Guest Matthew Kelly confronts host Frank Skinner over jokes he made about him. Apologies for the very low sound volume, tape it was on seems to have deteriorated :( (VOLUME WILL NEED TO BE SET TO MAX TO HEAR IT!!!)
This is a wonderful chat show moment. Behind the daft exterior of his Game for a Laugh days, Kelly's an intelligent man. So's Skinner. Kelly makes his very reasonable points very calmly and very well. Skinner stands his ground and defends his right to make light of anything. Neither feels the need to win or lose. That the discussion is happening is enough. And Kelly is clever enough not to lapse into gallery-playing righteous indignation. A meeting of equals. It's not either/or.
Whilst uncomfortable to watch, and I remember watching it back in the day, this was a powerful and important moment in television. I respect that both Kelly and Skinner have a calm, reasoned and intelligent discussion about it. Nothing gets nasty, nothing gets personal, it's just two men with two polemics defending their own positions. Afterwards, I actually respected both a little more; I think they both came out of it well
He didn't label him as anything. He made a joke out of Kelly's predicament purely for the sake of humour; it wasn't personal. Now, that's not a philosphy I subscribe to, but it is Skinner's philosophy and he is entitled to his as much as I am to mine, and you are to yours
Interesting watching this in the Post Saville, # me too outrage junkie internet environment. It's a reasoned discussion between two adults on an emotive personal subject. Both come out of it with credit.
Objectively, it was a funny joke. He could have said Rolf Harris or Gary Glitter but If you're benefitting from being in the public eye and an issue comes up, you're a target for a joke. It's only a joke. The more the 'victim' goes on about it, the more people will start to wonder. That's part of the price of fame, for better or worse.
@@stuarthossack5351he lost everything, over a bs rumour. He was angry, hurt. And when he got cleared all the shows that had been mocking him and fueling the allegations invited him back on with smiles on their faces. Can't blame him
Without intending to take sides, in all fairness to Frank Skinner he had full editorial control over that show and chose to show the conversation without any significant editing favouring himself. Kelly actually brought the subject up between takes, and it was Skinner's insistence that he would be happy to let Kelly challenge him about the jokes on the show. Also, the first joke that Skinner quotes wasn't even his. It was David Baddiel's Skinner refers to that fact, but ends up taking the flack.
I'm so glad you posted this, I remember it at the time, funny how different Mathew Kelly looked without the silly mop of curly hair and beard. He was right to confront Skinner in this way though.
I remember watching that on TV when it first aired, Frank looked uncomfortable but well done to both of them for making their points and keeping it civil. Not heard anything of Matthew in years, I hope he's well as he always came across as a genuinely nice bloke.
You know, considering how badly this could have gone, Skinner did a good job justifying why he said those jokes that while back. And he's pretty upfront about it, not even taking the easy way out when Kelly offers him one at 2:26 .
This is an amazing example of a situation where the “wrong” could be debated so many ways, with different approaches 😂 Exposes how we joke, when it’s wrong, how we should be able to take it, and why we shouldn’t have to take it. Brilliant moment 😂😂
Yep, though I felt Frank's insistence that there was "no malice," and "it was just a joke" felt a bit desperate, like a childhood bully who suddenly gets confronted about his behaviour by his victim after they've grown up. Matthew had every right to be angry with him. I'm just glad we seem to be moving away from that dickish period in comedy.
+SoundArtist Well Frank had the option of taking the easy way out, but he decided not to do it. He decided to own up to what he said. And Kelly was certainly aware of what he was doing, and the fact that Skinner didn't just hide behind a cheap lie must have earned his grudging respect.
I vaguely remember this, it was an awkward watch but done amicably. Can’t help but side with Matthew Kelly though - frank, who’s quick to jump on the piss take wagon because he can’t think up anything else, despite MK being proven innocent. That accusation destroyed his Tv career!
The worst thing about this video is, I turned up the volume all the way to try and catch what was being said but then forgot to adjust the volume before watching the next video...
I love these type of moments, Matthew from his perspective has every right to feel pissed off, while Frank feels he was just a topic to joke about that week, the confrontation is brill', both handled it well in my opinion.
I remember this really well. Frank looks uncharacteristically awkward but also seems honest which makes the interview even more squirmish for the viewer but fair play to both sides. I don't think this would happen these days because it's too real. Compelling TV anyways.
I'm not sure if Frank was 100% honest. He's a smart guy so I reckon he must've recognised the difference between a joke about a convicted sex offender like Gary Glitter and a guy who'd just been accused like Matthew Kelly. And his line of defence, "It was a joke, that's my job," doesn't wash but Frank knows there's jokes he wouldn't tell.
