Guest MattP Posted 12 March 2015 Posted 12 March 2015 Do you ever wonder that these guys are the left wing equivalent of the Sun, eg. they're taking the piss (in a more elucidated fashion than Murdochs redtops) and you guys are all falling for it? No. Have you not read the articles? They clearly aren't a pisstake. These people spout the same sort of things when they go on Question Time etc - these sort of columnists are ten a penny these days.
Alf Bentley Posted 12 March 2015 Posted 12 March 2015 I think there's two types of people in this debate. Those who like Clarkson and those who were bullied at school have never got over it. Belongs in the same place as The Benny Hill Show and Mrs Browns Boys. Can we allow a third type, Moose: the people who are bemused at the seriousness with which this is being taken on both sides? Seriously, folks, some cheesy old duffer off the box has been suspended because he may or may not have lamped someone? The world is full of beautiful and interesting things like football, beer, tapirs, trees, cricket, music, women's arses, flavour, friendship, scenery, society, fresh air, photography, fine art, breasts, music, films, wit, mountains, sea, passion, chorizo, walruses, foreign cultures, absurdity, exercise, writing, honey and orgasms.... and you're getting all hot under the collar about this?!? Get a grip, y'all! If the aforementioned cheesy old duffer has lamped someone, he'll be disciplined according to his employer' code / contract - and rightly so. You can't go around lamping people. It's not a nice, friendly way to behave. A compromise proposal: Clarkson is clearly someone who would support "an eye for an eye". So why not lead him out into his local town square, put him in the stocks and allow this TV producer to smack him about a bit. I bet Jeremy would find it all quite amusing and would enjoy the attention. Then he could get on with his cheesy old duffer TV programme again. I wouldn't want anyone to lose their favourite TV programme. I must admit that I was quite depressed when there were no more series of "Six Feet Under" and was gutted - literally gutted, like - when they decommissioned "The Bill". As for you, Oz, slating "Mrs. Brown's Boys"....you need some cultural re-education, mate. It's not the cutting edge of innovative wit, admittedly, but is good for plenty of good belly laughs when I happen to see it - not least because Mrs. Brown is a precise reproduction of my very lovable auntie in Ireland. I've a nasty feeling that you may have been exposed to that willy puller Ben Elton in the past and it may have damaged your humour glands. On a positive note, this has allowed me to experience a little guilty lust, as Newsnight had Kirstie Allsopp, the upmarket Davina McCall, on to gab about Clarkson. What a fine, luscious wench she is! A terrible Tory who does terrible, materialistic TV programmes that I'd never watch, but she does have fine, child-bearing hips, so it's always nice to see her (if not necessarily to hear her).
Guest MattP Posted 12 March 2015 Posted 12 March 2015 A racist, sexist homophobic "reality" show, with 3 outdated hosts, poor writing and the occasional reference to something new or interesting about cars. Belongs in the same place as The Benny Hill Show and Mrs Browns Boys. on the positive side...Havent seen it for a few years, but the camera work was quite superb lol Have you considered applying at the Guardian?
Finnegan Posted 12 March 2015 Posted 12 March 2015 Rabble rabble rabble rabble. If he said something stupid he'll get his job back, probably rightly so. He's a bit of a caveman but that's his appeal. If he's twatted some staffer purely over his meal order than he probably shouldn't be being paid millions in licence fees, even if Top Gear is probably one of few shows that actually makes the beeb more than it costs. Don't think many of us would be able to spark out a workmate and keep our jobs. Said earlier in the thread, I quite like Clarkson and Top Gear, you just have to take him with a pinch of salt. But assault is assault and IF that's what happened then it's a bit of a no brainer. It's kinda jumped the shark anyway. There's like one good episode a season (ambulance one made me piss) now and the rest is a bit average.
leicsmac Posted 12 March 2015 Posted 12 March 2015 No. Have you not read the articles? They clearly aren't a pisstake. These people spout the same sort of things when they go on Question Time etc - these sort of columnists are ten a penny these days. I'm still unconvinced that at least some of these people aren't carrying out the most sophisticated act of trolling ever. And, as always, Alf is spot on.
Stadt Posted 12 March 2015 Posted 12 March 2015 Rabble rabble rabble rabble. If he said something stupid he'll get his job back, probably rightly so. He's a bit of a caveman but that's his appeal. If he's twatted some staffer purely over his meal order than he probably shouldn't be being paid millions in licence fees, even if Top Gear is probably one of few shows that actually makes the beeb more than it costs. Don't think many of us would be able to spark out a workmate and keep our jobs. Said earlier in the thread, I quite like Clarkson and Top Gear, you just have to take him with a pinch of salt. But assault is assault and IF that's what happened then it's a bit of a no brainer. It's kinda jumped the shark anyway. There's like one good episode a season (ambulance one made me piss) now and the rest is a bit average. Spot on, Clarkson is probably loving all of this anyway.
