere near Cambridge? 🙂
    I´ll get me coat…

  • Niall

    As a southerner I’d probably have laughed if I’d heard it at a social event down here (depends on the delivery).

    It’s not the joke I object to: its lawyers who defend sectarian murderers and bigoted Rangers fans I find loathsome.

  • Slartibartfast

    Whatever your opinion it was a stupid thing to say and a man in his position should have known better. He was bound to have known that a statement like that would have caused offence. When Paul Gascoine played for Rangers and made that Flute March celebratory dance, he could have been forgiven for being an idiot and not really knowing what he was doing. A QC has no such defence.

  • The others is a Faculty of Advocates investigation for bringing the Faculty into disrepute. Which he most certainly has

    You think it’s possible to bring lawyers into any more disrepute than they already are?

  • juan

    your quite right, I need spell check and am a living example of the perils that await your kids if the grammar schools are done in.

    Niall, you need to consider the right of everyone to legal defence, your argument is as valid as those who complain about the clientele of pat finucan.

    and to shoe on other foot, the difference between satirising the death of a public figure who states that anyone not directly subservient to him will burn in hell and the making fun of an act of mass murder would, I’d have thought, been obvious, public figures are open (legitimately) to criticism that random murder victims are not, for example jokes about Ian paisley serve a function,
    jokes about the victims of child molester priests do not.

    the right to free comment must be maintained even if individuals use it poorly, it is better to bear the blathering of idiots than to silence valid and important information and opinions, if we are to refrained from all negative comment on the roman catholic system and its adherents, certainly nonsense like this would be avoided and that would do no harm, but what other necessary comments on the organisation and its activates would be forcibly silenced as well ?

  • Ziznivy

    “its lawyers who defend sectarian murderers”

    Some of them have had centres for “human rights” set up in their names. ho hum.

  • Ziznivy

    Whoops. Hadn’t read Juan’s comment.

  • Mauds gone

    Oh come on – it was a joke! I am one of those “taig catholics” he may (or may not – but probably was) trying to offend. It was kind of funny, even if it was in poor taste. I’m not sure it deserves this much discussion! Just like some people find the passing of wind funny, others get offended but I’ve never seen a thread dedicated to it!!!! 🙂

  • I Wonder

    Is anyone capable of determining the difference between something said “to wind up” and some thing equally offensive said – “and he MEANS it”?

  • páid

    Just because us fenians complain about this disgusting, hate-filled, bigoted, so-called joking does not mean we have no sense of humour.

    As if the College of Cardinals would be meeting in Larne, disguised as Rangers supporters in order to elect a Pope. They have St. Peter’s Chapel in Rome to do this job, after all.

    However, Juan, you are totally incorrect in trying to draw a parallel with North Antrim Protestants, of whom there is a welter of independent, peer-reviewed, medical evidence to prove without any doubt that they are, in fact, mentally deranged hillbillies.

  • Mauds gone

    ..ooOO00 oh great, back to sectarian bigotry…. Politics does not equal religion…not a good look on either side of the divide Páid 00OOoo..

  • Cruimh

    “I am one of those “taig catholics” he may (or may not – but probably was) trying to offend. ”

    Mauds gone – I very much doubt he thought you were in the audience

    It was a joke that I could have seen Billy Connolly make to one of his audiences.

  • Todd

    A person is invited to deliver a humourous after Event speech (crowd are nearly all catholic). It’s a pagentry filled event with horse drawn carriages and colourful dress abound. He begins by saying “Fuck sake has the British Queen died?”

    Damn it is funny 🙂

  • Niall

    ‘Fuck sake has Princess Di died?’ would have been funnier. 😀

  • Cruimh

    Will Trevor Phillips get the sack ?

    “Britain’s top anti-racist official apologised “unreservedly” today for making a ‘joke’ about the late Queen Mother’s colostomy bag at a dinner.

    Trevor Phillips, the chairman of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights (CEHR), made the gag when giving a speech at a black tie dinner held at Imperial College London on Saturday night.”

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1949992.ece

  • páid

    There should be an IQ test before you’re allowed to post on this site.

    Duncan Shipley-Dalton, please step forward with a plan.

