Jeremy Clarkson shocker

pb21

RichN95 wrote:

The Running Man wrote:

Sorry if I'm sounding serious and sincere but history teaches us that freedoms get eroded by stealth and not by daylight robbery. It's too easy and simplistic to write Clarkson off as a loose-mouthed fool ... the drivel he spouts has enough of a thread of attractiveness to give it currency.

Is one of those freedoms 'Freedom of Speech'?

Isn't restricting Clarkson or anyone from saying things an example of one of those erosions of which you speak.

Freedoms extend to all lifestyles and moralities, not just yours.

I don't think anyone is saying he shouldn't be able to say what he thinks, rather he shouldn't be able to say it unopposed on a 'primetime', supposedly unbiased, television show watched by millions of people.

Also you and I know he just trying to be 'funny' and doesn't really think they should be shot, but some people wouldn't.

RichN95.

pb21 wrote:

I don't think anyone is saying he shouldn't be able to say what he thinks.

So why are people getting worked up then? People may not agree him and may not find it funny (as I didn't), but surely those espousing freedom should welcome the airing of opposing views rather than rile against them, speaking to oppress through a steady stream of intimidation.

As to your edit: If you they think Clarkson's opinions are unsuitable, then don't ask him on the show and ask his opinions. They even had a pre-prepared segment based around his controversial views. The show may be 'supposedly unbiased' but the guests aren't.

And the second edit: Do you really think anyone thought 'right, I'm going to go and shoot some strikers'. I was on strike and I can't say I'm fearing for my life.

The media must not be neutered by professional offendees hell bent on reducing it to the blandest product possible.

pb21

I understand what you are saying, but what if he had come on and said that all cyclists should be shot in front of their families, in jest.

Obviously he can say that, but he, and the BBC, have to face the responsibilities of it, if any.

priory

does NOT letting him sound off on tv while paying him a million pounds a year constitute a restriction of his right to free speech? Only I have for some years had an objection to my money being handed to the m0r0n.

RichN95.

pb21 wrote:

I understand what you are saying, but what if he had come on and said that all cyclists should be shot in front of their families, in jest.

I'm a cyclist (occasionally) and yesterday I was a striker. It's no difference to me.

Besides, I'm not someone to get up in arms about things just because they apply to me.

pb21

RichN95 wrote:

pb21 wrote:

I understand what you are saying, but what if he had come on and said that all cyclists should be shot in front of their families, in jest.

I'm a cyclist (occasionally) and yesterday I was a striker. It's no difference to me.

Besides, I'm not someone to get up in arms about things just because they apply to me.

What I am trying to say is the reaction is understandable, you cant say what ever you like, and then hide behind free speech. You could replace strikers or cyclists with any group, say children.

Just because you weren't offended or made angry or sad, doesn't mean other people who did are wrong.

RichN95.

pb21 wrote:

Just because you weren't offended or made angry or sad, doesn't mean other people who did are wrong.

They're not wrong to be offended, although I get the impression that some people actively seek out offence. They're not wrong to complain to the BBC.

However, they are wrong to demand, whether the demand is for an apology, or a sacking, or an arrest (all of which I have seen. They are wrong to demand that other people comply to their own standards and views.

Some people are vocally very pro-freedom and diversity just so long as those freedoms and diversities fall within the scope of their own values.

15peter20

RichN95 wrote:

pb21 wrote:

Some people are vocally very pro-freedom and diversity just so long as those freedoms and diversities fall within the scope of their own values.

It's not hypocritical to stick up for freedom of speech but complain when those freedoms allow someone to advocate hate and violence. Yes, yes, I know this was 'just a joke'...but the point remains.

verylonglegs

15peter20 wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

pb21 wrote:

Some people are vocally very pro-freedom and diversity just so long as those freedoms and diversities fall within the scope of their own values.

It's not hypocritical to stick up for freedom of speech but complain when those freedoms allow someone to advocate hate and violence. Yes, yes, I know this was 'just a joke'...but the point remains.

But this is where context is the crucial factor. Sure it looks bad in text but it's about who said it, who they said it to, in what circumstance and how it was delivered. I'm jaded by Clarkson's 'act' but really, anyone who has been exercised to phone, email and complain about this...well, he's played you like a piano. I'm astounded so many still fall for it. And to compare him to the extremist 'death to the west' preachers is embarassing quite frankly, are we really that daft?

EKIMIKE

He is free to voice his (rather dire) opinion.

