Jeremy Clarkson: strikers should be 'shot' - what a disgusting ******* Watch

Llamageddon
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#361
Report 6 years ago
#361
(Original post by dzeh)
Oh an ignorant.

Sure, us private sector workers would have to pay £600 a month to get a pension that the teachers are on.

How much do they pay? A measly £120

Happy?
They top out at like £30k a year though. I think there are a lot of managerial roles that aren't justified and there's a generally ****e attitude in parts of the public sector, but to complain about total remuneration that teachers receive is to frankly neglect that they are university educated, work very long hours and for the most part don't earn anywhere near as much as practically anybody else with comparable levels of education, hours and stress.
0
quote
reply
bestofyou
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#362
Report 6 years ago
#362
(Original post by AntiMonarchist)
Exactly, public sector workers are sub standard and mediocre, therefore not deserving of high wages
you know what, I couldn't give a **** about this, it's a stupid arguement, this thread is riddled in trolls such as yourself.

Have a nice day...
0
quote
reply
419
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#363
Report 6 years ago
#363
Well Tram Experience has been forgotten about.
0
quote
reply
Democracy
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#364
Report 6 years ago
#364
(Original post by yawn)
Too many posts to trawl through. Just want to point out that, in addition to being so offensive to the strikers, he was also offensive to those who could see no way out of their torment other than by committing suicide. He expressed anger that his train journeys had been disrupted in the past by hold-ups because someone had thrown themselves off a platform. He maintained that the trains should just continue their journey over the dead body of the rails since they were dead anyway.

Now he may think he's very witty...I think he's a crass r's hole of the very lowest order of humanity, who should most definitely be sacked and never allowed to work wherever he is able to have a public voice.
If there is a god up there, he should definitely bless you Yawn. Best wishes as always.
1
quote
reply
Prince Rhyus
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#365
Report 6 years ago
#365
Via http://www.urban75.net/forums/thread...#post-10694394

"I'm sure this has already been covered, but we have a ******** here with previous who has come out with comments on live TV about executing people, a bloke who has been quoted and praised in the manifesto of a recent executer/murderer of over 70 kids, a bloke who himself has a licence for shotguns and who has been defended for his comments by the leader of the current government, the same government that recently sent down 2 kids for 4 years for their Facebook joke, and the same government who are behind the arms sales and support of regimes currently executing their own people.

tbh, It all leaves a nasty taste in my mouth."


Agree/disagree?
1
quote
reply
Snagprophet
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#366
Report 6 years ago
#366
(Original post by Craig_D)
The importance of context.

"I think they (the strikes) have been fantastic. Absolutely. London today has just been empty. Everybody stayed at home, you can whizz about, restaurants are empty, it's also like being back in the 70s. It makes me feel at home somehow. But we have to balance this though, because this is the BBC. Frankly, I'd have them all shot. I would take them outside and execute them in front of their families. I mean, how dare they go on strike when they have these gilt-edged pensions that are going to be guaranteed while the rest of us have to work for a living?" "They're not (Clarkson's own views). I've just given two views for you."

Like Clarkson or not, I seriously cannot see how anyone could take the execution bit seriously, yet somehow ignore all the first bit. I notice that on every news site where the comments are posted, the bit I have bolded is omitted entirely, and the context is gone. Clearly intentional. How on earth could nearly 5,000 people find this worth complaining about, and the whole consideration of police involvement? What insanity.
Exactly. They've just picked and chosen snippets of what he said. He's taking the piss out of the BBC's impartiality. Even the change of tone into a rant must have been a clue. People are so stupid these days.
0
quote
reply
Chimaira
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#367
Report 6 years ago
#367
i lol'd.
0
quote
reply
Schmucks
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#368
Report 6 years ago
#368
What I can't understand is that Clarkson himself was discussing the problems of PC and how he has to dodge certain comments not long ago - The One Show is pretty keen to let it's guests know what they're going to be quizzed on and in certain cases specific questions, so it's not as if Clarkson won't have had any insight into what he was about to do. Even in the moment of spontaneous questioning, how he processed that as a sensible thing to do after acknowledging the issues surrounding PC and even the strikes itself is beyond me.

It's not as if his comments were even witty, groundbreaking, thought-provoking or even admirably brave. They were just poorly structured and poorly delivered. He's dug his own hole in this one, and frankly I couldn't care what happens to him.
0
quote
reply
ForKicks
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#369
Report 6 years ago
#369
(Original post by Schmucks)
What I can't understand is that Clarkson himself was discussing the problems of PC and how he has to dodge certain comments not long ago - The One Show is pretty keen to let it's guests know what they're going to be quizzed on and in certain cases specific questions, so it's not as if Clarkson won't have had any insight into what he was about to do. Even in the moment of spontaneous questioning, how he processed that as a sensible thing to do after acknowledging the issues surrounding PC and even the strikes itself is beyond me.

