Jeremy Clarkson dropped from Top Gear

Scroll to see replies

Your nonsense and lies aren't working any more.

That's you're or you are, not your.

it's sad how desperate you are try and paint me, a first generation non-white immigrant into the UK

Which makes your confused appeals to some kind of historical English golden age of free speech as part of your patrimony sound even more dishonest, given it never existed and your forebears weren't even part of it if it had.

It's clear you have some kind of chip on your shoulder and something to prove. You desperately need to show that you're not "one of those immigrants", you're "one of us". Except that you have gone way overboard by trying to be "more English than the English", and it's just coming across as puerile. It's insulting to both the English, and to the immigrants who come here to become part of our society (and do so largely successfully)

Reply 101

young_guns

Original post by 41b

Ok. Enjoy your cultural relativism

If you are going to use words and terms, you should at least know their meaning otherwise you end up looking the fool

Reply 102

41b

Original post by TornadoGR4

I expect a bidding war to break out between various TV Channels (most likely ITV & Sky, maybe even Channel 4) for Clarkson as well as Hammond & May. The thinsg that I think will play on Clarkson's mind when these discussions open is global audience, freeview & adverts. No one likes adverts.

May has said that they come as a package, so it's certain him and Hammond won't be renewing their contracts with the BBC.

I question how much Clarkson will want to come back though. As much as he loves the show, he's probably getting tired of it and might want a break. He's spent years working on it - he probably wants to enjoy his money.

Reply 103

Daenerys...

Original post by democracyforum

If he just sexually abused children,

he might have kept his job !

STFU

Reply 104

Fullofsurprises

This is outrageous. Clarkson is the greatest man who has ever lived, bar none. His genius is literally without compare and all those little jokes about 'slopes' and Mexican food prove it, far beyond the capacity of left wing morons to perceive. Why, Clarkson is like a beacon to the nation and all of us white old blokes who shout a lot in the street really, really worship him. I mean, heck, if the guy wants to go round breaking heads or swearing a lot, or demanding hotels be specially opened just for him, or throwing wobblies because he didn't get the fried bread in time, well, then quite right!

It also cannot be right that a man as inestimably marvellous as Professor Clarkson MBE should be forced to eat in mere restaurants with ordinary persons! Surely he should be served the sweetmeats of his desires on a golden tray.

Lord Clarkson is a role model, a citizen we can all love and trust and it is an honour for minor persons such as the Prime Minister to be condescended to by Sir Jeremy into his circle of 'friends'. I assume blows have been exchanged and why not? Cammie is such a snivelling little toad compared to Pope Jeremy. It really is beholden on world leaders to do as they are told by the man who knows his cars!

Also, few men are as good at breaking up bridges, driving into stuff, getting other people stuck in rivers and driving away or generally being a perfect ****.

I comment this marvel of a man to the house and demand that the head of the Director General, Tony Nobody, be brought to the Fuhrer, Herr Clarkson, forthwith.

Long live UKIP who paid for this ad.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 105

41b

Original post by Fullofsurprises

This is the first one of your posts that have ever been accurate.

I am glad you are learning and improving from TSR. I am glad my little telling-offs have taught you something. :kissing2:

Clarkson for King. :smile:

Reply 106

yo radical one

He is an utter tosspot

His entire persona is just designed to appeal to lower middle class, middle aged White men who think that Nigel Farage is literally god, who believe that this country went downhill as soon as we abandoned the gold standard.

Reply 107

41b

Original post by young_guns

That's you're or you are, not your.

Which makes your confused appeals to some kind of historical English golden age of free speech as part of your patrimony sound even more dishonest, given it never existed and your forebears weren't even part of it if it had.

It's clear you have some kind of chip on your shoulder and something to prove. You desperately need to show that you're not "one of those immigrants", you're "one of us". Except that you have gone way overboard by trying to be "more English than the English", and it's just coming across as puerile. It's insulting to both the English, and to the immigrants who come here to become part of our society (and do so largely successfully)

I don't care about being English. I like England, though. Even love it a little. And because I love it, I don't try to change it. So I guess wanting to see it preserved puts me in the group of "far right" "racist" "white nationalist" "lunatic" "sexist misogynist" "imperialist" "eurocentric" "orientalist" "unreconstructed thatcherite" scum that comprise the majority of this country.

As I said, that book is quite interesting. However superior your intelligence might be to mine, even a being as great as you wouldn't lose out by expanding his knowledge. Here is the link again.

Cheers. :smile:

Reply 108

ilem

Seems fair. Someone who wants to keep their job probably shouldn't physically attack and berate coworkers.

