Russell Brand

[egg]

9 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

Yeah, if that's the same name I kept seeing on Reddit then it came as a surprise to me as well. Seems to be an open secret in the industry.

I suspect it is.  

[egg]

3 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

An injunction against one of the alleged victims actually banned her from talking to the Police under any circumstances, and is technically still in effect unless he consents to lift it.

I've seen the Order. It even prevented her from speaking to a medic about it. Outrageous. 

A few barristers have offered to assist her pro bono if she wants help. 

 

[Sheaf Saint]

19 minutes ago, egg said:

Not sure it's right to speculate. 

Only fools would do that.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

33 minutes ago, egg said:

Not sure it's right to speculate. 

 

16 minutes ago, egg said:

I've seen the Order. It even prevented her from speaking to a medic about it. Outrageous. 

A few barristers have offered to assist her pro bono if she wants help. 

 

Well, your stance didn't last long. 🙂

[egg]

18 minutes ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

 

Well, your stance didn't last long. 🙂

The only thing wrong about Bono is every album he's made since Joshua tree. 

[whelk]

1 hour ago, Sheaf Saint said:

Yeah, if that's the same name I kept seeing on Reddit then it came as a surprise to me as well. Seems to be an open secret in the industry.

On Reddit people are speculating on pretty much everyone. Same cunts in medieval times would be burning witches based on fuck all. 
Anyway I think it’s Gary Glitter

[bpsaint]

1 hour ago, egg said:

A very surprising (to me) name kept popping up when I saw reports re Walliams. 

That rumour has been doing the rounds for a number of years now, and apparently doesn’t directly involve said person. I’ll be gutted if it turns out to be be more than that and he is a wrong’un.

[AlexLaw76]

12 minutes ago, whelk said:

On Reddit people are speculating on pretty much everyone. Same cunts in medieval times would be burning witches based on fuck all. 
Anyway I think it’s Gary Glitter

I hope it’s the bloke behind Mrs Browns Boys… probably the only thing that can stop this terrible show from killing the airwaves!

[Turkish]

1 hour ago, egg said:

The only thing wrong about Bono is every album he's made since Joshua tree. 

Achtung Baby was decent 

[egg]

9 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Achtung Baby was decent 

It was an improvement over Rattle and Hum, but didn't do it for me. 

[Sir Ralph]

5 hours ago, egg said:

Different cases with different facts will always have different sentences. 

Brand's sentence can be too strong or weak, and someone else's sentence can be too strong / weak. That's it. 

Fwiw, I think Brand's sentence was light. 

Ok but doesn’t answer the question I had. Your response is so generic that it doesn’t mean anything. 

Personally I think the judiciary has become increasingly politically influenced and this is an example and nobody has been able to explain what the £400 fine was justified. If I did that I’m certain I would be locked up.

Edited Wednesday at 21:51 by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

1 minute ago, Sir Ralph said:

Ok but doesn’t answer the question I had. Personally I think the judiciary has become increasingly politically influenced and this is an example and nobody has been able to explain what the £400 fine was justified. If I did that I’m certain I would be locked up.

People have explained, you just don't agree. Big difference.

You would not expect to be locked up for smacking someone's arse. 

Edited Wednesday at 21:52 by Farmer Saint

[Sir Ralph]

6 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

People have explained, you just don't agree. Big difference.

No they haven’t. Summarise for me why the chap I mentioned got away with a £400 fine. It not that I don’t agree it’s that nobody has explained it rather than incredibly generic wide ranging statements that mean nothing. I’ve broken down my rationale based on sentencing guidelines with specific reference to them. Just a reminder he touched up a 14 year old and an adult and threw a chair causing criminal damage…that is the sentence you are backing as a £400 fine. I’m at pains to reiterate that in sentencing grabbing boobs, bum or anything else is no different - it’s sexual assault. If Nigel farage touched up two women including a 14 year old and threw a chair at a restaurant you would back a £400 fine?

