Is this Cameron's Sepp Blatter moment?

[LHC]

If Clarkson was merely joking and being sarcastic he is now 'suffering' because of his extreme remarks in the past?

So, even if he only meant it as a joke, he really has only himself to blame ...

I doubt Clarkson is suffering at all. Exciting manufactured outrage is his stock in trade and this will no doubt remind his fans that he has new books and dvds for sale in time for Christmas.

[Anna]

Explaining his remarks to The Sun, for which he writes a column, Clarkson said "I started by saying I supported the strikers. Obviously, because it's the BBC, I have to be impartial. So, then I said they should be shot. Most people who are complaining haven't seen the full interview. It's a knee jerk reaction. I would urge Unison to watch the whole interview and see if they're still offended afterwards."

Quite honestly it just seems to have been a typical Clarkson attempt at humour (like his remark about lorrydrivers and prostitutes) which totally misfired. Why should anyone take anything he says seriously, let alone being outraged by it? Yes, it was silly, but then so is he and people are even sillier if they think he was serious.

[Norfolk Born]

Explaining his remarks to The Sun, for which he writes a column, Clarkson said "I started by saying I supported the strikers. Obviously, because it's the BBC, I have to be impartial. So, then I said they should be shot. Most people who are complaining haven't seen the full interview. It's a knee jerk reaction. I would urge Unison to watch the whole interview and see if they're still offended afterwards."

Quite honestly it just seems to have been a typical Clarkson attempt at humour (like his remark about lorrydrivers and prostitutes) which totally misfired. Why should anyone take anything he says seriously, let alone being outraged by it? Yes, it was silly, but then so is he and people are even sillier if they think he was serious.

Your absolutely right, Anna! (Have you attempted my current 'AA' question, by the way?)

[Mr Pee]

21,000 complaints, mostly I dare say from people who didn't watch the programme and have never liked JC and probably never will. You'd think they'd have better things to do. Although I think he should be grateful- every complaint will probably be one more DVD sale! Obviously he wasn't seriously suggesting that strikers should be shot, it was typical Clarkson hyperbole and nothing more.

Personally I'm a big fan of his, whether presenting Top Gear- consistently the most entertaining hour on the BBC- or in his Sunday Times column, which is always very funny. And there needs to be at least one voice at the BBC that doesn't just meekly follow the prevailing left-wing,politically correct party line.

[mangerton]

May I please refer you all to my message #110 on the "A million to march on Westminster!" thread?

[scottycelt]

LHC

Yes, you are absolutely correct, imv, in what you say ... that's why I deliberately put 'suffering' in inverted commas ... though it should have been in the good old English ''double".

[MrGongGong]

And there needs to be at least one voice at the BBC that doesn't just meekly follow the prevailing left-wing,politically correct party line.

Sorry to rain on your parade mrP
but the BBC is hardly "left wing"
repeating an urban myth does NOT make it true

[Simon B]

Nothing like selective quoting is there. For a slightly more representative impression, from the BBC:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15999234

'The complaints came after an exchange, on Wednesday, in which Clarkson presented two views when asked about that day's strike over pensions by public sector workers:

*"I think they (the strikes) have been fantastic. Absolutely. London today has just been empty. Everybody stayed at home, you can whizz about, restaurants are empty," he said.

*"It's also like being back in the 70s. It makes me feel at home somehow," said the Top Gear presenter, before adding: "But we have to balance this though, because this is the BBC" and went on: "Frankly, I'd have them all shot. I would take them outside and execute them in front of their families. I mean, how dare they go on strike when they have these gilt-edged pensions that are going to be guaranteed while the rest of us have to work for a living?"

*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." '

Context makes all the difference. Clarkson was just doing his job of being Clarkson (not my thing, as it goes). Was it an attempt at serious analysis, or a sincere expression of belief? Err.... Was it ill-judged? By definition, it must have been given the result. Is this sort of thing his stock-in-trade? Of course. Do some of the professionally offended look as daft as Clarkson? Yup.

In context, what a fuss about nothing. LHC hits the nail on the head with (paraphrasing) "silly all round".

[scottycelt]

Sorry to rain on your parade mrP
but the BBC is hardly "left wing"
repeating an urban myth does NOT make it true

I certainly don't think one needs to be left-wing or politically-correct to side with the critics of Jeremy Clarkson (the initials are unfortunate so I'll resist their use!).

It's true that anybody who believes Clarkson would literally like strikers shot in front of their families is indeed being very silly, it's his extreme language that upsets many. Others couldn't care less.