Just as people are free to be very angry at him and voice equally dire opinions in his direction.

Doesn't change the fact that Jeremy Clarkson is a massive gunt.

EKIMIKE

RichN95 wrote:

They are wrong to demand that other people comply to their own standards and views.

Not being funny, but is shooting people because they are exercising their democratic rights now a legitimate view to hold?

I'm sorry, but he said those words. Joke or no joke he said them. And it's those words people are pissed about.

He can be as much of a tory, neo-liberal @sshole as he likes, i frankly don't care. But exercising a democratic right should not be an 'optional' standard or view, surely?

As much as i see what you what you're saying and understand what you're essentially trying to convey, JC's comments stand in the face of democracy and democratic rights and freedoms conferred by law.

Pseudonym

EKIMIKE wrote:

He is free to voice his (rather dire) opinion.

not if his opinion constitutes incitement to violence, he isn't (which it may or may not in this case, I dunno). Don't forget there's no such thing as 'genuinely' free speech. It's only free if it is within the law. You're right about him being a massive gunt though....

EKIMIKE

Frankly we all know he and his friends won't actually go out and shoot people though. They're far more likely to repeal laws or introduce new laws that limits our exercise of democratic rights. Or even worse they will simply act contrary to the laws that currently protect these rights. That's what we need to worry about. History is a good warning - people in power, with power over people will screw those people for their own profits and benefits.

Pseudonym

EKIMIKE wrote:

Frankly we all know he and his friends won't actually go out and shoot people though.

I don't believe Hitler ever shot anyone either - he always got someone else to do it...

RichN95.

EKIMIKE wrote:

Not being funny, but is shooting people because they are exercising their democratic rights now a legitimate view to hold?

I'm sorry, but he said those words. Joke or no joke he said them. And it's those words people are pissed about.

No-one's actually getting shot, though. And nobody wants anyone shot either. It's just low grade attention seeking. Clarkson being 'Clarkson' (the character).

Did anyone genuinely feel threatened his words? Or did they just see an opportunity to have a go at someone they don't like.

Now if David Cameron or any politician had said 'strikers should be shot', then that's a different matter. That's context for you.

Getting offended by Clarkson making controversial remarks is like getting offended by a killer whale eating a seal* - it's just what they do.

(*People complained about that too, apparently.)

Pseudonym

RichN95 wrote:

Getting offended by Clarkson making controversial remarks is like getting offended by a killer whale eating a seal* - it's just what they do.

(*People complained about that too, apparently.)

racists often make racist remarks (like that thick bint on the tram the other day), because that's what they do. Is it ok to get upset about that, or should we just accept that too..?

RichN95.

Pseudonym wrote:

racists often make racist remarks (like that thick bint on the tram the other day), because that's what they do. Is it ok to get upset about that, or should we just accept that too..?

Racists are racists. Legislation won't change that. Frankly I prefer them to be blatently racist so we can marginalise them, rather than subtly.

Once upon a time it was illegal to be gay. Many people were offended by gay people. It didn't stop people being gay though. Eventually, we just accepted it (as we should have done all along).

Tram woman's views were abhorant, but in themselves shouldn't be illegal. If there is some breach of the peace or personal abuse or incitement, then the law should move in (almost certainly the first two). Opinions, in themselves, should never be illegal.

To quote 19th century politician Charles Bradburgh - "Without free speech no search for truth is possible... no discovery of truth is useful... Better a thousandfold abuse of free speech than denial of free speech".

Anyway, he's gone on TV on strike day and deflected all the headlines away from his chum Cameron. The moral majority (with the help of chumps leading Unison) have taken the bait better than hoped.

andyrr

Having seen the clip of what he said I feel that it was very inappropriate for that time of evening but what he said was, firstly, the strike was great, roads quiet etc, then he said that as he had to give the opposite view to balance things as this was the BBC, that the strikers should be shot. Both of his points of view may be ones he actually would agree with, as we know he holds some right-wing views, but he said them in such a way that they can be construed as him just spouting 2 very opposite points of view ie the strikers gave him a brilliant day where everything was less crowded AND the strikers were terrible and should be shot.

random man

I admit to having watched The One Show live - JC's comments about the strikers I felt were a bit extreme but typical 'Clarkson', and he appeared to wink at the presenters as if to acknowledge this.
What I found disturbing, and so apparently did the presenters, were his comments about having to stop the train from Oxford to London because of people throwing themselves in front of it at Reading. 'Why can't they just keep going?' he said, jokingly. In light of recent events, this was more than a tad insensitive.

bompington

RichN95 wrote:

No-one's actually getting shot, though. And nobody wants anyone shot either. It's just low grade attention seeking. Clarkson being 'Clarkson' (the character).

