So why haven't they refused to apologise like they have with certain comedians in the past etc?
Could it maybe be that they have apologised because it is wrong perhaps?
30/11 Strikes.
- Thread starter wordy
- Start date
So why haven't they refused to apologise like they have with certain comedians in the past etc?
Could it maybe be that they have apologised because it is wrong perhaps?
I don't think any one else has either. People can be offended DDR pally when taken out of context.
People are idiots for getting offended over this.
So people are offended but you don't won't anything to happen? Yet you think it's unacceptable. Can it really be both. Or you do want something to happen.
I would rather the complains concentrate on the only slight issue. Where was the programs vetting for questions.
I agree - some might stretch to some roll eyes, but the actual reaction has been crazy.
You really think he apologised for that. When he worded it the way he did
They've apologised because it's the BBC and it's been expected ever since the Russell Brand phone malarky....They simply said the One Show may not have been the perfect place to air the item which is fair enough.
how anyone can see any offence in that I just dont't know.....some people seem to go looking for offence to be quite honest. He even stated it wasn't his personal view, just a view.......
That is it really.....he's apologised, it wasn't serious....move on.
Of course, for some reason Unison and the GMB can't seem to do that, instead threatening to picket Clarksons home, calling for him to fund the education of Guatemalan Children after somehow insinuating that a Guatemalan family could have been offended after the Husband was killed for being a Unionist....like the One Show airs in Guatemala, or Clarkson was even refering to anything other than the events of yesterday...
Unison saying they are getting legal advice on a possible prosecution...
Good God....overreaction..much!!!
Frankly the Unions are making a laughing stock out of themselves.
Last edited:
Oh for Gods sake.
Anyone who felt JC's comments were made because he meant them to be taken seriously, really really wants to stand in front of an object similar to the above and take a good, long look at themselves.
I guess the people who have taken offence over this have never heard of the concept of something called "satire".
Anyone who felt JC's comments were made because he meant them to be taken seriously, really really wants to stand in front of an object similar to the above and take a good, long look at themselves.
I guess the people who have taken offence over this have never heard of the concept of something called "satire".
The BBC then? Who said it probably wasn't the best platform for it.
Again not really apologising like people think. More pointing that he shouldn't of been on there. Goes back to vetting.
I didn't hear the Russell Brand thing but from what I read it wasn't particularly great either, pranking an old man about his family like that for the giggles of others isn't too nice either. The BBC is not normally known for coming forward with a public apology so quickly that's all. I said before that it wasn't great time or place it's good to see them acknowledge it.
That he created. Still his language, and we already realise you disagree.
I would be interested to see what they could bring forward legally, I doubt there is very much to be honest but Unison are politicised to the hilt. They attack parties on a daily basis, although I would love to see them picket his house.
It goes back to being inappropriate regardless, the BBC have admitted it was a mistake and he says he is happy to apologise to those who took offense.
How are people thinking he apologised?
He's said he will apologise, if people WANT him to apologise now, then he will.
Jesus, it's not that hard
It was more tongue in cheek and rhetorical but nevermind..
I am more then capable of empathising, just in this instance you are asking me to 'empathise' with not really genuine offence, but exaggerated offence by pathetic wishy washy characters who want a few lines in the newspaper and 2 minutes on TV for their feigned indignation.
People need to understand that if someone makes harmless, humerous tongue-in-cheek comments about a large group of people in general they aren't instigating a new genocide. It is so incredibly, incredibly boring listening to people be offended, to the point where I couldn't give a toss about their opinion simply because they are whinging like a child about it.
How on earth would you know?
Which is your bias.
I expect never to see an apology again if that's the case.
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 2,584
- Location
- God's own country
You know. It's only after being 65 pages into this thread that I realise what a selfish, self important **Drop the personal attacks**.
I hope he is first on the scrapheap when we start rebalancing Tony & Gordon's big giveaway spending ******.
I hope he is first on the scrapheap when we start rebalancing Tony & Gordon's big giveaway spending ******.
I would be interested to see what they could bring forward legally, I doubt there is very much to be honest but Unison are politicised to the hilt. They attack parties on a daily basis, although I would love to see them picket his house.
Frankly I would rather that a professional Union focused on more important matter for their members, like fair practice at work, pay and conditions, and so on...rather than picketing someone who made a plainly satirical comment with no intent to offend.
As for the legal issue:
All the Unions are doing is making fools of themselves over this.
Quite.