'Josef Fritzl was sentenced to 24 hours community service today. He is going to spend the time trying to teach the McCanns how to lock a fuc_king door'

That is sick, and not at all funny.

This is Bedlam. which, you may have noted, is a place where people who are respectful post, sometimes.

To put frizel and madelaine in the same sentence shows that you are not welcome. in my thinking.

sbk - help me out here...

Patsy, when a friend sent it to me via text this morning I thought the same as you and then I thought... why can't we have a laugh at such a stressful two news stories? God I have been, like all of us, greatly distressed be both these stories but I tried to see the light side for a moment as we can't actually do anything ourselves about it... it's a way of coping

Have a laugh at "stressful" stories???!!!!!!!

Some things in life should be respected and not be joked about. How anyone can see the 'light side' of such human tragedy is beyond me. Im sure the people involved will never see the lighter side or be able to joke about something so terrible.

Nampeung, what on earth did you think peoples reactions would be here? Did you really honestly think we would find that at all funny?

Actually, the joke and your reaction sustains and raises awareness of this sad story. If jokes were to sustain interest in such tragedy even for only a short time longer than they would otherwise become yesterday's news and disappear from people's memory then has not some good been achieved, albeit in a rather tasteless fashion ?

Bit of a stretch for justifiying a tasteless attempt at humor, tbh sibey.

Obviously, nampeung did not make up this joke, but felt the need to share it. Its interesting to see the reactions tho.

My first thought was "ew" and move on.

Distasteful.

The thing is though that it is just not funny, not for me anyway.

What I mean is that I have read a few Fritzl jokes and I must admit that one or two I giggle at but then they where an intelligent play on words. The one above just combines two terrible events for the sake of it and is a poor attempt of humour, it would still not be funny even if it wasn't in such bad taste.

Also, although I think that most of us have the capacity to enjoy even the darkest of humour I would not consider repeating such a joke in such a public way because you never know who might be reading and how you might possibly offend them.

A poor effort.

Just woke up - yes, even us Swissies are allowed a lie in, and still find it distastful....

But then, who am i to question other people's sense of humour. My own can be pretty black too.

But still a bad joke.

The discussion is interesting but the joke was dull! And just not funny...

Although I am not sure of the tastefulness of this particular humour mainly because of its current relevance, butI wonder how many of us would laugh at a joke such as:

Michael Jackson has just announced his next set of U.K dates

Colin Age 12

David Aged 11

Fred Aged 13

I bet some chuckled, even though it is of a similar distasteful nature

Moss

Don't worry about it too much Nampeung - we all make errors of judgment from time to time. Take Moss, for example...

Have a laugh at "stressful" stories???!!!!!!!

Some things in life should be respected and not be joked about. How anyone can see the 'light side' of such human tragedy is beyond me. Im sure the people involved will never see the lighter side or be able to joke about something so terrible.

Nampeung, what on earth did you think peoples reactions would be here? Did you really honestly think we would find that at all funny?

Here, as so often, I agree with you eek.

Met any nice cats, lately?

/ Priceless

dam_n right Mossfinn. Yavituut.

Nampeung, just want to say that I came across as a bit harsh, sorry about that. I stand by what I wrote, but i could have written it in a better way. Was just my initial reaction to reading your post and then your reply.

..I dont find the Michael Jackson jokes funny either. Some things i just dont find funny, particularly any topics concerning crimes against children.

I guess my humour isnt as dark as I thought it was.

Have a laugh at "stressful" stories???!!!!!!!

Some things in life should be respected and not be joked about. How anyone can see the 'light side' of such human tragedy is beyond me. Im sure the people involved will never see the lighter side or be able to joke about something so terrible.

Nampeung, what on earth did you think peoples reactions would be here? Did you really honestly think we would find that at all funny?

Here, as so often, I agree with you eek.

Met any nice cats, lately?

/ Priceless

Hey Priceless,

Yes, ive met several lovely cats down at Chiang Mai public park lately! They seem to have a pretty good life there. Havent been to Wat Pa Pao lately though, but did pop into Gecko books to hand over some food money (no transport of my own, bf been busy, so havent been able to get food to them). Have you been lately? I gave a few friends instructions how to get there and they said they didnt see many cats around. Was actually meaning to ask you and/or UG if you had any news.

Will go along to Wat Pa Pao this coming week in any case.

Hope you, your wife and your kitties are all doing well.

I agree that it's a pretty awfully bad attempt at humour.

I cannot, though, in good consciousness, agree with moralising about jokes made about "stressful" news stories.

The single worst tyrant of the past hundred years, Hitler, has been the butt of some of the best of british humour (GOOD humour) for many a decade now.

'allo 'allo (80's, 90's)

monty python (multiple sketches) (And btw, am I the only person who believes the ministry of funny walks sketch was inspired by the ridiculous march of the nazi's?)

al murray ('00's)

to name but a few.

But yeah, that was a pretty pi££ poor attempt at humour there Nampy.

Bit of a stretch for justifiying a tasteless attempt at humor, tbh sibey.

Obviously, nampeung did not make up this joke, but felt the need to share it. Its interesting to see the reactions tho.

My first thought was "ew" and move on.