Did anyone genuinely feel threatened his words? Or did they just see an opportunity to have a go at someone they don't like.

+1,000,000,000,000

End of thread (if only...)

LeicesterLad

I agree with Rich on this one, the only real reason i can see for possible upset is the time of day (dinner in front of the TV with the Kids), like already mentioned, if it had been on HIGNFY or Mock the Week, nobody would have batted an eyelid.

MattC59

Did anyone actually see the comments in question ?
Those that did, did you choose to ignore the context and the surrounding comments ?

Having said that the strikes were great (ok, for the wrong reasons), he then said that as it was the BBC, he should offer an alternative view "in the interest of balance".

After the comment about shooting strikers, the presenter (forget her name) said something along the lines of "Well, of course, that's Jeremy's opinion", to which he followed with "No it's not, it's just two alternative views".

The last line being the one which people have conveniently ignored.

I admit that generally, the intellect of 'The One show' vewers is a little low, but even a nutless monkey can see that this wasn't a comment designed to "incite hate" as Karen Jennings (deputy general something or other of Unison).

To those who were offended:
Look at the whole clip.
Observe the context.
Engage brain before opening mouth.
Get a life, there are far more important things to worry about than whether a tv persona might have insulted you because you didn't watch the clip properly.

LeicesterLad

+1 to all the above. (Clarkson is a nobhead though)

rolf_f

MattC59 wrote:

Get a life, there are far more important things to worry about than whether a tv persona might have insulted you because you didn't watch the clip properly.

Just to remind you, you are posting on an internet forum......

So
a) you are in no position to tell anyone else to get a life and
b) the whole point about internet forums is that you are supposed to get wound up about pointless crap so that you don't have to get wound up about it in the real world.

Just sayin'

MattC59

And the latest from the GMB..................

"The GMB union said the apology was not enough and revealed that it planned to organise a picket against Mr Clarkson."

Are these people f*cking stupid ????
I'll answer that for you............ yes they are, beyond comprehension !!

So, they plan to spend union fees organising a picket against Clarkson, which will have absolutely no effect or relevance what so ever. Nice one !
And these are the people who represent their members :roll:

Redhog14

I wonder if we should start a union to defend JC against unfair portrayal in the meeja and persecution as he is technically an unoffical spokesman for minority interest group...(i.e. people who live their life vicarioulsy through the TV consumption of ridiculously expensive motorcars). The thing about clarkson, and i have followed him for years long before he got on TG, I don't always agree with him and he can be a nob but there is generally a nugget of truth in what he says. Lets be clear he mocked people for their political views which he is perfectly entitled to do, as we all are it is not like Ricky Gervais making comments in jest about handicapped people.

verylonglegs

The noises coming out of Germany and France over the future of Europe are far more significant but they are still talking about this on the radio.

CyclingBantam

It is a national pastime though, getting ridiculously wound up about a nothing incident. We seem to lurch from one non crisis to another.

It was like the "Poppy on England football shirts" incident last month. The england football team had played 36 times previously in the first two weeks of November and never worn a poppy however, when the press picked up on it, it was outraging people across the country.

Seems, despite the recession etc, people in the uK really do have funk all to worry about.

nozzac

Ahh the British and their famous sense of humour.....well until it's something they don't like then 23,000 make effort to complain. Pathetic.

Clarkson is his own man. You might not like him and I certainly don't agree with most of his blinkered views, but I'm not gonna get my knickers in a twist when he acts like himself and says semi-outrageous things on TV. I don't even find it outrageous. He's clearly just expressing his distaste of the strikers in a humerous manner.

DavidBelcher

EKIMIKE wrote:

He is free to voice his (rather dire) opinion.

Indeed - I'm not against freedom of speech. But he should be aware of the consequences of voicing said opinion and prepared to take the resultant flack; "engage brain before opening mouth" is good advice. People might feel less aggrieved were he not getting X quids' worth of licence payers' dosh for spouting the aforementioned drivel, either.

Perhaps the world might be a better place had it been him and not Hammond involved in that accident at Elvington airfield, preferably resulting in some sort of maiming and/or mental impairment?*

David

* I don't actually think this. It's merely exaggeration for comic effect; you know, just a joke, like one of those jokes they have on Top Gear....