It's not as if his comments were even witty, groundbreaking, thought-provoking or even admirably brave. They were just poorly structured and poorly delivered. He's dug his own hole in this one, and frankly I couldn't care what happens to him.
Clarkson thrives off anti-PC behaviour, it puts him in the news every now and then. If you have read any of his books, he makes a living off this in a same way Jordan makes a living off marriage etc
0
quote
reply
Schmucks
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#370
Report 6 years ago
#370
(Original post by ForKicks)
Clarkson thrives off anti-PC behaviour, it puts him in the news every now and then. If you have read any of his books, he makes a living off this in a same way Jordan makes a living off marriage etc
He's a supposedly intelligent bloke, though, who has put his entire career under incredible scrutiny for the sake of one comment which any man with any sense could've predicted such hysteria. After commenting himself on the need to cut back for the sake of himself, it's just plain idiotic to come out with this.

There's attacking PC, and then there's over-stepping the mark. It was clear this was going to over-step it.
0
quote
reply
Notnek
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#371
Report 6 years ago
#371
There's too many posts in this thread to read but it seems like the a lot of people think that Clarkson should be sacked. Can one of those people who's watched the WHOLE interview please tell me what the problem is considering it was a joke about the BBCs impartiality? Thanks.
Last edited by Notnek; 6 years ago
1
quote
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#372
Report 6 years ago
#372
(Original post by Schmucks)
He's a supposedly intelligent bloke, though, who has put his entire career under incredible scrutiny for the sake of one comment which any man with any sense could've predicted such hysteria. After commenting himself on the need to cut back for the sake of himself, it's just plain idiotic to come out with this.

There's attacking PC, and then there's over-stepping the mark. It was clear this was going to over-step it.
Rubbish, I think it's perfectly reasonable. I heard several remarks from people, jokingly discussing rounding them up and tossing them in the gulag. I didn't bat an eyelid. It's not remotely offensive, so far as I can see.

I think there's a massive double-standard coming into play here. Firstly, it was on the One Show - hardly the home of edgy humour - which I think played a massive part in how it was received. Secondly, it's Clarkson, and I think the trade unions et al wanted to put the boot in without considering how stupid it'd make them seem. Thirdly, he's right wing - somehow I suspect left-wingers would get away with far worse when it came to Lib Dems, Tories, Countryside Alliance hunt supporters or indeed the staff of the Daily Mail.
1
quote
reply
A Perfect Circle
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#373
Report 6 years ago
#373
Obviously a joke and the people who don't realise that are morons.

However, the people who thought it was hilarious and are now jumping around trying to defend Clarkson's idiotic remarks (I like to call them the "PC Gone Mad" screamers) aren't exactly the brightest bunch either.

To me, it was an obvious joke. Just not a very intelligent one. But I suppose if you need to make money, you need to appeal to the masses. And the masses are most definitely stupid.
Last edited by A Perfect Circle; 6 years ago
0
quote
reply
bj_945
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#374
Report 6 years ago
#374
(Original post by AntiMonarchist)
If you watch the whole interview you'll see that the only reason he mentioned shooting strikers was to jokingly maintain his BBC impartiality pledge. He previously said that the strikes were great and should happen more often as you can drive around London with no traffic jams.
I realise. He was taking the piss out of the BBC policy itself. He does it all the time. He uses his BBC position as a position for his political views, including his critical views of the BBC itself. I just don't agree that he should be able to do that on license fee money on an impartial channel.
0
quote
reply
michael321
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#375
Report 6 years ago
#375
(Original post by L i b)
Thirdly, he's right wing - somehow I suspect left-wingers would get away with far worse when it came to Lib Dems, Tories, Countryside Alliance hunt supporters or indeed the staff of the Daily Mail.
Well exactly. Wasn't Ed Miliband pictured a while ago posing with someone wearing a "dance on Thatcher's grave" T-shirt?
0
quote
reply
kingme
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#376
Report 6 years ago
#376
wednesday's one show not on iplayer...
0
quote
reply
michael321
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#377
Report 6 years ago
#377
(Original post by bj_945)
BBC employees do not have to be politically neutral. They should, however, have to be publicly impartial.

I disagree. When he begins talking about current affairs on Top Gear, he is presenting news on BBC. He should, therefore, be impartial, which he quite patently is not.
And what is the purpose of these rules? To ensure that news is presented from a balanced perspective with no subtle slant, and to ensure that license-fee payers from one side of the political spectrum don't have to fund an organisation which has declared for the other. The occasional bit of light-hearted political comment (especially if it's made sarcastically, as it was here) does not have to violate this underlying philosophy. When you're watching Clarkson, it's on a program which does not pretend to be a news program, and where the presenter's views are worn very much on his sleeve, and do not bias his reporting of the issue at hand (cars), so I don't see the problem.

I have no problem with him being entertaining, or objectionable within the confines of an entertainment programme. I do have a problem when the boundaries between entertainment and news/current affairs become blurred, as I believe they do on his show.

