Friday Trolling Thread.....Clarkson: He's not wrong.
Comments
-
Spot on. He's gradually been turning into his own caricature for some time with his "controversial" opinions and hee-lar-i-ous soundbites. Shame, really, as a journalist I thought he was always rather good and rarely resorted to the lazy type of many of his contemporaries.jamesco wrote:Clarkson's become a parody of himself, which is a bit of a shame as he's obviously quick-witted and funny, but he's boxed himself into this simplistic, contrarian and obnoxious public persona. He should be got rid of from the beeb, not because he's gone too far this time, but because he's well & truly jumped the shark.
Clarkson is the Tory Frankie Boyle.
Written from my private-sector computer
Ecrasez l’infame0 -
NGale wrote:Sketchley wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15993558
First he says about the strikes "I think they have been fantastic"
Later he says "But we have to balance this though, because this is the BBC."
Then he says "Frankly, I'd have them all shot"...
Then one of the hosts says "of course those are Jeremy's views."
To which he replies "They're not. I've just given two views for you."
a BIG +1 to that!
I saw the show that night and what I witnessed were two half witted presenters goading him into making 'controversial' comments after he showed ambivalence if not support towards the public sector strikes.
of the 23,000 'complaints' made I wonder how many of those came from Daily Mail readers who were told to feel insulted and yet never watched the programme!
Indeed. Why did they get Clarkson on to comment on the strikes at all? Why ask him what he thought of the strikes and when he gives a sarcastic comment, ask again to get the the more controversial one? It's not like he's any kind of expert on the strikes or subject.
The Unison leader has made himself into a much bigger twit than Clarkson. Calling for the immediate sacking of a fellow public sector worker without even giving him a hearing, employing lawyers to get legal advice at his member's expense and talking about getting the police involved over what is obviously a joke? What planet is he living on? What an idiot. He's supposed to be in a responsible position leading a union of many thousands and not just a TV presenter. He should be the target of derision rather than Clarkson if you ask me.0 -
+1NozzaC wrote:The Unison leader has made himself into a much bigger twit than Clarkson. Calling for the immediate sacking of a fellow public sector worker without even giving him a hearing, employing lawyers to get legal advice at his member's expense and talking about getting the police involved over what is obviously a joke? What planet is he living on? What an idiot. He's supposed to be in a responsible position leading a union of many thousands and not just a TV presenter. He should be the target of derision rather than Clarkson if you ask me.
Wonder if Clarkson is a member of a union? He could use the free legal support offered to union members to defend himself. That really would get them frothing at the mouth
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
-
I agree. This whole misplaced "outrage" trend makes me very depressed. The whole nation seems to have turned into Mrs. Whipple, outraged, from Chalfont St. Giles, who writes, "Dear Points of View, I watched 12 hours of the worst TV I have ever... "UndercoverElephant wrote:One of the things I really like about living in this country is the British people's sense of humour. Whatever happened to that?0 -
And me; + some infeasibly large number to that.
How dispiriting was it to listen to Any Questions deal with this, with all but one of the panellists queuing up to denounce Clarkson, and the audience whooping & a-hollering in time with them.
It really does sadden me, observing this whole palava. What happened to the idea that we can say or do what we like, as long it doesn't frighten the horses or the domestic staff. Seriously. This country has gone completely fu***ing nuts this week, all over a throwaway joke, one that had been approved beforehand and was entirely in keeping with all expectations of JC. Sheesh. Get a life everybody. Esp unionists.0 -
Nobody told me we had a communication problem0
-
Who's funnier - Jeremy Clarkson or Stewart Lee?
You decide....
" I hate him and I wish he'd died in that crash".
Is it possible that your judgement of Clarkson's 'humour' is tainted by your opinion of his political views and appearance rather than what he actually says or writes?“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Does it matter if it is?TailWindHome wrote:Who's funnier - Jeremy Clarkson or Stewart Lee?
You decide....
