Is this Cameron's Sepp Blatter moment?

[MrGongGong]

Well you shoot yourself in the foot then mrP
why is it OK to send someone to prison for suggesting that we should have a riot
and its NOT ok to send Clarkson to prison for suggesting that we should murder people ?

unless , of course, you really believe that people on Stalkerbook are NOT creating characters for themselves ?

[Lateralthinking1]

Mr Pee - Here is a TV character from Love Thy Neighbour. Unlike Clarkson, he is actually fictional. Would you and Marina be welcoming him back onto ITV during prime time? I tell you now. She in particular is a liar.

Eddie Booth (Jack Smethurst) is a white socialist. His world is turned on its head when Bill and Barbie Reynolds move in next door. He is even more annoyed when Bill gets a job at the same factory as him, and refers to him as a "nig-nog", "Sambo", "choc-ice" or "King Kong". He also has a tendency to call Chinese, Pakistanis or Indians names like "Fu Manchu", "Gunga Din" and "Ali Baba". He is a very devoted supporter of Manchester United Football Club. His catchphrases include "Bloody Nora!", "Knickers!", "The subject is closed", "you bloody nig-nog!" and "Get knotted!"

[MrGongGong]

So I guess you would send him to prison then Lat ?

[Mr Pee]

Well you shoot yourself in the foot then mrP
why is it OK to send someone to prison for suggesting that we should have a riot
and its NOT ok to send Clarkson to prison for suggesting that we should murder people ?

unless , of course, you really believe that people on Stalkerbook are NOT creating characters for themselves ?

Because in the context of the widespread disorder last summer, the invitation to riot on Facebook was clearly not intended as a joke. It was a serious- if unbelievably stupid- attempt to incite a riot.

Whereas JC's comment was so obviously over the top and, as he said, not even his personal view- (see link below)- that it couldn't possibly be taken seriously. Or so one would have thought.

Full transcript:-

http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16122040

[Simon B]

Well you shoot yourself in the foot then mrP
why is it OK to send someone to prison for suggesting that we should have a riot
and its NOT ok to send Clarkson to prison for suggesting that we should murder people ?

This (invalid IMO) comparison between Clarkson's (characteristically boorish) remarks and FB postings that resulted in jail sentences for the perpetrators is being made a lot. Including in the comments on that generally very sensible Guardian piece...

The crucial difference is context.

The FB posters most likely were genuinely in favour of an additional riot to add to the many that were already happening. In many cases they were actively trying to incite one, though maybe not with much real conviction. Even if they were just having a laugh, in context there was a very real chance that they would contribute in some way to one actually happening. Whether the exemplary sentences handed down in some cases are justifiable, even in context of what was going on at the time, is another matter.

Meanwhile, there's precisely no chance of JCs hyperbolic suggestions being implemented. None at all. It's just JC playing the (loathed by many, the source of amusement to many others) role of JC. Which as you correctly point out is just that - a constructed media artifice.

[MrGongGong]

But writing "lets have a riot" on Facebook
and No one takes any notice
is hardly a crime worthy of 4 years imprisonment

I can think of plenty of pieces of music that could be considered incitement to Riot !


you either have an open society or you don't

"facebook" is a much a "stage" as TV (as many theatre theorists will tell you in long words !) the perception of the "4th Wall" is obviously almost absent

[Lateralthinking1]

Mr GG - No but I'm watching very closely the case of the woman on the tram in Croydon just last week. She went crackers for reasons unknown and started telling people they were Polish even when they weren't, then turning to the bewildered black people on board said something to the effect of "all you bloody foreigners should go back home".

She was disturbed. We are not paying for her through our licence fee. Her audience was about 50 rather than millions. She did not advocate hurting anyone, let alone killing them in front of their children. And she is in serious trouble with the law.

I want him sacked. I really want him sacked.

I have an admission. Some people will already know this anyway. I believe that it is acceptable to say that those who are in power and who arguably use that power abusively should be killed. Call it revolutionary if you wish. They place themselves in certain positions. I'm concerned only about the protection of innocents. But the law would not be on my side there and I wouldn't revel in expressing those kinds of feelings. And what I most certainly would not do is bring their families into that kind of dialogue.

[Simon B]

But writing "lets have a riot" on Facebook
and No one takes any notice
is hardly a crime worthy of 4 years imprisonment

I basically agree with that - hence the comment about exemplary sentences.

Thing is, social media were being widely used to organise disorder that actually happened. Again, it's all about context or should be. Hopefully the court cases had to make the distinction between someone mouthing off without any sincerity, someone mouthing off but gleeful if they did manage to trigger disorder and someone seriously and determinedly trying to make it happen.

"Hopefully" is the problem there. Though at least sentences like that presumably couldn't be dished out by (wildly inconsistent) magistrates...

