Cork snowflakes cancel comedy gig.

Grayson

AnneFrank wrote: »

If you don't like it, don't buy a ticket.
It's simple really. I don't like his act personally but banning him is ridiculous.
This from the "rebel county" that pulled it's trousers down and bent over when the queen came.

The theatre has the same attitude. they didn't like him and cancelled his booking. Apparently if i was to ask for a refund on a ticket i bought I'm ok, but if a theatre does it it's infringing free speech?

Technocentral

whisky_galore wrote:

UK-based Royston Vasey, who performs under the stage name of Roy ‘Chubby’ Brown, was due to perform at the venue on June 10. Cork Opera House had billed the show as containing “politically incorrect jokes†that are “delivered with a cheeky grin and perfect comedy timingâ€. The management of Cork Opera House — which receives arts grants from Cork City and County Councils and also programme funding from the Arts Council for certain cultural events — has decided to cancel the show deeming it “unsuitable†for a venue that receives public funding.

Didn't know that piece of **** was a comedian.

Grayson

Deleted User wrote: »

A comedy show isn't inciting violence. That shouldn't be allowed.

But if the KKK, which isn't even illegal in America, want to get up on stage and be racists, then yes, they should be allowed to.

So you've effectively saying that if anyone who isn't inciting violence wants to book a theatre the theatre should not be allowed refuse. That's anyone at all. They theatre has no option. They can't refuse.

chrissb8

chrissb8 wrote: »

But talking about abortion is not seditious....racism is. We're not dealing with what ifs the government did this or that we're talking about what is now. It’s clear what is and what isn’t seditious.

Maybe the crux of your argument is that government shouldn't be able to dictate what is and what isn't allowed to be said. There hasn't been any meddling by the government to change to stretch these laws out to further censor speech.

The rules and laws we have are in place because of a historical and societal aspect we developed them so.
I don’t need to tell you what racism does to a society and what it has done. Why would anyone say that it’s still fine for that to be evident in society particularly at an event which says it’s alright to laugh at a couple of “pakis” and “blacks” cos no harm done eh? Except to those who think that they can go around in a Western society with view points like that and combine with others to express these opinions at events. Inciting hatred and animosity. If we are a Western society we should be aspiring to higher ideals and morals not letting room for racists etc.

Yes, that is exactly my point.

As to your first paragraph, neither racism or abortion is seditious.

inciting or causing people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch.

But by giving a government or its agencies power over what bad taste is, they can say anything is whatever they want. Your argument that they haven't done this yet is irrelevant.
The government saying "supporting abortion and advocating it is inciting violence against unborn children", and then making it illegal to support it, is the same as this comedian getting his show cancelled because it "incites violence", which you described in your third paragraph.

I know you don't think he's inciting violence, but it is the justification you're using for banning something you find offensive.

whisky_galore

Grayson wrote: »

The theatre has the same attitude. they didn't like him and cancelled his booking. Apparently if i was to ask for a refund on a ticket i bought I'm ok, but if a theatre does it it's infringing free speech?

It only got pulled when people (councillors I might add) on the COH board started complaining.

Opera House board member, Councillor Des Cahill (FG), contacted Opera House board chairman Tim Healy regarding the matter.
“He’s a repulsive character. [However] most comedians will touch a nerve with some people,” he said. Councillor Terry Shannon (FF), also a board member of the Opera House, said he was surprised to see the comedian had been booked at the venue in the first place.
Councillor Terry Shannon (FF), also a board member of the Opera House, said he was surprised to see the comedian had been booked at the venue and described his humour as “raw" and “offensive”.

The posters are still up all over the city.

super_furry

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not remotely the same. A dickhead getting up on stage is not making a political statement, nor is he advocating anything except bad humour.

It's "indecent matter", it's arguably incitement to hatred and, the people in charge of the Cork Opera House don't view Royston as a suitable act for a venue in receipt of public funds.

To be honest, I find you 'you get government money, you have to let anyone in to say anything they want' views a bit odd.

I'd be of the position that publicly funded spaces should be held to a higher standard than private ones.

Grayson

whisky_galore wrote: »

It only got pulled when people (councillors I might add) on the COH board started complaining.

