Jeremy Clarkson shocker

124

Comments

  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 40,479
    Deliberately provocative comments from Clarkson but then as others have said (and he even says himself) that is what is expected from him. The One Show is a bizarre concept along the lines of That's Life where one minute there is an article of humorously shaped vegetables and the next they cover something on child poverty and ask some Z list celeb to comment on the issues of the day. The worst thing is that the presenters apologised for Clarkson's comments. Surely the only person who can apologise for a comment is the person who made it but this apologising on a guest's behalf is becoming quite common on the BBC.
  • MattC59
    MattC59 Posts: 5,408
    When the presenters pointed out that these were Clarkson's personal views, he said: "They're not. I've just given two views for you ."

    Does that not make it clear ? From JC, on the show, during the piece about the strikes, immediately after the 'offensive comment'.

    I think his other comment could be construed as more offensive (although I didn't find it so), but of course, the families of suicide victims who threw themselves in front of trains are few and far between when compared to the Unions. I notice that people aren't bleating on about that ?!?!!

    He who shouts loudest gets listened to, springs to mind, which rings true even if you've got f*ck all to shout about !

    The Unions - the voice of those who have been slightly offended, by something that they didn't see, but then decided to seek out an edited version on Youtube [1] and take it completely out of context.

    [1] I have no proof of this, but this is what usually happens and I can't believe that the One Show has 21,000 viewers.
    Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed.
    Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved
  • nozzac
    nozzac Posts: 408
    Exactly. It was a joke about the BBC's obsession with balance. It needed the pretend extreme anti-strike view to work.
  • MattC59 wrote:
    I think his other comment could be construed as more offensive (although I didn't find it so), but of course, the families of suicide victims who threw themselves in front of trains are few and far between when compared to the Unions. I notice that people aren't bleating on about that ?!?!!

    I think that's still attracted more than its fair share of complaints, rightly so in the light of the recent high-profile suicide of Gary Speed. Tact/comic timing FAIL.

    David
    "It is not enough merely to win; others must lose." - Gore Vidal
  • 21,000 complaints to the beeb, 5 pages on BR God knows what elsewhere, stop spending money advertising your latest DVD Clarkson, a bunch of soft muppets are raising your profile for you.
  • CiB
    CiB Posts: 6,098
    21000 nutters have complained to the BBC; equally ~20000 have voted in his support on The Telegraph coverage of all this. What does that prove? Nothing, other than some people think it was just a joke and some people are keen to let us know how offended they were. I'd close this thread now personally. It's all been said.
  • t.m.h.n.e.t
    t.m.h.n.e.t Posts: 2,265
    Hard to believe that 1 man with an opinion could drum up such a frenzy.

    I blame wiggle
  • lemoncurd
    lemoncurd Posts: 1,428
    sorry please delete this thread
  • Hard to believe that 1 man with an opinion could drum up such a frenzy.

    I blame wiggle

    Indeed. It's a bloomin' outrage. If you ask me, the BBC ought to get some more wholesome, family-friendly talent in, such as that nice Mr. Brand or that Ross fella who used to do Barry Norman's job. Erm, excuse me a mo.... :oops:

    David
    "It is not enough merely to win; others must lose." - Gore Vidal
  • Did the country's sense of humour go on strike today as well then? Must have missed the memo.

    + this
    Jez mon wrote:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuuDnqSPnhA

    It's Jeremy Clarkson, you know what you are going to get, so if you don't like it, let me introduce you to this

    remote_control.jpg

    You point them at the tv, press the button associated with the number of the channel you want to watch, and like magic, the bad scary man who offended your sensibilities goes away.

