Littlejohn again: Jokes about suicide
This is another blogpost about Richard Littlejohn, for which I apologise in advance, after the other two I've written this week. And I know: don't feed the troll, and all that. Our hate has made him powerful. He probably loves all the attention.
I am aware of all that. I am aware that it will probably delight my critics and pet trolls to do this, as it is predictable as it is ineffective. They can claim with some justification that I am obsessed with Littlejohn, that I'm just as bad as he is; they can wheel out the cannons and have a blast.
Be my guest, I don't care. The reason why I have taken to the keyboard again, for the third time in a week - and I promise this won't happen every week - is his tittering over a suicidal man in his latest column. As ever, I won't link, but here's the hilarity in full so that you see it in the wonderful context it so richly deserves rather than me simply cherrypicking the worst bits:
Years ago, Scarborough Council erected an ugly wire fence across the footbridge which connects the town’s two cliffs in an attempt to stop suicides.
I remember suggesting that instead of trying to deter jumpers they should turn it into a tourist attraction.
They could announce that Friday night was jumpers’ night and situate a strategic skip at the bottom to catch the corpses.
Better still, it could be televised. Anneka Rice would jump off with them and interview them on the way down. At the time she seemed to spend most of her time leaping out of helicopters.
A small step for mankind, a giant leap for Channel 4 . . . The show could have been called: End It With Anneka.
Anyway, I must have planted a seed. This week, Swansea police were confronted with a bloke threatening to throw himself off a multi-storey car park. They sent for a bouncy castle.
While counsellors attempted to talk him down, a crowd gathered urging him to jump.
(Older readers may remember Peter Cook and Dudley Moore’s brilliant Derek and Clive tapes, which featured a similar routine.)Eventually, he was persuaded to desist. But what if he had jumped?
By the time he hit the deck, the bouncy castle would have propelled him straight back up again.I have visions of him bouncing up and down like Zebedee for hours while Old Bill tried to catch him. Boing, boing, boing . . .
I wonder what Anneka’s up to these days. Sounds like one for C4C.
(I should at this point mention there's an equally hilarious cartoon by Gary to illustrate the story of a man with a tear falling out of his eye going boing on a bouncy castle while Anneka Rice looks on. I mean really, it's that good. People forget about Gary when they criticise Littlejohn, which I think is a shame: he's more than happy to do pictures of Littlejohn's little man Daily Mail fantasies twice a week without balking at the inherent nastiness. So here's to Gary! Here's the recognition you so richly deserve.)
This isn't the first time that he's found suicide a tittersome subject, either. He chortled his way through a piece back in August about suicides of Chinese factory workers (which Johann Hari wrote about here), who were stopped from falling to their deaths by nets. It's essentially the same joke twice. Here's someone trying to kill themselves - guffaw! Here's someone bouncing off a net! Hahaha! Here's someone falling on a bouncy castle! Ho ho ho!
You'll forgive me, I hope, if I don't join in with the cackling. Because I really don't find anything spectacularly funny about it. Call me a grumpy old so-and-so if you like, but there it is. The idea of someone standing on top of a car park, thinking about killing themselves, isn't a massively rich vein of comedy, as far as I can see. It's not the same as the Derek and Clive song either, since that wasn't about a real person. It's a lot harder to join in with the jokes about someone hurling themselves to their death if they're an actual lump of flesh and blood, with a soul, and memories and dreams, rather than just some bloke in a song (who wasn't suicidal anyway - his house was on fire).
Isn't it? Maybe it isn't. Maybe I'm spectacularly humourless on this one, and it wouldn't be the first time I'd been accused of that. But when you think about a Chinese factory worker jumping from a building to die, and what that entails, and what it must take that person to get there; or when you think about someone trying to jump off a car park, and what they must have gone through in order to be there and feel that there was no way out, it starts to stop being funny. It does for me, anyway. I know that there shouldn't be boundaries for comedy, and everyone has different taste in these things; I'm not saying it's not a subject for humour at all, because of course it isn't.
It's just that, as ever, I find Littlejohn's take on it particularly offensive and unpleasant. This isn't someone who'll never know he was being mocked (which is the only wafer-thin argument defending Littlejohn's efforts on Chinese factory workers); this is someone who may well have read Littlejohn's evident delight at his predicament. He may even be a Daily Mail reader. Who knows. I just hope he never did read it, and he's managed to get the help he needs. Sorry if that sounds all bleeding heart and stupid of me, but there you go. Is it funny to take the piss out of someone who was seriously contemplating suicide?
