Clarkson's done it AGAIN!!!

[Molikroth]

If a drug dealer gets stabbed, I won't cry, but a part of me will feel sad for those who will miss him regardless of what he may have done. If you don't feel this, then I worry for your sanity. Not your consciencse, that would stay solid as a rock, but if you don't feel a tiny bit of remorse when a human dies, then there is something strange about you. I must sleep now. Away!

Doesn't it seem odd that getting upset about strangers is considered the norm, "sane", as opposed to the logical unconcern because it doesn't affect you?

 

[Molikroth]

I don't see why the death of a stranger is sad. If a friend or my kitty died I'd be upset, but if the guy in the house above mine died I wouldn't care. I don't know him, have barely addressed a dozen words to him, what does his death have to do with me?

EDIT: It occurs to me that if the guy in the house above mine died, his house might become occupied with a neighbour less to my liking - playing loud music or suchlike. So his death would affect me, but it'd be more of an irritance than upsetting.

 

[Molikroth]

I don't need to feel sorry for him, either.

I'm not given to irrational bursts of emotion. That's not to say I'm a Vulcan-style purely logical creature, but in this matter I just don't feel anything or understand how you can.

 

[Fightbulb]

I think both the Top Gear episode and the whole Brand/Ross/Sachs thing are hilarious. I'm also starting to worry about the whole concept of people being offended just for the sake of being offended. It's just too easy to play the victim role and thus force people into changing things you don't like, just to get what you want. I think the world today would be a lot more fun if we left the complaining to people who actually have something to complain about.

 

[Molikroth]

That, or have people keep their whining to themselves.

 

[Fightbulb]

We might have to shut down the internet then.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Imitation Sacharin has beaten me to the punch, but I second his condemnation. Just because you don't like what you do, dosen't make them sub-human (like paedophiles...shudder)

 

[Doug]

Personal taste aside...using a form of media to broadcast slander/abuse (whether fair or not) is against the BBC's charter, and is grounds for immediate dismissal.

The intention was to to interview Sachs...

...Then Jonathon Ross blurted out aforementioned statement.

I would say it is grounds for immediate demands of apology - to Andrew Sachs - but the complainers can piss off. As if anyone was truly offended about something they didn't even hear, to a person they've never met, and have no ties to other than that he was in a popular comedy show.

But no, people should not lose their careers over a statement that they didn't blurt out in the first place.

In fact, all Brand did was apologise profusely, several times.

Unless you'd like to blame him for sleeping with someone's granddaughter? If my ancestor was in a dance group called the 'Satanic Sluts', I would not assume they were chaste.

What should have happened was that the line was never broadcasted, Ross should have had to apologise directly to Andrew Sachs, and it should have never gotten into the Guardian.

What actually happened is Brand - who did not actually make the comment himself - resigned, as did high-ups in the BBC, Andrew Sachs is harrassed outside his front door by the media, and the woman in question sells her story to the Sun.

Fantastic, gotta love the media.

Actually, what Brand did was apologize and say 'but it was very fun', which to me isn't a real apology. Anyway, the point is, they phoned him up to harass Andrew Sachs. I believe that does fall under a law (Some Act of Parliament in 1983, I believe), and frankly he got away with that prank call to the police far too easily.

But away... you claimed 6 million people listened to his show? The actual figure seems closer to 400,000 million (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Brand_prank_calls_row#cite_note-NME29Oct08-4 although they don't give the source). If that figure is accurate, the 40,000 complaints translates to 1 in 10 of the shows audience (and thats just the ones who felt angry enough to complain).

I think the route cause of the anger is the fact that everyone in the UK who owns a TV has to pay for the BBC, and so when they hear stuff like this from Brand and Ross who get paided stupidly large amounts of cash. People want to know why there cash is being wasted on these two, see? And BBC 4, but this seems more achieveble.

EDIT: Oh, and it seems Brand did fuck her - hence, phoning up her Grandad and harassing him even when he was supposed to be on the shown. Classy.

 

[The Lyre]

Personal taste aside...using a form of media to broadcast slander/abuse (whether fair or not) is against the BBC's charter, and is grounds for immediate dismissal.

The intention was to to interview Sachs...

...Then Jonathon Ross blurted out aforementioned statement.

I would say it is grounds for immediate demands of apology - to Andrew Sachs - but the complainers can piss off. As if anyone was truly offended about something they didn't even hear, to a person they've never met, and have no ties to other than that he was in a popular comedy show.

But no, people should not lose their careers over a statement that they didn't blurt out in the first place.

In fact, all Brand did was apologise profusely, several times.

Unless you'd like to blame him for sleeping with someone's granddaughter? If my ancestor was in a dance group called the 'Satanic Sluts', I would not assume they were chaste.

What should have happened was that the line was never broadcasted, Ross should have had to apologise directly to Andrew Sachs, and it should have never gotten into the Guardian.

What actually happened is Brand - who did not actually make the comment himself - resigned, as did high-ups in the BBC, Andrew Sachs is harrassed outside his front door by the media, and the woman in question sells her story to the Sun.

Fantastic, gotta love the media.

Actually, what Brand did was apologize and say 'but it was very fun', which to me isn't a real apology. Anyway, the point is, they phoned him up to harass Andrew Sachs. I believe that does fall under a law (Some Act of Parliament in 1983, I believe), and frankly he got away with that prank call to the police far too easily.

But away... you claimed 6 million people listened to his show? The actual figure seems closer to 400,000 million (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Brand_prank_calls_row#cite_note-NME29Oct08-4 although they don't give the source). If that figure is accurate, the 40,000 complaints translates to 1 in 10 of the shows audience (and thats just the ones who felt angry enough to complain).

I think the route cause of the anger is the fact that everyone in the UK who owns a TV has to pay for the BBC, and so when they hear stuff like this from Brand and Ross who get paided stupidly large amounts of cash. People want to know why there cash is being wasted on these two, see? And BBC 4, but this seems more achieveble.

EDIT: Oh, and it seems Brand did fuck her - hence, phoning up her Grandad and harassing him even when he was supposed to be on the shown. Classy.

1. Watch the televised apology from Brand - i.e. his resignation. If that isn't the apology you're after, I'm not sure what is.

2. 40,000 is still very small in comparison to OVER 6 Million - this is not a claim, the Brand podcast has been number 1 on Itunes many a time, with over 6 Million downloads, and another million or so get it from the BB2 site.

3. Even if the complaints reached over this figure, it wouldn't mean a damn thing - you can't say "1 in 10 of the shows audience" as that suggests that more than two people who actually listened to the show complained. Only 2 people of the Russell Brand Show's audience complained. That shows how offensive it was to the target audience, if the biased or the uptight want to waste the BBC's time, they're welcome to it, but I won't be impressed by an uninformed mob.

4. The BBC is a service - people seem to forget that the BBC is here to entertain us, not to bend to our every whim. They should take our complaints on board, but they should not have to force people to resign to appease the rabid mob.

5. Get an informed opinion - as I've said many, many, many times, the offending comment was made by Ross, not Brand. The idea was to interview him, never to harrass him, and if we want to be extremely irrational, we could blame;

-Andrew Sachs for not being there for his interview.

-His granddaughter for being a 'Satanic Slut' and clearly being a bit of a tramp, if her idea of dignity and moral high-ground is selling her story to the Sun.

-The Guardian for publishing the story, alongside actually important news.

-Every single member of the mob that foamed at the mouth upon reading it in the Guardian.

But none of those people are really to blame - Jonathon Ross made the comment, and the director of the show, Nick Philps...Phelps...allowed it. Those are the two people to blame, yet Brand (and consequently anyone who worked on his show, I imagine) has lost his job, as has the Director of BBC Radio 2.

Frankly, if Clarkson isn't heckled outside his house, I'll wonder what the hell is going on - it seems if an old comedian isn't offended that the mob doesn't feel the need to waste the BBC's time.

 

[poleboy]

Maybe I got the joke wrong, but wasn't it offensive to lorry drivers, not prostitutes?

 

[kazork]

Maybe I'm callous, but I couldn't care less when prostitutes get murdered. It's not like prostitutes are valuable members of society, they are usually crack addicts who turn trick to feed their habit.

Kinda off-topic, but kinda still on-topic...I read a story once about a guy who got 10 years in prison for raping a prostitute, meaning he fucked her and didn't pay or whatever. How is that rape? It's theft of services isn't it? And since she only charged 20 bucks a trick it wouldn't even be a theft worth prosecuting.

There for it is a great thing that prostitution is legal in the Netherlands. In this way they can be protected and they pay taxes so they contribute to society.

They even have a panic button in there work room linked directly to the police.

They provide to society in that they provide a much needed service. And by making it legal you can control it and protect the girls against Violant customers and oppresive pimps.

 

[Gummy]

there are people who LIVE to write complaint letters to the BBC.
and regardless of your opinion of Clarkson, that wasn't a bad little gag, and you'd think hookers would have thicker skin even if they don't have a sense of humour. besides, seems to me the joke was more offensive to truck drivers than sex workers.

 

[742]

its a JOKE it wasnt said to be mean, and even in text without the british accent its funny. its meant to be(and in fact was) funny. if it hurt you, oh well, thousands perhaps millions of other people laughed, so suck it up. and seriously, if one group should be able to take a joke, its prostitutes.

 

[DannyDamage]

I don't like Top Gear or Clarkson but he should not be touched for what he said. It was a joke and nothing more than that. Those '500' people that complained need to get a life and stop watching things that may offend them JUST to have something to whine about.

 

[Vortigar]

Maybe I'm callous, but I couldn't care less when prostitutes get murdered. It's not like prostitutes are valuable members of society, they are usually crack addicts who turn trick to feed their habit.

I think your view on this has been rather hollywoodized.

Most girls in prostitution are there through means of duress or coercion. A girl doesn't just go "you know what, I'll sell my body, that'd be a good gig", they're overall pretty much victims of the industry (loverboys, pimps, what have you). The drugs usually come later, even if they come at all.

Furthermore, even if the larger part of them are crackwhores and we'd be better off without them (large IF there), can you just kill them off randomly and generalize it away? Sure you can kill random statesheads of African countries, the chance you'll off a bad one is definately there, but how does that excuse killing a good one? You know nothing of the situation of a certain girl who got killed and you're just dismissing it out of hand.

Also, prostitution IS a useful service to society. There are many studies out there that have dug into this. The direct positive effects aren't as obvious as the direct negative effects though.

And yes, it was a callous remark, but you've made so many people indignant already that I think you know that by now.

 

[Dele]

I don't see why the death of a stranger is sad. If a friend or my kitty died I'd be upset, but if the guy in the house above mine died I wouldn't care. I don't know him, have barely addressed a dozen words to him, what does his death have to do with me?

EDIT: It occurs to me that if the guy in the house above mine died, his house might become occupied with a neighbour less to my liking - playing loud music or suchlike. So his death would affect me, but it'd be more of an irritance than upsetting.

Okay let me twist your sentences a bit. I dont care if some people died when WTC collapsed, it had no physical effect on me and I dont see why I should mourn over some bunch of random people dying becuase some other random guys decided to attack them. They never directly contributed anything to my life therefore they didnt exist to me. Well you know it was kinda a good thing, more food and oxygen for me...

 

[jackanderson]

The people who moan about this sort of thing need to get a life.

When it's serious, bullying in Big Brother, then there's a reason. But when it's just a simple joke on Top Gear then people need to calm down.

 

[the protaginist]

Only two people complained the night the show broadcasted.

which means 2 MILLION people complained the night the show broadcasted.

Care to explain/back that up?

just a Family Guy joke from the FCC episode.

 

[opium of the people]

Kinda off-topic, but kinda still on-topic...I read a story once about a guy who got 10 years in prison for raping a prostitute, meaning he fucked her and didn't pay or whatever. How is that rape? It's theft of services isn't it? And since she only charged 20 bucks a trick it wouldn't even be a theft worth prosecuting.

Haha!
She engages in a profession you find repugnant so she's not worthy of basic human dignities like the right to sovereignty of body.

Hahaha, you're so clever.

overreact much? he couldn't be making a humorous comparison between prostitution and any other profession, could he?

 

[Iffypop]

It was a bloody good episode though, don't you think? Especially setting the lorry on fire...