Reply 109

the bear

Clarkson is a knob.... but he is our knob....

Reply 110

yo radical one

Original post by 41b

You seem so emotionally invested in this guy, this is like watching grown men cry when their football team loses

Reply 111

JaimeEdwards

He deserved it. For him to treat that guy like that is disgusting. No one cares if he's your favourite presenter, he has to be treated like everyone else.

Reply 112

41b

Original post by yo radical one

You seem so emotionally invested in this guy, this is like watching grown men cry when their football team loses

Yeah. You don't understand that? It's a core part of being a Man.

Having said that, Clarkson hasn't lost. He just hasn't won, yet. For now, he's just defeated the BBC. :biggrin:

Reply 113

Birkenhead

Original post by 41b

Nah. You don't. Clarkson is, in most ways, the little that remains of the Britain that most people are which the establishment dare not allow to be publicly acknowledged.S

So if you don't like Clarkson, you're the enemy within. You should leave and go to somewhere that caters to your ideological preferences. Sweden, North Korea, and Cuba are good places to consider.

Don't want you wailing about how wacist! I am.

You sound absolutely wasted mate.

Reply 114

e aí rapaz

Original post by Fullofsurprises

PRSOM

Reply 115

The Shed End

As much as I love Top Gear, part of me wishes the guy who sacked him said "And on that bombshell" at the end of the meeting.

Reply 116

blue n white army

Gutted the show is over.

Given that oisin tymon has said that up until now they had experienced a positive and successful relationship (i.e. it's not continued bullying), tymon didn't file a complaint and said he would continue working with him if he attended anger management. Surely, with all this in mind, they could have come to an alternative arrangement which didn't result in effectively cancelling the show.

This decision has punished pretty much everyone but clarkson. The fans of the show lose the show they love, oisin tymon is no longer a producer on the most successfully BBC programme (instead he is a producer on a show which is at best doomed to mediocrity), further more he will be the victim of vicious trolling and have a damaged reputation for years (wrongly). The BBC lose out on about 4million viewers and £50,000,000 a year.
Jeremy Clarkson however, will take a few months out, relax and then get a massive payrise with another channel

Reply 117

young_guns

Original post by 41b

As I said, that book is quite interesting. However superior your intelligence might be to mine, even a being as great as you wouldn't lose out by expanding his knowledge. Here is the link again.

Ahh, you were taken in by that book were you? It's rubbish. Partisan pop psychology at best, a disingenuous intellectual reacharound for conservatives at worst. It's designed to make you feel good about yourself.

But since you are so keen on tradition, let's get back to the free speech issue. Traditionally, speech has not been free in this country. This is a passage from a law passed in the Tudor period;

For as much as diverse and sundry malicious and evil-disposed persons have maliciously, seditiously, rebelliously and unnaturally, and contrary to the duty of their fidelities and allegiences, have now of late not only imagined, invented, practised, spoken and spread abroad diverse and sundry false seditious and slanderous news, rumours, sayings and tales against our most dread sovereign Lord and King, and against our most natural sovereign Lady and Queen, and against either of them against whom we are forbidden to think evil and much more speak evil, which offence sounds and is well to the great dishonour, reproach and slander of their most excellent majesties, and also to the great slander of this realm and their other dominions, but also have devised, made, written, published and set forth diverse heinous, seditious and slanderous writings, rhymes, ballads, letters, papers and books, intending and practising thereby to move and stir sedition, discord, dissension and rebellion within this realm, to the great peril and danger of the same

Be it enacted by authority of this present parliament assembled, if any person or persons after the XXth day of February next ensuing, and after open proclamation of this act, shall maliciously of his or their imagination speak any false seditious and slanderous news, rumours, sayings or tales of our said sovereign Lord and King or naturall sovereign Lady and Queen, every person so offending for his first offence in some market place where the said words were so spoken, shall be set openly on the pillory by the sheriff and there to have both his ears cut off, and if he does not pay one hundred pounds to the King and Queen's highness within one month next after judgment for said offence, he shall suffer imprisonment by the space of three months after such his or their execution

That's your English tradition of unqualified free speech. You are harking back to a time that never existed. And personally, I think it's an insult to tradition if you are asserting traditions and histories that never existed

There was certainly a tradition of free inquiry and open debate in the English society of letters and newspapers, but it was never unqualified by other obligations and enactments.

Original post by Birkenhead

A perfectly justified response, and probably much overdue.

My lord, I just wanted to copy you into this comment as I thought you're of the intellectual disposition such that you might enjoy this Tudor statute (c.3 1&2 Phil&Mar). I had to type it in word for word from an image of the law report page as there is no searchable text as far as I know