[Bails]

I think it's unlikely that anyone is picking up a gun and conducting summary executions of public sector workers (I hope) in the wake of what he said. Nobody is stupid enough to take Clarkson that seriously, are they?

(I know it could be the new Godwin, but) Anders Behring Breivik did, on a piece he'd written about the English flag being deemed 'offensive'.

Seriously?
If Clarkson hadn't written that Breivik would not have carried out his shootings?

I didn't say that at all, Tom asked if anyone took Clarkson seriously, I pointed out that someone did.

In his 1,518-page Manifesto he does indeed mention Clarkson amongst many, many other 'justifications'. How odd that you've singled him out.

Errr....it's a thread about Clarkson.... someone asked a question about Clarkson, so I responded about Clarkson

Among hundreds of refences Breivik cites are several well-known British newspaper columnists and articles in publications across the political spectrum.
Melanie Phillips, of the Daily Mail, is quoted at length, including an opinion piece about Labour’s immigration policy which is included in full.
Attacking the rise in immigration, she remarks: “It was done to destroy for ever what it means to be culturally British and to put another 'multicultural' identity in its place.”
He also cites an article by Jeremy Clarkson, the Top Gear presenter and Sunday Times columnist, about the flag of St George stating: “This is the only country in the world where the national flag is deemed offensive.”
Praising Clarkson’s Top Gear performances, Breivik adds: “Discrediting national flags as signs of ‘bigotry’ is happening all over the Western world.”
He also cites The Guardian 10 times.

http://forum.lowyat.net/topic/1972195/all" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
By my reading, that makes the Guardian 10 times more responsible - are you going to demand that it's closed down?

Where did I demand anything?

I think people have seen the one line out of context. It was a foolish thing to say, but it was essentially "I think the strikes were good, but we've got ot be balanced so I'll also say I think the strikes were bad". I don't think he should be 'banned' as you seem to suggest I want, I don't know where you've got that from.

[Tom_UK]

I don't think anyone does take him seriously, especially when he says something like this that he obviously doesn't mean, but I did put the "(I hope)" in my comment because Breivik is proof that you never know. However, I think that Breivik was influenced by a steady drip-drip of right-wing lies (and his own likely mental health issues) from various sources, rather than being directly inspired to take arms by Clarkson. In many ways, I feel that the daily diet of lies presented as facts by the likes of the DM and Express is far more corrosive than one ludicrous comment from an oaf like Clarkson. Clarkson hasn't contributed to the rise of the EDL as far as I know, but it could be argued that the lies of the tabloid media have.

If someone takes him seriously to the extent that they would do something as extreme as to go out and start killing public sector workers, I think that is a mental health problem rather than the ludicrous claim of "incitement" by Unison.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

100%

[Daley Mayle]

But now it has emerged producers thought it would be amusing if the Top Gear host offered an extreme view of the strike that was not meant to be taken seriously, The Times said.

The production team were aware of the contents of the joke prior to broadcast but Mr Clarkson apparently took it one step farther than they had expected when he said strikers should be shot in front of their families.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1fN9mVVzL" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


This has been lifted from a report in the Times but as I can't be arsed to line Rupert's pocket there's no way of checking. Doesn't Jezza write for The Times?

[Bails]

Tom: I agree, I don't think anyone will start shooting public sector workers. If they do, the problem will be with them, not JC. I just felt I should respond as oboogie has suggested here and in another thread that I want JC banned, or that he was the inspiration for the Oslo/Utoya atrocities, and that I'm therefore a hypocrite for not wanting the Guardian banned too, as that was also in the 'manifesto'.

[Messianic Trees]

But now it has emerged producers thought it would be amusing if the Top Gear host offered an extreme view of the strike that was not meant to be taken seriously, The Times said.

The production team were aware of the contents of the joke prior to broadcast but Mr Clarkson apparently took it one step farther than they had expected when he said strikers should be shot in front of their families.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1fN9mVVzL" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This has been lifted from a report in the Times but as I can't be arsed to line Rupert's pocket there's no way of checking. Doesn't Jezza write for The Times?

This is the Guardian's take:

Clarkson told the Times that he had informed the One Show's production team of the details of his joke. A BBC spokeswoman said last night: "Jeremy had a meeting with a One Show producer before appearing, as is standard for all guests. The meeting is to cover the topics that will be discussed and the expectations the show has around issues such as tone and balance, and it was made clear where those boundaries lay."

Edit: And here's the Mail's.

[The Katflap Kid]

Jeremy Clarkson is a bloody idiot (the fact that he's friends with Rebecca Brooks speaks volumes to me, which I realise is judgemental on my part). A lot of what he says is purely to get a reaction - which he has well and truly got here. Watching him, my own thought was "what a twat" then thought no more of it. Do I want him sacked - no, will I buy any of his books or DVDs - no, but the one thing I value is freedom of expression and that means that sometimes people will say things I don't like. I'd rather that than control what people can say especially if it is meant as a joke, even if it is a rubbish one.....

Or as a wise friend of mine said

Jeremy Clarkson should be taken out and ignored

[Malcolm Armsteen]

I think the interesting point that has been made in this thread is that Clarkson is actually a decent writer and TV presenter who could, if he chose, have a career in serious documentary making - his Brunel programme, the Meet The Neighbours series and his appearance on Who Do You Think You Are were effective television, and he came across as genuinely intelligent and knowledgeable (and whether he is or not those are the key skills for a presenter). Instead he has pursued the laddish persona, probably because Top Gear is such a lucrative franchise he has no need to do much else except when (as with Brunel) it clearly interests him.
He even had a laddish chat show which overlapped with the Top Gear theme, if I recall.
If you met him in a pub, you'd probably get on with him.

Yes, he's rich, having been born comfortable, but he's also worked at what he does, and doesn't seem to have been handed anything on a plate. I don't agree with his politics, and I really, really can't stand Top Gear, but apart from that - what?

[bluebellnutter]

I have to say though Top Gear isn't without its merits in its actions, especially on those long road-trip specials. The Vietnam one was fascinating, but mixed with humour.

BTW, his documentary about Arnhem and his relative there was brilliant as well.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

So, all in all, a talent wasting himself for money. How novel!

[satnav]

I think he just seems to come unstuck when he appears on live TV.When he had ago a doing his own live chat show he once had Johnathon Porrit as a guest, as expected Clarkson went into rant mode, instead of entering in a slanging match Porrit sat back waited his turn and then demolished all his arguments. The production company then went to great lengths to try and avoid him cocking up future interviews.

[crabcakes_windermere]

I think it can be summed up in the following:

Clarkson: is talented but likes to arse about and is paid to do so (and to be fair to him, if someone paid me to cock about in sports cars with my mates I wouldn't be rushing off to establish myself as a serious documentary maker either), and doesn't take himself at all seriously/can take it when people have a go back in good humour (e.g. the pie incident) = he's generally liked, even though he's a cock and periodically puts his foot in it.

Yet for someone superficially similar the outcome is very different -

Littlejohn: isn't talented but thinks he is, incredibly lazy and slapdash but makes out he works hard, and is a massive ego who can't handle criticism = generally loathed apart from by equally deranged sycophants.

[Carlos The Badger]

I think he just seems to come unstuck when he appears on live TV.When he had ago a doing his own live chat show he once had Johnathon Porrit as a guest, as expected Clarkson went into rant mode, instead of entering in a slanging match Porrit sat back waited his turn and then demolished all his arguments. The production company then went to great lengths to try and avoid him cocking up future interviews.

And conversely when he had Stephen Ladyman (then Minister of State for Transport) on Top Gear as the SiaRPC we were all expecting hard-hitting, confrontational questions about speed cameras etc. but all we got was puppy-dog fawning. Pathetic.

[oboogie]

An email read out at the end of Any Answers:

If every failed joke was banned by the BBC we would never see David Cameron and Ed Milliband on PMQs ever again.

[Gourami]

I think the Unions should drop the shit against Clarkson, so they don't fall to the level of the outrage that hounded Ross and Brand

Man makes crass but clearly contrived comment on TV. Ho-hum. It is undignified to treat it like it is meaningful.