Edited Wednesday at 21:58 by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

6 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

No they haven’t. Summarise for me why the chap I mentioned got away with a £400 fine. It not that I don’t agree it’s that nobody has explained it rather than incredibly generic wide ranging statements that mean nothing. I’ve broken down my rationale based on sentencing guidelines with specific reference to them. Just a reminder he touched up a 14 year old…that is the sentence you are backing

Because he smacked two people's arses, hence why in a country with a huge lack of prison space he was given a fine.

Just because he's brown he doesn't have to be put in prison.

Maybe if you can find me another case of a man being put in prison for smacking two women's arses you'll have a point. You should try that.

Edited Wednesday at 22:00 by Farmer Saint

[Sir Ralph]

18 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Because he smacked two people's arses, hence why in a country with a huge lack of prison space he was given a fine.

Just because he's brown he doesn't have to be put in prison.

What’s his colour got to do with it? You still haven’t answered why a £400 fine is justified….still. Can you explain? Answer this does a man who sexually assaults a 14 year old deserves only a £400 fine? Please answer the question directly

I’m at pains to reiterate that in the sentencing guidelines grabbing boobs, bum or anything else is no different - it’s sexual assault. If Nigel farage touched up two women including a 14 year old and threw a chair at a restaurant would you back a £400 fine? I wouldn’t and you definitely wouldn’t. If you say”no” youre lying hence double standards 

None of you can answer pretty easy questions about this. The usual suspects go into generic mode which says a lot. It’s frankly embarrassing that you think the penalty for sexually assaulting a 14 year old should be a £400 fine. 
 

I’ll await a direct response to this question which you won’t give because you know the answer undermines your case

Edited Wednesday at 22:18 by Sir Ralph

[egg]

22 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Ok but doesn’t answer the question I had. Your response is so generic that it doesn’t mean anything. 

Personally I think the judiciary has become increasingly politically influenced and this is an example and nobody has been able to explain what the £400 fine was justified. If I did that I’m certain I would be locked up.

Your question is daft.  My answer, if it wasn't clear, is that 2 entirely different cases, on different facts, cannot be compared. 

If you think Brand's sentence was too tough or lenient, that's your prerogative. What you think though isn't clear. 

If you think another, wholly unrelated offence, was too tough or lenient, that's your prerogative. If it's light, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the Brand sentence (which was too light - it was anal rape ffs). 

The judiciary isn't politically influenced. That's nonsense. I'm not sure how you arrive at that conclusion, or think it works. Do you believe that politicians send emails to judges, or appear at the judicial college, to tell judges (who's oath is to work without fear or favour) what to do to keep the government of the day sweet?

I'm intrigued - how does this political influence work? 

Edited Wednesday at 22:13 by egg

[Farmer Saint]

22 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

What’s his colour got to do with it? You still haven’t answered why a £400 fine is justified….still. Can you explain? Answer this does a man who sexually assaults a 14 year old deserves only a £400 fine? Please answer the question directly

I’m at pains to reiterate that in the sentencing guidelines grabbing boobs, bum or anything else is no different - it’s sexual assault. If Nigel farage touched up two women including a 14 year old and threw a chair at a restaurant would you back a £400 fine? I wouldn’t and you definitely wouldn’t. If you say”no” youre lying hence double standards 

None of you can answer pretty easy questions about this. The usual suspects go into generic mode which says a lot. It’s frankly embarrassing that you think the penalty for sexually assaulting a 14 year old should be a £400 fine. 
 

I’ll await a direct response to this question which you won’t give because you know the answer undermines your case

I literally answered it in the above post, here:

"Because he smacked two people's arses, hence why in a country with a huge lack of prison space he was given a fine."

[Sir Ralph]

15 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

I literally answered it in the above post, here:

"Because he smacked two people's arses, hence why in a country with a huge lack of prison space he was given a fine."

