Count Dankula guilty for telling a joke

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 2:04 pm

Walton wrote:So what's the joke about getting a dog to sieg heil when it hears 'gas the jews'?

Is it supposed to be funny?

He explains himself at the beginning of the video. He said his girlfriend thinks the dog is the cutest thing ever, so he wants to turn it into the least cute thing imaginable (he uses that description, or one very like it)

Fake edit: I found a mirror of the video. He opens the video with this - "My girlfriend is always ranting and raving about how cute and adorable her wee dog is, and so i thought i would turn him into the least cute thing that i could think of which is a nazi". So after he's said that how the hell can anyone think he's serious about gassing Jews?

Here's the video.
https://youtu.be/5rdWlVyN9es?t=56" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Chobulous · Post by **Chobulous** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 2:05 pm

It's a see-saw this in perpetual motion.One refuses to accept white on black, the other black on white. Just call it out regardless.

Walton · Post by **Walton** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 2:06 pm

So that's a joke these days?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 2:10 pm

Walton wrote:Does free speech protect playing, over and over again, a clip saying 'gas the jews' ?

Surely playing something like that constitutes hate speech, in the same way a radical muslim extremist playing recorded death threats etc would be.

In this context, where he's clearly not serious, then why shouldn't free speech protect it?
And if it shouldn't then do we have to start banning all books and films where that phrase is uttered, and start prosecuting the people who wrote it or said it?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 2:12 pm

Walton wrote:So that's a joke these days?

YES! Just because you don't find it funny doesn't mean it's not a ******* joke!

Walton · Post by **Walton** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 2:14 pm

Why did he film it if it was intended to annoy his girlfriend?

Could he not just annoy her with it in private, like normal people?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 2:16 pm

Walton wrote:Why did he film it if it was intended to annoy his girlfriend?

Could he not just annoy her with it in private, like normal people?

Do you think videos of one person pranking another person should never be filmed and shared with others because that's not what normal people do? You really don't go on YouTube a lot, do you?

Walton · Post by **Walton** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 2:19 pm

Me and my other half are always playing jokes on each other, but we don't film them and put them on the internet, because we're not attention seeking pricks.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 2:20 pm

Does free speech protect playing, over and over again, a clip saying 'gas the jews' ?

Surely playing something like that constitutes hate speech, in the same way a radical muslim extremist playing recorded death threats etc would be.

Its completely offensive, and not even remotely funny and not something that anyone normal would ever say or find funny BUT where do you draw the line?

If its a Nazi at a far right convention doing it, then yeah, its probably hate speech.

But a **** comedian doing it on youtube as a joke, however unfunny?

Its certainly not an easy one and my mind is changing on a very regular basis on this at the moment. Its not a simple one.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 2:26 pm

Walton wrote:Me and my other half are always playing jokes on each other, but we don't film them and put them on the internet, because we're not attention seeking pricks.

So you think everyone who films a prank and shares it for laughs is an "attention seeking prick"?

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 2:27 pm

I'm another who fails to see how this is funny.

Can someone break it down and tell me how it is funny?

Bordeauxclaret · Post by **Bordeauxclaret** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 2:31 pm

UpTheBeehole wrote:I'm another who fails to see how this is funny.

Can someone break it down and tell me how it is funny?

You don’t need to find it funny. It’s not what he’s being prosecuted for.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 2:33 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Its completely offensive, and not even remotely funny and not something that anyone normal would ever say or find funny BUT where do you draw the line?

If its a Nazi at a far right convention doing it, then yeah, its probably hate speech.

But a **** comedian doing it on youtube as a joke, however unfunny?

Its certainly not an easy one and my mind is changing on a very regular basis on this at the moment. Its not a simple one.

Should Stewart Lee be prosecuted for saying he'd wished Richard Hammond had died? Or that he hopes Jeremy Clarkson's daughters all go blind? Because out of context those are surely just as offensive.

No one is saying that the term "gas the jews" is funny. But what IS funny is the idea of turning someone's cute and adorable dog into something very much not cute and adorable. At least i find it funny. But even if i didn't i'd understand that it's clearly a ******* joke.

If Walton wants to continue to believe it's not a joke and that he deserved to be prosecuted and convicted for it then i'd like to know why he thinks Stewart lee shouldn't be prosecuted for some of the things he has said that is offensive when context is stripped away.

