[Update Wed March 3. I see the photo has caused quite a bit of discussion. Chris T-T is of course pissing in the wind asking for money, but on reflection I can see his point about use of the image. I too would be pretty angry if, for example, the BBC used a photo of mine without permission. Therefore, in the interests of reserving my right to occupy the high moral ground and go apeshit in similar circumstances, I’ve replaced the picture with a link. It was only ever incidental to the point being made anyway (I could have just as easily linked to the Brighton Theatre Royal’s own website). No doubt this’ll piss some of you off, but there it is.]
Further to my earlier post pointing out that The Now Show will be on three nights a week during the election campaign, I see that two of the regular cast – Marcus Brigstocke and Mitch Benn (along with other members of the BBC’s left-wing comedy establishment) – are in Brighton tonight (via Twitter)
Interestingly, the poster fails to mention what the event is for:
Award winning comedian and broadcaster Marcus Brigstocke will join forces with TV and radio comedy friends Russell Howard (Mock the Week), Alastair McGowan (The Big Impression), Mark Steele (NewsQuiz) and Mitch Benn (Now Show), Robin Ince (Nerdstock) and others for a one-off night of political mayhem at the Theatre Royal…
Proceeds from the gig will be going towards funding Caroline Lucas’ historic bid to become the UK’s first Green MP.
I guess the chances of hearing a Brigstocke rant or Mitch Benn song taking the piss out of the Green Party on Radio 4 are pretty low, then.
Update Sunday Feb 28. Response from Mitch Benn in the comments. He doesn’t endorse Lucas or the Green Party, but he supports them because they’re not the BNP. And Marcus speaks truth to power. Something like that.
(Here’s someone who likes leftie comedians but is unimpressed by their support for the Greens. Update. Link now password protected. Cached version here.)
Oh I do hope nobody turns up.
Imagine a listener to Radio 4 comedies who, for some reason, had decided to switch off the moment he heard a joke about the Daily Mail.
They would have heard four and half minutes of this week’s News quiz and two and a half minutes of Mark Thomas’ The Manifesto.
As far as I’, aware, the paper has done nothing this week that would lead anyone to think of it as a particularly topical talking point.
Conflict of Interests Guidelines
Political Activities
Political activity is not acceptable if it is likely to compromise the BBC’s impartiality or undermine public confidence in the BBC. Judgements about what it acceptable will reflect individual circumstances and advance discussion with managers is vital.
Principles for Maintaining Impartiality
It is essential that BBC staff, BBC correspondents on non staff contracts and freelances known to the public primarily as presenters or reporters on BBC news or current affairs programmes do not undertake any off-air activities which could undermine the BBC’s reputation for impartiality. Nothing they do or say should bring the BBC into disrepute. No off-air activity, including writing for newspapers, magazines or websites, writing books, giving interviews, making speeches or chairing conferences should lead to any doubt about the objectivity or integrity of their work for the BBC. If BBC journalists, presenters or reporters publicly express personal views off-air on controversial issues, then their editorial or on-air role may be severely compromised.
Levels of Political Involvement
There are three general considerations:
the level of political involvement the nature and level of the individual’s job the extent of involvement in editorial decisions, programme making and/or BBC policy
In any individual case it will be necessary to consider:
whether they are known to the public or whether their contribution is acknowledged on-air or on-line during the course of a programme or through beginning or end credits the level of the individual’s political involvement at national or local level: being publicly identified as a candidate or prospective candidate for a parliamentary assembly or local authority election; no matter that the date of the election is not confirmed;
——————————————-
The loophole here might be for ‘comics’. I’d love to see an official answer saying that comics are excused from the impartiality guidelines.
Oh dear-bloody Brigstocke and the hopelessly unfunny Russell Howard who presumably is still learning his comedy from old videos of Ben Elton.
Seems to be that the Green Party are becoming the slum of choice for the politically lazy-can pose without the slightest chance of being held to account. Still it means that the Beeb gravy train can run a little while longer eh?
As I made clear on stage at the gig, my presence at the show DIDN’T entail an endorsement of either the Green Party in general or Ms. Lucas in particular; I try to keep a degree of scepticism towards all parties. My interest was in the fact that she’s a representative of a minor party who actually stands a chance of winning a seat, which would give a welcome shot in the arm to the rather stagnant political process in the UK.
Moreover, she’s a rep. of a minor party OTHER than the BNP, who seem to be the only minor party whose electoral chances the news media seem to be interested in “bigging up” at the moment.
I’m worried by the prevailing wisdom that the only alternative to the Same Old Same Old currently available to the electorate is a bunch of loathsome racist gangsters, and a Green Party seat would go a long way to challenging that notion (and if you think the fact I’m willing to describe the BNP as a bunch of loathsome racist gangsters marks me out as some sort of irredeemable Trotskyist, well, that says more about your own politics than mine).
As it happens I HAVE done songs sending up the Greens (good to see the Beeb’s critics doing their usual meticulous and objective research) and if Marcus has never ranted about them (although I suspect he may have) it’s because he’s mainly interested in people abusing positions of power and the Greens have never BEEN in a position of power. Not much point.
Anyway, keep it up. Always nice to be talked about.
Oh, and thanks for your concern, thespecialone, but I’m fairly sure the show was sold out.
