Hawsey and Harty

[fleet]

Hey half way there - much better today with Hawsey back (shame about the football!), now lets get Harty back too

 

[Aspinal's Body Double]

How the hell can BBC justify sacking Hart for saying 'lick windows' and KEEP Hawes for calling for 'window lickers' to ring in?

My guess from the start here (and it's only a guess, I don't know anyone who knows anyone whose neighbour once went out with someone) is that Hawes didn't know the meaning of "window lickers" (just as I didn't).

He may have assumed it was something Harty had just made up, so forsaw no offence in using it.

IF this was Hawe's explanation, and it was accepted then "sacking" Harty but not him would seem to have some rationale behind it.

 

[BUTTERBALL]

The BBC must bring back Harty. It's okay for programmes like Little Britain to take the piss out of disabled people but Harty's slip just won't be forgiven. The whole thing stinks of hypocrisy.

 

[clapham_gull]

The BBC must bring back Harty. It's okay for programmes like Little Britain to take the piss out of disabled people but Harty's slip just won't be forgiven. The whole thing stinks of hypocrisy.

You can't compare the two to be honest and neither would Ofcom is it really came to it.

One is a comedy programme the other is a football phone-in and have different audience expectations.

There aren't blanket rules over what is and isn't offensive.

 

[NMH]

You can't compare the two to be honest and neither would Ofcom is it really came to it.

One is a comedy programme the other is a football phone-in and have different audience expectations.

There aren't blanket rules over what is and isn't offensive.

But isn't that last sentence at the crux of this matter?
No blanket rules over what's offensive?
It's not about words the media use anyway, especially nowadays when every bad word HAS been said on television and radio - it's about what is being said with inoffensive words, AND the manner behind what's being said.
i.e. when Alf Garnet said "bloody wogs/coons/dagos/scousers" etc, it was deemed 'humour' (even repetitive shit like that, was supposedly 'funny'!) because it DID cross the lines to affront your sense of decency or what ought to offend. Thus, it was DELIBERATE affronting and offending!!
If a 'serious' spokesman says "disabled are flids and spastics, and ought to stay indoors" - that really is obviously offensive.

Now when a couple of (naive) chaps goofing around say something NOT meaning or attempting to offend a social group, the holy BBC suspend/sack them.

Nope, it IS hypocrisy, it IS an affront in itself - and it does NOT address any issue with any lesson or respect whatsoever, to any party. It doesn't have a smidgeon of inherent wisdom, none.

And I'm NOT in any doubt about this (aka fact, but it's too flippant a word this time)

 

[clapham_gull]

But isn't that last sentence at the crux of this matter?
No blanket rules over what's offensive?
It's not about words the media use anyway, especially nowadays when every bad word HAS been said on television and radio - it's about what is being said with inoffensive words, AND the manner behind what's being said.
i.e. when Alf Garnet said "bloody wogs/coons/dagos/scousers" etc, it was deemed 'humour' (even repetitive shit like that, was supposedly 'funny'!) because it DID cross the lines to affront your sense of decency or what ought to offend. Thus, it was DELIBERATE affronting and offending!!
If a 'serious' spokesman says "disabled are flids and spastics, and ought to stay indoors" - that really is obviously offensive.

Now when a couple of (naive) chaps goofing around say something NOT meaning or attempting to offend a social group, the holy BBC suspend/sack them.

Nope, it IS hypocrisy, it IS an affront in itself - and it does NOT address any issue with any lesson or respect whatsoever, to any party. It doesn't have a smidgeon of inherent wisdom, none.

And I'm NOT in any doubt about this (aka fact, but it's too flippant a word this time)

I've defended Harty on here, I think the apology was enough.

.. but drawing parallels with things like Little Britain and Alf Garnett is a waste of time, whatever happened has to be looked at in the context of the genre of programme.

 

[NMH]

I've defended Harty on here, I think the apology was enough.

.. but drawing parallels with things like Little Britain and Alf Garnett is a waste of time, whatever happened has to be looked at in the context of the genre of programme.

Not really - it's broadcasting as a media, and in life as in... life. Pigeonholing it for the sake of graduating perspective might work for yours, but I'm taking the record of the judges into account....for all genres.
I really don't see why THEY should be allowed to adjudicate according to this or that medium - or fail to take into account the gravity (actually, levity) , just because it upset a couple of Mary Whitehouses who also have blinkered judgement.

 

[Nemesis]

I've defended Harty on here, I think the apology was enough.

.. but drawing parallels with things like Little Britain and Alf Garnett is a waste of time, whatever happened has to be looked at in the context of the genre of programme.

You mean like Jeremy Clarkson saying "As barmy as a window licker" is fine then? Seeing as it was on TV with an audience of millions...What genre of programme does Top Gear fall into where his comment is acceptable yet Harty's wasn't? The BBC reacted because some dipshit on here decided to blab and make a fuss, plain and simple.

 

[clapham_gull]

You mean like Jeremy Clarkson saying "As barmy as a window licker" is fine then? Seeing as it was on TV with an audience of millions...What genre of programme does Top Gear fall into where his comment is acceptable yet Harty's wasn't? The BBC reacted because some dipshit on here decided to blab and make a fuss, plain and simple.

Well that's obviously a much better parallel isn't it ?

Just pointing out that the Little Britain one quite obviously isn't.

It's actually the hypocrisy on here I found amazing. Not that long ago there was a fuss because a national newspaper made a homophobic comment about Brighton. I seem to recall some people actually complained as well, and printed their letters on here. Were they REALLY offended, or was it just an opportunity to complain about something. That's a debate for another day I guess.

For the record, I'll miss Harty and his quick apology should have signalled the end of it. I think it was the Argus story, and the nationals picking up on it that did the actual damage.

I hope there is a chance he will return, he may like to portray himself as an amateur but I think his broadcasting skills are underestimated.

 

[Giraffe]

What was the phone in like on Saturday? I was out of the area so didn't hear it. Any mention of Ian Hart?

Shameful that he is not back.

 

[El Presidente]

I've defended Harty on here, I think the apology was enough.

.. but drawing parallels with things like Little Britain and Alf Garnett is a waste of time, whatever happened has to be looked at in the context of the genre of programme.

The programme is a football phone in, and football is an emotional game. Harty was at worst a bit daft, but his comments were clearly aimed at GOONS on NSC, and not the disabled.

 

[The Oldman]

I have to confess that when I heard that Harty had attacked posters on here as "Window Lickers" I thought it was a reference to the Microsoft Windows operating system and that we were all in love with our computers.

Whatever, Harty should be back.

 

[BensGrandad]

What was the phone in like on Saturday? I was out of the area so didn't hear it. Any mention of Ian Hart?

Shameful that he is not back.

Dull with very few opinions given by either Andrew Hawes or Norman Gall. Virtually every caller remarked that they hoped harty would be back, I can only remember 1 who didnt, who said he had 3 disbaled relatives and found it offensive.

I phoned in and was told by the operator when I gave my name 'Oh the infamous Brian from Haywards Heath we will call you back but they didnt and that was at 5.05 and they were still asking for callers to ring in at 5.55

 

[Giraffe]

Dull with very few opinions given by either Andrew Hawes or Norman Gall. Virtually every caller remarked that they hoped harty would be back,

Can I humbly suggest that anyone who phones in tomorrow says the same.

I will certainly try. To say his treatment has been shameful is an understatement.

 

[northstandnorth]

as someone who feels hart has had his day and was more concerned that he,working for beer money part time with a presumably safe business,would take a profesional down with him.
but the hypocracy of the BBC who will no doubt still pay 6 million to the lisping fool for a much more offensive crime.