Is this Cameron's Sepp Blatter moment?

[Pilchardman]

Although no fan of Clarkson, I wonder how much of this is a response to the reporting of the incident, rather than the incident itself.

Clarkson also said he thought the strike was absolutely fabulous. His 'joke' was aimed at the BBC's desire to maintain balance in any political discussion and he quite clearly signalled that, in order to provide this balance, he was giving alternative and opposing views of the strike; firstly, that it was all fabulous and secondly, that they should all be shot. It was quite clear that he was not professing either of these views as personal opinions.

His, admittedly feeble, joke was not even aimed at the strikers, but at the BBC.

Exactly. He's a try-hard berk, but the "joke" was about BBC notions of balance, not about the strike. It was therefore ironic (in an admittedly amusing way) that the bit about shooting strikers was taken on its own, rather than, as it was intended, as 'balance' to his also silly comment about the strike being great because the streets he wanted to use were empty.

It's Clarkson. His job is to be a real life troll. Don't feed him.

[Mr Pee]

Exactly. He's a try-hard berk, but the "joke" was about BBC notions of balance, not about the strike. It was therefore ironic (in an admittedly amusing way) that the bit about shooting strikers was taken on its own, rather than, as it was intended, as 'balance' to his also silly comment about the strike being great because the streets he wanted to use were empty.

All of which is made perfectly clear to anybody who can be bothered to read the transcript of the interview....shame so few people seem to have made the effort.......

[kernelbogey]

BTW is anyone on this thread planning to buy Clarkson's new book or CD? Just asking.

[Pilchardman]

I want him sacked. I really want him sacked.

He can't be "sacked", since he isn't a BBC employee. The BBC does have a contract with Bedder 6, Clarkson's production company. It's this company that produces TopGear, and BBC Worldwide are joint shareholders with Clarkson in a merchandising company. So, they could dissolve those partnerships, which probably would mean cancelling Top Gear and all its money spinning ventures, but they can't "sack him". Wouldn't bother me, I never watch the dull dross. But I imagine it'd be a bit of a loss to the coffers.

[Lateralthinking1]

SimonB etc - You don't have to buy a book in Waterstones but you might rightly have a view if they were stocking a book called "Kill the niggers in front of their children". Waterstones is not a public service. The BBC is. I should have thought the requirements for civility should be even higher on the BBC for it directly reflects on the standards upheld by the state. On private production, Ross attempted that get-out clause. I don't buy into it. I find some of the other sentiments expressed downright peculiar.

First, the tram. There is no apparent comprehension of mental illness and hence even the beginnings of that as a consideration. If the woman were found mentally ill, then it appears some here think that is a crime. Another sad case of going back to the 19th Century. Secondly, let us say for the sake of argument she is a professional comedienne. She says it was a comedy routine, much like the stunts undertaken by Dom Joly, except there were no cameras. What then? Do you still think that she was unacceptable because she was a racist? If so, we've taken the fact that Clarkson supposedly made a joke completely out of the equation.

This then would bring it down to a perceived difference between being rude to black people and being rude to strikers. OK, I can see the argument. Black people are black by birth. Strikers have a choice. But there's a bit more isn't there? The first rudeness calls people a nasty name. The second rudeness says that people should be executed in front of their families. Supposing the woman had said that the black people should be executed in front of their families. Would that be worse than what she said and deserve a greater penalty? The law would say yes. This matters very much but only because of skin colour. Good grief.

So here we have a situation in which I am being asked to accept that the order of awfulness is 1. Someone saying that black people should be exterminated in front of their families 2. Someone saying that a black person is an "n" word and 3. Someone saying that strikers should be exterminated in front of their families. This is absolutely mad. I have been an ardent campaigner against racism all my life but people are now getting it completely out of context. If you really think that calling someone a name because you think it is funny is worse than saying someone should be executed in front of their families because you think it is funny, I despair. In fact, it is wholly disrespectful to black people. Where on earth is the dignity of equality in that inverted racism?

