SleepyWill

Just wanted to say stab, that the video you posted was gorgeous! I could never be brave enough to do any wedding video and on the basis of what you just showed, if I were in the Netherlands when I got married, you would be top of my list!

I really can't believe all the faeces being slung in this thread, can we be clear on one point here, what Andrew is talking about is not "one rule for one, and one rule for another", that is very clearly not correct. (Unless, you are working on a cure for cancer according to horshack, then it is one rule for you, apparently, because that's how moral crusaders roll). Neither was he saying that assault or abuse is on any way ok. I mean he literally, directly stated that. I believe he is saying the following, and I agree with all points: 1) The BBC were wrong to drag this into a public forum before they began their investigation. 2) People make mistakes, we are all human and everyone is different and thus will make different mistakes. 3) When people make mistakes, deal with it appropriately. How can I justify supporting these statements in the context of work place assault? 1) Come on. There was a clear ulterior motive to the BBC going public with this in the way they did and with the wording they used. They deliberately presented a very one sided point of view at a time when they had not even started investigating. The investigation was clearly a scam, a con, a public display of fairness when in reality the die was set from the moment they decided to go public. 2 & 3) Clarkson made a mistake. It is clear that he felt remorse because he reported it himself. Personally I don't believe in punitive punishment, this idea that you've broken the law therefore you will be punished to discourage you from breaking the law is a failure. At times in history when the punishments were harsh and severe, including death for even petty crimes, people still committed crime. Punitive action does not work, fact. Rehabilitation works. I do not believe Clarkson should be punished, he should be rehabilitated. Plenty on "lawyers" on here have been talking about the law in absolute terms in this thread, well how about this little nugget of British legislation: The employer has a duty of care towards their employees. Clarkson and Oisin were both employees, and the BBC have absolutely failed in their duty of care towards them both. They failed to help Clarkson with his problems, which they had a duty to do, and in failing to do so, they failed Oisin by putting him in direct contact with a man who had the problems and placed them both under stress by working them hard all day. What did they expect to happen? They could have stepped in at any moment, got Clarkson the help he quite clearly needs and never have had this happen. When a human being is suffering the problems that Clarkson is, the cowardly thing to do is to turn your back on them, get rid of them, cast them out of your group. The brave thing to do is to help them, to accept that "there but for the grace of God go I". In this case, Clarkson is even making the BBC so much money that paying for the help he needs would be a drop in the ocean - but that is a particularly cynical view, that a group of humans should only help another human if they are worth it. All of you people who are saying that it was correct to sack him are talking with a particularly nasty corporate mindset. A corporation is a human construct, one designed to gather and horde money. It is the ultimate expression of capitalism. Any human being who turns their back on another human in need of help to protect this capitalist machine is in my eyes, scum. They are stating loud and clearly "This machine created and designed to gather money is more important to me than the health and well being of any person, even one who has given their talent to help that machine gather money." Any person who has said, it doesn't matter, the BBC has plenty of talent who can do the job are saying "People are replaceable, we don't need to look after them properly. When we break one, we will put another in their place". And you're doing this under the banner of being a caring human being, you care about Oisin, so this monster who bashed him must be cast out. But you are brainwashed by the corporate culture we live in. Dystopia is here already, money, and the ability to gather it chooses our politicians and our laws which it happily ignores, it dictates what you eat, drink and how you will be treated if you are ill. Every single part of our lives is dictated to by faceless entities, using friendly names, reaching into your wallet to take your money from you. I once attended a conference on how to price your product - attended by someone I was making a documentary on. In the audience was a man who represented a baby food company. I watched as he cheered and hollered to the devious ways the presenter was showing them to raise the price of your product and I thought of my sister who had to choose at the time whether to buy food for her baby or for herself. I thought of this man cheering and hollering as he took so much money from my sister that she couldn't eat properly. That is capitalism. That is what you defend when you tell me that the BBC was correct to fire Clarkson. So what should have happened? Simple, Clarkson should have been cared for by the BBC. They have a legal duty of care towards him. He is a human being and you are arrogant if you assume that you could never behave like that, all that means is that you have never been put under the kind of stress that would make you behave that way. You know that fame is not pleasant or enjoyable right? Today, I sat behind a camera as two people in front of it agreed that they hated the red carpet experience. This was not an isolated view, I am yet to meet any person for whom fame has been a positive to their mental health. Yes Clarkson makes a lot of money, but all the money in the world does not matter if you are under so much strain and pressure that you have serious problems. Time is the only currency with any meaning, as we have a limited amount of it. I don't care how many nice cars he buys, he has lost time to this stress and pressure that he will never get back. The BBC have chewed him up and spat him out when they felt they didn't want the bad publicity anymore. And what suffers? As has been rightly pointed out, not Top Gear, they will slot in a new cog, and start grinding them down with ridiculous hours and stress. Not the BBC, he's gone. Done and dusted. Not their responsibility any more. Not even Clarkson, this may actually be very good for him. It is the art of what we do and create that suffers. Like it or hate it, Clarksons Top Gear was. And art existing is important, even if you don't like it, even if you refuse to accept that it is art. Diversity in art is what makes it so important. I can't stand Tracy Emin, but if she stopped shitting in tents, the art I do like would be poorer because of her demise. For art, TV, cinema, literature, music et al to be healthy, it needs diversity. Without diversity and with corporate interference, you end up with bland, homogenized art/TV/cinema/literature/music made for the widest audience, in the safest way without risk. And this won't affect us, we grew up in a world where Clarkson entered out lives, gave us an opinion on the man, whatever that opinion was, it helped shape us. The problem will be in 10 years time when the kids today grow up in a world with one less Clarkson, one less strong figure to be opinionated over, one more element of bland BBC security in the world. Today was a bad day for the industry. As for Oisin, he is the product of a millennia of genetic refinement, his ancestors have survived fire and ice, starvation and poor nutrition to pass his genes on. They hunted, gathered, became warriors to fight for their freedom. He'll get over a little split lip. He'll be absolutely fine. And since when did we stop being annoyed at people who clog up hospitals with cuts and scrapes that can't be healed any quicker by having a doctor or nurse look at it?

