Yes it was stupid of this comedian to take it upon himself to make these distasteful bags, especially the fact that he added fake weapons. It wouldn't have been so bad if he had left the weapons out as this could have caused abit of panic amongst the well behaved fans, seeing people with knives sitting amongst them, even though they weren't real, they could have been mistaken for real weapons. Also the fact that it was done on such a large scale, I really don't think the bulldogs fans need any more stirring up. These events are meant to be a great day out, not somewhere you have to watch your back because some over-excited fan has had his ego shot cause his team lost the game so he needs to vent his anger on someone else. Fair enough it was meant for abit of a laugh, i just think it was a little inappropriate.

Sometimes you see something on a net-forum that just hits you in the guts with its ignorance. I apologise in advance for the offence Melody - I can see that your post was genuinely well-meaning - but you seem to have missed the intent of both Grant and the guy who got arrested. In fact you seem to have missed it to a degree that makes me even more concerned than I was before about the state of humanities education in Australia. You see Melody, by all appearances neither Grant nor the fellow from the Chaser (his name escapes me) disagrees with the need to prevent crowd violence. Many people argue that comedy can and should be used as a tool to satirise and hence constructively criticise aspects of human behaviour. The Chaser quite overtly falls into that category, and is unashamedly 'political' humour. The method of humour employed in this particular case is one usually referred to as 'satire' - where the comic imitates or exagerrates aspects of human behaviour as a means of critiquing that behaviour. The humour comes because it reveals an uncomfortable truth about that behaviour. In this case the comedian was criticising the violence of football fans by insinuating that they were there not so much to watch a sport as to engage in gang-like warfare. Hence setting up a stall selling fake weapons and seeing people's reaction. It is funny because it is taking something ugly but hidden and making it JUST as ugly (no MORE ugly than the real thing) and putting it in the open for everyone to see. Did you know that only 2 years ago a major study was conducted by Oxford researchers demonstrating that one of the clearest indicators of human intelligence was a person's ability to understand humour, especially satire? I'm guessing that you didn't. However, what is is far MORE obvious (I hope) is that when you have to explain satire to an idiot it kind of loses its humour value. Of course the reaction of the police was ALMOST the greatest satire of the whole event - persecuting those who are critiquing and mocking the violence, rather than those who are committing the violence. I say 'almost' because surprise is crucial to most comedy, and it surprises few people to learn that some police are much more comfortable with violence than they are with humour.

i fucken luuurve the chaser dudes viva chaser!!!!!

oh so does that mean you're calling me an idiot? thats lovely!

"oh so does that mean you're calling me an idiot?" It was very obviously satire. You're taking it far too seriously. Then again, satire is funniest when the victim doesn't get the joke. It's just a shame that the doggies supporters are violent thugs so when they didn't get the joke they attacked the comedian (and the comedian got arrested for it, lovely).

What's even more remarkable is that the Bulldog supporters understood the satire better than the cops. Who said pigs are smarter than dogs?

I found it unfunny, but then I don't like The Chaser. As I understand it the arrest arose out of the fact that when asked by the police to stop what he was doing as it was inflaming tempers he just moved a few yards and started again. He should definitely not have been charged though. Life's too short to stuff a mushroom www.tonymoore.id.au

Malks claimed he would be "watching the case unfold with interest"- this is before Craig Edwards bollocksed an interesting thread by turning lawyer-ish and insulting people. Is there any follow-up? Are charges still being pressed? It's gone very quiet- particularly on the ABC; I've not heard a peep. Have our "8c a day" been used to buy a plea bargain? Serve the silly sod right. Accosting the general public with an in-joke wasn't funny on "Candid Camera" or the excrutiatingly named "Punk'd" I think we've been let down badly by Chaser this year- what was once sharp and intelligent humour has in my view degenerated into an Aussie version of Jackass with a thin veneer of political comment. And I'm not sure the incident was "very obviously satire"; more a very obvious attempt at satire. Which I feel failed. Eliot "I've got a bike...."