Mitch Benn
Good to know these labour luvies are so insecure they search for comments about them. I’m not that familiar with any of this lot (except that third rate impressionist McGowan). But Brigstocke seems to crop up alot on Question Time alot. I recall two of his comments:
The first was that the public were too dumb to understand the Lisbon treaty and therefore we shouldn’t have a referendum about surrendering our democracy to unelected unaccountable Brussels bureaucrats.
Second was some climate alarmist rant he made about about this being the warmest decade for 10,000 years – complete nonsense of course.
I don’t recall any of his attempts at comedy raising a smile – but I do recall thinking what an ignorant, condescending prick he was.
Ben Elton was a daft lefty too. But at least he was funny.
Yeah, so “skeptical” you’re actively funding a would-be Marxist politician. Because thats all you Greens are. None of you have an honest bone, and none of you would have a pot to piss in if it wasn’t for state-funding from the BBC.
So I assume you’d have performed at a gig supporting Nigel Farage, who represents a minor party, if he has a chance of unseating John Bercow? Or do you think, like Janet Street-Porter, that Belgians are a race, making Farage a loathsome racist too?
Comrade Benn,
You state that even though you do not endorse her or her party you do support them both? I think the phrase splitting hairs and self justification springs to mind.
It appears that you loathe and despise the BNP as much as many of us here loath and despise the evil of Marxist/leftist ideology, a poisonous creed responable for the deaths of millions.
The question is why should you be able to peddle your perverted ideology and political prejudices on the BBC when others who support other parties are in fact barred from doing the same thing?
Do you understand the concept of irony Mitch? We see a self centered bigot unable to see past their childish mindless prejudice somehow able to skip the rules while others are denied the same opportunity.
You see yourself and your comrades as the torch bearers of the sole truth while seeing those with a different value set as something less than human and that makes you a bigot Mitch, a closed minded bigot of the type that has caused heartbreak and misery throughout the last century.
We have your measure, your pathetic self justification only condemns you further.
‘It appears that you loathe and despise the BNP as much as many of us here loath and despise the evil of Marxist/leftist ideology, a poisonous creed responable for the deaths of millions.’
To align moderate socialists like Mitch Benn or the Green Party with the ‘Marxist (…) ideology (that killed millions)’ is to align yourself, a no doubt moderate right-winger with Hitler’s extreme fascism that also killed millions. I’m sure this was not your intention. Marxist ideology killed no-one, fascist ideology killed no-one. The killers were the terrible despots that used those ideologies to their own murderous ends.
“As I made clear on stage at the gig, my presence at the show DIDN’T entail an endorsement of either the Green Party in general or Ms. Lucas in particular;” — yet it is a fundraiser for the Green Party? Hello?
“My interest was in the fact that she’s a representative of a minor party who actually stands a chance of winning a seat, which would give a welcome shot in the arm to the rather stagnant political process in the UK.” — hang on, this isn’t an endorsement but you think if she wins she’d provide a _welcome_ shot in the arm to the polictical process. So, you would _welcome_ her winning but you’re not endorsing her? Hmm.
“Moreover, she’s a rep. of a minor party OTHER than the BNP, who seem to be the only minor party whose electoral chances the news media seem to be interested in “bigging up” at the moment.” Oh, she’s a representative of a “minor party” so it doesn’t matter that you’re participating in a fundraiser for them then?
Speaking of loathsome racist gangsters, isn’t it the Green Party whose leader has shared a platform with Hamas members? Geniune inquiry; I don’t really pay that much attention to fringe political parties.
Let’s agree that it’d be bad if either of these far-left parties, either the Green Party or the BNP, increased their political power.
I do like the depiction of Marcus Brigstocke as some sort of rabid animal though. And I’m impressed that somebody managed to get a satellite dish over that preposterously huge f*cking head of his.
Fully agree that the Greens and BNP are both unpleasant dingbats. If anything the Greens are worse given their support for Hamas and undiluted (according to Derek Wall a senior member) support for the Cuban tyranny.
Mitch Benn – Why not admit that you are in breach of the BBC’s impartiality guidelines? What a surprise you have not stuck around to answer the criticisms of those who analysed the Green party. As licence fee payers perhaps we have a right to know about the ’causes’ supported by members of a public broadcasting body that WE fund!
Cracking post by the way BBBBC!
Benn’s claims are highly spurious and could only be made by someone who is actually a fanatical lefty and supporter of the Greens.
1)Appearing on any political platform is evidence that you support it. Raising money for a political cause (as he was doing) is also direct endorsement.
2) He claims the only alternative to the Greens is the BNP, who, in his book, are “racial gangsters”. Putting aside that the BNP are a legitimate political party who have a seat in the European parliament, he carefully omits mentioning UKIP, which is currently commanding 5-7% in opinion polls and is therefore at least as popular as the Greens – and of course easily beat the Greens in the European elections (16% to 8% share of the poll .
But I guess Mr Benn and his henchmen followers would also immediately brand UKIP as “racist gangsters” (and probablyl nutters) because they, too, favour tougher immigration policies. Oh, and they think man-made climate change is a load of baloney.
I’m always entertained by the way right-wingers (in particular but not exclusively-lefties do this too) tend to conflate everything they’re opposed to into one big amorphous ball of BAAAAD… In the space of half a dozen comments there I’ve been called a Green (I’m not) a “Labour luvvie” (I’m neither) a lefty (I’m REALLY not) and a Marxist (I’m not, and I don’t think I even know anyone who is). Oh, and speaking of conflation, Asuka LS I do hope that was a typo and you didn’t SERIOUSLY call the BNP a “far left party”. Christ on a bike, whom do you consider to be right wing enough? Combat 18? The Ku Klux Klan? The Daleks?