Creativity in the music industry took a dive into the mud since The Verve, Bittersweet Symphony was attributed to Richards & Jagger as writers.

​Russell brand absolutely did hit someone, allegedly! And not so allegedly threw someones mobile through a hotel window and goosestepped across a stage in protest of the events sponsor having made nazi uniforms!

So confirmed then that you've switched to yet another username, because I didn't complain about the English language skills under this username, I complained about the English language skills of "Jay Edgar" right after you, under that username criticised my English language skills. This is a forum frequented by broadcast professionals and those interested in the industry the man works in. I wouldn't make that guess personally. I myself have indeed worked with him, spoken with him off camera and as I stated in my very first post under that first thread, would lake very lightly the opinion of someone who makes assumptions of the man based on his tv personality, in much the same way I would take very lightly the opinion anyone hold of Brad Pit if they are making assumptions of his personality based on his character Tyler Durden. ​But good of you to confirm that you have never seen anything of him that someone hasn't published. Now we can take your comments in context. ​You seriously don't understand the difference between putting women into every show, no matter who the intended audience is and making quality programming actually designed for women? Let me put it this way, one is an act of futility, it will only serve as a tick box exercise but will do nothing to actually correct the problem of under-representation of women. It is a step backwards, towards tokenism which was rightly called out as a derogatory practice in it's own right. You like Seinfeld, so do I. Would Seinfeld have been as good if the network had forced George Costansa to be a black character portrayed in a positive light, therefore not allowing Jason Alexander to play him, not allowing the character to be short, stocky, slow witted or balding? Would that have done anything for race relations in the US at all? No, it would have damaged a good show for absolutely no gain what-so-ever. Instead, allow the Fresh Prince of Bel Air to exist, give it prime time slots and you may just create better diversity on the tv, allowing a black person to become a genuine star on his own merit, not because he was shoehorned into Seinfeld on the basis of "diversity". ​Calling someone "racist" is not criticism, it's name calling. Now, you may be able to justify how I am racist with my stance that putting token women into shows does not help improve diversity on tv, but so far, you have failed to do so. Being a critic is a nuanced business. For starters, you have to be able to enunciate in the language you are choosing to be a critic in, exactly what your opinion is, how it is relevant to your audience that you hold this opinion, why you hold it and how it makes sense - but in order for your criticism to be constructive, you also have to be open to the idea that some people are not going to share your opinion. As a critic, it is your role to explain where you are coming from, because otherwise, who cares about you and your opinion. I certainly don't. You've done nothing to make me consider myself racist, or triggered any desire to take a long hard look at myself. Maybe consider the following example. You are stupid. Notice how this doesn't make you question your intelligence, it doesn't make you take a long hard look at yourself. It's just me calling you a name. It's not valid criticism. Now consider this: As someone who has worked in tv and cinema production for the last 30 years, I recently found I was called racist for holding the following view "I believe there should be more quality programming for women, rather than tokenism". It is my assessment that the person who called me racist is stupid. He is a videographer called Viktor Ragnamar and I don't make this assessment of his intellect lightly. I have viewed his work, he seems to be deeply enamoured with racial debate, going so far as to post a highly derivative work where he highlights some words in a interview by Martin Luther King in a special, sparkly computer generated effect. However, I believe that Viktor demonstrated his stupidity quite openly when he conflated gender with race. It should be fairly obvious to any with a modicum of intelligence that there are indeed men and women of every race, thus my comment on programming for women was not at all linked to any comment on programming for black or white people. It would be my assessment that Viktor does not understand the issue he is so passionate about. I would suggest he takes some time to educate himself about the differences between gender and race and ultimately how those two concepts cannot, by any intelligent human being, be treated as the same thing. Maybe there is some nugget of truth in his work, after all, a stopped clock shows the correct time twice a day, but even if we do find it, can we honestly attribute that to Viktor? Is the lucky monkey the new Shakespeare, or just a monkey who got lucky. Do you see the difference between criticism and name calling now, here's a hint. One is difficult and hard work, the other is name calling. One has a value to the debate and discussion, the other is name calling. Finally, one justifies it's existence, the other is... yeah, you got it! Wait, what, you actually do believe that Will Smith can play George Costansa as well as Jason Alexander, because the actors themselves are just blank slates right, and writers certainly never write for their actors! Holy shit dude, everyone, hold the phones! It turns out Viktor No-one has made an epic discovery! We can save a fortune, we don't need casting any more. Gone are the days of "90% of your product hinges on casting" it turns out actors are plug and play! You can remove a woman from a role who was cast as the best actor for the job and insert a man, because the writers only ever write gender and race neutral script! Or not. And I can't help but to notice, on your vimeo channel, you have a lot of videos of men, one that caught my eye was the one in which you have a white skin-headed man working in a red light district talking about problem black people. Yet you seem averse to putting those black people on camera, especially so they could put their side of the story across. Why didn't you put a black man on camera or interview a woman who lives there, as per your 50% black, 50% women regulation... is it because: 1) That level of regulation would have meant that you didn't ever create that video 2) You are racist and sexist