" I hate him and I wish he'd died in that crash".
Is it possible that your judgement of Clarkson's 'humour' is tainted by your opinion of his political views and appearance rather than what he actually says or writes?0 -
-
Yes it does. Too many people want to pick up on Clarkson saying something that they can disagree with to use it as stick to beat him with (or should that be 'stick with which to beat him'?).Rick Chasey wrote:
Does it matter if it is?TailWindHome wrote:" I hate him and I wish he'd died in that crash".
Is it possible that your judgement of Clarkson's 'humour' is tainted by your opinion of his political views and appearance rather than what he actually says or writes?
Twist it round. Had it been Red Ken on the same programme saying 'all Tories should be killed', would we still be talking about it 4 days after the event? No - that's the answer you're scratting around for. A well-known right-wing figure disses the working classes and all hell breaks loose. Were a prominent leftie to do anything remotely similar against the establishment, it wouldn't even raise a murmur beyond the BBC reporting it as an agreeable action to take. And we wouldn't have had to see the ridiculous sight of Alex "I'm-welsh-me-see" Jones doing the OMG face to camera every time we see the footage. Leftie cow.0 -
CiB wrote:
Yes it does. Too many people want to pick up on Clarkson saying something that they can disagree with to use it as stick to beat him with (or should that be 'stick with which to beat him'?).Rick Chasey wrote:
Does it matter if it is?TailWindHome wrote:" I hate him and I wish he'd died in that crash".
Is it possible that your judgement of Clarkson's 'humour' is tainted by your opinion of his political views and appearance rather than what he actually says or writes?
Twist it round. Had it been Red Ken on the same programme saying 'all Tories should be killed', would we still be talking about it 4 days after the event? No - that's the answer you're scratting around for. A well-known right-wing figure disses the working classes and all hell breaks loose. Were a prominent leftie to do anything remotely similar against the establishment, it wouldn't even raise a murmur beyond the BBC reporting it as an agreeable action to take. And we wouldn't have had to see the ridiculous sight of Alex "I'm-welsh-me-see" Jones doing the OMG face to camera every time we see the footage. Leftie cow.
I think you need to take off the tinfoil hat.
My point is, if you make political jokes, which Clarkson does, you should expect to alienate people.
You're allowed to not find something funny or even dislike something because it doesn't agree with your politics.
Re your argument - if Ken Livingstone said that tories should be killed, the press would be all over it, and you know Cameron would be all over it - sticking the knife in. After all, he's a political opponant and is standing against Johnson in the election.
The main difference is, people on the left tend to be a little more PC than some commentators on the right, for pretty obvious reasons. They, therefore, don't land themselves in this kind of hot water as often.
Also, you need to take Clarkson with a bit of context. It's not the first time he's said stuff that's easily considered in poor taste. The effect of all that is cumulative.
It's not some national conspiracy against people on the right.0 -
Much of this is determined by where you draw the PC line. Whilst there's a view that PC has gone mad in the last decade or so, PC is more extreme the more left-leaning your are.
Bottom line of this whole storm in a teacup(as pointed out on Today yesterday morning) is that everyone wins: Clarkson gets all the publicity he could hope for, The Left get to be all indignant and gives the strikes more media coverage than they would have generated, The Right get to prod The Left for having no sense of humour, and the rest of us see how it was all taken out of context for individual's own ends. Twitter and the papers get to write lots. No wonder it has dragged on so long...ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:CiB wrote:
Yes it does. Too many people want to pick up on Clarkson saying something that they can disagree with to use it as stick to beat him with (or should that be 'stick with which to beat him'?).Rick Chasey wrote:
Does it matter if it is?TailWindHome wrote:" I hate him and I wish he'd died in that crash".
Is it possible that your judgement of Clarkson's 'humour' is tainted by your opinion of his political views and appearance rather than what he actually says or writes?