So just to clarify you think a £400 fine for sexually assaulting two women including a 14 year old is appropriate. You have given your own personal opinion on this NOT based on sentencing guidelines which I have. Your personal opinion is irrelevant as is mine.  To repeat you can’t argue that grabbing a bum is any different to grabbing anything else sexually as guidelines wise it makes no difference. Prison overcrowding doesn’t explain it - very weak
 

Assume you disagree with Charlie  elphickes  sentence of 2 years then?  This will be fun 

Edited Wednesday at 22:40 by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

10 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

So just to clarify you think a £400 fine for sexually assaulting two women including a 14 year old is appropriate. You have given your own personal opinion on this NOT based on sentencing guidelines which I have. Your personal opinion is irrelevant as is mine.  To repeat you can’t argue that grabbing a bum is any different to grabbing anything else sexually as guidelines wise it makes no difference. Prison overcrowding doesn’t explain it - very weak
 

If Nigel farage did this you would agree to a £400 fine? If you think this sentence is reasonable for touching up a 14 year old I don’t want to live in the same society as you

Why are you bringing up Nigel Farage? What's that got to do with anything?

I can't judge if £400 is too lenient, mainly because you haven't given me a comparable case. If you did, we can debate it. I am not a judge. I have never sat and judged a sexual assault case. Therefore I can't judge. All I can do is call out the differences between the cases, which I did.

I'm not sure our judges really give a shit what a racist estate agent thinks is a relevant sentence.

 

[Sir Ralph]

13 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Why are you bringing up Nigel Farage? What's that got to do with anything?

I can't judge if £400 is too lenient, mainly because you haven't given me a comparable case. If you did, we can debate it. I am not a judge. I have never sat and judged a sexual assault case. Therefore I can't judge. All I can do is call out the differences between the cases, which I did.

I'm not sure our judges really give a shit what a racist estate agent thinks is a relevant sentence.

 

Ok look this up and tell me your view compared to our mates case. I’m very interested. In your world 2 assaults including a minor deserves a £400 fine and this guy should do 2 years in jail for 3 assault but no Minors?

Edited Wednesday at 22:57 by Sir Ralph

[Sir Ralph]

28 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Why are you bringing up Nigel Farage? What's that got to do with anything?

I can't judge if £400 is too lenient, mainly because you haven't given me a comparable case. If you did, we can debate it. I am not a judge. I have never sat and judged a sexual assault case. Therefore I can't judge. All I can do is call out the differences between the cases, which I did.

I'm not sure our judges really give a shit what a racist estate agent thinks is a relevant sentence.

 

Naivety - read about the judiciary in the us about sentencing relating to republican and democrat related characters over the past few years. I do t know what you do but politics at every level infiltrates decisions. I spend a substantial portion of my day managing the consequences - to say the judiciary is exempt is naive

Edited Wednesday at 23:12 by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

23 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Ok look this up and tell me your view compared to our mates case. I’m very interested. In your world 2 assaults including a minor deserves a £400 fine and this guy should do 2 years in jail for 3 assault but no Minors?

Missing the point again, he pleaded "not guilty".

"[But] bearing in mind the gross breach of your position of power... I am satisfied that appropriate punishment can only be achieved by immediate custody," she said.

As with the Brand case, this is a hugely influential - far greater than the minor thing (there is no charge of Sexual assault against a minor).

[Farmer Saint]

21 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Naivety - read about the judiciary in the us about sentencing relating to republican and democrat related characters over the past few years. 

Why don't you just post articles if you want us to read it? Then we can comment on what you want us to comment on.

Edited Wednesday at 23:13 by Farmer Saint

[Sir Ralph]

10 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Missing the point again, he pleaded "not guilty".

"[But] bearing in mind the gross breach of your position of power... I am satisfied that appropriate punishment can only be achieved by immediate custody," she said.

As with the Brand case, this is a hugely influential - far greater than the minor thing (there is no charge of Sexual assault against a minor).

