Even so, some 21,000 people – and counting – have lodged complaints with the BBC

How many actually saw the programme do you think?

Good post though – albeit in danger of claiming Freud as a usable authority in the analysis of humour, which would worry most psychologists and sociologists…

Was Limond joking. Probably not. Was Ken Livingstone? Probably not.

This is boring now. It is a non-story covering up the total lack of the so-called major strike.

Btw, Clarkson makes a fortune for BBC Worldwide, which is a for-profit company.. He makes his money as a percentage. How much does Limmy make for the BBC?

I think this whole issues highlights the stupidity of the sentences for the young lads who jokingly suggested starting a riot and ending up being sentenced for 4 years jail. Clearly less outrageous than Clarkson’s comment.

All fairness seems to have departed us and our legal system.

Kevin

I will never understand why lefties cling so tightly to “freedom of speech”. That idea has been used to justify one the largest and least regulated industries in history, and one that has the capacity to change people’s minds.

And Jeremy Clarkson is the typical famous man with arrested development and a penchant for dressing his offences as “defying authority”. Believe me, there is one in every country in the world. Men love men like that.

I will never understand why lefties cling so tightly to “freedom of speech”. That idea has been used to justify one the largest and least regulated industries in history, and one that has the capacity to change people’s minds.

jesus fucking wept.

I love cars , they get you from A to b quicker than walking.

I would take out every Petrolhead in the country and shoot them in front of their families.

For my money David Allen Green nailed it with “Why Unison is wrong to seek the sacking and arrest of Jeremy Clarkson”

Yet as a leftie who believes in freedom of speech, I reluctantly find myself agreeing that an apology probably suffices here. Nobody can seriously contend that Clarkson was actually calling for public sector employees to be rounded up at dawn and made to face banker-led firing squads.

Did Paul Chambers really have any intention of blowing up an airport?

The unfortunate fact is, we’re into the realm where people are being locked up for saying things on Facebook and fined for saying things on Twitter, I don’t particularly like it but that’s where the hysterical ‘something must be done’ brigade have led us.

Pulling the old Coulter/Limbaugh defence when it suits I’m afraid just doesn’t wash in such a culture.

Incidentally when did ‘leftie’ become acceptable? Lefty or lefties, surely?

Mary

I think lefties cling tightly to freedom of speech because the alternative is a police state. These days, lefties don’t look to Joe Stalin as a role-model. Ok, admittedly having to listen to very tosser talking shite when he wants to is a high price to pay, but it’s worth it!

Oxford Kevin @ 3:

“I think this whole issues highlights the stupidity of the sentences for the young lads who jokingly suggested starting a riot and ending up being sentenced for 4 years jail. Clearly less outrageous than Clarkson’s comment.”

To be fair, there were large-scale riots going on across the country and partially co-ordinated by this sort of social media, whereas nobody to my knowledge is actually going out and murdering strikers.

Clarkson is an unpleasant bully – it’s well known particularly amongst people who’ve worked for him. As with most bullies, he disguises his abusive behaviour behind the excuse “it’s all a joke, lighten up”.

In some countries, workers who try to organise trade unions or fight for their rights ARE taken out and executed in front of their families. It’s no laughing matter.

@ 4 Mary

“I will never understand why lefties cling so tightly to “freedom of speech”. That idea has been used to justify one the largest and least regulated industries in history, and one that has the capacity to change people’s minds.”

Yes, it’s hard to think of another industry that can change people’s minds yet is even bigger, less regulated and more damaging than the British press… oh, I know! Totalitarianism!

Before complaining about something, consider the alternatives. Choices don’t happen in a vacuum. Like other human rights, the fact that freedom of speech happens to benefit people you dislike, and even leads to a few negative side effects, does not make it a bad idea.

@2
See the warped right wing logic there…
Because Clarkson allegedly makes BBC World some money then he can call for the shooting of whoever…

Given how many unionists were shot and gassed during the Holocaust how can that sick tw*t Clarkson get away with his comments? Can you imagine anyone getting away with saying on the BBC “Frankly I’d have [insert ethnic minority] all shot. I would take [insert ethnic minority] outside and execute [insert ethnic minority] in front of their families.” What a sick individual, and so is everyone who thinks he’s “funny” and he’s “only joking”.

Given who owns and controls most of the means of getting your message out, “freedom of speech” is largely a meaningless concept. The main difference is dissenters are mainly ignored or prevented from gaining a platform into silence rather than jailed.

”The left” and the union spokespeople have come very badly out of this. Just before saying they should be shot, Clarkson was asked whether he knew anyone who had been on strike that day ….. do which he aswered ”What – somebody in public service? Of course I don’t”.

Saying that, in that way, should have alerted Dave Prentis and the woman from Unison that the following was to be taken as a joke – and that he was just hamming it up.

He’s saying it in the character of a villain in Downton Abbey or something.

And anyone missing that is either a bit thick, or just unbalanced IMO.
I wonder what the Socialist Workers have said. I haven’t looked yet.

@ 10 XXX

“To be fair, there were large-scale riots going on across the country and partially co-ordinated by this sort of social media, whereas nobody to my knowledge is actually going out and murdering strikers.”

One of the men in question was obviously joking around, and later withdrew the page and apologised. He doesn’t deserve to be in lockup any more than Clarkson, and the fact that he is suggests we have a problem (whether it’s to do with rich/posh/famous people being treated more leniently, or magistrates having too much free rein, I don’t know). The other WAS trying to invoke a riot and turned up in the hopes that he’d been successful, so that’s different.

” the woman from Unison ”

I think she realised she’d over-reacted on R4 last night following Clarkson’s “apology”.

@ 13

“Given how many unionists were shot and gassed during the Holocaust how can that sick tw*t Clarkson get away with his comments?”

What do you mean by “getting away with it”? What fate do you think should befall him?

“Can you imagine anyone getting away with saying on the BBC “Frankly I’d have [insert ethnic minority] all shot. I would take [insert ethnic minority] outside and execute [insert ethnic minority] in front of their families.”

No, but I can imagine someone saying it about bankers, or lawyers, or politicians, or benefit cheats. Certain demographic fault-lines are generally considered to be a source of unacceptable targets, and ethnicity is a big one.

“What a sick individual, and so is everyone who thinks he’s “funny” and he’s “only joking”

Well, deciding whether or not he’s joking is an essentially factual question, and you don’t win points in a factual argument by insulting the people who disagree with you. I also personally think it’s OTT to condemn someone’s entire personality just because they like tasteless humour, although I realise that many feel otherwise.

@ 13

By the way, I found Clarkson’s comment unpleasant, but I think calling for retribution, condemning anyone who found it funny, and especially invoking the Holocaust to justify outrage over it, is rather over-the-top.

@19
What is it, “Chaise Guevara”, does it irk you that a jumped-up multi-millionaire toff with VIP mates (ie Murdoch, the Prime Minister) is being criticised?

Is this freedom of speech you invoke only good for rich bullies to routinely have a go at soft targets (other ethnic groups, single mums, the disabled, the depressed, workers on strike), but not for those who object to such shit?

We’re all fucked, frankly, if this country turns into a place where “i’m-only-havin-a-larrf” type of jokes and “proto-fascistic” remarks can be said on national television without anyone raising an eyebrow.

And yes, the Holocaust reference stands. Tens of thousands of tade unionists were tortured, shot and gasses, so the idea of “joking” (ha ha ha) about getting all of them and shooting them in front of their families given what actually happened a few decades ago is actually quite hideous.

I conclude you obviously wouldn’t mind it at all if someone used Clarkson’s same words but replaced with the word “Jews” or “Muslims” or [insert ethnic minority] instead of trade unionists.

Sorry about the typos above. I obviously meant “Tens of thousands of tRade unionists were tortured, shot and gasseD…”

As Freud explained over a hundred years ago, tendentious jokes are a mask for socially unacceptable feelings, not least hostility. There is presumably some level at which Britain’s most famous petrolhead meant exactly what he said.

Sorry, when people start citing the Viennese Witchdoctor as an authority they’ve aleady lost the argument.

Forget asking why ‘lefties’ cling. To free speech (some do, most don’t) and ask yourself why so many cling the work of a coke-addled misogynistic charlitain.

@20 Claude,

for pity’s sake grow up.

“Is this freedom of speech you invoke only good for rich bullies to routinely have a go at soft targets”

No, it’s good for immature twits like you too to bang on ad nauseum about an inconsequential matter, while the world slides towards economic disaster and world war.

“What is it, “Chaise Guevara”, does it irk you that a jumped-up multi-millionaire toff with VIP mates (ie Murdoch, the Prime Minister) is being criticised?”

No, but it does irk me that everyone who found the comment funny is being condemned as “sick”. It’s a bit of a sweeping judgement.

“Is this freedom of speech you invoke only good for rich bullies to routinely have a go at soft targets (other ethnic groups, single mums, the disabled, the depressed, workers on strike), but not for those who object to such shit?”

Oh, grow up. I believe in freedom of speech for everyone. That means freedom of speech for rich bullies, freedom of speech for people criticising rich bullies, freedom of speech for people who criticise people who criticise rich bullies, and so on, for ever and ever.

I really don’t understand why so many people, apparently including yourself, think that that if someone criticises them, that means their freedom of speech is being attacked. I support your freedom of speech, and I use MY freedom of speech to criticise you. That’s the whole bloody point of the concept.

“We’re all fucked, frankly, if this country turns into a place where “i’m-only-havin-a-larrf” type of jokes and “proto-fascistic” remarks can be said on national television without anyone raising an eyebrow.”

More accurately, if the country turns BACK into a place where that can happen. And yes, we would be fucked. All trends seem to be in the right direction at the moment, so I wouldn’t worry.

“And yes, the Holocaust reference stands. Tens of thousands of tade unionists were tortured, shot and gasses, so the idea of “joking” (ha ha ha) about getting all of them and shooting them in front of their families given what actually happened a few decades ago is actually quite hideous.”

Well, what you find funny is up to you. I don’t find his comment funny either. I just think that invoking the Holocaust over something is like is unhelpful hyperbole.

“I conclude you obviously wouldn’t mind it at all if someone used Clarkson’s same words but replaced with the word “Jews” or “Muslims” or [insert ethnic minority] instead of trade unionists.”

That’s fucking fascinating. Would you mind explaining how you reached that conclusion of yours, especially seeing as I said I disliked what Clarkson said in the first place?

19.
Questioning “overreactions” to complaints about Clarkson risk looking like being an apologist for him – unless you come off the fence and query his other comments like the laughably deceitful whilst the rest of us have to work for a living”.
Clarkson has operated outside BBC balanced and fair guidelines for many years now, without reproach, and like his frizzy red haired neighbour, it is quite fair that the public are questioning his position.

@ 22

“Sorry, when people start citing the Viennese Witchdoctor as an authority they’ve aleady lost the argument.”

Yeah, I wasn’t sure why were supposed to accept the “explanations” of a trail-blazing but now largely discredited figure either. It’s a bit like saying that quantam physics is obviously wrong because Newton “explained” that things don’t work like that.

Didn’t Anders Brevik quote some of Clarkson’s works in his manifesto?

I wonder if Clarkson had this in the back of his mind when he spoke on the One Show? …

Cheers

Nick

@ 25 David Hodd

“Questioning “overreactions” to complaints about Clarkson risk looking like being an apologist for him – unless you come off the fence and query his other comments like the laughably deceitful whilst the rest of us have to work for a living”.”

Whataboutary. I’m responding to the conversation as it is, not to a hypothetical conversation that might have elicited a different response.

For the record, I agree with your assessment of his “working for a living” thing, and probably with your overall view of Clarkson as well. I sometimes find him amusing as an entertainer, but as a political entity, he (or at least the persona he uses in public) is pretty loathsome.

“Clarkson has operated outside BBC balanced and fair guidelines for many years now, without reproach, and like his frizzy red haired neighbour, it is quite fair that the public are questioning his position.”

Hell yes. I’m really not sure what loophole in the BBC mandate tolerates giving him and his mates a weekly show on which to push their views. Probably because Top Gear doesn’t count as “political”, but if so, the Beeb is doing it wrong.

I think Chaise has it pretty much right. Trying to frame the debate in the context of something that happened in another country is just fatuous; this is about what’s happening here and now, where the most hideous alliance of reactionaries and pseudo- progressives are waging a war on irony.

The context of this debate is the persecution of of people saying stupid things on Twitter, or Facebook, or repeated endlessly on YouTube in the expectation that eventually you’ll see it enough times to be offended.

And this is pretty risible:

Unison general secretary Dave Prentis said that he is taking urgent legal advice as to whether the he should be referred to the police.