Here's another reason why I don't find it funny. I once wrote a blogpost on here called 'suicide is painless', echoing the lyrics to the M*A*S*H theme tune. Every now and then I see, through my blog stats, that people have ended up there. And I find that usually they've been searching for 'painless suicide methods' or 'how can I make suicide painless?' - and every time I read it, it makes me have to leave the room, and I feel awful, because there's something stark and real about that, something that is so raw and so emotive that it makes me hurt just reading the words. I wish I could speak to them, or tell them it's all going to be all right, that I've been there myself, that it does get better, and worse, but better, and that if only you just take the time to talk to someone, it can help. But I never can, and I never do. And sometimes, I wonder whatever happened to them.
So I don't make jokes about suicide.
Related posts:
Buy my book, it’s great
Switch site
Donate
Recent Posts
- Cheerio, cheerio, cheerio…
- Children died
- The letters you never get around to sending
- Applying again
- I just sent Robin round – 2
Most Commented On
Recent Comments
- Iain on Applying again
- Roger on The letters you never get around to sending
- Dave Hodgkinson on The letters you never get around to sending
- droid on The letters you never get around to sending
- Rogue_Leader on The letters you never get around to sending
About Me
Hello. I'm a Bristol-based writer and soon-to-be-redundant journalist. You can read more about me and the Enemies site here, or follow me on Twitter. Email me if you like - antonvowl at live dot co dot uk
If you're struggling to read the site please use the drop down box below to increase the text size.
December 18th, 2010 - 17:39
Thank you for your comments about Richard Littlebrain – his remarks are disgusting and grossly offensive – not funny at all. Please carry on writing and thanks also for great website.
December 18th, 2010 - 18:17
I once lived in an apartment building that was occasionally used by people to come and jump off to their death. I once heard one of them land with the sound of an exploding bag of garbage.
People who think this is fun should provide their house address so suicides can be scheduled there, e.g. during breakfast time. They’ll change their mind about this quickly.
December 18th, 2010 - 19:23
Well said, and not gratuitous over-Littlejohning at all, as it’s good to point out the different ways in which he can be so unpleasant.
I like to imagine – in my positive moments – that one of the things that unites decent people is that, when you become aware of someone who is obviously extremely distressed and in need of support, your natural instinct is to lend a helping hand to get them on their feet again. (That’s not always possible of course). I just don’t understand the contrary instinct to stick the boot in and make fun of those people instead.
That instinct makes you … well – someone like Littlejohn, I suppose.
December 18th, 2010 - 19:40
Can I recommend this article? It puts Littlejohn to shame.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/don-ritchie-84-the-unlikely-angel-at-australias-gate-2077154.html
December 18th, 2010 - 19:59
Oh God I do despair that this man is allowed to put his vile thoughts onto paper/pooter. What I despair of even more is that there are so many people who find this acceptable. Completely demoralising.
December 18th, 2010 - 20:51
Just picking up on a small point, somehow I don’t think the Daily Mail would be too in favour of the Derek and Clive tapes these days. After the furore about the Pope and lefties, somehow I can’t imagine them enjoying a rant about having a wank over the pope…
December 18th, 2010 - 21:23
Your closing thoughts on this are so sad, but so important. Thank you.
December 18th, 2010 - 21:41
Thanks for this post – I’ve been there, too. You’re a decent human being, and Littlejohn obviously isn’t. In the end, that’s what counts.
December 19th, 2010 - 00:09
+1
A good mate of mine killed himself and I still blame myself for not helping him. Reading what Littlecock had to write felt like I’d just been smashed in the face with a sledgehammer.
December 19th, 2010 - 02:02
Imagine if Frankie Boyle made a similar “joke”. The Mail would be wheeling out spokespeople from suicide awarness campaign groups to condem such nastyness.
Of course lefty alternative comedians making sick jokes is not on for the Mail but when it’s one of their hacks making them it’s ok, free speech et etc and anyone who says different is just a lefty liberal “fascist” trying to take away free speech.
December 19th, 2010 - 02:40
The Mail & Express story that’s been annoying me over the last couple of days is about the Iraqi guy who lives in Britain, and accidentally ran over a woman and killed her, and has been allowed to stay in Britain. The way the Mail & Express are reporting it is that it’s INJUSTICE and all down to the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT THAT MR CAMERON (note, “MR” Cameron) PROMISED TO ABOLISH (because human rights are such a dreadful concept). And I can fully understand why people might be upset that a hit-and-run driver hasn’t had a harsher punishment than this bloke has got….
