Don't believe anything you read about JC in the Mirror, they have an obvious vendetta against him, probably due to the fact that he has a column in the Sun.
Further to which, this is what the BBC stated yesterday, after the Ofcom ruling:
"We dealt with this matter some time ago, the programme apologised at the time and explained the context, and we are now focussing on delivering another series of one of Britain's best loved shows."
One or both of the two complainants along with the law firm involved (along with assorted DS posters) can call for whatever they want, the matter was dealt with at the time. Any disciplinary action will already have taken place, any negative points will already have been totted up (and would no doubt have been the basis for JC's supposed "final warning" after the unbroadcast nursery rhyme footage.
No one would have laughed at all unless there were aware of the racist term Clarkson used and found that funny. The whole "joke", to the extent therev was one, was his use of the term "slope", to refer to the bridge, and th person walking across it.
The BBC have said they would edit the comment out before the programme was shown anywhere else. We have seen the reaction from the Mexican ambassador over previous light-hearted, hilarious humour by the Top Gear team.
Yes, I'm sure they'd find a white guy referring to a Burmese person as a "slope" hilarious.
From what I remember the Mexican ambassador later met the Top Gear team.
"It's so far from the truth that it's laughable," says a friend of his this weekend, speaking by phone from Mexico City. "Mr Clarkson is certainly ignorant about Eduardo... but I don't think Eduardo will be bothered by him. He's been up against much more dangerous enemies!
Top Gear's biggest mistake was not researching the ambassador before joking about him, that seemed to annoy many Mexicans more than the other general comments about the country picked up by the tabloids here.
Top Gear's biggest mistake was not researching the ambassador before joking about him, that seemed to annoy many Mexicans more than the other general comments about the country picked up by the tabloids here.
Seems to me their biggest mistakes were delivering ill-chosen remarks playing up negative stereotypes of Mexican people, and not making it clear in the delivery that they were mocking the stereotypes of Mexican people.
The only people who would find Clarkson's comment funny are people who are also familiar with the term as a racist perjorative. Otherwise there's no joke to get.
I believe the joke was about the bridge (I'd personally never heard of the use of the term before in relation to people), but even if it wasn't, it was a very clever double entendre and every bit clever and funny for it. In the context of a comedy programme (and Top Gear isn't a serious motoring programme but a light hearted comedy motoring magazine), that's every bit acceptable.
If Top Gear was a straight dead serious motoring magazine, then I would side with you entirely. However, it's laced with comedy and set up as a comedy magazine. As such, you can expect it to contain comments that may offend.
Presumably you'd find it hilarious if Jeremy Clarkson made a comment on one of his tv shows making fun of a relative of yours who was fat or ugly.
I wouldn't mind. Around here, (somewhere up North in a middle class area for reference), we regularly take the p*ss out of each other in the pub, because people have a sense of humour. Even the local disabled guy cracks jokes about himself and his disability, and other people do the same. Everyone has a good laugh, there's nothing malicious as no-one ever pushes anything too far or picks on anyone in particular to the point of making them uncomfortable and people have a good laugh and great night out.
But, maybe we just have a sense of humour up North.
BTW, do you also find Little Britain as offensive as Top Gear and report that to OFCOM? You could arguably say its potentially offensive towards:
Gay people
Disabled People
Unintelligent people
Chavs
People on Disability Benefits
...through it's stereotypes.
Yet for all those people potentially offended, I don't hear people calling for those responsible for the show to be sacked.
I believe the joke was about the bridge (I'd personally never heard of the use of the term before in relation to people), but even if it wasn't, it was a very clever double entendre and every bit clever and funny for it. In the context of a comedy programme (and Top Gear isn't a serious motoring programme but a light hearted comedy motoring magazine), that's every bit acceptable.
BTW, do you also find Little Britain as offensive as Top Gear and report that to OFCOM?
I found the few moments of Little Britain I have seen to be desperately unfunny and picking on easy targets. I suppose the difference is it done in the guise of comedy characters. Clarkson may be a buffoon, and is playing a caricature of himself in TG, but it's still him, which is why he keeps getting himself into trouble.
Seems to me their biggest mistakes were delivering ill-chosen remarks playing up negative stereotypes of Mexican people, and not making it clear in the delivery that they were mocking the stereotypes of Mexican people.
Our you know...they found a easily offended cause jumping rent a gob in Mexico. Not like we don't have our own over here who claim to but don't speak for all!
Our you know...they found a easily offended cause jumping rent a gob in Mexico. Not like we don't have our own over here who claim to but don't speak for all!
I can barely make out any of that gibberish - is that supposed to be a reference to the Mexican ambassador?
Not at all. Local person or not - how many in the UK have heard of the term?
What does that have to do with it? I live in the UK and I`ve heard of it so does that mean it IS a well known slur? Short of a full survey of the United Kingdom it`s all anecdotal and as such, baseless in regard to who`d heard of it and who hadn`t although I do find it amusing that TG defenders swear blind to a man that this is the first time EVER it`s assaulted their lugholes in this context.
