Top Gear on Hold - Clarkson suspended by beeb.

[TheAnimus]

Those accusations miss the point, as does analogies of sad white men singing ****** in rap songs, claiming it to be part of their culture and heritage; would this discussion be had if it were a muslim presenter on the BBC caught singing at work a song that he grew up with that described persecuting Jews, with his defence being that everyone he knew used it when he was growing up without knowing it's true meaning, even if that were believed to be true? Of course we wouldn't.

So you aren't just a racist, you are also a judgemental one too. Taking offence at everything other people do whilst judging their mechanisms for passing time whilst driving.

There is a marked difference in your latter example that violence is continuing in that way, there are genuinely people acting up right now who consider that behaviour current. Using the 'n' word in a popular musical song, in a context that is harmless, does not encourage hate, divide people etc, is not the same as encouraging violence.

I mean, where in the world are imperialists going round catching people for them to become slaves. We've moved past that as a society.

[Saracen]

....

The real context here is, because lots of middle aged posters on here grew up singing a rhyme that discusses hanging a black person up by his toes and seeing if he squeals, ignorant about what the wording (and perhaps the rhyme in general) meant, they think it's ok to continue to use it in that context, despite knowing full well what it means now.

I quite like Top Gear, and watch it, but IF Clarkson did as alleged, and punched a producer, or any other colleague for that matter, it's hard to see how the BBC could keep him on. Had he been some average working bloke, it would certainly be grounds for a gross misconduct dismissal. In fact, it's probably a textbook reason for it. Of course, the employer doesn't have to dismiss, but could and I suspect usually would. One of the prices you pay for being high profile, like Clarkson, us that the media spotlight is on you IF you do something like this. Well, Jeremy, you get the rough with the smooth, and being popular doesn't excuse such behaviour.

The differences with Clarkson and Suarez are, as far as I can tell, the Clarkson incident is alleged, and by the way, denied, whereas the Suarez incident is on video, not for the first time and, despite initial denials, subsequently admitted.

IF an inquiry upholds the allegation, then I doubt the BBC have much choice but, remember, Clarkson has the opportunity (and sure as hell has the money) to hold the BBC to account for it's decisions, especially if he is financialy or reputationally damaged by anything Auntie Beeb does or says over this.

So, the correct course for the Beeb is to hold a proper, calm, rational investigation, follow employment law to the letter and to be able to prove, if need be, that they have done so to a court.

As for this claptrap about middle-aged posters, what you're missing, Opel, is that there is NO requirement on white people alone to watch every word they say on penalty of being labelled racist if they dare to say something a non-white person finds offensive.

I said, quite clearly, that I wouldn't consciously use the n-word because black people very likely would be offended, and given the usages that word has been given in some contexts, I'm not surprised it'd be offensive. Hell, the usage it's had offends me, and offends and reasonable sense if decency, and I'm not black.

But what you seem to be missing, deliberately or otherwise, is that that rhyme, nit the n-word but the RHYME, was ingrained into me in a time when it didn't have the connotations it has now. Believe it or not, aged anything from a few months to two or three, I wasn't paying a lot of attention to the meaning of any of the words. I was more likely laying on my back, giggling and gurgling as my parents tickled my toes.

Yet, that oft-repeated rhyme stuck. And it MIGHT slip out even now, if my conscious didn't catch it.

The point is that while black people have every reason to resent racist behaviour, discrimination, and even deliberate racial offense, even if it's less overt than it was, it undermines the fight against such discrimination if they go out of their way to find offence even if none was intended.

And it's especially hypocritical if black people can say that word with impunity, but white people can't, because they're white, regardless of whether offense was intended, without geing labelled racist. Which, by the way, is an accusation I would find extremely offensive.

If you can't detect the difference between a far-right skinhead-type thug deliberately setting out to insult, and the lack of ANY intent to offend either by singing along with a published song, on reciting a childhood ditty and omitting politically correct mental editing, then sorry, but tough. You'll gave to be offended.

Black people would be far better served by being offended by that word when it IS intended to be derogatory. For example, I was working late one night when a skinhead type, shaved head, army fatigues, swastika tat's, etc, and well beered-up, walked past calling my friend and colleague that word, and making monkey gestures. My friend, who had every reason and right to be offended and angry, just shrugged and said he can't be bothered to be upset by some sad .... erm .... 'bleep' that's obviously too ignorant to know better. So rather than getting wound up, and reacting to it, he just ignored it. And THAT really wound up the muppet making the gestures, etc, precisely because he didn't get a rise out of my mate.

We don't and can't know what was in Clarkson's head when he appeared to use the n-word. Maybe he was trying to be racially offensive, maybe he was a 'shock-jock' type celeb trying to be outrageous, and maybe he just unconsciously let it slip, in the manner I described as possible, given his likely upbringing.

In the absence of certainty over that rhyme, all the furore over what he might have said, let alone meant, just undermines and dilutes the real objectionability of true obnoxiousness, like that skinhead type, let alone truly damaging racism where it has genuinely detrimental effects, like career advanvcement, rather than getting offended over a word in an old rhyme or white people singing along with a hit song, using the exact words in the song.

[Knoxville]

WOW so we're all still talking about Top Gear then eh? A show that nobody started a thread for when it came back for a new series, as has happened previously. A show that (search function for the win) nobody has really even mentioned here since February 2013. You just can't buy that kind of word of mouth can you? Especially in a world where it doesn't matter what somebody's saying about you as long as they get your name right.

I have tried to stay out of the Clarkson rhyming slang portion of this discussion for as long as possible because I'm a white guy in my late twenties and as such the word that was or wasn't supposedly mumbled or sounded like it was mumbled and has or hasn't been apologised for has never once been levelled at me. It has never been used to justify hanging me from a tree, or hurled at me by a crowd of protesting angry white men because I wanted to attend the same high school classes as other children or drink from the same tap.

I have my own opinions about the man himself, the t.v show he presents and the actions taken by the BBC for his alledged physical attack on a co-worker, all of which I've voiced and am quite happy to stand behind. This discussion however, is a minefield so I shall attempt to tread carefully....

From what I'm reading there are two sides to this, I'm sure you will all quote me and tell me if I'm wrong about that so I shall plough onward before my coffee reaches room temperature.

Basically there are people here who are saying, very carefully in some cases, that the context in which a word is used should have as much or more bearing over the effect that word should have on anyone within earshot than the word itself. A sentiment I can understand and one that I usually boil down to "there are no such things as bad words just bad intentions". For example I (and probably most of us) have used an extremely offensive term or two in our time to describe someone we know. We don't mean it, it's jovial, the person in question knows that and usually retaliates in kind. Job done.

One example that's been used in realtion to the "N-word" is singing along to a rap song in which the word in question is used. I think we can all agree that's a fairly harmless context in which to use that word. Put Dr Dre - 2001 on a nearby stereo for instance and you'll catch me at it, rightly or wrongly I love that album and I associate it with a great many good memories from my youth. That example reminds me of a particularly good Chris Rock sketch on exactly this subject actually but it's one I cannot do justice here.

Does that mean anyone that anyone who hears me using that word in that context while singing along in my car and is offended by me is absolutely and categorically wrong to be offended? No, I don't think so. Even though I clearly mean no harm by it. Which I think is what the other side of this argument boils down to.

There are very few words in the English language that were created and used almost exclusively to make another part of our society appear "less than equal" to the rest of us and to justify treating those people as such. We're not millions of years away from that point in history either. With that taken into account I can completely understand some people not wanting to hear that word in common usage in any context, regardless of the skin colour or racial background of the person who uttered it. I can absolutely understand that perspective as the word in question is not a random four letter special. It has deeper connotations than that and very negative historical associations.

Given that, should the defence of "in my day it was a harmless nursery rhyme" stand? Not really and that means kinda disagreeing with Saracen, something I don't do often, at least I think I am anyway, I haven't finished my morning brew yet. I'm sorry but to you guys of that generation it was a harmless nursery rhyme that became engrained in you at an age when you didn't understand the broader connotations of that one word (it was always Tiger in my generation but that has very little to do with the price of fish) but to other people, living in the same world at the same time it still had a very different meaning.

I'm not saying that pre-teens of that era learning a particular nursery rhyme were racist, that would be ludicrous. However, if the shoe was on the other foot and a racial slur that had been used to put me and everyone who had the same skin colour as me down for centuries was now in common use as part of a nursery rhyme sung by the children of the very same people who had used that word to oppress me I'd be offended. To belittle something like that and pass it off as harmless would annoy me no end.

So, going back to the ageing Yorkshireman that started all this. Does using the word in question in the context he is alledged to have used it make him a racist? No, that's not to say he might not be but the incident in question doesn't prove a lot of anything.

Does it make him an idiot? Yep. As I said earlier if the BBC has a camera on you and you're presenting a flagship show for them you should be careful with what you're saying and I think as one of you said earlier if you're thinking about a word enough to mumble the word you should probably omit the whole thing. Particularly if your name is Jeremy Clarkson and you end up under the spotlight for something like this every other fortnight.

Does any of this make me a racially motivated, hyper-offensive bigot for singing along to Straight Outta Compton? Nope.

Should I have to consider who's in close proximity when I do? Not really because of the harmless context in which I'm using the word in question. Will I do so anyway, out of common decency for the folk I share the planet with? Yep.

Simples.

[opel80uk]

So you aren't just a racist….

Rather than going through and rebutting your point, can you explain, or better yet directly quote, what I have said anywhere that would make you come to the conclusion that I'm a racist? As for Judgmental, meh, I've been called plenty worse.

[Saracen]

I think I only differ from yoyr abalysis, Knox, in that because tgat ditty is ingrained, uf's kinda muscle memory. In counting/choosing situations, fir which tgat ditty was so commonplace, it's close to autonomic reflex.

Even in that ditty, I would not consciously use the n-word, because I know it offends. In fact, I don't know last time I used the ditty at all, just in case that autonomic reflex kicked in, and the n-word slipped out when I'd intended to say 'tigger', or whatever, precisely in order to avoid offence.

But if we're out to avoid offence, IF it slipped out without intent to offend, I'd be obliged if the potentially offended cut cut me some damn slack and understand it's a reflex, NOT any inrent to offend,and not either imply or outright call be a racist because that damned n-word slipped out.

Because otherwise, the inference is it's okay for a black person to offend a white person by calling them racist, regardless of context simply because of that blasted word in a nursery rhyme I heard repeatedly, about the time I was still breast-feeding, but it's not okay for a white person to cause absolutely unintended offense simply by using that word, regardless of offense.

I would not dream of using that word consciously, because of connotations it didn't have in my childhood. But I don't expect to be called racist simply because it slips out unintentionally .... which it hasn't, by the way, probably since I was still in short trousers. But, it's so embedded in that stupud ditty that, like swikt-and-tivel, it could slip out if I used that ditty.

To be honest, I'd happily have never even heard either the word or the ditty, just to be sure it couldn't slip out. But I can't change what's ingrained. Given that I can't change the past, would never use it consciously because it might offend, and have no intent to offend, if people were offended by an accidental usage in a stupid ditty, well, tough ....stuff. There's no right to not be offended, and if people want to undermine the case against real racism, which such accidental usage ISN'T, over a stupud kid's ditty most often used for choosing up sides in an impromtu football game or somesuch, then more fool them.

It's not even, as asserted earlier, that this ditty is some valued part of 'culture'. That's missing the point. It just ..... is. It happened. It was a kid's ditty 50+ years ago, and until someone brings me a time machine so I can go back and culturally educate my parents, and my childhood contemporaries parents for that matter, as to the linguistic expectations of future generations, there's beggar all I can do about it.

Would I use that word consciously? Hell, no. Has it "slipped out"? No. Would I deliberately offend with a racially liaded slur? No. But could it slip out in a ditty like that? Yes, and it doesn't make me a racist if it did. What it does make anyone offended by it is ignorant of or insensitive to HOW it happened, when there is no intent to offend by it's use, nor even a conscious intent to use it.

[opel80uk]

Excellent post Knoxville, you articulated points in a way that I couldn't manage. I do fear however, that you have consigned yourself to the rubbish bin that is known as the offended brigade.

[Saracen]

.... Will I do so anyway, out of common decency for the folk I share the planet with? Yep.

Simples.

Agreed, except for "simples".

Can you hear that ditty in your head? Is there kind-of a very early latent memory of it? If you think of the ditty, does it kind-of bounce along, words, cadence and metre coming naturally?

If so, you'd automatically use 'tigger', because that's how you were taught the ditty. Now imagine having to consciously override 'tigger' in your memory, and substitute .... oh, .... dahlia.

Simples??

If I could review those memories, select the n-word and replace with tigger, I would. Better yet, just delete the whole stupid ditty.

BUT I CAN'T.

And that's the point. Whether I want it or not, whether I like it or not (and I don't) that flaming word is embedded in that childhood memory.

Simples, it ain't, unfortunately.

[Knoxville]

That's a fair shout mate, once I'd upped my caffeine I caught onto that when I read the post you put up while I was posting the post I just posted... jeez, trying saying that five times fast!

I have a similar sort of muscle memory tongue tie when I try to talk about Massey Ferguson tractors. I've jokingly referred to them as Fassey Mergusons when chatting with someone I work with for so long now that that's just what comes out of my mouth and there has to be a concious effort on my part to avoid that. The only difference is one makes me look like an idiot in front of farmers whereas the other on has the capability to offend. Under those circumstances you aren't making a concious effort to say what you're saying it just sort of happens and your brain catches it a second later.

I don't think that totally negates anyones right to be offended by that word if they overheard your mistake. However as you say, under those circumstances that's where it'd be nice to live in a world where the offended party realises it was an innocent mistake with no ill intent and cuts you some slack accordingly. In much the same way I'd like to be afforded some leway for my questionable taste in hip-hop

On Clarksons part he obviously either did a poor job mumbling his way around it because he was aware he might slip up on camera, in which case if I was in his shoes I'd have either avoided said rhyme entirely or faded out on eeenie meeenie miney mo using the magic of editing. Either that, or he thought he could slip something cheeky in under the radar so he could smirk about it to himself later or drum up some controversy, whatever floats his boat. Either way I think we can all agree it was daft of him to do so given that he might end up on national t.v diong it and he's already built himself quite a reputation for saying things that are "questionable" at best.

[opel80uk]

I quite like Top Gear, and watch it, but IF Clarkson did as alleged, and punched a producer, or any other colleague for that matter, it's hard to see how the BBC could keep him on. Had he been some average working bloke, it would certainly be grounds for a gross misconduct dismissal. In fact, it's probably a textbook reason for it. Of course, the employer doesn't have to dismiss, but could and I suspect usually would. One of the prices you pay for being high profile, like Clarkson, us that the media spotlight is on you IF you do something like this. Well, Jeremy, you get the rough with the smooth, and being popular doesn't excuse such behaviour.

The differences with Clarkson and Suarez are, as far as I can tell, the Clarkson incident is alleged, and by the way, denied, whereas the Suarez incident is on video, not for the first time and, despite initial denials, subsequently admitted.

IF an inquiry upholds the allegation, then I doubt the BBC have much choice but, remember, Clarkson has the opportunity (and sure as hell has the money) to hold the BBC to account for it's decisions, especially if he is financialy or reputationally damaged by anything Auntie Beeb does or says over this.

So, the correct course for the Beeb is to hold a proper, calm, rational investigation, follow employment law to the letter and to be able to prove, if need be, that they have done so to a court.

Someone had previously bought up the outtake issue, so that is what I was referring to, along with his other discretions. Would I still be in a job if I called an asian person a slope, even in the context he did? Nope. Would I be in a job if, while working, I called someone a silly c**t? Possibly, just. Would I still be in a job if I described something as 'special needs'? Probably. Would I be in my job if I 'demanded to not be bummed'? Probably. Would I be in a job if I was caught mocking someones disability? Maybe. But put the whole lot together and It's certain I'd be down the job centre, and so would I imagine someone like a runner at the BBC. That's why, your demand for a bit of slack for indadvertedly mumbling something might be reasonable if you asked for it. It's not reasonable to give that to someone who has plenty of form. And none of the above was 'alleged'. Obviously this latest incident needs due process, that isn't in dispute. And that's why I fundamentally disagree with the notion that Clarkson has been, in any of the situations, some kind of victim.

As for this claptrap about middle-aged posters, what you're missing, Opel, is that there is NO requirement on white people alone to watch every word they say on penalty of being labelled racist if they dare to say something a non-white person finds offensive.

I said, quite clearly, that I wouldn't consciously use the n-word because black people very likely would be offended, and given the usages that word has been given in some contexts, I'm not surprised it'd be offensive. Hell, the usage it's had offends me, and offends and reasonable sense if decency, and I'm not black.

But what you seem to be missing, deliberately or otherwise, is that that rhyme, nit the n-word but the RHYME, was ingrained into me in a time when it didn't have the connotations it has now. Believe it or not, aged anything from a few months to two or three, I wasn't paying a lot of attention to the meaning of any of the words. I was more likely laying on my back, giggling and gurgling as my parents tickled my toes.

Yet, that oft-repeated rhyme stuck. And it MIGHT slip out even now, if my conscious didn't catch it.

The point is that while black people have every reason to resent racist behaviour, discrimination, and even deliberate racial offense, even if it's less overt than it was, it undermines the fight against such discrimination if they go out of their way to find offence even if none was intended.

And it's especially hypocritical if black people can say that word with impunity, but white people can't, because they're white, regardless of whether offense was intended, without geing labelled racist. Which, by the way, is an accusation I would find extremely offensive.

Who said anything about someone using the word being racist? I even said it's impossible to know whether Clarkson is racist, only he knows the answer to that, and I'm someone who thinks he did say ******. There are plenty of black people who are offended by the use of the term in any circumstance, even when said by other black people. Does that mean they shouldn't be offended, or automatically mean that they are seeking out offence, or the one with the problem? Again, only if you live in a bubble, with little or no empathy of what that word might mean, or the connotations it has, to them.

It's simply wrong to assume that intent is the only thing that can determine offence. As I asked previously, would a holocaust survivor be unreasonable, or seeking to be offended, if I sang Horst-Wessel-Lied only because I liked the tune and they were subsequently offended? Of course not. Although they may be less offended, or not at all offended, or even more offended when I explained my reasoning for singing it, it doesn't alter the fact they were offended.

[sammyc]

On Clarksons part he obviously either did a poor job mumbling his way around it because he was aware he might slip up on camera, in which case if I was in his shoes I'd have either avoided said rhyme entirely or faded out on eeenie meeenie miney mo using the magic of editing. Either that, or he thought he could slip something cheeky in under the radar so he could smirk about it to himself later or drum up some controversy, whatever floats his boat. Either way I think we can all agree it was daft of him to do so given that he might end up on national t.v diong it and he's already built himself quite a reputation for saying things that are "questionable" at best.

Exactly. I don't disagree at all that anyone of 'my' generation could catch themselves coming out with said rhyme or part thereof, and I probably have, for the aforementioned reasons of ingrained-ness. We won't be passing on said rhyme any further down the generations, rightly, so presumably it won't be something for anyone else to trip over, end of.

However, I see the my-generation possible options as follows: a) someone saying it without thinking at all, easily done, could be me b) say it consciously while of the opinion it's fine & inoffensive in 'context' (arguable but at least that person believes it, rightly or wrongly) or c) start saying it without thinking, see the ground rushing up, and (if in time) stop - with an oops, bad idea, scratch that, sorry for any unintended offense. I don't see d) 'I tried not to say it' as one of the 'fair enough' options because if as said you've had time to consciously think 'best not', then just stop dead. Never mind I tried not to.

I do disagree with Saracen & others' pov of 'it was inoffensive at one time/when we were taught it' (and the analogy of the use of gay, which is entirely different imho) - at worst it was offensive or based on offensive thinking, and at best it was casually dismissive. I can't think of a time or a context where someone would define (if asked) what they meant by that word as kindly/fondly meant (excepting using it neutrally as a noun deemed fine simply to describe persons of a certain race) correct me if I'm wrong. In my era/family's attitude it went along with a (conscious or otherwise) tolerance of superior attitudes to other races, ie along with let's watch Love Thy Neighbour, & general johnny foreigner-ness.

As far as let's not police thoughts goes, fair enough to a point, but the ideal is (isn't it) to all be aiming for better attitudes spoken & unspoken, as I don't see a lot of improvement in a silent crowd of football fans quietly thinking their racist & sexist thoughts in their own little heads.

And no it's not just 'us' that have to be conscious of these matters but 'Miss don't just tell me & my friends in class to behave, tell everyone' is here nor there - there are better and worse ways to behave, and assuming you know what they are, just look to & sort your own values, no?

[Biscuit]

On Clarksons part he obviously either did a poor job mumbling his way around it because he was aware he might slip up on camera, in which case if I was in his shoes I'd have either avoided said rhyme entirely or faded out on eeenie meeenie miney mo using the magic of editing.

They did three takes and the 'offending' one didn't make it to the final cut. In the final cut he said 'Teacher'

[Knoxville]

They did three takes and the 'offending' one didn't make it to the final cut. In the final cut he said 'Teacher'

True enough, three takes seems like two too many for such a short sequence in my opinion but then I don't work in television. It doesn't really matter though, if I was in his position and let's have the nicest will in the world about this and assume he wasn't trying to slip anything past anyone or be negative in any way about the bloke... If I was plonked in front of a camera and part of my script involved a nursery rhyme I knew I was going to have to mumble part of or risk dropping myself in it because of how I learned that rhyme as a child, why would I recite the whole thing on camera at all? Why wouldn't I say the first part and then cut, or make an effort to say teacher the first time? Or Scooby? Or Toyota? Or any number of other things?

Perhaps it was an honest fumble. Maybe he had it all planned out and then his mouth ran away with him in a similar fashion to the hypothetical situation Saracen described a few posts ago. Maybe because I'm not on camera all that often (and I have been, there's a video somewhere of me interviewing a guitarist from Tesseract and muggins is terrified throughout at the thought of slipping up) I take an awful lot of care about what I'm saying and people that ARE on camera all the time lose a little bit of that fear and means they're more prone to slip up. It doesn't really change the course the discussion has taken though, they still shot what they shot and he still did or didn't say what some people think he did.

[Andy3536]

Someone had previously bought up the outtake issue, so that is what I was referring to, along with his other discretions. Would I still be in a job if I called an asian person a slope, even in the context he did? Nope. Would I be in a job if, while working, I called someone a silly c**t? Possibly, just. Would I still be in a job if I described something as 'special needs'? Probably. Would I be in my job if I 'demanded to not be bummed'? Probably. Would I be in a job if I was caught mocking someones disability? Maybe. But put the whole lot together and It's certain I'd be down the job centre.

That's just one evening with Franky Boyle isn't it, he was on the Beeb for ages...

I suggest you don't ever work in a factory or engineering environment.

[opel80uk]

That's just one evening with Franky Boyle isn't it, he was on the Beeb for ages...

I suggest you don't ever work in a factory or engineering environment.

And now he's hardly on the TV. Why is that?

Why, are they the last bastions standing against the thought police?

[Biscuit]

I suggest you don't ever work in a factory or engineering environment.

Or broadcast...

[mikerr]

He's been suspended because of the "fracas" with a producer because "no dinner was ready" immediately after filming.
It's unclear whether punches were thrown or not though.

The suspension is not necessarily related to his fondless for causing offence/controversy for which he clearly enjoys the attention
on that I agree with Steve Coogan:
http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-ra...e-steve-coogan
His offensiveness just for laughs is old and childish, but as said part of his appeal for many.