Obviously it has to work both ways; if it's wrong for a tv presenter to make apparently offensive jokes about lorry drivers, striking public sector workers, the Daily Mail view on life in general, himself for being unable to foresee the outcome of starting a nursery rhyme etc, it's wrong to offend anyone else. I can't wait for that to happen, even if we do end up with sterile anodyne tv that nobody would bother to watch. Bring it on. Nobody must be offended.
I don't see the comparison. Clarkson kept his job after ALL his contrived, scripted comments. Jimmy Carr and Frankie Boyle to name but two have both had a roasting for their edgy comedy so to make out there's some double-standard at work that penalises Clarkson is wholly bogus.
FYI, he got sacked for twatting somebody, not any of the things he said.
I don't see the comparison. Clarkson kept his job after ALL his contrived, scripted comments. Jimmy Carr and Frankie Boyle to name but two have both had a roasting for their edgy comedy so to make out there's some double-standard at work that penalises Clarkson is wholly bogus.
FYI, he got sacked for twatting somebody, not any of the things he said.
Someone who shares your opinion on Clarkson keeps banging on about being offended, and how it's wrong for anyone to give offence. I'm just pointing out that it works both ways - if someone can be horribly offended at any (all actually) of that list of things that Clarkson has said, there is no logical difference in being offended at what some comedian who thinks it's still 1986 has to say on the BBC. I can be offended too, and our friend who believes not being offended is a basic human right cannot expect that to apply only to what people like Clarkson say.
I can't wait till it's illegal for presenters etc to be offensive on TV, that way I won't have to put up with moronic so called 'comedians' calling Mr Cameron a posh **** or endlessly banging on about his Bullingdon Club days. Nor will I have to hear Mr Duncan-Cough described as a nazi & a baby killer for implementing his welfare changes. That really offends me that does, as does Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne being described in extremely negative and derogatory terms on things like The News Quiz, Mock The Week etc. Jeremy Hardy does it most weeks; it shocks me that he can be allowed to say such things. I've even spilt coffee down my shirt when I gasped in surprise at what he said. I can't remember what he said, but it was certainly shocking. And offensive.
Obviously it has to work both ways; if it's wrong for a tv presenter to make apparently offensive jokes about lorry drivers, striking public sector workers, the Daily Mail view on life in general, himself for being unable to foresee the outcome of starting a nursery rhyme etc, it's wrong to offend anyone else. I can't wait for that to happen, even if we do end up with sterile anodyne tv that nobody would bother to watch. Bring it on. Nobody must be offended.
I might watch the new TG. Depends if the grass has finished growing or some paint has fully dried tbh.
So, to sum up, you can't wait until it's illegal to refer to Cameron's membership of the Bullingdon Club. Tory posters are truly fascinating.
God this thread has some pompous pricks on it. Your shit stinks too you know.
Is that your thoughtful composed contribution to a valid point? You may not like the idea, but claiming offence isn't limited to people who don't like Clarkson.
So, to sum up, you can't wait until it's illegal to refer to Cameron's membership of the Bullingdon Club. Tory posters are truly fascinating.
I know it's difficult for you, but if our easily-offended chum wishes to have people like Clarkson removed from the TV for being offensive, it's reasonable to ask for the same suppression of other offensive comments, if for nothing else than to flag up the absurdity of such a request. Obviously you failed to grasp that point, instead choosing to focus on an example as being the core point. Whatever, as I believe youngsters say these days.
BTW I picked Cameron because it's a safe bet that there will be plenty who don't like him and would quite like to see him continue to get a verbal kicking on tv, and therein lies the quandary. If Clarkson can't say rude things about striking workers as a joke, why should it be ok to say rude things about other people?
So, to sum up, you can't wait until it's illegal to refer to Cameron's membership of the Bullingdon Club. Tory posters are truly fascinating.
Perhaps not illegal but it just gets boring, most of the people concerned probably also used to drink when at university but perhaps wore football shirts rather than a suit so is it any different? And of course these 'comedians' never mention Ed Balls membership of the very similar Steamers club where he was photographed wearing Nazi uniform - imagine the fuss if David Cameron had been photographed doing that!
