... and the sad thing is, some responses to this thread will prove the point.

It is clear that (as is quite typical) the majority of commentators haven't actually read what Clarkson said, but choose to summon up the Lynch mob anyway. As a result, the BBC had so far had over 20,000 complaints, there are calls for Clarkson's sacking etc. All from people who either do not know what Clarkson said or, if they do know what he said, do not actually get it.

The BBC have now published his actual words. He said:

Even discounting the tone and context of the remarks, he is clearly joking, using hyperbole and sarcasm, to represent a caricature of what would be an extreme and dotty point of view.

He then went on to continue the joke, by providing mock balance, advancing an extreme and diametrically opposite "view". He actually pointed this out, underlining it with a preamble that should make the device obvious to the thickest of brains:


And then came out with these words:


It is crystal clear to anyone to whom the English language is not a mystery that the words are not Clarkson's, but those of a reactionary monster he has created "for balance" in his joke.

Sadly, the English language is seemingly a mystery to the presenters, as the above had clearly gone whooshing way above their heads, and one of the buffoons astonishingly (but entirely predictably) made a knee jerk PC disclaimer that "these were Clarkson's personal views".

NO THEY ARE NOT, you cretin, he has made a joke, exemplifying two equally extreme and ridiculous mock views of the strike, he HAS NOT expressed his own view.

A presenter with half a brain who wanted to know what Clarkson did actually think about the strikes would have got past the joke, and asked him what he really thought.

Nevertheless, despite the terminal incomprehension of the presenters, anyone listening would surely get the fact it was a 2 part joke, even if the presenters didn't. But, presumably bemused by their reaction, Clarkson spelled it out, by specifically denying, live on air, at the time, that either of these was actually his view:
He said:


How has it come to this, that so many people with presumably a decent level of education, can completely miss the fact that Clarkson so plainly was not stating his point of view, but sending up an imaginary ultra-right extremist, in stark contrast to the laid-back 70s hippy peacenik in the first half of the parody?

By satirising such extreme views in this way, Clarkson was implicitly criticising them, not approving them. It does not matter whether either actually represents his personal views, as we do not know, from his remarks, what his personal views were. Yet a mini-industry has immediately sprung up around the barking analysis that these words came out of his mouth ergo that must be what he thinks. Presumably disregarding that seconds earlier he had from the same mouth used the words: "I think they (the strikes) have been fantastic." As these words don't suit the argument, they are expunged from the mental record, they become non-words, they never happened.

How have levels of dumbness descended so far?

Not helped by Unison digging a massive PR hole and diving in head first. Bloody idiots.

I know.

"The union said it was considering reporting the Top Gear presenter to the police over comments on The One Show."

Breathtaking.

Or helped by the fact that it's Clarkson and a) he's not remotely funny, and b) the "balance because its the BBC" comment wasn't amusing, regardless of what he went on to say. He should leave jokes to the professionals and stick to tossing himself off over cars.

There is a massive over-reaction to this, but its certainly pulled some dickheads out of the woodwork, on both "sides".

The whole incident was absolutely perfect for the news on Radio 1. I've moaned on here about how they dumb things down to the lowest common denominator these days many times. I cannot listen to it, it makes me want to smash the radio up.

The reaction to the Clarkson comments is ridiculous. As ever it's lead by the press in this country, but even if he had said those things as his actual opinion, would you actually complain about it? 20,000 people there who need to get a life.

The backlash to his comments was even more vomit inducing. Those selfish, greedy public sector workers put the country at risk then they play the stunned victim of a horrible crime. All because a TV presentor whose major MO is being controversial and crass has a joke about it.

Thread drift, but which ones would these be? Or are you joking too? Hard to tell from plain text

Care to find some reasoning for this remark from the same show?

"I do sometimes use the train to come to London but it always stops in Reading. It’s always because somebody has jumped in front of it and somebody has burst.

‘You just think, why have we stopped because we’ve hit somebody? What’s the point of stopping? It won’t make them better.”

He's dug his own hole over the years, built a coffin, laid down in it and now he's hammered in the first nail. There are other high profile TV people who have simply vanished from TV over the years for much less.

I don't think people are dumb for complaining, they just don't like the guy.

Is it wrong for me to think that if a train ran him over it would stop, reverse and then do it again, just to make sure?

That said, and much as I think he's a complete and utter c0ck, the unions have handled this badly. The correct response was surely "Clarkson? He's a public school educated, faux 'lad' who likes to make controversial remarks. Who gives a flying what he thinks?"