Entertainment For Lively Minds
Jeremy Clarkson
Posted by badartdog on 1 December 2011 - 8:59pm.
- are we ignoring him or am I looking in the wrong places?
- More from badartdog.
- Login or register to post comments
-
User login
Recently Updated
Hot Topics - Last 7 Days
Hot Topics - Last 4 Weeks
The Sites We Like
- And Another Thing
- Another Nickel In The Machine
- Crying All The Way To The Chip Shop
- Freaky Trigger
- Fula Fula Ord
- The Ghosts Of Electricity
- Guardian Music Blog
- Idolator
- I Love Music
- The Lefsetz Letter
- McSweeney's
- Mixmag
- My Band T-shirt
- No Rock And Roll Fun
- Paul Du Noyer
- Planet Mondo
- Popjustice
- Pretty Goes With Pretty
- Tales Of The City
- The Arts Desk
- The Rising Storm
- The Rocking Vicar
- Scarlet Mist
- WFMU Blog
The song remains the same...
Mr C says something outrageous, the BBC gets thousands of complaints, then apologises.
I think this latest comment was more in the Alf Garnett mould, of pointing out the ludicrous extremes of opinion. Nothing to get flustered about.
Not much of an apology
and a pathetic attempt to make out it was done to "balance" his earlier comments ?
What, the "I love the strikes, the roads are empty, it's like the 70's all over again I feel right at home".
Only a complete arse could imagine those were comments of support for the strike - and that waste of space Clarkson knows it as well as anyone.
I wish someone would shoot him. Yeah - that is just a joke - funny, isn't it ? Look at me, I'm a satirist too.
Ignore
He's an idiot. This is just the latest stupid thing he's come out with. See: cyclists should be killed, etc.
agreed
when I read about this in the Standard tonight the word "loudmouthed twat" sprung to mind. why is this bloke popular? He's right up there with Jonathan Ross as one of the great BBC wankers of our time.
Great BBC wankers of our time...
I feel a new thread coming on.
It makes me think
that there must be good money in being a professional buffoon.
Boris Johnson
Has made a career out of it.
Though it didn't work out so well for...
...Gaddaffi.
I'm more surprised that he has apologised
rather than he said something really offensive. When he talks of cars there are few better. (Almost) Everything else he talks about he is a cock.
Sadly we're probably helping his cause.
Don't forget it's Christmas and he's got a book out, he's just reminding the kind of knuckle draggers who subscribe to this shit, that there's a book full to be had.
No friend of his
Having watched/heard the clip several times over the course of the day, there is one moment that made me splutter with laughter. Just look for the expression on Bozo's face when he is asked if he knows anyone who has been on strike. In all his spluttering he fails to answer the question, then states that of course he knows nobody who would work in Public Service. That's right, Bozo would not associate with anyone who would work in the service of others, and is offended that anyone would think he might. Surely all reasonable people are only out for what they can get, just look at his mates!
Clarkson is world famous for his balanced,
finely judged, under-stated and thoughtful opinions. My question is: what else did the programme expect when they booked him and asked him the questions? Clarkson was - entirely predictably - just Clarkson. The programme editors should be fired for being so stupid as to invite him on the show and ask him precisely the sort of question he is guaranteed to cause upset with.
Tom Sharpe
"What do you expect from a pig but a grunt"?
He has many fans here though who will doubtless pile in with the "you sanctimonious tossers" perspective. Fair enough. Horses/courses etc.
It has all been blown out of proportion
A throwaway comment on a puff piece BBC magazine show with a well known opinionated person. He was wrong to say it but he did.
The threat of legal action from the union is ridiculous. Can you now take legal action against someone who has a different opinion to you. FFS grow up!
This is the same Clarkson
who takes legal action when people point at him and say "that woman he's f*cking, that's not his wife you know".
I am not sure how those issues are linked.
Linked by the freedom of speech point you raised
Can you now take legal action against someone who has a different opinion to you. FFS grow up!
Just noting that Clarkson takes legal action when someone has a different opinion to himself. I.e. on whether his wife should find out about his affairs via the newspapers. He thinks not, and takes legal action. Freedom of speech ? FFS Clarkson grow up !
Fair point
On his actions.
The union one was pathetic though IMO.
Substitute
People of different colour for public servants and he'd be done for inciting racial hatred.
For it to be a joke it would have to contain some wit, it's just a big mouthed wank saying what his Tory chums would love to say
It's a lot more offensive than what Ross and Brand were canned for.
?
I am not a Clarkson apologiust
far from it. However should anyones spouse find out about an affair from the papers? I don't think so but plenty do. Different argument I think.
His comments were an attempt at a joke - unfortunately collectively this country has lost its sense of humour. Witness the outcry anytime anyone says something out of the norm of accepted thinking.