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 2:37 pm

Another case that's received a lot of attention recently re: comedians and free speech is this one
https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2018/ ... -hard-mode" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A lot of suggestions that you can't impinge on the comedian's right to free speech and censor them but the kicker comes at the end with “These allegations included the entirely false suggestion that our client’s relationship with Ms Beamont was an abusive one.” which obviously gives rise to the question on what is/isn't free speech.

Walton · Post by **Walton** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 2:38 pm

Did Stewart Lee publish a video calling for a race to be exterminated, in the same manner as the Nazis killed 6m of them?

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 2:42 pm

If being an attention seeking prick is a criminal offence now, then some posters on here will be looking at doing a stretch inside

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 2:42 pm

aggi wrote:Another case that's received a lot of attention recently re: comedians and free speech is this one
https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2018/ ... -hard-mode" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A lot of suggestions that you can't impinge on the comedian's right to free speech and censor them but the kicker comes at the end with “These allegations included the entirely false suggestion that our client’s relationship with Ms Beamont was an abusive one.” which obviously gives rise to the question on what is/isn't free speech.

Les Dawson's mother-in-law is closely monitoring the progress of that case!

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 2:45 pm

Its a balance though isn't it? Edgy comedy can be brilliant (think Frankie Boyle)

If outright lies are being used in the comedy performance, then yeah, but this isn't that.

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 2:46 pm

Damo wrote:If being an attention seeking prick is a criminal offence now, then some posters on here will be looking at doing a stretch inside

That's rich

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 2:48 pm

Walton wrote:Did Stewart Lee publish a video calling for a race to be exterminated, in the same manner as the Nazis killed 6m of them?

You think this guy was calling for a race to be exterminated? Jesus Christ, you poor *******.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 2:50 pm

Walton, since you take teaching dogs to respond to commands inplace of "walkies" as serious, if i teach a dog to respond to the command "kill me" would you consider that a suicide attempt?

claretandy · Post by **claretandy** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 2:52 pm

Jesus wept, i agree with Turtles heed, i'm going to have a lie down in a cold dark room.

Walton · Post by **Walton** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 2:54 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:You think this guy was calling for a race to be exterminated? Jesus Christ, you poor *******.

What else could possibly be meant by 'gas the jews'?

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 2:55 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Walton, since you take teaching dogs to respond to commands inplace of "walkies" as serious, if i teach a dog to respond to the command "kill me" would you consider that a suicide attempt?

Depending on the outcome some would consider it a result...

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 2:55 pm

Walton wrote:What else could possibly be meant by 'gas the jews'?

"Walkies" you daft ****. He's talking to a ******* dog!

boiledclaret · Post by **boiledclaret** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 2:57 pm

The joke might have worked better if he'd said something different, like... I dunno... 'lets go to a Thule society meeting' or 'I hope Eva takes a dump on me tonight'
TV has guidelines for this type of thing, yet often offends but gets to issue an apology. YouTube doesn't have that luxury which is why this type of thing seems destined to happen.

It is a head scratcher though because TV guidelines seem more dangerous than ever these days.

Turtle has a point with 'content' its how its being delivered that's important not the words themselves.

We do live in a society were people use being easily offended as weapons, but 'gas the Jews' is, shall we say, uncomfortable.

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 2:59 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:"Walkies" you daft ****. He's talking to a ******* dog!

Wow, you've lost it.

Walton · Post by **Walton** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 3:00 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:"Walkies" you daft ****. He's talking to a ******* dog!

Gas the Jews means walkies?

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 3:01 pm

This is turning into one of those " I was there" moments...

ŽižkovClaret · Post by **ŽižkovClaret** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 3:08 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:So you think everyone who films a prank and shares it for laughs is an "attention seeking prick"?

Pretty much, aye. It's pretty much the accepted wisdom that comedians of any flavour are needy as hell. I was certainly no different

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 3:11 pm

Walton wrote:Gas the Jews means walkies?

Well, if you're the dog what the **** do you think it means? Do you think the dog is thinking "i must follow my orders and expertminate those Jewish ****"?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 3:11 pm

****, have i just commited a hate crime? Walton, are you going to report me?

Walton · Post by **Walton** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 3:30 pm

I think we often sing from the same hymn sheet IT, I'm glad you post on here because you counter the kind of crap which comes out of the right wingers, as does Up The Beehole, and also Lancaster Claret.

