SWANSEA COUNCIL CANCELS GIG BY ROY CHUBBY BROWN....

So a few now decide who we can go see and who we cant see

It only makes normal people turn against the few who think they're the majority. , keep it coming,They'll all be voted out on 12th Dec

This is a good example of what the ruling Labour council are all about.

Censorship is what you vote for when you vote Labour, certainly in Wales.

When I asked University of Missouri law professor Frank Bowman about McCarthy's "fruit of the poisonous tree" argument, he immediately began laughing.

He continued laughing for at least 10 seconds, then calmed himself long enough to ask if I wanted a more...scholarly answer.

"It's just comical," said Bowman, who is the author of High Crimes and Misdemeanors: A History of Impeachment for the Age of Trump. "Their demand was for a resolution, and now the resolution isn't good enough.

"It doesn't matter what the Democrats do or don't do, certain members of the House Republicans are going to complain… they're not talking about substance at all. The evasion is so transparent as to be pretty comical."

When I asked him about McCarthy's suggestion that there was "no quid pro quo" because the military aid which the White House had held hostage was eventually released, his answer was similar to how he'd reacted to my first question.

"Wrong," he exclaimed. "If I hold a gun to your head and say 'give me money or I'll blow your brains out,' and the police happen to arrive before I've either blown your brains out or you've given me the money, that doesn't mean I haven't committed a crime."

I decided I needed to check in with another impeachment scholar, this time one with practical knowledge of how to investigate a rogue president.

That scholar — former deputy Watergate special prosecutor Nick Akerman — was just as blunt as Bowman had been when I asked him about McCarthy's "fruit of the poisonous tree" defense.

"That is the dumbest argument I've ever heard," he said, adding that this latest Trumpworld defense was "nonsense."

"The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine only applies when someone's constitutional rights have been violated," said Akerman, now a partner at Dorsey and Whitney. "That's like saying every indictment issued by a grand jury has to be dismissed because the defendant didn't have a chance to be in the grand jury room to defend himself. I mean, that is just off the wall, it comes from outer space."

When I told Akerman about McCarthy's other argument — that there had been "no quid pro quo" because the White House eventually released Ukraine's military aid — Akerman was equally candid in his assessment of the defense's legal merit.

"Oh my god, it's just dumb and dumber," he said.

Akerman noted that the only reason the money was released was because of the demands made by Congressional leaders: ”The fact is, they caught [Trump] right in the middle of the thing. If they hadn't found out about this, Trump would've been pounding away at Ukraine to this day."

"If you take it in the context of the criminal law, an attempted bribe is bribery, you still can convict somebody for the attempt. One is just as culpable for the attempt as for committing the actual crime itself.

"They're grasping at straws. They have no idea what they're talking about and every defense they've come up with is just dumber than the next — I mean literally, it's so stupid it defies belief that this is all they can come up with."

Akerman said the "insane" arguments Republicans have made in defense of Trump so far underscore the fact that Trump has no defense.

"The Republicans have no defense here and Trump has no defense. If this goes to a trial in the Senate, this kind of stuff is going to go absolutely nowhere, and they're going to be made to look awfully foolish.

"You either vote to convict or you look like a fool.”

I liked bernard maning a fantastic comedian in my mind .
,But I don't like this type of gutter so called comedy he takes it too far .I don't like so-called comedians who can only get a laugh by using guttersnipe talk and filth .He's too much for even a man's audience

Swansea just announced the replacement

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxFqv1QDI3Q

I thought he'd retired a few years back.

might have, it's been the same act since the 70s, he might just be sending out random fat blokes in a biggles hat to do the material

back in the 70s we used to laugh at the USSR and say that could never happen here

Absolutely , not at all funny but should still be allowed to work .

Each to their own of course but I just find him to be very crass and uncouth and that's not something that floats my boat personally.

Swansea council have gone up in my estimation   

Chubby Brown about as funny as piles

No malice in his humour at all, he wasn't racist and it was expected in those days..

Didn't know Chubby Brown was from Cardiff

some of his stuff pure classic ... 'Jimmy Tarbuck is about as funny as a burning orphanage'

Chubbs is one of the best if not the best imo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_skF__cao0

Totally crass, utterly lacking in any hint of cleverness, subtlety or irony.
Pure unadulterated and aggressive  crudity. And as such totally unfunny.

Same goes for Jim Davidson.

Facts and some others are missing the point.If a very few can decide who we can watch and who we cant watch where does that lead too? Whether you like him or not really doesn't matter.

sad decsion

facts probably thinks HIGNFY is still amusing despite using the same gags - sorry, cleverness subtlety and irony - week after week for the last three years.

ive never seen chubby brown, but know plenty of his gags

his flagging career will doubtless get the boost he requires from this ban.