TV Shows So Clarkson has shot himself in the foot again

Not denying that, I guess I I felt that "I find the backlash against Clarkson equally upsetting" didn't match that. Someone being fired because they said offensive things shouldn't offend you as much as them saying offensive things in the first place to me I guess. I'm aware what's offensive differs person to person but yeah this isn't people being put in prison, it's them losing their jobs because of their actions which sounds reasonable to me.

Edited to reasonable.

 

I don't know if that sounds right, seems OTT, but I guess it depends on what is in his contract, should at least have some disciplinary process and corrective actions before companies go straight to cancel to satiate the PC mob.

After all most of these companies have employed him based on what he says and does around this persona and his controversial sound bites are what they were looking for to sell their content, they got what they paid for.

 

I was agreeing. Probably should have left a line after "This is the point"

 

Highly likely he is not an Amazon employee, rather his media company sells his services to Amazon's media production arm. Employee rules, regulations and process won't come into it, there will be a "don't be a dick in public and embarrass Amazon" clause in the contract somewhere.

 

It's obvious to me that the only thing Clarkson is truly sorry for, is being called on his hateful tirade.

 

To quote a quotable quote, when someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.

He got fired from Top Gear for punching a guy over sandwiches, he makes a living sh**ting on other people to generate rage clicks. 15 years ago I quite liked him, now I'm certain that he's actually a c*nt and once he had enough money he stopped feeling the need to pretend.

 

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it can be used to justify cancel culture, which IMO is one of the worst things about society atm. People who freely express themselves in a way that isn't harmful to others absolutely should be protected from certain "consequences" - for example, unfair dismissal. And I'm not just talking about Clarkson here, but I'd argue that his situation fits the bill. You are clearly saying that he should be sacked because he spoke offensively, and my question is: why?

Yes but being controversial doesn't automatically make you an asshole. Again, that's my point: controversy is often mischaracterised as harm. So what if JK is repeatedly controversial on Twitter - being controversial isn't against the law. She's just expressing her opinion.

@Krikkit, I have no problem with any of that, but I'm talking about this in terms of Clarkson's standing as a professional, and as such it has everything to do with free speech and the relevant protections enshrined in law. Clarkson was sacked by the BBC because he broke the law, not because he hurt somebody's feelings.

 

Clarkson made a very good living by being bombastic and slightly rude about folk. It was very entertaining - I, like a great number of people, loved it. As he has become less and less relevant, he's turned up the volume to compensate, and clearly over-stepped. When he had more influence, he could ride out a lot of backlash to his views - maybe he thought he was still bomb-proof?

He's a step away from Katie Hopkins mkII.

BTW, he wasn't actually sacked by the BBC, they just chose not to renew his contract. I'm not saying that if his contract wasn't up for renewal he wouldn't have been sacked - I'm just being a wee bit pedantic.

 

This. This is pretty much the start, and end, of the whole discussion tbh.

For what it's worth, this is what the Human Rights Act 1998, the law which enshrines "freedom of speech" in the UK, has to say about freedom of speech - emphasis mine:

FWIW the man's a ****ing bellend. Towards the end of his run in Top Gear, the show was already a shadow of its former self; it was just a vehicle for the on-screen characters to play out ridiculously contrived and pre-scripted sequences. And by that point they really were just actors playing characters, not presenters. Someone else already made this point, but he's increasingly finding himself with less and less relevance as more and more people realise just how tedious his media persona has become. He's consistently kept upping the ante to try and keep himself in the spotlight, and this time it backfired. I really hope this is the last I have to hear about Jeremy ****ing Clarkson, this long, drawn-out car crash is just getting rather sad now.

 

You should what some of the snowflakes are saying about him in some of his insta posts. Mainly due to the fact he’s disabled comments on the apology one.

Some people get mad just for the sake of getting mad, I find it laughable. Couldn’t care if Clarkson called me a [NOPE!] to my face, how in the world does that affect my daily life?

Social media and the news are two things the world needs less of.

 

Got some bad news for you then: you're posting on social media right now.

 

Off topic, but I wouldn’t class a forum as a form of social media.

 

I was doing social media before it was cool.

Don't fret too much, off-topic is a long-established bit-tech tradition.

 

Both are free speech, and people can say what they want about JK (within the bounds of the law, obvs). Why is one cancel culture and not the other? Well... I don't see JK issuing any death threats, but she's sure receiving plenty of them. And right now on Twitter there are numerous appeals to boycott the release of the upcoming Hogwarts Legacy game, which is a laughably futile endeavour - it's currently the #1 bestseller on Steam and it hasn't even been released yet.

Let's agree to disagree on that one.

And yes I'm aware that Clarkson wasn't technically sacked by the beeb... I was just making the point that punching someone in the face is quite different from saying some unpleasant things.

 

I don't know if he should be fired for what he wrote, but I'm certainly saying I don't have a problem with it. I think every company I've worked for has had a bit of a contract about repesenting the company, and if you bring the company into disrepute it will be punished somehow etc. After all, why would any respectable company or person want anything to do with someone who told hundreds, thousands? (I'm sure one could find out how many people buy the Sun) that: "I hate her. Not like I hate Nicola Sturgeon or Rose West. I hate her on a cellular level. At night, I’m unable to sleep as I lie there, grinding my teeth and dreaming of the day when she is made to parade naked through the streets of every town in Britain while the crowds chant ‘Shame!’ and thrown lumps of excrement at her.". You genuinely don't think that's harmful?

 

I've already acknowledged that it was harmful. "Harm" comprises a vast spectrum of things said and done, with many levels of severity. I'd put what Clarkson said extremely low on the register - yes, it was quite extreme, but a lot of stuff gets media airtime every day that (arguably) causes harm. Most people forget about it within a few minutes, or otherwise learn to deal with it.

@Gareth Halfacree Yes, some aspects of cancel culture are actual crimes. But often what I see on Twitter about JK is cleverly veiled malice that would otherwise qualify as (in your words) defamation, incitement, harassment etc. It's a fine line, which explains why so many tweets are removed on a daily basis.