Rowan Atkinson to face enquiry for Comic Relief sketch

The Guardian has reported Rowan Atkinson's Comic Relief sketch, which prompted more than 2,200 complaints to the BBC, is to be investigated by media regulator Ofcom. 

A quarter of the complaints lodged against the sketch were understood to be about religious offence prompting the BBC to apologise and remove it from iPlayer. Ofcom is understood to be investigating the programme on grounds of offensive language and generally accepted standards.

Frankly, the language hardly feels offensive. Far worse language is used in plenty of other pre-watershed programming where there are no complaints to be found. As for meeting 'generally accepted standards', one struggles to grasp of which standards the sketch fell foul. All in all, it was a fairly tame performance.

The key areas of consternation appear to be the statement that prayer "doesn't work", a supposed comparison of One Direction to the Disciples and a faux attempt to deal with a particularly crass interpretation of "Love your neighbour".

Let's be clear, this was a parody of a 'trendy vicar' type who had become Archbishop of Canterbury. One only needs to look at the Anglican Church to see that such persons exist and, with the departure of Rowan Williams, it was perfectly legitimate to imagine that one such person could take his place. 

As for the statements that seemed to offend, there are plenty of communicants and clergy in the Anglican Church who do believe that prayer "doesn't work". Whilst there may be many who disagree, perhaps even a majority, this doesn't take away the fact that such views do exist. To get upset that a fictional Archbishop articulated a genuine belief of many Anglican clergy seems somewhat foolish. More to the point, the joke only works because this is something that most people think an Archbishop wouldn't say (though might possibly believe). That seems like a perfectly legitimate observation to me.

The supposed comparison of One Direction to the Disciples is really no comparison at all. The joke is the parody, sadly all too often the case in reality (not only in Anglican Churches at that), of the vicar/minister desperately trying to appear 'relevant', 'in touch' and 'up to date' when they themselves are no such thing. The joke is that this fictional Archbishop is not up to date and therefore tries to shoehorn pop culture references into theological statements that simply do not stand. More to the point, the comment neither suggested that One Direction were in any way like the Disciples nor was it actually drawing a comparison. The "Archbishop" was making a reference to appear 'in touch' which simply did not follow and thus he was the butt of the joke. 

Similarly, the "love your neighbour" comment was a legitimate parody of the balancing act between usurping some language in a bid to appear 'trendy' whilst shunning other language as too vulgar. Again, it is an observable phenomenon in churches and therefore a perfectly legitimate target of observational humour.

In reality, Christians aren't doing themselves any favours in complaining about this sort of thing and it is always worth asking what exactly we are hoping to achieve. Of course, if you were genuinely offended then, as a license fee payer, you are entitled to voice that opinion to the BBC. However, aside from the apparent lack of anything which could be reasonably considered offensive, surely there are more important battles to be fought than bleating about an innocuous parody of a frankly all too observable type of clergyman?

Why I loathe Comic Relief

Quite apart from my usual morose misanthropy, I loathe Comic Relief. Not only must we endure endless acts of "fun", which are usually about as entertaining as a slow death, but we are then asked to pay for the pleasure of watching. Cretinous upon cretinous act is performed and we are all duly expected to oblige by opening our wallets, thus encouraging this buffoonery to continue year on year. In terms of the terrible acts of "fun", my feeling is summed up in this scene from The Office:

[on Comic Relief]

Tim: Don't get me wrong, I've got nothing against this sort of thing. It's a good cause, but I just don't want to have to join in with someone else's idea of wackiness, okay? It's the wackiness I can't stand. It's like, you see someone outside Asda collecting for cancer research because they've been personally affected by it, or whatever, I dunno, an old bloke selling poppies, there's a dignity about that. A real quiet dignity.

[in the background, a gang including David Brent and Gareth wrestle a colleague to the ground and pull down his trousers on camera]

Tim: And that's what today's about, isn't it? Dignity. Always dignity.

It really says something about us as a society that we are only willing to give to charity when somebody makes a fool of themselves for money. Surely if we are concerned about giving to charity at all we should simply do just that. 

Of course, not all acts of charity for Comic Relief are fatuous and puerile. In terms of being dragged into somebody else's idea of fun the hikes across continents, bike rides across countries, climbs up mountains and jumps out of planes are far more tolerable. Nevertheless, such efforts often seem to be (though I accept, by no means always) an attempt to fulfil some sort of personal ambition without having to fund it oneself. One can fulfil an ambition for free, obtain a nice round of applause and make some money for charity at the same time. Who loses, right?! Again, if we are going to give to charity it strikes me we should simply give to charity rather than waiting on somebody to do something worthy of our cash. Equally, if we want to fulfil some lifelong ambition how charitable are we being by using charities and a particular culture of charitable giving to get something for ourselves? Under such circumstances, the round of applause should sound hollow. Nevertheless, I am grateful for small mercies and at least hold onto the fact that such things don't expect you to laugh like a drain at some witless attempt for both money and approval. 

However, it is not simply the element of wackiness that causes issue. There is immense social pressure to give to Comic Relief despite the fact it covers a broad range of largely unspecified causes. When chuggers knock on the door they are very upfront about why they are there and for whom they are working. Most people, quite understandably and without any embarrassment, give them short shrift. Conversely, a similar reaction to a sponsorship request from somebody wearing a red nose and hopping everywhere, all whilst having never explained exactly where your money is going, carries real social stigma.

As Adrian Reynolds points out at The Proclamation Trust, it is simply irresponsible to give to general campaigns without first knowing where your giving will be sent. Comic Relief is an umbrella campaign which distributes funds to a variety of charities. However, whilst it is possible to obtain some information specifying how Comic Relief distributes its funds, there is often little or no visibility. In reality, most people are entirely unaware of where the money is spent yet duly give and actively raise funds regardless. Whilst I am in no doubt Comic Relief money is sent to many good charities, it also supports many dubious ones too.

I am far from anti-charity. I would encourage you to be generous with your money. Give to charity and those in need but don't give indiscriminately. Be wise in where you give and what you support. When you find organisations to whom you want to give bear in mind Matthew 6:3. Nevertheless, if you decide to publicly raise money for your charity, please - and I cannot stress this enough - do not try and make your charitable efforts "fun"!