For whats its worth I am also annoyed and irritated by the striking public sector workers and I will attempt to explain why. This may be a simplistic view but since I don't have a degree in politics it is my own view not one passed down to me someone with a BA in worthless studies. Here goes: The public sector provides vital services that the country needs. Not in dispute.The public sector is a effectively a non-profit making body funding by the taxes both direct and indirect of the citizens of this country. As it stands these funds are insufficient to continue paying the high pensions and the premature retirement of many of the workers in the public sector. The only way to rectify this situation is to reduce the benefits or increse taxation to continue paying for them or more preferably get those who will benefit to pay a bigger contribution. So when they strike and potentially affect me and my family because they cannot get their guaranteed golden nest egg much earlier than I will get mine that has most likely cost me significantly more then yes they have pissed me off. It seems to me that they are railing against this loathsome Tory government but are displaying very anti-socialist arguments.
The funds *are* sufficient
The cost as a % of GDP is set to go down.
Lando
I don't know where you get that from, but it's clearly nonsense. Unless you can see into the future like no other economists out there can...
No I've seen that often and in many places
Its from the governments own Hutton report into pensions and Evan Davies challenged Francis Maude with the numbers on the Today Programme only this week
The population has grown enormously in recent years and lots of the new people are young and working immigrants of childbearing age.
In other words the number of people in work and paying taxes is still going up (or was until last May) - this means that the costs of public services as a percentage of GDP don't necessarily increase at all, even if the numbers go up. That's about affordability - percentages of income - and is entirely possible
It does rely on GDP though and GDP is:
a) Not a reliable measure to my mind - its all economic activity of the country not the money crossing and recrossing its virtual borders
b) Cut off at the knees anyway. Gideon is going to have to borrow vastly more money than Gordon Brown ever was - £110 billion more - because he's taken a chainsaw to public spending in such an uncontrolled way.
Giving the banks hundreds of billions - no problem chums fill your boots - trouble is it sits on a balance sheet.
The money spent through the public sector is spent in the UK economy on private services, food, bills.
The banks drove us over a cliff and now Gideon is jumping up and down on our fingers as we try and climb back
But
how can you say the funds are in place when we don't have enough money to run the country at the moment, part of which is paying the public service pension provision?
To say that the cost of pensions is set to go down as a percentage of GDP is ridiculous. There are so many variables that people don't know - how long people are going to live, how well the economy is going to do, how many extra public sector jobs the next Labour government is going to create, whether the Euro will survive, etc.
Maybe you should call the ONS and tell them.
IIRC, it's their model that Lando refers to.
Anyway, I think my main issue with hitting the public sector first and hardest is that the people who caused our current situation are still absolutely untouched by it.
Hammer the snake oil salesmen in the City, call their ridiculous "talent will flee overseas" bluff, THEN we can talk about the public sector.
Dont disagree with your sentiment
there Bob. However waiting for those bastards to be held accountable will be a very long time. Our whole way of life is predicated on us being financial gurus to the World. It's the difference between us an Germany - they place emphasis on investing in technology and innovation - we place emphasis on making a quick buck. Oh and selling our Crown Jewels to the highest foreign bidder.
The funds are in place - its not me that is saying it either
For some government schemes - not all - the funds ARE in place already e.g. NHS which my wife is in and is as I say lower down in surplus (and thereby a target for the City boys)
The percentage of GDP that the other schemes funded out of taxation will cost is predicted to fall, as a percentage of expenditure. Thats 1.9% to 1.4%. However non-intuitive this seems its because of the growing working population. and the predicted growth in GDP.
Annual cost £32 billion or to look at it another way 4 years bonuses for a few hundred senior management at the nationalised banks
I haven't just made this up, its been all over the news for a long time since Hutton came out, an official enquiry run under the current government. And that was a HUGE exercise not just a couple of civil servants, a banker and a retired trade unionist in a room for week.
I don't want to be rude to you by making assumptions about where you get your news from but you certainly won't hear it presented this way by the papers that took all that money from the financial services industry in advertising shit products.
I won't disagree that this is reliant on a number of predictions which may or may not hold up but its the same predictions the government uses to plan out all public services for decades to come.
At the moment these seem risky and as several public servants are on here have said they can see how a cautious renegotiation is justified. But that isn't what is going on and meantime the CoE is shovelling really colossal sums down the throats of the rich and his City backers.
I'm sorry for
being completely stupid, but I don't really get the funds argument.
You're saying there's a big ring-fenced pot of money sitting there to cover public sector pensions which was put there by the tax payer. Yet, the country is in debt to the tune of £900bn. Isn't that exactly the problem?
It strikes me it's a bit like a family saying "we've got enough to pay for Sky Sports for the next 12 months", yet failing to cover the mortgage?
There is a big ring-fenced pot of money to cover the NHS
and some other pension schemes like the judges.
They're run by boards of trustees and they aren't available to fund tax cuts or public spending - just like private sector pension schemes (but not so abysmally run).
Are you saying Gideon should just confiscate the lot because the people who paid into them used to be employed by the government?
Would it be alright if he did it to your pension pot?
No
I'm not saying that at all. What I am saying is that the fact that there is a big pot of money there seems totally irrelevant to any proposals to reform the schemes because funding them hasn't appeared to be particularly viable.
You say private pension schemes are abysmally run, but they don't have the same luxury of being able to borrow infinite amounts of money to fund them.
For goodness sake
Government pension schemes in surplus IN NO WAY benefit from implied government support - I have no idea what you can possibly mean by that. The money exists - its in a bank account - unless the value of the money is destroyed by inflation its there as an undeniable fact
There are two sorts of pensions arising out of working for the public sector.