Opera House board member, Councillor Des Cahill (FG), contacted Opera House board chairman Tim Healy regarding the matter.
“He’s a repulsive character. [However] most comedians will touch a nerve with some people,” he said. Councillor Terry Shannon (FF), also a board member of the Opera House, said he was surprised to see the comedian had been booked at the venue in the first place.
Councillor Terry Shannon (FF), also a board member of the Opera House, said he was surprised to see the comedian had been booked at the venue and described his humour as “raw" and “offensive”.

The posters are still up all over the city.

But the point people are making is that the theater shouldn't be allowed pick and chose who they want. And that when they do this it's infringing free speech.
A comparison was made whereby a theatre choosing not to go ahead with a gig is the same as banning everyone from talking about abortion. The hyperbole on this thread is ridiculous.

Grayson

Grayson wrote: »

So you've effectively saying that if anyone who isn't inciting violence wants to book a theatre the theatre should not be allowed refuse. That's anyone at all. They theatre has no option. They can't refuse.

Well I wouldn't expect to be allowed to book it so I could host a party in it, but yes, all public entertainment should be allowed, specifically because it receives public funding.

You get some awful acts, sure. But you're not giving away the power to decide what is socially acceptable. That is far more important.

Grayson

super_furry wrote: »

It's "indecent matter", it's arguably incitement to hatred and, the people in charge of the Cork Opera House don't view Royston as a suitable act for a venue in receipt of public funds.

To be honest, I find you 'you get government money, you have to let anyone in to say anything they want' views a bit odd.

I'd be of the position that publicly funded spaces should be held to a higher standard than private ones.

From the link I put earlier. People seem to think that this is ok.

One of the lowest moments from the gig: "Did you read in the papers about those Muslims burning poppies on Remembrance Day? Sick *****. The guy who does my gardening's a Muslim, and he observed the two-minute silence. After I whacked him with a ****ing shovel!"

super_furry

super_furry wrote: »

It's "indecent matter", it's arguably incitement to hatred and, the people in charge of the Cork Opera House don't view Royston as a suitable act for a venue in receipt of public funds.

To be honest, I find you 'you get government money, you have to let anyone in to say anything they want' views a bit odd.

I'd be of the position that publicly funded spaces should be held to a higher standard than private ones.

I'm not going to debate this with someone who is outright lying. Good luck.

topper75

Turtyturd wrote: »

No doubt his next show will have a bit full of derogatory terms about Irish people due to this incident and the same people complaining about the ‘snowflakes’ now will be complaining about his material.

I can't speak for all Irish people - but for myself, as an Irish person, I'm not beyond being laughed at. I'm not that important.

To those that think they are however... yeah, now we are talking "pr1cks".

super_furry

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not going to debate this with someone who is outright lying. Good luck.

Where's the lie?

Grayson

Grayson wrote: »

A comparison was made whereby a theatre choosing not to go ahead with a gig is the same as banning everyone from talking about abortion. The hyperbole on this thread is ridiculous.

My point was very clear that supporting one means you support allowing people in our society deem the other to be incitement of violence.

I wasn't directly comparing the two, and you know that. Yet you accuse me of hyperbole.

super_furry

super_furry wrote: »

Where's the lie?

He's a comedian. If you're saying he's inciting violence in order to win an argument, I'm calling you a liar.

Do you understand what inciting violence really means?

circadian

Roy Chubby Brown. Haven't heard that name in years, thought he was dead.

Hopefully won't hear his name for a long time again, he is woefully unfunny.

Blacktie.

Deleted User wrote: »

He's a comedian. If you're saying he's inciting violence in order to win an argument, I'm calling you a liar.

Do you understand what inciting violence really means?

Honestly these people probably think Count Dankula got exactly what he deserved. They just don't understand context.

super_furry

Deleted User wrote: »

He's a comedian. If you're saying he's inciting violence in order to win an argument, I'm calling you a liar.

Do you understand what inciting violence really means?

I mean you bold the word arguably but then seem to skim over it.

You're right thought, probably best to leave it there at this stage.

Grayson

Deleted User wrote: »

My point was very clear that supporting one means you support allowing people in our society deem the other to be incitement of violence.

I wasn't directly comparing the two, and you know that. Yet you accuse me of hyperbole.

I'm having trouble understanding the first sentence. As for the second, you compared a theatre refusing an act to banning discussion about a subject. You actually said

What has abortion to do with this? Pretty basic really. If the government in power decides that talk of abortion is seditious, and thus ban publicly speaking about it, then it's nothing different to this.

