Jeremy Clarkson

[Limehouse]

On a BBC programme broadcast during family viewing time, Mr Clarkson announced that striking public sector workers 'should be shot in front of their families'

Obviously, Mr Clarkson is entitled to his opinion, but his commetnts do prompt me to ask the question:

what useful purpose does Mr Clarkson serve?

[brummie]

Useful ? hmm thats a tough one.I suppose he makes the rest of us look normal.
The only thing he does to earn his no doubt inflated BBC wage is to drive like a 16 year old and make himself look a prat every time he speaks. Its what happens when you have a mouth that big and a brain the size of a pea.
I'm guessing he has another of his infantile DVDs out for Christmas and is in dire need of publicity.

[The Wednesday]

Useful ? hmm thats a tough one.I suppose he makes the rest of us look normal.
The only thing he does to earn his no doubt inflated BBC wage is to drive like a 16 year old and make himself look a prat every time he speaks. Its what happens when you have a mouth that big and a brain the size of a pea.
I'm guessing he has another of his infantile DVDs out for Christmas and is in dire need of publicity.

I hate the bloke. However, he mind find it funny that a Jack the Ripper site is having a go at him. People with an interest in a serial killer, in his perview, will be ridiculed as swivelling anally retentive geeks! He on the other hand is a tory, Chipping Norton fuelled guzzling t**t.

Up the Owls

[Adam Went]

I like Clarkson and wish there was more like him. He says what he thinks and doesn't care about modern sensitivity, aside from being a very humorous individual and host of a fantastic show. Anybody who thinks that his comments were meant to be taken as genuine in this case is very much mistaken, I can tell that and i've not even seen the incident in question.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Limehouse]

I like Clarkson and wish there was more like him. He says what he thinks and doesn't care about modern sensitivity, aside from being a very humorous individual and host of a fantastic show. Anybody who thinks that his comments were meant to be taken as genuine in this case is very much mistaken, I can tell that and i've not even seen the incident in question.

Cheers,
Adam.

Hello Adam,

I seriously believe that, although Clarkson claims to have been joking, there was an underlying intention to stick the boot in. However, even if he WAS joking, it was an insensitive remark to make. But, as you say, Clarkson cares nothing for sensitivity.

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that Mr Clarkson appears to contribute little to society for the money he is paid and is therefore hardly in a position to criticise others, joking or not.

[Magpie]

He says what he thinks and doesn't care about modern sensitivity, .

Hi Adam.

The problem is (at least in this case) is that there's a world of difference between considering what you have to say to have a higher priority than the offense it may cause; and going out of your way say things that you know will offend people. Often these days the goal seems to be to cause offense, with the "just saying what I think" a mere fig-leaf of justification.

In saying that "striking public sector workers should be shot in front of their families'", there's really only two possibilities:

1) He really does think this: in which case he's a sociopath.
2) He doesn't really think this: in which case he's just an arsehole (and what's more he's intending to be an arsehole)

[Steven Russell]

There's far too much paranoia about causing offence these days. Clarkson was clearly joking. Some people found his remarks offensive. OK but so what?

If I make a derogatory remark about, say, the church - some people will no doubt find what I say offensive. That's fine. They have a perfect right to feel offended. But I also have a perfect right to say what I believe even if I know it will cause offence.

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Limehouse]

There's far too much paranoia about causing offence these days. Clarkson was clearly joking. Some people found his remarks offensive. OK but so what?

If I make a derogatory remark about, say, the church - some people will no doubt find what I say offensive. That's fine. They have a perfect right to feel offended. But I also have a perfect right to say what I believe even if I know it will cause offence.

Best wishes,
Steve.

I can't see how Clarkson could have been joking. Where's the joke? Perhaps Clarkson does not realise that in some countries, trade unionists really have been shot in fornt of their families.

I am struggling to understand why someone would want to cause offence to others. If you wish to say things you know will cause offence, then of course you have the right to do so, but others have the right to challenge you. Clarkson has been challenged and instead of being a man about it, he has to retreat to the defence of 'only joking' as if that makes it more acceptable.

[Steven Russell]

Clarkson's "humour" often derives from taking a slightly controversial stance and then exaggerating it wildly for comic effect. He was saying he disagreed with the strikers' action but no-one should believe that he was serious about shooting people.

He is a boor but for many that's part of his appeal. As has been noted elsewhere, Christmas is coming so a bit of controversy gets him right in the public eye just when people are deciding what book or DVD to get Uncle Alan. Whatever else he is, Clarkson is not stupid.

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Adam Went]

Hello all,

Well, the divide is becoming stronger. That is the divide between those who are over-sensitive, who become increasingly over-sensitive about anything and everything, and those who wish to annoy the over-sensitive folks by making their remarks increasingly "offensive".