  • juan

    paid,
    so you see how remarks can be made in the light of jovial conversation that are not an entirely serious reflection of peoples opinions.
    Of course, if you sincerely believe that such a body of evidence exists against the entire protestant population of North Antrim (indicating that they are universally of a sub standard intellect and that a denigratory term can be legitimately applied to them by outsiders) then you are an advocate of a far more sinister culture of bigotry and persecution than anything that could be evidenced by a saucy joke at a football dinner, and the suggestion that the offence taken is a political contrivance by people wishing to advance their own anti-unionist defamatory agenda has again been endorsed.

    and indeed anti monarchy jokes of the crudest hew have been commonplace in bars and dinners and stadium terraces up and down the country, if we seek the legitimisation of this mans persecution by trying to illustrate that the converse situation would be equally offensive to Royalists, the 300 year old royally endorsed right to question and belittle the monarchy is a significant hurdle.

  • juan

    “There should be an IQ test before you’re allowed to post on this site”

    given you managed to totally contradict yourself with 5 lines in your last post i would not wish to hard.

    there are no fools like those who contrive to admire their own intelligence.

  • foreign correspondent

    I did an IQ test recently, a Pháid. I was very happy with my score of 192 – until I noticed that pesky decimal point between the 9 and 2.

    By the way did any of ye hear about the insomniac dyslexic agnostic who used to lie awake all night wondering if there was a Dog?

    The old jokes are the best, I say…

  • frank

    Hardly an isolated remark from Findlay or his sidekick Andy Goram

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_20050529/ai_n14646192

  • Martin

    Correspondent –

    Or the dyslexic devil-worshipper who sold his soul to Santa?

    Sorry…

  • Token Dissent

    Speaking as a deranged north Antrim hillbilly I probaly will become offended, but it’ll take my wee brain the rest of the day to understand the true depth of what McIntyre – with his towering intellect – is saying.

    On the broader point about humour and offence, I thought that Jim ‘Bullseye’ Bowen made a good point on Newsnight last night. (Jesus there is a line I never thought I would say!) Whilst he (basically) acknowleded that his mate Manning was a racist fool, he also questioned the humour of shows like Little Britain which also pick on easy vulnerable targets: the elderly and the poor. In a few years we might be looking back at today’s mainstream with the same distain.

    As for Finlay, I think the real joker is the fella who has the talent for victimhood.

  • nmc

    Everyone is entitled to hold whatever views they want, right or wrong. However after reading through the link posted by Frank I think it is fair to question whether this man should be a QC. If he truly holds the sectarian views mentioned then it is possible that he is not the best person to deliver fair, unbiased judgements on the people who appear before him in court.

    To put it another way if he was a judge here in NI his feet wouldn’t touch the ground. His behaviour would be judged as totally inappropriate. If he were a comedian it would be fair enough but he’s not, the man is responsible for making decisions affecting other people’s freedom, and as such he should be unbiased and above reproach, not making crude jokes of any kind.

  • Suilven

    ‘If he truly holds the sectarian views mentioned then it is possible that he is not the best person to deliver fair, unbiased judgements on the people who appear before him in court.
    ‘ nmc

    He’s not a judge – he’s an Advocate, so he’s required to represent his client in court to the best of his ability, which a Catholic fellow Advocate has already testified that he does.

    To be frank, the nature and background of the complainants here are laughable, given the nature of the case. One (Mr Hugh Lynch), a retired RC school headmaster – so he held a job that Findlay could never have gotten due to his perceived religion (presbyterian) or professed affiliation (atheist) – how anti-sectarian.

    Two, (Tom Minogue) – a convicted fraudster, who at his trial accused the judge of being a Freemason and therefore biased. Only problem? The judge was a woman! I think I’d prefer Findlay defending me, personally. For a follow-up, Minogue’s single objection (of a population of c. 1 million in Lothians/Fife) to a paltry 20p rise in the toll for the Forth Road Bridge resulting in a massively expensive public enquiry being convened, which inevitably ruled in favour of the rise.

    In short, if these two MOPEs and serial complainers are the best that can be dredged up in the whole of Scotland, it shows the weakness of the case against Findlay.

  • páid

    hey juan,

    now who can’t take a joke?

  • darren

    We should not forget that findlay was sacked by Glasgow Rangers after being filmed singing the sash & other sectarian songs at a Rangers ‘celebration’ dinner.