​You only know of Clarksons TV persona... you don't know him off screen. You know literally nothing about him off screen, except what you've been told about him by other people. With agenda's. ​If you engage your brain when you read what I wrote, you will see that I fully endorsed the regulation of tv. I stated quite clearly though that it should be done at a programming level, not a content level, which I criticised as I do not believe it will solve the problem, and will in fact make the problem worse. But if you believe that any attempt to combat discrimination should be beyond criticism, even if the approach is demonstrably going to make the problem worse, burying critics with slurs like "racist" or "sexist" instead of putting forward well reasoned arguments of your own, then you are perhaps in more dire need of education than any here. ​Random capitalisation of nouns, which are not proper nouns... yeah, you're the same person, switched accounts again. Come forward, tell us who you really are, put your regular forum name to your words, coward.

​I forgot to answer this little diamond. Here goes: Nearly all tv is written with a target audience in mind. If you had a brilliant idea for a show and you approached the BBC with it, you would have to tell them who you had written it for, which demographic were going to watch your product. Imagine you run a successful panel show, say, The Last Leg, which is written for a disabled audience, who put women guests on when they find a woman guest that they think their audience will find interesting. Now, if you broadcast on the BBC, you would be forced, by compliance to put an equal number of women guests in, whether they were of interest to disabled people or not. Actually this is an interesting example because The Last Leg has changed it's remit over the last couple of seasons to "teens through to middle aged of any ability but still with a focus on issues that affect the disabled", but it's interesting in a way that doesn't affect the question you asked. And yes, I am well aware that the vast majority of TV produced in Britain is targeted at white males. Not so sure about the middle aged bit myself, but certainly white male. What I am saying in the quote above is that I agree with the BBC that it is a problem. I don't agree that the solution is to force people to put females into their shows, weakening the show for the audience who enjoy it. It's not that they are females that weakens the show, it's that they would already be on the show if they were the strongest candidate as a guest. So you end up not including a stronger candidate, to put on the weaker candidate in order to meet the absurd ruling and making your show less relevant to the people who watch it. So, my idea to solve this problem, which I stated in your quote, is to make more tv that targets a black audience, a female audience, an older audience, a younger audience... just diversify what programming is actually put out. If you put on programs that target women as the core audience, you will naturally find that you have a greater number of women being represented in a gender positive way on tv, because these shows will naturally find that women will have much more to say of interest and relevance to women. Look at Loose women, it demonstrates exactly that I am correct. We need more shows like that, competing for the prime time slots, and the diversity of tv will happen naturally, tv will get stronger for it and most importantly, no woman will ever be told "You're only on here because of compliance, our first choice was a man."

Wait, you, a native English speaker is passively aggressively insulting my English (For whom it is a third language) when you misspell did as "dd", randomly capitalise words mid sentence, like "Wife" which is not a proper noun in the context you used it and push the definition of sentence to include "Post/Proxy/Colonialism.". They teach this stuff to 7 and 8 year old children! OK, I'll play. My wife works at CERN, so presumably her boss in your scenario is someone like Stephen Hawking (Forgive me for not having a better grasp of physicists, but as far as I know, he is the superstar physicist in the world, the Jeremy Clarkson of the field, if you will). You're asking me what I would do if Stephen Hawking (Who is a foreigner) hits out at my wife violently and she falls. Well, I would have to consider this very carefully, because on the one hand, Stephen Hawking is an inspiration to several generations of humans, he has achieved so much and can continue to achieve so much more. On the other hand, I'm not a misogynist who would presume to speak and act for my wife. She's perfectly capable of fighting her own battles, acting in an appropriate way without her husband sticking his oar in and I would fully support her in whatever action she decided was appropriate. Even if that action, as with Oisin, was to not take any action. Hmmm... How else do you interpret the following: "Andrew...you can use the N word or any other word and I won't be offended if its in person." That right there is you tolerating the use of the word nigger. Oh, for what it's worth, writing or saying "The N Word" is no different to writing or saying nigger, only some find it more offensive! Did it feel good to type it out? Yes, every time. I grew up in a "White neighbourhood", well, a white country and was abused with the word for most of my life. When certain black rappers took the power out of the word by using it in their music, in their banter, openly removing the sting of that word I was delighted. I will continue to use the word that has been a yoke to my culture for the rest of my life and I couldn't give a monkeys about what you think about me. Oh... did you assume I was white? And finally, while I don't agree 100% with Matt, I will call out your passive aggressive cowardice whenever I see it. You are a coward by the way, we all know this account is a shill for your real account. Say this under your real username, or are you intending on calling Andrew racist as well, but want to continue to post here without repercussions for trying to wrongly smear him? ​

Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten, habe ich geschwiegen; ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat.