… But can you imagine the story making the front page if he wasn’t Iraqi? If he wasn’t a bit brown? If he wasn’t *probably a Muslim*? INJUSTICE AS CANADIAN MAN ISN’T DEPORTED. INJUSTICE AS ITALIAN MAN ISN’T DEPORTED. etc. It just wouldn’t happen.
December 20th, 2010 - 09:59
Quite right! Especially when you consider what the human rights act was protecting: his right to a family life. This affects not only him, but his partner and children too.
Unfortunately it’s one of those cases where justice doesn’t seem to have been done (I think he served about 3 months for driving whilst disqualified) and so people are calming their cognitive dissonance by focusing on the human rights aspect of the story. Lazy thinking and lazy journalism.
December 19th, 2010 - 06:59
When I was 14, me and my mate use to write sick lyrics to pop songs, including one infamous ditty called, “I Like Drinking Periods”. We did spoof phone calls to Funeral Directors. At school, I vandalised a fellow pupil’s Starsky and Hutch poster collection. I screamed at a mate’s Catholic Mum to, “Fuck God!” And so on. Nasty, viscious, cruel, stupid, thoughtless — and I know, having worked with kids on and off over the years, that teenage boys can sometimes go through these horrible phases, where the hardest thing is to stop yourself strangling the little buggers. I could have written something just like this Littlejohn piece when I was 14. To see it now, written by a middle aged man, is sickening.
December 19th, 2010 - 12:16
That last paragraph made me cry. Hit a nerve.
I honestly can’t imagine what it feels like to be bereft of any empathy or feeling for other human beings that you can write words recommending turning a person wanting to die into a tourist attraction.
These type of columnists don’t make me angry anymore. That’s how they want me to feel. I pity the bastards.
December 19th, 2010 - 12:26
Hey, excellent post, completely agree (it’s hard to see how anyone couldn’t!)
Just thinking, with regards to that post which gets visited by suicidal people, would it be possible for you to put a paragraph at the beginning of it? In, like, italics, or something? Explaining that you understand what they’re going through, etc, but that it isn’t the best solution? With maybe the number for the Samaritans or something? Sorry if I’m overstepping the mark here, I just thought it might be an idea. If one person sees it and can be persuaded not to kill themselves, then that is one life saved!
Thanks,
Dan x
December 19th, 2010 - 14:38
Face facts. That thing is the highest paid professional troll on the planet. Eventually, and this day can’t come soon enough, it’ll end up like Fred Phelps (of Westboro Baptist infamy): people will tire of its same old shtick and then it’ll come to a crossroads where either its ability to shock and disgust will rapidly diminish, and it’ll troll itself into irrelevance, or it’ll take a step too far, something just too taboo for even its own supporters (as much as they are some of the most odious, obnoxious excuses for life forms in existance) to tolerate and bang, it will die by the sword.
December 19th, 2010 - 14:41
Do you think he knows how much offence he causes? I cannot even read his material, he makes no real points, just repeating the same tired cliches and lies to an audience who seem to share his contempt, not ever figuring out that his contempt probably extends to them. I almost pity him, but he is protected by a toothless regulatory body and the inability to answer his critics in open debate.
December 19th, 2010 - 18:06
Excellent post, Anton. Thank you.
December 19th, 2010 - 19:38
There have been cases where suicidal people on tall buildings/the internet have been ‘urged on’ by passers-by/onlookers, usually teenagers (in hoodies, I shouldn’t wonder). The Mail/tabloid press in geneal coverage has been along the lines of “Isn’t this appalling, youth of today eh?, we’re going to hell in a handcart, you couldn’t make it up etc”.
As ever with the Mail, what’s being said/done isn’t half as important as who is saying/doing it.
December 21st, 2010 - 15:13
In the comments to that article one person focuses on the fact that several people turned up urging the man to jump “doesn’t that just show what sort of broken society we live in”
Completely missing the fact that that’s what Littlejohn pretty much does in the article.
In another story they ran about a woman who went to a DIY store and hanged herself there many comments call her selfish and express no sympathy for her. Littlejohn is very good at what he does, reinforcing the beliefs and prejudices of his readers
December 19th, 2010 - 22:29
I’ve discussed this topic a few times, with varying levels of opposing opinion, and I’d say jokes about suicide are fine, it’s all about intent, it’s the same for paedos, rape, or whatever other taboo subject you’d like to mention.
