Top Gear on Hold - Clarkson suspended by beeb.

[Saracen]

'it did appear that I'd actually used the word' is an admission. If your wallet was missing, and I said 'it appears that I've stolen your wallet', how on earth is that not an admission if I'm talking about myself? Your reasoning, along with your insistence that, despite his apology, he never said it, is strange to say the least.




....

It is not an admission he said it. It is an admission it appears he said it.

And, probably like Clarkson, I was taught that little rhyme as a toddler. In fact, It's one of my very earliest memories, along with "this little piggy ..." while parents counted toes, playing with me, and LONG before I had any notion what the offensive n-word referred to.

I now would avoid using that rhyme at all, because whether using the n-word or not, it might be seen to be offensive, but it's a very old, deeply ingrained memory, and I could use it without thinking, and if I did, that word MIGHT, slip in. There is NOTHING racist in this, except the possibility that people might take offense, when NONE was intended.

That's the point Clarkson was trying to make, that despite his (claiming to) neither intend nor remember using it, it appears he did. Note that he didn't say "did", or "definitely did", but "appears" he did, because that's certainly what the rather mumbled, indistinct audio sounds like.

And if so, there is nothing racist in accidental use of term NOW regarded as unacceptable, that wasn't when he (or I) were taught it.

If, on the other hand, he deliberately used the n-word in order to be provocative, and then is seeking to weasel out of it, well, it's still not necessarily racist but would be gratuitously and seriously offensive and obnoxious. But being provocative, obnoxious and even offensive is stock-in-trade for certain media types, with Wossy and Brand coming to mind as prime examples, but thet are very far from the only ones, and decades too late to be the first.

[TheAnimus]

I don't hate him, I just think that for at least one show he could be replaced with a bag of manure to great comic effect for any live show sections, possibly with a voice over from anyone handy. Pre-recorded test drives might be more of a problem if they want to remove him.

This is not a serious documentary show we are talking about here, it is low brow entertainment.

I think the fact is it's very watched, in many countries, yet the regional versions are normally considered the poor imitation. The fact they've tried the format with other hosts, to find it doesn't work so well is the issue here.

I think Top Gear is long in the teeth, it's probably jumped the shark to use the TV vernacular, but we have to be realistic about it, it's still one of the most entertaining, visually stimulating programs the BBC produce. Whilst personally I think that they've been far from their magnum opus (Vietnam or Botswana), I think they would struggle to address that by changing the cast.

[Knoxville]

The bag of manure would probably dress better and would have let Gillian Anderson talk a bit more about her Defender two weeks ago but the less I say about that the better

All things considered I think there is something to that. The British perception of Top Gear is that Jeremy Clarkson and his tortured metaphors and burned rubber are a major part of it but does he really embody the whole show?

The U.S and Aussie iterations seem to be handling themselves pretty well without him, I wouldn't say either of them have a presenter that really tries to copy his style carte-blanche either. Tanner Foust and Rutledge Wood have become fairly notable characters in their own right too so I don't think it's beyond the realms of possibility that a new crew could take over the British version provided they had personality and knew what they were talking about.

The problem with that, as you quite rightly say is that the British version is a massive cash cow for the BBC right now and changing anything that major would severely upset the apple cart, it's a good job nobody cast him as Dr. Who or they'd really be up a creek without a paddle...

If he changed channel and started a new motoring show would I watch it? Probably, annoying as he can be he can also be amusing in his own orangutan like fashion.

Would I watch it over the new version of Top Gear and never bother checking out how the BBC had changed the format to deal with his departure? I think that's a stretch.

I really like having a prime time motoring show to watch but I will go where the content's best, not necessarily follow Clarkson wherever he goes and Top Gear has very much been an entertainment show rather than a motoring show for some time now. We all still watch it, myself included but there are actually three or four shows on Youtube these days that are car focused and that I enjoy far more than anything Clarkson and co have done recently. We also know what happens when he takes the reigns and has his own light entertainment/chat show, the ratings go off a cliff, he runs it into the ground and he's back at Television Center a few years later.