If he thought he had a case he’d have reported Clarkeson already. You don’t need to consult a lawyer before calling the police if you think a crime has been committed. Its a pitiful publicity stunt.

“Freedom of speech” is meaningless anyway. There are already regulations in place, people cannot simply say whatever they want, no matter how many people they hurt in the process.

And nobody is suggesting Clarkson should shut up. If people cannot find a way to express themselves while remaining civil, then they should work harder at it.

Or, as we say in Spanish… some people mistake “libertad” (freedom) with “libertinaje” (licentiousness).

And nobody is suggesting Clarkson should shut up. If people cannot find a way to express themselves while remaining civil, then they should work harder at it.

They’re suggesting he should be prosecuted for what he said, so how’s that square with not being told to shut up? If liberty means anything at all its the freedom to be prosecuted for what you say?

The Guardian published a full transcript which you can find here;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/dec/01/jeremy-clarkson-one-show-strike?intcmp=239

It’s worth reading because it demonstrates pretty conclusively that the remarks are taken entirely out of context. That’s the age of sound bites for you I guess – no one can pay attention for more than one sentence any more.

I think UNISON’s response has been entirely misjudged to raise the profile of this rather pointless man and remarks that are at best a little ill judged.

Today’s front pages were interesting weren’t they? The day after historic strike action almost all of them had a picture and headline about Clarkson. What a pointless distraction to such a serious issue.

@ 31 Mary

““Freedom of speech” is meaningless anyway. There are already regulations in place, people cannot simply say whatever they want, no matter how many people they hurt in the process.”

Freedom of speech is really shorthand for “freedom of political expression”, at least how I interpret it. Yes, there are limits on what you’re literally free to say – shouting “fire!” in a public theater, slandering someone, ordering a crime – but people do have the right to express whatever opinions they hold.

“And nobody is suggesting Clarkson should shut up. If people cannot find a way to express themselves while remaining civil, then they should work harder at it. ”

If you don’t want Clarkson to be made to shut up, why are you objecting to freedom of speech in the context of this conversation?

Claude @ 20:

“I conclude you obviously wouldn’t mind it at all if someone used Clarkson’s same words but replaced with the word “Jews” or “Muslims” or [insert ethnic minority] instead of trade unionists.”

You’re more likely to suffer discrimination for being Jewish or Muslim or a member of whatever ethnicity than you are for being a trade unionist, so the situations aren’t really comparable.

@ 30 Shatterface

“If he thought he had a case he’d have reported Clarkeson already. You don’t need to consult a lawyer before calling the police if you think a crime has been committed. Its a pitiful publicity stunt.”

It’s possible he’s talking to the lawyer to see if it’s possible to get Clarkson done on a technicality.

It’s possible he’s talking to the lawyer to see if it’s possible to get Clarkson done on a technicality.

That sounds like a productive use of union funds.

What is the point of this story? Its being pushed by the left but all its achieved is taking attention away from the strikes and made everything about Clarkson. I expect hes more popular now than before he made the stupid joke.

I agree with him!!

@33. jim jepps: “I think UNISON’s response has been entirely misjudged to raise the profile of this rather pointless man and remarks that are at best a little ill judged.”

Which one? For many of us, it seems that Prentis and Clarkson should be ignored equally.

@OP, Dave Osler: “Unison general secretary Dave Prentis said that he is taking urgent legal advice as to whether the he should be referred to the police.”

On two minute’s reflection, I have concluded that Dave Prentis should not be referred to the police. But if he (Dave Prentis) persists in wasting everyone’s time, I reserve the right to reverse my opinion.

To add to that, it seems that UK PLC actually made a profit yesterday, no PS “Workers” to pay (if there is an oxymoron that must be it) more people went shopping, they couldn’t go to work as there were no teachers to do child minding, the queues at the airports were less than on a normal day. if this is as bad as it gets, bring it on, but do remember, there was a small amount of support for yesterdays strike, there’ll be 50% less next time, aand 50% of that less the next time after that.

The vision of two-thirds of schools having to close until replacement teachers have been recruited from somewhere to replace those that had been taken out and shot is hilariously funny – depending on your sense of humour, of course, and whether you are a parent with school-age children and need to go out to work to support the family’s income.

The unexplained curiosity is why does the BBC still feel impelled to sign up professional buffoons like Clarkson at inflated fees? Don’t blame me – I stopped watching TV as I no longer pay for a TV license. That decision came after the BBC’s previous debacle when Brand and Ross left lewd messages on answer phones. That was also for a joke, of course.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Brand_Show_prank_telephone_calls_row

Who gives a shit what the readers of the telegraph think? Not I. We already know their humour level.

But seeing as they now have such a sense of humour , I look forward to the BBC offering prime time slot on BBC1 when Thatcher dies. Let the 58% of the public who did not vote for be 2allowed to piss on her grave live on TV.

Of course it won’t happen because Mench and her browshirt mates will have the vapours and clutch their pearls in horror. And seeing as the BBC is terrified of the brownshirts it won’t happen.

The unexplained curiosity is why does the BBC still feel impelled to sign up professional buffoons like Clarkson at inflated fees? Don’t blame me – I stopped watching TV as I no longer pay for a TV license. That decision came after the BBC’s previous debacle when Brand and Ross left lewd messages on answer phones. That was also for a joke, of course.

Well, yes it was – what else could it have been?

And you were so incensed about someone making a prank call at the expense of an actor most of us thought was long dead (and reviving his career in the process: he got a few weeks Coronation Street out of it) that you gave up on the entire medium?

Odd you still have the internet when you are so easily ‘offended’.

@43. Bob B: “The vision of two-thirds of schools having to close until replacement teachers have been recruited from somewhere to replace those that had been taken out and shot is hilariously funny…”

Sadly for Clarkson, it wasn’t funny. It was preposterous, which is good enough reason for not taking the words seriously and to assume that others would hold a similar opinion. When did delivering an unfunny joke become a crime?

BBC employees: Does anyone know/hint if/how Ariel will cover this story?

Funny how all these right wingers, who now have a fetish for free speech, were not bothered about free speech when Jonathon Ross asked Cameron if he thinks about having a wank when he thought about Thatcher.

Oh no,no,no, no free speech for Johnny. They hounded him out of the BBC. Just like they hound anyone out they don’t approve of. Free speech is only for tories on the BBC.