Anybody who watches any episode of Top Gear, ever, will see that Clarkson is not afraid of making controversial remarks. He does it all of the time, yet in this instance I think too much is being made of something which was intended to be a throwaway remark.

I don't think even he would deny that he can be an arsehole at times, and says things which some people won't like, but then he hasn't got to where he has in life by being the meek, inoffensive gentleman either.

Now that's not to say that what he said was right, if we take it in context, because it most definitely is obviously not, but the point is that in any situation like this you'll get a million bandwagoners who don't have a clue who Clarkson is or what he's about joining the queue to be critical of him, because that's what people like to do these days, lay the boots in whenever there's a chance to do so.

I could highlight again just how much things have changed in the past 20 years if I said that a "Blackface" act appeared on an Aussie TV show 20 years ago and won the contest (which was a comedy routine by foreigners in respectable positions in life, I might add) and then it appeared again in 2009 for a reunion special and was criticised around the globe for being racist - and not just that, but Australians as a whole are the most racist people on the globe.

That of course is a load of BS and just another case of people bandwagoning over something which was in itself never meant to be taken anywhere close to seriously, and Clarkson is facing the same problem now.

We all just need to toughen up a bit, really...

Cheers,
Adam.

[Robert]

I hope no one wants to ban this lady? Absolutely delightful :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_14LIkuTJ0

[Limehouse]

Hello all,

Well, the divide is becoming stronger. That is the divide between those who are over-sensitive, who become increasingly over-sensitive about anything and everything, and those who wish to annoy the over-sensitive folks by making their remarks increasingly "offensive".

Anybody who watches any episode of Top Gear, ever, will see that Clarkson is not afraid of making controversial remarks. He does it all of the time, yet in this instance I think too much is being made of something which was intended to be a throwaway remark.

I don't think even he would deny that he can be an arsehole at times, and says things which some people won't like, but then he hasn't got to where he has in life by being the meek, inoffensive gentleman either.

Now that's not to say that what he said was right, if we take it in context, because it most definitely is obviously not, but the point is that in any situation like this you'll get a million bandwagoners who don't have a clue who Clarkson is or what he's about joining the queue to be critical of him, because that's what people like to do these days, lay the boots in whenever there's a chance to do so.

I could highlight again just how much things have changed in the past 20 years if I said that a "Blackface" act appeared on an Aussie TV show 20 years ago and won the contest (which was a comedy routine by foreigners in respectable positions in life, I might add) and then it appeared again in 2009 for a reunion special and was criticised around the globe for being racist - and not just that, but Australians as a whole are the most racist people on the globe.

That of course is a load of BS and just another case of people bandwagoning over something which was in itself never meant to be taken anywhere close to seriously, and Clarkson is facing the same problem now.

We all just need to toughen up a bit, really...

Cheers,
Adam.

I think you're kind of missing the point Adam. If Clarkson has the right to be an arsehole, then he must expect to be challenged by people who object to his approach. If, as you say, his remark was meant to be 'throw away' he should have thought about the consequences of making such a remark. It's not a case of people being 'over sensitive', it's case of Clarkson being irresponsible.

However, what I would question is the wisdom of anyone asking Clarkson such a question, and expecting a measured and carefully considered answer.

[brummie]

Just to wander slightly off the point, perhaps the most disturbing thing about this is the fact that in Britain today the focus of society is all about 'celebrity'. The fact that Clarkson can be seen my some as a 'celebrity' merely for being an oafish boor with no discernible talent is extremely worrying. These days when people are considered as celebrities for having appeared on some freakish reality show is frankly bizarre, and when you have earthquake in Turkey,global economic disaster,and troops fighting around the world yet the tabloid front pages prefer to go with the latest escapades of x-factor contestants something is clearly wrong,yet people just lap it up. Until society changes its perception of 'celebrity' status we will have to put up with half-wit nonenities like Clarkson I'm afraid.

[jason_c]

Hello Adam,

I seriously believe that, although Clarkson claims to have been joking, there was an underlying intention to stick the boot in. However, even if he WAS joking, it was an insensitive remark to make. But, as you say, Clarkson cares nothing for sensitivity.

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that Mr Clarkson appears to contribute little to society for the money he is paid and is therefore hardly in a position to criticise others, joking or not.

Mr Clarkson's TV show is a money making machine for the BBC. This money subsidizes much of the BBC's output.

What is your contribution to society in comparison?

[jason_c]

I hope no one wants to ban this lady? Absolutely delightful :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_14LIkuTJ0

Thats the type of thing that makes Britain Great. There's too many professional complainers in this country. These complainers about Clarkson are the liberal equivalent of Mary Whitehouse.