    Findlay is a sectarian bigot, as his his fellow traveller Andy Goram, who wore a black armband in memory of his friend Billy Wright & was pictured posing with terrorist flags in Belfast.

    Its a bit like BNP leader Nick Griffen telling an islamic or jewish joke and saying he was just having a laugh.

  • I wonder…

    Darren
    In other words, with reference to my earlier post – “he means it”!

    This is where the late Bernard Manning fell down – on the Mrs Merton show he was bigoted and racist without even a gloss of humour or satire, or (even) twinkling eyes – these being the external clues as to whether someonen is doing a wind-up or not.

  • merrie

    Just read the report in FD’s link. I am not offended by either statement about the Pope and the other about the nun, but what are the jokes there?

    Uh???

    Can’t see any humour in either of them.

  • confused

    This joke is in poor taste.
    Bring back the Inquisition—that will teach these liberals a thing or two.

  • Comrade Stalin

    I found the remark quite amusing. Agreed with Cruimh, Billy Connolly could have made this remark. Arguably, he has made much more “offensive” comments.

    The ironic thing about this is that people are only offended because the bloke who made the comment is (nominally) a prod.

  • Cahal

    A public defender telling pope jokes at a Rangers fund raiser in Larne…..

    How does somebody with such seemingly little common sense get so far in life?

  • kensei

    CS

    I’ll run your comment through correct-o-vision:

    “The ironic thing about this is that people are only offended because the bloke who made the comment is (actually) a bigot.”

  • andy

    CS
    its not just that he’s a prod though. Its more that his background makes a lot of people think he meant it maliciously.

    Agree with the point that Connolly (among others) could have made it. In other contexts it would’t have merited much comment

  • Belfast Gonzo

    It’s one of those ‘black guys can call each other niggers, but if a white one does…’ moments.

  • PaddyReilly

    I agree that Billy Connolly could have made this joke and got away with it. But then Connolly is a comedian.

    Bernard Manning RIP could have told the joke about the sharks who fancied a Chinese takeaway and got away with it, but when a Conservative politician tried it he came acropper.

    I think the moral is that each of should, at a fairly young age, weigh up our career choices and decide, are we going to be:-

    a) a comedian
    b) a politician, public representative, judge, barrister/advocate, member of the Royal Family, diplomat, priest, minister or rabbi, possibly even doctor.

    If b), then we should for ever forswear making jokes, however funny they are. The English, it has already been established, like their law boring, and the Scots are not much different.

    This is a matter for the Faculty of Advocates to decide on grounds of whether this is appropriate behaviour for a lawyer, not for the general public to vote on on grounds of political correctness or freedom of speech. Probably the answer they will arrive at is that his attempts at humour are unsuited to a senior lawyer. Senior lawyers do make jokes, but the humour is the most subtle and restrained possible, leaving the innocent unaware that it was even attempted. A good example of legal humour came from the judge on the Munster Circuit (19th Century) who presided over a case involving a smuggler. He was found not guilty by the jury, who were obviously agin the government and possibly benefitting from the illegal trade. His final words were, “You have been found not guilty by a Tipperary jury and may leave this court without any other stain on your character.”

  • Harry Flashman

    **If he truly holds the sectarian views mentioned then it is possible that he is not the best person to deliver fair, unbiased judgements on the people who appear before him in court.**

    nmc, you clearly haven’t the faintest idea of what a QC actually does, have you?

  • Cruimh

    Paddy – Findlay was not speaking in public and he was not speaking in any professional capacity. He was, surely, in this case being an amateur comedian?

    It will be interesting to see if Trevor Phillips -who is both a politician and a paid public servant is treated differently.

  • iain

    paddy,
    very good.

  • Man makes sectarian joke in Larne Rangers Club Shocka!

  • PaddyReilly

    Findlay was not speaking in public and he was not speaking in any professional capacity. He was, surely, in this case being an amateur comedian?

    Well, the Inns of Court do not take kindly to moonlighting. Some girls I know got into trouble because they were working as barwomen to finance their way through training. I don’t suppose the Faculty of Advocates is any different.

    Equally, I don’t think George Galloway improved his profile by his stint on Big Brother. In his case, the voters are the ultimate authority: in Finlay’s it is the Faculty. As I said, this is a matter of a profession regulating the conduct of its members. The Faculty of Advocates does not rquire advice from Slugger as to whether this constitutes a sectarian sin or not.