Twist it round. Had it been Red Ken on the same programme saying 'all Tories should be killed', would we still be talking about it 4 days after the event? No - that's the answer you're scratting around for. A well-known right-wing figure disses the working classes and all hell breaks loose. Were a prominent leftie to do anything remotely similar against the establishment, it wouldn't even raise a murmur beyond the BBC reporting it as an agreeable action to take. And we wouldn't have had to see the ridiculous sight of Alex "I'm-welsh-me-see" Jones doing the OMG face to camera every time we see the footage. Leftie cow.
I think you need to take off the tinfoil hat.
My point is, if you make political jokes, which Clarkson does, you should expect to alienate people.
You're allowed to not find something funny or even dislike something because it doesn't agree with your politics.
Re your argument - if Ken Livingstone said that tories should be killed, the press would be all over it, and you know Cameron would be all over it - sticking the knife in. After all, he's a political opponant and is standing against Johnson in the election.
The main difference is, people on the left tend to be a little more PC than some commentators on the right, for pretty obvious reasons. They, therefore, don't land themselves in this kind of hot water as often.
Also, you need to take Clarkson with a bit of context. It's not the first time he's said stuff that's easily considered in poor taste. The effect of all that is cumulative.
It's not some national conspiracy against people on the right.
Not sure I agree with this.
I think those on the Left get away with more as they are "one of us" beloved of the left leaning liberal media.
Take the Stewart Lee comparison raised up the page. Can any really say that his comments about Richard Hammond's car crash are acceptable whereas Clarkson's absurd comments aren't. Even the normally quite sensible Secret Sam is outraged because he thinks I want to shoot his wife.
Does it matter?
Yes and no. You could argue that it's all a bit of nonsense and sure it's only about selling DVDs anyway. Or you could take the view that it's dangerous to have a left leaning media set dictating what is and isn't acceptable.
Personally I'm not sure which group of gobshites I depise the most.
I'd shoot them all in front of their families.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
The difference between Lee and Clarkson, is that Lee does it as a part of his standup, whereas Clarkson doesn't.
He does it on a prime time chat show.
Like I said, it's partly cumulative.0 -
Ironically if it was an 'ordinary' public sector worker being threatened with dismissal the unions would be out on strike for their persecuted 'comrade' (like the tube drivers earlier this year). But as it's Clarkson committing the heinous crime of telling a dodgy joke, the unions are happy to try to get him dismissed themselves. They're not just humourless, they're hypocrites..."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
-
TailWindHome wrote:Who's funnier - Jeremy Clarkson or Stewart Lee?
You decide....
" I hate him and I wish he'd died in that crash".
Is it possible that your judgement of Clarkson's 'humour' is tainted by your opinion of his political views and appearance rather than what he actually says or writes?
It's more possible that my judgement of Clarkson's 'humour' is based upon how hilarious (or otherwise) it is, but I think you are missing my point TWH. Either it is OK to voice a view that you wished somebody killed ('in jest') or it isn't. Thinking it OK for one group to be targeted, but not another amounts to prejudice.
As it happens I didn't find any of these things particularly funny whether it was JC on strikers, Stewart Lee on the TG crew, or Red Ken on George Osborne. If we are to have free speech then I guess we need to accept that sometimes things may be said with which we won't agree, but I do hope that we would all be outraged, and demanding prosecution if we felt the views were serious.
Feel free to draw whatever conclusions you wish about my judgement and political views. I'm very comfortable with them.Nobody told me we had a communication problem0 -
walkingbootweather wrote:TailWindHome wrote:Who's funnier - Jeremy Clarkson or Stewart Lee?
You decide....
" I hate him and I wish he'd died in that crash".
Is it possible that your judgement of Clarkson's 'humour' is tainted by your opinion of his political views and appearance rather than what he actually says or writes?
It's more possible that my judgement of Clarkson's 'humour' is based upon how hilarious (or otherwise) it is, but I think you are missing my point TWH. Either it is OK to voice a view that you wished somebody killed ('in jest') or it isn't. Thinking it OK for one group to be targeted, but not another amounts to prejudice.
