No you weren't, and yes it is acceptable to say totally overboard things. Just saying something doesn't make it offensive per se; witness how rappers have free reign to say the N word and we don't - it's context. We'll keep repeating it till you grasp it - Clarkson was invited on to be provocative, and was. He did exactly what was asked of him. The fact that the union leader whose members were on strike made a big fuss is neither here nor there - that's his job and he'd be expected to stamp his feet. The rest of us - most of us at least - saw it for what it was, which is what numerous people have tried to explain.
Ur...I was offended and shocked. I know how I was made to feel. You are in no place to tell me what is offensive and non-offensive. I don't believe for a second that he was told to be offensive. Alex's response made that clear.
Where have you been during the last thirty years? You are aware of what is / isn't offensive or do I need to give you a non-offensive reminder.
HA HA This is so typical of the utter nonsense of the Anti-Clarkson Brigade.
First state that no one knows anything and then you make something up that suits your agenda.
Are you for real as that's classic trolling if ever it was.
Which bit of my post to which you refer is "...nonsense..."? Have you any proof? Have we reached the point where you have to be rude because you have lost the 'argument'?
Sorry...are you now trying to tell me what I find offensive / don't find offensive? Unbelievable. I was very offended by what was said that night LiVE on The One Show... he was wrong to say it and completely out of order.
Which bit of my post to which you refer is "...nonsense..."? Have you any proof? Have we reached the point where you have to be rude because you have lost the 'argument'?
The bit that was nonsense was everything that you just imagined after telling everyone that no one knows.
Who are you to tell me when I have or have not lost the argument? Is it only you who thinks you have the right to make up your own mind on things and not be told?
People are so easily shocked it's unbelievable, are you a fan of any late night comedians? how do you cope? if not I would stay well clear if I was offended by Clarkson.
Can you prove that Clarkson isn't the second coming of Jesus Christ?
Oh it must be true then and so we should spend pages debating it and talking nonsense.
Trolling at it's weakest.
Let's not do a politician on it...can you prove that the producer's decision not to press charges wasn't influenced by the Clarkson apologists? If you can, fair play, we can all look forward to seeing your evidence. To clarify, my original post on the subject merely posed the question as a result of the torrent of abuse which the innocent producer has endured during the last few weeks...from the um...Clarkson defenders.
Let's not do a politician on it...can you prove that the producer's decision not to press charges wasn't influenced by the Clarkson apologists? If you can, fair play, we can all look forward to seeing your evidence. To clarify, my original post on the subject merely posed the question as a result of the torrent of abuse which the innocent producer has endured during the last few weeks...from the um...Clarkson defenders.
no-one has to prove that, the producer has made his decision.
That decision does not need to be justified or proven to anyone, least of all someone that trolls hatred about clarkson on the internet
Let's not do a politician on it...can you prove that the producer's decision not to press charges wasn't influenced by the Clarkson apologists? If you can, fair play, we can all look forward to seeing your evidence. To clarify, my original post on the subject merely posed the question as a result of the torrent of abuse which the innocent producer has endured during the last few weeks...from the um...Clarkson defenders.
Ah so I have to prove my nonsense but you don't have to prove any of yours?
Ah so I have to prove my nonsense but you don't have to prove any of yours?
Hilarious!
So the fact you can't prove that his decision wasn't influenced by the Clarkson fanatics means that the possibility remains. Ok. Fair enough. I will move on for now.
Have you read the absolutely appalling and disgusting comments about the producer on Twitter? As a decent, respectful fellow human being, can I assume that you utterly condemn such behavior and threats?
So the fact you can't prove that his decision wasn't influenced by the Clarkson fanatics means that the possibility remains. Ok. Fair enough. I will move on for now.
Have you read the absolutely appalling and disgusting comments about the producer on Twitter? As a decent, respectful fellow human being, can I assume that you utterly condemn such behavior and threats?
Based on your record so far, best not to assume anything about me.
Can anyone tell me if The Sun and Sunday Times have ditched Clarkson as a columnist when The Times broadly approved of the BBC's action against him - do we conclude Murdoch approves of bullying and verbal abuse ?
Can anyone tell me if The Sun and Sunday Times have ditched Clarkson as a columnist when The Times broadly approved of the BBC's action against him - do we conclude Murdoch approves of bullying and verbal abuse ?
As far as I'm aware, he is still working for Murdoch. It's an interesting one. Didn't they (Murdoch) get rid of a newsreader and a sports commentator / reporter for inappropriate behaviour back in the day?
Just as an aside, I think this sorry saga brings into question Cameron's judgement...again. First he defended / stood by Coulson... then Brooks... then Green and now Clarkson. What should Cameron learn from all this?
Can anyone tell me if The Sun and Sunday Times have ditched Clarkson as a columnist when The Times broadly approved of the BBC's action against him - do we conclude Murdoch approves of bullying and verbal abuse ?
I don't know, but it's alleged The Sun paid £500,000 to an employee to conceal a claim of serious sexual harassment by an editor, of course the paper is in denial.
"As far as I am aware no proper disciplinary hearings took place and other senior staff appear to have colluded with what was by any standard extremely offensive and destructive behaviour. The police were not called when hate mail was being sent on News International stationery to the victim."
Can anyone tell me if The Sun and Sunday Times have ditched Clarkson as a columnist when The Times broadly approved of the BBC's action against him - do we conclude Murdoch approves of bullying and verbal abuse ?
Guido Fawkes made an complete idiot of himself on The Media Show, knowing what was in the minds of others he had never met. He should have his own show to demonstrate his amazing mind reading capabilities.
Also there was the usual 'political correctness gone mad' type of comment and the producer had gone to hospital as part of a 'health & safety' tick box exercise.
What he and other prawns don't realise is that from 1988 must have ticked the boxes the BBC required. That he must have ticked the BBC boxes to present 'Robot Wars' and be given his own chat show...what were pinko left wing BBC thinking and during a Labour government's rule!!
He was sacked for being extremely threatening and abusive and having hit someone threatened to have him sacked and instead of walking away he pursued the individual for at least 20 minutes.
It's for lashing out violently that his contract was not renewed, as former Top Gear presented Quentin Willson said...
When you are lamping someone on your team because you are hungry it’s not civilised by any stretch of the imagination.
...Quentin also confirmed that Clarkson is a, "very difficult bloke to work with" and the BBC were right to sack him.
So the fact you can't prove that his decision wasn't influenced by the Clarkson fanatics means that the possibility remains. Ok. Fair enough. I will move on for now.
Have you read the absolutely appalling and disgusting comments about the producer on Twitter? As a decent, respectful fellow human being, can I assume that you utterly condemn such behavior and threats?
You're the one donning a tinfoil hat and claiming conspiracy...
How about you back up your claim that he was pressured not to press charges instead of expecting others to back up something to contrary.
You are the one making a claim so it is up to you to back it up.
Ur...I was offended and shocked. I know how I was made to feel. You are in no place to tell me what is offensive and non-offensive. I don't believe for a second that he was told to be offensive. Alex's response made that clear.
Where have you been during the last thirty years? You are aware of what is / isn't offensive or do I need to give you a non-offensive reminder.
If Jeremy Clarkson had the people lined up against a wall and he was holding a gun threatening to shoot them, that would be shocking and offensive. To make a tongue in cheek comment about it when he obviously has no intention of doing it, is not shocking or offensive
Ur...I was offended and shocked. I know how I was made to feel. You are in no place to tell me what is offensive and non-offensive. I don't believe for a second that he was told to be offensive. Alex's response made that clear.
Where have you been during the last thirty years? You are aware of what is / isn't offensive or do I need to give you a non-offensive reminder.
I have no doubt you were shocked, but offended really? You're either full of it or you are one of the serial offended lot that thinks that offense is something to get worked up about and demand actions about it.
Offense is an opinion nothing more.
Also I am getting increasingly annoyed with the whinging p*ssies that complain about being offended when they have no reason to be.
You're the one donning a tinfoil hat and claiming conspiracy...
How about you back up your claim that he was pressured not to press charges instead of expecting others to back up something to contrary.
You are the one making a claim so it is up to you to back it up.
I merely put the possibility out there. It was others who dismissed it out of hand. It was then that I asked for proof as to why my possible explanation could be dismissed. You and a handful of others may not like what I suggest but it doesn't mean that it isn't true.
Comments
No you weren''t you are saying that for effect, if you thought that was shocking, how did you manage with the recent air crash?
Ur...I was offended and shocked. I know how I was made to feel. You are in no place to tell me what is offensive and non-offensive. I don't believe for a second that he was told to be offensive. Alex's response made that clear.
Where have you been during the last thirty years? You are aware of what is / isn't offensive or do I need to give you a non-offensive reminder.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccE6lde3sZg
Which bit of my post to which you refer is "...nonsense..."? Have you any proof? Have we reached the point where you have to be rude because you have lost the 'argument'?
Sorry...are you now trying to tell me what I find offensive / don't find offensive? Unbelievable. I was very offended by what was said that night LiVE on The One Show... he was wrong to say it and completely out of order.
The bit that was nonsense was everything that you just imagined after telling everyone that no one knows.
Who are you to tell me when I have or have not lost the argument? Is it only you who thinks you have the right to make up your own mind on things and not be told?
So you can prove that what I said is not true?
Can you prove that Clarkson isn't the second coming of Jesus Christ?
Oh it must be true then and so we should spend pages debating it and talking nonsense.
Trolling at it's weakest.
Let's not do a politician on it...can you prove that the producer's decision not to press charges wasn't influenced by the Clarkson apologists? If you can, fair play, we can all look forward to seeing your evidence. To clarify, my original post on the subject merely posed the question as a result of the torrent of abuse which the innocent producer has endured during the last few weeks...from the um...Clarkson defenders.
no-one has to prove that, the producer has made his decision.
That decision does not need to be justified or proven to anyone, least of all someone that trolls hatred about clarkson on the internet
Ah so I have to prove my nonsense but you don't have to prove any of yours?
Hilarious!
So the fact you can't prove that his decision wasn't influenced by the Clarkson fanatics means that the possibility remains. Ok. Fair enough. I will move on for now.
Have you read the absolutely appalling and disgusting comments about the producer on Twitter? As a decent, respectful fellow human being, can I assume that you utterly condemn such behavior and threats?
Based on your record so far, best not to assume anything about me.
But I'm sure that won't stop you.
As far as I'm aware, he is still working for Murdoch. It's an interesting one. Didn't they (Murdoch) get rid of a newsreader and a sports commentator / reporter for inappropriate behaviour back in the day?
Just as an aside, I think this sorry saga brings into question Cameron's judgement...again. First he defended / stood by Coulson... then Brooks... then Green and now Clarkson. What should Cameron learn from all this?
I don't know, but it's alleged The Sun paid £500,000 to an employee to conceal a claim of serious sexual harassment by an editor, of course the paper is in denial.
The following was stated in parliament
https://twitter.com/rupertmurdoch/status/580502514442874880 should make clear what the old fossil's opinion is
Also there was the usual 'political correctness gone mad' type of comment and the producer had gone to hospital as part of a 'health & safety' tick box exercise.
What he and other prawns don't realise is that from 1988 must have ticked the boxes the BBC required. That he must have ticked the BBC boxes to present 'Robot Wars' and be given his own chat show...what were pinko left wing BBC thinking and during a Labour government's rule!!
He was sacked for being extremely threatening and abusive and having hit someone threatened to have him sacked and instead of walking away he pursued the individual for at least 20 minutes.
It's for lashing out violently that his contract was not renewed, as former Top Gear presented Quentin Willson said...
...Quentin also confirmed that Clarkson is a, "very difficult bloke to work with" and the BBC were right to sack him.
Says it all doesn't it. Then again, this is the organisation where illegal phone hacking was rife so are we surprised?
How about you back up your claim that he was pressured not to press charges instead of expecting others to back up something to contrary.
You are the one making a claim so it is up to you to back it up.
If Jeremy Clarkson had the people lined up against a wall and he was holding a gun threatening to shoot them, that would be shocking and offensive. To make a tongue in cheek comment about it when he obviously has no intention of doing it, is not shocking or offensive
Offense is an opinion nothing more.
Also I am getting increasingly annoyed with the whinging p*ssies that complain about being offended when they have no reason to be.
Ok fair enough they might have but it could just have been a coincidence, we will never know for sure.
I merely put the possibility out there. It was others who dismissed it out of hand. It was then that I asked for proof as to why my possible explanation could be dismissed. You and a handful of others may not like what I suggest but it doesn't mean that it isn't true.