Actually, sbk, I wasn't trying to justify the joke, only expressing an opinion. Taken to the nth degree, would it be better that such tradgedies were simply not reported ? Then at least nobody would make up jokes about them. But hang on, wouldn't that be like turning the clock back 50 years where nobody talked about anything distasteful and pretended that such things didn't happen, even though everyone knew dam_n well they did happen.

If there is an overall benefit to society by placing such things on the public record then that benefit has to be quantified across the whole spectrum of society's reaction to it, bad taste jokes included. People's tastes are different and I find it presumptuous and moralistic for a person to label something as bad taste when there are obviously people who will disagree with that label. To say simply that the joke was not to your liking would be more appropriate and leave individuals to decide for themselves what they may personally consider as bad taste.

The application of such labels by groups of people seeking to determine what should and should not be acceptable in society cuts too close to the bone of censorship for my liking.

I agree with suegha - the discussion is more interesting than the joke.

I agree with suegha - the discussion is more interesting than the joke.

Is that what the op intended?!?

Although I am not sure of the tastefulness of this particular humour mainly because of its current relevance, butI wonder how many of us would laugh at a joke such as:

Michael Jackson has just announced his next set of U.K dates

Colin Age 12

David Aged 11

Fred Aged 13

I bet some chuckled, even though it is of a similar distasteful nature

Moss

^

Funny.

Don't worry about it too much Nampeung - we all make errors of judgment from time to time. Take Moss, for example...

Don't mention the war!!

Moss

I agree with suegha - the discussion is more interesting than the joke.

Is that what the op intended?!?

Deep, Tigs.... Very Deep...

Don't worry about it too much Nampeung - we all make errors of judgment from time to time. Take Moss, for example...

Ping, you can throw anything at me today, just take a look at THIS

Moss

I don't normally follow the game but that looked like a nail biter...

They don't get much darker than this:

I don't see the point of you posting that, MR. I understand the point of the clip - which IMO is poorly executed and takes about 2 mins and 30 secs longer than it needs in order to convey its message effectively - I just don't understand why you'd bother to post it.

Double post.

Well yeah, in hindsight it is a bit of a random post and perhaps another candidate for an error of judgment (an alcohol induced error in my defence).

But at the risk of digging the hole deeper for myself I'll make an effort at explaining.

I think that I was thinking a bit too deeply the conversation about what is funny or not, or more to the point what is acceptable or not. To be honest the link that I attached is one that I don't find particularly funny myself, and I could have posted something else by Blue Jam that I do find very funny but that was not the point I was trying to make. I deliberately chose the most morbid and in bad taste sketch that I could remember.

So onto my point. Why was the clip in my post, which was one about child abduction, abuse and murder considered acceptable enough to be broadcast on British National TV yet we are unlikely to ever hear or see a Fritzl, Diana or Tsunami joke ever.

Of the three examples above you have an evil lunatic, a well respected and loved icon and charity worker and a natural disaster in which countless died. Yet at the same time we all have a giggle at the "Don't mention the war" sketch which was about the biggest catastrophe to mankind in history. Maybe it's because at the time not only was the world not PC at the time of world WWII but during and after the war those directly involved had the right to have a laugh in the face of adversity.

So is something funny more acceptable than something that is not funny. Nampeung's 'joke' got slammed whilst moss's got a couple of giggles (myself included) yet they where both on a similar subject. Maybe it is because moss's joke was laughing at a Paedophile rather than Paedophilia itself, but then why is a sketch about child abduction allowed on TV along with jokes about WWII etc.

Well I am going a bit thinking about it, I suppose that most of it is a matter opinion really along with some factors due to historical events.

Or something like that.

If you say so!

Well yeah, in hindsight it is a bit of a random post and perhaps another candidate for an error of judgment (an alcohol induced error in my defence).

But at the risk of digging the hole deeper for myself I'll make an effort at explaining.

I think that I was thinking a bit too deeply the conversation about what is funny or not, or more to the point what is acceptable or not. To be honest the link that I attached is one that I don't find particularly funny myself, and I could have posted something else by Blue Jam that I do find very funny but that was not the point I was trying to make. I deliberately chose the most morbid and in bad taste sketch that I could remember.

So onto my point. Why was the clip in my post, which was one about child abduction, abuse and murder considered acceptable enough to be broadcast on British National TV yet we are unlikely to ever hear or see a Fritzl, Diana or Tsunami joke ever.

Of the three examples above you have an evil lunatic, a well respected and loved icon and charity worker and a natural disaster in which countless died. Yet at the same time we all have a giggle at the "Don't mention the war" sketch which was about the biggest catastrophe to mankind in history. Maybe it's because at the time not only was the world not PC at the time of world WWII but during and after the war those directly involved had the right to have a laugh in the face of adversity.

So is something funny more acceptable than something that is not funny. Nampeung's 'joke' got slammed whilst moss's got a couple of giggles (myself included) yet they where both on a similar subject. Maybe it is because moss's joke was laughing at a Paedophile rather than Paedophilia itself, but then why is a sketch about child abduction allowed on TV along with jokes about WWII etc.

Well I am going a bit thinking about it, I suppose that most of it is a matter opinion really along with some factors due to historical events.

Or something like that.

Was she?

It's easy to be a "charity worker" if one doesn't need to work for a living and someone else is looking after your children.