I see everyone is still ignoring and not understanding a scripted joke. I guess you have to be Finnish.
Richard Hammond under fire after saying men who eat ice cream are "gay"
19 of 21
Originally Posted by WhatJoeThinks:
“
Exactly. How dare he imply that men who eat ice cream are all puffs! 
Wait, who was he slagging off, sorry?”
“
Exactly. How dare he imply that men who eat ice cream are all puffs! Wait, who was he slagging off, sorry?”
I was responding on a general point.
Originally Posted by platelet:
“It just seems a bit lame. They should stick to the casual racism and comparing penis sizes that's where their strength lies”
“It just seems a bit lame. They should stick to the casual racism and comparing penis sizes that's where their strength lies”
shameless attempt to get back up the news rankings ? Personally I'm waiting until I can download the whole series via Bit torrent with a <relatively> clear conscience .
okay.
Off to Iceland.
Is tub with of vanilla gay?
Or is it, as i suspect a mint vieanetta?
Single white male 45
Off to Iceland.
Is tub with of vanilla gay?
Or is it, as i suspect a mint vieanetta?
Single white male 45
Originally Posted by MAW:
“I see everyone is still ignoring and not understanding a scripted joke. I guess you have to be Finnish.”
“I see everyone is still ignoring and not understanding a scripted joke. I guess you have to be Finnish.”
Throw the denizens of digitalspy a bone like this though and you are guaranteed the scripted response by return. Nineteen pages worth.
Around 52% of it posts standing up for a prejudice position. The one thing the internet tells you is that there is nothing some people won't defend.
Originally Posted by Forza Ferrari:
“Around 52% of it posts standing up for a prejudice position. The one thing the internet tells you is that there is nothing some people won't defend.”
“Around 52% of it posts standing up for a prejudice position. The one thing the internet tells you is that there is nothing some people won't defend.”
It was a joke, not a hate minded prejudiced jibe by Hammond. Silly joke yes, but it was not a nasty joke. Your taking the joke far too seriously.
Originally Posted by tenofspades:
“If hammond says real men don't eat ice cream, someone else could say real men are 6 ft tall. And Hammond is a bit lost for words, at such a similarly ignorant statement.”
“If hammond says real men don't eat ice cream, someone else could say real men are 6 ft tall. And Hammond is a bit lost for words, at such a similarly ignorant statement.”
It is often geeky or overgrown schoolboys like Hammond who like to proclaim their 'manliness' maybe as they feel a bit inadequate in reality? we all in some ways project our own insecurities onto others.
Originally Posted by Nakatomi:
“ He's a homophobe, like you”
“ He's a homophobe, like you”
Please buy a dictionary and try and educate yourself.
Originally Posted by CELT1987:
“It was a joke, not a hate minded prejudiced jibe by Hammond. Silly joke yes, but it was not a nasty joke. Your taking the joke far too seriously.”
“It was a joke, not a hate minded prejudiced jibe by Hammond. Silly joke yes, but it was not a nasty joke. Your taking the joke far too seriously.”
Well a) Hammond isn't a comedian and, b) A joke has to have some sort of basis in reality. If it was a joke about how some gay people lisp or something, you could defend that (even though it still would be a piss-poor joke) but this is just mental. Which is why it seems like it's something he actually believes - even the other two blokes seemed a bit baffled by it.
Originally Posted by MAW:
“I see everyone is still ignoring and not understanding a scripted joke. I guess you have to be Finnish.”
“I see everyone is still ignoring and not understanding a scripted joke. I guess you have to be Finnish.”
What's funny about it? It just seemed to come out of nowhere - it had no punchline or anything. Even Clarkson seemed a bit baffled by it.
Anyway, Hammond can't really claim to be a real man, can he? We could say that real men are all taller than 5'7" and don't wear eyeliner.
Mind you, we know how much trouble Hammond has with straight things, don't we? That's how he crashed that car.
Mind you, we know how much trouble Hammond has with straight things, don't we? That's how he crashed that car.
Given the amount of baggage posters have brought to this thread, Grand Tour should do a challange racing vehicles capable of moving it all.
Originally Posted by BastardBeaver:
“You're either an actual moron or a troll. I cant work out which.”
“You're either an actual moron or a troll. I cant work out which.”
I think the irony of your post may be lost on you. You hurl abuse at me because you don't like what I say and harangue Richard Hammond likewise. Are you any better? I would say not.
Your idea of free speech is one which has to accord with your point of view. This applies to many other posters in this thread too. Totally blind to your own prejudices.
Originally Posted by Faust:
“I think the irony of your post may be lost on you. You hurl abuse at me because you don't like what I say and harangue Richard Hammond likewise. Are you any better? I would say not.
Your idea of free speech is one which has to accord with your point of view. This applies to many other posters in this thread too. Totally blind to your own prejudices.”
“I think the irony of your post may be lost on you. You hurl abuse at me because you don't like what I say and harangue Richard Hammond likewise. Are you any better? I would say not.
Your idea of free speech is one which has to accord with your point of view. This applies to many other posters in this thread too. Totally blind to your own prejudices.
”
I don't know about BB, but there is a certain irony in your comment about being "blind to your own prejudices".
Also, calling someone a troll may be an incorrect assumption but it is not abuse as such, and I don't recall anyone saying they oppose your right to free speech. Criticising what you say is not the same as trying to stop you saying it.
Originally Posted by scottie2121:
“Actually the latest law was passed in 2010 and has been used successfully. However that does not mean that minority groups and individuals are no longer discriminated against.
.”
“Actually the latest law was passed in 2010 and has been used successfully. However that does not mean that minority groups and individuals are no longer discriminated against.
.”
The 2010 Equality Act and further amended in 2011 was passed as you say. However, it is still widely ignored, especially by smaller employers and even some large public bodies. Being disabled myself I can attest that this is the case.
Originally Posted by jjwales:
“I don't know about BB, but there is a certain irony in your comment about being "blind to your own prejudices".
Also, calling someone a troll may be an incorrect assumption but it is not abuse as such, and I don't recall anyone saying they oppose your right to free speech. Criticising what you say is not the same as trying to stop you saying it.”
“I don't know about BB, but there is a certain irony in your comment about being "blind to your own prejudices".
Also, calling someone a troll may be an incorrect assumption but it is not abuse as such, and I don't recall anyone saying they oppose your right to free speech. Criticising what you say is not the same as trying to stop you saying it.”
Perhaps you should read back to a number of replies I have received. I'm not even aware that I have stated at any point that I agree with RH and the conclusions he draws about ice cream. I do however defend his right to say it, especially given it was nothing other than a staged tongue in cheek joke.
Quite a number of people appear to no longer have the ability to either smile or tolerate anyone that doesn't agree with their own point of view.
Originally Posted by Faust:
“The 2010 Equality Act and further amended in 2011 was passed as you say. However, it is still widely ignored, especially by smaller employers and even some large public bodies. Being disabled myself I can attest that this is the case.”
“The 2010 Equality Act and further amended in 2011 was passed as you say. However, it is still widely ignored, especially by smaller employers and even some large public bodies. Being disabled myself I can attest that this is the case.”
You're not doing very well. The EqA 2010 was not amended in 2011 as far as I am aware. But I assume you can provide a link to show the details of the 2011 amendment(s).
Some employers may ignore their duties and obligations however the problem is in people being able to take action against their employer. The legislation is good, it's access to funding to take legal action that can present difficulties.
And finally, you're still avoiding the question that I've posed several times. Why?
Originally Posted by Faust:
“Perhaps you should read back to a number of replies I have received.”
“Perhaps you should read back to a number of replies I have received.”
But has anyone actually questioned your right to free speech?
That's the way it usually works with 'Free Speech'. People want their Freedom of Speech, but they're not so keen on Freedom of Speech when it comes to people telling them what they're saying is incredibly ignorant or ridiculous.
A bit like those who spout whatever stupid bigoted bollocks they want, and then cry 'religious persecution' because they've been told they're a load of ***** for saying it.
Cake and eating it too springs to mind.
A bit like those who spout whatever stupid bigoted bollocks they want, and then cry 'religious persecution' because they've been told they're a load of ***** for saying it.
Cake and eating it too springs to mind.