    Just don't switch it to Dave, because that's probably showing Top Gear

    We live in a country where satire and a sense of humour is allowed, it's bloody obvious JC was being his normal public persona and making wise, so people taking him seriously should be shot in front of their families and the family pets should be made to eat their rotting corpses for not understanding other peoples senses of humour differ. (THIS IS A WINK IT INDICATES SARCASM which is also allowed in the UK last time I checked) ;)

    You know what you are getting with Jezzer, IF YOU don't like it, as above, get off your lazy arses, grab the remote and turn over to QVC where you're won't be offended as badly, or hello kitty online calls.
  • Tom Butcher
    Tom Butcher Posts: 3,830
    I think Clarkson is an overpaid cock and I hope they do sack him over this. Was I particularly offended - no - but I do think his comments encourage those who think it's OK to take risks with cyclists lives, to dismiss strikers out of hand without considering the issues etc etc.

    I'd rather not have to contribute to his inflated wages so based on that I think the BBC should get rid. It's not a free speech issue - he's free to say what he likes - just I'd rather not pay for him to do it. If more people would rather keep him then they are free to give him support - myself I took 3-4 minutes to complain.

    it's a hard life if you don't weaken.
  • MattC59
    MattC59 Posts: 5,408
    I think Clarkson is an overpaid fool and I hope they do sack him over this. Was I particularly offended - no - but I do think his comments encourage those who think it's OK to take risks with cyclists lives, to dismiss strikers out of hand without considering the issues etc etc.

    I'd rather not have to contribute to his inflated wages so based on that I think the BBC should get rid. It's not a free speech issue - he's free to say what he likes - just I'd rather not pay for him to do it. If more people would rather keep him then they are free to give him support - myself I took 3-4 minutes to complain.

    FFS........... Really ?!?!?!!? :roll:

    1) Who's going to sack him ? He works for the company who he partly owns. The BBC employ his services because he's a MASSIVE revenue stream for them.
    2) You may consider him a fool, but why is he overpaid ? Please explain. As mentioned, he's a massive revenue stream for the BBC, the show, which he partly owns, is shown in over 100 countries, I believe viewing figures are in excess of 350million. His pay for this pales into insignificance when compared to the money which Top Gear makes for the BBC.
    3) The sentence in bold type. Exactly where is the connection with his comment ? Are you just plucking words out of thin air in a vain attempt to construct an argument ? What the f*ck are you talking about !?!!?!
    4) Did you actually watch the entire clip ? Have you read the transcripts ? Did you not notice that when the presenters pointed out that these were Clarkson's personal views, he said: "They're not. I've just given two views for you ."
    5) I'm quite sure that I'd rather not pay for some of the tv programs / presenters who you like to watch, but that doesn't mean that the BBC should get rid, as you say.
    6) The sentence in bold type. Exactly where is the connection with his comment ? Are you just plucking words out of thin air in a vain attempt to construct an argument ? What the f*ck are you talking about !?!!?!

    I know that points 3) and 6) are the same, but your comment is so f*cking stupid that it deserves to be mentioned twice !

    Read my previous posts, you'll see that I'm not condoning JCs comments, just expecting a little intelligence from the viewing public and to take the comments in context before they complain about a piece which they clearly haven't listened to properly.
    Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed.
    Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved
  • MattC59
    MattC59 Posts: 5,408
    Blimey, One Man's back !!!
    Hello matey !!
    Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed.
    Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved
  • Pseudonym
    Pseudonym Posts: 1,032
    MattC59 wrote:

    FFS........... Really ?!?!?!!? :roll:

    1) Who's going to sack him ? He works for the company who he partly owns. The BBC employ his services because he's a MASSIVE revenue stream for them.
    2) You may consider him a fool, but why is he overpaid ? Please explain. As mentioned, he's a massive revenue stream for the BBC, the show, which he partly owns, is shown in over 100 countries, I believe viewing figures are in excess of 350million. His pay for this pales into insignificance when compared to the money which Top Gear makes for the BBC.
    3) The sentence in bold type. Exactly where is the connection with his comment ? Are you just plucking words out of thin air in a vain attempt to construct an argument ? What the f*ck are you talking about !?!!?!
    4) Did you actually watch the entire clip ? Have you read the transcripts ? Did you not notice that when the presenters pointed out that these were Clarkson's personal views, he said: "They're not. I've just given two views for you ."
    5) I'm quite sure that I'd rather not pay for some of the tv programs / presenters who you like to watch, but that doesn't mean that the BBC should get rid, as you say.
    6) The sentence in bold type. Exactly where is the connection with his comment ? Are you just plucking words out of thin air in a vain attempt to construct an argument ? What the f*ck are you talking about !?!!?!

