Last summer two youths said on Facebook that they and others should meet up to loot a shop.
They never did loot.
No one else met them.
They went to prison. For a considerable period.
Jeremy Clarkson on Tuesday said on national television that strikers should be shot in front of their families.
So far he hasn't been arrested, let alone charged with inciting the murder of 2 million people.
Who committed the bigger crime? Clarkson, by far.
Why has he got away with it? Because he's a mate of the Prime Minister who said it was just 'silly'.
Like the Bullingdon rioting, I guess?
This is a divided society. Clarkson reminds us that is so. And why we have to stop it. I remain of the view he should now be under arrest and that a case should be taken with all haste to bring him to justice. Because I don't think he was being silly. I think he was inciting violence. Deliberately. And for his own political ends, and those of his mate, David Cameron.
Welcome to the Nasty Party. They gave themselves the name. And it fits, perfectly.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Having read the full transcript of what Clarkson said here, my interpretation is that it was a (very poor) attempt at humour. The idea – I think – was that he was trying to make a joke based on the idea that the BBC is supposed to represent a range of different opinions, and therefore give two views – one being “it was great, London was empty” and the other one being an extreme right caricature.
You could argue Cameron was correct that Clarkson was being “silly” – very silly – but then, so were the youths who left that message on Facebook. So was the guy who tweeted that Robin Airport had “a week to get its s*** together or I’m blowing the place sky high”. Personally I think it’s wrong to prosecute for any of these outbursts, but if others are being prosecuted, surely the fair application of the law demands that Clarkson should be as well?
I think that Clarkson was reflecting the privately held views of a lot of the tory front bench.
David
I am sure that you are correct and that discussions such as this are held at the dinner parties of the Chipping Norton Set.
Let’s stop the faux moral outrage. If you really thought he was inciting the murder of 2 million then I think you’ve lost all sense of reality.
I won’t respond to mist comment here
I will mention I had an Isle of Man DJ say he wanted me ‘taken out’ earlier this year.
The response was the same then – that I should not take this seriously
I agreed than and I agree now that neither had personal violent intent. That is why the word incitement is used. Inciting others to violence is an offence and Clarkson must know there are people daft enough to believe him
Recklessness as to consequence is an element in incitement
I believe he was
I think my comments more than justified
Those who defend him sicken me through their contempt for their fellow human beings – as he does
Richard, I think the Facebook thing you refer to was wrong but it’s not comparable with the Clarkson thing. I’m afraid the closest similarity here is the over reaction, the justice system to the FB postings and the faux outrage at Clarkson. There is also a fantastic opportunity being missed here, forget the stupid execution line and listen to what immediately followed that….a ‘how dare they’ comment when they get such gold plated pensions.
Picking up and running with that aspect would be far more effective. It is a direct comment from one of the 1%, indeed from a 1%er that only enjoys his position thanks to public sector funding. A 1%er that wouldn’t roll over in bed for the sort of pensions he’s happy to castigate people complaining about. The satirical value is huge and would serve far better than ridiculous calls for his arrest.
All change in society has come about by protest to change injustice.
Ghandi was a great leader because he led by example. Dave is not leading by example.
Austerity must apply to all. Fave and company have no intention of feeling the pain, other then in words.
Agreed. Clarkson really must spend his life walking on his hands, not his feet, since he seems to speak outt of his backside most of the time. On this occasion, however, he’s emitted more than a fart – something more like the lethal gas released by that crackpot cult, Aum Shinrikyo on the Japanese Metro, which led to several deaths. Clarkson, ad Cameron and all the Bullingdon hearties need to be put on notice, and Clarkson needs to be prosecuted. For the record, the two young men who made those silly comments (genuinely silly, since there was no chance of their comments being acted upon, nor were they acted upon) were sentenced to an eye-watering 4 years apiece. Considering dirvers who knock down children on zebra crossings have escaped with only a fine, “justice” is clearly out of kilter in Cameron’s “ancien regime” (Remember, in pre-1789 France, aristocrats paid NO tax, with it all being loaded onto the middle and lower classes – clearly the aim of Cameron’s kleptocracy)
Has it already been pointed out that, if someone, on national television, had made a suggestion that we go out and shoot Cameron or another MP, or put a bomb in the Houses of Parliament, that person would already be under investigation…
Or…those lads shouldn’t have been arrested and neither should Clarkson. He is vile and loathsome, that is his crime and also his punishment.
