some people are way to precious and on a mission to be offended by anything and everything, even to the point of being offended on behalf of someone else who they asume must surely be offended by it
I'm with you on this. It's very similar to the Russell Brand/Jonathan Ross debacle a while back. In that scenario there were less than a handful of complaints about the actual show, until the Daily Mail wrote an article about it over a week later (after the next show had been broadcast, and Russell Brand had already apologised). Once the Daily Mail readers got hold of it they were shocked and offended by something they hadn't witnessed, merely because they were told they should be.
I the case of Jimmy Carr, I thought the joke itself was qute funny. I know a few squadies and they think it's funny.
Someone's personal sense of humour is just that, personal. One person will laugh at one joke, and others will be disgusted. I think we can all accept that there are jokes that we as individuals have found hilarious, yet others have found distasteful.
To the people who are livid over this joke, would you be more or less angry if it were someone other than Jimmy Carr (who is obviously someone you don't like)? Let's imagine that the loveable, cuddly John Sargent said it on Argumental (he's said jokes as bad), would you be as aggressive toward him?
We've all retold jokes that are the same, if not worse than this.
If we start censoring comedians, where does it stop? We can't have jokes about paraplegics. We can't have jokes about olympic gold medal winners. We can't have jokes about politicians. We can't have jokes about the Queen. We can't have jokes about stereotypes. We can't have jokes about...
Did you hear the joke about the chav in the blinged up beamer? No? I'm not surprised, as no one will tell it in case it offends anybody.