Littlejohn is so lowest common denominator, and so bereft of even the concept of humour, that he shouldn’t get to attempt this stuff, plus when he tries, it’s always, always at the expense of a victim, or the weakest members of society.
Marcus Brigstocke had a section on his live show about his wife being raped by immirgants, but the humour laid not in the wife being raped, but in that his Mail reading neighbour genuinely believed immigrants were coming over to rape british women. Sure it’s dark,and sick to some, but it’s a joke about rape that isn’t belittling the victims, that’s something Littlejohn won’t understand, a bit like basic maths.
I think Frankie Boyle sometimes steps over the edge from ‘dark comedy’ to just being hateful to get cheap laughs, but Littlejohn couldn’t aspire to that level if he tried, and why would he, nearly a million a year for not trying, and just knocking out last decades columns with the names and places changed.
Another point is WHERE you do it, if it’s in a public forum, different rules apply than when people pay to read or see you. In this context, sadly it seems millions of people find that smug twat so captivating that they can’t stop buying the damn rag. I wonder how many Mail readers whohad lost someone close, to suicied, read that piece, were offended then went and bought it again tomorrow?
December 19th, 2010 - 23:06
Excellent stuff. I remember an incident in Derby a couple of years ago where a young lad killed himself by jumping. The crowd at the bottom were egging him on to jump. That’s the sort of person Littlejohn is talking to, people with no empathy.
December 20th, 2010 - 09:50
Yes ban all jokes about subjects that somebody, somewhere may find offensive.
It’s a disgrace this country with people going round saying whatever they like. I think we need to set up some sort of panel of experts who vet every conversation, blog and newspaper article in the country to stop this outrage.
December 20th, 2010 - 09:56
Hi Tony!
Can you point out exactly where I showed that any jokes about things people might offensive should be banned? You might even notice in the content of the words above that I said I didn’t want such a thing done. The exact opposite of what you’ve decided I did say.
December 20th, 2010 - 10:28
No you don’t directly say this should be banned but I certainly got the impression from reading the blog you would rather it was.
I don’t read the Daily Mail, I don’t read anything by Littlejohn – he aint really to my taste therefore he can never offend me, though I very much doubt he could. I must admit though the bit about Anneka Rice did make me chuckle. You might find his piece on suicide offensive but I don’t – I think humor should be able to be dark, there should be no limits or dark corners that humor cannot go. There must have been a joke you have heard at some point in your life that made you laugh but would have been offensive to somebody somewhere in the present or the past.
I concede you did not call for the banning of such views but I think your wrong to critise Littlejohn about this, by all mean critise him for being a bit of a cock but not for making jokes about suicide. Maybe the headline to your blog should read controversial columnist says something controversial.
December 20th, 2010 - 13:07
How about the bit where I said ” I know that there shouldn’t be boundaries for comedy, and everyone has different taste in these things; I’m not saying it’s not a subject for humour at all, because of course it isn’t.” Did you miss that bit out? I am not saying that jokes about suicide should be banned or not allowed. Here I am writing it, using words. How about this? Are you going to notice this, or still think that you’ve decided what I’m saying? If it made you laugh that another individual wanted to die, that’s up to you. Feel free. I don’t have a problem with that. But I am allowed to call you a piece of shit completely lacking in empathy, just as I would Littlejohn.
December 20th, 2010 - 13:57
Well if you believe there should not be boundaries for comedy then surely you can not complain about Littlejohns humour then? Surely you are only adding more fuel to the fire by drawing people attention to it?
Im sorry but reading your piece I got the distinct impression that you did not like his humour and if left up to you that stuff would be banned. I concede you did not say so in so many words but that was the impression I was left with. Given the choice would you ban Littlejohn from writing for national newspapers?
I did not find it funny directly that this guy wanted to jump off a building, I found the connotations around bringing in a bouncy castle and the reference to Anneka Rice funny.
Of course you can call me a shit that is your prerogative but im not suddenly going to get all ‘offended’ by it. Being offended these days seems all the rage like the new buzz word ‘fairness’.
I have empathy, I just don’t have empathy with every single person on the planet, life is life, we are all just a collection of atoms at the end of the day and I personally do not differentiate between the pig that had to be slaughtered so I could have my bacon butties this morning and some guy on top of a roof.
December 20th, 2010 - 14:12
But I have said, using words, that I do not want it banned. I don’t know how many times I have to say this to you before you understand.