Where is your justification in the sentencing guidelines. Pleading guilty is max 1/3 off a sentence. In the mps case that’s still 35 months versus a £400 fine. Doesn’t answer the question just because he was in the public eye. The disparity is extreme

Put another way - in a theoretical world if a pervert approached you a said he was worried about assaulting a 14 year old you would say don’t do it. He would say I’m worried about the sentence though and you would say I think a £400 fine is an appropriate consequence- correct? Difficult question. I know but that’s where you currently stand and based on your (in my opinion m) rather ridiculous stance I can’t see you would say anything else. You can agree that this would be a ridiculous stance, no judgement as we often try to make cases we realise a have taken things to far (including me today)

Edited Wednesday at 23:22 by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

7 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Where is your justification in the sentencing guidelines. Pleading guilty is max 1/3 off a sentence. In the mps case that’s still 35 months versus a £400 fine. Doesn’t answer the question just because he was in the public eye. The disparity is extreme

Put another way - in a theoretical world if a pervert approached you a said he was worried about assaulting a 14 year old you would say don’t do it. He would say I’m worried about the sentence though and you would say I think a £400 fine is an appropriate consequence- correct? Difficult question. I know but that’s where you currently stand and based on your stance I can’t see you would say anything else

Yes it does, it's a massive aggravating factor FFS, abuse of power.

Did he know the girl was 14 - that is always taken into account. If he knew then I agree with you. However, if you can't prove he did then it's less of a contributory factor.

This case is similar. Not even going to court:

BBC News - Police officer barred for 'inappropriate' behaviour
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjvg2rvl5366o

 

 

Edited Wednesday at 23:24 by Farmer Saint

[Sir Ralph]

9 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Yes it does, it's a massive aggravating factor FFS, abuse of power.

This case is similar. Not even going to court:

BBC News - Police officer barred for 'inappropriate' behaviour
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjvg2rvl5366o

 

 

The case you gave isn’t even comparable.  No touching of a sexual organ, one case, no minor and no criminal damage. Canyou answer my question about the situation I mentioned and your likely response based on your stance so far?

Edited Wednesday at 23:33 by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

11 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

The case you gave isn’t even comparable.  No touching of a sexual organ, one case, no minor and no criminal damage. Canyou answer my question about the situation I mentioned and your likely response as to me your response would be evident?

I didn't understand the question. It's very poorly written. Have another go.

Why isn't it comparable? He rubbed himself on her arse from behind and that's the same "sexual organ". That's worse than a quick grope of a bottom. The minor thing that you seem obsessed with is a real misnomer - if under 13 it makes a big difference to sentencing, like the Elphick case above, but over 13 it's far less important if he didn't know her age and no lasting effects on the "minor".

Would you prefer I smacked your arse or rubbed my cock on it? 

Anyway, I'm going to bed now, don't think we're going to agree on this one, but that's fine.

Edited Wednesday at 23:35 by Farmer Saint

[Sir Ralph]

13 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

I didn't understand the question. It's very poorly written. Have another go.

Why isn't it comparable? He rubbed himself on her arse from behind and that's the same "sexual organ". That's worse than a quick grope of a bottom. The minor thing that you seem obsessed with is a real misnomer - if under 13 it makes a big difference to sentencing, like the Elphick case above, but over 13 it's far less important if he didn't know her age and no lasting effects on the "minor".

I think we are going round in circles as I think we ultimately agreed in part. Let leave it there. Have a good evening

Edited Wednesday at 23:47 by Sir Ralph

[Holmes_and_Watson]

25 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

I didn't understand the question. It's very poorly written. Have another go.

Why isn't it comparable? He rubbed himself on her arse from behind and that's the same "sexual organ". That's worse than a quick grope of a bottom. The minor thing that you seem obsessed with is a real misnomer - if under 13 it makes a big difference to sentencing, like the Elphick case above, but over 13 it's far less important if he didn't know her age and no lasting effects on the "minor".

Would you prefer I smacked your arse or rubbed my cock on it? 

Anyway, I'm going to bed now, don't think we're going to agree on this one, but that's fine.

Lots of disappointed posters saying to themselves "If only I'd posted an image of seeming sentence disparity, Farmer would have made me that offer. 😃

[CB Fry]

I don't remember this at the time (which tells its own tale) but this Johnny Vegas gig sounds, at best, creepy as fuck. At worst, Christ.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/may/01/gender.comedy?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

 

I always say that the best stand up gig I ever saw was Johnny Vegas in Edinburgh in 2000. He didn't do anything like what's in that review, thats for sure.