@@cliffhanley2120 Baddiel and Skinners whole schtick was 2 friends sitting on a sofa saying stuff and making jokes like the rest of us do (only they're supposed to be funnier, obviously). He can't really say that here, although he does try to differentiate between that style of entertainment and Stars in their Eyes, because then he'd get battered by people saying they wouldn't say such things at home. It's enough for me that Skinner invited Kelly on his show and appeared to be willing to discuss it tbh.
Both handled it well and as we saw later with all the Jimmy saville stuff we’re some celebrities were falsely accused and had their names run through the mud….Kelly was right to call it out cause wherever mud is thrown it sticks
I get that MK was pissed with Skinner, but I admire the way that Skinner refused to roll over and, in his words, get off the hook with an easy apology.
B Rabbit Frank's logic was confused there because Matthew Kelly was mainly questioning the morality of the joke, not telling Frank how to be funny etc.
Yes, he should have invested in a new video player and some expensive audio restoration software, just so you didn't have any reason to make any ignorant and smart-arsed remarks.
@@wanderer1955 I restore audio from tapes. Have many formats, interfaces and software. Thanks for all your pro-tips. Who knew that all you have to do, is correct the volume before uploading the video? Fascinating stuff!
@@DaveyMulholland Get some software called "AUDACITY" it's a free download, there isn't much you can't do with it. Gee who'd a thought you can get software to correct "volume". Well I never!!
It is strange watching this - like many others, I've waited for it to be uploaded for a long time. I say strange because I have told so many people about it over the years and recounted what happened. I have to admit that I haven't been portraying it accurately...I've made out that Skinner was put right on the back foot and squirmed throughout. He actually put up a good case for himself and what he'd done. My "party piece" will need to be rejigged, I think.
It was quite brave to dig frank skinner live for that, skinner wudnt have expected that but goes to show clearly mathew kelly forgave but did not forget
'Do you think that's fair' means different things to the two. Matthew Kelly is asking 'do you think that's fair that I was going thru that and then you made fun of me unjustly'. Frank is answering 'yes I think it's fair that I as a comedian should be able to make a topical joke about something in the news, meant as a joke, because it would be impossible to regulate comedy against this approach and nothing personal was intended'. Both right.
+Ed Surname Lets image an ex work colleague way back in your past pops up out the blue and accuse you of inappropriate sexual behavior because even if you are found totally innocent of any wrong doing, a nasty stain will be will be with you for the rest of your life then all of a sudden you become the but end of jokes in the area where you live, i think you may have a little more sympathy for Matthew Kelly's situation.
@@kenthomson9562 The quote has been around since the end of the nineteenth century, attributed to a number of different celebrities and authors of that era.
+Peter Byrd - "Armchair Thriller" scared the shit out of me. The episode where the faceless 'Black Nun' appears in a rocking chair in an attic scarred me for life. Then there was the pet pooch nailed to some old dear's front door. Complete with blood stains. Then there was the flash of an evil face whizzing by in a dark train tunnel right next to some woman about to doze off with her head right next to the window, terrifying her. These images stayed with me. 'Armchair Thriller' was often repeated in the afternoon when I was (for some reason) often home from school. I saw 'em all. To this day even the theme music makes me go cold.
+aerialkate Here! Iv never heard of this prog!, and I'm an old TV fan, I will now go and look, { Im at the point in this video where I don't know If Frank apologised or not, I hope he didn't repeat it here I hope!!! ohhhh too late,
2 yrs late but fuk me i was the same afternoon showings and home alone i can still remember that shadow over the chair all alone i went out into the street because it fuked with me so much
Matthew Kelly was clearly internally raging, which i feel put Frank Skinner slightly on the back foot, but big up Frank for having him on the show and big up Matthew Kelly for going on the show to confront him about the jokes he made that he did not see the funny side of. It just goes to show how these situations do not need to be over the top and Jeremy Kyle’d in order to make engaging quality viewing
Cliff, he wasn't wrong. A sense of humour can't be wrong, it can only be different. There shouldn't be any rules for comedy. If there was then life of Brian wouldn't exist, everything offends someone. It's the people who think their being offended actually gives them any rights who are the problem.
Tricky one this is. I’m all for comedians being able to make jokes about everything, but as a man, I can’t think of anything worse to be labelled as than a pedophile. Making jokes on it keeps the rumours alive and I don’t know how I’d react to that if I was on the receiving end.
My thoughts exactly, Jon. I think comedy must always be an open forum, because to be anything else is a concerning thing. But by the same token, Matthew Kelly must have gone through something very few of us have, and in the most awful way, and he is very much entitled to ask for accountability. It keeps us all honest. Freedom of speech yes, but not freedom of consequence; you don't just get to say what you like about anyone without recourse, and certainly not when it comes to something like this. And I think he handled it very well; i.e. with mock indignance because, frankly, if I was subject to that and then someone joked about it in the pub, I can't promise I would have the same restraint.
@@jevonscholes8159 oh yeah I totally get that, of course I do. I just mean the jokes will amplify it, and they also keep the "mud sticks" narrative as well. I guess my point was, as much as comedy should be an open church, Matthew Kelly has every right to respond as well. You can't expect to make jokes under free expression principles and then not be prepared to answer for them. I'm a big Frank Skinner fan, but I can see both sides here.
@@highwireman2012 for sure Mathew Kelly was well within his right, its just a difficult when it comes to comedy, especially as you never know what it might be that oversteps the line for different people. If the wrongful arrests have no consequence (altho I do think in this case it did open a debate) its very difficult to expect a higher standard of an average person or especially a comedian whereby their fame and career should imply it's not to be taken seriously. I think there is also a nice parallel to the John Lydon censorship, whereby not be able to make suggestions or jokes could be covering such horrendous acts. In general I personally think its for the best that the discussion should be open even though its certainly not perfect
Jokes about merely accused offenders are not that funny, even when well crafted. Jokes about convicted offenders, for example, Gary Glitter, work, because they're truly dark. Nothing dark about an innocent man, apart from said innocent man being tried my the media and comedians etc.
Kelly was arrested as part of Operation Arundel, in which Tam Paton (manager of the Bay City Rollers) was also arrested at the same time. Paton is known to have had an appetite for teenaged boys, including trying it on with lead singer Les McKeown, and at the time of the arrest the police found cocaine at Kelly's home. In the end he was not prosecuted, due to lack of evidence, which is entirely different to being acquitted as it leaves the question unanswered, and if you ooh at the general picture (drugs, association with paedophiles, and the allegations themselves) it is not a compelling picture of innocence. Kelly may have elected to do be Skinner's quest on the show as attack is often the best form of defence when someone has something to hide.
I disagree totally. If you've ever Ben on the receiving end of a continual, passive aggressive joke about you then I think you would think it bullying. We all have seen the school bully making fun of the weaker person, all the time, every day,. To what end other than to diminish them and use them as an oblect for ridicule. That's bullying to me and it doesn't need to make someone do something they don't want to either. Humour is sometimes cruel yes, Nd sometimes it's also bullying. I'm not necessarily claiming Frank Skinner was doing this but it', I think he is unaware of the effects on others and claiming the usual get out clause of its only humour.
@@saudade369 I didn’t say that disparaging jokes are fun, but unless you are being overpowered it’s not bullying. If someone makes passive aggressive jokes about you, fight back. You don’t get to call everything you don’t like in life “bullying” just because you don’t like it.
@@ifanmorgan8070 Your definition of bullying doesn't cover all areas though. There's the psychological side of bullying which merely (but damagingly) gets inside the head of the victim, particularly the younger ones who are vulnerable, over-sensitive and easy prey for the bully. In those legions of cases, it's not to do with being overpowering or forcing someone to do something (which is of course one form of bullying). It's to do with undermining, belittling....mental abuse, in other words. And yes, Frank...while not being a bully here)....is nevertheless using that cold, defiant, rational way of exempting himself from blame that a bully would if they were taken up on it. "It's only a joke".....while the consequences are being ignored, not appreciated.
jokes are bullying?, what about criticism? is that bullying too, lets just be fascists shall we and stop people from saying anything offensive, someones going to walk out in front of a car on purpose because they think they are car proof but you're not allowed to tell them that's a STUPID idea because that would be bullying, you see where it leads ? lol there's actually several comedy sketches based on this subject and a red dwarf episode lol where there's a ship driving directly into a star but no ones allowed to tell the crew it's a bad idea becase criticism of any kind including jokes are illegal and is classed as bullying lol infact we actually had to amend the section 5 public order act a couple of years ago with thanks to comedians like rowan atkinson to remove the words offence from it just so that comedians could do their jobs without fear of being arrested for telling jokes.
@@ljdmanxfella5793so if anyone is accused, that’s it. They’re bang to rights. How about I accuse you of being a nonce. Does that mean you’re one too? Is that how it works?
i've been trying to remember the show with a shadow in a chair. by chance i clicked on this vid and the first thing i see, the chair with a shadow. brilliant.
I'm afraid it's clear to see that Matthew Kelly is actually very, very angry. Yes, he plays along and even covers it at times with laughter but if you look at 2.19 you can see how serious he is about it. This is a very tense piece of television and I don't think it's about who won and didn't win.
Yeah I think you’re right but there’s a level of responsibility - own what you say. And if you’re attacking a marginalised group and promoting a trope that gay men are likely to be paedos then FS needs to hear that. Anyway do agree, it’s a good conversation
I've never seen this before and I feel for anyone who's been wrongly accused of anything. However, I love the way that Frank defends himself and cogently argues his case. And he's absolutely right. God forbid (sorry for blaspheming Frank) Jimmy Carr was prominent back in 2010. Kelly would've had an aneurysm!
