Clarkson and Overreacting

[Optimus Prime]

Only if the consumer has a direct contract with the provider. If the company is being paid by the treasury I'd have no more faith in them caring what I thought of them than any public sector worker. Quite possibly less.

You could for instance give every rates payer a discount for not having their bin collected but could you then go and find a company who would do it for less? Frankly the most efficient way of collecting bins is doing every house in the street - a monopoly. I'd be amazed if a private company in competition with others could do it cheaper.

Food for thought indeed.. perhaps if competition were opened up, a monopoly would naturally occur as one company proves better/more efficient than the other? It would require adjustment time, and a fierce competition... but in return the consumer would take more control over the level of service- with the company serving the consumer, as oppose to having to accept what public sector service is there? Or am I talking out my ****?

 

[Dave M]

Who knows, you could find supermarkets offering to take your rubbish - no hardship to throw a bag in the back of the car when you go shopping - rubbish out, shopping in! This would obviously be cheaper as they aren't coming to you.

But then there's the social aspect, if you don't have car you may well have to pay a great deal more for somebody to come to you and only you or walk a long way with a heavy sack of rubbish several times a week.

The result would almost certainly be piled up rubbish in the streets - fly tipping. There would be expensive and onerous enforcement to ensure this was kept under control which by the time you've done all the sums could cost more than a universal bin collection.

Sadly in many respects we only have the illusion of a civil society, paid off to keep the status quo. When we stop getting paid to behave you get civil disobedience and disorder (see striking and riots).

 

[cu3ed]

Does anyone have a FULL transcript of what he said, cause the clip is fully out of context.

 

[Glaucus]

Does anyone have a FULL transcript of what he said, cause the clip is fully out of context.

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: Yep, a guest with balanced, uncontroversial opinions, who makes great effort not to offend.

Matt Baker: And we've got Jeremy Clarkson!

[studio laughs]

Jeremy Clarkson: Thank you very much.

Matt Baker: So Jeremy, schools, hospitals, airports, even driving tests have been affected. Do you the strikes are a good idea?

Jeremy Clarkson: It's been fantastic. Seriously, never had … London today has just been empty. Everybody stayed at home, you could whizz about, your restaurants were empty.

Alex Jones: The traffic actually has been very good today.

Jeremy Clarkson: Very light. Now airports, you know, people streaming through with no problems at all and it's also like being back in the 70s, it makes me feel at home somehow.

Alex Jones: Do you know anybody who …

Matt Baker: [interrupts – inaduiable] – being on strike today?

Jeremy Clarkson: What, in public service? Of course I don't. No, absolutely. We have to balance it though, don't we because this is the BBC.

Alex Jones and Matt Baker: Exactly.

Jeremy Clarkson: Frankly, I'd have them all shot!

[studio laughs]

Jeremy Clarkson: I would take them outside and execute them in front of their families. I mean how dare they go on strike when they've got these gilt-edged pensions that are going to be guaranteed while the rest of us have to work for a living?

Matt Baker: Well, on that note of balancing an opinion of course those are Jeremy's views.

Jeremy Clarkson: I just … ! I was just giving two views for you!

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

 

[TJM]

Wrong, it'd just be done cheaper by private sector companies

Adding the need to make profit to the price of a service drives the cost to the taxpayer up, not down. Our privatised railways now receive a larger state subsidy than British Rail's entire operating budget, and they're still allowed to pay dividends to their shareholders.

You can't privatise services that are natural monopolies and expect costs to fall. The private sector is (obviously) in it for the money - they will bleed the public purse for every penny if given the chance (e.g. every IT contract ever signed by a government department).

 

[Optimus Prime]

True, costs to the consumer for private services over current public services would increase... But arguably with more of the economy privatised, the government would have to lower taxes accordingly. So basically

Public-> Consumer pays government (tax)- government provides public sector services

Private -> Consumer pays company - company provides services

The upside is that those who work would have more control over the services they use, and when they use them (i.e. privatised healthcare) The downside being that those who cannot work would suffer from a dwindling government support, due to the government pot being drastically reduced.

Now, I'm not saying I support privatised or public. There are aspects of both views I agree with. In reality, we will not have mass privatisation any time soon, due to the sheer number of redundancies of public sector workers, not to mention the number of public sector pensioners and those who need financial support.

 

[cu3ed]

Many thanks for that, isnt this kinda whats being talked about with Media Ethics, NONE of all of that was reported, just about two sentences worth.

 

[Glaucus]

Many thanks for that, isnt this kinda whats being talked about with Media Ethics, NONE of all of that was reported, just about two sentences worth.

Of course, in context they don't have a leg to stand on. Notice the 2nd and 2nd from last line.
Balanced view doesn't sell and doesn't back the unions ricdiculuse position.
But Hopfully enough people have sense, so that this damages the union more. But somehow I doubt it.

Even after media and unions, complaints are still only 21000, from 4.4million viewers and many more millions who read the media and listen to unions.

 

[vorticalspace]

I guess they should be grateful it wasn't Frankie Boyle on the sofa

If you've ever read his Friday column in the Sun, he makes Clarkson look like an Angel

 

[PaulStat]

tbh I don't agree with a lot that he says but in fairness the beeb did get him on the show to be controversial, they even had a panel of kids "question" him as judges about past comments he made, including the whole lazy mexican thing.

 

[Gilly]

Adding the need to make profit to the price of a service drives the cost to the taxpayer up, not down. Our privatised railways now receive a larger state subsidy than British Rail's entire operating budget, and they're still allowed to pay dividends to their shareholders.

You can't privatise services that are natural monopolies and expect costs to fall. The private sector is (obviously) in it for the money - they will bleed the public purse for every penny if given the chance (e.g. every IT contract ever signed by a government department).

I agree with some of what you state, but your IT contract reference is wildly inaccurate.

 

[FlyingPig]

Adding the need to make profit to the price of a service drives the cost to the taxpayer up, not down. Our privatised railways now receive a larger state subsidy than British Rail's entire operating budget, and they're still allowed to pay dividends to their shareholders.

You can't privatise services that are natural monopolies and expect costs to fall. The private sector is (obviously) in it for the money - they will bleed the public purse for every penny if given the chance (e.g. every IT contract ever signed by a government department).

Exactly. Just have a look at mainland Europe, where public transport is still mainly in public hands. It is much cheaper and much more reliable than the joke it is in this country. Privatise the profits and socialize the losses...

 

[james.miller]

He must be loving it. Seriously. He knows he can't be sacked because Top Gear is second on the list after "taxpayers" for the BBCs sources of income

Anything that winds up the lefties is a good thing.

This might surprise you (it surprised me!) but Doctor who was the bbc's biggest earner last year, with planet earth and top gear in 2nd and 3rd respectively.

 

[Brookert]

I imagine Unison et al are asking their members to write to the bbc to complain.

Thicker skin........grow some

 

["andy"]

I imagine Unison et al are asking their members to write to the bbc to complain.

Thicker skin........grow some

they publicly accepted the apology and dropped it...

 

[FishFluff]

Agree with Gilly.


Absolutely. If one company done-goofs it another will step in its place. Naturally, over time, the best company or entity for a certain need will be found.

How about them trains!

 

[pingwing]

Oddly watching top gear on dave today I realised he's said the "should be shot" comment before on the one where they do the southern counties radio drive home show in 2006...

That incident it was to someone who caused an accident and they didn't have a hissy fit over it

 

[Judgeneo]

Entered an argument about this over facebook. See the transcript here, not entirely sure how to respond seeing as most of my points are dismissed completely without pause for consideration.

Lora Somers:
Jeremy Clarkson: "I mean how dare they go on strike when they’ve got these gilt-edged pensions that are going to be guaranteed while the rest of us have to work for a living." Does he not understand that most people do not get paid stupid amounts to **** around with cars and make ridiculous comments on TV?


Reece Conway:
Of course he doesn't he's jeremy clarkson if I doesn't go fast or can't be fixed with a hammer its not worth knowing lol

Joseph Andrew Dales:
****-to-the-max!

Henry Ward:
He's so out of touch with the public he shouldn't be allowed to comment on things like this. Of course he is though, but what a *******.

