But it was just a joke. A bit like the ice cream banter that Richard Hammond came out with.

But nowhere near as funny.

I beg to differ

Eh? It was the "people tell a community of people how they should be feeling" that I was sticking the proverbial finger up to.

I can't stand do-gooders that shout "homophobic" or "racist" when they have no idea what they are talking about, they just think that they ought to Do Something but actually do more harm than good.

It was obviously an inside joke that the audience completely got. Okay not particularly funny to us but the audience seemed to appreciate it.

I love how when people get offended they mini milk it for as long as they can. It's almost as if they feast on the things others find fab.

Personally, I think in this case they're all a bunch of screwballs.

While he's making millions? Unlikely.


What's funny about making jokes referring to someone's sexuality?

Please buy a dictionary and learn the definition of those terms and the correct contexts to use them. But do carry on, because every time an illiterate PC snowflake cries wolf over a whole load of nothing, you discredit what you stand for and more and more people will just laugh at you. And that suits me just fine.

Manufactured controversy to get publicity.

So boring, so predictable, so unnewsworthy.

Oh give me strength. Grow up, or are you going to go through life perpetually offended?

I'd be more concerned if I was the person at Amazon who commissioned this, having guaranteed £5m per episode for 36 episodes over three series - no small total of £180m - only to have one of the 'stars' come out with a 'joke' that's so '70s, it refers to "the gays" and "the straights". Such a show can only appeal to the knuckledraggers.

I don't go along with all the "homophobic" comments but, when you have to find a you tube video of a Finnish advert to explain why something was funny, it probably shouldn't have been included in the first place. Fine for the tent audience but a bit pointless for the rest of the world.

I'm glad you find homophobic comments funny.

I'm guessing you're one of those GT worshippers who can't recognise any of the offensive stuff they say.

It wasn't homophobic - do you even know what it means?


Now how do you get homophobic from a rather stupid joke about ice cream?

Like I said, his comment was not homophobic in any way. I'm guessing you are one of the perpetually offended.

Why does it bother you so much if people are offended by something that someone's said? Everyone's entitled to an opinion.

I'm sure there's things that you find offensive and get worked up about. To be fair you seemed pretty upset before when I said Richard Hammond wasn't funny, but that was my opinion. Yours was different.

It doesn't have to be homophobic to be insulting! His referral to 'this way' or 'that way' I.e. the 'gays' and the 'straights' is incredibly backward.

How hard is it for you to grasp that different people, who have experienced different things and walked in different shoes, might be offended by different things?

It's not about being homophobic, it's about being a dick-head!

Then why claim it was homophobic? and yes, it was about Hammond being a ******** - that was the joke! A ridiculous, playground statement to laugh at, that's all.

That's fair enough but social media has magnified offense into opprobrium, and opprobrium into outrage. The reaction is often now out of proportion to the seriousness of the offense.

You have a right to be offended, and to express that offense. You do not have a right to demand that the thing that offends you be puniushed. You do not have the right to define what other people can or cannot say, within the bounds of the law - and what Hammond said was stupid, but as far as I can see it was not inciting anyone towards hatred or violence so it was not illegal. You do not have the right to define the bounds of public discourse.

(Note 'you' in this case does not mean you personally, it means 'You, or I, or anyone else').

If it can be shown that Hammond's idiotic joke actually caused some level of harm, then we can talk about it in different terms. But I personally suspect it hasn't. The sum total of it's effect on human experience will be indistinguishable from zero.

Here's the thing : when people get outraged about trivia, they also trivialise outrage. And outrage should be a powerful thing, it should make people stop and listen. Once people learn to ignore outrage because the subject of it is so often unworthy, we actually lose something vital.

Hammond's words seemed contrived and had no obvious reference. Thanks for the explanation but I will not be seeking it out.

I suggest that the comment would have not been broadcast on the BBC and some of the outrage being expressed is because it appears more difficult to hold Amazon to account.
It is very easy to hold Amazon to account by simply cancelling one's subscription and stop buying from or through them.

On a broader point I'm wondering what the whole point of Hammond is? Were I his agent I would be asking that he be given a different character to play than the pointless irritation he's becoming in this. IMHO May improves with every episode.

Based upon the trio's previously reported "issues" on TG, I would suggest that people are being naive if they expected things to be different on Amazon. Many will have signed up (and/or watched) knowing precisely what to expect (and expecting something akin to TG in format & presentation).

[quote=tgabber;84987756]Manufactured controversy to get publicity.

So boring, so predictable, so unnewsworthy.[/QUO
Tell you what - don't watch it then!!!

Do many people really care about what RH said???

(other than those who don't like him or TG/TGT)

Namibia Special looking good apparently they had to buy a beatle each and then build the Beach Buggy's from them

A bit off topic here but is anyone else watching both back to back?

I can't wait to binge them

I thought about it but I lack the patience so 11.01 tonight I'll be watching