O/T Clarkson.

[crashbang]

OK to end the story, I like him, he says what he thinks, like I do. No problems. At least he is not up his own arris like some.

[ragingpup]

Did I say it was funny,your comment was very poor raging no matter how you try & wrap it up.To be honest I don’t like O/Ps like this on a Football site.

Just to be clear Lol, my only point is that both of the scenarios presented by our comedians Clarkson and Brand, are f*cking horrific. Doesn't matter which you view as more horrific than the other, my only, I repeat, only problem is with anyone who somehow chooses to be offended by one and find the other funny.

For the record, I love dark humour, and can see the humour in both Clarkson and Brandyand can see where both are coming from. But I've never claimed to be outraged by one whilst laughing at the other. It's the hypocrisy I struggle with, extreme responses to two similar 'jokes', laughter or outrage, shaped only by whether you believe in the same political thrust of the 'comedian'. That's all.

[great_fire]

I'm sure Clarkson, being white, middle class, old, privileged and entitled would welcome Sharia law ( as long as it only applied to those he

hates on a cellular level), so that he could have her stoned to death.

This sounds like something a blue-haired woman with a nose ring would post on Twitter.

[avondalemiller]

This sounds like something a blue-haired woman with a nose ring would post on Twitter.

[Yak]

I'll never understand why some people cannot understand the difference between "free speech" and "consequence free speech^.

Free speech is not being able to say anything and not face any consequences.

It doesn't surprise me for a second that some of the characters on here agree and think she should be stripped naked in public and have excrement thrown at her. He'll hide behind a joke for that wording, but when he says that many people his age agree I think he's deadly serious.

I can't help but wonder what happened to those people of his generation to become so bitter and mysoginistic?

Feel free to agree with him here everyone, I encourage you. Don't worry, you're not being denied that right, but you are telling people a lot about the way your mind works.

But when the queen died and some were less than empathetic we were told it’s freedom of speech.
Truth is it depends who is saying what about who and then it’s ok.
The left will defend it as freedom of speech about the queen but will be up in arms about what Clarkson said.
It’s not about context it’s about blinkered political views and everyone is hypocritical.
The Gary Neville situation sums it up perfectly hypocrisy at its finest but Labour supporters won’t have a bad word said about his morals only applying to him when it suits.

[John2]

But when the queen died and some were less than empathetic we were told it’s freedom of speech.
Truth is it depends who is saying what about who and then it’s ok.
The left will defend it as freedom of speech about the queen but will be up in arms about what Clarkson said.
It’s not about context it’s about blinkered political views and everyone is hypocritical.
The Gary Neville situation sums it up perfectly hypocrisy at its finest but Labour supporters won’t have a bad word said about his morals only applying to him when it suits.

OK, I can tell from a couple of replies that I articulated myself very badly and my point has been misunderstood.

I've not been making the case that Clarkson shouldn't be allowed his free speech, quite the opposite.

My point is that while Clarkson has the free speech required to say this from a legal perspective, some people are concerned that the backlash (consequences) he is facing mean that he doesn't truly have free speech.

But that's not what free speech is.

If you think you should be able to say anything you want and not face consequences (like people complaining or boycotting you), you completely miss the point.

You're allowed to be a crap human being and offend people, but you can't expect to that without consequences in how people treat you.

That's what I was trying to say.

Clarkson is facing consequences for utilising the free speech he is entitled to.

When I criticise the institution of the monarchy, I accept that a consequence is that Royalists might not like me for it, and I accept that consequence and am grateful for that freedom. I also think it's a better use of that freedom than populist misogynistic bullying to gain wealth from gullible baby boomers who lap up in all the establishment newspaper headlines and actually pay money to be outraged and bitter.

[John2]

But when the queen died and some were less than empathetic we were told it’s freedom of speech.
Truth is it depends who is saying what about who and then it’s ok.
The left will defend it as freedom of speech about the queen but will be up in arms about what Clarkson said.
It’s not about context it’s about blinkered political views and everyone is hypocritical.
The Gary Neville situation sums it up perfectly hypocrisy at its finest but Labour supporters won’t have a bad word said about his morals only applying to him when it suits.

Can I also point out that your comparison to people comparing Clarkson's word to those who spoke out against the institution of the monarchy after the queen died is ridiculous. Especially in a free speech context.

All I said was that I respected the Queen but that it was time for the institution of the monarchy to be abandoned.

Imagine if instead I had said that I hated the Queen so much that her naked body should have been dragged through every town in the country for people to throw their excrement at.

Thats the relative comparison here. Anyone who would support Clarkson's speech but want to ban the latter is the hypocrite in this situation don't you think?

[Yak]

It was a general point John about people’s perception depending on their loyalty or political views.
I can’t honestly remember you saying anything disrespectful about the Queen.
I do remember you saying people are allowed freedom of speech.
It works both ways.
I’ve never said I agree with what Clarkson has said.
Personally I think people generally nowadays have little respect for how others are treated as long as it’s not them.

[Grist_To_The_Mill]

It was a general point John about people’s perception depending on their loyalty or political views.
I can’t honestly remember you saying anything disrespectful about the Queen.
I do remember you saying people are allowed freedom of speech.
It works both ways.
I’ve never said I agree with what Clarkson has said.
Personally I think people generally nowadays have little respect for how others are treated as long as it’s not them.

Have you noticed the irony here?

Harry and Meghan being prime royal scroungers ( which republican John2 should hate) yet he’s against Clarkson who says how much he dislikes the ginger whinger and his american talentless wife

[howdydoo]

Have you noticed the irony here?

Harry and Meghan being prime royal scroungers ( which republican John2 should hate) yet he’s against Clarkson who says how much he dislikes the ginger whinger and his american talentless wife

Oddly the most offensive thing I saw in the ongoing soap opera was the Curtsey. I didn’t watch the episodes so maybe it was taken out of context by me.

Thought it was really disrespectful to be honest.