As explained elsewhere Clarkson and Co. have the mentality of schoolboys when it comes to this stuff and delight at "getting away" with this kind of behaviour. I say getting away but by now he must do it with the full knowledge that he`s going to have to defend it due to his long list of past transgressions of this sort so it`s done in the full awareness of it`s meaning and subsequent impact. Not innocently, not naively and not by accident.
The script was written before they went out there.
You think that local just happened to walk over there at a photographically opportune moment?
To a war-buff like Clarkson the full meaning and historical context behind that word was clear and unequivocal in his mind. What says more about it`s use and airing in the show is the subsequent attempt to feign innocence, again like small boys do when they`re caught doing something they shouldn`t. Having said that looking at the behaviour of their employers it`s not hard to see where they get the "deny everything" attitude from!
Seems to me their biggest mistakes were delivering ill-chosen remarks playing up negative stereotypes of Mexican people, and not making it clear in the delivery that they were mocking the stereotypes of Mexican people.
If you read up on it you will find it was the remarks about the ambassador that seemed to offend them because they bore no resemblance to him.
Slope is a derogatory term used specifically to reference people of Vietnamese or Chinese descent in relation to their facial features, which originates from the Vietnam war era. Jeremy Clarkson’s use of the racial term to describe a local man in Thailand should never have been considered anything but offensive and was in total breach of broadcasting codes, as Ofcom concluded this week.
Sadly, Mark Gatiss has his dates all mixed up. The so-called "final warning" was issued following the 'eeny meeny' incident, which came to light long after the Burma 'slope' comment. While it's true Ofcom has only just published its findings, the BBC say they "dealt with the matter" at the time and therefore they will not be taking further action.
Sadly, Mark Gatiss has his dates all mixed up. The so-called "final warning" was issued following the 'eeny meeny' incident, which came to light long after the Burma 'slope' comment. While it's true Ofcom has only just published its findings, the BBC say they "dealt with the matter" at the time and therefore they will not be taking further action.
Still, very high-profile BBC man slating another big earner isn`t going to please the suits at the Beeb.
I suspect Gatiss knew full well this pre-dates the "final warning" and is just stoking the fires, guaranteeing the story further legs.
Edit: Seems to be working - Express have picked it up now:
BBC stalwart Mark (Sherlock) Gatiss suggesting Clarkson should go:
So someone who most people have never heard of sends out a fifteen word Tweet which is printed in the anti-BBC Daily Mirror (hardly the most respected newspaper with its past record), as far as I can see he seems to be best known for being openly homosexual which might influence him against Clarkson.
Slope is a derogatory term used specifically to reference people of Vietnamese or Chinese descent in relation to their facial features, which originates from the Vietnam war era. Jeremy Clarkson’s use of the racial term to describe a local man in Thailand should never have been considered anything but offensive and was in total breach of broadcasting codes, as Ofcom concluded this week.
So the Grauniad is criticising him for using the word about a Thai man when it should only be used about Vietnamese and people of Chinese descent. At least the handful of people who read the Grauniad now know how to use it correctly!
So someone who most people have never heard of sends out a fifteen word Tweet which is printed in the anti-BBC Daily Mirror (hardly the most respected newspaper with its past record), as far as I can see he seems to be best known for being openly homosexual which might influence him against Clarkson.
Is the Mirror anti-BBC as well? That would make it almost a clean sweep of the UK papers, with only the Graunie having any love for the Beeb.
Don't believe anything you read about JC in the Mirror, they have an obvious vendetta against him, probably due to the fact that he has a column in the Sun.
I think there are still some people at the Mirror with some sort of loyalty towards Morgan, even though it was nearly brought to its knees under his editorship with the fake war photos.
The Guardian is definitely anti-Beeb and they make their position clear regularly. All the papers are - mainly because they're rival news providers.
How convenient for the BBC supporters on these forums, now every single newspaper article which paints the Beeb in a bad light can be blamed on bias. By the same logic, presumably all the other TV channels, radio stations and websites also hate the BBC because they're rivals too. So effectively every single negative news story in any form of media can be portrayed as coming from an anti-BBC perspective.
Comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-28522450
One or both of the two complainants along with the law firm involved (along with assorted DS posters) can call for whatever they want, the matter was dealt with at the time. Any disciplinary action will already have taken place, any negative points will already have been totted up (and would no doubt have been the basis for JC's supposed "final warning" after the unbroadcast nursery rhyme footage.
The Ofcom ruling changes nothing.
Top Gear's biggest mistake was not researching the ambassador before joking about him, that seemed to annoy many Mexicans more than the other general comments about the country picked up by the tabloids here.
Seems to me their biggest mistakes were delivering ill-chosen remarks playing up negative stereotypes of Mexican people, and not making it clear in the delivery that they were mocking the stereotypes of Mexican people.