This is nothing like the banning of talk about abortion. This is a theatre that cancelled a gig. the guy is free to find other theatres or to talk to anyone he wants. It's not equivalent to a government enforced ban on talking about a subject.

Deleted User wrote: »

He's a comedian. If you're saying he's inciting violence in order to win an argument, I'm calling you a liar.

Do you understand what inciting violence really means?

They said arguably. You're arguing about it now.

Grayson

Grayson wrote: »

I'm having trouble understanding the first sentence. As for the second, you compared a theatre refusing an act to banning discussion about a subject. You actually said



This is nothing like the banning of talk about abortion. This is a theatre that cancelled a gig. the guy is free to find other theatres or to talk to anyone he wants. It's not equivalent to a government enforced ban on talking about a subject.



They said arguably. You're arguing about it now.

I refined my point in posts after that so it was clear that supporting one is supporting the other.

You say it's different, I don't see how. The people here saying this gig should be cancelled would also agree with a government ban on supporting abortion if they were against abortion. Abortion is as offensive as racist jokes to some people and is "arguably" violent, if that's what the government wants to say it is.

My entire thing here is that that power shouldn't be given away, and also applauded because it's a specific case. This erosion of rights always happens because there's a specific case that the public rally behind and then years later, people realise "oh yeah, we actually cheered this on."


And I'm more pointing out that it is absolute lies to even say it's arguable that this 73-year-old idiot as an inciter of violence.

sbsquarepants

Grayson wrote: »

Is it Bernard Matthews you're thinking of?
I didn't like Bernard Matthews material but he had a very quick wit. He was a very funny smart guy who unfortunately did racist material.

No I was thinking of Chubby - I hadn't heard him mentioned in years, I just assumed he was dead (google tells me he's 73). Bernard was funny at least - chubby was just "dirty" for want of a better word.

Lowest common denominator shít, suited only to bottom of the barrel working mens clubs in **** hole estates in England.

Not my cup of tae whatsoever.

Edit: Ads by google also told me the same in the post above had I looked. Now, that coincidence is more amusing than anything the auld chubster ever came out with:D

TheValeyard

Just viewed a youtube vid on him.


Sh*te as a comedian. Not one half decent joke. Other than himself.


Wouldn't ban him though.

Cienciano

Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: »

Just viewed a youtube vid on him.


Sh*te as a comedian. Not one half decent joke. Other than himself.


Wouldn't ban him though.

He's not banned. Just a booking cancelled.

TheValeyard

Cienciano wrote: »

He's not banned. Just a booking cancelled.

Its basically the same thing. He is not suitable to that 'venue'.
So might not use the word banned. But he sure wont be performing there anytime soon would he?

Cienciano

Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: »

Its basically the same thing. He is not suitable to that 'venue'.
So might not use the word banned. But he sure wont be performing there anytime soon would he?

No. He's free to book where ever he likes and the owners of those venues are free to not book him if they don't want to. If he's playing in your local town hall, you're free to protest, or you're free to turn up and support him. But no, he's not banned.

listermint

Has anyone considered that the article is wrong and the gig was cancelled because the fat loo lah sold about 5 tickets.............

Johnnycanyon

What is this stupid country turning into..you can't say booh about anyone but everybody is up in arms..it's a country of political correctness gone mad.. I went to see chubby in Dublins Olympia years ago and found him funny as did the vast majority of the audience.. when you go to his shows you know what to expect so if you find him offensive don't go ,but why ban him?

hatrickpatrick

pitifulgod wrote: »

He sounds like a prick... "He has previously been banned from performing at a number of local authority owned venues in the UK. His routines have involved jokes about Islam, asylum seekers and members of the LGBT community."

A Muslim, a refugee, and a lesbian walk into a bar...

Cienciano

Johnnycanyon wrote: »

What is this stupid country turning into..you can't say booh about anyone but everybody is up in arms..it's a country of political correctness gone mad.. I went to see chubby in Dublins Olympia years ago and found him funny as did the vast majority of the audience.. when you go to his shows you know what to expect so if you find him offensive don't go ,but why ban him?

He's not banned. Just a booking cancelled.

lawred2

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you think people who say racist things are breaking the law? Would you support their arrest?

if they were doing so in public to an audience then probably yeah..

Hector Savage

Rochelle wrote: »

Oh no, not the "LGBT community"....how callous!

That's LGBTQI+ you transphobic bigot !