I’m glad you’re not offended by being called a piece of shit.
December 20th, 2010 - 10:05
Criticizing something someone said is not the same as wanting it never able to be said, Tony.
Crude playground jokes about real events are inevitable. Joking about suicide without reference to real people is just about acceptable, in my book. However, an adult joking in the national press about a real person’s suicide attempt is pretty cheap and nasty.
That needs to be said, Tony.
December 20th, 2010 - 10:46
I’m sorry I just not offended about this, I don’t know the fella but he obviously has some issues he needs to work out. I think me finding the image of him bouncing up and down on a bouncy castle amusing is the least of his worries.
December 20th, 2010 - 12:18
Anton, having an intelligent viewpoint in which you criticise someone’s writing is exactly the same as demanding that they be BANNED from saying it. Didn’t you know? This makes discussions down the pub pretty difficult sometimes, but that’s just how it works.
December 20th, 2010 - 14:02
What is the point in critising some posh bloke down South when he will never even read you critisms? Sounds more like getting on your high horse to me.
I got the distinct impression (but without saying it directly) that he want Litttlejohns jokes on suicide banned but maybe that is coz I aint as smart as you clearly.
December 20th, 2010 - 12:27
I’m quite happy for Littlejohn to come up with articles like this, because it shows him up for the hateful little prick he really is and helps show just how hypocritical the Mail is. The more of this the better in fact – then perhaps people will start to wake up to what it is they’re reading.
December 20th, 2010 - 14:41
Tony: so basically what you’re saying is:
1) you misunderstood the blog post and put words into Anton’s mouth
2) you disagree with Anton about whether suicide is funny in this context
I don’t understand the problem. I mean, if you disagree with the sentiments of the blog then I’m sure you’re more than welcome to fuck off and not read it?
December 20th, 2010 - 15:04
1) on reflection yeah
2) yip
So if I disagree with your point of view I should not comment? There is no need for swearing.
December 20th, 2010 - 15:30
And if the author of this blog disagrees with some ass of a journalist, he can’t comment on it without being accused of wanting to silence all things funny?
I think mister Vowl wrote a nice little piece, full of warmth, compassion and human kindness. I saddens me to see he gets criticized because of it, especially by people trying to put words in his mouth. I’m not much of a commenter, more of a lurker, but I thought I’d express my thanks to mister Vowl for his daily portion of the milk of human kindness.
December 20th, 2010 - 17:08
Of course he can, just like I have commented on his comment. I will give credit he did not say ban it but when I first read it, it came across like that to me. But unless you want to draw more attention to it, I dont see the point his moral indignation. Personally I think there are much worse things in this country to complain about than some controversial columnist being controversial.
December 20th, 2010 - 17:14
Then why do you bother commenting on this blog? “Blogger writes blog”, surely there are much worse things to complain about than that?
Oh, because you’re loving all the attention. I get it now.
December 20th, 2010 - 15:44
No, not at all, sorry if I suggested that. I’m believe that is the point of the blog: to offer a viewpoint up for debate. As long as we’re clear what we’re arguing over. You’ll surely appreciate that people claiming things are being ‘banned’ when they aren’t becomes quite tiresome after a while, and so that word can become a bit of a red rag to a bull.
Sorry if my swearing offends you, it’s just part of my fucking vocabulary. Can’t fucking help myself.
December 20th, 2010 - 17:14
I must admit the forceful reaction did take me somewhat by surprise. It appears there is no real debate apart from the author thinking the original column is in bad taste – a position I disagree with. And lets by frank there are a lot of stuff out there in the big bad world that are in poor taste.
Your swearing does not offend me I just think you can do better, my mam told me that people who swear can not express themselves properly.
December 20th, 2010 - 18:19
hmm, as a fellow person who likes a nice casual sware, may i present this counter argument to your mum?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_osQvkeNRM
December 20th, 2010 - 20:48
The important thing about this blog though, for me, is that it highlights the enormous hypocrisy of the Daily Mail.
After all, the Mail (and papers like it) are the first to jump on the ‘Shocking’ ‘Scandalous’ and ‘Offensive’ bandwagons. But they’re also very quick to allow offensive things to be printed, and very slow to apologise.
December 20th, 2010 - 18:38
I once wrote a blog post, on a different subject, where a 17 year old explorer scout I know commented “that made me feel very quiet inside”. I would like to steal her very youthful words to echo my thoughts on your last paragraph.