I know it's difficult for you, but if our easily-offended chum wishes to have people like Clarkson removed from the TV for being offensive, it's reasonable to ask for the same suppression of other offensive comments, if for nothing else than to flag up the absurdity of such a request. Obviously you failed to grasp that point, instead choosing to focus on an example as being the core point. Whatever, as I believe youngsters say these days.
BTW I picked Cameron because it's a safe bet that there will be plenty who don't like him and would quite like to see him continue to get a verbal kicking on tv, and therein lies the quandary. If Clarkson can't say rude things about striking workers as a joke, why should it be ok to say rude things about other people?
I merely quoted your own thoughts which are worth repeating: you would love it to be illegal to refer to the FACT that Cameron (and Osborne and Johnson) was a member of that hideous club! Will people be able to mention Johnson's friendship with Mr Guppy in your Tory Utopia?
I notice you think (the non-violent) Jeremy Hardy makes offensive comments but Clarkson tells 'jokes'. By all means be partisan, don't be hypocritical.
I merely quoted your own thoughts which are worth repeating: you would love it to be illegal to refer to the FACT that Cameron (and Osborne and Johnson) was a member of that hideous club! Will people be able to mention Johnson's friendship with Mr Guppy in your Tory Utopia?
I notice you think (the non-violent) Jeremy Hardy makes offensive comments but Clarkson tells 'jokes'. By all means be partisan, don't be hypocritical.
You need to understand the concept of using an example to contradict the original idea, that Clarkson is apparently offensive and our regular poster feels that not being offensive is a pre-requisite for being allowed to spout off on TV.
Try again - I used Cameron & his background as that's something that a lot of people would feel is a perfectly acceptable target for 'offensive' comments. I merely flagged up the contradiction, that if Clarkson is wrong to be rude on subjects that he picks on, where do we draw a line of who or what is acceptable. You can focus on that single example of the BC if you must, but you're avoiding answering the underlying question.
How about I make it easier for you, with a simple question? If Clarkson is too offensive to be allowed on TV, where's the cut-off for other offensive comedians? Who says 'yeah that's ok to be offensive about that group, but it's not ok to be offensive about this group'? Why is not ok to make a joke about striking workers, but is ok to make jokes about a group of politicians?
And by that, what you mean is "presenters who follow my politics in lockstep". See the comments comming from the left and how marvelously out of touch from the average person they are.
Whilst I do find Clarkson's 'views' offensive, this has nothing to do with politics. It is more skillful to present a show in a non-offensive way than it is to not. There is nothing skillful about being rude and offensive. Clearly Clarkson attracts a small following here in the UK, but let's not pretend he is mainstream...far from it. He is on the fringes. I would lump him in with Katie Hopkins and Farage.
Is that your thoughtful composed contribution to a valid point? You may not like the idea, but claiming offence isn't limited to people who don't like Clarkson.
I don't know anyone else on television (apart from Katie Hopkins) who is as offensive as Clarkson. Even Farage manages to just about stay the right side of acceptable.
I know it's difficult for you, but if our easily-offended chum wishes to have people like Clarkson removed from the TV for being offensive, it's reasonable to ask for the same suppression of other offensive comments, if for nothing else than to flag up the absurdity of such a request. Obviously you failed to grasp that point, instead choosing to focus on an example as being the core point. Whatever, as I believe youngsters say these days.
BTW I picked Cameron because it's a safe bet that there will be plenty who don't like him and would quite like to see him continue to get a verbal kicking on tv, and therein lies the quandary. If Clarkson can't say rude things about striking workers as a joke, why should it be ok to say rude things about other people?
It is not acceptable to say on television that anyone should be shot. It is not banter, humour or funny. It is unacceptable. It is also right to challenge and question all politicians. Is it right to suggest that any of them should be shot? I am all ears.
If Clarkson is to be gagged for being offensive, who else is subject to the same sanction that you keep goign on about? Who decides what is offensive and what isn't; who decides when it's ok to push it a bit and stray towards offence, and when it's not?
You need to understand the concept of using an example to contradict the original idea, that Clarkson is apparently offensive and our regular poster feels that not being offensive is a pre-requisite for being allowed to spout off on TV.
Try again - I used Cameron & his background as that's something that a lot of people would feel is a perfectly acceptable target for 'offensive' comments. I merely flagged up the contradiction, that if Clarkson is wrong to be rude on subjects that he picks on, where do we draw a line of who or what is acceptable. You can focus on that single example of the BC if you must, but you're avoiding answering the underlying question.
