Outrage at Frankie Boyle's offensive Madeleine McCann comment on Twitter

I read this tweet yesterday, and it truly was disgusting and offensive. It involved Jimmy Savile, and far from funny totally sick!! The man has no shame...................



Outrage at Frankie Boyle's offensive Madeleine McCann comment on Twitter




Tuesday, October 02, 2012
Leicester Mercury



Comedian Frankie Boyle has provoked outrage by making a "deeply offensive" comment about Madeleine McCann on Twitter.

The Scottish comic and television star tweeted the joke yesterday and immediately came under fire from some of his 1.05 million followers.

1. 
   ​
   Comedian Frankie Boyle has been under attack for making a "deeply offensive" comment about Madeleine McCann on Twitter
   

However, the missing Leicestershire youngster's parents, Kate and Gerry, of Rothley, were said to not want to dignify his comments by giving their views on the matter.

Their spokesman, Clarence Mitchell, said it was not the first time Boyle – who is on tour and is to release a DVD in November – had made remarks about their daughter.

Boyle made the comment about Madeleine, who went missing during a family holiday in Portugal in May 2007, after he had posted a series of tweets about the allegations of sexual abuse of children levelled against Sir Jimmy Savile in a television programme this week.

One of his Twitter followers responded: "Wow, that's pretty horrible even by your standards."

Another wrote: "This time he's really gone too far. Career-ending, I'd say – and not even a tiny bit funny."

However, one of the comedian's fans tweeted: "If you're thinking of unfollowing Frankie Boyle because he made a distasteful remark, why were you following him in the first place?"

MrMitchell said: "Frankie Boyle has made similarly deeply offensive comments about Madeleine in the past and the family will not dignify any of them by commenting."

On a previous occasion the comedian referred to Madeleine during a stage show in Liverpool – Mrs McCann's home town – reportedly leading a number of people to walk out of the theatre.

Leicester city councillor Patrick Kitterick, a former winner of the Leicester Mercury Comedian of the Year, said: "There is a place for edgy comedy but this comment isn't edgy and it isn't funny."

Tom Franklin, of Kibworth, saw the tweet soon after it appeared yesterday morning.

Mr Franklin said: "I support the principle of freedom of speech, but this remark went well beyond what is acceptable.

"This is the kind of comedy which scapegoats people who cannot speak for themselves, either because of their circumstances or because they don't have the economic muscle that the Frankie Boyles of this world have."

Madeleine went missing in Praia da Luz, Portugal, in May 2007, sparking a worldwide search that continues.

The Mercury contacted Boyle's representatives, Chambers Management, but nobody was available to comment.

http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Outrage-Frankie-Boyle-s-offensive-Madeleine/story-17018894-detail/story.html

Yes Clarence. You make a comment that your paymasters will not be commenting

I wonder what the real reason behind Clarence coming out of his hole to comment on two stories today is .

ShuBob wrote:Yes Clarence. You make a comment that your paymasters will not be commenting

I wonder what the real reason behind Clarence coming out of his hole to comment on two stories today is .

feeding more and more on scraps, not the headline news they once were, but you are right, what is in the offing?

It is impossible of course, to be 'famous' and to be a mccann sceptic. The attackers of course hide behind anonymity, whilst 'outing' others, yet the irony seems to go right over their heads.

On all sides of this bizarre case, most can comment under anonymous screen names, but a few of us have had to endure full on attacks simply by posting as ourselves.

I'm not commenting on the mccann case right now, lets just say self preservation has kicked in, and I can't even be arsed to argue the ins and outs of it. For those who might accuse me of cowardice, I say, post in your own real names, and I will be happy to discuss it with you.

I still maintain the belief that truth will find its way, and I still continue to read and study.

