Comments
Dear Winston- I think many of the posters here ARE aware of Clarksons 'reasons' for his regular outbursts- however there is a MORE important issue to address, that of his ability to offend women, workers and anything left. The consequences of his tirades poisons the attitudes of many gullible people.
You only need check out Clarkson on TV or in his books to know it is his "thing" to be
contentious. He upsets people but he gets a
reaction. And let's be honest...how many of us
inconvenienced - often considerably - by others
exercising this or that "right" - haven't muttered quietly the words spouted on air by the big "C" in mischievous malcontent mode?
To the moaners and groaners - get a life and
look up the word "hyperbole".
Methinks you doth protest too much!
Finally - if it's any comfort, an 89 year old
relation doesn't like him either!!
Dear all. I think you have all missed the point here. Yes to free speach and all that. But the millionaire Jeremy Clarkson is not an idiot. He has created a phenominally successful on-screen persona which I hate (Mainly for its anti cycling tirades. He has to keep it in the media's eye by continually fuelling the fires with these controversial statememts. Popular - sadly, yes, Pathetic - certainly.
that little shit Clarkson is the typical bully- he attacks women and workers but would not be allowed to attack people based on their ethnicity- because both the BBC and Clarkson would be too scared of the consequences. This 'offer' by Nursing professionals while at first seeming a 'jolly good way' to put him straight, would, alas be turned into yet another 26 part doc-drama on BBC3.
...PS there has been a ton of horse-shit written and spoken re this issue, most of it declaring the above misnomer 'his ''right'' to be able to say it in this country' what then are the laws on liable and slander for?
There's a discussion thread started by Peter running in tandem on this.
Anthony and I seem to have reached similar conclusions about the probable reasons for Clarkson's 'apology' without reading each other's post.
Of course Clarkson has a right to air his opinions - uninformed as they are. What he said though surely says more about himself than the issue in question. His remarks attack a sector of society - and a fairly substantial one at that - trade union members. If he had made the same remarks about other sections of society - say women, Muslims or gays would you still be so supportive?
As Stella suggests, it is easy to insult and deride from a position of relative safety and privilege; would he have been so confident in saying what he did at say a TUC conference where there was the right of reply?
From my standpoint there are several million public sector workers who are sick of being the Tory party's whipping boys. The issue has nothing to do with money, the pension scheme is affordable as it stands. Make no mistake, this is about political ambition and Conservative plans to dismantle the larger part of state provision of services, to be handed on a plate to the private sector. The motive? The great God "profit." And look where that's landed us . . .
Clarkson says it was meant as a joke, which says rather a lot about his comedic talents. Come to think of it what talents does he have?
Yes I did find it offensive, and yes, maybe he does have the right to say it. He didn't have to apologise, no one ever does if they don't feel like it - the reason he did I suspect, was to protect his future employment and earning capacity - which is precisely what striking public sector workers were doing. Or is that just a cruel (but rather satisfying) irony?
Regards,
A.E.
<Deleted User> (6895)
Thu 1st Dec 2011 23:57
ps-correction,
the Three Stooges were funny.
<Deleted User> (6895)
Thu 1st Dec 2011 23:56
ditto Stella
Clarkson,Hammond,Ross-
the new Three Stooges-yuk!
<Deleted User> (6315)
Thu 1st Dec 2011 22:15
unfortunately not all of us can use prime time television to air our opinions...unfortunatley some have to do something else like..lets see..oh yes strike...and not be undermined by some toss pot who spends last boxing day with the PM..come on Peter..if you are priviledged enough to be on prime time telly surely you should not say I would have them executed in front of their families?..We have enough Wankers in this country without one of them demeaning our rights to protest??....Offended?..jeez Peter Clarkson is unbelievable..totally uneeded and he also said that he didn't know anyone who took strike action, so what does that tell you?..Freedom of speech is one thing abusing it is another..which is what that man did! Pleased I have replied to this..feel better now..
I'm glad that's off my chest...
If you wish to post a comment you must login.
Harry O'Neill
Sat 3rd Dec 2011 15:54
Scuttled away Clarkson is beneath contempt.
Two of my teacher daughters phoned me from theplateau to tell me they were following family tradition.
The strike is because of the curtailment of financial provision in retirement at a time when private pension provision is in a parlous, expensive, and untrustworthy state
This can only mean that almost all future pension provision will be in the hands of the goverment. (apart from a rich few)
This at a time when the `euro` countries at the core of the E.U. are about to form a tighter, fiscal, unity under Germany and France. I can`t see any way that Cameron (from the outside) can avoid being economically dictated to by this core (very much including pensions)
It`s very timely that the public sector workers should put a warning shot acros thebows of the government.Economically, `We aint seen nutin` yet.