Am i the only person who disapproves of this? I don't really find it too funny, and it's a bit close to the bone. He was arrested outside my sister's school as well.

Have you seen it yet? Or are you disapproving it on principle, in a very Daily Mailish way?

The point has been made on here almost more times than is healthy that the segment rips apart the way the media is happy to lionise our famous criminals, solely for being criminals. It's savage satire, and maybe it makes you feel uncomfortable, but it's a legitimate statement, and one that deserves to be aired. If you're going to take issue with this section of the show you should really take issue with all of it - why not, for example, the Myra Hindley bit which directly precedes it?

I'm not defending the item because I "should", or because I'm signed up to some "party line", but because I think it's important, and I think it solidly deserves to be there. I'm only sorry we got it in its truncated form (I'm sure there was more material filmed - they wouldn't book an entire theatre for just a few seconds' footage).

I'd advise you to be offended by murder and/or murderers, rather than television comedy.

It's easy to attempt to discredit anybody who genuinely feels discomfort with stuff from Brass Eye. Mostly with 'Daily Mail' quips.

It's also easy to take a distant stance, to point out hypocrisy of others. But it DOES become more real when it affetcs you, in whatever way. I don't feel comfortable with paedophilia stuff because of my nipper, either.

And yes, I have seen it. Thanks for asking. From C&B.

And that, m'Lord, was inane.

If it didn't offend to a degree it wouldn't be making a point.

I wasn't trying to "discredit" you, Tom, I just wanted to make sure you'd seen it. And my essential point remains: if you feel offended or upset by this portion of the show then you have to bear in mind that *every* part of that show would have affected someone in that kind of way: anyone who was disabled / an animal rights activist / a drug addict / a relative of a Moors murder victim / a victim of violent crime... etc etc etc. Singling out the Sutcliffe section makes no sense. And it had an important point to make, and it makes it, regardless of where Sutcliffe was arrested.

Yes, I CAN see that.....

>Yes, I CAN see that.....

Heehee, M, you've slipped over the line from helpful into patronising.

I blame the weather.

Not to you, the last one, Mogwai.....

It shouldn't make any difference where Sutcliffe was arrested. It just does.

Anyway, the Sutcliffe victims did NOT play an active part in their death. Unlike a drug addict. Or an animal abuser. And the Sutcliffe musical is, well, inappropriate.

That was for you, RHC. but never mind.

> And the Sutcliffe musical is, well, inappropriate.

But unless you also opt to denounce the preceding item, "Me Oh Myra", then you're still making no sense, Tom...

Mogwai, I just don't see the need to lampoon the issue. I mean, none of the issues are dealt with sensitively, but I think that's the most glaring bit of the whole series. And its infamy does not help this, I grant you.

i think if a musical about the yorkshire ripper was appropiate it wouldn't be very funny would it, i think you are missing the point tom.

That was me, by the way. Sorry.

yeah, I do realise it didn't tour the country, Ollie. There are even rumours that it was within a TV show. I remain skeptical.

Fuck..........I keep getting this wrong.

I'm sorry Tom.

> I just don't see the need to lampoon the issue

And we're not going to get any further than this. You feel that this issue touches you in some way and therefore it is "inappropriate"; more so, maybe, than the rest of the series.

Someone who lost a relative to Hindley & Brady might not be as upset by the Sutcliffe item, but would be outraged and hurt by the Pulp song - *this* would be the stand-out item.

Someone who was abused as a child might tell you all to stop whingeing and pay attention to the "twelve" item.

Etc, etc, etc.

Like I say (and as you claim you can see), it has a point to make and it doesn't flinch from it. I'm sorry that you find it uncomfortable viewing but I'm personally delighted to see it there.

Brass Eye - if it isn't hurting, it isn't working.

And I told you never to call me 'Bongo' at work.

I think I'll end up losing this argument by sheer weight of numbers. I know Sokrates would pick my stance to bits. I know it doesn't make sense. But it's horribly human to care more about things that are a little closer to home.

RHC, it's cool. It was an open comment. But you made it your own.

If I knew anybody who was a little too fond of themselves, I'd send them here. Cut 'em down to size, you would.

I should so clearly have gone for a pint. And then posted with yesterday's coherence.

> But it's horribly human to care more about things that are a little closer to home.

It's also horribly human that Sutcliffe should have committed such a crime and that the media should have exploited it.

I'm a little tired.

>If I knew anybody who was a little too fond of themselves, I'd send them here. Cut 'em down to size, you would.

God, don't get me wrong -- you feel strongly about it, and I disagree, and I've told you why, but that's all. It's not like you're Jim Yoakum or anything.

... Am I still your little coconut, Bongo?

I don't see why not. You may also try on my hat.

Oh, and the bit before was light-hearted. Not always easy to tell, but it was.

>I don't see why not. You may also try on my hat.

Aw, yeah!

Something of a volte-face in this thread, I notice. Where to next, i wonder?

i suppose you dissaprove of the Producers too?