Claire Jayne Kirkland:
No way I'll have a penision by the time we're 65, theyve got 45 years to **** me over til then.
(one Like)

(me) Martin Judge:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/j...arksons-critics-should-be-taken-out-and-shot/

Sums up my opinion quite well

Joseph Andrew Dales:
Cool story bro. But its not what exactly he said but why he said it. They have the right to strike. His opinions are whack and loras comment still stands.
(2 Likes)

Lora Somers:
I won't lie, I am probably not going to read that blog by someone who likes Jeremy Clarkson.

Henry Ward:
It wasn't a very funny joke if it was meant to be one. He's allowed to have his opinion and I'm allowed to think he's a div, but that excuse is pathetic, if it can even be masked as an excuse

Andrew Ellwood:
I just read back my comments and I decided to delete them in case of misinterpretation. The point I was trying to make was that (and I agree with Joe basically): I think you're a bit naive if you think he was joking. He meant it and that Torygraph article is ridiculous. A few particularly "interesting" quotes: "the damage the BBC is wreaking on our culture" and Jeremy clarkson is "an informed fellow"
???

Martin Judge:
Honestly, I don't know how anybody could possibly think he actually wants to line up and shoot people in front of their families. Its quite evident though that he doesn't support the strike action, and he is certainly not alone in that opinion.

Andrew Ellwood:
I didn't mean he literally meant he wanted to shoot anyone, obviously; more rather, that he disagreed with the strikers and thinks that he "works" whilst public sector workers don't, which is utter BS. He doesn't know the meaning of the word work.

And they need to strike; if they just accepted the first deal offered them, they'd be ****ed over in the first instance then ****ed over next year and the year after that, as the government'd consider them pushovers.

Overall, I find this public vs. private sector thing totally counterproductive. If you're thinking like that then the Tories got you exactly where they want you: divided; bickering amongst ourselves rather than holding those scumbags to account.

The private sector needs to fight for better pensions - not fight to get public sector pensions shafted in their bitterness and envy.
(2 Likes)

Joseph Andrew Dales:
Couldn't say it better myself Andrew!
(1 Like)

Martin Judge:
I'm not disagreeing with you entirely, but there is no-one else in the mainstream media (and certainly not anyone with comparable influence) that will say anything along the lines of what Clarkson said. Regardless of your opinion of the matter, there are many people who agree with Jeremy, and they don't deserve to have their opinions slated so one-sidedly.
We have union heads claiming the comments were "an incitement to hatred", and comparing his remark to the speeches of Gaddaffi. Such responses are completely over the top, yet receive no criticism from the BBC.
If people like Clarkson didn't exist, they would need to be invented.

Andrew Ellwood:
I'm not on a "side" - I already pointed out how I feel that is counterproductive.
Well, I don't agree with the comparisons with Gaddafi and the reaction is a bit OTT - we do all need to have a laugh, after all, but, at the end of the day, if you make a comment like that on primetime TV about such a sensitive, topical issue, you have to be ready to take the heat back.
For me, it's annoying how he's propagating the fallacy that public sector workers are freeloaders and somehow subservient to every private sector worker and his dog.

Stevenacular Mahātmā:
Martin, I'm not sure if you've followed the BBC coverage but its anything but pro-strike. And as for defending Jeremy Clarkson and saying he'd need to be invented, I'm speechless. His opinions are a bewildering mess of self-serving ********.

I'm quite determined to make them realise that their opinion doesn't out weigh everyone elses.
Any ideas on how to proceed?

 

[semi-pro waster]

I'm quite determined to make them realise that their opinion doesn't out weigh everyone elses.
Any ideas on how to proceed?

Not bother? It's a pretty futile argument, if you win you'll gain a moment of satisfaction (maybe) but given the admission that they're unlikely to accept any counterpoints then what are the chances of winning?

 

[panyan]

Clarkson is a hero. His comments were brilliant and clearly weren't too be taken seriously.

Firstly Clarkson is an asset to the BBC, financially if not by reputation, secondly he made a joke actually at the BBC's expense, not at the expense of the strikers, who he hasn't actually passed any judgement on, just saying that he didn't know anyone in a position to strike.

If you don't like him, fair enough, nobody is forcing you to, but in this instance he's not done anything wrong, and I'm not sure what you're trying to imply is a result of him being friends with Cameron.

+1 this has been blown out of all proportion, they needed to get more publicity for their strike and this is the best thing they can come up with...