What is a crime is the fact that lots of people seem to idolise him.
Now it appears it was all planned by the BBC production team. And plenty have people have said hang a bnker on website, comments sites, and have even hung effigies of bankers without being charged. I suppose it comes down to a soceity being able to decide what is to be taken seriously and what is mere jest or theatre. And I really hope you didn’t take Clarkson seriously, who is an incredibly oevrpaid public servant anyway.
i am not sure you have watched the whole clip on the basis of what you blog.
I am divided on this one. On the one hand, I can see the potential offence he has caused to many people, but on the other, I think it was an extremely crass joke that probably wasn’t meant to be taken seriously and the unions should have either ignored him and treated him like the idiot he so obviously is.
It did show one thing though. The thousands of complaints seem to suggest the strikers have much more support the government would like to admit.
Of course the tabloids will make the usual claim that the left have no sense of humour. If what Clarkson said was actually funny, I may well agree with them, but it was anything but.
Maybe the incident was taken too seriously though?
Oh do give over Richard, all this bluster over this buffoon does no good at all. I saw a union skokeswoman comparing Clarkson to Gadaffi for god’s sake. We have free speech in this country and whether you like it or not you’ve no legal right not to be offended. What he said was a pretty lame attempt at comedy from which a short passage has been blown up out of context to manufacture offence. Get over it. Or do you suggest we start censoring things you don’t like?
Jeremy Clarkson may have apologised, but the outrage over his comments on public sector strikers being shot continues — with more than 21,000 complaints to the BBC by early Friday morning.
The row over Clarkson’s remarks on Wednesday night’s The One Show looks set to outdo the “Sachsgate” controversy in 2008, which prompted the resignation of Russell Brand and led to Jonathan Ross’s suspension without pay. By 9.30am on Friday, the BBC had received 21,335 complaints.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/dec/02/jeremy-clarkson-one-show-rant-complaints
I think its the chipping norton set,the BBC supports the murder and invasion and looting on a global scale,
I watch PressTV (which offcom are trying to shut down) and Russia Today tv channels, get real news and analysis.
A tv football pundit gets paid £40k a week, the money comes from some of the poorest people, pensioners will die from cold this winter almost all would have bought a TV licence.
I sometimes wonder why the unions and other worker associations do not start their own newspapers, we used to have newspapers that represented working people,
We do have a newspaper which represents working people. It’s called the Morning Star. It very nearly went to the wall last month. It’s difficult to keep going without commercial advertising. We on the left need to buy the Morning Star every day. Put an order into your local newsagent now.
Carol Wilcox, I will check this out, I normally buy Daily Mail and Independent on the weekend.
Richard your comments are, with respect, arrant nonsense and I say this as a person who reviles Clarkson with a passion. However, that does not mean that your post should pass without comment.
Read the transcript of Clarkson’s comments.
You need to read the sequence of all his comments, when it is fairly clear that it was a satire. He makes the offending statement at 3, and only after 1 and 2
1 first he praised the strikers and thanked them
2 then after praising them he said that as he was on the BBC there needed to be some balance (ie the opposite view was required)
3 then he said they should be shot (the balance to statements in 1)
The joke (it is clear to me that that’s what it was) was therefore a satire on the BBC requiring balancing views to be put and nothing to do (really) with the content.
Other interpretations are of course possible (in my opinion if you have read the whole transcript only if you’re wearing blinkers and/or a idiot), but calling for arrest or sacking is totally out of order and misunderstands completely the context here. Further, I believe the BBC approved the joke before he delivered it.