As it happens I didn't find any of these things particularly funny whether it was JC on strikers, Stewart Lee on the TG crew, or Red Ken on George Osborne. If we are to have free speech then I guess we need to accept that sometimes things may be said with which we won't agree, but I do hope that we would all be outraged, and demanding prosecution if we felt the views were serious.
Feel free to draw whatever conclusions you wish about my judgement and political views. I'm very comfortable with them.
Missed your point completely there.
You are of course correct“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
TailWindHome wrote:You are of course correct
I knew it all along, but your support is most welcome. Thanks Nobody told me we had a communication problem0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:Ironically if it was an 'ordinary' public sector worker being threatened with dismissal the unions would be out on strike for their persecuted 'comrade' (like the tube drivers earlier this year). But as it's Clarkson committing the heinous crime of telling a dodgy joke, the unions are happy to try to get him dismissed themselves. They're not just humourless, they're hypocrites...
What is this, the '50s?
Clarkson isn't part of their union, so why would it be hypocrtical?0 -
The current situation where people can use tendentious humour (which IMO is what Clarkson regularly exploits) and then use ''I was only joking'' as a get out is clearly unacceptable. What we need to be able to do is to judge how someone's tendentious jokes relates to the ''joker's'' genuinely held opinions. If you're ''only joking,'' prove it by telling us what you seriously believe.
Personally, I have a strong feeling that if you scratch at the surface of Clarkson's twâttery you will find a prize twât underneath. It's up to him to tell us what he really thinks if he wants to disprove that.0 -
deptfordmarmoset wrote:It's up to him to tell us what he really thinks if he wants to disprove that.
Problem with that is that he doesn't really care what anyone on here thinks. In fact, I suspect he would have a right old chuckle. That's the only reason I check this thread. There are much, much more worrying things happening out there after all.None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
daviesee wrote:deptfordmarmoset wrote:It's up to him to tell us what he really thinks if he wants to disprove that.
Problem with that is that he doesn't really care what anyone on here thinks. In fact, I suspect he would have a right old chuckle. That's the only reason I check this thread. There are much, much more worrying things happening out there after all.
True, he doesn't care because he's allowed to do it. And then he bleats that he's been taken out of context, that the show's production team were complicit, etc. But the real, wider context is that nowhere, as he gets rich cynically exploiting prejudices on public platforms, does he ever do anything ethical or constructive.
That makes him a twât in my book and May and Hammond are contaminated by association. Which is a shame because otherwise they could be genuinely entertaining.0 -
Does anyone really still believe that Top Gear is a serious programme?
The whole thing is a bunch of guys having a joke, a laugh and a carry on.
It may not be to your taste but millions disagree.
Finally, as the programme makes a profit, it is not at anyone's expense.
I'm going back to find something humorous instead......
Edit: PS:- Good trolling thread! None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
daviesee wrote:Edit: PS:- Good trolling thread!
Thank you. Quiet week round these parts now DDD is occupied.
To paraphrase someone famous and witty, "I'm not a troll, but I don't mind helping them out when they're busy"“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Also, Clarkson does it with a lot less irony than Lee does.Rick Chasey wrote:The difference between Lee and Clarkson, is that Lee does it as a part of his standup, whereas Clarkson doesn't.0 -
notsoblue wrote:
Also, Clarkson does it with a lot less irony than Lee does.Rick Chasey wrote:The difference between Lee and Clarkson, is that Lee does it as a part of his standup, whereas Clarkson doesn't.
I'm not so sure about that.
Then again, re Lee - he's talking about one famous guy who he's making a caricature out of in the process of an entire stand up, whearas Clarkson is talking about a number of people on a particularly politically charged day.
Lee wasn't making his Hammond joke the day after he had his crash for example > no was it political.
So I don't think the analogy stands up.0
