The Clarkson 'Execute Strikers' Outburst

[cherenkov]

Here's the comment I (under Hirudinaceous) posted;



'BBC News continues to show a Leftist anti-government editorial bias e.g. this year's riots or the Dale Farm evictions (the BBC has had to admit to having got both wrong).

Clarkson is Clarkson as 'John is John' (Prescott). He obviously didn't mean what he said literally but the BBC's bias does make many people who share his feelings concerning the strikes very, very angry.'

I went on to mention this site in another message so we might get a few new members.

[Teddy Bear]

Here's an article about it for anybody not familiar with the story.
I would have had them all SHOT! Clarkson's rant at strikers branded silly by Cameron (and now union demands a police probe)

No doubt the BBC staff will be slapping each other on the back, winking and muttering about 'this is what happens when you put a right winger on'.
What this episode really highlight is why creativity has near enough died in this country. Was a time when Clarkson's statement would have been seen as humour, even if not that good. It only works as it is because of the left-wing mentality that he know exists.

What's really appalling and scary is the left-wing reaction to it.
What's the bet it features on Question Time, for them to show just how 'outraged' they are. Let's just hope there's some voice of reason on the panel or in the audience.

Thanks for the 'heads up' Cher

[cherenkov]

Only a complete idiot could believe that Clarkson's words were meant to be taken literally, unless the idiots concerned are seeking to make some political capital out of it. To be fair, on the you tube site most of the left-leaning posters were saying it was just his usual over-the-top way of saying how angry he was at the strikers.

Just as punching someone in the face was just John Prescott's over-the-top way of saying how angry he was about an egg hitting the back of his jacket! Not really though, Clarkson's misdemeanor was verbal whereas Prescott's was physical and if committed by you and me would have had us in court.

But all Blair had to say was, 'John is John'. Well last night Clarkson was Clarkson and although what he said was as stupid as the Labour deputy Prime Minister publicly trading punches with a member of the public, in Clarkson's case he was genuinely trying to express the fury felt by Britain's silent majority at these stupid, selfish, treasonous strikes!

[Teddy Bear]

You may well be right, I didn't see the programme - just this clip. My impression however was not that he was really angry, or had any real emotion about it. I doubt this strike touches him too much personally. I think he was just being 'Clarkson'.

[Teddy Bear]

A couple of articles by authors aghast at the reaction Clarkson has received, and commenting on the value of his humour.

This one - Jeremy Clarkson: Long live bad taste By Chris Moncrieff

and this one

Long may Jeremy shoot his mouth off

By Melissa Kite

Humourless whingers who complain about Jeremy Clarkson should be taken out and shot.

There, I’ve said it too. I’m going down with Jeremy. I’m happy to. I love his brand of humour and I will defend to the death (by shooting) my right to enjoy it.

Those people who deliberately try to take offence by interpreting his jokes literally and who seek to silence him in the name of the ‘rights’ of the people he lampoons are interfering with my right to laugh at life.

I really do fear that if we give in to these sanctimonious idiots we will all end up automatons who dare not speak for fear of being accused of something Orwellian sounding like ‘hate crime’ or ‘verbal assault’.

Mr Clarkson’s comments on the BBC’s One Show about public sector workers may have been bad taste, but there was still no law against bad taste in this country the last time I checked, although admittedly it feels like that day may be coming closer.

He said, and I quote: 'I’d have them all shot. I would take them outside and execute them in front of their families. How dare they go on strike when they’ve got these guilt-edged pensions while the rest of us have to work for a living.'

Here’s the thing: he said it in a funny voice. It was A Joke involving something called ‘exaggeration’.

Often, when constructing A Joke, one exaggerates until an absurd or bizarre concept is created - in this case the idea of shooting striking teachers in public, which, in reality, one would never do. Get it? Oh dear. Maybe they still don’t understand.

Right, let’s try another one. Later Mr Clarkson added: 'I do sometimes use the train to come to London but it always stops in Reading. It's always because somebody has jumped in front of it and somebody has burst.'

'You just think, why have we stopped because we've hit somebody? What's the point of stopping? It won't make them better.'