The unions leaders threatening to sue are guilty of waste of union funds and lack of intelligence, not to mention sense of humour.
Well for once we are going to have to disagree -fundamentally, for reasons noted in other comments I have made
I do not believe there is a defence in what you said
Just as apparently there was no defence in a person saying he was going to blow up an airport when it was very obvious he was only using a figure of speech
Except Clarkson was not even doing that
He laid a trail to say exactly what he intended
That is the only reasonable interpretation of the sequence
Cameron isn’t doing very well with his friends is he? Andy Coulson, Rebecca Wade, Werrity, Murdoch junior and Clarkson are all either arrested or worrying that they might be… I have probably forgotten others… like the former treasurer of the Conservative party.
Of course, the ones who should be arrested for crimes against the UK population are not facing any charges … the ‘Masters of the Universe’ and George Osborne.
More to the point, why exactly do I have to pay money to people who pay Clarkson so much to put across his “provocative” views? And since when did “provocative” mean the same as “predictable”?
And since when was being provocative an end in itself: surely it is not that difficult or interesting to suggest that someting nasty [e.g. rape, mutilation, muder] happen to an individual or group of people. I would have thought the BBC could set up a “Rude Computer” that could do Clarkson’s job and a schoolboy would set it up for free.
If “incitement” means encouraging someone to do something then, merely by a simple examination of his words, there is no way that Clarkson can be accused of incitement. He would have had to say something like “people should excecute the strikers”. The contrast with Paul Chambers was he said “I’m going to blow the place sky high” (although I don’t think he should have been prosecuted either).
What is intolerable is the hypocrisy on display here. Those people (such as Stephen Fry) who defended Chambers should now be defending Clarkson. So should the people who defended the Facebook “inciters”. Arguing along the lines that “they were both prosecuted so should Clarkson be” doesn’t make sense when you were defending them at the time. No, you should now be defending Clarkson. One of Richard Murphy’s friends, John McDonnell, once said he would like to assassinate Margaret Thatcher – should RM have to apologise or distance himself for his remarks like Cameron was made to Clarkson yesterday? No. But it is inconsistent to be silent on McDonnell and then whip up faux outrage over Clarkson.
If John said that he should not have done
But I repeat – your position and all it stands for sickens me
As does Clarkson
At which point I am closing comments
John did apologise.
Nothing to do with this, but tangentally you might like to see my post of today, Friday 2 Dec on “Hide And Seek”
Yes, “only joking”.
I cited Henry II (and I’m damned if I want to play Becket even if I do get the chance to pick up my attacker in one hand and call him “wh0remong3r” ).
And my Other Half responded with a more recent “only joking” case from the US.
“But then Sarah Palin et al weren’t ACTUALLY instructing Jared Loughner to murder six people and critically injure Congresswoman Giffords when they used violent imagery and allegory in their publicity.”
A friend has now pointed out that Clarkson has a book to sell for Christmas….no publicity like free publicity is there?
Sorry to all those people that think JC’s remarks were a joke, but what exactly is funny about mass murder?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/nov/19/edl-splinter-group-target-unions
Normally I wouldn’t be too concerned about this kind of nonsense from Jeremy C but given the recent threats from EDL / EDL splinter groups towards unions / anti-cuts movement including theats to individuals this was a pretty irresponsible thing for Clarkson to say on a family show. If the reporting is correct and the BBC agreed the script it is really their responsibility. I suspect neither the producers in question or Clarkson himself was aware of this context but I think the producers in particular ought to have been aware of this. Although we might dismiss Jeremy as rather silly (he may even dismiss himself as such) the fact is he does have influence particularly amongst angry young men – the sort of people who might act on his throw away remarks.
That’s exact;y the point
And next we’ll have racism and it will be called ‘just a joke’ as it used to be
And we’ll be taunted for not laughing at it
And on it will go