  • Prince Eoghan

    >>#

    It’s disingenuous to discuss this without referencing Findlay’s past behaviour.
    Posted by Aaron S on Jun 19, 2007 @ 01:34 PM
    #

    “It’s disingenuous to discuss this without referencing Findlay’s past behaviour.”

    Zing.
    Posted by kensei on Jun 19, 2007 @ 01:40 PM

    Kerching!

    Well done to Frank for posting up some of the story that Fair-Deal happened to leave out. Context is everything.

    Happily enough the sad bigot’s birthday is on St. Patrick’s day. He has a private arrangement with a fellow QC who is Catholic to swap birthdays (his is the twelth) Findlay is an arse who is well known in Scotland for what he is. Presenting this as a joke in isolation is bad blogging from fair deal who in my opinion is usually one of if not the best blogger on site for veritas.

  • veloso

    Have to agree, context is everything. Yes, Billy Connolly could well have told this one – but for one thing he’s a Catholic and more importantly he tends to be indiscriminate in who he targets as the butt of his jokes (everyone is fair game). The context here, as Frank’s linked article makes clear, was an event laced exclusively with anti-Catholic sentiment.

    Is there another story here? What happened to the smoking ban in the North? Was this Qc attending an event at which the law was being openly flouted? After all, the ‘joke’ doesn’t make sense if there was no smoke in the room.

  • IJP

    It’s bad taste, but as Voltaire said…

  • Cruimh

    “Is there another story here? What happened to the smoking ban in the North? Was this Qc attending an event at which the law was being openly flouted? After all, the ‘joke’ doesn’t make sense if there was no smoke in the room. ”

    Veloso – this is about events May 2005.

  • snakebrain

    Yawn…

    I’m off to read the Satanic Verses

  • I find Donald Findlay’s ‘joke’ to be beyond belief, and I hope that the Faculty of Advocates punishes him as harshly as it can for making it.

    It is not a matter of free speech, in my opinion, but what a profession obliged to help enforce the law permits its members to do.

    Findlay’s ‘joke’ is slander which he should be obliged to back up in court. Given what happened to Pope John Paul I, his banker Roberto Calvi whose murder remains unsolved, etc., Findlay’s ‘joke’ is little more than stating that the Catholic Church is a bunch of ‘fucking killers’ – what any reliable lawyer should avoid joking about. (For more on this, see The 60 Greatest Conspiracies, pp. 114-8.)

    And I say this as no Catholic, though I was employed by a Catholic undergraduate college in the USA for quite awhile. The charge is a most serious one, one that should only be expressed in a most serious way – not as a ‘joke’ to a bunch of rabid Ranger supporters.

    Findlay is abusing his role as an attorney in acting this way.

  • ciaran

    I thought it was a good joke. In fact I hear when Bernard manning heard it he nearly died laughing……….

  • I don’t think that you are doing Findlay any favors by making the connection with Bernard Manning – the comedian noted for his racist barbs, etc., who has incidentally recently died.

    That makes him fair game, I guess, if anyone wants to make fun of his unexpected demise.

    Still neither you nor Manning are QCs who prosecute and defend suspects in Scottish trials – people who should not carry on in a way to make their bigotry public knowledge as it helps prejudice juries, no matter what his fellow QCs feel obliged to down play, so that none of them need worry about what they apparently say in private. That’s the way with all lawyers.

  • ciaran

    It was a joke, lighten up.And like it or not Qc’s are only human. I would be very suprised if his joke was a reflection of the way he conducts himself in court.

  • I am not about to lighten up about such matters.

    Findlay’s anti-Catholic remarks (and I am not a Catholic, and come from a Presbyterian, Anglican background) are so well-established that they attracted comment from a composer, and are never funny (seems you get your kicks out of hearing about Popes dying, one way or another), as this link from 1999 demonstrates:

    http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/special_report/1999/08/99/edinburgh_festival_99145149.stm

    And a court official with such a reputation is bound to affect court proceedings.

  • ciaran

    (seems you get your kicks out of hearing about Popes dying, one way or another)

    Get a life, I have a sense of humour, i don’t get my kicks from popes dying, and as a catholic I don’t take offence at the joke.Unfortunately your link isn’t working so I don’t know what you are refering to.
    Everyone has their own predjuces on different matters, why should Qcs be any different. You seem to want perfection in them which is never going to happen.

    “And a court official with such a reputation is bound to affect court proceedings. ”
    Just how is he bound to affect proceedings any more than any other offical. I do not know the man or his reputation but if you have evidence to back your statements please share them with me as I am genuinely interested.

  • Prince Eoghan

    >>I do not know the man or his reputation but if you have evidence to back your statements please share them with me as I am genuinely interested.<

  • You must be a most multi-culutral Catholic to like such racist banter, ciaran.

    The link I posted – what concerns, as far as I recall, composer James MacMillan’s complaints about anti-Catholicism in Scotland, especially Donald Findlay’s – can be obtained by just typing in what I wrote on your address line. I cannot understand why it cannot be called up by the link I provided.

    And if you cannot see how a rabid anti-Catholic can affect a prosecution, either from the prosecution’s or defence’s side, you must be totally blind to what goes on in court proceedings.

    The juror might well be predisposed to conclude that the prosecution was just a bunch of bigoted bollocks, or the Bog Irish defendant had much more to answer for.

    In sum, you need to get a better grip on the real world.

  • ciaran

    First of all typing the address in still produces nothing so I cannot comment on the contents.Secondly , that was not racist banter, in fact it was not racist in any way. If you cannot see the humour in it then I think you must lead a very dull life. All humour needs a target and if you think it is trying to hurt the target then maybe all humour should be banned.
    You call him a rabid anti catholic, yet you did not provide any evidence to show it. I think I said in my previous post that I would be genuinley interested in seeing it. And if you think all jurors are impartial then I think YOU need to join the real world because it is the jury who have the final say. Also why the slur of Bog Irish defendant .Is that not racist.

  • ciaran

    Having read the article in the scotsman I can still not see what the problem is here. According to the report, jokes were also made about paisley so he is hardly being biased. Yes it seems that he would be more pro protestant , but that is not a crime. And what he said is also not slander as you suggested in an earlier post. Even taking his reported actions at face value it still does not make him a rabid anti catholic. As someone said earlier, its a storm in a teacup, worse still because it happened two years ago.

  • frank
  • Sorry, ciaran, I cannot work your keyboard from here in Sweden.

    But the article can be found by just going on Google, and typing in “Donald Findlay’s anti-Catholic remarks.” The article is a BBC one, the second one down.

    It shows that Findlay’s rabid anti-Catholicism has been notorious since at least the Edinburgh Festival in 1999.

    It’s long past time for restraining in this controversial QC.

  • ciaran

    As I said I have read the article and rabid anti catholic does not fit what I have read. Maybe you are mixing up what he said with the remarks of his two friends.

    “Findlay’s ‘joke’ is slander which he should be obliged to back up in court. Given what happened to Pope John Paul I, his banker Roberto Calvi whose murder remains unsolved, etc., Findlay’s ‘joke’ is little more than stating that the Catholic Church is a bunch of ‘fucking killers’ – what any reliable lawyer should avoid joking about. (For more on this, see The 60 Greatest Conspiracies, pp. 114-8.) ”

    I fail to see how his joke is slander or why it should be defended in court. I am assuming he is refering to the act of sending smoke up to show the results of the papal election so what would be slanderous about that. Also what has any of that got to do with roberto calvis murder or JP 1’s death. You really do seem to be reading an awful lot into a joke. While john pauls death had some suspicious aspects to it , I cannot see how it relates to findlays joke.
    Also as I said in my last post , Why is this getting such an airing now two years after the event?

  • veloso

    By way of amends for my own lack of attention to the date of the alleged offence (thanks for the correction, Cruimh) here is the correct URL for the BBC article that Trowbridge was trying to post:

    http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/special_report/1999/08/99/edinburgh_festival_99/415149.stm

    Its a BBC report from 1999.

  • Florriebinn

    Well, Bernard Manning is dead but humour isn’t. After 9/11 the gallows humour was well documented as a ‘natural’ reaction. Comedy is all about context and a quip at the Pope is fine within context. Sometimes I wish people would stop trying to look for offence and just accept that quips are meaningless. Let’s not forget that during the Troubles there were ‘sick’ quips on all sides; dare I mention Mountbatten or Bobby Sands – and we’ve all heard them! There is no such thing as Sacred Cows – just accept it and get on with it….

  • snakebrain