[Pilchardman]

Are you honestly suggesting that dreadful, bigoted, foul-mouthed racist on the tram should not face any sort of action for her diatribe? Seriously?

After the incident, as I understand it, she was escorted home by transport police and given a telling off.

It wasn't until weeks later when the clip went on YouTube that the authorities seemed to think it required further action. The whole thing seems to me to smack of trial by YouTube and Twitter. The speculation about her mental health, and the publication of the clip, are breeches of hers and her child's privacy. I think the episode is a sad reflection on modern society.

[Vile Consort]

Some of you guys are comparing being a striker with being black, gay or Jewish.

Are you serious? Or have you just not engaged your brains before typing?

[french frank]

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.

True, but in the end - what has happened? People complained that it was offensive (and it offended many, even if not Mr Pee). If Clarkson can say what he likes on television, people have a right to say they find it objectionable - which is, itself, a fact, not an opinion.

He offended a lot of people: a lot of people complained. Why is that a problem?

[DoctorT]

80 posts about Clarkson and fewer than a dozen about Brahms' Clarinet Quintet...On a Radio 3 forum! Zzzzzzz...

[Pilchardman]

80 posts about Clarkson

84 including this one^.

:p

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

He offended a lot of people: a lot of people complained. Why is that a problem?

that is not a problem in my book; a lot of people saying he can not say that begins to be a problem ....

it does not matter why he said it [and the most likely explanation is the sales of his newly released dvds] he has the freedom to express his thoughts .... the only test is - did he really incite violence against the strikers? no one can incite violence ... or was it a quite common figure of common speech and recognisable as such .... m'learned friends need the ££££££££££££ so take him to court ...

meanwhile mysterious explosions at bases and plants have been going off in Iran and diplomatic relations have been suspended ...is Clarkson a MI6 stooge?

[teamsaint]

True, but in the end - what has happened? People complained that it was offensive (and it offended many, even if not Mr Pee). If Clarkson can say what he likes on television, people have a right to say they find it objectionable - which is, itself, a fact, not an opinion.

He offended a lot of people: a lot of people complained. Why is that a problem?

As far as I am concerned, I really don't like my license fee money being spent on paying somebody who we know will be offensive, and cause complaints, before the programme is even made.
obviously we need debate, discusssion, and controversy. But being offensive shouldn't be the point of the exercise.

[Pilchardman]

As far as I am concerned, I really don't like my license fee money being spent on paying somebody who we know will be offensive, and cause complaints, before the programme is even made.
obviously we need debate, discusssion, and controversy. But being offensive shouldn't be the point of the exercise.

Everyone's offended by everything these days, though. My views on religion are offensive, apparently. Therefore people like me shouldn't be allowed to broadcast that opinion.

We need to back off from this "being offended" idea. It's puerile.

[teamsaint]

that is not a problem in my book; a lot of people saying he can not say that begins to be a problem ....

it does not matter why he said it [and the most likely explanation is the sales of his newly released dvds] he has the freedom to express his thoughts .... the only test is - did he really incite violence against the strikers? no one can incite violence ... or was it a quite common figure of common speech and recognisable as such .... m'learned friends need the ££££££££££££ so take him to court ...

meanwhile mysterious explosions at bases and plants have been going off in Iran and diplomatic relations have been suspended ...is Clarkson a MI6 stooge?

you are spot on to flag up the scandal of looming war in Iran, (and the merging of europe under the pressure of economic meltdown.). Funny how all these wars are going hand in hand with economic meltdown. Pretty handy for certain people.

Oh and for anyone who thinks Iran's nuclear programme is a problem
1. Look at the actual evidence for a nuclear arms programme there.
2. Count the warheads all the other nuclear states have. Do you know how many Israel have? its a big scary number. I thought it was about 3 till I read up on it.

[teamsaint]

Everyone's offended by everything these days, though. My views on religion are offensive, apparently. Therefore people like me shouldn't be allowed to broadcast that opinion.

We need to back off from this "being offended" idea. It's puerile.

So its ok to kick the little guy. as long as we are all jolly thick skinned about it all.