Top Gear on Hold - Clarkson suspended by beeb.

[Andy3536]

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

He left of his own accord ....

To quote the BBC. "The door is always open for him to come back"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/...st/8287297.stm

[Saracen]

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.




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.

I've been called, or had it indirectly implied, that I'm racist on this forum, more than once, and the inference behind being offended by Clarkson's use of the n-word is that it offends because it's racist. As for singing Horst Wessel, it comes down to what I've been saying from the start .... if ( IF) Clarkson used the n-word for effect, deliberately, then it suggests he either set out to offend, or to shock not caring about offence, and I'd condemn that unequivocally, in exact the same way I condemn Ross/Brand for their gratuitously offense antics.

But .... how could you conceivably sing the Horst Wessel song unintentionally? Yet, there's nothing wrong with or racist about eeny meenie except the use of the n-word in ONE version of it, given that there are many, and bith the origins and actual meaning are far from clear. So are we supposed to avoid even other versions, like tigger, just in case people are offended by a kid's ditty that doesn't even include the offending word, but does in some other variants?

Discrimination is just plain nasty. Whether it's because you're black, or gay, or disabled, or ... well, you get the point. Nasty, nasty, nasty.

But we've got to the point over the n-word that we can't even use the n-word when trying to discuss why we can't use the n-word. Apparently, at least in the US, we can't use "black" either, because ir's almost as offensive as the n-word. We certainly can't use .... erm ... derivations of the n-word with -oid in tnem, even if the intent is simply categorisation of genetic origin. And we sll have one if them which, by the way, strongly suggests we ALL came out of east Africa, and then can even trace migration paths, such as up the east coast of Africa, where divergences occurred with one oath heading through southern Europe and the Med, another heading further north and West to northern Europe and Scandinavia, yet another heading east and up into modern day East Russia, and do on. So what racism really boils down to is pot luck over whether your ancestors stayed put, went north then east, north then west, etc, in the dim and distant mists of time. We're all black, to some extent, whether it's highly visible or not. Which just shows how ignorant racism really is, making about as much sense as prejudice over big ears, green eyes, or lousy taste in music.

So surely, the offence over the n-word is over historical abuses, and the quite understandable emotional loading associated with that.

The ONLY reason I suggest (and not demand, by the way) cutting Clarkson some slack is because we don't know exactly what was said, or more importantly, the context.

If, and I repeat IF he used that word in the context I've said I could end up using it, that if an autonomic response to childhood memories, then what you're really saying is that he deserves to be fired for a word that caused offence, regardless of whether he intended to cause offense, intended even to use that word. Or even knew he had. Fired, essentially, because one half-mumbled and possibly subconcious slip that perhaps caused offence?

Are black people entitled to be offended by that word? Of course. Are they entitled to expect someone to be fired because of a possibly unintentional use of it without any intent to offend? But only if they're white. Hell, no. That's merely politically correct thought-policing.

And the whole 'cause offence' brings up another point. At what stage are journalists, TV presenters, comedians, etc supposed to self-censor what they do, or say, just in case they cause offence?

Personally, if there was clear evidence that Clarkson had crossed the line with the n-word, that the intent to offend was clear, then I don't care if he's fired. Truth be, I don't much care anyway. I certainly agree with firing Ross and Brand, but only because that was so explicitly nasty, and intentional. But if people are so sensitive about a half-mumbled word, indistinct and not even actually broadcast until the furore kicked off, then I'd say they're being over-sensitive. But for a media storm, they wouldn't be offended because it wasn't for broadcast. Maybe we should be seeking to fire the media types that dragged the story up, because them doing so has clearly resulted in serious offence .... even if unintentionally.

As an example of how ludicrous this all is, we (or at least, I) can't even use the n-word in a discussion like this, instead having to resort distinctly silly euthemisms like "n-word", despite it bring in the context of a discussion, and everybody knowing precisely what word is actually referred to.

[Saracen]

....

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.

....

What I said, or certainly meant to say, wasn't that the word meant something else, but that times were different. Love Thy Neighbour is one example, and both Alf Garnett and the Black and White Minstrel Show are others. The context was different. It wasn't that the n-word didn't mean what it means, but simply that in the context of a kid's rhyme, it was just a word. If it was offensive, there certainly wasn't the awareness of the offense that there is now. It was JUST a kid's ditty, and it didn't make any difference what word was used as long as it fit the metre of the ditty.

[Spreadie]

If it was offensive, there certainly wasn't the awareness of the offense that there is now. It was JUST a kid's ditty, and it didn't make any difference what word was used as long as it fit the metre of the ditty.

Exactly.

The part of the rhyme "...catch a n**** by it's toe", as i remember it from my childhood and the term "n**** in the woodpile" held very little meaning for me.

One was a mindless little ditty and the other was meant as what is sometimes now referred to as the elephant in the room - a glaring omission that simply cannot be ignored.

That was completely lost on six year old me - i distinctly remember those two terms and put them together in such a way that made me think that a n**** was some kind of small creature, like a frog. No joking.

I didn't have a particularly sheltered upbringing, I was just oblivious to the fact that n**** was not a nice way to refer to a black person.

Fast forward to Clarkson's eeny meeny furore - I was easily able to forgive him, because I thought to myself, I could easily do the same thing and catch myself doing it. All because that's how I learnt it as a kid - that ditty is hard-wired. He did catch himself saying it and that's why he changed it for broadcast.

Now his supposed victim in this latest outrage has been tweeting that the media have blown this out of proportion, Clarkson didn't strike him and they are good friends.

He's a loud-mouthed pillock more often than not and intentionally spices things up to entertain and rail against the PC nanny state, and the daily mailers hate him for it. James May said it best on the bbc - "the man's a knob, but I quite like him".

What about the hateful witch from the apprentice who goes out of her way to offend people? I forget her name - Kate something - I've yet to see the bleeding hearts clamour for her expulsion.

[ik9000]

You know I really find it a joke the underlying modern "politically correct mustn't offend anyone" attitude that pervades so much of modern news coverage. We all say we want a free and tolerant society, but then the so called "liberals" seem to, rather ironically, argue for the opposite. Tolerance is accepting others as you find them, and accepting they might not be likeable to you. Freedom is letting people do things you don't necessarily like or agree with, within certain limits. But when those limits become "if someone says something I don't like then I'll take offence and whip up fury about it and say they shouldn't be allowed to do so" then frankly grow up. Vehemently inciting hatred with malicious intent is one thing. Being an oaf whose jesting is based on stereotypes, exageration and hyperbole is a very different thing. A good number of people (over 600,000 according to the poll to get him reinstated) can clearly tell that is what it is. It's possible to offend people in the most innocent of ways, the grown-up attitude is when offended in such a way to see the bigger picture and let it go. Even the BNP are permitted to broadcast on the national networks come election time! Should society ban that? How far do we march in the name of "correctness".

Btw engineering is not a last bastion standing against the "thought police", rather it is a highly pragmatic industry largely focussed on problem solving and getting things done, a mindset which attracts a pragmatic and level-headed intake of folk who are generally able to see the bigger picture while also calling a spade a spade and all that. (I presume that spade hasn't also gained some other meaning that inadvertently offends some over-sensitive person)

Frankly I find the throwaway suggestion that people not agreeing with a certain view are somehow unthinking laughable. Even a racist bigot thinks. He just thinks differently to someone else. And unless we want an Orwellian society with literal thought police telling people what to think and do all the time (North Korea anyone?) it seems to me a good thing to be able to tolerate others views, even when they are disagreeable to oneself.

Is everything Clarkson does PC? No. Good! Would I say everything he does? No. Do I find some of it a bit ridiculous/absurd/childish. Yes. Is he being malicious and seeking to harm? No. Ergo, as James May put it (according to the independent) "he can be a bit of a knob, but I do like him" and we move on. Maybe another conclusion is "i find him distasteful, and I don't like him." I find that about several people on our TV screens. But should they be removed from the schedules altogether? No. Different people have different views. I can tolerate that. If we truly want a free and tolerant society, that is how it needs to work.

[excalibur2]

It's easy to make a mistake when you're older as I can remember the Rupert the bear characters, books like 10 little n boys, and n brown shoe polish, also my neighbours black dog was called n, and so too Guy Gibson's dog and was the code word used in the dam busters raid....and to us they were just words and no one to offend as there were very few black people in the country, also not so long ago people were saying coloured and now that has become offensive. But I was caught out once after seeing many old American cowboy films and mentioned to Americans in a forum talking about people in America and said "red Indians" and was told you can't say that now and they are called native Americans...so it's easy to make mistakes.

[directhex]

Why are we spending so much energy on the *last* scandal, not the current one about punching a co-worker? The one people are saying he shouldn't be suspended for?

[Saracen]

Why are we spending so much energy on the *last* scandal, not the current one about punching a co-worker? The one people are saying he shouldn't be suspended for?

Perhaps because very little is known about it, beyond an alleged assault, and that he's been suspended pending an investigation, which is pretty much exactly what any employer would do if one staff member is accused of thumping another. Until more is known, there's not much else to say.

[deejayburnout]

Damn BBC. I like top gear and Clarkson makes me laugh. Sometimes a little close to the edge but funny none the less. Maybe he has went to far hitting a colleague.

[TheAnimus]

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.

You inferred that I was a 'sad white man'. Bringing race into something, which has none, is racist.

Also, read what you said. Is that really the person you want to be? I listen to a lot of music, I've very eclectic tastes, I have both spotify and zune subscriptions plus my cd collection that would earn kudos in most circles, as its almost entirely stuff you can't get on streaming services. When working, I'll often listen to music when I'm indicated I want to be left alone. Like most people, when driving, I'll listen to anything, and enjoy it. That isn't sad at all, that's having fun.

You also judged me for that. Again, is that the person you want to be? Do you want to be in a society comprised like that? I'll take jokes happily, make fun of things in a very rude manner, but something like that is just, judgemental.

[Spreadie]

Why are we spending so much energy on the *last* scandal, not the current one about punching a co-worker? The one people are saying he shouldn't be suspended for?

Maybe the fact that the "victim" has already tweeted that Clarkson didn't actually hit him, they're still good friends and the media is blowing this out of proportion?

[opel80uk]

You inferred that I was a 'sad white man'. Bringing race into something, which has none, is racist.

Also, read what you said. Is that really the person you want to be? I listen to a lot of music, I've very eclectic tastes, I have both spotify and zune subscriptions plus my cd collection that would earn kudos in most circles, as its almost entirely stuff you can't get on streaming services. When working, I'll often listen to music when I'm indicated I want to be left alone. Like most people, when driving, I'll listen to anything, and enjoy it. That isn't sad at all, that's having fun.

You also judged me for that. Again, is that the person you want to be? Do you want to be in a society comprised like that? I'll take jokes happily, make fun of things in a very rude manner, but something like that is just, judgemental.

You do realise that when I said 'Analogies of sad white men (not man), it was a direct reference to you saying 'Yes we are as pathetic as that opening scene in office space', don't you? Yet apparently you think it is me that is in the offended brigade. Oh, the irony.

[DanceswithUnix]

Maybe the fact that the "victim" has already tweeted that Clarkson didn't actually hit him, they're still good friends and the media is blowing this out of proportion?

Is it just me that finds that funny? Like it is only Top Gear that is allowed exaggerations of the truth

[ik9000]

Why are we spending so much energy on the *last* scandal, not the current one about punching a co-worker? The one people are saying he shouldn't be suspended for?

No idea, I wondered the same thing, but that seems to be how the thread has gone. There isn't enough factual stuff to actually really talk about the current situation I guess, and as usual a thread is being driven off course in the name of scoring pedant points. I do love the internet...

[opel80uk]

I've been called, or had it indirectly implied, that I'm racist on this forum, more than once, and the inference behind being offended by Clarkson's use of the n-word is that it offends because it's racist.

Perhaps it's a generational thing, but I really do fail to see how, whatever the reasons of it coming to be imprinted on your brain and said unconsciously etc, you cannot grasp that in this day and age a rhyme about hanging a black man up by his toe and seeing if he squeals is both offensive and racist in the context of that rhyme being used to separate 2 cars (not how someone came to learn the rhyme). I like to think I'm of a reasonable standard of intelligence, and I just cannot grasp how that can be. That's not to say I think anyone who says it is actually racist. But that doesn't mean that the content isn't racist & offensive. Then again, I wasn't brought up with ethnic slurs as part and parcel of my formative years – perhaps that's the telling difference.

But .... how could you conceivably sing the Horst Wessel song unintentionally?

I take it you've not yet heard the Frozen song? I often find myself humming it, often & without noticing, and I can't stand it.

The ONLY reason I suggest (and not demand, by the way) cutting Clarkson some slack is because we don't know exactly what was said, or more importantly, the context.

If, and I repeat IF he used that word in the context I've said I could end up using it, that if an autonomic response to childhood memories, then what you're really saying is that he deserves to be fired for a word that caused offence, regardless of whether he intended to cause offense, intended even to use that word. Or even knew he had. Fired, essentially, because one half-mumbled and possibly subconcious slip that perhaps caused offence?

But, as explained earlier, that's not why he would have been fired. He would have been fired because, at best, there was clear ambiguity about whether he used a racial slur, with it coming to light AFTER using other racial slurs in the context of being offensive, for cheap laughs. Perhaps on the outtake incident he never used the word, and if that was the case and he had got fired over it, it would have been unfortunate, but he would have had only himself to blame, and his use of racist language in the past. He is definitely not someone that would spring to mind when compiling the cut some slack list.

[AGTDenton]

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).

Agreed, one thing I can't understand is why do they keep all the footage that's clearly never going to be used... Thankfully I'll never pay for the BBC, but if I did I wouldn't want my money to fund the nonsense that ends up in the oh so cherished BBC archives...

This particular example could have been avoided had they all agreed to just delete the footage and move on - no one else in the world needed to be involved as at that point it was still a private matter.

In regards to the latest gate - I'll await for some facts