30/11 Strikes.

Biohazard said:
As for many finding it funny, people laughed at the shoot them bit but I didn't hear so much with the being dragged outside and shot infront of the family comment.. it may be his persona yet it didn't come across so flippant there.
Click to expand...
The entire comment that people are getting worked up about was clearly totally tongue in cheek and flippant. He started by humoursly saying how the strikes were great as everything was quiet, then going oh it's the BBC we need to balance, err I think they should all be shot, taking outside and executed in front of their families. The entire direction of the conversation was that the entire piece that is source of debate was a funny reflection of the BBC's need for balanace versus his original comments.
Biohazard said:
In any event it would seem only OcUK deem it acceptable as everyone involved has apologised and even the Tories say it is unacceptable. Fancy that. ;)
Click to expand...
He's 'apologised' so everyone will just go away, shutup and stop acting like overly precious idiots.
 
PMKeates said:
The entire comment that people are getting worked up about was clearly totally tongue in cheek and flippant. He started by humoursly saying how the strikes were great as everything was quiet, then going oh it's the BBC we need to balance, err I think they should all be shot, taking outside and executed in front of their families. The entire direction of the conversation was that the entire piece that is source of debate was a funny reflection of the BBC's need for balanace versus his original comments.
Click to expand...

Of course it was flippant but his delivery was not. Hence the shock.
 
Biohazard said:
He still has to abide by the code of conduct.

In any event it would seem only OcUK deem it acceptable as everyone involved has apologised and even the Tories say it is unacceptable. Fancy that. ;)
Click to expand...

4.4million viewers ~5000 compalaints, that shows us what matters and it certainly isn't the complainers. Those figures are also after union and media involvement. Would love to know how many complained from just the 4.4million viewers.

What code of conduct did he break, it wasn't swearing and it's nothing he hasn't said on top gear, which is also pre watershed.
 
Biohazard said:
What happened to the impartiallity of presenters from yesterday then? ;)

I'm not taking it seriously but there are others who have, and they are entitled to they pay for the oaf to sit there and insult their existance like that.
Click to expand...

He was not the presenter...he was the guest and he was SUPPOSED to be controversial and satirical....it was even implied in the context.

And he was impartial.....he gave two opposite opinions to balance the question, and even stated so.

You would have to be pretty daft to get offended, in fact the only people getting offended are the Unions who are taking it out of context and implying that other people should be offended so they can use it to make political capital....which actually is offensive to those the unions point to.....Guatemalan unionsts for example...:eek:


You really need to watch the entire section of the One Show tbh....it was intentionally humorous and there is no way anyone could be confused about the intent, which was entirely non-serious.
 
Last edited:
Glaucus said:
4.4million viewers ~5000 compalaints, that shows us what matters and it certainly isn't the complainers. Those figures are also after union and media involvement. Would love to know how many complained from just the 4.4million viewers.
Click to expand...

Of course people who complain or are offended by material matter. We are all a minority in some sense or another you can't drown out people's rights to comment or complaint because of the larger group.

I could not tell you who complained from where but this is irrelevent, it is unacceptable language and playing a number game will not detract from that.

Glaucus said:
What code of conduct did he break, it wasn't swearing and it's nothing he hasn't said on top gear, which is also pre watershed.
Click to expand...

I couldn't say I've never read it I was just trying to highlight that he doesn't have the absolute free reign to offend and incite as you seem to imply, I didn't say he had broken the code of conduct just that he needs to operate within it I would presume. I would take a random stab at there being rules regarding offensive content however.
 
Biohazard said:
Of course people who complain or are offended by material matter. We are all a minority in some sense or another you can't drown out people's rights to comment or complaint because of the larger group.

I could not tell you who complained from where but this is irrelevent, it is unacceptable language and playing a number game will not detract from that.
.
Click to expand...

Of course it matters, this isn't some ingrained human rights, or some law.

It is public opionion and the morals of said group of people. The group of people are clearly not offended and as such the complaints should be ignored or at best.
Vetting for the show (guests and questions) should be improved.
 
Biohazard said:
Of course it was flippant but his delivery was not. Hence the shock.
Click to expand...
So it's obviously flippant, but in a shocking development where a professional TV personality reknown for deadpan delivery delivers something with a serious face, despite qualifying it at both ends, it's suddenly a problem? Rubbish.
 
Castiel said:
He was not the presenter...he was the guest and he was SUPPOSED to be controversial and satirical....it was even implied in the context.
Click to expand...

Was he supposed to be offensive?

Castiel said:
And he was impartial.....he gave two opposite opinions to balance the question, and even stated so.
Click to expand...

You would have to be pretty daft to get offended, in fact the only people getting offended are the Unions who are taking it out of context and implying that other people should be offended so they can use it to make political capital....which actually is offensive to those the unions point to.....Guatemalan unionsts for example...:eek:[/QUOTE]

I don't think you would, had you spent a day with your family peacefully protesting about an issue you felt strong about to come home and see that on the news it isn't beyond measure that someone could be affronted by it.

If people are taking it out of context why have the BBC apologised and why are Conservative ministers saying it is unacceptable? :confused:

It's not like them to swallow a Union slight of hand.
 
PMKeates said:
So it's obviously flippant, but in a shocking development where a professional TV personality reknown for deadpan delivery delivers something with a serious face, despite qualifying it at both ends, it's suddenly a problem? Rubbish.
Click to expand...

If you can't empathise that isn't my problem, again I'm not offended I don't find it hard to see how others are though.

Replace the target with any group and I would still find it rather distasteful.
 
Biohazard said:
If people are taking it out of context why have the BBC apologised and why are Conservative ministers saying it is unacceptable? :confused:

It's not like them to swallow a Union slight of hand.
Click to expand...

because everyone apologises for everything, even when they can't apologise as they aren'tt involved. Apologise mean littel these days. Other than for calming public opinion.
 
Biohazard said:
Was he supposed to be offensive?



You would have to be pretty daft to get offended, in fact the only people getting offended are the Unions who are taking it out of context and implying that other people should be offended so they can use it to make political capital....which actually is offensive to those the unions point to.....Guatemalan unionsts for example...:eek:

I don't think you would, had you spent a day with your family peacefully protesting about an issue you felt strong about to come home and see that on the news it isn't beyond measure that someone could be affronted by it.

If people are taking it out of context why have the BBC apologised and why are Conservative ministers saying it is unacceptable? :confused:

It's not like them to swallow a Union slight of hand.
Click to expand...

Rubbish....I would have seen it as it was....clarkson and his brand of humour....getting offended would be pretty hilarious in itself tbh...

I understand that some people would get all chewed up about it, I also understand that some people get chrewed up about anything.

IT WAS A JOKE...you don't have to laugh, but to take is as being serious and thus getting bent out of shape about it is stupid.
 
Last edited:
Castiel said:
Rubbish....I would have seen it as it was....clarkson and his brand of humour....getting offended would be pretty hilarious in itself tbh...
Click to expand...

So you cannot empathise with anyone who could have been offended by that? I'm quite surprised to be honest.

Why have they apologised has the minister been disapproving of it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom