Temporary Mumsnet logo -not at all funny!

It wasnt disgusting at all. It is very important to make fun of the powerful and has been throughout history.

BlueBalou

*Hi everyone - we’re sorry that the logo has upset everyone. We honestly didn’t think beforehand how it might go down as it was intended as bit of fun - but we take your point. In a world where people are being arrested for being antimonarchist, we think it’s important as a society that we can freely make fun of the rich and powerful but clearly we misjudged the mood and it was poorly executed. We've now taken it down*

MN’s response was disgusting. Apparently making fun of the rich and powerful is ok now.
🤬

I agree.

I also thought it smug and disingenuous, as though thy thought they were striking some important bid for freedom.

Galaxy

It wasnt disgusting at all. It is very important to make fun of the powerful and has been throughout history.

Why is it important to make fun of the powerful?

It looks like the work of a 13 year old.
Pathetic.

Thanks BlueBalou
I think it's a poor response @gransnet

To dent some of the power. To question authority.
Are you asking why satire is important? There are endless explanations of its role.

fancythat

Galaxy

It wasnt disgusting at all. It is very important to make fun of the powerful and has been throughout history.

Why is it important to make fun of the powerful?

Of their behaviour is one thing. Especially if being hypocritical. Maybe. Nor sure.
But being personal is another.

MN did apologise for upsetting people.
Not quite what people were after perhaps. But an apology of sorts.

So if you are not sure if even that's ok, Have I got News, should be taken off the air.

Galaxy

It wasnt disgusting at all. It is very important to make fun of the powerful and has been throughout history.

Well, I didn't like it and thought is was 'unkind' and not necessary at all. But we live in a democracy (of sorts)- and it is very important that people a) have the right to protest peacefully- and there were many arrests yesterday which were more North Korea like than the UK. And very important indeed that satire is allowed, even if we don't approve.

I remember the awful way Gordon Brown was pictured, and the names given, mis-using his disability. And so many others.

It's a cartoon, a caricature which always accentuate defining features, obviously not intended to flatter, but public figures, particularly politicians are so often depicted not in the best light amplifying any unflattering characteristic, it's not that upsetting I imagine Charles, if he saw it, wouldn't be surprised that his prominent ears have been used yet again! There's nothing new about it, I think George 1V was often depicted as a fat rotund, idle person, when he was Prince Regent, cartoons at that time were quite gross, but it was a recourse of the time in expressing dissatisfaction with the ruling classes.

If caricatures are used in derogatory racial context, as they certainly were in Nazi Germany that obviously over steps the mark.

I think how one perceives the subject of the cartoon is how they personally view that person, there were plenty of fat, blubbery faced Boris around during his brief tenure, did anyone care, or maniacal looking Trumps for that matter. Par for the course it could be argued.

BlueBalou

*Hi everyone - we’re sorry that the logo has upset everyone. We honestly didn’t think beforehand how it might go down as it was intended as bit of fun - but we take your point. In a world where people are being arrested for being antimonarchist, we think it’s important as a society that we can freely make fun of the rich and powerful but clearly we misjudged the mood and it was poorly executed. We've now taken it down*

MN’s response was disgusting. Apparently making fun of the rich and powerful is ok now.
🤬

I think we can make fun of the rich and powerful - especially if they do things that are seemingly ridiculous - or, more seriously, damaging.

But I'd definitely draw the line at mocking any physical defect. On a serious note, people from all walks of life have been known to feel suicidal over their perceived defects - and some have committed suicide.

I'm sure Charles - if he was even aware of the logo - would have the strength of character to dismiss it with a wry smile... but that's not the point is it?

Big ears are NOT a physical defect.

Fleurpepper

Big ears are NOT a physical defect.

You might not think so, but others do.

We have a close family member who was bullied throughout school because of their big ears.

A friend of one of our sons had their ears pinned due to constant bullying.

It’s already been posted that the excuses bullies use are it’s just banter, it’s nothing, we don’t mean it.

You seem hardwired to perpetuate these myths on this occasion…

Well yes, and a big nose, and big boobs, a large bum, small stature, and on and on. Ears are easy to fix- he could have so easily had them pinned back, as a child even.

Some physical features cannot be fixed, and are real physical disability. Gordon Brown's blind eye, for one- and he was mercilessly mocked for it by the Tory Press.

As said, I disagree - but political caricature is part of democracy and has been for many centuries.

Even if the temporary MN logo is seen as some form of personal insult to Charles or as some sort of protest about the monarchy, which I don't think it was, any more than the Spectator cover, where is people's support in a democratic society for the right to peaceful protest and the right of free expression?

I think most of the cartoon-like images I see are rather horrid but I accept their place in a free, democratic society.

Do the people objecting most to the MN logo feel the same revulsion when they see exaggerated cartoon images of, say, their least favourite politicians? There are always plenty around, both of disliked politicians and cartoons depicting them in highly unflattering ways.

Well said, fleurpepper.

Baggs I have seen the front cover of The Spectator, in my opinion it was in poor taste especially the timing.

I totally agree with freedom of speech and the right to publish cartoons but it should come with responsibility not to harm or offend.

Fleurpepper the cartoons/caricatures of Gordon Brown were hurtful in my opinion.

I see no reason why if you are rich, famous or have the balls to become an MP it is open season for all to mock you.

There is a fine line between mocking and bullying…

Baggs I didn’t object to the temporary logo, I just didn’t find it funny or the graphics particularly clever/good.

I see no reason why if you are rich, famous or have the balls to become an MP it is open season for all to mock you

But there is a very good reason why we ordinary mortals must be able to mock, criticise and question those in powerful positions, GG. Without it we are serfs.

GrannyGravy13

Baggs I didn’t object to the temporary logo, I just didn’t find it funny or the graphics particularly clever/good.

My comment was not directed at individuals, GG. It was a general remark.

Many of the comments on this thread have been strident objections.

Baggs

*I see no reason why if you are rich, famous or have the balls to become an MP it is open season for all to mock you*

But there is a very good reason why we ordinary mortals must be able to mock, criticise and question those in powerful positions, GG. Without it we are serfs.

Criticise and question yes.

I just cannot be comfortable with out and out cruel mockery.

I was bullied at school and it’s obviously left it’s mark on my psyche.

Rather sad to see that there are are a few on here who are defending the right to victimise others on the basis of their physical appearance, in particular if they are "rich and powerful". What a very strange, and IMHO, juvenile and shallow value system. I've no problem with criticising behaviours or beliefs, but physical appearance really drags it down to playground bully level. Also, to actually suggest, as one person has done, that the remedy was to have corrective surgery during childhood simply beggars belief. Yes, we've become accustomed to extreme caricature in political cartoons and in programmes such as Spitting Images, but for a supposedly socially responsible site such as M.N. to produce a logo like that is simply spiteful, as many have pointed out. Yes, they've now removed it, but their pathetic "apology", couched in terms which still attempt to justify it, convinces no-one. Very poor taste.

It's quite complex to say something is ok as long as it doesnt offend. Who gets to decide that? All sorts of things offend me.