As it happens, there ARE different rules for comedy than for news, and they are enforced. In particular they get tightened up a lot around election times; we’re going to have to pay attention this next series of TNS (starts Friday, folks, don’t miss it). Not that it will in any way satisfy any of you, but then since you’re ideologically opposed to the BBC’s existence, there’s little we could do that would. Not to worry, no doubt when the Conservatives get back in they’ll break it up and flog it to Rupert Murdoch, so all you True British Patriots will finally realise your dream of a country in which all information is controlled by an Americanised Australian billionaire. Nice going.
Oh, and I might consider doing a UKIP benefit, a. I don’t think they’d ask me, and b. while they’re not as overtly racist as the BNP they’re not above flirting with crypto-racist rhetoric, which I find disturbing.
Stay classy!
M
A while ago a comedian adopted the persona of a bloke who couldn’t-help-being-sarcastic. It was very funny. No matter what he tried to say, the words came out as a sarcastic sneer, which played havoc with the meaning. It was impossible to be sincere.
Is that what you were doing there?
Regarding ‘conflating’ and ‘amorphous balls,’ – who says we’re all ideologically opposed to the BBC’s existence?
Some of us are against being forced to pay the licence fee for fare we are ideologically opposed to, and others are just against bias at the BBC and would willingly accept the tax if the BBC were suddenly to become balanced.
Most of us would find The Now Show funnier if it occasionally went beyond obvious, tired, easy targets.
At the minute it is inadvertently funny in some ways and I mean that most insincerely.
In the field of economics the BNP is left wing. In that it supports the viewpoint that the state should play a leading role in the matter . It is very far from laissez faire or libertarian often wrongly assumed to be conservative ( I use the word in a non political framework) positions
It has an idealistic view of society rather than pragmatic and this has always been a leftwing standpoint.
Hence one could more correctly descibe the BNP as nationalist with socialist underpinning- which sounds familiar.
I would have thought that this may account for it’s appeal to disenchanted labour voters.
It would not appeal to a true conservative.
The Green party is likewise authoritarian and statist- but believes in a idealised world view founded on a surrender to a belief based system which it trys to portray as one of cool headed reason.
Belief based political cults and parties have blighted our collective history for generations.
AS to the BBC versus a Murdoch media . Compulsion in tax funding a media organisation is to me anti democratic and unacceptable in a society which takes freedom seriously.
How we deal with the potential for excess and abuse of power implicit in the corporate state ( in which the Murdochs of this world thrive) is a problem which we need to address.
It is the alliance of the private corporations with the corporate state that poses such a threat to liberty and good government.
How we deal with it will define the next 50 years.
Sadly the BBC , by it’s very nature , is part of the corporate stae and thus a part of the problem
Good post Dave. Spot on.
“As it happens, there ARE different rules for comedy than for news, and they are enforced.”
Christ on a bike, who does the enforcing? The Morning Star? Socialist Worker? The Daleks?
“Not to worry, no doubt when the Conservatives get back in they’ll break it up and flog it to Rupert Murdoch, so all you True British Patriots will finally realise your dream of a country in which all information is controlled by an Americanised Australian billionaire. Nice going.”
Nice to see that you’re not taking any ideological baggage into your licence-funded election run on Radio 4.
“while they’re not as overtly racist as the BNP they’re not above flirting with crypto-racist rhetoric, which I find disturbing.”
And yet Caroline Lucas gets your backing even though she’s supported events where anti-Semitic radical Islamists have appeared.
Stay classy.
The Ku Klux Klan were a creation of the Leftwing Democrats and have always been associated with them. At least 3 US Democratic presidents (including I believe FDR) had close associations with Klansmen and the longest serving Democrat ever, Robert Byrd, was a former Klansman.
The completely false association between Rightwing = racism, spewed out by lefties, needs to be countered.
Oh what a surprise, another lefty obsessed with race
Did “UK treasure Catherine Tate” turn up ?
Mitch may not be doing himself any favours above-but he is talented and funny unlike Marcus and Russell Howard!
Our problem Mitch is that you are given the conversation stone far too easily to continue the anti Thatch agenda of the 80s by proxy. No doubt the Labour Luvvies who pay your commissions still want to open the mines again-but funnily enough have done nothing to further any “socialist” policy since you saps saddled us with them since 97!
Two major wars?…economic collapse?…tax discs lost…civil liberties?…no EU referendum?…tuition fees and the destruction of the schools of the workers? Yet you`ll prop up those who`ve done this as long as the BBC give you a croissant in the Green Room!
Didn`t one of your Gucci socialists-Weller say it?…catalysts running off home for their tea and all that?
The Lime Green Nazis quietly planning a snuff Revolution in Brussels threaten me far more than the knuclke scrapers of the BNP-and only THIS Government could have raised them from their grave with its malicious incompetence and vogueing indifference…thanks for nothing Labor!
I see Mitch Benn has been well schooled in BBC denial techniques. “Lefty, Moi? I don’t even know any.”
Perhaps in the alternate reality of the Land of the Beeboids, this makes sense. As the BBC generally sees political labels as negative, especially when it concerns their own staff, hence it’s use of “Right-Wing” for anyone who disagrees with the BBC view of the world and allowing all non-rosette wearing lefty news commentators the privilege of a non-political introduction, so that the ignorant listeners and viewers can think that they are making balanced observations rather than spouting partisan propaganda.
Mr Benn is merely showing the signs of a good BBC group-thinker. They have been telling the country (and themselves) for over 80 years that they are impeccably impartial in everything they do. Therefore they don’t recognise any political reference when talking about themselves. Instead they have created a left-wing orthodoxy that, to them is impartial and doing exactly what their Charter demands, but to anyone else, who lives in the real-world, it’s a lot of left-wing and PC claptrap.
Here’s the thing, folks…
To be accused of “group-think” on a forum like this is ironic in the extreme. Your collective world-view is a truly bizarre concoction of hate and fear of anything that upsets or confuses you. I know you won’t believe this (or anything I say about anything) but I’ve encountered a far more diverse and wide-ranging spectrum of political opinions at the BBC than the monomaniacal group-think I’ve seen here in the last day or so.
And while my own political leanings are none of yours or indeed anybody’s damn business I will say this; your automatic assumption that I’m ANY sort of radical socialist is not only hysterically wide of the mark but actually quite offensive to me; I grew up in Liverpool in the 70s & 80s and as such, unlike (I imagine; apologies if this is not the case) I’ve actually EXPERIENCED radical socialism at close hand and it wasn’t a pretty sight.
One of the reasons I’m proud to be associated with the BBC is that it’s just about the only major media organisation in the world which is neither a branch of government nor a mouthpiece for some vast corporate entity, and as such it’s just about the only major news source which even stands a CHANCE of being impartial. I’m sure it doesn’t always succeed in this but for every site like this, denouncing us all as Communist subversives, you can easily find another forum populated by ACTUAL lefties condemning the BBC as a pillar of the patrician establishment. As long as BOTH sides hate us, we’re probably doing ok.
Anyway, I’m off. I had hoped to have a mature discussion with you on matters you clearly find troubling and on which I thought I might have been able to offer you some perspective, but having spent all day wiping your virtual mouth-foam out of my eyebrows I see this was not to be. I leave you to your philosophical bubble and assure you you won’t be forced to contemplate viewpoints other than your own anymore. Not by me anyway.
Stay classy,
M
Hatred and fear? Nice reasoned argument.
‘assure you you won’t be forced to contemplate viewpoints other than your own anymore.’
Speaking of irony.
The opt out of a funded employee and cheerleader that he personally will not be ‘forcing’ (for the rest, there’s Capita) viewpoints on anyone rings rather hollow. Amazing what £3.5B and national reach of endless bias can ”lead’ to.
Pity. It was shaping up as an interesting and hence worthy debate.
But the notion that after a few posts the inability to be persuaded by one set of dogma as evidence of an entrenched counter set, or evidence of being less insightful, speaks of familiar elitist ‘you plebs vs. us Eloi’ arrogance.
Culminating in the now all too familiar mock head-shaking flounce.
Dear [insert name]
You are clearly taking your bat home because you lost the argument.
You came on this site with the childish assumption that you could peddle your prejudice and frankly weak self justifications and we would bow before your self endowed superiority, the excuses heartily mixed the usual patronizing guff we expect from the BBC simply does not wash here.
In fact behind the childish foot stamping and flouncing off routine its clear you started on the wrong foot which you then quickly inserted in your mouth.
Why not rethink your prejudices and arguments and come back to defend your positions rather than run away in a sulk, most here would be happy to engage with you.
I’ve encountered a far more diverse and wide-ranging spectrum of political opinions at the BBC than the monomaniacal group-think I’ve seen here in the last day or so.
Well of course you have. You’re not likely to find a lot of left wing opinion claiming the BBC is biased. Don’t you stop to wonder why that is? Furthermore, we don’t extract money from you on pain of legal procedings on the understanding we’ll be impartial. Are you suggesting we can only complain about BBC bias if we remain impartial? That’ll be £139.50 please.
I think you should be given some kudos for coming on here in the first place, but to play the “right wing bigot” card as soon as people take issue with you is very disappointing. Did you expect us all to say “Oh, that’s all right then” and leave it at that?
Who the hell is Mitch Benn anyway? These postings are the first I’ve ever heard of him. And for a comic, he seems to take himself very seriously.
Something else happened in Brighton this weekend that the BBC doesn’t want you to know about: Daniel Hannan led the first UK Tea Party protest.
Sure, it started small, but these things always do. While a bunch of Leftoids on whom the BBC lavishes your license fee were performing in support of a far-Left political candidate, an elected non-Left MEP was trying to speak truth to those who actually are in power.
Just like they did with the Tea Parties in the US, the BBC will try to hide this from you as long as possible. When reality finally forces them to report it, they’ll misrepresent it and cast aspersions on the participants.
Mister Benn,
When I hear the Guardian (which frequently publishes some incredibly loopy far-left nonsense) being mocked by your good self on the BBC with even 1/10 of the frequency that the Daily Mail is mocked, I shall believe you.
Until then, keep drinking the Kool-Aid.
Stay classy 😉
Here’s a link of a prime example:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2010/feb/23/daoud-hamdani-star-city-another-view
I’ve encountered a far more diverse and wide-ranging spectrum of political opinions at the BBC than the monomaniacal group-think I’ve seen here in the last day or so.