[Mr Pee]

Mr GG - No but I'm watching very closely the case of the woman on the tram in Croydon just last week. She went crackers and started telling people they were Polish even when they weren't, then turning to the bewildered black people on board said something to the effect of "all you bloody foreigners should go back home".

We are not paying for her through our licence fee. Her audience was about 50 rather than millions. She did not advocate hurting anyone, let alone killing them in front of their children. And she is in serious trouble with the law.

I want him sacked. I really want him sacked.

I have an admission. Some people will already know this anyway. I believe that it is acceptable to say that those who are in power and arguably use that power abusively should be killed. Call it revolutionary if you want. They place themselves in certain positions. I'm concerned only about the protection of innocents. But the law would not be on my side there and I wouldn't revel in expressing those kinds of feelings. And what I most certainly would not do in any sense is bring their families into that kind of dialogue.

This is truly extraordinary.

Are you honestly suggesting that dreadful, bigoted, foul-mouthed racist on the tram should not face any sort of action for her diatribe? Seriously? And yet you think that Clarkson should be sacked for a jokey comment which he clearly stated was not his personal view- (read the transcript.......)

And then, after that, you go on to say that you think certain people deserve to be killed, because they ARGUABLY misuse that power. ARGUABLY misuse. I hope you're not a judge.........

Undoubtedly one of the most confused and wrong-headed posts I've ever seen on these boards.

[Lateralthinking1]

We need to know more about her. It seems to me that it isn't entirely regular to start shouting in that way alone in the morning rush hour. If it turns out she often stands in George Street handing out leaflets for the BNP, it will paint a picture. If she doesn't and has been known for random varied outbursts, with GP records of medication and counselling, I'd have considerable sympathy.

No doubt the words reveal a strand in her that is racist in a way that many of us are not but it isn't a crime yet to have thoughts, however backward. May it always be that way and let's hope that such attitudes can continue to be changed through education. You pepper your comments with emotive language. However, if it were a crime to be dreadful or foul-mouthed then we'd solve the economic crisis through prison building. Some common sense needs to be applied there rather than lazy knee-jerk reactions.

Clarkson ironically is almost a public servant. Sure, he earns from books but he is on the BBC. He has a duty of responsibility as do the producers. What is absolutely clear, given the preparation for the programme and the educational backgrounds of those involved, is that this was as carefully considered as a "funny joke" in a BNP publication. To me that makes a world of difference.

As for being a judge, no thanks. The law is ok if reined in. It is a ridiculously blunt instrument, although necessary. I see it as a lower state than the laws of complexity, morality and sense. Such things are fortunately above politics, making a mint and creating a culture of simplistic vox-pop. I find it strange that it should so often be viewed as sole authority in isolation.

[Simon B]

That's a... remarkable stance.

I simply cant conceive how anyone rational can fail to see that out of:

a) Clarkson poncing around in the parallel reality of a TV studio, doing his job of professional boor, dishing out synthetic hyperbolic abuse (which people will mostly find either witty or execrable according to predisposition) to a generic loosely-defined set of people grouped only by happening to be on strike, none of whom are there

and

b) In a real environment with no off switch, a random ordinary stranger without warning looking other ordinary members of her community in the eye and hurling racist abuse at them

b) is very much the more serious.

Both might be undesirable, but only b) is an act of psychological violence from one individual to another.

[teamsaint]

Clarkson's antics , "jokes" or not ,set a tone,and he is paid for with our money.

Just because you say its a joke , doesn't actually make it one.

he should be made to go and live on a really rubbish estate,and all his money and assets taken along with some investment bankers, and the "royal family". He can crack all the jokes he likes there, him and phil the greek.He likes a joke too.Oh and i would send nick "robbo" robinson too, after his tax lies telly programme.

[MrGongGong]

Its not "our" money !
You don't HAVE to have a TV , I know several people who don't
once you buy a TV licence you have given your money away !

[PatrickOD]

I think ' They should be shot' is something a lot of people say without thinking, and not meaning it literally. But, JC added the bit 'in front of their families'. I think that adds a more thoughtful element - you could say 'horrifying'. It creates an actual mental picture, like a firing squad, or a terrorist atrocity. These things have happened not far away.

I also think that it is not JC's job to provide 'balance' - that is for the BBC, allegedly. So, his previous support for the stike could be seen as simply another throwaway remark - was that a joke too, or will he have to apologise to DC for letting the side down?

The suggestion that JC was only acting out his TV persona -'That's his style' - might mitigate the potential nastiness of his performance, but I don't think people should readily accept that kind of behaviour. I agree with the point made that the interviewers did not know how to handle him. Paxman should have put him on the spot.

[Mr Pee]

he should be made to go and live on a really rubbish estate,and all his money and assets taken along with some investment bankers, and the "royal family". He can crack all the jokes he likes there, him and phil the greek.He likes a joke too.Oh and i would send nick "robbo" robinson too, after his tax lies telly programme.

Dave Spart lives!!!