1) Funded by the people in them, with contributions from the government as their employer - yes it originates from taxpayers but thats because these are jobs taxpayers want done. NHS, judges, there is a longer list. These schemes are in surplus. If you as Gideon sack every single employee you have cleared your obligations too as the scheme funds itself out of assets bought/controlled by the trustees. However if you TAKE all that money - which is what you suggest - its theft
2) Paid out of ongoing taxation - as far as I know the local government scheme is the biggest in this category. I make no claims for probity in relation to local government - it varies a GREAT deal. And its a classic example of why things should be like 1)
Private pension schemes in the UK are abysmally run - our financial services industry is shockingly greedy and inept - notoriously poor at investing and charging very high fees - this is the opinion of the industry regulator.
My own more severe opinion is that the very high annual fees - on your pension - are then spent on drugs hookers and Porsches but that's because I worked in the City for a while.
1% a year is typical on a pension scheme and its an amazing private tax - in the words of Lord Turner of the FSA - on economic activity.
Blimey
You seem to be on a totally different wavelength to me. At no point have I suggested that the pension pot should be raided yet you keep going on as though I did! I'll leave you to your paranoia.
I'm answering your specific point
Which was - "What I am saying is that the fact that there is a big pot of money there seems totally irrelevant to any proposals to reform the schemes because funding them hasn't appeared to be particularly viable."
Funding or viability isn't an issue for many of them. The others represent 1.9% of public spending which is expected to drop to 1.4%. The amount of money involved is around £32 billion a year or 4 years bonuses for the privatised banks we bailed out.
The government - and it would seem you - don't accept those numbers which are out there in the public domain. It was your suggestion that if that money was sitting there having been stumped up by taxpayers it was the 'whole problem'.
I really can't see what point you are trying to make.
OK
Just to clarify. The point I was tying to make was this:
Your employer, the government doesn't balance its books each year and hasn't for many years.
It borrows money to pay your wages and pay into your pension pot. The fact that there is enough money in the pot at the moment seems totally irrelevant. If a private company was run the same way it wouldn't exist any more and there wouldn't be any money at all going into the pension pot.
The banker argument just doesn't hold. The government does not pay the bonuses. It is merely a major shareholder in the banks. The bankers' bonuses do not come directly out of taxes or borrowing like your wages and pension do. You can say they are linked but in a couple of years the government won't have any shares in the banks any more, so long-term or even medium-term your argument is completely bogus.
We're not going to agree are we - which is fine
And I work in the private sector and have done for 25 years at least (don't want to count)
Two sorts of pensions run by the state - out of taxation (which is the ongoing charge on the public purse - expected to fall but granted thats by no means certian) and the ones which are run from schemes which are in surplus.
There is no issue with the public sector pension schemes that are in surplus so far as the pensions go - the argument is whether or not the state can AFFORD TO EMPLOY THE PEOPLE not whether their pensions are a future burden on the state. They aren't.
Countries aren't like households and there is an argument to keep giving people money to spend as it all goes to the domestic private sector (shops, building societies, utilities) in the end unlike say bailing out a bank.
I was only using the banker argument yes to be annoying and to give an idea what the sums of money actually are - compared to QE and the bank bailouts they're tiny (though of course they are vast amounts of money - and those schemes shouldn't rely on taxpayer income anyway - I am sure you would agree though that thats the fault of the politicians who have raided them over the years).
By the way I am absolutely sure that the money we put into the banks is gone forever - we will never get it back. Those sums of money dwarf anything anyone has ever tried to raise through the stockmarket.
I'm also well aware that this is a matter of opinion but those are zombie banks which would vanish in a puff of smoke given their leverage if their assets were ever marked to market.
I got cross yesterday and I am sorry if I was rude to you. Like I say we won't agree and thats fine by me.
Bogus, huh?
In 2010, the bank bailout in terms of cash and nationalisation cost £489 billion. A further £400 billion went for asset purchasing and lending to banks.
For comparison, the yearly cost of the NHS, the state school system and the police COMBINED comes to about £139 billion.
The banks wrecked our finances. They should pay first and most. Don't tell me my pension's unaffordable when those fuckers owe us nearly a trillion quid.
Plus
£40 billion a year ongoing indirect support.
£275 billion so far QE which is to prop up their balance sheets, and flows straight to them debasing the currency on the way and driving up inflation because they use it to speculate on commodities.
£20 billion subsidised loans announced by GO last week - which is another way of giving them £20 billion....
I think they all deserve a really massive pay rise - way more than the 50% the senior managers got last year
Cap'n Bob
Ah, the Bob Maxwell school of pension scheme management! "Oh look at all that money that my company's employees have saved for their retirement but which is linked to me because I own the company. I'm having that!"
No thanks Simon; Gideon can keep his grubby mitts of my pension fund.
Darn tootin
Can you imagine what would happen if all the people who had actually saved for their retirement out of their income had the lot taken off them then had to wait in the queue behind say - £300bn quantitative easing - bonuses to the management of the privatised banks - Trident - £600m to free schools - tax cuts for the rich - £6bn a year to private companies to run the railways - bombing 30000 Libyan civilians etc.
If you think public employees are being torn a second arsehole at the moment (I'm not one by the way) then imagine what Murdoch and the rest would do if you were a standing charge on the public purse and in between between them and their tax breaks
Favour
Please stop calling him Gideon. His name is George and has been since he was 13. The whiff of racism hangs in the air which I'm sure you don't mean but it cheapens your argument, which I think is a shame.
Gosh
Absolutely no racism intended at all Twang. I'm horrified that that's how my stupid little attempt at humour came across. It will be George from now on. Red
I think this came up before
Its not as far as I know a particularly Jewish name though Twang hears it that way. I'm not aware of Osborne's religion anyway. I am aware of his extremely thin CV
I use the name to annoy people because its hopelessly middle class (mind you so am I). If its distracting from my rambling & ranting leftwingery I will stop :-) but there's genuinely no other subtext Twang and I am sure RU would say the same
yeah - been there too.
I never thought of Gideon as being a particularly Jewish name either and me using it was no different to calling Cameron 'Call me Dave', Tony B Liar, Mandelson - Mandy, Brown 'a one eyed idiot' (oh hang on, wasn't that Clarkson too?
If Gideon *is* a predominantly Jewish name, what does this say about the young George's decision to change it - not just switch to his middle name as many kids do, but to have it completely erased by deed poll?
I know
I know you didn't mean it that way. But there's a section of the gutter press that use it as a dog whistle to channel the old Jewish / moneylender / banking conspiracy and prejudice shite which pulls my chain for some reason. As we were. ;-)
That's enitirely in your head
I suspect that most people associate the name Gideon with the bibles found in every Western hotel bedroom. That and the fact that it has a slightly silly ring.
If it annoys Gideon Osbourne so much that he changed it by deed poll, then surely that's a good enough reason for people to continue to use it?
Whatever
Edit - we'll have to agree to differ then. Personally I think tossing puerile insults around cheapens the whole debate. But OOAA as we say.
Oh I LOVE cheap insults on this board
It does depend on who is throwing them maybe - if somebody is rude all the time it doesn't work - but every now and then a gratuitous cheap and mean spirited jibe is the best post of the lot!
Oh come on
I say something that elicits a response, go off to do some Christmas shopping, and umpteen people respond in a more articulate and informed way than I would have done. The prospect of being taken out and shot has lost its sting.
And I went off on one
Again. Apologies to all concerned... :-)
Hmmm
I sympathise a bit with Steve actually even though I am a raving leftie.
Quite a few people on here have said that they are public servants and they accept that if we are all living much longer then some form of readjustment to public pensions is required.
The problem is the way its being done - the negotiations aren't negotiations, and the tame red-top press is frothing at the mouth about gold plated public pensions (many of which aren't paid out of taxes contrary to popular belief e.g. the NHS one, which is in surplus - my wife's in it).
The reason private pensions are so shocking is because of our abysmal greedy asset stripping fee ratcheting kleptomaniac financial services industry - which has been spending millions of pounds advertising bad financial products in the selfsame papers that have been unleashed on the public sector. Anything to distract from the outright theft that is going on by the shifting of all the unbelievable bond market debts off the rich and onto the taxpayer.
Its utterly shameless, cynical and misinformed but these are bad times.
As for Clarkson, he used to think we was Auberon Waugh and he could be funny, but now he would make Richard Littlejohn wince.
As a friend pointed out, that sounds like a Morrissey lyric.
Yes
the worst thing about the approach to reform of public sector pensions is that it starts from the premise that the worst available private pension is the benchmark.
And, as with all the "in it together defecit cuts" the gorvernment has steadfastly ignored another approach - increasing income tax (which is something public sector workers also pay, which may be a surprise some).
This has a fairness factor built in - the really poor pay nothing, the better off pay at basic rate. There's room for an income tax band between, say, £20k and £40k. There's room for more than one band above £150k. If the ConDems were serious about forcing banks (amongst others) not to rack up huge bonuses then an income tax band at £250k, another at £500k, another at £1million, another at £5million would help.
As a bonus it could go some way to addressing the widening and unjustifiable gulf between average salaries and top salaries. Whereas in the '70's a CEO might earn 10-20 times the average employee's salary, this has recently been reported as becoming 50-70 times the average salary, with some companies having a ratio in excess of 100 times.
NHS pensions
FG, while I agree with what you've said above, it's not strictly true that NHS Pensions are not paid out of taxes.
I work in the NHS and contribute to my pension every month. Alongside my contribution (and contributions range from 6% to 8% depending how much the employee earns) my employer makes a further contribution of 14%. This comes out of their funding, the vast majority of which is from tax/NI; so the tax payer does contribute to NHS pensions, albeit indirectly.
Well yes OK - and at the same time no :-)
Its off in a growing pile of yer actual real money and assets with your name on that accrues from the cost of employing you over the years, run by the superann mob
The people who are drawing NHS pensions are not doing so out of current taxation but out of the operation of the whole scheme including its really enormous assets. Its not a Ponzi scheme whereby anybody drawing out is only getting money somebody else is paying in.