I'm just not with you on this one, I simply fail to see how what Count Dankula has done can be seen as even vaguely amusing, regardless of what words he used. The fact he used a really off-colour phrase to train the dog with then turns it from not being funny to really not being funny. I don't understand why anyone would think it was appropriate and acceptable.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 3:37 pm

Walton wrote:I think we often sing from the same hymn sheet IT, I'm glad you post on here because you counter the kind of crap which comes out of the right wingers, as does Up The Beehole, and also Lancaster Claret.

I'm just not with you on this one, I simply fail to see how what Count Dankula has done can be seen as even vaguely amusing, regardless of what words he used. The fact he used a really off-colour phrase to train the dog with then turns it from not being funny to really not being funny. I don't understand why anyone would think it was appropriate and acceptable.

The guy is talking to a dog. Forget that it's a command intended to get the dog excited about going for a walk. If you want to take what he's saying entirely seriously then you have to also take serious who he's talking to. He's not talking to you, or me, or anyone through the camera telling us to go out and start gassing Jews. He's talking to a ******* dog. Taking him entirely seriously then you're saying that he's inciting a ******* dog to go out and commit genocide.

Now do you see how ridiculous it is to take what he's saying seriously?

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 3:38 pm

Why's he filming it?

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 3:39 pm

All this thread needs is bluelab to arrive and add to the chaos..

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 3:39 pm

UpTheBeehole wrote:Why's he filming it?

I could hazard a guess that he's an attention seeking bellend..

Walton · Post by **Walton** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 3:40 pm

The fact he filmed it and uploaded it transforms it from being a man talking to a dog to being a man saying 'gas the jews' on the internet.

That's why he's been charged.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 3:43 pm

UpTheBeehole wrote:Why's he filming it?

For the same reason people post pictures of cats with Hitler mustaches. Plenty of people find it funny to turn something that is normally cute into something that's not cute.

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 3:44 pm

Walton wrote:The fact he filmed it and uploaded it transforms it from being a man talking to a dog to being a man saying 'gas the jews' on the internet.

That's why he's been charged.

100% this.

Otherwise you could have extremists saying all kinds of stuff and passing it off as 'I was talking to the plants' or some sh*t

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 3:45 pm

Walton wrote:The fact he filmed it and uploaded it transforms it from being a man talking to a dog to being a man saying 'gas the jews' on the internet.

That's why he's been charged.

You think he was telling you to go and gas the jews, do you?

duncandisorderly · Post by **duncandisorderly** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 3:47 pm

Just because something is offensive doesn't mean you have to be offended by it.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 3:59 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:When it's racism against white people you challenge the racism, absolutely. But when it's racism against non-white people you challenge whether it's racism.

Ooooh, so close. And yet so far.

When I don't think it's actually racism at all, I question whether it's actually racism.

Take for example the stalker-ish list of threads that greenmile produced (he must have a photographic memory or somethings):

Like the song about Lukaku's willy. Is singing about a guy's willy racism?

Wolves used to sing about Michael Oakes whopper-cocker in the 90s and that wasn't racist but apparently it is 'racist' to sing about Lukaku's long-dong in the 2010s. Why is that?

Then there was the issue of Ellie Aluko. I believe she is on record at having made the same weak joke about her name (a pun about ebola) as Mark Sampson made. It was not racism when she made the joke but apparently was 'racism' when he made the same joke. Why is that?

So you see, these aren't issues of racism at all but instead are accusations of 'racism'.

And because I care deeply about rooting out racism, I care deeply that the cause is not sullied with frivolous, vexatious or unfounded cries of "RACIST!" because all that does is undermine the fight against racism.

And then of course there are people like yourself and greenmile who, when it comes to this issue, act like utter pricks. i'm perfectly happy to put that insult on record here because that's what you deserve for making these sly and disgusting insinuations against me.

Greenmile can stick his stupid list (what a memory he has to pluck out year old threads that he thinks somehow 'embarrass' me!) up his ar5e. Just how does he recall all these threads?

And you can stick your selective memory up your sphincter too - I presume you never read this thread, for example:

http://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboar ... ny#p648795" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You want to call me a hypocrite and imply I'm racist without having the guts to actually say it? Fine. I'm going to respond by justifiably calling you a tw@t.

You know nothing about my actual life and know nothing of the things I've done with my life to fight against prejudice and bigotry - actual instances of it, not millennial "micro-aggressions" and other chimera sh:t.

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 3:59 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:You think he was telling you to go and gas the jews, do you?