@45: “And you were so incensed about someone making a prank call at the expense of an actor most of us thought was long dead (and reviving his career in the process”

What incensed me was that the BBC had signed up Ross on a £18 million contract out of license fee income to play infantile jokes like leaving lewd messages on answer phones in the delusion that was entertaining. That and those huge salaries paid to BBC executives who manage such contracts.

There was a time, several decades ago, when the BBC produced high class drama but not any more. Apparently, that is because too little is left over from paying those high management salaries – with staff expenses for taxis and restaurant bills – as well as for the contracts with the likes of Brand, Ross and Clarkson in order to “stay competitive”.

The funny cat videos on YouTube have more humour IMO. What’s more, I don’t have to pay a license fee to see those and I’ll shortly be able to rent movies on YouTube if I want to watch drama, perhaps old high quality TV drama on DVD.

The BBC really does need to get a better grip on producing value for the license fee income. There was a time when its news services were widely respected but then Andrew Gilligan had to resign for reporting that Blair lied about Iraq’s WMD, Greg Dyke, the BBC’s director general, also had to resign, as did Gavin Davies, the chairman of the BBC. The bell started to toll then.

@48. Bob B: “What incensed me was that the BBC had signed up Ross on a £18 million contract out of license fee income to play infantile jokes like leaving lewd messages on answer phones in the delusion that was entertaining.”

And as regularly as Monday follows Sunday, commentators question what Clarkson was paid for his unfunny remark. Unlike the previous conundrum, the answer will be very difficult to establish.

The Wikipedia description of Clarkson may give a few clues about his BBC contract. There are massive complications created by his association with BBC Worldwide and about using the Clarkson Top Gear personality in third party material. But we should assume that as part of his BBC contract, he is required to appear as guest in other programmes. Unsurprisingly, he is less funny when appearing in a topical programme than in one where he is flavour of the day with setup lines. So what? Clarkson isn’t funny?

Yeah, Shatterface, Manuel the waiter/Sachs is always going to be a middle aged victim in our minds, but tat is acting. I thought it was fucking rude to describe sexual acts into a phone answering service. Remember, the recipient did not expect to pick up the receiver and listen to such things.

This is a really useful story on which to see people’s true character I think.
On which side of the thick red line they stand over Clarkson’s comments here.

Jim Jepps @ 33 has produced the transcript of everything said on the One Show, and now we can see who’s on the side of Sally and Claude …… and those who still retain their reason. The whole thing is so pathetic it’s quite embarrassing. Although I have no doubt that if you asked for a show of hands at the Occupy St Paul’s camp, they’d be voting at about ten to one to have Clarkson sacked …. if not prosecuted also.

I try to be a liberal and sort of left wing, but am driven away from the movement by things like this. This aspect of sections of the left is quite appalling IMO, and it makes the odious Richard Littlejohn partly right in what he says about it.

The Inland Revenue sholud examine Clarksons purchase of a so called holiday home on the Isle Of Man. Now, I have no idea if it is legit, but his purchase of a house on a tax haven, while taking vast amounts of public money should encourage a little look.

@51. Sally: “The Inland Revenue sholud examine Clarksons purchase of a so called holiday home on the Isle Of Man.”

Is this a new home that he has purchased or the one that he has owned for donkey’s years?

Perhaps Luis, Richard W or Frances C (noting that none of them describe themselves as accountants) may contradict me, but my suspicion is that Clarkson’s UK accountants will be doing their best to keep him clean.

To be fair, calling for Clarkson to be sacked is also exercising freedom of speech.
Jus sayin.

Also, if anyone has a problem with calls for Clarkson to be sacked and banged up in jail, don’t worry, it’s just a joke, like off Top Gear.

The BBC used to produce internationally acclaimed, award-winning, genuinely funny sit-coms like Monty Python; Till Death; Yes, Minister; Steptoe & Son; Citizen Smith; Fawlty Towers . . .

We – or rather you, dear reader, since I no longer watch the stuff – now get really pathetic material such as Ross, Brand and Clarkson. What happened?

@43 – Yes, I’m sure you find the potential deaths funny.

Me? Advocating death is never acceptable. The UK has a position against the death penalty, and someone paid by the state-funded broadcaster should not keep their job if they talk about killing people in this way.

@55. Bob B: “What happened?”

It is likely that the sort of programmes that you previously enjoyed now appear on BBC4. The cracking drama about the birth of Coronation Street, repeated a few weeks ago, was UK television at its best.

And Radio 4 is still free and funny. Farewell to Humph.

It is the double standards that get me. We know all too wdll what the response would be if the situation was reversed. The jolly telegraph readers who love freedom of speech become a raging, frothing at the mouth rabble clutching their pearls, and fanning their poor little heated flushes.

We have seen it before many,many times.

Charlieman: “The cracking drama about the birth of Coronation Street, repeated a few weeks ago, was UK television at its best.”

In the civil service, I was once asked by a line manager whether I preferred Coronation St to East Enders – at the time, I suspected the question was not motivated by idle curiosity; in the civil service, such questions seldom are. I’d hardly ever watched either serial but replied East Enders mainly on the stength of the watching preferences of my children, who were then addicted to that kind of TV.

Be that as it may, some years later I had an interesting conversation about the merits of Coronation St with David Plowright.

@58. Sally: “The jolly telegraph readers who love freedom of speech become a raging, frothing at the mouth rabble clutching their pearls, and fanning their poor little heated flushes.”

I need to sleep tonight. I do not need to know more about frothing, uncontrolled ravings. I am unsure whether I will be able to sleep in peace.

Don’t retreat, RELOAD Clarkson! LOL!

@ 53 Cylux

“To be fair, calling for Clarkson to be sacked is also exercising freedom of speech.
Jus sayin.”

Evidently. I don’t see anyone saying otherwise. But people talking about lawsuits are anti-free-speech. It’s possible (in fact, necessary) to use free speech while calling for it to be denied to others.

@ 50 damon

“I try to be a liberal and sort of left wing, but am driven away from the movement by things like this. This aspect of sections of the left is quite appalling IMO, and it makes the odious Richard Littlejohn partly right in what he says about it.”

I can understand how you feel, but you do realise that bad company is not a good reason to abandon a political idea, right? Also, this is also an aspect of sections of the right. A certain type of person likes to see things banned. The specific things they want banned depends on their left/right political leaning, but the authoritarian instinct doesn’t. You could probably find both leftists and rightists trying to ban sexy lingerie adverts, for example, with totally different reasons.