 

 

 

 

[Farmer Saint]

4 minutes ago, CB Fry said:

I don't remember this at the time (which tells its own tale) but this Johnny Vegas gig sounds, at best, creepy as fuck. At worst, Christ.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/may/01/gender.comedy?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

 

I always say that the best stand up gig I ever saw was Johnny Vegas in Edinburgh in 2000. He didn't do anything like what's in that review, thats for sure.

 

 

 

 

Blimey, that sounds horrendous. Quite surprising as well - he has always seemed like quite a timid, nice guy IRL. I guess we'll see if anything more comes out about him.

[Weston Super Saint]

5 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Blimey, that sounds horrendous. Quite surprising as well - he has always seemed like quite a timid, nice guy IRL. I guess we'll see if anything more comes out about him.

It was in 2008 according to the date on the article.  Pretty sure he is an alcoholic and was smashing in two bottles of vodka a day at the time - not that that is an acceptable excuse, but certainly an explanation of his behaviour.  I imagine we've all done a few things when drunk...

[egg]

14 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Blimey, that sounds horrendous. Quite surprising as well - he has always seemed like quite a timid, nice guy IRL. I guess we'll see if anything more comes out about him.

That's an unpleasant read. Pretty much anything goes in comedy words wise, but having someone carried on stage, and doing that to them crosses a line and then some. Fair play to the Guardian for calling him out. 

[tdmickey3]

18 hours ago, Sir Ralph said:

You’re really quite intellectually challenged. I know it’s not your fault and I don’t tend to get personal on here but sometimes there is an exception. People can have opinions but if they are thick as two planks it’s not coherent. Where did I say Brands sentence was too much? 

Well 🤣 you are the one of two on here who make a fool of themselves over and over, mainly for "being thick as two planks" 

[Farmer Saint]

3 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

It was in 2008 according to the date on the article.  Pretty sure he is an alcoholic and was smashing in two bottles of vodka a day at the time - not that that is an acceptable excuse, but certainly an explanation of his behaviour.  I imagine we've all done a few things when drunk...

Hopefully not arse slapping - if you have you should be in prison, apparently.

Edited yesterday at 11:33 by Farmer Saint

[Sir Ralph]

1 hour ago, Farmer Saint said:

Hopefully not arse slapping - if you have you should be in prison, apparently.

You can’t just leave it. Yes someone should be jailed for sexually assaulting minors. 

Edited yesterday at 12:45 by Sir Ralph

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, Sir Ralph said:

You can’t just leave it. Yes someone should be jailed for sexually assaulting minors. 

The Law is different for thise under 13 and those under 18, as defined in the sentencing guidelines. Those offenders who are spared prison for sexual assault are still being sentenced according to the guidelines. Whether those guidelines are appropriate is a different discussion.

[Farmer Saint]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

The Law is different for thise under 13 and those under 18, as defined in the sentencing guidelines. Those offenders who are spared prison for sexual assault are still being sentenced according to the guidelines. Whether those guidelines are appropriate is a different discussion.

I've made this point over and over, and he's still mentioning the minors thing. He won't listen.

[Sir Ralph]

12 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

The Law is different for thise under 13 and those under 18, as defined in the sentencing guidelines. Those offenders who are spared prison for sexual assault are still being sentenced according to the guidelines. Whether those guidelines are appropriate is a different discussion.

Yes but the severity of cases is graded under 13, under 16 and under 18. Under 16 is still a serious offence. There were also two offences which makes this guys sentence surprisingly lenient

[Farmer Saint]

6 hours ago, Sir Ralph said:

Yes but the severity of cases is graded under 13, under 16 and under 18. Under 16 is still a serious offence. There were also two offences which makes this guys sentence surprisingly lenient

I'll ask you this again, what was he charged with?

