Comments:'Have them all shot': BBC gets 21,000+ complaints over Jeremy Clarkson's public sector striker comments

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Back to article

Wikinews commentary.svg

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Use the "Start a new discussion" button just below to start a new discussion. If the button isn't there, wait a few seconds and click this link: Refresh.

Start a new discussion


Thread titleRepliesLast modified
No hope for Jeremy Clarkson.522:16, 19 March 2012
Quote taken out of context308:50, 30 December 2011
Anyone who takes Clarksons views seriously...309:43, 9 December 2011

No hope for Jeremy Clarkson.

Mr. Clarkson has just about lost his bearings and no aid might help putting him back on track! Already dizzy in his cloud of fame, he thinks of gratuitously throwing insults around as fair game in order to capture TV rating. The time has arrived to stuff him, together with his other two "Top Gear" clowns, into the trash bin where he deserves to stay.

Burst3 (talk)19:06, 3 December 2011

Read and comprehend what actually happened before you post anything. (talk)04:38, 4 December 2011

The article was read and comprehended all right. But, although Mr. Clarkson's comment didn't relate at all with the "Top Gear" programme, the truth is that this individual is not adhering to the proper behaviour considering he is a public figure appearing in world-class mass media. Mr. Clarkson's breach of etiquette was, by no means, no the first one and he has been already become quite noted for his aggresive and insulting manners.

Burst3 (talk)20:00, 5 December 2011

Just to clarify, wich one of Clarkson's remarks got you upset? The first one about the strike being fantastic, the second one related to the BBC's need for impartiality (wich led to the third one) or the third that strikers should be shot?

The way I read your comments, it seems like you didn't really understand what was said before getting worked up and outraged. Or, for impartiality, you happen to be a genius linguist and unfortunately I am not able to comprehend you complex reasoning.

Got it? (talk)10:15, 31 January 2012

I emailed the BBC in support of the freedom for Mr. Clarkson (and implicitly of others) to voice such opinions.

A medium where the only views allowed are those guaranteed not to offend is of greatly lessened value. (talk)22:06, 4 December 2011

I quite frankly find it PATHETIC that people can have the self-righteousness to be offended by a comment that was intended as a satire of the BBC's need for political correctness. How hard are they trying to find something to be offended by, when they have to pick that? That's absolutely ridiculous.

Nimloth250 (talk)22:16, 19 March 2012

Quote taken out of context

The quote in question, thrown around with no regard for what it actually meant, was part of a larger conversation, as typically happens when someone speaks. The offending remark in question was used as an example by Clarkson to oppose his own actual view, in light of the BBC's unbiased reporting requirement. His own opinion was on one side, and this alternative opinion was presented to balance the views. Subject to Clarkson's exaggerative humour, the comment was quickly adapted as a offense to the very nature of humanity, grinding society to a halt with its explosive needle point of insensitivity.

Basically it's used out of context. Clarkson's lack of humour was interpreted as hate speech by those that had not even seen the programme. (talk)12:26, 5 December 2011

The inability of people to judge a situation by context not withstanding, the oddest part of the entire situation is a celebrity chastising public sector retirees to "work for a living." But at least the bumbling Mr. Clarkson is able to provide a distraction from the inaction of those in a position to address the strikers concerns. (talk)15:17, 5 December 2011

He is merely expressing his outrage with an equally outrageous statement to define his opinion. (talk)16:21, 5 December 2011

The article should be redacted to provide the actual context of this situation. It should include an explanation of the joke that was attempted, as well as explicitly pointing out Clarkson's actual opinion. That this was satire directed at the BBC, the government and the general public, instead of an attack on the striking workers should be explicitly clear in the article, because currently it is extremely misleading. (talk)08:50, 30 December 2011

Anyone who takes Clarksons views seriously...

...shouldn't be allowed near a telephone / computer for their own safety. Next they'll start demanding an official inquiry into the chicken's real motive for crossing the road. (talk)10:20, 5 December 2011

I agree, the publicity alone has made this in to a media circus - by people complaining so much it made national news which meant the comment was seen by even more people and allows the circus to grow (talk)15:38, 5 December 2011

The 21,000 plus people who have complained about Clarksons comment are nothing but a bunch of greedy whiners. (talk)09:06, 7 December 2011

It's amazing how people's quotes get taken out of context and blown up like this. So much for modern and progressive thinking, freedom of speech, and overall common sense. Now we are going back to the "dark ages" and crucifying anyone with a difference of opinion. While we are at it, let's burn all the books, kill all the authority figures, and start a total anarchy. Can one of you sheeple stop and think before complaing? (talk)09:43, 9 December 2011