I believe the joke was about the bridge (I'd personally never heard of the use of the term before in relation to people), but even if it wasn't, it was a very clever double entendre and every bit clever and funny for it. In the context of a comedy programme (and Top Gear isn't a serious motoring programme but a light hearted comedy motoring magazine), that's every bit acceptable.
If Top Gear was a straight dead serious motoring magazine, then I would side with you entirely. However, it's laced with comedy and set up as a comedy magazine. As such, you can expect it to contain comments that may offend.
I wouldn't mind. Around here, (somewhere up North in a middle class area for reference), we regularly take the p*ss out of each other in the pub, because people have a sense of humour. Even the local disabled guy cracks jokes about himself and his disability, and other people do the same. Everyone has a good laugh, there's nothing malicious as no-one ever pushes anything too far or picks on anyone in particular to the point of making them uncomfortable and people have a good laugh and great night out.
But, maybe we just have a sense of humour up North.
BTW, do you also find Little Britain as offensive as Top Gear and report that to OFCOM? You could arguably say its potentially offensive towards:
Gay people
Disabled People
Unintelligent people
Chavs
People on Disability Benefits
...through it's stereotypes.
Yet for all those people potentially offended, I don't hear people calling for those responsible for the show to be sacked.
A very clever double entendre? Good grief.
I found the few moments of Little Britain I have seen to be desperately unfunny and picking on easy targets. I suppose the difference is it done in the guise of comedy characters. Clarkson may be a buffoon, and is playing a caricature of himself in TG, but it's still him, which is why he keeps getting himself into trouble.
Our you know...they found a easily offended cause jumping rent a gob in Mexico. Not like we don't have our own over here who claim to but don't speak for all!
I can barely make out any of that gibberish - is that supposed to be a reference to the Mexican ambassador?
Not at all. Local person or not - how many in the UK have heard of the term? The script was written before they went out there.
What does that have to do with it? I live in the UK and I`ve heard of it so does that mean it IS a well known slur? Short of a full survey of the United Kingdom it`s all anecdotal and as such, baseless in regard to who`d heard of it and who hadn`t although I do find it amusing that TG defenders swear blind to a man that this is the first time EVER it`s assaulted their lugholes in this context.
As explained elsewhere Clarkson and Co. have the mentality of schoolboys when it comes to this stuff and delight at "getting away" with this kind of behaviour. I say getting away but by now he must do it with the full knowledge that he`s going to have to defend it due to his long list of past transgressions of this sort so it`s done in the full awareness of it`s meaning and subsequent impact. Not innocently, not naively and not by accident.
You think that local just happened to walk over there at a photographically opportune moment?
To a war-buff like Clarkson the full meaning and historical context behind that word was clear and unequivocal in his mind. What says more about it`s use and airing in the show is the subsequent attempt to feign innocence, again like small boys do when they`re caught doing something they shouldn`t. Having said that looking at the behaviour of their employers it`s not hard to see where they get the "deny everything" attitude from!
If you read up on it you will find it was the remarks about the ambassador that seemed to offend them because they bore no resemblance to him.
I'm offended. For all you know I could be a dyslexic Ecuadorian please take back that comment.
If you can't beat them join them....
Punching out of this. Shouldn't give these complainers a seconds thought that is what gives them any power what so ever!!
http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/jeremy-clarkson-should-sacked-suggests-3930678
I guess we`ll not be seeing him in the "Star in a reasonably priced car" slot!
........
As well-argued a piece on the subject as you`re likely to read:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/29/bbc-clarkson-racist-comment-east-asian-minority
Still, very high-profile BBC man slating another big earner isn`t going to please the suits at the Beeb.
I suspect Gatiss knew full well this pre-dates the "final warning" and is just stoking the fires, guaranteeing the story further legs.
Edit: Seems to be working - Express have picked it up now:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/showbiz/493294/Sherlock-Mark-Gatiss-suggests-Jeremy-Clarkson-should-be-sacked-over-racist-remark
They`ve also printed some of Gatiss` followers comments.
So someone who most people have never heard of sends out a fifteen word Tweet which is printed in the anti-BBC Daily Mirror (hardly the most respected newspaper with its past record), as far as I can see he seems to be best known for being openly homosexual which might influence him against Clarkson.
So the Grauniad is criticising him for using the word about a Thai man when it should only be used about Vietnamese and people of Chinese descent. At least the handful of people who read the Grauniad now know how to use it correctly!
Is the Mirror anti-BBC as well? That would make it almost a clean sweep of the UK papers, with only the Graunie having any love for the Beeb.
The Guardian is anti-BBC? They seem to run opinion pieces standing up for them fairly often.
How convenient for the BBC supporters on these forums, now every single newspaper article which paints the Beeb in a bad light can be blamed on bias. By the same logic, presumably all the other TV channels, radio stations and websites also hate the BBC because they're rivals too. So effectively every single negative news story in any form of media can be portrayed as coming from an anti-BBC perspective.