I know that we share very opposing views on religion but I hope you will forgive me when I say that my prayers are with those who arrive at this blog in the way you describe, particularly at what is meant to be a joyful time of year.
December 21st, 2010 - 12:04
I know we may have differing views on religion but I think prayer is a very valuable thing.
December 21st, 2010 - 11:04
I think this blog post is bang on. There’s a difference between saying you think topics should be banned, and saying that using a tabloid newspaper to laugh at a man who’s just tried to kill himself is a bit low.
Yes there is probably a glimmer of dark humour to be gleaned from using bouncy castles at suicide attempts, but someone with the lack of sensitivity and boorish sense of “humour” as Littlecock is not the right man for the job, especially when dealing with real people.
I don’t think anyone’s saying this sort of thing should be banned, just that Littlejohn’s a prize twat for doing it.
December 21st, 2010 - 11:09
it really baffles me how the mail manages to have their offensive troll littlejohn, who makes jokes similar to frankie boyle, but without the humour, and is seen as some sort of champion of free speech.
whereas, boyle is vilified
confuses me a bit how boyle makes a joke about a wheelchair user, and is described as sick to a big outrage, littlejohn makes a joke about wheelchair users and he’s being a brave outspoken hero untamed by the mythical “pc gone mad” people.
I would want people to be able to make jokes about anything they like, but i’d expect ones about disabled people to come from offensive comedians, not newspaper columnists.
it’s a strange world.
December 22nd, 2010 - 10:31
OK, starting point: I lost a parent to suicide when I was 10, so I reckon I’ve got some authority to comment here. And there are a great many suicide jokes that I have laughed at in the 22 years since.
For me, the reason the Littlejohn piece is so disgusting isn’t because he jokes about suicide. It isn’t even because he jokes about the suicide of a real person, rather than in abstract (I remember a couple of very dark David Kelly jokes, for example, which worked because they remind you of the fact that the man was dead because *he’d been driven to his death by a group of lying cunts*). It’s not even because it isn’t funny.
It’s because it’s pointless. It’s exactly the same kind of unhumour as Peter Kay, with no wit, point, intent, or anything behind it – “haha! A depressed man bouncing up and down” – and then aims that utterly banal and stupid barely-observational comedy at the kind of target you’d need a bloody good reason to aim at.
(I mean, I hate watching Peter Kay, but at least the man himself is *nice*…)
It doesn’t even have the half-wit of most of Littlejohn’s efforts – the man can at least do sledgehammer-subtle sarcastic satire (in the lowest sense of the term) from time to time. It generally turns out nasty and not particularly funny, but at least you can see, at some level, why he might have chosen to do it. This, just, what?
Alex: the difference is, Frankie makes outlandishly offensive jokes about disabled people to shock and disgust his audience and make them think about their beliefs; Littlejohn (normally) makes crass but more insidious jokes about disabled people, black people, The Lower Classes, etc, to help reinforce his audience’s prejudices.
This is why Jan Moir is either a failure or a performance art piece – she actually manages to provoke a backlash *from DM readers*…
December 27th, 2010 - 15:31
Another – very important – difference is that Frankie Boyle starts off with an unpleasant premise and tries to make it funny; the problem with Littlejohn is that he thinks the situation is inherently funny, so he has no need to ‘funny it up’ since in his eyes it is already funny in and of itself. That’s a mark of what a strange and odious man he is, and that’s why his ‘jokes’ aren’t funny in the slightest – because ultimately, they’re not even intended as jokes. Unhumour is a very good word for it, thanks for introducing me to it.
Maybe it’s just me, but I never knew the police used bouncy castles to save people from attempting to take their own lives, and upon reading it I thought “well, that’s bloody clever” rather than “tee hee, isn’t that a larf”.
December 22nd, 2010 - 22:00
My dad threw himself off a bridge in April 2008.
Ask me how funny I think suicide jokes are.
Ask me how I would talk to Richard Littlejohn about this.
He’d learn.
December 26th, 2010 - 02:24
Anton – not really anything much to do with the original post, but here goes:
“Blargh you just want to ban people from saying things you don’t like you fascist lefty bellend” seems to be an all too common reaction to criticisms of newspapers (and blogs and speeches etc etc). I’d really love to read your take on the difference between disagreeing with someone and demanding they be BANNED IMMEDIATELY – positions which Tony (and, to be fair, many people) seems to assume are identical. I’d write a piece myself but A: no-one would read it and B: justifiably so.
Keep up the good work!
SP