How about I make it easier for you, with a simple question? If Clarkson is too offensive to be allowed on TV, where's the cut-off for other offensive comedians? Who says 'yeah that's ok to be offensive about that group, but it's not ok to be offensive about this group'? Why is not ok to make a joke about striking workers, but is ok to make jokes about a group of politicians?
There is no "apparently" about it...he is. Listen, I have no problem with people expressing a point of view but do it in a non-offensive way. I would have thought that to express a point of view in an offensive way is completely counter-productive, but what do I know?
Regarding Cameron, Osbourne, Johnson and the Bullingdon Club...it is completely legitimate to question whether someone's background makes them suitable or unsuitable for a particular post. That is not offensive at all. It is also not offensive to question Grant Shapps and his business activities when he doesn't always use his own name when doing business. As a Tory, of course you don't like it all being challenged and questioned...but we are talking about people who want to run the country. I want people running the country who have the right values, who have the right ethics and who come from the real world. People who fall short on any of these shouldn't be anywhere near power, in my view.
Any way, back on topic...
Angela Rippon used to present TG. It rated highly too. Perhaps worth considering?
There is no "apparently" about it...he is. Listen, I have no problem with people expressing a point of view but do it in a non-offensive way. I would have thought that to express a point of view in an offensive way is completely counter-productive, but what do I know?
Regarding Cameron, Osbourne, Johnson and the Bullingdon Club...it is completely legitimate to question whether someone's background makes them suitable or unsuitable for a particular post. That is not offensive at all. It is also not offensive to question Grant Shapps and his business activities when he doesn't always use his own name when doing business. As a Tory, of course you don't like it all being challenged and questioned...but we are talking about people who want to run the country. I want people running the country who have the right values, who have the right ethics and who come from the real world. People who fall short on any of these shouldn't be anywhere near power, in my view.
Nope. Still avoiding it. I didn't suggest suppressing legitimate questioning of their backgrounds and their intentions. I suggested exactly what you want - that when Jeremy Hardy (AS AN EXAMPLE...) goes off on one his rants about Osborne or Duncan-Smith etc and it goes beyond policies, it becomes a personal malicious snide attack, one that he clearly does mean, why is that different to Clarkson saying strikers should be shot? If you can demand not to be offended by J Clarkson, why can't I (AS AN EXAMPLE) demand not to be offended by the terminally unfunny J Hardy?
If Clarkson is to be gagged for being offensive, who else is subject to the same sanction that you keep goign on about? Who decides what is offensive and what isn't; who decides when it's ok to push it a bit and stray towards offence, and when it's not?
I can't think of anyone in the modern era as offensive as Clarkson or Hopkins can you?
Listen, we all have a clear understanding of what is / isn't acceptable behaviour... what are / aren't acceptable views/opinions to hold.
I can't think of anyone in the modern era as offensive as Clarkson or Hopkins can you?
Listen, we all have a clear understanding of what is / isn't acceptable behaviour... what are / aren't acceptable views/opinions to hold.
But this is the crux of it. You believe that Clarkson is offensive. I don't. You said recently that Miranda Hart and Sarah Millican are humourous. I don't agree with that in the slightest, they are desperately unfunny to the best of my knowledge. So it's a subjective opinion. Who decides? I don't want to be subject to your parameters of what goes and what doesn't; clearly you disagree with my cutt-offs. So who decides?
I have no idea who Katie Hopkins is, sorry. I've heard the name but what she does? Sorry. That's passed me by.
Nope. Still avoiding it. I didn't suggest suppressing legitimate questioning of their backgrounds and their intentions. I suggested exactly what you want - that when Jeremy Hardy (AS AN EXAMPLE...) goes off on one his rants about Osborne or Duncan-Smith etc and it goes beyond policies, it becomes a personal malicious snide attack, one that he clearly does mean, why is that different to Clarkson saying strikers should be shot? If you can demand not to be offended by J Clarkson, why can't I (AS AN EXAMPLE) demand not to be offended by the terminally unfunny J Hardy?
Simple question.
I need to Google Jeremy Hardy. I have never heard of him. Before I do, I will say this... all the media (including the BBC) have been obsessed with Ed Miliband's in ability to be able to eat a bacon sandwich, that he is a bit awkward, a bit geeky and resembles Wallace. Now, are you being deliberately selective here in your citations?
