Channel 4 said it was "wholly justified in the context". Price said it was "a further insult" that Ofcom had not forced the station to apologise.
Right, there's some nice examples: "in context." In what context? How does the context justify this particular joke? Which context are we talking about? And when does a context wholly justify something?
The model was among those who complained about the comments in Boyle's comedy series Tramadol Nights, saying they were "discriminatory, offensive, demeaning and humiliating".
In response Channel 4 said Boyle's comedy was not "intended as a slur on any particular community", but that "everyone is fair game in Frankie's eyes".
Having your cake and eating it too: we don't intend to insult anybody, we just insult everybody. Phony egalitarianism, the cowardice of comedians who pretend they're honest-to-god, "equal opportunity" truth-tellers and not vampires sucking the lifejuices out of the vulnerable. (Just to be clear, I mean "vampires sucking the lifejuices out of the vulernable" as a compliment)
One of the jokes that attracted complaints was not about Harvey's disability or about rape or incest, it said, but was "simply absurdist satire".
Okay, really? Really? Leaving aside the "simply", do we really suspect the joke is going to be "absurdist satire"? We can judge at the end whether it is "absurdist satire", but I'd have been willing to bet it was going to approximate "absurdist satire" about as much as Chinese Democracy approximates Glenn Gould. Discuss.
The broadcaster also said Boyle's remarks were meant to make fun of Price's alleged "exploitation of her children for publicity purposes... her behaviour as a mother and her cavalier attitude towards relationships".
So wait, is it "absurdist satire" or is it "meant to make fun of . . ." According to this article, Channel 4, which apparently can speak, speaks completely contradictory, righteous, arse-covering nonsense.
The ruling also said: "Ofcom was of the view that the material in question appeared to directly target and mock the mental and physical disabilities of a known eight year-old child who had not himself chosen to be in the public eye.
"As such, Ofcom found that the comments had considerable potential to be highly offensive to the audience."
Yes, and how do you bet this article is going to end?
Meanwhile, Ofcom also cleared BBC Two's Top Gear after the hosts made fun of Mexican people for being "lazy". The regulator said viewers would have been familiar with the show's "mocking, playground-style humour". "To restrict humour only to material which does not cause offence would be an unnecessary restriction of freedom of expression," it added.
I have a theory about the reason Jordan married a cage-fighter. She needed a man strong enough to stop Harvey from f***ing her.Or, as it is fully reported:
Katie Price – aka Jordan - has complained to Ofcom about Frankie Boyle, after the comedian made a joke about her disabled son, Harvey, who suffers from septo-optic dysplasia and autism.So what do you think of the joke?
Boyle said on his Tramadol Nights show: "I have a theory about the reason Jordan married a cage-fighter. She needed a man strong enough to stop Harvey from f***ing her."