Really. Who would have thought it – more diverse opinions in a muti-billion pound corproartion employing thousands than there is on a “single issue” blog frequented by no more than a hundred or so regualars?
Mind you I bet it was a close run thing?
I hope this stuff is edited and presented to BBC management – it is clear Mr Benn despises a large chunk of the audience. And when he is challenged, he mouths off in the sort of rant he does on radio – and then flounces off.
And we are forced to pay for unfunny rubbish like him and the Now Show ?
I had hoped to have a mature discussion with you on matters you clearly find troubling and on which I thought I might have been able to offer you some perspective, but having spent all day wiping your virtual mouth-foam out of my eyebrows I see this was not to be.
A word to the wise, Mr Benn. You out yourself as a leftist with the mouth-foam reference. Leftists have long been referring to anyone who diasagrees with their viewpoint as a mad, foaming in the mouth right-winger. As for perspective, try looking at it from our perspective. Have a good read through years of blog entries here and then come back and tell me there isn’t serious left-wing bias at the BBC.
You’ll have to excuse me now, as no doubt I have a pesonal mouth-foam issue to deal with.
Right, so you’ve used my photograph of this poster without permission or credit. Where should I send my invoice?
cheers.
But, Comrade, I thought property was theft?
But who’d have thunk it? A Beeboid complaining about someone using the produce of his labour to promote views he doesn’#t agree with. Hey, pal, deduct your invoice from the cost of your ‘blog licence’. After all, you don’t want Bill Gates running the internet do you?
This is Beeboids all over. They fantasisie about murder and violence, and produce long screeds about cleansing the country of ‘Daily Mail readers’ but every time some return fire comes in, they pout and whine, and claim Rule 776A Part iii specifically prevents anyone accuratly quoting stuff that they said. They’re the definitive case of bullies as cowards. When it comes to shaking down elderly widows for the licence fee they’re so there, but its underhand of us to report stuff what they said. Aparently, the ‘vanguards of the people’ are kind of afraid of the people finding out what they actually belive.
Er, where the sun don’t shine?
ROFLMFAO!!
Is it any wonder you are a soap dodging commie conscie?
Well done anonymous fuckstick, that’s another £150. So this blog owes me £300.
I didn’t mention any views expressed and I don’t give a crap whatever this bunch of fetid screwlooses are banging on about. I just want my money.
So I’ll email an invoice and expect payment within 30 days or I’ll come and collect it in person.
Cheers.
That’s actually funnier than most of the BBC’s crop of lefty comedians.
I cant decide:
does he look more like Bill or Ben.
Morning Star not paying you enough comrade?
Hope you can whistle coz if I was DV I’d make you whistle for your money?
Freedom for tooting you trust fund trot
Hilarious. Funniest thing this year. Eat your heart out Mitch Benn, whoever you are.
Oooh get you ducky!
BTW ha ha ha, your reaction is as typical as it is childish, keep em coming comrade eh? In these times of misery and heartache we need a good laugh of three.
ha ha ha ha ha – don’t like it up ’em do they?
Leave an email address fuckwit, and I’ll send you a personal invitation with my name and address. You can then pay me, a shooting, hunting, fishing and meat eater.
No? Didn’t think so.
Wow, baby, you get money eveytime someone mentions your name? You must be like some big Hollywood star!
There’s £450 for you!
Nice spot about the anonymity though, ‘ChrisT-T’…. but wait? How do we know you’re the real Chriss T-T, and not some Johnny Come-Lately tribute act?
There’s only one way to be sure – stop by and I’ll give you exactly what you deserve in person.
Amazing.
We have a bedwetting lefty ‘comedian’ who thinks that the BNP are right wing ( read their manifesto you halfwit, they are like the Socialist Workers Party, except they don’t seem to hate Jews quite as much ) and now there is some lard arsed Commy mong in a stupid hat who wants paying for a photo he put in the public domain.
Hit them in their pockets – stop paying the licence fee. I haven’t given a single penny to Pravda for the last 20 years. All you have to do is ignore the letters and tell their ‘enforcement officers’ to bugger off.
You want money for a photo you took of a poster you don’t own? Hilarious.
No wonder you call yourself titty.
Fucking hell, left/right bullshit trading, well done. Sweet little insults, ‘trust fund’ Paddy? hey seriously? Nice to meet you, you ignorant little bitch, hahaha. Closest I’ve come to a trust fund was fucking your Mum in the mouth for a book token.
I just need crediting and paying for a photograph I took that was used without permission. Simples, or do you need it in macaton?
DJ you braindead little penis, not because my name is ON it, but because I TOOK it and I own it. Thieving fucks. And a little veiled threat of violence from a big man, eh? Fucking hell! Pay me my money or you’ll get everything you wish for and probably a kiss too.
Anonymous Guest (another piece-of-shit coward on a blog overflowing with em) the photo is mine even if I’ve posted it on my social networks, gives nobody the right to publish without a credit and permission. £300, 13 working days.
Are you a friend of Mitch by any chance?
If we donate you a banana will you shove it up your arse and fuck off?
Aw ickle Andy, feeling a bit left out? Want some of mummy’s attention? Hush a sec my precious, grownups are talking.
Aw ickle Chris, still waiting for your 300 quid?
No I don’t need your mummy’s attention, and yes, she should have listened to grownups before she had you.