    I know that points 3) and 6) are the same, but your comment is so f*cking stupid that it deserves to be mentioned twice !

    Read my previous posts, you'll see that I'm not condoning JCs comments, just expecting a little intelligence from the viewing public and to take the comments in context before they complain about a piece which they clearly haven't listened to properly.

    blimey - now who's getting upset...?
  • *AL*
    *AL* Posts: 1,185
    MattC59, you are yeehamcgee and I claim my £5.00.
  • Tom Butcher
    Tom Butcher Posts: 3,830
    It's pretty simple - I think having someone high profile making cracks to the effect it's OK to run cyclists over or whatever as a joke adds to the sense some motorists have that we are just a nuisance and shouldn't really be on the road anyway.

    Not pretending he's the sole or even the main cause of that just a small contributor. For that reason I think he's a cock and as he seems to have made a faux pas over something else I'd be quite happy if he got the sack for it. You might disagree with that but I can't see why you find it difficult to understand.

    To be honest if you calmed down a bit and read what I posted you wouldn't make such a p rick of yourself posting irrelevant questions Mat.

    ps - if you reply you are into double figures for this thread

    it's a hard life if you don't weaken.
  • MattC59
    MattC59 Posts: 5,408
    edited December 2011
    It's pretty simple - I think having someone high profile making cracks to the effect it's OK to run cyclists over or whatever as a joke adds to the sense some motorists have that we are just a nuisance and shouldn't really be on the road anyway.

    Not pretending he's the sole or even the main cause of that just a small contributor. For that reason I think he's a fool and as he seems to have made a faux pas over something else I'd be quite happy if he got the sack for it. You might disagree with that but I can't see why you find it difficult to understand.

    To be honest if you calmed down a bit and read what I posted you wouldn't make such a p rick of yourself posting irrelevant questions Mat.

    ps - if you reply you are into double figures for this thread. And ?

    I'm quite calm thank you, I just find it a little exasperating when people complain, moan, p*ss and whine about something that they clearly haven't listened to, read or understood properly. It would appear that you have complained because you didn't, or chose not to, understand what JC said.

    I did read what you posted, hence my comments. Please explain yours.
    Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed.
    Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved
  • MattC59
    MattC59 Posts: 5,408
    Pseudonym wrote:
    MattC59 wrote:

    FFS........... Really ?!?!?!!? :roll:

    1) Who's going to sack him ? He works for the company who he partly owns. The BBC employ his services because he's a MASSIVE revenue stream for them.
    2) You may consider him a fool, but why is he overpaid ? Please explain. As mentioned, he's a massive revenue stream for the BBC, the show, which he partly owns, is shown in over 100 countries, I believe viewing figures are in excess of 350million. His pay for this pales into insignificance when compared to the money which Top Gear makes for the BBC.
    3) The sentence in bold type. Exactly where is the connection with his comment ? Are you just plucking words out of thin air in a vain attempt to construct an argument ? What the f*ck are you talking about !?!!?!
    4) Did you actually watch the entire clip ? Have you read the transcripts ? Did you not notice that when the presenters pointed out that these were Clarkson's personal views, he said: "They're not. I've just given two views for you ."
    5) I'm quite sure that I'd rather not pay for some of the tv programs / presenters who you like to watch, but that doesn't mean that the BBC should get rid, as you say.
    6) The sentence in bold type. Exactly where is the connection with his comment ? Are you just plucking words out of thin air in a vain attempt to construct an argument ? What the f*ck are you talking about !?!!?!

    I know that points 3) and 6) are the same, but your comment is so f*cking stupid that it deserves to be mentioned twice !