I have spent a lot of time going through sentencing guidelines, and I cannot see anything about that grading. I would be interested to know where you are getting that from as I just can't seem to find it on the internet:

https://sentencingcouncil.org.uk/guidelines/sexual-assault/

Edited 9 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[badgerx16]

6 hours ago, Sir Ralph said:

Yes but the severity of cases is graded under 13, under 16 and under 18. Under 16 is still a serious offence. There were also two offences which makes this guys sentence surprisingly lenient

Do you believe that Judges are giving unduly lenient sentences to immigrants who offend, due to political pressure ?

[egg]

11 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Do you believe that Judges are giving unduly lenient sentences to immigrants who offend, due to political pressure ?

I've asked him what makes him think judges are politically influenced, and how the influence works in practice. No answer, as I suspect Reddit hasn't told him the answer. 

People who've adopted the US political mentality (left/right only, abuse, hyperbole, adjective laden commentary, etc) can't understand that we're different. Our judiciary does not include political appointments. Every judicial application round is a competition, overseen by an independent commission, who make the recommendations for appointment. I suspect our man doesn't know that. 

[Weston Super Saint]

Maybe a reminded of the offence that occured :

 

On 10/11/2026 at 11:29, Sir Ralph said:

On January 28, 2025, Salihi followed and slapped the bottom of a 42-year-old woman on Lombard Street. Later that same day, he groped a 14-year-old girl who was on a Harry Potter sightseeing tour with her family in Leadenhall Market. Following the second incident, the girl's family confronted him inside a nearby restaurant, where he threw a chair through a window.

 

With regards to the sentencing guidelines, I would suggest :

No significant planning

Possibly acted with another - the other guy mentioned had the exact same offences?

No alcohol or drugs used

No abuse of trust

No commercial exploitation

Possibly no disability involved

No weapon involved, no nudity

50 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

I'll ask you this again, what was he charged with?

I have spent a lot of time going through sentencing guidelines, and I cannot see anything about that grading. I would be interested to know where you are getting that from as I just can't seem to find it on the internet:

https://sentencingcouncil.org.uk/guidelines/sexual-assault/

With regards to the victim being 14, the only mention in the sentencing guidelines regarding age relates to grooming for a person under 18.  I suspect most normal people wouldn't consider a slap on the arse to be 'grooming'.

Then there are the mitigating factors that we don't know about from the snippet, but that the judge would have taken into consideration...

[Farmer Saint]

29 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Maybe a reminded of the offence that occured :

 

 

With regards to the sentencing guidelines, I would suggest :

No significant planning

Possibly acted with another - the other guy mentioned had the exact same offences?

No alcohol or drugs used

No abuse of trust

No commercial exploitation

Possibly no disability involved

No weapon involved, no nudity

With regards to the victim being 14, the only mention in the sentencing guidelines regarding age relates to grooming for a person under 18.  I suspect most normal people wouldn't consider a slap on the arse to be 'grooming'.

Then there are the mitigating factors that we don't know about from the snippet, but that the judge would have taken into consideration...

Exactly 💯 

[egg]

50 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Maybe a reminded of the offence that occured :

 

 

With regards to the sentencing guidelines, I would suggest :

No significant planning

Possibly acted with another - the other guy mentioned had the exact same offences?

No alcohol or drugs used

No abuse of trust

No commercial exploitation

Possibly no disability involved

No weapon involved, no nudity

With regards to the victim being 14, the only mention in the sentencing guidelines regarding age relates to grooming for a person under 18.  I suspect most normal people wouldn't consider a slap on the arse to be 'grooming'.

Then there are the mitigating factors that we don't know about from the snippet, but that the judge would have taken into consideration...

Also worth noting that the tariff is usually agreed between the cps and defence, and the judge sentences accordingly.

[Turkish]

[Turkish]

On 10/11/2026 at 03:19, benjii said:

I saw a clip of Jimmy Carr....

"I think Russell Brand's attitude towards consensual sex is about to undergo a radical shift".

Where is the line? I've seen lots of hang wringing from people about even telling inappropriate jokes is wrong and those telling jokes like this and those laughing are enablers. Jimmy Carr has got a lot to say for himself but some of his material has been about rape, shagging and peodphilies.