I think the trouble with Clarkson is that many people think he is serious...and because of his tone of voice, delivery and his politics, that he actually believes what he says. In order to try to get away with what he says and does, he tries to dress it all up as so called 'humour' or 'banter' which I'm afraid is no excuse or justification whatsoever.
But this is the crux of it. You believe that Clarkson is offensive. I don't. You said recently that Miranda Hart and Sarah Millican are humourous. I don't agree with that in the slightest, they are desperately unfunny to the best of my knowledge. So it's a subjective opinion. Who decides? I don't want to be subject to your parameters of what goes and what doesn't; clearly you disagree with my cutt-offs. So who decides?
I have no idea who Katie Hopkins is, sorry. I've heard the name but what she does? Sorry. That's passed me by.
I would suggest that what you define as inoffensive is way, way out of kilta with what the general populous thinks is inoffensive, that's why he has got into trouble on so many occasions.
Whether you find Sarah or Miranda humorous or not is subjective, but regardless of that fact, neither are offensive which is the crux of the matter being discussed here.
In order to promote social cohesion and a civilized society, we all have to abide by common decency standards...some of which are enforced by law. You can't have people doing and saying whatever they like...society wouldn't exist.
Re: Katie Hopkins...YouTube her. You will be able to see plenty of clips of her.
You need to understand the concept of using an example to contradict the original idea, that Clarkson is apparently offensive and our regular poster feels that not being offensive is a pre-requisite for being allowed to spout off on TV.
Try again - I used Cameron & his background as that's something that a lot of people would feel is a perfectly acceptable target for 'offensive' comments. I merely flagged up the contradiction, that if Clarkson is wrong to be rude on subjects that he picks on, where do we draw a line of who or what is acceptable. You can focus on that single example of the BC if you must, but you're avoiding answering the underlying question.
How about I make it easier for you, with a simple question? If Clarkson is too offensive to be allowed on TV, where's the cut-off for other offensive comedians? Who says 'yeah that's ok to be offensive about that group, but it's not ok to be offensive about this group'? Why is not ok to make a joke about striking workers, but is ok to make jokes about a group of politicians?
So you don't want anybody to refer to Cameron's actions or me to quote your own utterances - got it. As for Clarkson and the "striking workers", I thought, at first, it was a reference to his behaviour on set Well, not really.
Angela did it for two years, Tom did it for one...I believe. Sue Barker, Noel Edmonds and Julia Bradbury are some of the ex-Top Gear presenters. The show had been going for eleven years before Clarkson joined.
Comments
I don't see the comparison. Clarkson kept his job after ALL his contrived, scripted comments. Jimmy Carr and Frankie Boyle to name but two have both had a roasting for their edgy comedy so to make out there's some double-standard at work that penalises Clarkson is wholly bogus.
FYI, he got sacked for twatting somebody, not any of the things he said.
Is that your thoughtful composed contribution to a valid point? You may not like the idea, but claiming offence isn't limited to people who don't like Clarkson.
BTW I picked Cameron because it's a safe bet that there will be plenty who don't like him and would quite like to see him continue to get a verbal kicking on tv, and therein lies the quandary. If Clarkson can't say rude things about striking workers as a joke, why should it be ok to say rude things about other people?
Perhaps not illegal but it just gets boring, most of the people concerned probably also used to drink when at university but perhaps wore football shirts rather than a suit so is it any different? And of course these 'comedians' never mention Ed Balls membership of the very similar Steamers club where he was photographed wearing Nazi uniform - imagine the fuss if David Cameron had been photographed doing that!
I merely quoted your own thoughts which are worth repeating: you would love it to be illegal to refer to the FACT that Cameron (and Osborne and Johnson) was a member of that hideous club! Will people be able to mention Johnson's friendship with Mr Guppy in your Tory Utopia?
I notice you think (the non-violent) Jeremy Hardy makes offensive comments but Clarkson tells 'jokes'. By all means be partisan, don't be hypocritical.
Try again - I used Cameron & his background as that's something that a lot of people would feel is a perfectly acceptable target for 'offensive' comments. I merely flagged up the contradiction, that if Clarkson is wrong to be rude on subjects that he picks on, where do we draw a line of who or what is acceptable. You can focus on that single example of the BC if you must, but you're avoiding answering the underlying question.