    Read my previous posts, you'll see that I'm not condoning JCs comments, just expecting a little intelligence from the viewing public and to take the comments in context before they complain about a piece which they clearly haven't listened to properly.

    blimey - now who's getting upset...?

    Yeah.............. that'll be me :lol::wink:
    Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed.
    Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved
  • Tom Butcher
    Tom Butcher Posts: 3,830
    MattC59 wrote:
    It's pretty simple - I think having someone high profile making cracks to the effect it's OK to run cyclists over or whatever as a joke adds to the sense some motorists have that we are just a nuisance and shouldn't really be on the road anyway.

    Not pretending he's the sole or even the main cause of that just a small contributor. For that reason I think he's a fool and as he seems to have made a faux pas over something else I'd be quite happy if he got the sack for it. You might disagree with that but I can't see why you find it difficult to understand.

    To be honest if you calmed down a bit and read what I posted you wouldn't make such a p rick of yourself posting irrelevant questions Mat.

    I'm quite calm thank you, I just find it a little exasperating when people complain, moan, p*ss and whine about something that they clearly haven't listened to, read or understood properly. It would appear that you have complained because you didn't, or chose not to, understand what JC said.

    I did read what you posted, hence my comments. Please explain yours.

    Thought I'd made it clear - I don't take huge offence at his latest comments and in isolation I wouldn't have found them objectionable enough to complain. However taken together with some of his other pronouncements, in particular stuff on cyclists which I do think is unhelpful given the way some motorists act, I thought it was worth 3 minutes to try and jump on a bandwagon and see if it might persuade the BBC to sack him.

    You may think that objectionable but somewhat ironically it's clear from the objections you've raised so far that you haven't actually read or at least taken time to digest what I posted.

    And yes I know he may own his own company but if nobody shows their programmes it's not worth a great deal is it.

    it's a hard life if you don't weaken.
  • MattC59
    MattC59 Posts: 5,408
    MattC59 wrote:
    It's pretty simple - I think having someone high profile making cracks to the effect it's OK to run cyclists over or whatever as a joke adds to the sense some motorists have that we are just a nuisance and shouldn't really be on the road anyway.

    Not pretending he's the sole or even the main cause of that just a small contributor. For that reason I think he's a fool and as he seems to have made a faux pas over something else I'd be quite happy if he got the sack for it. You might disagree with that but I can't see why you find it difficult to understand.

    To be honest if you calmed down a bit and read what I posted you wouldn't make such a p rick of yourself posting irrelevant questions Mat.

    I'm quite calm thank you, I just find it a little exasperating when people complain, moan, p*ss and whine about something that they clearly haven't listened to, read or understood properly. It would appear that you have complained because you didn't, or chose not to, understand what JC said.

    I did read what you posted, hence my comments. Please explain yours.

    Thought I'd made it clear - I don't take huge offence at his latest comments [which is why I didn't say that you had taken offence] and in isolation I wouldn't have found them objectionable enough to complain. However taken together with some of his other pronouncements, in particular stuff on cyclists which I do think is unhelpful given the way some motorists act, I thought it was worth 3 minutes to try and jump on a bandwagon [being the operative phrase] and see if it might persuade the BBC to sack him. [I refer you to my original response]
    You may think that objectionable [nope] but somewhat ironically it's clear from the objections you've raised so far that you haven't actually read or at least taken time to digest what I posted. [read my objections again and answer the questions I raised]

    And yes I know he may own his own company but if nobody shows their programmes it's not worth a great deal is it. [well you need to have a word with 350million viewers then]
    Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed.
    Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved
  • Tom Butcher
    Tom Butcher Posts: 3,830
    I'm going to leave it there - you don't think I'm answering your questions - I think it's pretty clear what my point was and if you haven't grasped it yet you never will.

    it's a hard life if you don't weaken.
  • dilemna
    dilemna Posts: 2,187
    Silence is golden. If you are a fool like Clarkson better to keep your trap shut than open it and confirm to everyone you are.

