[Closed] Jeremy Clarkson on the One Show

Zulu-Eleven - Member

All the left has done reinforce their own caricature as humourless, puritanical prigs, removed from the common man and unable to remove the stick from their arses.

Do you know what, I've always wondered why there aren't any left-wing comedians. But now I know why ...... it's because the left are humourless puritanical prigs, and removed from the common man. Well observed Zulu-Eleven.

Thank **** for right-wing comedians keeping everyone laughing, eh ?

A bit like yourself Zulu-Eleven ...... you're a bundle of laughs a minute aincha mate ?

Mol, Ernie, I think your posts sort of prove my point 😉

Have you both got a hat like this?

[img] [/img]

[i]There's a huge portion of this great country enjoy nothing better than a little bit of shit stirring,[/i]

...again, this is something to celebrate? This is something to take comfort and pleasure from?

Excellent, lets all act like stupids, lets really get down there and wallow in the mud.

Sad, limited, dull little people.

Oh don't be so frigging stupid!

+100

But then again, it is Labby, so the order is going to fall on two very deaf ears.

When i strarted this last night , i nver thought it would reach 6 pages of 40 posts, and ebven have dave the cameroon and the labour one arguinmg about him, and now its on chanel 4 news.

Now whats Jeremey ney book called.

Zulu-Eleven - Member

Mol, Ernie, I think your posts sort of prove my point

And so do your posts prove your point........you're ****ing ing hilarious mate.

nealglover & flow seem not to understand what a discussion forum is about.

So people are puritanical prigs if they don't think Daily Mail meets pub bore guff is funny?

Not finding something funny is a long way from being all uptight and outraged about it. It's just a bit sad the way people go "Yeah, but it's Clarkson, innit?" as if that makes it something less, well, limp.

Hahahahahha

You see - Lefties, all the same - its like pokin' em with a stick 😆

[img] [/img]

I think I know how to make someone LOL with this, I have an idea.

How do we email a link to this thread to Clarkson? I reckon he'd ROFFL, and a few people here might even get a guest spot on the TG sofa.

Hahahahahha

Laughing at your own jokes is bad form Zulu-Eleven.

Let [u]us[/u] laugh at your jokes.

Maybe a bit after the fact here, but that Stewart Lee does have some decent material, which means it must be doubly hard to kill it so completely with his delivery. Credit where it's due.

DezB - Member
nealglover & flow seem not to understand what a discussion forum is about.

I'm "discussing" aren't I ??

Like I said, my posts are aimed at the "outraged" the people who complain to the BBC

Or the dumbass Unison woman on the news who compared Clarkson to Gadaffi.

Laughing at your own jokes is bad form Zulu-Eleven.

Let's face it. Someone [i]has[/i] to.

[i]I'm "discussing" aren't I ??[/i]

Beg your pardon sir. Thought your comments were aimed at the forum.

It is important to remember that offence is taken and not given. Sometimes offence is taken when it was not intended, in which case it is fault of the person who took offence, and the speaker is not involved at all.

Whilst free speech may on occasions offend people it is some way from this to claiming that it is not possible to be deliberately offensive and if I tried it would all be down to the hearer. Test it out in a pub with strangers let me know how it works out when you explain they have no right and its their fault anyway. I rather felt i was able to convey my thoughts and meanings with my words and that other people were able to as well.
Offensive for the sake of being offensive is hardly a right and if exercised you can hardly protest that some folk were offended by clarkson being deliberately provocative/offensive - if it did not work [offend folk] he would not to do it like the trolls bascially

sorry junky, but you went in two footed with a specification error:

someone female you love to a lady

"you" being the operative word.

That is specific offence being given.

There is admittedly, a broad line at which a specific becomes a generalism. The offence that is often taken too quickly comes when people extrapolate a generalism to a specific too readily.

It is important to remember that offence is taken and not given.[b][u] Sometimes offence is taken when it was not intended[/u][/b], in which case it is fault of the person who took offence, and the speaker is not involved at all.

so if i make some unfavourable remark comparing someone female you love to a lady of the night and resembling the back end of a farmyard animal I can defend it by saying its all down to you the hearer.....have you tested this in court by say racially abusing and swearing at a copper from an ethinic minority...let me know ho wit works

Your first example - No, it would be a [b]deliberate[/b] insult, and so that would be a totally different situation.

Your second example - That would be illegal, so again, totally different situation.

That is specific offence being given.

It is important to remember that offence is taken and not given

So someone can give offence we agree.

I do agree sometimes it is taken when none is meant. I could have done this over the junky abbreviation for example which sometimes is meant sometimes it is not. If you dont meant it then I take the offence if you do mean it then you give it. My only point is that it is not as simple as saying offence can never be given an only taken.

Tbh a quick google did not help me understand your point as specification error seems to be a stats term
You may need to explain further

EDIT:
Sometimes offence is taken when it was not intended
which suggest sometimes offence is taken when it is intended as well - my point is you cannot say it is all down to the person receiving the message [ taken not given] as obviously people can convey meaning with words including meaning to be offensive.
How would i insult someone if they choose what I mean and they take the offence just out of interest?

An insult (also called a slur, scoff, slight or putdown) is an expression, statement (or sometimes behavior) which is considered degrading and offensive

Junkyard, you're selectively quoting. And I think you know it.

I think Clarkson was extreme in what he said.
Shooting every 10th striker would be enough.
Maybe some of the strikers are nurses and could treat the wounds afterwards (unpaid of course)?

???

One quote I read today seems to sum this up quite well .....

"It is important to remember that offence is taken and not given. Sometimes offence is taken when it was not intended, in which case it is fault of the person who took offence, and the speaker is not involved at all.

It is someone else quoting someone else. I am not sure why you think this is selective

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/jeremy-clarkson-on-the-one-show/page/6#post-3232193

I am not responding to their post but to that quote so what else should I post up?
I did not massively disagree with their post but i do disagree with the view that offence is not given and only taken hence why I took issue with it and offered a counter view

I don't think it is always necessary to refer to a specific individual for a comment to be offensive . In fact it is easy to think of many comments which are even more likely to cause offence because they are directed at groups of people en masse

Offensive for the sake of being offensive is hardly a right

Being offended for the sake of being offended is hardly a right either.

Whenever something like this comes out I always have a laugh at the "professional" offendees, desperate to find the latest thing to be offended about.

Clarkson knew what he was doing. He was being controversial for the sake of it, and sure enough the usual suspects have jumped on the offended bandwagon, just as he'd intended.

See, Junky, your new, complete quote totally changes the sense of what was said. "Sometimes offence is taken when it was not intended" is central and you didn't mention it, just pretended that the person was saying only "taken and not given"

I could have done this over the junky abbreviation for example which sometimes is meant sometimes it is not. If you dont meant it then I take the offence if you do mean it then you give it.

And you'd be a complete and utter prat for thinking anyone would go to the effort of discreetly embedding some form of "offence" into something so simple as abbreviating your STW user name, when they would just as happily call you a knob openly 🙄

Shooting every 10th striker would be enough.

Well, we were told that the Tories would decimate the public services 😆

I don't know whether anyone has quoted it because I got bored with all the over-sensitive types comments - forgive me for not giving a ****.

Charlie Brooker on the mass [s]weeping and gnashing of teeth[/s] over-reaction to Clarkson's comment:-

[i][b]It's a bit like opening the door, looking up and saying 'oh look, the sky's blue'...[/b][/i]

Whatever you think about the comments, it is a pretty cynical way to sell stuff.

Its just a joke,like on top gear.

Shooting every 10th striker would be enough.
Well, we were told that the Tories would decimate the public services

Sounds like it could solve 2 problems with one solution that one... Bring public service wages in under budget, and act as a deterrent to the remaining 9 out 10 public sector workers left to not go on strike again for fear of their life!

Genius...

I'll go get my gun...

😀

This turd is only still rolling because you lot like to have a cloaked pop at eachother.

Like I said on page whatever. The guy's a polariser.

No, he's a peddler of constant low level bigotry that appeals to simple-minded fools.

sometimes I wish they'd just turn off all the televisions

Whenever something like this comes out I always have a laugh at the "professional" offendees, desperate to find the latest thing to be offended about

That's not how it works, don't be thick.

He was being controversial for the sake of it

He was being a ****, not being controversial!

Mol, Ernie, I think your posts sort of prove my point

Hang on a minute now. You think I should laugh at everything, no matter how stupid, just to make you think I'm ok?

Right, good one!

He was [s]being a ****[/s] selling dvds, not being controversial!

The guy's a polariser

He makes us all Polish?

. Sometimes offence is taken when it was not intended, in which case it is fault of the person who took offence, and the speaker is not involved at all.

Other wise known as the Bernard Manning / Jim Davidson defence.

Sorry it won't wash. For example a racist joke may be intended to be funny but still remains offensive. My only ban from here was for telling a joke - I intended no offence but by heck I caused some. My fault for being offensive not the readers for being offended. it was funny as well

[sidetrack for junky(ard)]

Tbh a quick google did not help me understand your point as specification error seems to be a stats term
You may need to explain further

Sorry, a bit pompous of me to use the expression. Mucho vino.

In statistics (specifically "regression") if you mis-define the hypothetical model you are using to illustrate a relationship you are said to have created a specification error.

In your example, you defined an example that relied upon the offence being created by abusing a single person directly related to the (for want of a better word) "offendee". That is not a relevant example when talking about generalised targets of abuse and the taking of offence on their behalf.

i.e. it's eminently provable that you [i]will[/i] offend someone when you abuse a named, close relation, of theirs: Because for them not to take offence is ludicrous.

However, the proper hypothetical construction is "is it reasonable for someone with no relationship to the "offendee" to be offended on their behalf just because the abuse could be reduced to a personal offence by extrapolation even though it was never said?"
[/sidetrack]

The guy's a polariser
He makes us all Polish?

Polarisationerer. I like it. I'm going with this. You know what I mean tho (probably)

Should have just stuck to curly haired Marmite

Other wise known as the Bernard Manning / Jim Davidson defence.
Sorry it won't wash. For example a racist joke may be intended to be funny but still remains offensive. My only ban from here was for telling a joke - I intended no offence but by heck I caused some. My fault for being offensive not the readers for being offended. it was funny as well

Your previous form has led me to believe that this discussion is not worth entering into.

nighty night.

Its just your analysis is to simplistic. Of course you can be offensive without any intent.

just saw it for the first time on news at ten.

chimp verdict - it was just clarkson doing what he does and the professionally offended doing what they do. a bit of a giggle that made me s**** followed by a complete over reaction

fwiw, i support the strikes 100%

Its just your analysis is to simplistic

Tehre certainly is little point in complaining about Clarkson being offensive. he does it deliberately, its what defines him and he is very careful not to push it too far.

don't stop him being a twerp tho

TandemJeremy - Member
Its just your analysis is to simplistic. Of course you can be offensive without any intent.

Not my analysis......

it was from a article I read online called "[b]Nothing Happens[/b] when you are offended"

See, Junky, your new, complete quote totally changes the sense of what was said. "Sometimes offence is taken when it was not intended" is central and you didn't mention it, just pretended that the person was saying only "taken and not given"

And you'd be a complete and utter prat for thinking anyone would go to the effort of discreetly embedding some form of "offence" into something so simple as abbreviating your STW user name, when they would just as happily call you a knob openly

nealglover

so you think Bernard Manning telling racist jokes is not offensive because he does not mean to offend?

Bit late to this having just seen it on the news but wasn't it clear that the comment that's caused all the fuss was intended to be a counter to his previous and arguably equally stupid (and IMO quite clearly deliberately so) comment as a joke about BBC balance.

A bit stupid to think it woildnt cause a fuss (though I suspect he'll do well out of it so continuing this is only going to benefit him) but if anything wasn't it clear that it was opposite to his supposed real view?

Or have I completely missed something?

Or have I completely missed something?

Stoner, as I pointed out earlier, it's possible to point out that someone is being offensive without personally bring offended. I think that's a bit of a problem in this thread and why it's still droning on.

(the following not @ Stoner)

Clarkson came on tv and acted just how he is - a cock. A lot of people (rightfully) hate him - and are very quick to point out that he was being a cock. It doesn't mean that everybody who feels the need (me included) to point out how much of a cock he is (a massive one) is outraged and offended.

It's sort of annoying here sometimes to be labelled (or certainly made to feel as if one is) a professional [i]offendee[/i] just because one gives an opinion on how much of a cock (really really big) Clarkson is.

TandemJeremy - Member
nealglover
so you think Bernard Manning telling racist jokes is not offensive because he does not mean to offend?

🙄

Find the article, Read it, and email the Author if you don't like it.

I'm not going to flog a dead horse with someone who seems to enjoy spending all their time disagreeing with people on the Internet.

As I said before.

Nighty night.

That's not how it works, don't be thick.

I'm actually pretty bright, even if I do say so myself. My comment about professional offendees was prompted by the fact that there seems to be a growing section of the population desperate to take offence at anything, because being the victim of an so-called offensive remark is very much the trendy thing to be these days.

I've never really understood why people get so worked up about being offended anyway. Is it a physical reaction? Does it make you ill? What is this "offence" actually doing to you?

This thing about people choosing to be offended - rubbish. Otherwise it would mean no-one had any responsibility for what they might say.

It's exactly the same as letting your dog sh*t all over the trails and saying it's our fault for being disgusted.

I'm actually pretty bright, even if I do say so myself.

All the more reason not to type daft things on here then. Although I must say I'm a little sceptical if you don't understand empathy.

The definition of 'offence' in this instance is something that upsets somebody else. That could be anything, and it could upset someone for reasons of which we are not aware. Since being upset is pretty personal, we can't be expected to know exactly when we offend everyone, but as we grow up we should at least get a general idea of what would be considered upsetting to others. It's called being nice, and it stems from a sense of empathy.

Now - re the actual comments, a lot of people are really struggling to make ends meet, which is not a nice thing to have to do, and to have someone rubbish your problems on telly for a cheap joke could very easily be upsetting. An intelligent person ought to be able to figure this out surely?

It's sort of annoying here sometimes to be labelled (or certainly made to feel as if one is) a professional offendee just because one gives an opinion on how much of a cock (really really big) Clarkson is.

Two different things. Hating (or loving) Clarkson is just a matter of personal taste. Personally with me I'm not bothered either way. He's not daft though. He knows exactly how to keep his profile, and therefore his income, very high. The length of this thread is proof of that. If nobody bothered about the remarks Clarkson makes then he'd soon stop making them.

My issue with people taking offence (or rather claiming to take offence) at the slightest thing is that it ultimately inhibits free speech.

what DD said and a professional offendee is generally only saying lets be a bit nicer to each other or dont offend just for the sake of it ..I can see why this offends some people enough to get upset on a forum though 😛

Neal, Where are you from?

My issue with people taking offence (or rather claiming to take offence) at the slightest thing

If people take serious offence at something then [b]by definition[/b] it's not the slightest thing, is it? Anyone's idea of 'slight' is obviously not the same as the next man's.

Offense can mean many things. a comment can be offensive but not cause offense.

The standard British anti-French comments are offensive and deliberately so in the main. I choose not to take offense on the basis that I can see them as either a joke that's not intended seriously or as a comment from an idiot whose views I have no problem ignoring. Either way I am choosing not to be offended though I could arguably quite legitimately be.

I can also see that for some people it may well be much harder to choose not to take offense - racism for instance.

It's exactly the same as letting your dog sh*t all over the trails and saying it's our fault for being disgusted.

No it's not. That's an act that can cause illness. Telling a joke can't.

This thing about people choosing to be offended - rubbish. Otherwise it would mean no-one had any responsibility for what they might say.

Again, not true. There has to be a middle ground. One shouldn't be banned from expressing an opinion because other people claim to be offended by it. Instead of claiming offence, why not present a counter-argument to something you disagree with? Or in the case of jokes like Clarkson's, just ignore them?

Just listened to the whole piece..I can't believe some of you lot are taking his comments so seriously - a more tongue in cheek comment I have yet to hear.

What a lot of you are getting upset about is what he represents & who he is friends with.

Anti-French comments offend me even though I am not French. The fact that the people making them think it's perfectly fine to be so brainlessly moronically and casually racist for the sake of a pathetically cheap laugh, that upsets and depresses me.

Overdid the adjectives a bit there, sorry if that causes offence.

PS I was not offended by Clarkson's comments, just embarassed. However I am offended by the people on here who are saying offending others is something we don't need to care about.

It's exactly the same as letting your dog sh*t all over the trails and saying it's our fault for being disgusted.

ROFL! Get a grip. Seems to me some folk are mistaking humanity with fragility. What will they react like when something [b]really[/b] bad happens...

Teasel - wot?

You miss my point.

and a professional offendee is generally only saying lets be a bit nicer to each other or dont offend just for the sake of it

I agree a bit with that. Some are saying that, and fair enough. Equally though, some are saying it because they want an opinion they disagree with not to be aired. And it's easier to claim to be offended by something than to present an argument against it.

As for offending just for the sake of it, I agree it's not a nice thing to do. However Clarkson wasn't doing it for that reason. He was doing it because he knows how the tabloid press works. Love him or hate him, he's no fool.

Equally though, some are saying it because they want an opinion they disagree with not to be aired

Hmm not sure I share that assessment.

thanks for getting offended on my behalf molgrips 😉

Mostly I see it as piss taking which is a very human way of interacting and has no intent or conviction. I'd hate to see that stopped. The problem really comes about when the intent isn't clear. As in this thread I reckon.

Anti-French comments offend me even though I am not French.

I'm Scottish, and anti-Scottish jokes or comments don't offend me one bit. In fact I often make them myself.

CharlieMungus - Member
Neal, Where are you from?

Why do you ask ?

I'm Scottish, and anti-Scottish jokes or comments don't offend me one bit. In fact I often make them myself.

A female family member accepts and asserts that women are worse drivers/aren't funny/can't read maps. Does that make her right?

my wife's N.Irish, my brother-in-law's a Scot and my family are English/French. There are countless jokes about it. No one takes offense but the comments taken alone definitely could cause offense to people we don't know or if seen out of context.

Which again is what seems to have hapoened with Clarkson's comments.

A female family member accepts and asserts that women are worse drivers/aren't funny/can't read maps. Does that make her right?

Some women are funny. Other than that she's spot on. 🙂

I think the thing that you notice most on this thread, is that so many of the people who don't find something, or someone "funny" think that they are somehow superior...

that someone who finds something funny that they don't must be thick, idiotic or stupid to do so...

Personally, I think that its exactly that type of ivory tower superiority complex that Clarkson sets out to prick the bubble of, and long may he continue to do so 😉

For anyone on here who's been "offended" by anything ever.

[URL]

It's about 4 minutes in.

I think the thing that you notice most on this thread, is that so many of the people who don't find something, or someone "funny" think that they are somehow superior..

Isn't that what you're doing? You think you're superior because you DO find it funny, and are slagging us off for being humourless?

Pricking bubbles is one thing - cleverly outwitting people and showing up their silliness or pretence, I'm all for that. However Clarkson and his comments on that occasion were a very long way from that ideal.

Erm, well, I [b]really[/b] can't take the claim for Shakespeare's work Molgrips 😉

or did you not recognise the characterisation of the puritanical streak and quotation from Twelfth Night as somewhat predating the one show by a few hundred years....

Jeez Labby, you've been spouting some bollocks this evening but you're pushing the boat out with that one. Are we to add Clarkson to your list of heroes now? Along with D-T-M-H, Pinochet, Reagan and Maggie?

Otherwise, what Mol said. +1

Oh and I couldn't agree more on one point. Yes, he is quite the prick.

Good night, Penthesilea 😉

that type of ivory tower superiority complex that Clarkson sets out to prick the bubble of,

Now that [i]is[/i] funny!

neal, i ask because of your earlier refusal to engage in discussion with TJ based on his previous behaviour and erm.. wondered if er.. it might be a erm... regional thing. Just wondering

There's some really quite serious stuff that this country needs to sort out right now.
But this thread is 8 pages long... one of the longest in recent days.
I think that tells us all we need to know about what Clarkson's game is. And we're all quite happily playing it.
Including me 😉

one of the longest in recent days.

8 pages is nuffin dude. 🙂