I'm in a company scheme that has a similar structure and part of the operation of the scheme is the tax benefits to me - and to them - from doing it that way. SO even my private scheme is funded out of current taxation indirectly.
By the way see above
A poster seems to think you should be handing the whole lot you've accrued over to Gideon to pay off the national debt, and then you can rest assured that your contributions will be honoured by unknowable future governments out of income. Despite what every single red top and Tory newspaper says
Thanks
Already commented on that spiffing idea!!
I'm no fan of JC, but come on...
...surely no-one thinks he was being serious. There would be similar outrage if Frankie Boyle had said it.
Had it been on HIGNFY or Mock The Week and said by Paul Merton or Hugh Dennis, it wouldn't even be a story.
I like him, in small doses
I can't believe anyone is genuinely offended, let alone seriously considering legal action: it's painfully obvious he's making his views known in his usual over-the-top way, which you'll either find amusing or not.
As Mr Hepworth has pointed out before, JC is one of the very few TV presenters who clearly has a mind of his own (whether you admire it or not) which also clearly produces his own scripts (whether you like them or not). I'd far rather see a mass removal of bland presenters before anyone takes him off the screens.
I'm a public service worker
I was on strike yesterday.
I'm a cyclist to boot.
I had no problem at all with what Clarkson said. Amazingly I caught him as it happened. I usually miss these historic TV moments. However, it was quite clear he was being humorous. Not great humour, but clearly indulging in hyperbole to play up to his image.
I'm glad UNISON have dropped the threat of legal action, because frankly I felt embarrassed when I first heard about it.
The great thing
about this blog is that when it comes to any tiresome, topical, 'everybody's talking about it' controversy of the moment you don't have to wait longer than a few comments before you get the voice of reason putting things into perspective.
Karen Jennings
has made me squirm with embarrassment today.
I hope she has been equally outraged by her friend Ken.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewgilligan/100118201/ken-livingsto...
Karen Jennings
Karen Jennings would have been the comedy queen if she'd ended her rant with the words "Well, he started it!"
I couldn't agree with you more
Sadly only 1 up is possible.
This is pretty good
http://itscharlieroberts.com/2011/12/01/jeremy-clarkson-is-a-horrible-hu...
Heard the comparison to Gaddafi on the radio earlier today. Thought it was lacking perspective somewhat.
Well, I fucking hate him
So I don't really want sense to prevail. This is particularly so because Cameron, who yesterday had the audacity to call the strike a 'damp squib,' thus, let it not be forgotten, showing his contempt for a lot of us, said something like
Oh, it was silly, but sure he didn't mean it....
Clarkson, Cameron, Gideon, Cowell they're all part of the same problem...
Not much I can do about it, but what I would advocate is a letter-writing campaign of Daily Mail proportions to get Clarkson sacked for nothing more than shits and giggles and, if it is true that I am the resurrection is to be released as the antifactor Christmas single, then buy the fucker....
The great thing
about this blog is that when it comes to any tiresome, topical, 'everybody's talking about it' controversy of the moment you don't have to wait longer than a few comments before you get the voice of reason putting things into perspective.
touché
Bill Hicks voice
And another thing......
The best response
if you found the thing offensive is probably to complain to the BBC using their very nice electronic form on their web site.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/forms/?id=NA7MT2AAT9SR02LLLHSUJNULVQ#an...
Takes about 5 minutes and is more fun than just moaning about it on a web forum.
Who knows, maybe if they get enough complaints they can sack him, and replace him on Top Gear with someone who is less of a twonk.
Wouldn't be hard.
i can think of
about a million other things I would like to complain about regarding our dumbed down BBC instead of registering faux outrage at 'humourous' comments by a professional provocateur.
knock-yourself out
make him complaint one million and one though
No thanks.
I passionately believe in free speech, no matter from which end of the political spectrum opinions are voiced. Also, I find it deeply sinister that there are these regular outcries for people to lose their jobs just because authoritarians wish to manufacture some fake, overblown outrage which only exhibits their total lack of humour and their desire to close down freedom of speech. This whole affair looks ever more absurd as the days have gone by.
Oh for God's sake
It's all part of the act; the idea is to get headlines...and it works. No such thing as bad publicity, as they say.
Daft
The whole silly fuss is just daft. Pope shits in woods. Bear attends mass. Clarkson says something attention-seeking while coincidentally promoting a DVD and a book.
UNISON's response was a crackers over-reaction and just made them look weak and thin-skinned. I'm astonished at the fuss.
Yes, he was clearly only joking
and acting in a manner we have come to expect from the oh-so blokish Clarkson.
Except, there are countries in world where striking workers ARE taken out and shot.
So it was a little unfortunate and boorish in that respect.
It's Top Gear's casual sexism and racism we should be more concerned about.
Clarkson
Clarkson is bomb proof, he knows it, & the BBC know it.
They will never sack him, he is simply too popular (& other channels would be over him like a rash)
geese & golden eggs spring to mind.
Personally tho, I think he is a cunt.
In addition
I have mentioned this before, a bit of a while back.
I am sure I read somewhere that Danny Baker has written jokes / scripts for Clarkson.
I know a man has to make a living, but I have to be honest, IF that is true, I feel saddened by the thought.
Clarkson bomb proof ?
Could we get Richard "hamster" Hammond (he's not even a real hamster, is he ?) to prove that on his "ooh I like blowing things up" show ? Start with 1kg of HE and work up to something thermo-nuclear.
W H Smith
Is full of signed copies of his book. It didn't take me long to sign them.
Hit them where it hurts
It's the only language his sort understands.
I've signed a few as well
and for the first time in my life have written 'cunt'.
On the one hand...
... I disapprove of what Clarkson said but would defend to the death his right to say it.
On the other, I think he's a tedious cunt who I wish would just fuck off from our TV screens and newspapers and just die.
I actually wish the BBC would sack him. Let him spout his guff on the commercial channels which I never watch. My life would be much cheerier.
That would be
my ideal solution as well.
The Commercial Channels
or 'Council TV' as they are hilariously known in our house.
You don't fool me Jeremy
.
Talksport
is his natural home. Spouting 'controversial' opinions, no-one notices, everyone is happy.
Clarkson - feign a radical
Clarkson - feign a radical opinion - get overbown response. For him it's just better than the alternative: irrelevance.
I think Stewart Lee said it best
on his last tour he had the line "Jeremy Clarkson who says those outrageously offensive politically incorrect things.. for money"
I saw him on the Horsham leg of the tour and because I laughed so much at his rant about the 'three bears' of Top Gear I am hardly in a position to complain about JC's comments yesterday, though I totally agree with Ganglesprocket above.
Would love to see Top Gear canned. It jumped the shark ages ago. I wonder why the Daily Mail are not on his back as much as they were with Russell Brand when he offended two people on a radio show with an audience a tiny fraction of what the One Show gets.
Top Gear
I have little in common with Clarkson's views but I really enjoy Top Gear. Don't really understand why people are so keen to see it cancelled, the shows I don't like I just don't watch. They only put out 6 hours of TV then they're off the air for months anyway.
Having watched the full One Show clip, he says something knowingly silly and pro-strike, then says "this is the BBC so we have to be balanced" and says something knowingly silly and anti-strike. Yet they keep only quoting the anti-strike bit, which is a little misleading.
Yes!
That about sums it all up!
What's that about wrestling a pig?
You both get dirty, but one of you enjoys it.
Clarkson isn't worth commenting on, and the unions should know better.
Clarkson is the Patron Saint of pub-bores
and every now and then he desperately needs to get a reaction.
I don't know what he's going to do with all that neediness when he stops getting TV work. Probably stand on the hard shoulder dropping his trousers.
Another day, another outraged public...
In these days of Twitter and Facebook, don't people just love to be outraged like never before? Yesterday it was the Sports Personality Of The Year shortlist rumpus, today it's Clarkson, tomorrow it will be something else...
You're right there
We are ion great danger of becoming ever so slightly fucking boring as a country. Jesus, isn't anyone allowed to say anything slightly controversial anymore? I really fear that our famed sense of humour is being knocked out of us in the name of political correctness. Unison need to get a grip - bloody idiots. Now sue me.
Good God
Who's the bigger arse?
Clarkson for his comments, or UNISON for their statements about legal action.
One is clearly a hyperbolic professional agent provocateur. UNISON were serious.
I know which of the two I hold in more contempt.
It may be instructive to compare
the reaction among the GuardiBeebie set (ohm c'mon, would you prefer Guardianista?) to (national treasure) Richard Curtis's 10:10 No Pressure campaign, in which he portrayed schoolchildren being blown-up for their counter-revolutionary refusal to change their sinful carbon-emitting, nay planet-raping ways, with that to Clarkson's entirely unremarkable rant.
Clarkson on the One Show
Wow, there's a meeting of minds.
To be honest I'm more offended by some of the ignorant, short sighted pigheaded comments of some of my so-called 'Friends' on Farcebook..it would seem the strike has bought out some of the Daily Mail Tory Housewife/Clarkson in some of them. Time for a friend 'cull' I think (although I'll just be removing them from my "friends" list rather than having them shot in front of their families).
But isn't this the point of Clarkson?
To be the panto villain? When you view celebrities from another country you do so without the collective history and context of how they got there, and looking at Clarkson as someone who's seen him maybe twice on TV and who knows absolutely nothing about him it's obvious that this is his niche in the UK's celebrity culture. If he wasn't there then someone else equally obnoxious, arrogant and outspoken would take his place. We all have a Clarkson: Australia's is currently some dick called Kyle Sandilands who I've neither seen nor heard and only know about through outraged comments in the media each time he plays his part and says something outrageous.
Jeremy Clarkson
Master baiter. Almost without parallel today. Gets a result every time.
It's not all bad news
I do like some of Clarkson's written word stuff.
He has a full page opinion piece in Top Gear magazine where he bangs on about falling standards and how we're all going to hell in a handcart in typical tub-thumping fashion. The column is always very well-written however and against my better judgement I quite often find myself in agreement with him.
This month for example he makes the following observation:
Humankind used to celebrate the wise and the rich. Now we look up to the stupid and the fat. We tune into the X Factor to watch people exhibiting their uselessness, and we like reality television because everyone's daft. Clever people are mocked. Rich people are hated. (some stuff about how this relates to cars follows)
Now, I don't know if Clarkson actually believes that stuff, but he certainly knows which buttons to press. While I wasn't too sure about the "celebrating the rich" part, I found myself nodding sagely as I read the rest of it.
He's a clever man right enough.
*nods in agreement*
I think he articulates what a lot of people really think.
Hence the apoplectic splutterings as better judgements get challenged.
I agree
as far as he is describing himself (although perhaps he's too dim to realise it ?) as a major contributer to the dumbing down.
I'm not at all sure we used to celebrate the wise and the rich. The wise, perhaps, but the rich were generally more feared and hated than celebrated.
I can't help thinking
That a significant proportion of the population take some kind of pleasure in being offended, even to the point of actively seeking out material to be offended by. Even if they're not personally offended, they can be offended on behalf of someone else.
I mean he's Jeremy Clarkson; that's what Jeremy Clarkson does. As for Unison … words fail me.
True enough
and any excuse to post this again
Stephen Fry
That's an interesting and bold stance, which he backed up by refusing to be offended by Jan Moir's article about Stephen Gately. Erm...
Yes, as per the Lifes too short post
People know they are going to be offended so rather than ignoring it they endure it in sado-masochistic frenzy. I know I'm a celebrity is a complete load of tosh so I avoid it like the plague. Why would I want to sit through something unpleasant - it's the whole purpose of remote controls. Change channels!!
Clarkson
Actually when he is talking about something he really cares about rather than just doing his "outrageous" shtick he can be very good. But my theory is the public outrage is more to do with a collective sense of irritation at his stupid remarks rather than one in particular. He positions himself as a blokey bloke, and some people like that but a lot of people don't. So each new idiocy adds to the existing sense of irritation rather than creating a new one. Shame he doesn't stick to the good bits.
Nice clothes though..........
.....doh! See what I did there?
Anyone remember that appalling BBC documentary about seven or eight years ago on San Francisco in the late 60s, which had Clarkson on as a talking head because he went to a wedding there (or some such tosh) in 1981?!
Not the Beeb's finest hour.
Obituary
Problem is
that when a clever person like Clarkson says something stupid it opens the door for really stupid people to barge through with their own witless and self serving indignation, as Labour MP Karl Turner did with his "will someone think of the children" whine on Channel 4 News last night.
http://nannyknowsbest.blogspot.com/2011/12/prat-of-week-karl-turner-mp.h...
Clarkson - Entertainer, not intellectual
Seriously people, smile, it's Friday.
It's like "Immaletyoufinish" West all over again.
Can we just get Obama to call Clarkson a jackass and move on? Thanks.
Clarkson National Mascot
The man makes a ridiculous and surreal statement and everyone pretends not to understand his humour. The BBC gets it's publicity, Clarkson gets his. National entertainment - everyone is happy. Might as well fire the man, why not! - but if you're going to do it, please do it an entertaining way please you boring b&*tartds!
Fire him for saying something silly?
If that happened everywhere none of us would ever have jobs ever again! Especially the fine minds here at the Massive.
It's all about entertainment Badger
Like a clown who falls off the tightrope in the circus. You may watch in horror as it happens. And even feel a sense of pity as he plunges to his doom past the elephants and the safety net. But lets face it he chose to earn his living and reputation that way. And a spell in hospital is the price he pays I'm afraid.
As far as I've seen no one is suggesting that Jeremy Clarkson is executed. If they did, I imagine that people may be more liable to appreciate that any such suggestion was made with a sense of humour.
I'm not so sure that particularly "fine minds" spend 3 hours a day posting on an internet forum. Got to be honest about that. Not talking about myself there obviously.
You're right there
Don't we just love a bogey man?
"Sparked a storm on Twitter..."
What's incredible is how often the above five words seems to justify a news story these days. What exactly does 'a storm on Twitter" really amount to? This increasingly seems to be the criteria by which we judge whether something is newsworthy now. I wonder how many of the 'outraged' Tweeters (is that what you call them?) have actually seen the Clarkson footage, where he's clearly just playing to the studio and 'being Clarkson.'
I thought of this when I heard it
Maybe THAT's why he wasn't England manager.
(Cloughie on training ground)
Roll the clip?
Is it time to roll the Stuart Lee clip?
Ooops you have already.
Ooops you have already.
Clarkson's sentiment
has been hijacked.
He wasn't slagging off nurses and cleaners but the management level beaurocrats in the public sector that earn better than the private sector.
They are disgusting.
I was put up for a 90k V-P job at an FE college in London a couple of years back with absolutely no experience in education whatever because of my CV 'no probs niscum - you're exactly what they're looking for'. Meeting the 'team' I can say I have never met such a bunch of bullshiters since I did telesales for a dodgy outfit off Oxford St in the early 90s. At least they knew they were just passing through though.
Shocking. There were 7 V-Ps at this place on the 70 - 90k bracket each and a useless bell-end of a principal on over 200k. In one FE college of many in London. The thing was they all slapped themselves on the back and talked about 'giving to the community' (ie 'them' the blacks) and the principal GENUINELY expected the new multi million pound building to be named in his honour - like he really deserved it.