@62. Chaise Guevara: “It’s possible (in fact, necessary) to use free speech while calling for it to be denied to others.”

That is a bit weird. I think that the converse is correct. We should just let people waffle and contradict. I don’t know what I think until the contrary people inform me, but my conclusions will have to be liberal.

Yet as a leftie who believes in freedom of speech, I reluctantly find myself agreeing that an apology probably suffices here. Nobody can seriously contend that Clarkson was actually calling for public sector employees to be rounded up at dawn and made to face banker-led firing squads.

And yet if he had spent the first half of his life actively calling for a significant percentage of Britain’s population to be shot, he would be perfectly welcome on the Left. If he worked hard to make sure that came about, he would be perfectly welcome on the Left. If he took money from a foreign power so that they could rule Britain and shoot a significant percentage of Britain’s population, he would be perfectly welcome on the Left. If he was utterly unrepentant about taking money from a foreign power so that they could invade Britain and enable him to shoot a significant percentage of Britain’s population, he would be perfectly welcome on the Left.

Not that I would make any of these claims about the sort of people who grace LC of course. Definitely not about Kate Hudson.

The stench of hypocrisy is never sweet though, is it?

@ 64 Charlieman

“That is a bit weird. I think that the converse is correct. We should just let people waffle and contradict. I don’t know what I think until the contrary people inform me, but my conclusions will have to be liberal.”

Apologies: looking at my post, I was being very unclear. When I said it was “necessary”, I meant that if you WERE to call for the restriction of freedom of speech, you would NECESSARILY be using your own freedom of speech to make that demand. (Sorry for the capitals, I don’t know how to do bold or italics on the internet.)

In other words, I’m using “necessary” in a logical sense, not a moral sense: I’m saying you can’t demand an end to free speech without using your own free speech to do so. I am absolutely not saying that it is necessary, important, moral, or a good idea, to restrict the free speech of anyone.

Hope that’s clear. I’ve been into the beers a bit since posting my last comment.

@ 64 again

If that wasn’t clear, replace my statement “It’s possible (in fact, necessary) to use free speech while calling for it to be denied to others” with the revised statement “If you call for other people’s free speech to be restricted, you are logically using your own free speech to make that demand”.

What’s really odd is the excuse made on behalf of Clarkson that he was only joking when he called for the thousands of strikers on 30 November to be taken and “shot in front of their families”.

What is even more peculiar was the belief that the rest of us are expected to regard that as an entirely credible motivation for Clarkson.

Evidently, those making that excuse for Clarkson regard him as the sort of person likely to make jokes about mass murder and think that is why we should overlook what he said.

@65 – “And yet if he had spent the first half of his life actively calling for a significant percentage of Britain’s population to be shot, he would be perfectly welcome on the Left.”

What rot. Given you have, personally, advocated killing people you simply disagree with…

“hypocrisy”

Yes, as usual, from you.

In Norway, Anders Breivik, the man who confessed to ruthlessly killing more than 70 people in a bombing and shooting spree in Norway, has been declared mentally insane by court-appointed doctors, according to media reports.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/norway-massacre-confessed-killer-anders-breivik-insane-doctors/story?id=15046549

Oh….my…..wor……d

@70 Of course he has, given the political rhetoric that motivated him, it was inconvenient to far too many people holding levers of power to continue to allow him to be thought of as sane.
Plus we have circular logic to help out with such things, how do we know he was insane? He did an insane thing!

72
Spot-on, a diagnosis of ‘mentally ill’ has always been a good get-out card.

72. Cylux

Of course he has, given the political rhetoric that motivated him, it was inconvenient to far too many people holding levers of power to continue to allow him to be thought of as sane.

You know, most of your posts look normal. Go on. Name the people in Norway of all places who have anything to hide, or any connection with at all, where Breivik’s motivations are concerned.

Plus we have circular logic to help out with such things, how do we know he was insane? He did an insane thing!

And this is unusual because …. ? How else do you diagnose mental illness?

73. steveb

Spot-on, a diagnosis of ‘mentally ill’ has always been a good get-out card.

For the Left and Right both. Probably because it is often true.

Of course the difference between Clarkson and Limond is when Clarkson calls for strikers to be shot “nobody can seriously contend that Clarkson was actually calling for public sector employees to be rounded up at dawn and made to face banker-led firing squads” as you say.

Whereas when the left express impatience for Thatcher to die I think we all know they do mean every nasty word, and they’re just waiting for it to happen so they can pop the champagne corks (or as Sally poignantly if bizarrely puts it @44, so they can piss on her grave and it’s only because the BBC are brownshirts that they wouldn’t televise it live).

Me I don’t like any talk of wanting people dead, but I can see why the latter is more vile than the former.

“Professional pub bore makes offensive joke.” It shouldn’t be news.

74
And I always thought it was you who believed that the diagnosis of ‘mental illness’ was overused. Funny old world.

I heard the worst hour of radio EVER last night on BBC Five Live when Stephen Nolan was talking about Clarkson. Owen Jones who writes pieces for Liberal Conspiracy was on there too. It was the last hour of the programme and they were talking about a column that Clarkson had written in today’s Sun about people throwing themselves under trains to kill themselves.
Nolan was trying to get Clarkson sacked by the sound of it, and Owen Jones was truly awful (in my opinion).

It should be on the BBC i-player soon.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0070jd4

by all accounts ,clarkson is in private a very nice guy. unfortunately theres not much money in being nice so whenever he’s promoting a book or dvd,coincidentally he says something outrageous . the left is outraged,the right wing “its political correctness gone maaaaaad” brigade love it. its a technique that works every time. still,it makes clarkson a very rich man.
good point about the right being able to dish it out but crying like babies when they’re on the receiving end. shoot strikers is a joke ,wheres yours sense of humour? how dare you make fun of a tory still being alive? they can give it but not take it.

If Jimmy Carr had said this, no one would have batted in eyelid.

Today’s front pages were interesting weren’t they? The day after historic strike action almost all of them had a picture and headline about Clarkson. What a pointless distraction to such a serious issue.

On Question Time, David Frum was trying to talk about the strikes and Dimbleby leaned over and said – and I paraphrase – “Yes, but what do you think about what Jeremy Clarkson said about them?” Of course, no one wanted to hear Frum’s opinion on anything but it was still tiresome.

If Jimmy Carr had said this, no one would have batted in eyelid.

No. I’d have closed my eyelids and gone to sleep.

Steveb: “Spot-on, a diagnosis of ‘mentally ill’ has always been a good get-out card.”

Absolutely. There’s a completely rational explanation for Clarkson’s proposed shooting of the public-sector strikers in front of their families.

He was simply doing a bit of promotion to attract some part-time work to earn a bit of additional income to augment the pittance he gets from the BBC. I’m sure President Bashar Assad of Syria would appreciate Clarkson’s assistance and advice on improving Syria’s PR in the currently stressful times there.

Clarkson could perhaps repair his own PR in Britain by signing up to join the LibDems.

Jeez! Anyone who gives this non-story more than 3 seconds attention should have their head hacked off with a rusty saw.

Fully agree with Osler. Clarkson is an vile wanker and this was not “just” a “joke” but he shouldn’t be sacked, and the more people clamour for this, the more he gains a wholly unwarranted martyr status.

Re: the Mensch example – Conservative in hypocritical cant shocker! Charlie Brooker’s gag about Lee Harvey Oswald and George Bush springs to mind as well. So no, Clarkson shouldn’t be sacked as as no-one seeks to censure me when I can-can down the road with a stereo blaring “Feeling Hot! Hot! Hot!” when Lady Thatcher finally carks it.

@84: “Anyone who gives this non-story more than 3 seconds attention should have their head hacked off with a rusty saw.”

Yet more homicides?

If Clarkson’s broadcast proposal to take public-sector strikers and shoot them in front of their families is a “non-story”, why did he feel impelled to respond to the many expressions of public outrage by issuing an apology?

In what way exactly do the social values of Clarkson differ from those of President Assad of Syria?

Bob B @ 86:

“Yet more homicides?”

I think that was a joke.

“If Clarkson’s broadcast proposal to take public-sector strikers and shoot them in front of their families is a “non-story”, why did he feel impelled to respond to the many expressions of public outrage by issuing an apology?”

Because lots of other people felt it wasn’t a non-story, and if he hadn’t replied he’d have looked evasive. It’s quite consistent to think “this is a non-story” and act in a way which acknowledges the fact that other people disagree.

“In what way exactly do the social values of Clarkson differ from those of President Assad of Syria?”

For a start I don’t think Clarkson was seriously calling for strikers to be shot. “Making a tasteless joke about shooting strikers” is obviously not morally equivalent to “shooting strikers”, and anybody who thinks otherwise really ought to get a better sense of proportion.

@xxx: “I think that was a joke.”

It seems beyond coincidence that proposals about killing people keep featuring in these supposed jokes. It’s starting to look an obsessive preoccupation of the jokers. Perhaps they need to seek professional advice.

“For a start I don’t think Clarkson was seriously calling for strikers to be shot. ”

If so, why say it and with the gratuitously callous embroidery of shooting the strikers in front of their families?

As for comparisons with Assad, he keeps insisting that the security services in Syria are just dealing with trouble-makers who deserve being shot to maintain social stability and good order – which doesn’t appear to be very different from what Clarkson was saying. In broadcast interviews, Assad also comes across as very plausible.

Jeez! Anyone who gives this non-story more than 3 seconds attention should have their head hacked off with a rusty saw.

There is a difference between people here though that is actually very important.
There are those calling for his head, with people from Unison even suggesting that he might be prosecuted …… there are those eejits ….. and then there are people who say how bonkers that view is.
The second group are perfectly reasonably standing up to pathetic hysteria which is actually quite a sad development to see in our country.
It’s been getting worse since Princess Diana died.

@ 86 Bob B

“If Clarkson’s broadcast proposal to take public-sector strikers and shoot them in front of their families is a “non-story”, why did he feel impelled to respond to the many expressions of public outrage by issuing an apology?”

My guess is that the head of the BBC, or of the department employing Clarkson, called him in and said something like “OK, we’re not going to sack you, but we need you to apologise, work with us here”.

“It seems beyond coincidence that proposals about killing people keep featuring in these supposed jokes. It’s starting to look an obsessive preoccupation of the jokers. Perhaps they need to seek professional advice.”

It’s not coincidence, but you’re probably looking in the wrong place. Most likely explanation is that Clarkson is into black comedy, and jokes about death figure up high up the list when your humour is drawn from taboo and shock factor.

“If so, why say it and with the gratuitously callous embroidery of shooting the strikers in front of their families?”

Because it’s a JOKE. I personally feel that the “in front of their families” bit was what turned it into something nasty, I agree that it’s an unnecessarily vicious addition even within the context. But the thing with jokes is that they aren’t always meant literally. Quite simply, if Clarkson actually want summary execution for strikers, he wouldn’t have announced it in a light-hearted context during a jokey exchange. It’s patently obvious that he wasn’t being serious.

On the evidence, Clarkson and supporters evidently regard killing people as a hilarious matter.

I post with some hesitation what follows least Clarkson and his supporters are overcome with mirth.

By modern historical analysis, the Black Death plague of 1348 and the following years probably killed as much as a third of the population of England at the time or even more. Some villages were deserted and fell into permanent ruin – hence the the lost villages of England, perhaps as many as 3000 according to archeological searches:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/middle_ages/black_impact_01.shtml

Claude @13 :

Given how many unionists were shot and gassed during the Holocaust how can that sick tw*t Clarkson get away with his comments?

Really impressive bit of Shoah-waving whataboutery there. No, really, I’m impressed. You should develop the technique, though. What about a reference or two to Year Zero, the Cultural Revolution, the Holodomor, the Gulag? Throw in a couple of plagues of frogs and you’re on to a winner.

Can you imagine anyone getting away with saying on the BBC “Frankly I’d have [insert ethnic minority] all shot. I would take [insert ethnic minority] outside and execute [insert ethnic minority] in front of their families.” What a sick individual, and so is everyone who thinks he’s “funny” and he’s “only joking”.

Rather depends on the ethnicities of the speaker and of the inserted ethnic minority, I would have thought. A Black speaker ranting about Pakistanis, say, and we’d all giggle nervously and Claude would be invited to write a guest article at LibCon. A non-White ranting about shooting Whites and we’d all applaud wildly, mumble sagely and solemnly about how the non-White speaker’s angry and violent imagery was an entirely understandable reaction to Slavery or Colonialism or Coca-Cola Imperialism and a couple of new NGOs would be created to provide more state-funded pseudo-jobs for the Easily Offended.

Perhaps there’s an association which Clarkson and his supporters could quietly join to help overcome their obsessive preoccupation with inflicting homicide, such as Necrophiliacs Anonymous or the like.

@86 “Anyone who gives this non-story more than 3 seconds attention should have their head hacked off with a rusty saw.”

*So as to inhibit keyboard use.

Misplaced italics. Oh shame! Hara-kiri required.

Bob B @ 93 :

Perhaps there’s an association which Clarkson and his supporters could quietly join…

Perhaps there’s a night school which you could join, Bob, where you could learn about rhetoric, hyperbole, irony and other clever linguistic devices that we adults use. Your (probably selective) literalism is becoming tedious.

I studied in the USSR in the 1970’s, when the most dreadful thing one could be
accused of was ‘anti-soviet ideas’ – our equivalent nowadays is a pantheon of related thought crimes – racism, Islamophobia, homophobia, xenophobia and so on. There were sick and not-so-sick jokes about the system, the ageing politburo – in particular Brezhnev, in abundance, but everyone knew to look over their shoulders, and carefully check out those present before they spoke freely. After I’d been in the hostel for a week or two, my room-mates, hinted that certain people should be avoided, if possible, and that you should be very careful of what you said in their presence. These were the komsomoltsy, young communists, and donoschiki – informers who could ruin your career just by dropping a hint to the authorities that you had told a questionable joke about the politburo or similar. When these individuals were present the atmosphere lost its warmth and spontaneity, and when they left, there was a sense of relief, people relaxed, became more expansive and people spoke freely. If anything remotely questionable was said in the presence of those said individuals, you could expect a rebuke such as “You do understand, Comrade Ivanov, that what you’re saying is verging on/could be construed as anti-soviet” and the offendor was expected to cower, cringe and become fulsomely apologetic, in much the same way that you can expect a lefty to dress you down for “racism” or some such thought crime. Characterwise these individuals were strikingly similar to today’s doctrinal lefty: sanctimonious, holier-than-thou, self-righteous, humourless, always ready to take something literally, always ready to be offended if it was useful. People who value control over others.
There is simple explanation for that phenonemon, whereby lefties are incandescent at comments on the internet which are commonly uttered in real life: it is because ordinary people talk freely when lefties are not present, and self-censor when the lefties are not around to upbraid them. Consequently, the lefties rarely hear the discourse of ordinary people, and when exposed to it, find it shocking.

97
Are you paranoid?

Is that a question, a rhetorical question or an aspersion disguised as a question? Are you using the word “paranoid” in a clinical sense or a colloquial sense?

@96: “Perhaps there’s a night school which you could join, Bob, where you could learn about rhetoric, hyperbole, irony and other clever linguistic devices that we adults use. Your (probably selective) literalism is becoming tedious.”

IMO Clarkson and supporters need urgent professional advice for their obsessive preoccupation with killing people in the delusion that is somehow funny.

99
As I don’t know you I can hardly be referring to the clinical sense, and yes it was rhetorical.
I suppose it could also be labelled as ‘an aspersion’.
You post aspersions about the left on a leftie site, what do you expect, here’s a clue:- imagine if I went on to ConHome and spoke about the right in terms of Hitler Youth.
But the most perplexing thing about your post is the contradictory assertions that the left today are about censorship (as in the Soviet Union) and yet you are able to freely express your views on a leftie site. I assume that post@97 was written freely and not with a gun to your head.

What I like most is the equating of base racism or homophobia with criticism of totalitarian regimes like that demonstrated @97. Keen sense of perspective that one. A more realistic comparison would be between satirising the “loony left” and making fun of the politburo, rather than racism and the politburo. Oddly the former is rather more acceptable to the point that major newspapers engage in it on an almost daily basis. Course if one wanted to be racist and NOT be thought of as a tossranger by one’s peers, I can see why you would stretch to make the argument about “anti-racism is a thought crime”.

Or as the old saw goes:
How does every ethnic joke start?
With a look over both shoulders!

Quote: “Jeremy Clarkson was only being silly, says David Cameron”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/dec/01/jeremy-clarkson-david-cameron-strikes?newsfeed=true

But how can he tell?

@103 Well here’s the full transcript to have a nosey at if you like:

Matt Baker: Now, at the end of a day where Britain has seen some of its biggest strikes, what we need is someone calm and level-headed.

Alex Jones: Well, we will be talking to Jeremy more later.

steveb:
One feature of the Soviet era was the huge culture of anonimki. Anonymous letters to public figures, politicians outnumbered signed ones by 20 to 1. All public and official dialogue was so limited and attenuated that it was largely meaningless.Anonymous letters were the overwhelmingly most popular way of making hard-hitting feedback and criticism about the system. You can figure why. The internet bears a certain similarity in its function. You and I are free to publish our comments under our own names, but I don’t and you don’t, unless your name is in fact steveb. I know why I don’t. Saying things in person, where your identity is known, is potentially detrimental in this country too. Anyone who works in the public services, for instance, knows that certain opinions cannot be openly expressed without some adverse social consequences. For instance, the commonly held and perfectly valid opinion that Islam is pernicious, medieval mumbo-jumbo, would be certain career suicide if openly expressed by someone in the NHS. The official line in all public services is “Islam is a nice religion, and just a handful of unrepresentative people do naughty things in its name”, and I, like everyone else voiced and pretended to adhere to this official line when working in the NHS. That is, I lied because I wanted to work in the NHS long enough to have a decent pension.
Since Gorbachev proclaimed glasnost as an official policy in 1985, many literary works have appeared with compelling descriptions of how the system worked in reality and how it felt to be in it. I recommend Grossman’s Life and Fate, recently serialised on Radio 4, but you need to real all 800 or so pages, with particular attention to the stories of Shtrum and Krymov. Also Lydia Chukovskaya’s The Deserted House. There are numerous other examples but they unfortunately not been translated into English.

Bob B: how did Cameron know Clarkson was joking?
How does anyone convey irony, tongue-in-cheek, sarcasm etc.? First of all by being who one is. Unless one is completely unknown to interlocutors, then you are bound to bring with you, as a person, certain assumptions and expectations, in the light of which others evaluate your behaviour. After all, we are told that in the mouth of a black person, the word n****r has a completely different import than it has from the mouth of white person. If Jeremy Clarkson mentions he had muesli for breakfast, we know he’s being sarky, but not if he says he had a full english breakfast rich in cholesterol. (2) context: verbal and general (3) intonation (4) facial and other indicators. e.g. if I say “I sincerely apologise for that tasteless joke” with a big wink you don’t accept it as a genuine apology. And lastly, of course, when someone says something so ludicrously outrageous by conventional standards, so obviously designed to wind up a certain segment of the population, in such a public context, we use our real-world, linguistic and paralinguistic knowledge to evaluate it for what it is, unless, determined to be offended by proxy, we make an effort to construe in a way which suits our purpose.

cyclux: I don’t think I’m equating anything. I’m pointing out a certain cultural similarity between the Soviet Union (and other authoritarian/totalitarian systems) and contemporary UK, based on my own experience of both.

Bob @ 88:

“It seems beyond coincidence that proposals about killing people keep featuring in these supposed jokes.”

Possibly it was based off Clarkson’s original “having them all shot” quip.

“If so, why say it and with the gratuitously callous embroidery of shooting the strikers in front of their families?”

Comic hyperbole. If you’re making a joke which is funny because it’s shocking, adding extra detail like this will make it even more over-the-top and shocking, and hence funnier.

105
But we are not in the Soviet era and this is a (predominently) British site where most who contribute are on the left of centre. I wonder what you really want to say that you feel that you are unable to.
As far as the Clarkson saga goes, my own view is that he is an ignorant buffoon but I won’t lose much sleep about it, and I would like to point-out that it’s not just the left who found his remarks distasteful. Free-speech means that you are allowed to be critical about the comments and actions of others.
As far as the NHS is concerned, I think you are mistaken, I work for said organization and I openly state that religion is mumbo jumbo, but the point is that we don’t make judgments based on those who do or do not, this is as far away from the Soviets or Nazis as you can get.
Btw I’m a leftie and the idea that what I hear in real life is shocking is just plain daft.

I don’t think I’m equating anything. I’m pointing out a certain cultural similarity between the Soviet Union (and other authoritarian/totalitarian systems) and contemporary UK, based on my own experience of both.

I think your lived experiences of the former have made you see its ghost in everything, to be honest. The only time my co-workers feel the pang of guilt to rein in their racism is when a Black or Asian delivery driver drops some stock off. Even then only if they clock him.

100. Bob B

IMO Clarkson and supporters need urgent professional advice for their obsessive preoccupation with killing people in the delusion that is somehow funny.

And yet Bob B is utterly silent when someone comes on to LC with a life time of working hard to make sure a significant percentage of Britain’s population is either executed or worked to death in the Gulag.

It is an odd frame of mind that thinks a harmless joke is a crime but taking money from a totalitarian power to murder millions of British people is fine.

@SMFS: “It is an odd frame of mind that thinks a harmless joke is a crime but taking money from a totalitarian power to murder millions of British people is fine.”

I have to admit that the intended meaning of that accusation is totally lost on me – especially since I’m not renown for whitewashing totalitarian powers intent on “murdering millions of British people” or for taking money from such regimes. In past posts I’ve made much of the documented fascist provenance of Blair’s Third Way.

To clarify, what is so peculiar about the supposed jokes of Clarkson and supporters is their obsessive focus on killing people as though that reference is particularly hilarious.

Ig he had joked about shooting Thatcher you lot would be wanking yourselves silly to the footage.

And how come the so called Liberal Left get all heated about a bad taste joke on TV, and yet say nothing when Islamic Iman’s seriously talk about stoning women, executing Gays and scourging Jews on UK cable TV?

Hypocrites.

@111: “And how come the so called Liberal Left get all heated about a bad taste joke on TV, and yet say nothing when Islamic Iman’s seriously talk about stoning women, executing Gays and scourging Jews on UK cable TV?”

That’s a bit rich when I’m often excoriated in threads here for being critical about the historic aggressive tendencies exhibited in the promotion of Islam and present day jihadists. But I do confess to being critical about the Israeli government for continuing to allow illegal settlement building on occupied Palestinian territory.

@ 91 Bob B

“On the evidence, Clarkson and supporters evidently regard killing people as a hilarious matter.”

Still no. There’s no evidence of that, at least that I’ve seen. Jokes are not reality. If we had footage of Clarkson pointing and laughing during a real-life execution or something, that would be another matter.

Regarding the headline of this thread – ”Jeremy Clarkson: the right, the left and deathwish jokes” …. I’d have started it by asking what did people think of this view of it, which ended up saying:

”….. the real cause of the outrage about Clarkson, is that it is assumed that his audience is too thick, too Neanderthal to get that he doesn’t really mean it.

Stewart Lee’s liberal audience, on the other hand, is assumed to be educated and cultured; they ‘get’ irony. Where Clarkson is a thug and a bully, Lee – and other liberal comedians like him who indulge in ‘black’ humour – are deemed to be edgy. That’s no reflection of reality, however; that’s just liberal self-congratulation, a censorious version of masturbation.”

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/11867/

I tend to agree with what that article says. It’s bang on I think.

i seem to remember him saying that you should run over cyclists on the road a few years ago too
(i cycle)
now he says people striking should be shot…
(i am also a union member)
hmmmm, that’s two ways he wants to kill me

incidentally, before he acquired infamy, a family member knew him as a child/young adult, because she worked with his mother. she never liked him, the kindest description she ever gave us about him is “spoilt sproggie brat”

110. Bob B

I have to admit that the intended meaning of that accusation is totally lost on me – especially since I’m not renown for whitewashing totalitarian powers intent on “murdering millions of British people” or for taking money from such regimes. In past posts I’ve made much of the documented fascist provenance of Blair’s Third Way.

Documented fascist provenance of what? So if I go over to the recent CND Chair’s thread – being also a long-time member of the Communist Party of Great Britain, as it then was, and of the Communist Party of Britain now, I will, no doubt, see a great many comments from you pointing out how unacceptable you find that particular poster?

No. Didn’t think so. You ignore real totalitarians in favour of figments of your imagination.

To clarify, what is so peculiar about the supposed jokes of Clarkson and supporters is their obsessive focus on killing people as though that reference is particularly hilarious.

Humour often says things that shock. I look forward to your condemnation of John Cleese’s Monty Python sketch about designing housing estates which would slaughter their tenants. Or for that matter the closing song on the Life of Brian.