[Albion] Jim Davidson on Piers Morgan's Life Stories

LlcoolJ said:

Yes, I completely agree that the past should be accepted for what it was. Nothing should ever be airbrushed or rewritten.

My main point was that Davidson was seen as a moronic, lowest common denominator, unfunny, dickhead at the time as well by lots of people. I remember him as a kid. My mum and every other adult I knew cringed at his stuff back then.

You highlighted me saying his material was acceptable, but not by whom. Enough people actually found him offensive at the time. Fortunately, or we'd never have moved on.

Click to expand...

GT49er said:

Fair enough, but I think we'll have to differ about how many people found his comedy acceptable at the time.

Click to expand...

BadFish said:

I think he means this thread!

I love the irony that he is complaining and PC brigade column inches while himself starting a thread to give the story more air time.

Click to expand...

GT49er said:

Wasn't it a programme reviewing the career of Jim Davidson? 'Chalky' was part of that career, so he was asked about it, and replied in character. As part of the past. The past which is no longer part of the present.
As in, 'This is what I used to do, and why' - not that I intend to carry on doing it now.

Like, if Warren Mitchell could come back to be interviewed, and was asked about his on-screen relationship with Tony Booth, replied, "Yeh, I used to call him [reverts into character] a randy scarss git" would that have to be vilified, just because it wouldn't be acceptable language now? Just saying what used to happen, or what it was OK to say back then isn't tryng to bring it back into modern acceptance - it's just saying what was acceptable............back then. It's called history................

Click to expand...

Lenny Rider said:

Media outlets reporting that a number of people, including a black husband and wife, walked out of the audience when Davidson did his 'Chalky' impersonation from the 1970's/80s.

Obviously this will always offend some people but in all seriousness why did they go in the first place, clearly by the very nature of the show is looking back this subject was always going to be raised?

More column inches for the PC brigade..........

Click to expand...

drew said:

Not sure how you can put Till Death Us Do Part in the same bracket at Love Thy Neighbour and On the Buses. TDUDP was quite clearly a clever parody. You didn't laugh with the character of Alf Garnet, you laughed at him and his views.

Click to expand...

drew said:

Not sure how you can put Till Death Us Do Part in the same bracket at Love Thy Neighbour and On the Buses. TDUDP was quite clearly a clever parody. You didn't laugh with the character of Alf Garnet, you laughed at him and his views.

Click to expand...

LlcoolJ said:

Yes, I completely agree that the past should be accepted for what it was. Nothing should ever be airbrushed or rewritten.

My main point was that Davidson was seen as a moronic, lowest common denominator, unfunny, dickhead at the time as well by lots of people. I remember him as a kid. My mum and every other adult I knew cringed at his stuff back then.

You highlighted me saying his material was acceptable, but not by whom. Enough people actually found him offensive at the time. Fortunately, or we'd never have moved on.

Click to expand...

alfredmizen said:

mate , you grew up in lewes , your mum and her friends may have cringed at his stuff , that doesnt mean all adults.cringed at his stuff.

Click to expand...

LlcoolJ said:

I've not seen this hellish abomination of a show so I don't know what occurred.

But are you really trying to stick up for Jim Davidson? About anything? It's not just that he's a horrible racist, sexist scumbag with the self awareness of the cat shit I cleaned off my astroturf earlier, it's..... Well actually it is all that, but it's also that he's NEVER been funny.

He's just a nasty, bitter dickhead who made a career out of being a nasty, bitter dickhead when telling "jokes" about people who were different was acceptable and appealed to basic, uneducated, scared people.

It is called history, fortunately as thick ***** like him can't make a living spouting bile dressed up as comedy any more. It's also called progress.

Click to expand...

LlcoolJ said:

I'm not differing, I'm agreeing with you. It's just sad that there WERE so many people who accepted and embraced his vile crap back then.

As I said earlier, stupid, uneducated, scared, insular racist people found him funny because he pandered to their fears. There were lots of them. Fewer now. Which is a good thing.

Click to expand...

Driver8 said:

I think it’s more to do with intelligence than geography.

Click to expand...

Miami Seagull said:

In his defence, while he had many a personal issue and others issues, he did a ton of charity work, mostly for military charities back in the day. Visited those of us on patrol in the Falkland a number of times, giving up significant chunks of his time when he was at his most popular. He was / is not all bad. And absolutely no comparison to other certain charity personalities of his time.

Click to expand...

alfredmizen said:

yet again i have to point out you grew up.in lewes , and some of those scared , insular, racist people dealt with what you have never experienced but feel qualified to arrogantly dismiss every day.

Click to expand...

alfredmizen said:

i think its more to do with what youve experienced rather than what you havent

Click to expand...

LVGull said:

If he was no good or not funny, why was he a sell out for so many years?

Click to expand...

Voroshilov said:

Ah the Jimmy Saville defense.

Click to expand...