Aren’t you the Big Man, insulting women in a petty argument with a man? Is that part of the right-on greeny creed?
I met him once Lloyd, at the gig everyone’s banging on about. Shook hands, said hello, went off to my own dressing room. I couldn’t give a shit about the rights and wrongs in this sludgefest, I want paying for my photo.
Closest I’ve come to a trust fund was fucking your Mum in the mouth for a book token.
What was it the man said? Oh yeah, that’s it – “stay classy.” What classy company you keep, Mr Benn.
Beeboidal, hahaha, he started it. I asked for fair payment and got a shitload of abuse. Plus, I think that’s pretty funny, are you Ann Widdecombe or something?
Plus, I think that’s pretty funny
Deeply unclassy 14 year olds use stuff like that all the time, so I’m sure they must find it funny too. How old are you?
Yeah I’m 14 babes, you remember, we were on that *other* chat room last night isnit.
Chris,
You wont be surprised to learn that, like most others who frequent this blog, I think you’re a twat. However, as a musician, I have to say that you are not untalented. I’ve just been listening to your stuff on Spotify and enjoyed it. That was a surprise to my prejudiced mind as I had you down for some angry (c)rapper. Good stuff.
Bruce, thank you, appreciated – what a nice thing to say.
Do you honestly think I’m out of order for fighting for my photograph, which was used without permission or credit? I haven’t joined the debate about the bbc or the comedy gig at all – I’m here because I believe my copyright has been infringed.
If you read back through the comments, yes I’ve been rude and had a bit of fun but only because I’ve been subjected to massive dismissive personal abuse from the get-go, instead of any addressing by anyone from biased bbc about whether I should be reimbursed for what I feel is a theft of my work.
I think any of the people here who’ve slated me, would fight equally hard for their own possessions, if they were stolen.
Anyway, thanks for being nice.
Chris T-T
I am not sure where you have sent this invoice, but if you let me have it I’ll make sure it gets recycled with the newspapers rather than left with all the non-biodegradable stuff.
Troll, fuck off back to your cave. If your music was paying you’d be cashing checks instead of espousing your teenage wannbe gangster angst on this forum.
aw but Travis darling, it’s so much fun… the £300 owed to me by this blog is only fair, it doesn’t matter how upset you get or what you call me, a photograph I took was used without permission and ‘biased BBC’ should pay for that use.
You took a photo of a poster you fucking moron. You have as much claim to copyright as me suing you for impersonating bad taste by wearing that silly fucking hat.
Sadly, Travis, however aggressively you express it, it makes no difference legally: if the designer of the poster had an issue with my photograph, that would be an entirely separate debate between us.
I have an issue with biased BBC’s uncredited, stolen use of my photograph of that poster. You can deride it and me but it’s a legitimate legal issue.
Send us the web link where your rights to claim cash for a copy of somebody elses work is written in law and I’ll personally send you the money myself.
And while you’re at it, send us a copy of the agreement you got from the original designers of the poster to photograph their work and splash it all over the net.
I’m sure they would like nothing more than to be associated with an aggressive angry twat like yourself.
I don’t think you’ve thought this through at all have you. I’d say that all this could be damaging to your career, if you had one.
Thank you for offering ‘personally’ yourself Travis but I’d rather have the money paid by the people that owe it than one of their gimps. I’ve done what I can for now to ensure this happens – just need to wait.
You can rant and rave all you like – my ‘career’!? hahaha – no, I don’t have a ‘career’ and if you think disagreeing with a furious paranoid cunt on a forum is going to damage it, then you’re stupider than I ever imagined.
I’m not angry, just disappointed.
I wouldn’t refer to you as ‘a furious paranoid cunt’. Just a ‘cunt’, will do. Glad at least we agree on something.
Sorry to hear about your disappointment, but it’s called life. Most normal people expect others to disagree and refuse to kowtow to unreasonable demands. I realise that this is entirely alien to leftist twats who throw teenage tantrums at the slightest sight of provocation. But you can at least be rest assured that your approach and manner on this matter hasn’t assisted you in the least.
Hi ap-w, I’m not sure who you are with reference to this blog but thank you for your response. The invoice has been emailed, also sent in the mail and channelled via Blogger’s Report Abuse: Copyright Infringement section for further encouragement to pay for the image used without permission.
The payment opportunity is initially via Paypal with a separate opportunity to pay via bank transfer or cheque.
I’m glad that you will recycle your paper invoice copies after payment.
I suspect that you may never see your money. But let’s be positive; the use of the poster has raised awareness of the gig on this site, which I hope is some comfort.
Are you really as stupid as you look, sound and political ideology suggests?
You’re claiming copyright but without showing rights to claim that copyright. I’d call it intellectual property but in your case that would be an oxy-moron.
Show where it is your property and you may get paid, otherwose, fuck off. Oh, and I’;m still waiting for th email to send my address for you to come and collect personally.
He’s an awe inspiring talent is Chris titty.
That’s if talent means being incredibly shit at something.
I do wish you hadn’t posted that boring monotony.
Which is worse – the singing or the guitar playing ?
Bruce Robbins seems to like him.
But did you notice however, the moment someone stroked this lardass’s ego, he rolled over like a playful puppy.
Amazing the polar extremes that all lefties seem to have when it comes to their own egos.
Travis, Bruce Robbins liked his music. Didn’t you read the twat bit ?
I think the singing and the guitar playing are alright, it’s the message that seems hypocritical.