That is called black humour. Black humour used to be very popular before we all climbed so far up inside our own preciousness that we couldn’t laugh at the dark side of life any more.

But this is a perilous way to go. A joke about people throwing themselves in front of trains is not only darkly funny, it has a very important purpose too. Ask any psychologist and they will tell you that human beings need to laugh at sad or disturbing things in order to process them.

As such, the best comedy often comes from the saddest circumstances. From dark, comes light. Sometimes the jokes work, sometimes they don’t particularly. But we still have to try. We have a proud tradition of this sort of thing, and we should defend it. As the comedian nailed to the cross once said: 'Always look on the bright side of life.'

[Teddy Bear]

What's even more ironic, it all this happens on a day when one of the top BBC executives, says this
BBC chief who says swearing in comedies is good

Caroline Thomson says one of the points of comedy was to cause offence
Caroline Thomson, the corporation’s chief operating officer, claimed that one of the points of comedy was to cause offence and make her ‘flinch’.


So why did they see the need to apologise for Clarkson?
They're real heroes when it comes to Israel though.

[jacksmith]

If you ask me its very strange to see the BBC reports, they are so damning of one of their own presenters.

It seems obvious to me that elements in the BBC want him out. The BBC as today make this the second biggest story of the day,
Above the Steven Lawrence case and the Eurozone crisis, instead of confining it to the tabloid fodder that it deserves.

Personally I think most of what the Jeremy says is in response or an attack to what he encounters every day at the BBC.



Watch this clip from 6 minutes onwards, its very funny, I think it explains mostly why he says the things he says.

[thehighlandrebel]

I hear the Trades Unions whining away feigning 'offence' much like the Muslim community are all too ready to take 'offence' whilst dishing it out themselves to all and sundry.

I remember in the 80's the Trades Unions calling for the death of Margaret Thatcher (and shooting her in front of her family was one of the more humane methods) although it was meant to be taken tongue in cheek it's undertones were scary.

Just more ideas the liberal left and the trades unions have to take complete control of not only what we watch and listen and read on the media but to control what we are and aren't allowed to say and think.

[Teddy Bear]

Dec 1, 2011 22:11:54 GMT jacksmith said:

If you ask me its very strange to see the BBC reports, they are so damning of one of their own presenters.
It seems obvious to me that elements in the BBC want him out. The BBC as today make this the second biggest story of the day,
Above the Steven Lawrence case and the Eurozone crisis, instead of confining it to the tabloid fodder that it deserves.

There are quite probably many employees at the BBC who resent his success, especially as he's the antithesis of what they're told they can and can't do, but I doubt the hierarchy want him out. He's way to successful, and the income to the BBC from Top Gear sales to many countries round the world is something they wouldn't want to do without. So his position is safe.

However the BBC also have to be seen to protect their other interests which form a strong part of their agenda, like the Unions and Labour. It was good to see some voices of reason on Question Time tonight, ridiculing the left-wing response to Clarkson's remarks, so I expect the BBC will know now not to push the breast-beating too far.

There's a very interesting piece in the clip you linked to jack, it really shows the BBC mindset. It's at 7:35minutes into the clip - here it is


Any wonder the BBC is so screwed up?

[cherenkov]

The BBC know that Clarkson is a global brand that makes them millions annually. They also know that his popularity stems from his irreverent, non-PC banter which many around the world identify with and see as a welcome release from the Leftist, PC, biased offerings of BBC News.

That NUJ entryism has turned so many against BBC News could be seen in the many replies on the you tube lead I placed at the start of this thread. The conclusion I reached is that most of them welcomed Clarkson's rant as a sign that the entirety of the BBC haven't been brainwashed into feigned ignorance or denial of the huge swathe of reality that contradicts the theology of the liberal UK Left!

[Teddy Bear]

Yeah Cher, though I have a feeling with this, the BBC hierarchy don't know whether to shit or get off the pan.
They've already overreacted with their ridiculous apology in this case, unlike the example of Ross/Brand, when it took them ages to apologise for something that was patently insulting. I hope this has had the effect of as you say, and turned off more viewers to their mindset and output.

[Teddy Bear]

James Delingpole gives a very good reasoning for what he suspects this ridiculous 'storm in a teacup' episode is being used for, both by the BBC, and the unions.

How the BBC ganged up with the militant Left to attack Jeremy Clarkson

By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: December 2nd, 2011

Yesterday, the BBC went totally bananas over the Jeremy Clarkson non-story. In twenty-five years of journalism I have never been so inundated with interview requests. First in was the BBC Radio 2 Jeremy Vine Show; then BBC Radio Ulster; then the Richard Bacon Show on Radio 5 Live; then Scotland Tonight and BBC Wales; then the World Tonight on BBC Radio 4; then Channel 4 news (which, though not strictly the BBC is very much part of the same problem I'm about to describe). Oh, and today I'm doing Radio 5 Live again, followed by BBC World News. What the hell is going on?

I got my answer from a chance remark made by Jeremy Vine after our interview. He was telling me about the phone-in he'd done the day before during the public sector workers' strike and what had astonished him was the mood of the callers. If I remember what he said correctly, one of his studio guests was a nurse on a £40,000 PA salary, with a guaranteed £30,000 pension, and this had not gone down well with the mother-of-three from Northern Ireland struggling as a finance officer in the private sector on a salary of £14,000 and no pension to speak of. The callers were very much on the side of the private sector. In fact, they were on the whole absolutely apoplectic that privileged, relatively overpaid public sector workers with their gold-plated pensions should have the gall to go out on strike when the people who pay their salaries – private sector workers – have to go on slogging their guts out regardless.

This, of course, was much the same point Clarkson made on the One Show, albeit more colourfully. (And having first taken the trouble to clear it beforehand with the BBC, which raises serious questions about the over-the-top way they responded.)

And that's why the Labour party, the militants, the union leaders - and of course their amen corner at the BBC – set out to make Jeremy Clarkson the story. It was their desperate attempt to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.

After all, as Fraser Nelson reports, the strike itself was a massive flop. Only a minority of union members voted it for it; the turn-out was so poor that the unions felt compelled to send out hectoring letters accusing their membership of being "scabs"; the hospitals – and many schools – stayed open, Heathrow's immigration queues actually got shorter. This was not the glorious day of action (or inaction) that the militants had hoped for. Nor did it fit into the BBC's ongoing narrative that Osborne's vicious cuts (what cuts, we ask) are causing such hardship and misery among the saintly frontline public sector workers who bravely rescue our cats from trees and smilingly change our bed pans that really a Labour government run by Ed Balls is the only option.

Not only were the strikes a failure in numbers terms, though, but more damagingly they were a failure in propaganda terms. As both Fraser Nelson and Jeremy Vine have noted, there really has been a shift in public mood. I remember not more than a year ago going on Vine's show to state, somewhat provocatively that I'd rather toss my children out on the street than have them sponging off the taxpayer in the public sector, and of course the mainly left-leaning BBC audience went apoplectic. I think if I'd gone on and said the same thing today they would probably have been demanding a statue erected in my honour in Parliament Square.

In other words, the popular mood has swung dramatically against the public sector. Jeremy Clarkson can go on TV, say they should all be taken out and shot – joshingly, of course – and find an awful lot of agreement from his audience.

How does the left turn round a PR disaster like that? Why obviously, it contrives to make Clarkson the story. It affects to take Clarkson's remarks literally; it explores legal action for "incitement to hatred"; it foments class envy by comparing the millions this public schoolboy earns with the relative peanuts earned by most of those in the public sector; it tugs at the heartstrings, as in this cheaply manipulative bid for sympathy by Unison's Dave Prentis:

Whilst he is driving round in fast cars for a living, public sector workers are busy holding our society together – they save others' lives on a daily basis, they care for the sick, the vulnerable, the elderly. They wipe bottoms, noses, they help children to learn, and empty bins. They deserve all our thanks – certainly not the unbelievable level of abuse he threw at them.

The pity is that the BBC is more in sympathy with the views of leftist militants like Dave Prentis than it is with the preoccupations of its broader audience. Its behaviour in the Clarkson affair has been disgraceful. But then, given what we know of the BBC's political bias, what else could we have expected.

[cherenkov]

I hope they're dumb enough to sack Clarkson, and that he is eagerly recruited by one of the honest channels (ie NOT allowed to indulge it'sanctimony because it's funding is achieved through legalised extortion) like ITV, and the increasingly impressive Channel 5.

The BBC are not keeping up with the changes that are happening in the world around them. They don't understand that the things that they believe in are already anachronisms.

Tonight they even attempted to conceal their true bias by highlighting complains from PS strikers that it was in fact them who were being misrepresented by the BBC. Standard tactics of course as we here know.

Go on BBC sack Clarkson, no I really mean it. Then his global brand can be snapped up by private sector media corporations whose taxes will help fund the billion pound bills the UK tax payers shell out, for instance, to allow benefit dependent people to have pet Staffies that they breed and sell, tax free on the Internet for £500-£1000 a pup, while low income working families have to tell their kids they can't afford, in terms of money or time, to have a pet.

I'm a veterinary surgeon, semi-retired. I work in a post-industrial multicultural madhouse where, to be fair, you can still hear English being spoken from time to time. In my consulting room it is normal for me to have to listen to conversations about what I've just said in any one of dozens of languages I can't understand, often to their children who are obviously being brought up to have English as their second language.

The BBC is out of touch and it knows it. Perhaps that's why it reaches out to the new custodians of the future of this country by having a Muslim girl in Robin Hood's merry men or King Arthur's Queen an Asian girl.

We have to ask, if we are a democracy, who was it that brought about all this change, and what was their motivation. I know the answer. You just have to think cynically enough about how career politicians put their own interests above those of the one million young people now jobless in this country by allowing millions of immigrants in who would , of course show their gratitude to the TUC party (Labour) by voting them back in perpetuity.

[Teddy Bear]

Good post Cher

[cherenkov]

Thanks, but I think it was a bit of an outburst too, though nobody was taken out and shot in front of their family!

I wasn't going to say what branch of science I work in but then I thought it was important to explain why it is not me that is out of touch with the extraordinarily stupid and possibly catastrophic changes that are happening, mainly in the cities of the UK. It is the politicians, even Ian Duncan Smith that won't or can't see the true extent of the sickness that is fulminating in our midst.

I don't know whether Common Purpose is real or an urban myth. But even if it isn't an actual organisation I think there is a consensus of like-minded individuals throughout the media that have, without asking us if we agree, decided that our children have to be subliminally prepared for the multi-cultural Hell-hole large areas of urban England will soon become.

To these self-appointed custodians of all that is right and true using distortion of the actual history of this country to try and suggest to our children that Britain has always been multi-cultural as per the examples in my earlier post, is just another day in the office.

The truth doesn't matter compared with the need to control and manipulate,not to mention patronise and insult the intelligence of the young people who have been so badly let down by populist careerist politicians like Blair and Brown, and a craven BBC that continues to hide from our young future voters the true extent of their dishonesty and/or incompetence.

[Teddy Bear]

I can feel your passion and recognize the integrity of your words Cher. Feel free to 'outburst' whenever you have the need, it's part and parcel of what this site's about. We are looking honestly and freely at the most insidious forces acting to pervert this society. They're real, and it would be impossible not to feel frustration, disappointment, and revulsion at what we witness, and what we perceive as the base motive for it. I say impossible, because I can't think of a better alternative that reflects genuine concern for our human condition, and our attempt to redress the negative forces acting on it.

The saying that 'ignorance is bliss' might be true, but I'd still rather have my awareness. I would imagine you feel the same, but feel free to correct me. I've no doubt your ability to think for yourself, and see through the bullshit thrust at you, gives you an increased richness in life on those you are able to touch. If we can increase awareness and stimulate real thought on the problems facing us, then the more possibilities to overcome them we generate.

Good to have you on board

[cherenkov]

Hi, I've recorded Robert Peston's first episode of 'How the West Went Bust!'

I'm not sure I want to watch it though, as I suspect it will most likely be a whitewash designed to deflect as much responsibility for what has gone wrong away from B and B, Darling, and New Labour generally, as well as the other irresponsible populist left-of-centre European politicians who were so profligate with their spending of money that wasn't their's, and so indifferent about how it could ever be repaid.

I do hope I'll be wrong. I'll report further once I've watched it.