Finnegan Posted 12 March 2015 Posted 12 March 2015 Spot on, Clarkson is probably loving all of this anyway. Wouldn't rule out it just being a publicity stunt tbh.
Babylon Posted 12 March 2015 Posted 12 March 2015 although he is basically a character of himself nowadays anyway, Aren't they all on the show... they are more like characters, at least that's the way I look at them. They take a tiny piece of what they are and magnifying it for effect, essentially becoming an inflated parody of themselves.
Jimmy Posted 12 March 2015 Posted 12 March 2015 I understand Hitler was popular back in the day... theres no accounting for taste seriously wtf that is a ridiculous comparison and far more offensive to millions of persecuted Jews then anything Clarkson has or will ever said or done
Harry - LCFC Posted 12 March 2015 Posted 12 March 2015 That must be a literal dozen opinion articles from the guardian on Clarkson now. They are genuinely frothing from every orifice at the prospect of putting a white, middle aged, middle class man down. What a bunch of classless, angry, bitter little people. There's more to it than that. I'm told they did 27 articles on the Chelsea racists. That says to me they didn't consider it a small story - it was an opportunity to show how horrible all football fans were. There's a lot of people who say tey care about 'the poor' in an abstract sense. But if you listen to them long enough you realise they hate the activities of the working class and their backward ways.
Footballwipe Posted 12 March 2015 Posted 12 March 2015 The Guardian are going all Daily Mail now. They know the majority of their audience despise Clarkson so clickbait them with story after story about him. Most papers went nap as he was at the football last night too. This shows that despite the Guardian, who are excellent at reporting the right-wing media's idiocy (though nowhere near as good as Private Eye) can't help themselves but join the clickbait culture. Needless to say they're all at it now (see Leicester Mercury as the worst offenders) but Clarkson just highlights the Guardians. See a villain, see him backed into a corner, see the ad revenues and traffic increase. I'm struggling to see how people think a new Top Gear version would work? It can't be serious and it can't be 100% comedy, it will need three petrol head hybrids. Unless you can get three Chris Evans' and successfully integrate into the show what else can they do. Top Gear is another show that has become a victim of it's own success in terms of it's on-screen talent driving viewers, thus making it nigh-on impossible to replace them once they're gone. It's not Blue Peter. Someone mentioned what lengths they'd have to go to before not defending JC anymore; can't say I'd be upset if he was dismissed and it did spell the end of the new TG generation. He was on his 'final warning' and it sets a dangerous precedent for other talent at the BBC if they start to give people a final final warning. You know he's going to mess up again somewhere along the line.
bovril Posted 12 March 2015 Posted 12 March 2015 There's more to it than that. I'm told they did 27 articles on the Chelsea racists. That says to me they didn't consider it a small story - it was an opportunity to show how horrible all football fans were. There's a lot of people who say tey care about 'the poor' in an abstract sense. But if you listen to them long enough you realise they hate the activities of the working class and their backward ways. I don't understand your last sentence. The racists on the Paris metro weren't particularly working class. And even if they were, how is it hypocritical to say you care about the poor but find such behavior abhorrent?
ozleicester Posted 12 March 2015 Posted 12 March 2015 seriously wtf that is a ridiculous comparison and far more offensive to millions of persecuted Jews then anything Clarkson has or will ever said or done No!, For goodness sake i did NOT compare Clarkson and HItler... i suggested that just because someone is popular, does not make them good or right.
Harry - LCFC Posted 12 March 2015 Posted 12 March 2015 I don't understand your last sentence. The racists on the Paris metro weren't particularly working class. And even if they were, how is it hypocritical to say you care about the poor but find such behavior abhorrent? The point I was trying to make was that the Guardian and it's contributors were not focusing on the individuals themselves. I think the reason they wrote so much about it is because it gave them a chance to attack football fans in general - to show that they aren't a pleasant social group.
bovril Posted 12 March 2015 Posted 12 March 2015 Someone on here (Finnegan?) posted a couple of weeks ago how there seems to be quite a difference between what lefties think and what the right believe they think. I don't know anybody frothing at the mouth about the whole Clarkson situation. I don't know anybody who gives a flying fvck about it. It's only the right who get in a tizzy about things like this, arrrggghhh political correctness, yogurt-eating black lesbians at the BBC arrrggghh. Talk about a fvcking persecution complex. The point I was trying to make was that the Guardian and it's contributors were not focusing on the individuals themselves. I think the reason they wrote so much about it is because it gave them a chance to attack football fans in general - to show that they aren't a pleasant social group. The Guardian wrote about it because they knew people would click on the story.
Guest MattP Posted 12 March 2015 Posted 12 March 2015 I know that, I was just trolling* MattP after he said the same thing about the Guardian *in my usual cheery, whimsical way, of course Must have a different paper to me, The Main story in my copy is about the true scale of child mental health, there is a small story in the corner related to Clarkson (although actually relating to the compensation the BBC will owe foreign broadcasters over cancellations) and then page 7 is dedicated to the main man. I did pick a copy of the Guardian today to see the front page - I though they can't go with Clarkson again and I was right - Today it was Nigel Farage relating to a comment he made in January about Muslims. Hopefully a nasty Conservative will say something offensive today so they can have an up to date headline for their readers tomorrow. I'm told they did 27 articles on the Chelsea racists. That says to me they didn't consider it a small story - it was an opportunity to show how horrible all football fans were. There's a lot of people who say tey care about 'the poor' in an abstract sense. But if you listen to them long enough you realise they hate the activities of the working class and their backward ways. Maybe they were trolling In all seriousness from what I've read of the Guardian they seem to despise anyone who has a different opinion to them whatever the background or colour (although the working class obviously will bear the brunt of this), unlike any other newspaper they openly use profanity and insults towards people like Clarkson, Farage etc and see it as totally acceptable - the real hatred though goes to people like David Starkey - working class, gay, educated intellectuals who have dared to cross the boardwalk and be on the other side of their obviiously righteous opinions, they despise them. It seems to be the press front for this new modern liberal morality now that they want everybody to obey or be ostracised from society, a new tyranny that's just as bad as the old ones. And as mentioned by footbalwipe - they don't seem to be shy about going 'Daily Mail' with it either.
Harry - LCFC Posted 12 March 2015 Posted 12 March 2015 The Guardian wrote about it because they knew people would click on the story. That will ultimately be why the articles were included, yes. All that means is that a good proportion of their readership are of a similar mindset too.
bovril Posted 12 March 2015 Posted 12 March 2015 I have to agree though, the Guardian is trash nowadays. From time to time there are some excellent pieces but it's largely clickbait about Farage as stated above. Though still marginally better than most British publications.
bovril Posted 12 March 2015 Posted 12 March 2015 That will ultimately be why the articles were included, yes. All that means is that a good proportion of their readership are of a similar mindset too. Readership in the internet age means basically anyone with access to a computer. I imagine most of the 'shares' on such articles are from outraged right-wingers.
leicsmac Posted 12 March 2015 Posted 12 March 2015 Must have a different paper to me, The Main story in my copy is about the true scale of child mental health, there is a small story in the corner related to Clarkson (although actually relating to the compensation the BBC will owe foreign broadcasters over cancellations) and then page 7 is dedicated to the main man. I did pick a copy of the Guardian today to see the front page - I though they can't go with Clarkson again and I was right - Today it was Nigel Farage relating to a comment he made in January about Muslims. Hopefully a nasty Conservative will say something offensive today so they can have an up to date headline for their readers tomorrow. Maybe they were trolling In all seriousness from what I've read of the Guardian they seem to despise anyone who has a different opinion to them whatever the background or colour (although the working class obviously will bear the brunt of this), unlike any other newspaper they openly use profanity and insults towards people like Clarkson, Farage etc and see it as totally acceptable - the real hatred though goes to people like David Starkey - working class, gay, educated intellectuals who have dared to cross the boardwalk and be on the other side of their obviiously righteous opinions, they despise them. It seems to be the press front for this new modern liberal morality now that they want everybody to obey or be ostracised from society, a new tyranny that's just as bad as the old ones. And as mentioned by footbalwipe - they don't seem to be shy about going 'Daily Mail' with it either. They're hardly the only newspaper to do this and this though, are they? They're sensationalised rubbish clickbait in the same mould as the Mail and Sun. Just as you say the left shouldn't give them any credence or worry about them, so the same should apply with the Guardian and the right. But we've had this discussion regarding the media before.
Guest MattP Posted 12 March 2015 Posted 12 March 2015 They're hardly the only newspaper to do this and this though, are they? Not at all, the problem is the Guardian tries to pretend it's some high brow publication read by edcuated metropolitan intellectuals and isn't some trash like the Mail or the Express - when you read it though you see it actually is just from the other side of politics.
Alf Bentley Posted 12 March 2015 Posted 12 March 2015 Someone on here (Finnegan?) posted a couple of weeks ago how there seems to be quite a difference between what lefties think and what the right believe they think. I don't know anybody frothing at the mouth about the whole Clarkson situation. I don't know anybody who gives a flying fvck about it. It's only the right who get in a tizzy about things like this, arrrggghhh political correctness, yogurt-eating black lesbians at the BBC arrrggghh. Talk about a fvcking persecution complex. Now, now, Bovril.... You've only gone and reminded me about Attila the Stockbroker there... "Russians in the DHSS" and "Libyan students from hell"....
Rincewind Posted 12 March 2015 Posted 12 March 2015 I'm not a fan of Clarkson anyway so don't care. I find that he is often up his own backside and has got too big for his boots. He puts me off watching the programme. Anyway I don't drive and would never afford any of the cars featured It is aimed at blokes who think of a car as a penis extension when in fact it is only a means of getting from A to B a little faster.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.