My favourite is “Preaching to the Converted.”
You’ve noticed the irony of Billy Bragg in his 4X4, yet not the irony of your own foray into the land of materialistic avarice.
We’re all railing against the establishment in our own way. Though in your case it’s mission impossible. If you actually achieved fame and fortune, wouldn’t your political credentials fall apart?
You must be joking about the copyright and the invoice.
If you did bankrupt this blog somehow ( it’s entirely voluntary) and shut it down, would that be a good thing for your cause?
A pyrrhic victory.
I’ve never been called a fascist before. But wait. Yes I have.
These socialists, what are they like?
I hope we can leave this topic soon.
Yeah but in TTs world, the music is the man. Right on brother.
Some of the above comment was addressed to Mr. T-T by the way – and if you’re reading this, since you took the photograph, was it you who fastened Marcus Brigstocke into that veterinary collar?
Strangely flattering I thought.
The issue is that TT took the photo OF the poster. He didn’t create the poster itself.
A not so subtle distinction of copyright that TT himself is unable to grasp and makes his claims utterly laughable.
he wants £300?
I know what he wants,and if he was in the general vicinity,he’d get it as well 😉
I think the position with regard to the photograph is that Chris took it and he therefore holds the copyright for it. The fact that it is a photograph of someone else’s artwork is immaterial provided the photograph is used for editorial purposes and not for commercial purposes such as advertising.
If Chris holds the copyright and someone has used the photograph without his permission, then that could be construed as breach of copyright. However, I would imagine that, provided the photograph is taken down as soon as the potential breach has been pointed out, then there isn’t much that Chris could do about it. He could try pursuing it through the courts but I think Biased BBC would have a good case for saying that the photograph appeared to be freely available on the internet and it was removed once the copyright issue was raised.
Therefore, unless Biased BBC wants to give Chris a stronger case, I’d suggest that the pic should come down right away. Why not put up a copyright-free picture of the Three Stooges instead. It’s not as if there’s much difference. I’m not a lawyer, by the way, but I’ve submitted photographs to picture libraries and the above is my understanding of the situation and open to correction.
Bullshit. He has no permission to use the image of the poster on the internet from the rights holder, therefore his claim for infringement of copyright is totally invalid. You don’t know what you’re talking about Bruce, and all you are doing is entertaining this idiots fanciful ideas that he has been wronged.
What TB Said.
You can’t stand in the public square and give a speech, then claim anyone who accuratly quotes you is breeching your copyright (and +100 if all you’re doing is reading someone else’s speech).
I think the position with regard to the photograph is that Chris took it and he therefore holds the copyright for it.
No he doesn’t, because it is not a generic or construct photo of his own making. Are you telling me that I can take a photo of the Mona Lisa and that now belongs to me and others must pay? The paparazzi owns the image captured of a person, but if another takes a picture of that same photo they are entitled to copyright it too? That would be called theft and copyright infringement, and that is why photos and images are always the property of the original creator of that artwork, and therefore why I say with some conviction that you don’t half talk utter shite.
I would suggest Mr TiT hasnt got a hope in hell.
In copyright law, it is normal to send a ‘cease & desist’ before the courtroom dramas start.
And since it also regards a matter of comment/reporting, i should think that ‘fair use’ policy is most relevant here.
So carry on pissing into the wind, Mr TiT
Titty says he’s done everything he can do at the moment: Fucked the mouth of someones mother, made a paedo reference, called someone a fuckstick, called everyone ‘Thieving fucks’, made a few veiled threats of violence and just generally ranted and raved like a thirteen year old gangster wannabe.
As any good lawyer would tell you, this is the first step in making any reasonable claims for copyright infringement.
I’m siding with his new best buddie Bruce Robbins here who’s still glowing from having his arse freshly licked. Tittys rights have been violated and we should respond instantly too that. Lest he composes a song about us and starts torturing another innocent guitar in the name of marxist sentivity.
He’s fwightening me, pwease make him stop….
Travis,
I don’t want to get into a slanging match with you: I’m on your side for Pete’s sake. I was trying to point out that it might just be better to take the pic off the website to be on the safe side.
From the UK Copyright Service:
Who owns the copyright on photographs?
Under law, it is the photographer who will own copyright on any photos he/she has taken, with the following exceptions:
If the photographer is an employee of the company the photos are taken for, or is an employee of a company instructed to take the photos, the photographer will be acting on behalf of his/her employer, and the company the photographer works for will own the copyright. If there is an agreement that assigns copyright to another party.
In all other cases, the photographer will retain the copyright, if the photographer has been paid for his work, the payment will be for the photographer’s time and typically an allocated number of prints. The copyright to the photos will remain with the photographer, and therefore any reproduction without permission would be an infringement of copyright. (my emphasis)
Also:
Using the work of others
As with all copyright work, you should first obtain permission from the copyright owner before you use someone else’s work.You should also be prepared to pay a fee, as many photographers will charge you for using their work.
Only the copyright owner, (or his/her authorised representative), can give permission, so you should contact the photographer, or his/her company, directly for consent. For images published on the Internet, it is typical to contact the webmaster of the site in the first instance, unless the site provides contact details for the owner of the images.
The copyright owner has no obligation to allow you to use their work, and can refuse permission for any reason.