This is so tedious! Frankie Boyle's humour (or lack of, to some) may not ne to everybody's taste but it certainly is to mine. I have all his DVD's and recently saw him @ Ipswich Regent and YES within the first 20 minutes there had been three McCann jokes. The man imo is a genius who comments on the absurd. And, let's face it, this case could not GET more absurd, could it? Where, I say, is the 'outrage' when Dara O' Briain calls a female fellow tweeter a 'c**t' purely because they don't believe the McCann's rubbish? Freedom of speech HAS to work both ways!

Well said Rainbow-Fairy. Where was the outrage over Dara O'Briain's remarks? He has reduced himself to the level of members of a certain cesspit site in my opinion and I will never watch him on TV again.

rainbow-fairy wrote:This is so tedious! Frankie Boyle's humour (or lack of, to some) may not ne to everybody's taste but it certainly is to mine. I have all his DVD's and recently saw him @ Ipswich Regent and YES within the first 20 minutes there had been three McCann jokes. The man imo is a genius who comments on the absurd. And, let's face it, this case could not GET more absurd, could it? Where, I say, is the 'outrage' when Dara O' Briain calls a female fellow tweeter a 'c**t' purely because they don't believe the McCann's rubbish? Freedom of speech HAS to work both ways!

I don't know this comedian but I do believe that when the press is stifled, when despots or self-interested politicians are in power and have full control of all the media/propaganda and when the judiciary, police, welfare organisations etc. are systematically covering something up that the populace is aware of, but can find no-one to bring an honest and independent enquiry, then the arts, theatre, authors, painters, ballet, comedians etc. become the only route outwards to expose that which is being covered up.
Frankie Boyle is daring to make comments to force the powers that be, to realise that 'their silence' cannot be kept silent.
In one 'joke' which could be just as easily seen as a 'political comment' that vents his anger and frustration, he boldly names Jimmy Saville and the 'fiction' that has taken over the name of Madeleine McCann.
Yes, the comment would be exceedingly tasteless, under normal circumstances, but Madeleine's parents have behaved in such a distasteful way since May 3rd, 2007, that perhaps Frankie Boyle is using their own techniques to highlight the entire disgrace that her parents and all who are covering for them have shown themselves to be, against the values and interests of a little girl who had no return from her holiday in the sun.
In my opinion he is not devaluing Madeleine, but showing what those at high levels in society have been determined to cover up.
His apparent irreverence is highlighting the fact that if Madeleine's parents had looked after her, she would not be in heaven, and Jimmy Saville, the disgusting creature that he was, should have no place in heaven at all.

My issue with Frankie Boyle is that he jokes about the McCanns THROUGH Maddie instead of just joking about them on their own. IMO, he shouldn't be making comments about Maddie's plight but concentrate on the many failings and lies of the McCanns and their co-conspirators. I've got the feeling that the couple are not really hurt by the Maddie jokes but may feel different if it's them he targets.

ShuBob wrote:My issue with Frankie Boyle is that he jokes about the McCanns THROUGH Maddie instead of just joking about them on their own. IMO, he shouldn't be making comments about Maddie's plight but concentrate on the many failings and lies of the McCanns and their co-conspirators. I've got the feeling that the couple are not really hurt by the Maddie jokes but may feel different if it's them he targets.

Yes, but if he is too direct (against the McCanns) they could and would without doubt , sue him.
It's true I haven't seen his act and thus I could well be wrong about his motives, but he is saying something that does not just suck up to the McCann fiction and albeit callously, points fingers at the establishment's perpetual tendency to try to cover paedophilia up.

bobbin wrote:

ShuBob wrote:My issue with Frankie Boyle is that he jokes about the McCanns THROUGH Maddie instead of just joking about them on their own. IMO, he shouldn't be making comments about Maddie's plight but concentrate on the many failings and lies of the McCanns and their co-conspirators. I've got the feeling that the couple are not really hurt by the Maddie jokes but may feel different if it's them he targets.

Yes, but if he is too direct (against the McCanns) they could and would without doubt , sue him.
It's true I haven't seen his act and thus I could well be wrong about his motives, but he is saying something that does not just suck up to the McCann fiction and albeit callously, points fingers at the establishment's perpetual tendency to try to cover paedophilia up.

I don't think they can sue him for joking about their admitted childcare arrangements and for commercialising Maddie. IMO, his current jokes are no different from the jokes the McCanns themselves make about Maddie i.e. linking her to every paedo going. That's why I don't think it will hurt them. However, if he goes for them personally, that may hurt.

ShuBob wrote:

bobbin wrote:

ShuBob wrote:My issue with Frankie Boyle is that he jokes about the McCanns THROUGH Maddie instead of just joking about them on their own. IMO, he shouldn't be making comments about Maddie's plight but concentrate on the many failings and lies of the McCanns and their co-conspirators. I've got the feeling that the couple are not really hurt by the Maddie jokes but may feel different if it's them he targets.

Yes, but if he is too direct (against the McCanns) they could and would without doubt , sue him.
It's true I haven't seen his act and thus I could well be wrong about his motives, but he is saying something that does not just suck up to the McCann fiction and albeit callously, points fingers at the establishment's perpetual tendency to try to cover paedophilia up.

I don't think they can sue him for joking about their admitted childcare arrangements and for commercialising Maddie. IMO, his current jokes are no different from the jokes the McCanns themselves make about Maddie i.e. linking her to every paedo going. That's why I don't think it will hurt them. However, if he goes for them personally, that may hurt.

I see the points you are making ShuBob. If he did go for them, he would be one of the bravest people out there and one of the fewest. Having said that, he would have an absolute wealth of material to use as his sources for a brand new type of humour.
Perhaps someone should drop him a line.

this is just typical frankie boyle- this is his style of '' humour'' these days- he just makes sick & innappropriate comments about things- he does it all the time now- to those who will still listen to him- but not as many do listen now- he may still get big crowds at shows- but thats about the only way he is seen- he seems banned from tv due to how offensive he is- & sadly thats the only way he can attempt to be ''funny'' now.... by making controversial comments & causing a bit more outrage.....!!!

In a way I admire Frankie Boyle for standing his ground whenever there are complaints about his act rather than kowtowing to the politically correct brigade.

I certainly didn't like the remarks he made about Katie Price's son and wouldn't go to see him myself but, if other people enjoy his humour, good luck to them.

Jean wrote:In a way I admire Frankie Boyle for standing his ground whenever there are complaints about his act rather than kowtowing to the politically correct brigade.

I certainly didn't like the remarks he made about Katie Price's son and wouldn't go to see him myself but, if other people enjoy his humour, good luck to them.

In other words - 'live and let live' eh Jean! A good mantra to my mind...

Is anyone else slightly disturbed by the jailing of the idiot for tweeting an offensive joke about April Jones ?
Ridicule, stocks, ostracism, explanation that it is not appropriate at this time, surely.
But Prison ? For telling a joke ?

Or did it have to do with the fact the Madeleine was also mentioned ? Was that the crucial factor ?

As I've mentioned on another topic, this seems to be extraordinarily heavy-handed. The prisons would be overflowing at the seams if every spotty adolescent who made stupid comments on the Internet was locked up.

Far better to ignore them and hope that most, if not all of them, improve with age.

Apparently, it went beyond jokes as the guy made "sexually explicit" comments about April. I would imagine it was this that caused him to be locked up.

According to reports, when the guy started posting his "jokes", a group were able to identify his home address and a 50-strong mob went to seek him out. I don't understand why this vigilante action hasn't been publicly condemned regardless of the actions of the accused.

Of the only two I have been able to track down, one is very very old and was doing the rounds in the 60s, but aimed at the Irish. It does mention Madeleine in the same sentence. Surely it can't be that one.
The sexually explicit one is just a re-working of Boyle's one, including a pun, but doesn't mention Madeleine. Or did he post them both ?

Oh the irony!

Frankie Boyle sues Mirror over 'racism' claim




Comedian Frankie Boyle is suing the Mirror newspaper for libel, over an article which labelled him racist.

He is complaining about a story published on 19 July 2011, saying he was in talks for a new Channel 4 show.
[...]
His barrister, David Sherborne, said that to call someone "racist" was "obviously defamatory".

Mr Sherborne said Boyle's humour was "deliberately challenging".

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19950407

Some will remember that David Sherborne represented the McCanns along with victims of the phone-hacking scandal during the Leveson Inquiry.

ShuBob wrote:Oh the irony!. . .
Some will remember that David Sherborne represented the McCanns along with victims of the phone-hacking scandal during the Leveson Inquiry.

No irony, sadly.
Lawyers will represent the person who comes up with the most money, and who gets there first.
They are indifferent as to the merits of the case.
AND, I have to say, in an adversarial system such as that of the UK, it is right that the inarticulate should have a voice; and that the stupid should not be overwhelmed by intellect. Therefore, obviously, the system of an impartial advocate acting in the best interests of the client, without fear of favour, not at any stage trying to being judge or jury, merely presenting the case in the best possible way, - - is absolutely right.
There are, however, limits.
And they are crossed when the spokes-person, the advocate, the voice, the mouthpiece, stops being a purely impartial entity, and becomes "involved' in the the client's case. When that person no longer prefaces remarks with "my clients have asked me to state that . . .or, I am instructed to tell you that . . ." and instead assumes knowledge, and therefore power.
For CM to say "My clients, the McCanns, are paying me to say that they have told me that they have seen a photo from India and they have told me that it is not Madeleine . . . "
is not quite as convincing as what he did in fact say. What he said implied knowledge. And therefore conspiracy IF ( and only IF) it emerges that what he said was not true.

bobbin wrote:

ShuBob wrote:My issue with Frankie Boyle is that he jokes about the McCanns THROUGH Maddie instead of just joking about them on their own. IMO, he shouldn't be making comments about Maddie's plight but concentrate on the many failings and lies of the McCanns and their co-conspirators. I've got the feeling that the couple are not really hurt by the Maddie jokes but may feel different if it's them he targets.

Yes, but if he is too direct (against the McCanns) they could and would without doubt , sue him.
It's true I haven't seen his act and thus I could well be wrong about his motives, but he is saying something that does not just suck up to the McCann fiction and albeit callously, points fingers at the establishment's perpetual tendency to try to cover paedophilia up.

Patrick Kielty was quite direct and this was in 2007 Mccann's didn't sue him

snip
he joked that if the McCanns wanted to dispose of the body of their daughter, they should have checked her in as luggage on a Ryanair flight.

He added that the couple had been backstage but had disappeared two hours later when he went to check on them.


Barman William Boland, 24, was one of the many members of the audience who stormed out of the offensive show, according to the Daily Mirror.
When Boland spotted Kielty later in a bar, he approached him and said: "Who do you think you are making jokes like that?
"But he told me he could say whatever he liked and if I don't like it I can always leave


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-483048/Comedian-Kieltys-tasteless-jokes-Madeleine-stuns-crowd.html#ixzz29PZuiJMG
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

PM, it might be interesting to make one day also a thread with crossed-limits "pink" statements.
Bonne nuit :-)

Oh & I still have high hopes re the Honorable Justice Tugendhat. I hate winter, but am looking forward to January this time ...

Hi Tony

dragonfly wrote:
Patrick Kielty was quite direct and this was in 2007 Mccann's didn't sue him
snip
he joked that if the McCanns wanted to dispose of the body of their daughter, they should have checked her in as luggage on a Ryanair flight.
He added that the couple had been backstage but had disappeared two hours later when he went to check on them.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-483048/Comedian-Kieltys-tasteless-jokes-Madeleine-stuns-crowd.html

Interesting that the article then goes on to say

A spokesman for the 36-year-old comedian said: "Patrick apologises to anyone who may have taken offence.
. . . "Patrick is a comedian and the material was written to reflect the media's changing attitude towards the case and should be taken in that context.