He's entitled to his opinions. And he's entitled to voice them in a personal context. But he should not express biased views like these in a public context.
They don't become blurred. It's a program about cars, and occasionally he comes out with some personal passing political remarks, which form part of the humour which makes so many enjoy his program. No-one could argue that that Top Gear is even slightly a political or current affairs news program. I'd guess that on average he makes maybe one political comment in some vein or another per episode; probably fewer.

And for goodness' sake, here's what Matt Baker said to him:
Well Jeremy, schools, hospitals, airports, even driving tests, have all been affected. Do you think the strikes have been a good idea?
If the BBC, which (I know this is a stab in the dark) is, I'm guessing, probably fairly committed to following its own procedures and doctrine on impartiality, asked him this, don't you think the question, and expected slanted response, is probably OK according to the organisation's rules?

What would you have had him say? Perhaps, "well Matt, that's a good question. Some would agree with the strikers, but some wouldn't. Personally, I think it's not for me to say - viewers can make up their own minds." That would have made for good telly...

Why? When discussing current affairs in the same organisation, he should be subject to the exact same rules. By those rules, he should have been fired long ago.
Because he isn't there in his capacity as a BBC employee. The BBC has no power to constrain its employees from being non-partisan and non-controversial when they are not at work. Possibly this is stipulated as a condition of some newsreaders' contracts, but I highly doubt it's part of Clarkson's, and you'd be hard-pressed to prove it.
0
quote
reply
L18
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#378
Report 6 years ago
#378
(Original post by A Mysterious Lord)
Right, I tweeted this earlier:

"We live in a free country, Jeremy Clarkson can say what the hell he wants - if you don't like it, don't listen, stop complaining #OneShow"
That's not really the point though is it. I pay my BBC license fee so people like him can get paid massive sums of money to say something 'controversial' to promote his new book. I have every right to complain If i want too, as I'm effectiely paying for him to appear on the show.

fwiw though...It was obviously a joke which you'd realise if you listened to the 20 seconds of the interview prior where he praises the strikes and then says the BBC eneds to offer 'balance'. I just don't agree with the 'if you don't like it, tough' attitude.
Last edited by L18; 6 years ago
1
quote
reply
W-Three
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#379
Report 6 years ago
#379
(Original post by L18)
That's not really the point though is it. I pay my BBC license fee so people like him can get paid 6 figure sums to say something 'controversial' to promote his new book. I have every right to complain If i want too, as I'm effectiely paying for him to appear on the show.

fwiw though...It was obviously a joke which you'd realise if you listened to the 20 seconds of the interview prior where he praises the strikes and then says the BBC eneds to offer 'balance'. I just don't agree with the 'if you don't like it, tough' attitude.
Exactly, completely agree.



People can complain about Clarkson as much as they want. I think the joke wasn't that great, and with Clarkson's history was bound to be taken out of context. But thats the main problem, it was taken out of context.

If Clarkson gets fired, it shouldn't be for this though.
0
quote
reply
*languagelover*
Badges: 0
#380
Report 6 years ago
#380
I'm glad the entire world hasn't gone completely mad and there are indeed people on here who get that it was a joke...an un-PC joke but fundamentally a JOKE.

I find Jeremy Clarkson, I'm sorry, extremely funny - this was perhaps a bit too far but at the same time it was nowhere near on the targeted, malicious, vindicative, quite frankly EVIL scale of Frankie Boyle and his HORRIBLE personally-targeted jibe at Rebecca Adlington's personal appearance (for which quite frankly HE should have been taken out at dawn and shot - I'd have done it for her, what a nasty guy).

Clarkson was making a clearly ironic statement - and to be honest the country was snarled up for the day. If he didn't feel he was in agreement with the whole thing why in this country was he implicitly obliged to be all PC and agree with the cause.
I get the argument that he is a "public worker" (technically) himself, though earning a rather fine wage.

For that reason I agree he shouldn't have said it in PUBLIC, on air. That was his mistake. The comment was not that bad, it's just it was not the appropriate situation to air it.

I myself am not in the UK this year so didn't experience the chaos but people who I have been speaking too at home have been voicing, dare I say,...similar or worse things??!

Also I wonder if it is just a South East thing but seriously isn't the phrase about "taking someone out at dawn etc." just quite a normal, run-of-the-mill phrase. I put my hands up to this one I say it TONS myself (in private though!) something like "URRRGH honestly, what a muppet, if I had my way he/she should be taken out at dawn and shot/put out of their misery" about some nitwit I'm working with who's made some stupid stupid error thus causing me tons of work to make up for their mistakes....???

I just think everyone needs to chill a bit. If people are this sensitive then really what is the world coming to?

Besides.... he's just one, grumpy old man? Why does he say actually matter?!
Last edited by *languagelover*; 6 years ago
0
quote
reply
X

Reply to thread

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Who is most responsible for your success at university

Mostly me (727)
90.88%
Mostly my university including my lecturers/tutors (73)
9.13%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed