Jeremy Clarkson: Shoot the strikers

jonnyfingers

What annoys me is Clarkson actually said things in support of the strikers, then he jokingly said "Oh I forgot this is the BBC so I better balance out my opinion" before saying, again jokingly, they should all be shot etc.

So he was in fact poking fun at the BBC and their need to either balance their opinion or be opposed to the public sector strikes.

I was listening to Radio 4 on my commute home and they had some of the union reps on giving their opinion. It was laughable, they were treating it as if he has actually shot someone in front of their kids.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think what he said was particularly funny (what also has been missed in most of the reporting is the comments he made about train suicides which in my opinion was much worse than this), but the outrage is completely unjustified.

Paparazzo

hooradiation wrote: »

Aye, it was a 'joke' in Clarkson's usual style of being 'outrageous' (as Stewart Lee says, he has outrageous opinions in his column every week, to a deadline, for money). Unions calling for his head have made themselves look like humourless whiners and given even more ammo to the hordes of POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GONE MAD morons who lap up Clarkson's 'wit'.

I've something that might shock you about stewart lee.
Linky and Linky
He gets paid for his opinions too :eek:

I've read one of Clarksons books, it was basically car reviews, but they went off on a rant. One of the funniest books I've ever read!

hooradiation

Paparazzo wrote: »

I've something that might shock you about stewart lee.
Linky and Linky
He gets paid for his opinions too :eek:

No?
Really?
I am fucking stunned
This is amazing news and was in no way a total waste of time and a terrible attempt on your part to look clever.

Though I wasn't aware that doing a stand up show and writing a column for a newspaper were the exact same thing. This is probably because they aren't.

Paparazzo

Wonder if it will effect Jeremy Clarksons christmas dvd sales? I'd say he's please the unions are making a big deal about this, perfect timing.

hooradiation wrote: »

No?
Really?
I am fucking stunned
This is amazing news and was in no way a total waste of time and a terrible attempt on your part to look clever.

Though I wasn't aware that doing a stand up show and writing a column for a newspaper were the exact same thing. This is probably because they aren't.

Both are opinions for money. Both have found a market for their opinions and stick with it.
But if spending your time posting snide comments about how unfunny Jeremy Clarkson is how to look clever and not a waste of time, please, teach me your ways oh wise one! I've already learned how to attempt to make sly digs at a posters intelligence, and have grasped scarcasm already.

hooradiation

Paparazzo wrote: »

Both are opinions for money. Both have found a market for their opinions and stick with it.

that was the whole fucking point, he's a profession shit stirrer not a brave champion who's "saying what everyone is thinking"

Now that we've established that, what was the whole point of your post anyway? What was it you thought you were communicating and more importantly why?

Paparazzo wrote: »

But if spending your time posting snide comments about how unfunny Jeremy Clarkson is how to look clever and not a waste of time, please, teach me your ways oh wise one! I've already learned how to attempt to make sly digs at a posters intelligence, and have grasped scarcasm already.

try harder, be better.

K-9

There's definitely a bit of a witch hunt about Clarkson, always were loads who hated Top Gear stunts etc. and the affair with the ex thing kind of proved he's a bit of a dick. Its a bit like Ross, his card has been marked for a long time.

Johro

I always get this feeling with Jeremy Clarkson that he's only half joking when he comes out with shite like that, mainly because he knows well that there are plenty of like minded right wing conservatives out there who'll pat him on the back for it. If too many people complain, the 'Oh it was only a joke, PC gone mad etc.' usually works for him. I'm not fooled by it. I wouldn't let it upset me too much either. I'd worry more about the opinions of people I do rate.
He's a lot like Eamonn Dunphy, 'controversial' for attention.

Paparazzo

Apparently, The BBC has received more than 21,000 complaints about his comment.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15998210

Reading through the negative comments on it, looks like no one actually heard what he said except the words "striking public sector workers should be shot" and decided to be outraged and offended.

Johro

Paparazzo wrote: »

Apparently, The BBC has received more than 21,000 complaints about his comment.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15998210

Reading through the negative comments on it, looks like no one actually heard what he said except the words "striking public sector workers should be shot" and decided to be outraged and offended.

Here's one of the comments though: 'I was one of the millions of strikers on Wednesday, and would gladly strike again as I believe it is important to stand up for what you believe is right. I am embarrassed by the reaction to Jeremy Clarkson's comments on the One Show. I thought that this type of knee-jerk hysterical moral outrage was the preserve of Daily Mail readers. I saw the show, in full, and thought Clarkson was very funny. I can tell when someone means what they say and when they are making a joke, and it was clearly a joke. All this hysteria over something and nothing has devalued the strike and is making us look like idiots. I bet Cameron can't believe his luck.'
I do kinda have to agree with this view, save for the fact I believe Clarkson to be a tw@t anyway. Whether his rants are meant to be 'jokes' or not, that seems to depend on the level of support he gets for what he said. His 'look at me! I'm being controversial' thing gets more and more tired.

4zn76tysfajdxp

Biggins wrote: »

I wouldn't want violence to happen to him. I wouldn't do it myself. I didn't say "it wouldn't be so bad" either.
I alluded to if something like that happened - 1. it would come as no surprise and 2. while condemning any violence, see that he was reaping what he sowed somewhat - and for his words/actions I would have little feeling to him if there was a reaction, There's a subtle difference.
If one is stupid to keep saying the wrong things (for whatever reason), sooner or later there might be a backlash.

I'm not convinced. Didn't sound to me that you were condemning violence. Sounds to me like you're backtracking tbh.

foxyboxer

Society has changed from a "I disagree with what you say, but will fight for your right to say it" to a "If you express an opinion that somehow offends someone, somewhere, and is construed to be racist, sexist etc We will destroy you"

Anyone who takes something Clarkson says literally needs their head examined. I think certain people really do think he wanted a firing squad to execute these people. :rolleyes:

Johro

Javier Eager Spaciousness wrote: »

I'm not convinced. Didn't sound to me that you were condemning violence. Sounds to me like you're backtracking tbh.

Not sure about that. Biggins' words were:
'Some day he will be walking down the street soon and somebody will walk up to him I suspect and 'land' him one.
He'd get no sympathy from the like of me.'
That to me sounds more like an observation than a plan.

Paparazzo

Javier Eager Spaciousness wrote: »

I'm not convinced. Didn't sound to me that you were condemning violence. Sounds to me like you're backtracking tbh.

Don't back Biggins into a corner. He may get violent

Johro

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ci5qI5c_jI

Hehe.

frank reynolds

Jeremy clarkson should be the one who's shot. or at least blasted with piss

Johro

frank reynolds wrote: »

Jeremy clarkson should be the one who's shot. or at least blasted with unleaded

FYP

Johro

Or diesel.

BlaasForRafa

LighterGuy wrote: »

Well, Public Service debates should always be defined by one thing ... are we talking about the fat cats with the high paid jobs? or we talking about joe roadsweeper? ... cause often a person is talking about both the higher ups and the bottom. Labelling both as one.

But lets rewind to 2007. Where was all this hate for the PS? ... Manly the council. Always had a stigma of being a lazy shower of feckers (lets be honest, not wrong on that one) but where was the out cry? ... wasnt any. because average tom, dick and harry was happy making his wage. But suddenly since the big bad recession came in ... they lost their jobs .... gotta turn to someone. Gotta begrudge someone.

If we're talking about the fat cats. 100% agree. Trim the fat. But heres the thing. 99% of the time people are talking about everyone on a PS wage.

I AM talking about almost everyone on a PS wage, in general they are overpaid relative to the private sector but they seem to have this entitlement to not only an unsackable job but more pay and pension provisions as well which is logically flawed. If you have an unsackable position you should be paid less.

And there were plenty of people pre-2007 who said the ps was overpaid and that the so called benchmarking that was going on was a racket by the government to buy the ps vote.

Johro

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

I AM talking about almost everyone on a PS wage, in general they are overpaid relative to the private sector but they seem to have this entitlement to not only an unsackable job but more pay and pension provisions as well which is logically flawed. If you have an unsackable position you should be paid less.

And there were plenty of people pre-2007 who said the ps was overpaid and that the so called benchmarking that was going on was a racket by the government to buy the ps vote.

I know a few people who work public sector jobs, they each took three pay cuts in the last few years, the equivalent of around 50 quid a week or more. That's gotta hurt. My brother in law works for the John F. Kennedy park in New Ross, been there ten years at least, overworked and underpaid for all of it. When you say 'in general', maybe you should say 'some'. People have this idea in their heads the public sector workers have it all. They couldn't be more wrong. For the record, I'm self employed.

4zn76tysfajdxp

Johro wrote: »

Not sure about that. Biggins' words were:
'Some day he will be walking down the street soon and somebody will walk up to him I suspect and 'land' him one.
He'd get no sympathy from the like of me.'
That to me sounds more like an observation than a plan.

I'm not saying he's planning anything. Merely pointing out that he doesn't sound like he's comdemning violence when he imagines Jeremy Clarkson being landed.

Johro

Javier Eager Spaciousness wrote: »

I'm not saying he's planning anything. Merely pointing out that he doesn't sound like he's comdemning violence when he imagines Jeremy Clarkson being landed.

Meh. I'd get the popcorn out meself. But fair enough, I guess.

gigino

Johro wrote: »

People have this idea in their heads the public sector workers have it all. They couldn't be more wrong.

Average salary of 48k a year, according to www.cso.ie. Thats one of the best public service salaries in the world. Job security. Golden pension. And you can practically never be sacked no matter how incompetent or lazy you are.

That may not be " having it all ", but its damn close for many people. What more do you / your partner want : 5 paid shopping days instead of a half shopping day ? A few extra sickies ?

Herb Powell

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

If you have an unsackable position you should be paid less.

eh, no. Explain the logic here?

gigino

being virtually unsackable is a huge perk most people in the private sector would give an arm and a leg for.

public servants should be paid less,. not more.

those who take the risk get rewarded for it

What's very big, got curly hair and is guaranteed to hurt sensitive little shítes?

Jeremy Clarkson.

vampire of kilmainham

massiveattack wrote: »

You couldnt guarantee the bullet would make it through the first person

use a 7.62ml round fired from an ak47 and it will rip right through both of em i assure you

don ramo

screw them back to work, everyone is hurting, facts are facts and the country is just like any company, when your paying out more than your taking in, things must be slashed and employee pay is generally your biggest expendature,

what id love to know ore about is the health sector, seeing as we pay PRSI specifically for that (to my knowledge thats whats it suppose to be for), is the health sector actually using all that money to say they need to slash things there, or is the goverment taking money from the PRSI to help out in other areas, thus affecting the standard or our health system, health is probably that main area where i would understand a strike but would really hope they wouldnt,


im all for unions, not in one myself but some things these unions do really piss me off,

i remember hearing that the train strikes there a year or two ago was down to 2 fellas coming into work drunk and decided they were fine to drive people to dublin, and after they got suspened (with pay) they ran to the union and shut down all train services, total abuse of power there, and cost this country millions:mad: (i dunno how true that story is, i heard it from someone whos parents worked for CIE)

Johro

gigino wrote: »

Average salary of 48k a year, according to www.cso.ie. Thats one of the best public service salaries in the world. Job security. Golden pension. And you can practically never be sacked no matter how incompetent or lazy you are.

That may not be " having it all ", but its damn close for many people. What more do you / your partner want : 5 paid shopping days instead of a half shopping day ? A few extra sickies ?

I don't want any of it. :rolleyes: I'm self employed. I'm just talking about some of the people I know who are in public service jobs and draw a fairly average or small wage. Like my brother in law who took three pay cuts (his pay wasn't great before the cuts) and his family can't manage without Family Income Support. Saying the average salary is good doesn't mean there aren't public servants out there on shit wages. There's far too much generalising going on about all groups in society.