Copyright law also states, “Copyright is an automatic right and arises whenever an individual or company creates a work. To qualify, a work should be regarded as original, and exhibit a degree of labour, skill or judgement.” Whether Chris’s photograph qualifies is doubtful.
I posted what I did not in defence of Chris, who I have no interest in beyond saying that I enjoyed his music, but just as free advice which you can take or leave. Rather than get further into an awkward situation, it would be much better just to avoid it altogether – unless you actually enjoy court wrangles.
I know you’re not thick, but I will still try and make this a slow and methodical comment. HE DID N’T TAKE A GEN ER IC PHO TO, HE TOOK A PHO TO OF ANOTHER IMAGE HE HAD NO RIGHT TO COPYRIGHT TO CLAIM COPYRIGHT TO. IF THE POSTER COPYRIGHT WAS HIS THEN YES YOU ARE RIGHT, BUT THAT IS NOT THE CASE HERE.
You own words might give you a clue; If there is an agreement that assigns copyright to another party, and there is, which is the copyright to the poster.
Just think slowly and carefully. Yoyu cannot claim copyright ownership of an image which is NOT yours to copyright, i.e the POSTER. Could I sell and claim copyright on prints of paintings just because I photographed it, or does the original artist reatin the rights?
I genuinely believe you are a pal of this morons or alternatively really are as dumb as you seem to be. Eloquent, but undeniably a moron.
You’re citing the wrong thing there. Chris T-T has a legitimate complaint against whoever made the poster, but not against this website.
The UK Copyright Service says that the poster itself can be used without permission if it’s done as criticism, as described in the Copyright, Designs and Patent Act of 1988.
The relevant bits are Chapters 30 and 31.
30. Criticism, review and news reporting
(1) Fair dealing with a work for the purpose of criticism or review, of that or another work or of a performance of a work, does not infringe any copyright in the work provided that it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement.
(Source of the poster was acknowledged by DB, so no problem there.)
(2) Fair dealing with a work (other than a photograph) for the purpose of reporting current events does not infringe any copyright in the work provided that (subject to subsection (3)) it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement.
Aha, you say. A photograph is excepted here. Not really:
31. Incidental inclusion of copyright material
(1) Copyright in a work is not infringed by its incidental inclusion in an artistic work, sound recording, film, broadcast or cable programme.
In other words, if he didn’t grant permission originally, Chris T-T can try to sue whoever made the poster. But he has no case against this website as his photo counts as incidental inclusion in a poster (which barely qualifies as an artistic work) which has been reproduced here for criticism.
And I’m pretty sure DB’s post counts as criticism.
This is getting boring now.
You’ve rumbled me, Stewart. I’m Chris’s PR manager and I’m just trying to get him the oxygen of publicity.
Back in the real world, if I take a photograph of a sculpture in a park, whether I have the permission of the sculpture’s copyright owner or not, I am the copyright owner of the photograph. I could sell that photograph for editorial use, but not for commercial use such as advertising, with or without the sculpture copyright owner’s permission.
If I’d taken a picture of my pal Chris, fresh from licking my arse, standing next to the poster, the copyright would be mine. The photograph we’re talking about here clearly isn’t just a straightforward attempt to copy a poster: that would normally be done with the film plane parallel to the subject. The fact that the photograph has been taken at an angle and includes even just a little of the environment could elevate (if that’s not too lofty a word for a crap photograph) it to an original work.
I’m not saying that I believe that Chris has the moral high-ground or that he would be successful if he pursued his case through the courts. For the hard of understanding, I’m only saying that it would be better not to let anyone test that idea.
Yes, Bruce, but if someone distributed 10,000 leaflets in your home town purporting to show your pal Chris administering tongue relief to your lower portions, they couldn’t then claim copyright law prevents you republishing it as part of a rebuttal document showing that’s it’s actually a pair of action men.
DJ,
I must be as thick as Stewart says because I’ve just read your post several times and still don’t understand what it is you’re trying to say 😉
You’ve rumbled me, Stewart. I’m Chris’s PR manager and I’m just trying to get him the oxygen of publicity.
I’m glad we’ve got that out of the way then.
Back in the real world, if I take a photograph of a sculpture in a park, whether I have the permission of the sculpture’s copyright owner or not, I am the copyright owner of the photograph.
Not if the picture is specifically and exclusively of the sculpture; that image does not belong to you. The sculpture as part of the park setting, then yes, the sculpture itself, no. That is the real world.
If I’d taken a picture of my pal Chris, fresh from licking my arse, standing next to the poster, the copyright would be mine.
Quite right, and I believe you may have that image, but then that wouldn’t be a specific picture of that poster would it? Not in the real world anyway.
The photograph we’re talking about here clearly isn’t just a straightforward attempt to copy a poster
Yes it is, unless you can point to anything else around the picture that make it generic? No, didn’t think so. In fact, I actually took exactly the same specific picture of that specific poster on my camera phone and am donating it to B-BBC, it is that specific.
For the hard of understanding, I’m only saying that it would be better not to let anyone test that idea.
And for that reason I would say you are either having your best mate Chris lick your ring in appreciation of your efforts on his behalf, you are a cretin, you are very easily intimidated by other cretins, or perhaps a combination of all three. Which is it?
heheh Stewart…
yes, then i can take a photo of your photo of TiT’s photo of a poster full of shits.
but will you sue me, ya bastard?
Well, Stewart, I’m feeling intimidated by you so I guess it must be the third of your options.