​So I've watched the documentary again, here's what I think: It's a good piece of entertainment. If very much works on the principal that it is designed to give it's audience some warm fuzzy feelings. That audience is people who do not like or understand fundamentalism, which to be fair is a huge audience. It reaches out to them and gives them a mind cuddle, tells them that they are correct to believe that fundamentalism is not a good thing and feeds into a circular belief, makes you feel more comfortable than ever before that fundamentalism is wrong by name dropping "important" figures and celebrities whom the core audience will probably like, giving less favourable coverage to those the audience won't like so much. The end result is that the viewer will have either have switched off early because it does not agree or has no interest in the subject, or will feel really good about themselves. However, it is entertainment and not philosophy. If it wanted to actually engage the viewer in philosophical thoughts, it would have challenged them. It would have found an intelligent, funny, charismatic fundamentalist, who could go on camera and engage with the audience, explain why it feels that it needs to drizzle holy water on a pavement, or can explain how those who engage in that form of protest think. If you were in the head of the woman drizzling holy water on the pavement, you could understand why she feels this is appropriate behaviour, why she is happy that the program was not aired on the BBC. What's scary is that you might envisage a situation in which you would engage in similar behaviour. Fanaticism, which is what fundamentalism is, is a huge problem in the world. This is why I drew someone up earlier because they started with the word we. This tribalistic behaviour is something we need to evolve out of, but also understand that it is currently present in our psyche. We need to understand what triggers it and how it can get so strong that you can use it to turn well educated, balanced normal individuals into suicide bombers. There are some things we can think about. Everyone who becomes a fanatic over anything, from "windows vs apple" to "ISIS vs the west" start somewhere and I believe it starts with a vulnerability. That vulnerability can be any situation in which a person feels powerless, so maybe constantly getting searched by police because of the colour of your skin would cause you to feel this way. Maybe it's being a policeman alone in a bad neighbourhood, surrounded by people with a certain skin colour who make it clear that you are not welcome here, and that drug dealer on the corner will be walking away. It doesn't have to be something quite so obvious or powerful though, how about your childhood best friend moves away and you get lonely sometimes. Or your PC crashes losing some really important work. Your camera doesn't start up quickly enough and you miss the shot. We all like to think we are immune to these vulnerabilities but in truth, it is just a simple chemical process, nothing we can control or change and it happens in us all, probably every day. I got poo'd on by a bird this morning in front of my sons school. I sure as hell felt crap about it. When that happens, when you feel vulnerable OR if it happens enough that the feeling of vulnerability is always there, you reach out to people who can make it go away. 99.9999999% of the time, it's not someone with any ill intentions, because humanity is, on the whole pretty decent. But sometimes, even people with good intentions can trigger thoughts and feelings by accident that fanaticises you a bit, and people with an agenda prey on the vulnerability. "They keep searching you, hang out with us, they don't dare search us", "Your PC keeps crashing, try my mac, it never crashes" etc. Remember, it's not binary, being a fanatic is a scale of grey, not black and white. Over time, some people get to the point where they feel a sense of belonging with a group of fanatics, and they push each other further and further - more and more extreme - "Lets tell our family not to see the play" then "Well I told all the other mums at school not to see it" to "I'm organising a protest of the play". You want to keep this group of feel good close so you get swept along and there are of course natural brakes - some people won't risk harm to themselves, won't do anything illegal or maybe won't risk disapproval of someone close to them, so they back away when it gets too much. The rest, well they find themselves sprinkling holy water on a pavement in the UK. How does this relate to Top Gear. Well, just look at the behaviour of some of the people who don't like Clarkson. They don't like the show, maybe they associate it with "blokey culture" and this has triggered some vulnerability in them - which is funny, because trust me, I am so not a "blokey bloke", I hate foot-to-ball, it bores me to tears and I can't stand the fans of the sport, at least what I see of them. But it seems that the world has decided that Top Gear UK is a blokey show for blokes and so I'll run with that here. It's on some higher function level actually quite intimidating, when you know something is immensely popular but you don't like it. Like Stewart Lee, I get asked what team I support on a regular basis - often when meeting new people. Sometimes I lie and say a team that I know of. I've gotten quite good at talking about the sport and what my chosen team are doing, how they are being managed and making up bullshit that sounds intelligent - or maybe I'm not good at it and people are just being polite! Why do I lie though, because it's quite alienating to have to admit to someone that you don't like something so popular. It must be like that with top gear too. So when Clarkson is in the news again, people start speaking up against him. Have you noticed that when it happens, there is a high frequency of the term "I don't watch top gear" of people who are talking about it. You know why though, they are engaging in that tribal behaviour. They are clumping together under the banner of not watching the show, because in doing that, they don't feel alienated anymore. They reach out to like minded people and feel better for it - who can hold that against them. I know I do the same when people don't like foot-to-ball, it's like a massive relief, I feel stress lift as someone says that to me, I like that person much more. Just chemistry, but potentially powerful stuff. And it's not just the detractors who do this, look at that petition to get JC reinstated. That's the exact same process, but a little further along the road of fanaticism. They are taking action, trying to affect a decision to be made by the BBC. As we're a little further along the road, the people involved are a little more extreme, we've dropped some of the people who don't care that much - myself included - so the group is a little smaller, but what it has lost in size, it has gained in potential strength of reaction. Now, they are unified, under the banner to get JC put back on the air. But to deviate from that banner is to be cast out of the group. If you dare get caught saying that maybe we should see if he's actually assaulted a person, you're out. You're of no use to the group. If being a member of that group is giving you the feel goods, maybe you'll hold your tongue before stating that. You took a step towards fanaticism in order to remain one of them, to avoid feeling less good. In this way, each group will shed members who aren't prepared to take the next step, but those who do will egg each other on towards the next step. That's what I think about the documentary anyway.

Call me suspicious, but the unnamed witness who reported that he hit the guy and split his lip, also knows that he went to A&E, which hospital he went to and what he was treated for (dizziness). He is also the person who reported the "lazy irish cunt" quote and the 40 minutes quote. Clarkson reported the incident himself and the only things he denies are things this witness has said.

​Stewart Lee is very good... but he is a comedian. Try not to mistake his brand of light entertainment for philosophy though, for the same reason that you wouldn't actually try to survive in the wilderness "Bear Grills style". I would have also though that the way that Clarkson was the person who reported the incident to the BBC demonstrated his feelings of guilt over the incident way before his sun article.

​Not being English, I can only look in from the outside but it seems that in the era of slave trading, the lower classes and merchant classes generally couldn't afford plantations, restricting the ownership of slaves to the upper classes. Elitism is a dreaded notion, as bad as sexism or racism. You are not a better person than anyone else because of your ancestry. To believe otherwise is elitist. It has nothing to do with education, idealists, socialist movements or good behaviour. Indeed, some of the most obnoxious, ill mannered individuals I have ever met belonged to a royal family and believe you me, were some of the most elitist people of the face of the planet. Bad taste is in the eye of the beholder. Your opinion is no more or less valid than mine. You find top gear vulgar and in bad taste. Well done on having an opinion. I don't share your opinion. Not kindly stop trying to convince me that I am wrong, or am somehow worse than you because of the light entertainment I enjoy. It's ill mannered and shows a lack of empathy and understanding that the world doesn't revolve around you that is, quite frankly disturbing - and I would suggest, a more pertinant problem to solve in the world that white men who say nigger. Go watch Philip Blooms latest series, The Wonder List, and get a bit of perspective in your life as to the importance of a bit of paper with a family crest on it.

​Two things: 1) Your assertion that the upper classes are superior to the lower classes is some quite open classism and eliteism. 2) Those lovely polite old English gentlemen who upheld these Oxbridge ideals traded in slaves and colonised a third of the world causing repercussions from their rampant and destructive racism that echos today in organisations like ISIS, the IRA and Al Qaeda. I'm going to make a bold statement: That they queued politely at the post office does not make up for the atrocities they committed.

Nope, as I have said, everyone does something that everyone doesn't like. So there would be literally zero communication, because if all tv was gone what next? Get rid of all the people who have once in private said something I don't like from acting in movies. Bang, no movies because we have no actors. Then what, stop them from writing. Bang, no writing ever again. Then ban them from speaking in public and singing. Bang, no-one can use their voice in front of anyone, because literally every human who has ever existed, in their brief, fleeting time on this earth, including your own past self, have said things and done things that you at this instant in time don't like. I think you exist in this "Mr Tumble" type space where everyone is either Lawful Good or Chaotic Evil, with no nuance, no reasons, no expatiation and no grey areas. It must be nice to have such a simplistic, ignorant view of the world, but I wouldn't want to go back to that.

​Yes, you have - to some people in this world, not using derogatory terms for black people absolutely is "that reprehensible". But to move away from extremes, how do you drive on your way to work? Yesterday I mortally offended a group of cyclists because I dared pull over to use my phone, causing them to have to go in single file past me. He screamed through my window that the "fucking road is empty, why couldn't I take my call while driving like every one else". But when I see people on mobiles while driving, I get angry. So which do you do? Answer your mobile while driving, or pull over safely to answer it? Either way, you're going to piss someone off, to the point of screaming abuse at you through your car window. And yes, I did scream abuse at someone through their car window once as they were on a mobile driving. They had clipped me with their wing mirror. We're all different, what makes you such a special little flower that your sensibilities are the ones we have to adhere to? You're trying to be objective about subjective stuff, and while I admire that on a shallow level, you believe you are trying to make the world a better place, what you are really doing is trying to make the world a better place for you, fuck everyone else. Trust me, your own parents have said and done things you would find disgusting. I promise it's true, and you know what? It's OK. Some people find the idea that white people can say the word "nigger" a problem, some people do not. This is a matter of personal opinion and while you've made yours perfectly clear, you really do seem to be trying desperately to tell others who believe differently that their opinion is wrong. People who tell other people that the opinion their brain has formed based on chemistry and the release of hormones that a person is unable to control or influence in any way what so ever are trying to censor freedom of expression. You're asking them to say things that they do not believe to satisfy your own hormones, which is why this behaviour is so ridiculous. The brain chemistry will not change unless that person changes the nodal link pattern in their neural net. One way that can happen is through saying words that prompt an "epiphany" in a person. (If the epiphany is caused by a fundamentalist who convinced someone that murder is a good thing, we don't call it an ephiphany, we call it brainwashing.) If your words are not doing that, then that is not the targets deficiency, it's your inadequacy. Maybe you can explain what harm a white middle aged man saying the word in a private context, that is not meant to be seen by anyone but his cronies and deleted promptly actually does. Me, I'm saying the person who actually caused the harm was the person who published that white man saying the word to a global audience. You publish it, you take the responsibility, simple as that in my world. Us of all people know how you can edit the same data to tell two wildly different stories. I can never watch any video of anyone and assume that I know anything about that person. I can make judgements as to what the person who published the video wanted me to think, however, which tends to make me ask questions like "Why do you want me to think Clarkson is racist". When people try to control what you think, it's usually down to them trying to use you to get more power, money or make themselves more attractive to a potential partner. By the way, why do Clarksons detractors constantly bring up his personal wealth and reference their own in a negative way, this isn't all rooted in jealousy, is it?

​I've got a secret for you, a horrible dirty little secret that no-one is going to like, but sadly it's true. Everyone in this world holds a view, has said something or done something that will offend you. No not only you Damphousse but each and every person reading this. Jeremy Clarkeson once said nigger. I find this disgusting and reprehensible. I'm sure plenty of stuff I've done or said, you will find disgusting and reprehensible, just like you will have done stuff that I find. Do you see how it works, all you nose pickers out there, you know who you are, you literally make me feel sick. People who speed past primary schools, I would subject you to prison, you are filth and scum. Petty thieves, you nearly bankrupted me in the 80's, prison for you too. The people who push wheelchairs or hang coats on them without asking the permission of the person in the wheelchair, that is no different and no less offensive than if you push someone physically out of your way without looking or talking to them, or just walking up to them and hanging a coat from their head, it's just rude. Tailgaters, people who hog the middle lane, people who overcharge for their services, people who cough into their hands then touch surfaces that other people touch, people who go to work with the flu, people who cut lines, streakers, people who beat their partners, people who smack their children, people who don't look after their children properly, people who don't disinfect their bins, people who leave vermin attracting waste in their gardens, people who don't clear up dog faeces, people who tax dodge and avoid, benefit fraudsters, people who fart on public transport, people who smoke near kids, people who smoke in public places... I could go on forever! You are all jerks. or.... You can accept that everyone is a jerk, stop focusing in the negative aspects that you do not like about them and instead realise that we are all human beings, and there is an equal amount of good attributes we can list that make me want to shake your hand and give you a hug. Every human is a complicated mixture of jerks and saints, most people are in the privileged position of being able to keep our foibles to ourselves, presenting only the public image we wish to. So what if Jeremy Clarkson said Nigger, does it make him a complete idiot, yes. Does it make him racist, probably, at some level. What would happen if we banned all people who held reprehensible views/said disgusting things/did disgusting things from being in the public eye? No-one would be in the public eye, and that's assuming we go off just your sensibilities dear reader, don't forget, each one of us reacts differently to the different triggers. Some of you may think "speeding past a primary school, what's the big deal", but then maybe you get wound up by my hard acceleration once out in the countryside, or by my overtaking if you will insist on going 40 on a 60mph road, or whatever. Now I know that some things are worse than others and I think the vast majority of us will agree that nosepickers are not worse than racists, however, each of us ranks these problamatic behaviours differently and none of us is supreme arbitor of what is better or worse. You'd better believe that there are a significant number of people out there who do in fact believe that racism is less of a problem than nosepicking. And who is going to be so arrogant as to declare their ranking of problems the one we should all abide by. So what am I really saying? Eveyone is a jerk. You are a jerk, I am a jerk. But we are all amazing too. If you are so blind as to be unable to find any redeeming qualities about any human on this earth, then, well, you're a jerk. Each of us is amazing. So go ahead, rant and rage on the internet about Jeremy Clarkson, I know I have, but don't write off everything that is amazing about a person just because you saw their jerk side. And the television he produces is amazing - it may not be to your taste, but it's ok to not like stuff and admit that it's good. I like top gear, but I don't like hearing Nigger. I have no idea what slope is or refers to, but I assume it's a racist term. I use the word all day every day, so I guess lots of people think I am racist. Fortunately I am a glass half full person, I know Clarkson isn't perfect, but I'm going to enjoy the positive things he does on tv, mostly making me laugh. You glass half empty lot, the "he said Nigger when he thought he wasn't going to be broadcast, therefore sacrifice him to the tabloid gods", you're all jerks and I love you!

​Personal attack??? WTF??? I said, did you take your meds today, clearly a light hearted statement, which could have been replaced with, if it were my style "U Mad, Bro" or "it's tinfoil hat time" or "you're coming across as one sandwich short of a picnic". But I chose "did you take your meds today" because it was a light hearted little statement to demonstrate that I am not seriously attacking you, merely challenging your viewpoint with my own and I mean no ill by it. I also chose it because I was watching an Alan Partridge sketch and he said it in that precise same context. I mean if Saint Coogan says it, it can't be offensive right? Ohhh... you took offence though.... Turns out he does say offensive stuff as comedy after all. (Or maybe you're the exact type mentioned in this article, the type who goes out looking to be offended, as long as it's not someone you are a fanatic... er fan over, of course) And yeah, there is a world of difference between characters darkening their skin and playing a role with sympathy and the Tony Ferrino character who is designed to play on lazy stereotypes of European bad taste that the British seem so hell bent on holding. If you didn't parse that character as sleezy, then you are a sexist deviant, that is not normal or acceptable behaviour (unless your name is Steve Coogan apparently). Oh and don't worry about "classy", we've both stayed up all night long trolling each other. There is literally no class to be found. Difference is, I'm comfortable with that, happier for the fun and laughs this has generated. You've given me a good old giggle this night while I watched the GP and watched my transcoding - you just seem upset and angry. Stay classy? don't bother - stay happy!

​Really, you're going with the manipulation of "the system" and foreign markets angle. Did you take your meds today?

​dan, on being unable to refute any accusation, ignores it and relies on deflection and tired old internet memes. I sure sign that I am, once again exactly right about his level of intelligence!

​We? What a strange choice of word. It's almost like you have less interest in a civil debate and more in "winning" which is decidedly odd because having an opinion isn't a competitive sport. Well, go on then, please defend someone applying makeup to change their skin colour, then in direct reference to that cultures most popular pop icon, play a deliberately sleezy and stupid character. But while you defend that behaviour, pretend we have a video of clarkson doing exactly that, and it is this video you are defending. You're a hypocrite, you defend entertainers who use racial differences to make an English audience laugh, but only if you enjoy their product. People like things that you don't like, sorry if you have a problem with that. I do have an ideal solution though. Live and let live.

Here we establish you making an assumption as to my colour ​Here you use that assumption that I am white to stereotype me as someone who has staff and beats them ​Further stereotyping - You think I'm white, therefore you think I can never have experienced abuse or mistreatment. ​Here you assume something no-one is talking about hasn't affected me. Why would you assume that - is it cos you fink I is white? Yeah, If I was white, you were pretty vile towards me, you are racist. What's really sad is that your type of racism is so much more insidious than anything Clarkson said. Your type of institutional stereotyping actually causes more harm than a tv show ever did, and it's pure out and out tribalism. You look different to me, therefore I will stereotype you. Vile.

​Pfft.... don't google Tony Ferrino, unless you don't mind seeing your shining beacon of anti racism blacked up and playing a slow and sleezy foreigner!

​But dan, you made an assumption as to my skin colour earlier today, and used that assumption to stereotype me.... that's racism. You were racist to me. So that makes you, by your mind, a violent man. So by your own judgement, you are toxic, you are not clever or talented. You are just a big mouth, a big ego. Your toxicity may be funny to some observers of this thread, but it has long gone to your head, you are like a basil fawlty clutzing around the internet, and despite your superior education, you are spouting pseudo-intelligent rhetoric. You are a hangover from the heydays of anonymous trolling on the internet. A dinosaur if you will, a museum piece. By your very own words... Let me guess, you're going to deny your racism towards me, you're going to justify prejudging me based on my (wrong) ethnicity and stating things as fact that you gleaned from the skin colour you imagined I had. 3 more thoughts: Signing each post you make atb. makes you look pretentious. Or attention seeking, in the most passive way. Your grasp of English, for someone who identified themselves as a British national - given away by describing Clarkson as "our" beloved presenter - is pretty bad. This tells me you are immature or an idiot. You've wasted a lot of energy making me laugh.

​I'm not white, but thanks for proving me absolutely correct about you and your inability to separate fact from the fictional narrative inside your own head. Unless you can share your source that confirms Clarkeson actually hit someone, and did so in a manner that was "beating the staff when not up to scratch" then I would suggest that this is part of your imagination too. FYI, I married a Romany woman, probably the most reviled ethnic origin in the world, please don't talk to me about my "loved ones not being from a visual minority with long and painful memories of abuse", you know nothing, Jon Snow.