In fact I'm beginning to think I'm sounding very silly now so I'll leave the rest of this fascinating discussion to you guys!

[ahinton]

Just ignore the guy. He obviously doesn't have a brain and I'm genuinely surprised the BBC still employ him for that very reason alone.

Delightful Freudian slip there, scotty! I think that you actually meant "he obviously doesn't have a brain and, for that very reason alone, I'm genuinely surprised the BBC still employ him" but what you wrote is rather more amusing, n'est-ce pas?!

[John Skelton]

Although I think he should be grateful- every complaint will probably be one more DVD sale!

I don't think the BBC should be paying him a Great Deal of Money (however much it actually is: one million pounds p/a seems to be the Google answer) to promote the Jeremy Clarkson brand. If the BBC thinks it needs a motoring show then get someone else to present it, at a more rational cost. If he's good enough (or popular enough, or both) a commercial channel will surely have no difficulty meeting his remuneration demands, supporting his merchandising requirements etc. I don't see why he and they should be license fee funded. 'Right' or 'left' wing.

[MrGongGong]

I certainly don't think one needs to be left-wing or politically-correct to side with the critics of Jeremy Clarkson (the initials are unfortunate so I'll resist their use!).

It's true that anybody who believes Clarkson would literally like strikers shot in front of their families is indeed being very silly, it's his extreme language that upsets many. Others couldn't care less.

In fact I'm beginning to think I'm sounding very silly now so I'll leave the rest of this fascinating discussion to you guys!

Actually I found the response to JC (NOT THAT ONE Scotty !!!) more hilarious than his "joke"
the idea that he somehow would get prosecuted for making a bad joke !
(though as you can go to prison for writing "lets have a riot" and get promotion for shooting an unarmed man on a train, then I guess anything is possible !)

The more insecure people are , the more seriously they seem to take themselves !

[ahinton]

Nothing like selective quoting is there. For a slightly more representative impression, from the BBC:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15999234

'The complaints came after an exchange, on Wednesday, in which Clarkson presented two views when asked about that day's strike over pensions by public sector workers:

*"I think they (the strikes) have been fantastic. Absolutely. London today has just been empty. Everybody stayed at home, you can whizz about, restaurants are empty," he said.

*"It's also like being back in the 70s. It makes me feel at home somehow," said the Top Gear presenter, before adding: "But we have to balance this though, because this is the BBC" and went on: "Frankly, I'd have them all shot. I would take them outside and execute them in front of their families. I mean, how dare they go on strike when they have these gilt-edged pensions that are going to be guaranteed while the rest of us have to work for a living?"

*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." '

Context makes all the difference. Clarkson was just doing his job of being Clarkson (not my thing, as it goes). Was it an attempt at serious analysis, or a sincere expression of belief? Err.... Was it ill-judged? By definition, it must have been given the result. Is this sort of thing his stock-in-trade? Of course. Do some of the professionally offended look as daft as Clarkson? Yup.

In context, what a fuss about nothing. LHC hits the nail on the head with (paraphrasing) "silly all round".

Indeed. That said, had his aim been to make this particlar comparative point, it's just possible that this could have been achieved without recourse to those references to shooting and to families, but then that wouldn't have amounted to JC being JC, would it?!

Anyway, for the sake of maintaining some kind of balance view in this absurd situation, I should point out that a restaurateur friend said to me of these foolhardy remarks "never mind Clarkson advocating the shooting of strikers in front of their families, what really offended me was his evident glee that the strike had emptied London's restaurants; even he wouldn't need long to work out what'd happen to him if he came into mine!"

[3rd Viennese School]

Okay. It seems clear that JC supported the strikers after all. Well done JC!

Right. Next topic. JC wants all cyclists to be run over by cars.
Hope Boris Johnson punctures his tyres!

3VS

[LHC]

I don't think the BBC should be paying him a Great Deal of Money (however much it actually is: one million pounds p/a seems to be the Google answer) to promote the Jeremy Clarkson brand. If the BBC thinks it needs a motoring show then get someone else to present it, at a more rational cost. If he's good enough (or popular enough, or both) a commercial channel will surely have no difficulty meeting his remuneration demands, supporting his merchandising requirements etc. I don't see why he and they should be license fee funded. 'Right' or 'left' wing.

Top Gear is one of the BBC's biggest money-spinners and is sold all over the world. The BBC makes plenty of money from Clarkson, which is why they put up with his manufactured controversies.

Top Gear also ceased being a motoring show a long time ago. Its essentially a tightly-scripted comedy show about three overgrown schoolboys. The BBC holds on to Clarkson, May and Hammond because they are the show's raison d'etre.