Originally Posted by Dub2:
“I always thought Hammond was a self hating closet gay...”
“I always thought Hammond was a self hating closet gay...”
There's rumours of a Wall's Viennetta in his hotel room when filming on location and the crew reckon he visited a street that sells gelato when he was in Italy. Just rumours mind.
Originally Posted by noodkleopatra:
“That's the way it usually works with 'Free Speech'. People want their Freedom of Speech, but they're not so keen on Freedom of Speech when it comes to people telling them what they're saying is incredibly ignorant or ridiculous.
A bit like those who spout whatever stupid bigoted bollocks they want, and then cry 'religious persecution' because they've been told they're a load of ***** for saying it.
Cake and eating it too springs to mind.”
“That's the way it usually works with 'Free Speech'. People want their Freedom of Speech, but they're not so keen on Freedom of Speech when it comes to people telling them what they're saying is incredibly ignorant or ridiculous.
A bit like those who spout whatever stupid bigoted bollocks they want, and then cry 'religious persecution' because they've been told they're a load of ***** for saying it.
Cake and eating it too springs to mind.”
You obviously don't see the irony in your reply, oh well ho hum!
Originally Posted by Faust:
“Sweet7 - the thing is, discrimination against a whole host of people and behaviours in society (and that's any society) is widespread. Some of it is overt some not so much, quite often people don't even realise that what they say and do is discriminatory.
Disabled people have it really bad at times. Taxis will often drive past a disabled person because they don't want the hassle of dealing with them. They often can't access restaurants, they face discrimination in the work place and then there are people who actually shout abuse at them.
Laws were passed years ago to sort out these issues and yet they are rarely enforced. Homeless people are another section of society that are badly abused. To be honest the list is almost endless.
However, most of these groups rarely complain and go about their lives with great stoicism. For some reason though the gay community think they are a special case above all others and always appear to make the most noise when the feel slighted in any way - why is that?”
“Sweet7 - the thing is, discrimination against a whole host of people and behaviours in society (and that's any society) is widespread. Some of it is overt some not so much, quite often people don't even realise that what they say and do is discriminatory.
Disabled people have it really bad at times. Taxis will often drive past a disabled person because they don't want the hassle of dealing with them. They often can't access restaurants, they face discrimination in the work place and then there are people who actually shout abuse at them.
Laws were passed years ago to sort out these issues and yet they are rarely enforced. Homeless people are another section of society that are badly abused. To be honest the list is almost endless.
However, most of these groups rarely complain and go about their lives with great stoicism. For some reason though the gay community think they are a special case above all others and always appear to make the most noise when the feel slighted in any way - why is that?”
Surely the point is that ideally people wouldn't have to put up with this discrimination.
In an ideal world, nobody should have to be stoical about discrimination.
You're dead right about the fact that there are other groups discriminated against. Some of them aren't able to stick up for themselves, and have to rely on others to fight their cause.
People in the GLBT community don't think they're a special case - they're just defending their rights the way anyone would given the ability.
Originally Posted by scottie2121:
“You're not doing very well. The EqA 2010 was not amended in 2011 as far as I am aware. But I assume you can provide a link to show the details of the 2011 amendment(s).
Some employers may ignore their duties and obligations however the problem is in people being able to take action against their employer. The legislation is good, it's access to funding to take legal action that can present difficulties.
And finally, you're still avoiding the question that I've posed several times. Why?”
“You're not doing very well. The EqA 2010 was not amended in 2011 as far as I am aware. But I assume you can provide a link to show the details of the 2011 amendment(s).
Some employers may ignore their duties and obligations however the problem is in people being able to take action against their employer. The legislation is good, it's access to funding to take legal action that can present difficulties.
And finally, you're still avoiding the question that I've posed several times. Why?”
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2011/9780111512951
I really wouldn't try to teach your grandmother to suck eggs with regard to the EQA. I can quote passages almost verbatim as it was something I had involvement with prior to my retirement.
It does in fact get updates as and when it is affected by other legislation.
Originally Posted by Faust:
“You obviously don't see the irony in your reply, oh well ho hum!”
“You obviously don't see the irony in your reply, oh well ho hum!
”
I can't see the irony either. Could you explain where it is?
19 of 21
