<![CDATA[Sir James Pub Quiz Events Entertainment - Appeals]]>Thu, 05 Feb 2026 14:39:29 +0000Weebly<![CDATA[Joke Round Censorship: Trouble in Animal Hospital!]]>Thu, 25 Apr 2013 11:43:15 GMThttps://www.glasgowpubquiz.com/appeals/joke-round-censorship-trouble-in-animal-hospitalComplainant 
Honeymonsters

Point of Appeal 
Fun Round - Joke should have been read out

Joke 
"It all makes sense now why Rolf Harris got excited when he got told he'd be looking at helpless young beavers on Animal Hospital"

Appeal
"If you can't make a joke about a paedo antipodean, what can you joke about?"

Context
The subjective nature of humour makes for a rich debating ground with regard to censorship of fun round entries.

Topical news stories regarding celebrities should be a rich source of pub quiz jokes, but this particular joke seemed to gain too much of it's humour from the imagined exitement of the alleged perpetrator of a sex crime and the vulnerability of the victim.

A re-wording of the joke to change the emphasis would be required - so that neither the entertainer (whose career will suffer from these as yet unproven allegations) or the 'helpless' animal are the victims of the joke.  

As this was a busy night I did not have the time to alter the joke myself into something that cast the victim as the teller of the joke and shared the blame a little more with the media. The below, for example, would have been more acceptable:

"I saw a special Animal Hospital last night where Rolf Harris was talking about kittens. Given what I've heard, I'm surprised the BBC trust him around all that young pussy."

Ruling
This particular joke was on the cusp of being read out. It may have been that on a different night, with a more intimate and attentive crowd it would have been read out with a disclaimer. However, the standard Fun Round rule remains - that the teams are allowed to enter whatever they wish, and it is at the quizmaster's discretion to read out whatever they wish.

Case Dismissed?
Have your say below...
]]><![CDATA[Another shot of anti-bacterial anyone?]]>Thu, 22 Nov 2012 14:24:17 GMThttps://www.glasgowpubquiz.com/appeals/another-shot-of-anti-bacterial-anyonePicture
Complainant 
Quizzly Bears

Point of Appeal: 1in3 Round

Question: “Which of these 3 tasty drinks has the most alcohol in it? Pimms, Aftershock or the Hand Gel you used to get in British Prisons”

Appeal
Quiz Question was misleading/incorrect 

Evidence
Hand gel does not provide nourishment - while it can be drunk it is not regarded as a drink. Hand gel should therefore be described as either a liquid or as a member of an unnamed category, not as a 'drink'.

Context
The flimsy premise for the amusing idea that hand gel can be a drink came from News stories in September 2009 widely reported on the BBC and media outlets such as The Telegraph, Daily Mail & Guardian etc. The fact was prisoners were drinking taxpayers handgel in prisons to get drunk "Shock Horror Outrage!" (Add your own tabloid headline here about how easy prison life is.)

Ruling
The question is not really trying to ask if hand gel is a drink, it is asking us to compare the alcohol content of hand gel with commonly available alcoholic drinks. This could have been clarified during the quiz, however, there should be no ambiguity in the question.

Verdict 
Appeal partially upheld - question will be rephrased in future for avoidance of ambiguity.

Case Dismissed?
Have your say below...
]]>