The nearest to an African banana republic I have been. Oh and I'm a trained nurse btw.
God almighty.
New Labour's legacy.
That's a fascinating insight Niscum..
.. did they turn you down for the 90k job then? Only joking. Seriously I think peoples direct experience is always a fascinating insight.
As to your comment about 'New Labor's Legacy" - yes there is more than an element of truth in that. I think their latter years, of pouring absolutely vast amounts of cash at self-evidently unsupportable Management hierarchies, does seem to have been a profound problem. What caused this problem, and whether it was an issue of basic naivety or some profound philosophical problem - is definitely an issue for debate. They screwed up on that principle though, no serious and logical person could argue otherwise. But you still wont catch me voting Tory, not yet anyway.
I was headhunted
in full employment, offered the job, and turned it down.
How do you know?
He certainly didn't discriminate between different types of worker at the time.
The thing that spoke volumes was his unfeigned astonishment at the suggestion that he might actually know people who worked in the public sector.
I think Skuds did ^ up there
21 000 complaints according to the BBC website!
Interesting article here: http://alturl.com/v3f2y
its the New Left Project blog and it begins:
Clearly Jeremy Clarkson was joking. He doesn’t really think public sector employees should be “executed in front of their families” for taking industrial action over pensions cuts. Equally clearly, Clarkson was not satirising right-wing hostility to trade unions. No one thinks he is anything other than right wing, so it is reasonable to assume that his remarks were a highly exaggerated, jocular (and unfunny) expression of the real contempt for organised labour that is broadly shared by those of his political ilk.
If the majority of the 21,000
had written to the BBC to say, "can you just stop giving this tiresome bell-end any more airtime," it might restore my faith in the Great British public.
My suspicions, however, are that they did not.
blatant bloody advertising
it's not just the bizarre and worthless rabidly right wing attitudes of that complete arse Clarkson that irritates me (although he did once tell me to eff off when I had the temerity to step on a zebra crossing in Woodstock. I just laughed at him. Men such as he hate being laughed at and/or ignored)
No...its the blatant pushing of his grisly DVD on the so-called advert free BBC that irritates me. Must make a complaint...or maybe just switch off the TV
Clarkson being Clarkson
Clearly JC's idea of a joke. Who would take it seriously? He is controversial because that what he does. I was on strike on Wednesday and didn't take offence. Obviously Clarkson didn't really think strikers should be shot in front of their families. Yes he's a tosser but that's exactly why he should be ignored.
Mind you a friend of mine got into trouble for sending this e-mail to all members of staff including those who did not go on strike.
'A big thumbs-up to all staff who participated in the industrial action yesterday. An even bigger thumbs-down to those ‘Trade Unionists’ who did not. Some people like others to sacrifice and fight their battles for them. Our consciences are clear. Shame on them!'
Personally I thought his e-mail was hilarious - not a view shared by those in higher places!
bloke's
a cunt. full stop
Just heard Bonnie Grier on Any Questions
"Every minority needs a spokesperson; and Jeremy Clarkson speaks for the minority of embittered middle-aged men..." Brilliant.
From this week's NME:
Singer / Rapper Example is quoted as saying that winners of the X-Factor should be taken to an island and locked away, or shot.
Equally a stupid thing to say, widely available publication with national coverage, implies innocent people with families to be wantonly executed to be sensationalist at the time of a new release. But...
Whither the screaming mob? Ou est la pitch fork?
Or is it just that we all like a reason to hate someone as smug as Clarkson, if other people say offensive things then no one really notices?
As to the people above who didn't think of Gideon as a Jewish name? Where do you think it comes from? The guy was quite influential in the Bible after all.
Depicted here thanking God for the miracle of the dew on / off the fleece in Judges 6 in the Old Testament:
The difference is
That winning the x-factor is not, on the whole, a risky business. Nor is it a right for which generations have struggled.
The right to form unions and to withdraw labour, on the other hand, has been both and in many parts of the world still is.
And where union membership and striking can still get you shot, there is no doubt a well connected, right-wing media figure cheering on the death squads.
In our more civilised climes, it'll just be a chuckle over lunch with the Cameron's and the Wades.
And yes, I've no doubt that Gideon is a Jewish name. But like Mathew, James, Jacob, Ben and Jesus, amongst other biblical names, not exclusively so.
David
My name is David. He is quite an important guy to the Jewish people - heck, the Jewish school my kids go to is called King David High School - but that doesn't make David a "Jewish name": it makes it a name with Jewish roots, like all the others Lando has mentioned above and quite a few more besides.
Badger
Fine by all means its always worth flagging up areas of accidental offence etc. But Gideon is a posh boys name in my experience not a Jewish name. Put it this way - not many miners called Gideon (actually it would be interesting to know if there were Welsh miners called Gideon, the Chapel being such a big force in Welsh life)
But this has rankled wiht a couple of people so - I won't use it in future and instead I will just call him 'Thick greedy biddable arsepiece'
And on that description
I could not disagree. Possibly "arseNOSE"? Just a suggey.
I like the Americanism...
... asshat.
QI
Was QI pulled from the schedule because Clarkson the gobshite (as he is now known in the household) was on it?