What about the great Leunig hoax? Submitting one of his cartoons to that competition in the Middle East (the competition was supposed to satirise Islam)... Although it was revealed one of the writers from The Chaser who did it - no excuse! The Prompt Copy Networking emerging theatre professionals www.thepromptcopy.com Sticky Apple Legs http://stickyapplelegs.artsblogs.com

Sorry, na; you've lost me here. El "I've got a bike...."

They had no right to take somebody else's cartoon - without permission - and submit it to a competition. That's breaking copyright law. The Prompt Copy Networking emerging theatre professionals www.thepromptcopy.com Sticky Apple Legs http://stickyapplelegs.artsblogs.com

I notice that someone reckons satire is funniest when the target doesn't get the joke. That's not satire it's just some self satisfied w****r making fun of someone. In some ways the relaxation of censorship has ruined satire. Am I the only one who remembers the Mavis Bramston Show? And you're right Na hi-jacking one of Leunigs cartoons was the act of an intellectually bankrupt scoundrel. Humour has become too lowest common denominator. Life's too short to stuff a mushroom www.tonymoore.id.au

Logos wrote: > I notice that someone reckons satire is funniest when the > target doesn't get the joke. ... and ... > Humour has become too lowest common denominator. I would have thought that not appealing to the lowest common demoninator would always mean running the risk of some people not understanding/appreciating the joke? In response to some of the other remarks in this thread, I think there's a profound difference between not particularly clever or funny satire and charging the person performing with offensive behaviour. Yes, El, Chas was charged. See the linked articles. An article over the weekend claims that the prank had received ABC editorial and legal approvals. http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/abc-approved-chaser-prank/2006/07/21/1153166591408.html I gather it's not yet clear whether the ABC will fund Licciardello's defence. Cheers Grant

And we wonder why we end up with shit TV comedy like 'The Wedge' and whatever that godawfully bland pap on Channel 9's called. I guess they don't want to offend. Or provoke thought. Not good for advertising.

that show is hilarious! i have to admit though some of it is a little poor but on the whole i think they do a great job! there's obviously a reason though why these shows never last. what's wrong with a cheap laugh once in a while!

"Insulting people" - of course, but "lawyerish"? I don't think there was much in the way of legal argument going on - trust me the law has little appreciation for satire and insulting people doesn't get you at all far in any court. It does, however, make a tetchy sod like me feel all warm inside:-)

Now Logos has actually raised an interesting point - unfortunately police don't often have much of a forum to give their version prior to the matter going to court. Obviously one very reasonable explanation of the police's choice to exercise their discretion to press charges would be if the charge was ACTUALLY eminating from something other than the satire itself (eg if the comedian was deliberately stiring up by-standers 'off-camera' to get a violent reaction). That of course is an open possibility - but given the truly appalling levels of over-policing and authority-driven brutality in this neo-facsist police-state (ok that's exaggeration, but only marginally. Actually no, I take it back - it isn't an exaggeration) of Australia, I'm more open to the idea that the police simply over-reacted.

No melody, I wasn't calling you an idiot in any serious sense - I was just very very strongly disagreeing with your viewpoint:-). Yes I was having a dig at you, but only in the context of that particular argument (I tend to get a bit passionate about these things). Incidentally, the 'explaining satire to idiots' comment was aimed at the police who decided it was a worthwhile expenditure of public funds to prosecute what was at absolute worst a minor nuisance. Apologies if you took it as a personal remark:-)

There's a post somewhere on this site about correct language / use of grammar, where I defended the younger generation from accusations of linguistic deterioration and illiteracy. If you're reading this Jeff Watkins et al, forgive me, this gentleman has indeed proved that you were right and I was wrong. The only thing more irritating than profanity on a public/family forum is miss-spelt profanity:-(

It's a law of economics but it applies equally to comedy. The short badly written unthinking stab at something that won't be funny by next Thursday that characterises most of the Chaser and the Wedge (I liked the guy with the scissors though) will always be more popular than comedy that requires you too think. Which is why Rove wins Logies and Andrew Denton wins the respect of the world. I actually find this hard to believe but I am about to defend the police. The poor bastards never get their side heard and they have a shit of a job. This idiot who decided to ignore them and do what he liked gets arrested and we all attack them. If you don't like the law change it. Life's too short to stuff a mushroom www.tonymoore.id.au

Logos wrote: > I actually find this hard to believe but I am about to > defend the police. The poor bastards never get their side > heard and they have a shit of a job. Maybe the police are not being heard in this. Certainly none of the media reports I've seen have repeated the version of events you described above; i.e. > the arrest arose out of the fact > that when asked by the police to stop what he was doing > as it was inflaming tempers he just moved a few yards and > started again. Regardless, I'm still struck by the irony of police arresting someone lampooning the violent behaviour of some of the supporters and charging this person with "offensive behaviour". You also posted earlier that > He should definitely not have been charged though. but then posted > This idiot who decided to ignore them and do what he > liked gets arrested and we all attack them [the police]. He shouldn't have been charged, but we shouldn't criticise the actions of the police in laying charges? > If you don't like the law change it. Love to. But sheesh! where would we start?? Get rid of all the lawyers first? Well, except Craig, Leah, Tony, Jeremy, Trevor.... hi guys! ;-) Cheers Grant

I'm inconsistent. Aren't we all. I admit having spemt considerable time in the UK (London) and some in Nthn Ireland over the last decade and a half my immediate reaction to anyone even waving a plastic gun around in public tends to be a gut reaction rather than a intellectual one. And actually I didn't say he shouldn't be arrested I said he shouldn't have been formally charged the two things are different and arrest can be used to end a difficult situation without it proceeding to formal charges. The info I heard about him ignoring requests to stop was on the radio and I don't now remember which station. I do believe that we should get rid of the legal profession I believe that they are largely a barrier to justice. I will now hide behind a large wall. Life's too short to stuff a mushroom www.tonymoore.id.au

There, I said it. I too believe we should scrap lawyers. That way the only people who could possibly receive a fair trial, or for that matter enter safe contracts, are those with sufficient education and financial heritage to have studied law themselves. Lawyers (and maybe a few dalkeith types with broad educations) would comfortably be elevated to a ruling class, able to exercise the rights and liberties vital to a democratic society, while the other plebs can sit beneath them as state authorities ransack their houses without warrant, pepper spray them to the ground and then charge them for assault when they grab the copper's leg on the way down (no joke, seen that numerous times), and get ripped off by unfair employment contracts that create illegal working conditions because they don't have the means or knowledge to do anything about it:-). I don't spend a lot of my time 'lawyering' these days, having many years ago quit the mainstream legal profession to focus more on acting, but the time I do spend is with a non-profit community centre dedicated to providing legal representation to persons with mental illness, mainly in criminal law, discrimination and involuntary detention matters. And you can criticise the legal system and the profession that represents and advises people about all you like, but you're talking out of your rectum until you've been part of a socio-demographic segment that desperately needs the protection of those legal rights. People sit there as white, mentally healthy and middle-class completely oblivious that pretty much the whole political and legal system of this nation is dedicated to preserving their sorry bludging existence. Property laws, tax structures, legislation that makes 'black and poor' crimes like home burglary mandatory jail sentences while 'white and rich' crimes like speeding (yes, that's right - it's a MUCH bigger killer than burglary ever could be, but you don't think of yourself as a crim now do you?) are just acceptable mistakes. Folk like you never need legal rights or protections - because you OWN the darn system to start with! Of course civil liberties mean nothing - you can drive 80km/hr in your car endangering more lives than any burgler, but if the police pick you up you'll just get a ticket and be sent on your way with a polite wave. If your kid gets caught with pot (which he probably won't be - chances of a cop pulling over and searching a white kid in a nice car are just about nil) he won't need the protection that comes from upholding the rules regarding warrants/strip-searches/interrogations - the cops will just issue a summons because he's just a naughty kid out of the socio-demographic group that they're paid to protect. You try that as an aboriginal, or just plain poor, and once you've been pepper-sprayed out of your vehicle you might have a bit more respect for those 'legal technicalities'. And those pesky lawyers and their red tape holding back business huh? You and I will never be refused a job, or sacked, or denied services because of our race or disability. We don't NEED lawyers advising us of our legal rights - again we OWN the system to start with, why would we need protection in it? Fine that's the way the world works and I'm already sounding like yet another whining lefty - but when you talk about upholding legal rights as being a barrier to justice, why don't we come straight out and acknowledge that this is true only because we also own the media that decides what justice is, and that redefines the concept to make sure that the popular conception of justice = the protection of white middle/upper-class australia.

It's your profession that makes sure that murderers like McGee in Adelaide walk away with supended sentences. It's your profession that makes sure that the major companies only pay stupidly low fines for pollution it's your profession ... OK you're a nice guy. But what about the rest. A legal system that makes sure the only lawyers that the dispossessed get are incompetents makes you rich. I will post no further on this arguemnt. We are poles apart and will never agree Life's too short to stuff a mushroom www.tonymoore.id.au

Unsurprisingly I'm calling you wrong on all counts my friend:-) - "It's your profession that makes sure that murderers like McGee in Adelaide walk away with suspended sentences" - nope. That's the law. Not lawyers. Parliament makes laws that value property over people. Lawyers make sure the law gets explained and upheld, and make sure that any evidence in favour of a person's case gets presented to the court - and even then the accused is hardly on equal footing to the prosecution: the accused doesn't have the whole resources of the STATE backing them up nor laws to phone-tap, arrest and interrogate, nor are they 'professional-witnesses' such as police and security guards. There's no magic wand that anyone waves to magically make experienced Judges and cynical juries fall under some hypnotic spell - EVIDENCE and LAW is what is relevant. And when someone gets a 'lenient' penalty because their case is less black-and-white than what the profiteering/capitalist media would make you believe, any advocate should wear the resulting unpopularity as a badge of pride. Of course when the media get caught having presented such an oversimplified account of a case or an offender that the result goes against the expecations that people formed due to the biased reporting, then the media covers its rear by attacking the court. Given that, statistically speaking, offenders are almost entirely from the politically and economically marginalised subclasses of society (well the ruling classes aren't exactly going to make laws that they would break are they), that is hardly surprising. - "It's your profession that makes sure that the major companies only pay stupidly low fines for pollution" - wrong again. Parliament makes those laws and YOU vote for them. Weren't you the one who said 'if you don't like the law, change it'? All the lawyers do to explain to people what the laws are, and make sure that the law and fair procedure get applied. Ironically, if you got rid of legal representation those companies would do just fine - they could easily afford to just train some internal execs on the law relevant to their area if they had to represent themselves in court. But more the point - those companies don't NEED the law - they've got the raw power of finance and influence. The case you cited isn't actually an example of the law ASSISTING a company - its a case of the law IMPEDING the company's ability to pollute, albeit ineffectually. - "A legal system that makes sure the only lawyers that the dispossessed get are incompetents makes you rich" - Makes 'me' rich? You might want to check the papers for the going rates for community legal centre and legal aid lawyers. We're paid about the same as teachers. And as for 'the only lawyers that the dispossessed get are incompetents' - putting aside the blatant personal swipe, that's just not true. Legal Aid and Aboriginal Legal Service are amongst the most highly sought-after graduate positions, because of the enormous numbers of good lawyers willing to sacrifice a high salary for the sake of doing satisfying work. It's also hard to think of another profession that does comparable amounts of pro bono (ie free) work to QCs. - "OK you're a nice guy" - I am certainly NOT a nice guy:-) Actor, martial artist and soon-to-be Philosophy post-grad student. Making myself less employable one step at a time:-)

Coming in late... To start with- I quite enjoy the Chaser- and would not place it in the same sentence as the wedgie, or whatever it is... Closest thing to my childhood fave the Late Show that I've seen in a while. That said, it is very inconsistent- some of it really ordinary, but some stuff- like celebrity spruiker and the 'what has current affairs taught us?' segments are actually quite intelligent, thought-provoking and satirical. So I have to put myself in the fan category, but I don't put myself out to make sure I catch it each week. I think the irony of the police arresting and charging someone with offensive conduct for poking fun at the violence/stupidity of a section of dogs fans is hilarious/worrying. Luckily for Chas he wasn't having a go at our pollies, otherwise he might be charged with sedition... Now, onto lawyers. Like cops, pollies and many others- there is an awful lot of stereotyping involved in discussions. For every great copper, there is a power-hungry d''k (I have met many of them), for every lawyer doing great work for an aboriginal community, there is a rich bastard knowingly manipulating law to get crims out of trouble, for every politician trying to do what they think is right, there are dozens riding the gravy train. I think it is very important that us artists (particularly the writers on this website) do not allow ourselves to be locked into this stereotyping. Mr Edwards makes very salient points about our legal system (and our relationship to the media regarding the law) that are worth considering. It is set up by a certain section of the community- it protects that section of the community. Lawyers are honour-bound by their very profession to do whatever is legally possible to get their client off. So only the law itself is to blame in the end. How do we change laws? Get involved. Whether it be signing petitions, or running for office, anyone unwilling to be involved in the legal and political process of this country is subjecting themselves to whatever comes their way. Where to start? Somewhere, just pick something... and yes- Australia voted for a manipulator (who has been caught out lying more than a few times, and shows incredibly little morality or humanity) with an increased majority in the last election- so we, the supposed creative intelligents, have a moral responsibility to be out there and be heard. Otherwise, we are worse than those using the system for their own gain. and Craig- kudos to you for your legal work. It's not until you get out there and see the reality of what many people out there are dealing with that you can truly comprehend the sheer inequality of this supposedly civilised and advanced democracy. My wife works in native title. I always thought I was open-minded and well educated about indigenous Australia. Discovering just how racist and ignorant I actually was/am was/is not much fun. Nev signing off It's the simple things stupid...

Wow this is heavy stuff. I quite enjoy the Chasers, however I cringed at the episode where the balaclava was worn into many retail stores to get a reaction. It may be funny and I have to admit but when you have been held up and robbed, fearing for your life, thats where the joke stops. Who knows if any of the businesses that were targeted for this program had witnessed such a situation but it brought back memories for me. I suppose you cant live in the past and you need to get on with life however sometimes little triggers like this are not pleasent. Dont get me wrong I do like the program but some issues may be taken a bit far. Wedges I have not watches and cant comment.

"Sounding like yet another whining lefty"? What do you mean, "sounding like"? Like all whining lefties you are under a misapprehension as to the nature of "justice". I too used to work at a community legal centre, where matters were predetermined, on ideological grounds, prior to any dispute resolution being undertaken. The tenant is always a 'victim' of the landlord, an Aboriginal is always a 'victim' of racist attitudes, pick your favourite minority group and demonise their polar opposite ad nauseum. "Justice" is not a consciousness raising exercise or a presumptive social engineering project to be pursued by idealistic know it alls in opposition to what the majority may have voted for. Justice in this sense (i.e., as a result) diminishes the capacity of an individual to make any kind of choice, however unwise. "Justice" is one of those fluffy motherhood concepts into which people pour their own moral and political priorities. True justice is not the outcome but the PROCESS by which an outcome is reached (e.g., was the person afforded an opportunity to rebut evidence etc.)

At the end of the day, what would it have still been funny if this comedian had got his block knocked off? Me, I quite enjoyed that sketch LOL. KTHXBAI