[opel80uk]

Lets look at later in the apology:
“In fact I have here the note I sent at the time to the production office and it says: ‘I didn’t use the n-word here but I’ve just listened through my headphones and it sounds like I did. Is there another take that we could use?’
Which is what he meant when he says, "it did appear that I'd actually used the word". As in, it seemed that way. Remember he also qualified this with:
"if you listen very carefully with the sound turned right up"

That is simply bizarre reasoning.

But the scenario assumes that given no rules or restrictions the general moral code by which you uphold yourself would be thrown out of the window... it wouldn't. I'm sure you are a decent bloke, if you entered this hypothetical world tomorrow, would you immediately go around saying unnecessarily 'offensive' things? I doubt it
My point is more towards the idea of people being thicker skinned and not giving idiots the attention they really want, rather than playing their game and escalating the situation.
Im not saying problems go away if you ignore them, but in many case I believe cases, where no-one is actually harmed these problems would

No, of course I wouldn't go round intentionally offending people, but there are plenty of people who would and it's naïve to think they wouldn't. Look at how people act on the unmoderated (relatively compared to RL) social media. The notion that people would stop doing things simply because they get no outward response is fanciful – some people are just simply spiteful.

License fee is not a tax, effectively or otherwise.

I think, but not sure, that it is officially listed as a tax. But even if it is not 'officially' one, how is it not effectively the same?

But wouldn't a direct approach towards someone really cross the line into harassment rather than just being generally 'offensive'? Harassment is a different situation to making a none direct statement that some people find offensive for little other reason than it gives them a chance to exercise their.

So Instead of insulting the disabled kid directly, the man sits down next to them and says the same things, but indirectly, using general terms about all disabled people instead of the kid. Then it is the responsibility of the boy to get a thicker skin? I don't wanna live in a society where all the responsibility is placed on the kid.

The thing about this is that i'm not a huge Jezzer fan or follower. I enjoy TG and I think he's funny, but I have no loyalty too him. My problem is with this ridiculous abuse of social media and the press. I mean someone took the time to dig out an out take from years ago that didn't make it onto the TV with no intention other than to cause outrage and we all continue to fall for it.

If it was just that one incident, then I might've agreed, but it's not.

[neonplanet40]

I'm staggered by people who get upset by such things. It was said, off camera, it's a rhyme which, despite been many decades his junior, I knew as that (without realising the implications of the term).

Thats what 'PC' Britain is like now though. You dare not fart without someone taking offence and suing you. The whole thing is a complete joke.

Yet another example of the problems we have in our society where people are so fragile that anything can be taken out of context and traumatize them. As for cancelling the show because of this and not airing the remaining episodes - idiocy.

I don't care what he has done, the remaining shows should be aired if they are unrelated.

[TheAnimus]

Thats what 'PC' Britain is like now though.

It's like the people defending the massacre of Charlie Hebro. How messed in the head do you have to be, to start having such cognitive dissidence between murder and tactless parody.

[opel80uk]

opel80uk, what is it you feel that is so oppressive about that term, the problem is it comes from a time when the British empire did treat many natives like animals. The fact is, it wasn't said clearly, it was being used as part of a rhyme, myself and others, used to say as a child. It was a mistake, and it was removed in edit. However, these actions are genuinely part of our history, our heritage, the arts. No one complains about the V&A exhibitions (well actually some twonks do) because the context is key. Same with that case.

Now the slope on the bridge thing, that one was just poor humour, but no different to what a lot of comedians would do. Or the whole 'chink in amour' gag.

Stop being such a professional victim.

I understand that context is important, such as in V&A exhibitions. Explain to me, if you will, in what context a grown man uses a nursery rhyme to decide which car to pick, whilst using probably the singularly most offensive term to describe black people, all the while presenting a car show? What is the context I am missing?


In what way am I a professional victim? I think you have misunderstood the meaning of that term.

[peterb]

I understand that context is important, such as in V&A exhibitions. Explain to me, if you will, in what context a grown man uses a nursery rhyme to decide which car to pick, whilst using probably the singularly most offensive term to describe black people, all the while presenting a car show? What is the context I am missing?


In what way am I a professional victim? I think you have misunderstood the meaning of that term.

That WAS the point, the two cars were (in his opinion) indistinguishable and so it made as much sense to use a nursery rhyme as any other criteria to choose one over the other.


And the joke was a nursery rhyme, not the particular nursery rhyme.

(Or in grammatical terms, the indefinite article, not the definite article! )

While I can't definitely speak for TheAnimus, whose mind workings are far too complex for me, you do seem to prefer to see the worst aspect of a situation, rather than giving the benefit of doubt and seeing the best side.

Things are rarely ...er.... black or white, there are usually many (at least 50) shades_of_gray in between.

[Biscuit]

That is simply bizarre reasoning.

Seems most people here are in general agreement about it so it cant be that bizarre.

No, of course I wouldn't go round intentionally offending people, but there are plenty of people who would and it's naïve to think they wouldn't. Look at how people act on the unmoderated (relatively compared to RL) social media. The notion that people would stop doing things simply because they get no outward response is fanciful – some people are just simply spiteful.

Indeed they are, and I'm sure they would too, but they would be the minority and by acknowledging them we give them what they want. Those who are better than to do it themselves, shouldn't bother wasting their time making a big deal out of it.
... im bored of going in this circle trying to explain it to be honest.

I think, but not sure, that it is officially listed as a tax. But even if it is not 'officially' one, how is it not effectively the same?

Pretty sure its not.
Is your driving license essentially a tax? Nope, its a qualification that allows you to drive a car. The license fee is qualification for you to use a device in the UK that can receive/record live transmission. I didn't have a device capable of doing this whilst at University for the first few years, so I didn't pay it. Even if you have a device, but its not hooked up, you don't have to pay it.
I don't agree with the enforcement methods, but they still don't make it, 'essentially a tax'.

So Instead of insulting the disabled kid directly, the man sits down next to them and says the same things, but indirectly, using general terms about all disabled people instead of the kid. Then it is the responsibility of the boy to get a thicker skin? I don't wanna live in a society where all the responsibility is placed on the kid.

I would still class this as harassment.... Besides, I don't think you really understand what I'm trying to get across in my statement about people who are easily offended as this drifting miles away from the intended context.

If it was just that one incident, then I might've agreed, but it's not.

And each of the incidents needs to be analysed individually. The 'slope' one I find to be in utterly poor taste and have no interest in defending.

[opel80uk]

That WAS the point, the two cars were (in his opinion) indistinguishable and so it made as much sense to use a nursery rhyme as any other criteria to choose one over the other.


And the joke was a nursery rhyme, not the particular nursery rhyme.

(Or in grammatical terms, the indefinite article, not the definite article! )

While I can't definitely speak for TheAnimus, whose mind workings are far too complex for me, you do seem to prefer to see the worst aspect of a situation, rather than giving the benefit of doubt and seeing the best side.

Things are rarely ...er.... black or white, there are usually many (at least 50) shades_of_gray in between.

I'm asking the context in which it was felt to use a nursery rhyme which included that particular word. Theanimus was saying that the use of ****** might be appropriate in say a V&A exhibition, and I agreed. I'm struggling to determine what context could justify its use in a discussion about cars. This infantile notion that because it was in a rhyme it suddenly shouldn't be offensive to people, despite him being able to use a whole range of words or other rhymes that would have left no room for ambiguity is just that; infantile.

And just for the record, I'm not particularly offended by its use, but that doesn't mean I'm so culturally ignorant about others that I can't empathise why some would be offended. That doesn't make me a 'professional victim', that makes me a human being. As I said before, if that had been his only incident, I think the thinking the worst accusation be be fair. But he on numerous times has lent himself to base generalisations and stereotypes, about gays, countries, races, etc, all in the name of supposed 'humour'. I would ask what on earth, given his track record, would make you think he wouldn't say it?

[TheAnimus]

Grim as it is, that nursery rhyme is part of our cultural heritage, just as much as some graphic depiction of injustice at the V&A is.

[sammyc]

I now would avoid using that rhyme at all, because whether using the n-word or not, it might be seen to be offensive, but it's a very old, deeply ingrained memory, and I could use it without thinking, and if I did, that word MIGHT, slip in. There is NOTHING racist in this, except the possibility that people might take offense, when NONE was intended.

That's the point Clarkson was trying to make, that despite his (claiming to) neither intend nor remember using it, it appears he did. Note that he didn't say "did", or "definitely did", but "appears" he did, because that's certainly what the rather mumbled, indistinct audio sounds like.

And if so, there is nothing racist in accidental use of term NOW regarded as unacceptable, that wasn't when he (or I) were taught it.

If, on the other hand, he deliberately used the n-word in order to be provocative, and then is seeking to weasel out of it, well, it's still not necessarily racist but would be gratuitously and seriously offensive and obnoxious. But being provocative, obnoxious and even offensive is stock-in-trade for certain media types, with Wossy and Brand coming to mind as prime examples, but the are very far from the only ones, and decades too late to be the first.

That's the nub of this, why use it at all? just.. don't in the first place, if you are aware you are going to 'hem-hem' past one word which we all know; that is no different to saying it imo and ditto the accidental/it appears angle. Eh? If I recited a limerick to my boss/colleague/whatever with an obvious rhyming punchline which I mumbled, or accidentally failed to mumble mumblingly enough, it's me that decided to start the recitation & that defence is not going to cut it when I attempt to excuse the insult. Try asterisking out a keyword on here & see where it gets you saying you accidentally posted a filthy limerick with a bit missing.

Anyway the man is an arrogant pair of weighing scales* and they can suspend him from whatever they like for me.


*not a documented term of abuse but do your best with it, after all you can't prove intent - can you?

[opel80uk]

Seems most people here are in general agreement about it so it cant be that bizarre.

Indeed. It appears a few weasel words do go a long way.

Pretty sure its not.
Is your driving license essentially a tax? Nope, its a qualification that allows you to drive a car. The license fee is qualification for you to use a device in the UK that can receive/record live transmission. I didn't have a device capable of doing this whilst at University for the first few years, so I didn't pay it. Even if you have a device, but its not hooked up, you don't have to pay it.
I don't agree with the enforcement methods, but they still don't make it, 'essentially a tax'.

Actually I looked it up. As well as it being essentially a tax, it's offically one too, as per the Office of National Statistics who seemingly decide these things.

I would still class this as harassment.... Besides, I don't think you really understand what I'm trying to get across in my statement about people who are easily offended as this drifting miles away from the intended context.

I do understand, and I know you are not advocating people be able to go round and offend whoever they like without consequence. But the notion that it's only ever the person offended's problem is just plain wrong IMO.

Grim as it is, that nursery rhyme is part of our cultural heritage, just as much as some graphic depiction of injustice at the V&A is.

I agree. And if it was said, by Clarkson, while making a programme about offensive language looking at the change of it's meaning and usage, I wouldn't bat an eyelid. But he said it while making a car programme.

[Biscuit]

Indeed. It appears a few weasel words do go a long way.

So we are all just suckers? Jeez

Actually I looked it up. As well as it being essentially a tax, it's offically one too, as per the Office of National Statistics who seemingly decide these things.

Could you provide a souce link please. Not that im disputing, I would just be interested to read it as I couldn't see where this was on their site.

I do understand, and I know you are not advocating people be able to go round and offend whoever they like without consequence. But the notion that it's only ever the person offended's problem is just plain wrong IMO.

So if you understood the true level to which I intended my statement to be, as I'm sure most did, I'm confused as to the real intention of highlighting its shortfalls?
I'll admit I didn't quantify my statement as best as I could, but I figured that would be assumed given I had just mentioned Hitchens and Fry.

[peterb]

Opel80uk is quite correct about the TV licence. It cropped up in another thread a few months ago, and to my surprise it is classed as a tax, I suspect partially because of the legal powers associated with tax collection. Nit is unusual though in that the proceeds are ring-fenced for a single purpose, rather than going into the general public purse.

http://www.publications.parliament.u...c/128/128i.pdf

Page 11, para 22

[Andy3536]

So we are all just suckers? Jeez


Could you provide a souce link please. Not that im disputing, I would just be interested to read it as I couldn't see where this was on their site.

I don't know why this argument as to whether it's a tax or not has carried on from the idea that Clarkson is paid for by the tax payers.
It's all insignificant when you realise that the show nets the BBC far more money that it costs to make, so the show pays for itself. Aswell as other shows on teh BBC too.