Well it was the uploaded part that made it potentially an offence under the Communications Act which is what he was convicted under. It was deemed "grossly offensive" which is a specific offensive in there.

Although it does seem difficult to make stick given what the "comedian" claimed the context was. The sheriff said he did not believe Meechan’s defence that he had made it only to annoy his girlfriend, not being involved I can't really judge either way.

Walton · Post by **Walton** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 4:02 pm

aggi wrote:Well it was the uploaded part that made it potentially an offence under the Communications Act which is what he was convicted under. It was deemed "grossly offensive" which is a specific offensive in there.

Although it does seem difficult to make stick given what the "comedian" claimed the context was. The sheriff said he did not believe Meechan’s defence that he had made it only to annoy his girlfriend, not being involved I can't really judge either way.

Exactly

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 4:24 pm

Having looked at his twitter I don't think I'd be re-tweeting so much stuff from Far Right tweeters if I was in court trying to defend myself re: offensive comments about Jews.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 4:35 pm

Walton wrote:The fact he filmed it and uploaded it transforms it from being a man talking to a dog to being a man saying 'gas the jews' on the internet.

That's why he's been charged.

Context is everything.

If the BBC shows a man saying that he is looking for a final solution and wishes to see the extermination of the Jews, should he be prosecuted? Yes, you might say - but would it be a valid defence to say that he was an actor playing Adolf Hitler in a TV play? I would certainly hope so.

Never mind the point of whether it is funny or not, because comedy is in the eye of the beholder. The video is clearly a bad joke aimed at the dog's apparent imitation of a fascist salute, and it is clearly not an incitement to commit genocide. Should it be a criminal offence to tell bad jokes?

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 5:03 pm

Rowls wrote:Ooooh, so close. And yet so far.

When I don't think it's actually racism at all, I question whether it's actually racism.

Take for example the stalker-ish list of threads that greenmile produced (he must have a photographic memory or somethings):

Like the song about Lukaku's willy. Is singing about a guy's willy racism?

Wolves used to sing about Michael Oakes whopper-cocker in the 90s and that wasn't racist but apparently it is 'racist' to sing about Lukaku's long-dong in the 2010s. Why is that?

Then there was the issue of Ellie Aluko. I believe she is on record at having made the same weak joke about her name (a pun about ebola) as Mark Sampson made. It was not racism when she made the joke but apparently was 'racism' when he made the same joke. Why is that?

So you see, these aren't issues of racism at all but instead are accusations of 'racism'.

And because I care deeply about rooting out racism, I care deeply that the cause is not sullied with frivolous, vexatious or unfounded cries of "RACIST!" because all that does is undermine the fight against racism.

And then of course there are people like yourself and greenmile who, when it comes to this issue, act like utter pricks. i'm perfectly happy to put that insult on record here because that's what you deserve for making these sly and disgusting insinuations against me.

Greenmile can stick his stupid list (what a memory he has to pluck out year old threads that he thinks somehow 'embarrass' me!) up his ar5e. Just how does he recall all these threads?

And you can stick your selective memory up your sphincter too - I presume you never read this thread, for example:

http://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboar ... ny#p648795" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You want to call me a hypocrite and imply I'm racist without having the guts to actually say it? Fine. I'm going to respond by justifiably calling you a tw@t.

You know nothing about my actual life and know nothing of the things I've done with my life to fight against prejudice and bigotry - actual instances of it, not millennial "micro-aggressions" and other chimera sh:t.

If you click on someone's name on here, you can access a search function - it doesn't take a stalker to search through your posts for the word "racism".

I found three examples of you defending or downplaying racism in about 5 minutes whilst having breakfast this morning (you have failed to address the most grevious of which, when you spent ages defending Kelvin Mackenzie for comparing a young man with African heritage to a gorilla, which ended up with him being suspended and the Sun (the Sun!!) printing an apology). You have found one example of you mentioning "disgusting racist chants" from a group of rival fansfrom almost 25 years ago.

If you can find me, say, two examples of you calling out current / 21st century racism on this board, I'd be willing to retract my "implication", which was not that you're racist, but that you're happy to denounce people who call out racism, as long as it's not anti-white racism, of course.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 5:09 pm

All of which ignores the link that you have quoted above. Wot a dingbat u r.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 5:10 pm

There are people who don't understand how the search function works. It's truly baffles them how you can type in a word and find all the posts that that word has appear in. It's magical to them. Google ***** their mind every day.