Cogently? He actually used the "there was no malice," and "it was just a joke" defences. He sounded like a kid being told off for bullying, and rightly so.
..I agree, and I think Jimmy's different, worse. His speciality is always having the high ground and mocking. He's a controlled and controlling comedian... Certainiy, considering the putdowns and shit-takes of his guests he doesn't put up with them so much.. fell out with a couple of people on the panel shows and flurted with Anne Widdecome or someone- specifically because she gets mocked for not being good looking. I say this despite my favourite show being 8 out of 10CDC. Sean was/is my favourite comedian.. I just think Jimmy really does dish out more than he can take.
Mathew Kelly character has been tarnished even though he has been found innocent, a lot of TV work dried up after the court case. Anonymity for the accused and the accuser should be the way forward if a person is found guilty then there should be no anonymity protection, this seems like common sense to me. I just can not understand why dont the courts conduct themselves in this way.
He's right about Kelly being part of the mood at the time and I'd defend his right to joke about whatever he likes. And the comment below is right, it's good to see a good, adult debate about this. I'd argue Frank's jibe at Sophie Ellis Bextor at the Brits was actually harder to defend.
This is truly grisly but well done Matthew Kelly. Trial by tabloid is a disgrace - just because someone is accused of something or even under investigation doesn't mean they don't matter and deserve to be treated with contempt. Inoocent until proven guilty.
Was a joke at the time but no smoke without fire Pete Townsend got off as a police whistleblower informed the newspapers and that gave him and everybody else time to destroy their computers etc so when he was raided they only had the evidence of a credit card which was used to view child porn ?
This didn't go down as I think Mathew planned. I think he thought Frank would get embarrassed and buckle, and he would come out looking the bigger person. How wrong he was. He neglected to realized how 'sharp' Frank is. And I think he just made himself look even worse. Also anyone who missed the original gags got chance to hear them again !!
I don't really look at it in that way and quite a few people don't. It seemed as if Mathew held back quite a lot. It was more he wanted to bring it up just as a way to say "People like you need to realise that you're talking about real people here..Real innocent people". Which was true in his case and quite a few others over the years. Frank just seemed to sit there, squirm and come out with a few semi funny commenst to try and defuse the situation. A few years later Frank said this was the hardest interview to do because he had no way to defend himself.
Skinner dealt with Kelly very well. Kelly almost seemed menacing at the start. But Skinner knew how to play it. I'm sure hes had others want apologies for things he has said, but hes a comedian and seeing the funny side of life. He is satirical and that's what he does well.
@@Kimmy234L where did i defend him? you need to be proven guilty , i know that is a strange concept in these times , has your friend brought criminal proceedings
@@Kimmy234L does the name Jimmy Saville mean anything to you! i can only imagine the horror of abuse and i don't want to sound unfeeling to your friend or anyone else but people to need to speak out to save those who will become victims
@@andrewjohnston2850 there's thousands ...millions of victims out there that never come forward. They feel ashamed....they try to block it out and live a normal life. I respect my friends decision, as it's a long drawn out process, with all to pull to pieces...
I'll tell you something about Matthew Kelly, take it as truth if you wish, but all i know of Matthew Kelly is what i know from my Nana, years ago, in the 1970's, Matthew Kelly lived around my area, Cheshire, i'm not sure exactly where but i think it was somewhere around Northwich/Winsford, that general area, now this happened before he became well known, and as far as i can tell, it is only a rumour, but anyway, the story goes that he was married, and got up to no good with a teenage boy, a police report was filed at the time, but Matthew Kelly buggered off to London, became quite successful and nothing ever came of it. He was then investigated in 2003 on what i believe to be a different child abuse scandal, but there was insufficient evidence, now, i'm not for one second saying take this as fact, this is from my 78 year old Nana and her memory is a bit dodgy at the best of times, but having said that, i wouldn't let him near my kids haha.
There is never smoke without fire, he's dodgy, end off, you wanna leave him in a room with your kids? Of course you don't. Jimmy savile was just rumours once you know...
+Daniel Thompson So because Jimmy Savile was a paedophile it follows that Matthew Kelly is one too. "No smoke without fire" is a slogan for lazy-minded numbskulls.
Stephen Ogley You knew someone who worked for him who called him a monster? Well that's conclusive then. I despair when I read brain-dead comments like yours.
@destructivedandy I honestly don't care what you think, but your two pissy messages of bitterness were something to behold and I congratulate you on that. Well played.
Watching it again - the truth of the matter is Mathew Kelly comes across as creepy. He makes me feel uncomfortable and is cringe inducing. He is not very likeable or endearing. I think that's why the truth of the joke is irrelevant ( not to him I'm sure) but it works because , rightly or wrongly, people find him creepy, insincere and uncomfortable