    I wonder what reception he would get if he arrived in A&E on a friday night having injured himself by crashing one of his 'I've got an extremely small dick' sports cars. Exemplary treatment no doubt from our public sector's finest which would make him look like an even bigger sh1t than he already is.

    But JC is a PSW as well as he's employed by the BBC. The BBC isn't going to fire him so massive conflict of interest.

    21,000 complaints by ........... PSWs. There are a lot of them so figures will rise.
    Life is like a roll of toilet paper; long and useful, but always ends at the wrong moment. Anon.
    Think how stupid the average person is.......
    half of them are even more stupid than you first thought.
  • tlw1
    tlw1 Posts: 21,861
    dilemna wrote:

    21,000 complaints by ........... PSWs. There are a lot of them so figures will rise.

    Hopefully they are ringing a premium line, could help fund some of the issues!
  • Ron Stuart
    Ron Stuart Posts: 1,242
    Jez mon wrote:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuuDnqSPnhA

    It's Jeremy Clarkson, you know what you are going to get, so if you don't like it, let me introduce you to this

    remote_control.jpg

    You point them at the tv, press the button associated with the number of the channel you want to watch, and like magic, the bad scary man who offended your sensibilities goes away.

    Just don't switch it to Dave, because that's probably showing Top Gear

    You have a good point of course if you know what's coming and a lot of peoples children didn't. As far as I can tell he uses these risky comments to compensate for the fact that otherwise he has no actual talent whatsoever. He was that knob at school that had to jump of the gym roof to get attention but unlike the kid you new from school he never grew up.
    Definitely the Katie Price of motoring and getting rich for making a dick of himself, great. :cry:
  • Ron Stuart wrote:
    Jez mon wrote:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuuDnqSPnhA

    It's Jeremy Clarkson, you know what you are going to get, so if you don't like it, let me introduce you to this

    remote_control.jpg

    You point them at the tv, press the button associated with the number of the channel you want to watch, and like magic, the bad scary man who offended your sensibilities goes away.

    Just don't switch it to Dave, because that's probably showing Top Gear

    You have a good point of course if you know what's coming and a lot of peoples children didn't. As far as I can tell he uses these risky comments to compensate for the fact that otherwise he has no actual talent whatsoever. He was that knob at school that had to jump of the gym roof to get attention but unlike the kid you new from school he never grew up.
    Definitely the Katie Price of motoring and getting rich for making a dick of himself, great. :cry:

    There's at least one "massive tit" joke in there somewhere ;). Agree with the comments though, basically an attention seeking muppet with no discernible talent. The BBC seem to be re-running the clip an awful lot on other shows, wonder if this is as a backside-covering "the comments were balanced and it's just one of those jokes like they have on Top Gear" exercise, or milking the extra publicity in order to flog lots of Toss Gear-themed merchandise at Christmas? </cynicism>

    David
    "It is not enough merely to win; others must lose." - Gore Vidal
  • DIESELDOG
    DIESELDOG Posts: 2,087
    MattC59 wrote:
    Blimey, One Man's back !!!
    Hello matey !!

    I've let him out to play for a while.

    Love n hugs

    DD
    Eagles may soar but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

    www.onemanandhisbike.co.uk
  • daviesee
    daviesee Posts: 6,386
    I thought it was worth 3 minutes to try and jump on a bandwagon and see if it might persuade the BBC to sack him.

    Yup!

    That about sums up the whole "outrage".
    None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.
  • MattC59 wrote:
    Blimey, One Man's back !!!
    Hello matey !!
    Hey dude. (:

    Yeah, life has been a bit hectic for the last few months, my old and much loved PC had terminal issues so had to build a new one. A new full time job left me shattered after work so had to prioritise my time and sadly it has left little room for fun and games such as hanging out here. =/

    Hows you amigo?

  • There's at least one "massive tit" joke in there somewhere ;).

    David

    I think we have enough massive tits posting in this thread already surely, and that is without taking me into account. XD
  • rajMAN
    rajMAN Posts: 429
    For the Professionally Offended, its been a cracking week!! :shock: