Friday 9 December 2011

The Biased Broadcasting Corporation

The BBC have shelved tonight’s episode of Q.I. featuring Jeremy Clarkson. This is apparently in response to complaints by thirty thousand humourless twats over Clarkson’s recent comments calling for public sector strikers to be shot. The fact that sixty million people have not complained is irrelevant in the eyes of the unelected and unaccountable PC brigade who now run our once renowned and independent State broadcasting corporation.

The episode is being replaced by one featuring Jimmy Carr. This is the same Jimmy Carr who recently made a 'joke' about the disabled children who travel on Variety Club Sunshine buses. The same Jimmy Carr who has also made jokes about children with Downs Syndrome.

The hypocrisy of the left who feign indignation when someone on the right makes an obvious joke, whilst ignoring gratuitously offensive remarks by one of their comrades, is positively nauseating.


baarnett said...

I simply don't see what thought process was in the tiny minds of BBC big cheeses, in linking the two things.

I presume the 30,000 would have been able to grumble about the wretched Jeremy Clarkson during the programme, as was their right. But freedom means the willingness to be insulted.

Reverend Badger said...

Clearly Clarkson was making a joke, and it's quite sad that people should have taken it out of context and not understood it for what it was. What he said afterwards about "gilt edged pensions" and suggestions that public sector workers do not really have to work for a living while private sector do,*was* offensive due to being biased/ill informed, but no-one has the right to go through life without being offended. It was only the One Show, not Newsnight, but it's still a shame that that part went unchallenged.

That being said, he should definitely be fined/jailed. That guy who tweeted a joke about blowing up Robin Hood airport if they didn't "get their shit together" ended up owing about £3000 in fines and costs. Those kids who were clearly joking when they made facebook status updates that were supposedly inciting rioting ended up with four years in jail, even though no riots happened in the areas they were talking about, and they lost their appeals while people who actually committed crimes got their sentences reduced. Precedence says that Clarkson should face legal consequences for what he said.

But he will not be punished, because the law works differently if you went to public school and the Prime Minister attended your birthday party. And incitement to murder only apparently counts if it's towards someone above you in the social/economic scale, not those below you.

Aside: The reason the episode of QI had to be cancelled is clearly due to the way the childish tabloid press would have pounced on it as an another excuse to attack the BBC. Could you really not work that out for yourself?

Don't Call Me Dave said...

Perhaps Rev Badger could explain how he equates insulting public sector workers with threats of violence?

Reverend Badger said...

Since I didn't equate insulting public sector workers with threats of violence it would be quite hard for me to equate the two... I did compare supposed threats of violence with other supposed threats of violence, so if you want to have a look at that and and give it another go you're welcome to.

Don't Call Me Dave said...

So let’s get this straight then. In the view of Reverend Badger, Jeremy Clarkson should definitely be fined or jailed for making an allegedly offensive comment about public sector workers and their gold plated pensions, even though he (the Rev) acknowledges that “no-one has the right to go through life without being offended.”

Badger argues that Clarkson should be incarcerated because of the supposed precedence of the case of the deluded idiot who was fined for making a ‘joke’ threat to blow up an airport. Only a moron could fail to spot the rather obvious difference between these two ‘jokes’.

What crime has Clarkson actually committed that warrants legal action? That he offended some bleeding heart liberals? FFS get a life.

Reverend Badger said...

I was about the write a long reply, but I really cannot be bothered. Here are the main points:

1. 'Should definitely be fined or jailed': Hyperbole. Look it up in a dictionary if you don't understand the word.

2. The crime he committed is incitement to violence, not causing offense. Hence the paragraph break between the subjects.

3. Yes, the difference between the two crimes is that one is a millionaire celebrity friend of the Prime Minister, and the other isn't. The law is supposed to be blind.

4. It should have been clear from my writing that I was not actually advocating punishing Clarkson, that I felt that the sentences meted out to the examples I had given were unfair, and that there was a double standard in play here. I apologise for not taking into account your level of reading comprehension.

Toodle pip old boy!

Don't Call Me Dave said...