How about I make it easier for you, with a simple question? If Clarkson is too offensive to be allowed on TV, where's the cut-off for other offensive comedians? Who says 'yeah that's ok to be offensive about that group, but it's not ok to be offensive about this group'? Why is not ok to make a joke about striking workers, but is ok to make jokes about a group of politicians?
Whilst I do find Clarkson's 'views' offensive, this has nothing to do with politics. It is more skillful to present a show in a non-offensive way than it is to not. There is nothing skillful about being rude and offensive. Clearly Clarkson attracts a small following here in the UK, but let's not pretend he is mainstream...far from it. He is on the fringes. I would lump him in with Katie Hopkins and Farage.
I don't know anyone else on television (apart from Katie Hopkins) who is as offensive as Clarkson. Even Farage manages to just about stay the right side of acceptable.
It is not acceptable to say on television that anyone should be shot. It is not banter, humour or funny. It is unacceptable. It is also right to challenge and question all politicians. Is it right to suggest that any of them should be shot? I am all ears.
If Clarkson is to be gagged for being offensive, who else is subject to the same sanction that you keep goign on about? Who decides what is offensive and what isn't; who decides when it's ok to push it a bit and stray towards offence, and when it's not?
There is no "apparently" about it...he is. Listen, I have no problem with people expressing a point of view but do it in a non-offensive way. I would have thought that to express a point of view in an offensive way is completely counter-productive, but what do I know?
Regarding Cameron, Osbourne, Johnson and the Bullingdon Club...it is completely legitimate to question whether someone's background makes them suitable or unsuitable for a particular post. That is not offensive at all. It is also not offensive to question Grant Shapps and his business activities when he doesn't always use his own name when doing business. As a Tory, of course you don't like it all being challenged and questioned...but we are talking about people who want to run the country. I want people running the country who have the right values, who have the right ethics and who come from the real world. People who fall short on any of these shouldn't be anywhere near power, in my view.
Any way, back on topic...
Angela Rippon used to present TG. It rated highly too. Perhaps worth considering?
Simple question.
I can't think of anyone in the modern era as offensive as Clarkson or Hopkins can you?
Listen, we all have a clear understanding of what is / isn't acceptable behaviour... what are / aren't acceptable views/opinions to hold.
I have no idea who Katie Hopkins is, sorry. I've heard the name but what she does? Sorry. That's passed me by.
I need to Google Jeremy Hardy. I have never heard of him. Before I do, I will say this... all the media (including the BBC) have been obsessed with Ed Miliband's in ability to be able to eat a bacon sandwich, that he is a bit awkward, a bit geeky and resembles Wallace. Now, are you being deliberately selective here in your citations?
I think the trouble with Clarkson is that many people think he is serious...and because of his tone of voice, delivery and his politics, that he actually believes what he says. In order to try to get away with what he says and does, he tries to dress it all up as so called 'humour' or 'banter' which I'm afraid is no excuse or justification whatsoever.
I would suggest that what you define as inoffensive is way, way out of kilta with what the general populous thinks is inoffensive, that's why he has got into trouble on so many occasions.
Whether you find Sarah or Miranda humorous or not is subjective, but regardless of that fact, neither are offensive which is the crux of the matter being discussed here.
In order to promote social cohesion and a civilized society, we all have to abide by common decency standards...some of which are enforced by law. You can't have people doing and saying whatever they like...society wouldn't exist.
Re: Katie Hopkins...YouTube her. You will be able to see plenty of clips of her.
So you don't want anybody to refer to Cameron's actions or me to quote your own utterances - got it. As for Clarkson and the "striking workers", I thought, at first, it was a reference to his behaviour on set Well, not really.
I always presumed that James May, the fat guy and Jeremy Clarkson started the show? Can someone explain?
Angela Rippon and Tom Coyne started the show way back when. Top Gear existed before the three amigos. It will continue long after them too.
Oh really, how long did they do that for?
Angela did it for two years, Tom did it for one...I believe. Sue Barker, Noel Edmonds and Julia Bradbury are some of the ex-Top Gear presenters. The show had been going for eleven years before Clarkson joined.
Look on Wonkypedia, it ran from 1977 to 2001 with various presenters and mostly got good viewing figures.