[jet]

Originally Posted by Glenn.

Well the daily fail is of course your preferred choice as it’s all you ever post. I’d say enjoy your hatred filled tabloid but I already know you do. You can’t form an opinion without it. So sad

Heartbreaking.

[Glenn.]

Originally Posted by jet

Heartbreaking.

Stay a bitter old man towards a woman you don’t know

[Crimson Dynamo]

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kevin the Carrot

I must have missed the part where Harry and Meghan suggested that Charles and William should be stripped naked and shackled to the gates of Buckingham Palace to have feces thrown at them by baying crowds of slack-jawed locals?

[Crimson Dynamo]

He could have defended his right to cause offence, but instead has given all the wrong people a chance to crawl onto the moral high ground



Jeremy Clarkson has never been the most subtle of writers, but his latest column has managed to exceed even his own outrage-expectations. In my view, if you want to call out the former royal couple for their excruciating and hypocritical behaviour, it pays to be everything they are not: reasonable, reserved and respectful. Fantasising about Meghan being paraded through the streets having lumps of excrement thrown at her is the very sort of thing which fuels the couple’s grievance machine, which allows them to say: see what we mean about racist Britain hating Meghan?

In truth, Netflix producers failed so miserably to demonstrate that Harry and Meghan were victims of an orchestrated hate campaign by the British tabloids that they were reduced to flashing up headlines from American publications. But Clarkson’s column will certainly be taking pride of place in the couple’s next film.

Today, however, that is not the main issue – for the debate has extended into one of free speech and Clarkson's right to cause offence. The answer is easy: of course he has that right. And having written what he did, Clarkson made an error by appearing to apologise. That is exactly what Harry and Meghan and their supporters want: for the British press, and potentially its regulators, to be so fearful of causing offence that they grovel before them.

Clarkson should have followed one of two examples. The first, like the best comedians, is to unashamedly defend his right to write what he did. The second would be to maintain a dignified silence: say nothing, or, at the very most insist that “interpretations of my column may vary”.

It isn’t just Harry and Meghan whose interests Jeremy Clarkson has helped serve by means of his apology: it is the entire liberal-Left establishment and its demented campaign against what it calls the “Right-wing press”. Is there anything more ridiculous than watching Sir Philip Pullman, for instance, mounting his high horse over Clarkson’s column? This is a man who tweeted, following the Brexit vote, “When I hear the name Boris Johnson for some reason the words ‘rope’ and ‘nearest lamp post’ come to mind as well.”

Were the liberal-Left to apply consistent standards, it would have demanded that Sir Philip’s books be removed from bookshop and library shelves, and films based on his books to be banned from television. But of course, different rules apply to “enlightened” liberal commentators, who are allowed to employ violent imagery in their arguments and brush aside complaints that they didn’t mean it literally (neither, funny enough, did Clarkson when he called for Meghan to be paraded naked through the streets).

There is nothing to be gained from paddling around in this swamp. Harry and Meghan’s campaign against Britain and its royal family can be better taken apart through forensic analysis of their claims and the hypocrisy they reveal minute by minute in their Netflix series (let’s not fall into the trap of calling it a documentary). Yes, this couple really did boast of the air miles they had run up during their relationship – while lecturing the rest of us on climate change.

Give Harry and Meghan the slightest chance to crawl onto the moral high ground and all this gets suppressed. Clarkson has handed them a PR victory by refusing to stand

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...ke-capitulate/

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Kevin the Carrot

He could have defended his right to cause offence, but instead has given all the wrong people a chance to crawl onto the moral high ground



Jeremy Clarkson has never been the most subtle of writers, but his latest column has managed to exceed even his own outrage-expectations. In my view, if you want to call out the former royal couple for their excruciating and hypocritical behaviour, it pays to be everything they are not: reasonable, reserved and respectful. Fantasising about Meghan being paraded through the streets having lumps of excrement thrown at her is the very sort of thing which fuels the couple’s grievance machine, which allows them to say: see what we mean about racist Britain hating Meghan?

In truth, Netflix producers failed so miserably to demonstrate that Harry and Meghan were victims of an orchestrated hate campaign by the British tabloids that they were reduced to flashing up headlines from American publications. But Clarkson’s column will certainly be taking pride of place in the couple’s next film.

Today, however, that is not the main issue – for the debate has extended into one of free speech and Clarkson's right to cause offence. The answer is easy: of course he has that right. And having written what he did, Clarkson made an error by appearing to apologise. That is exactly what Harry and Meghan and their supporters want: for the British press, and potentially its regulators, to be so fearful of causing offence that they grovel before them.

Clarkson should have followed one of two examples. The first, like the best comedians, is to unashamedly defend his right to write what he did. The second would be to maintain a dignified silence: say nothing, or, at the very most insist that “interpretations of my column may vary”.

It isn’t just Harry and Meghan whose interests Jeremy Clarkson has helped serve by means of his apology: it is the entire liberal-Left establishment and its demented campaign against what it calls the “Right-wing press”. Is there anything more ridiculous than watching Sir Philip Pullman, for instance, mounting his high horse over Clarkson’s column? This is a man who tweeted, following the Brexit vote, “When I hear the name Boris Johnson for some reason the words ‘rope’ and ‘nearest lamp post’ come to mind as well.”

Were the liberal-Left to apply consistent standards, it would have demanded that Sir Philip’s books be removed from bookshop and library shelves, and films based on his books to be banned from television. But of course, different rules apply to “enlightened” liberal commentators, who are allowed to employ violent imagery in their arguments and brush aside complaints that they didn’t mean it literally (neither, funny enough, did Clarkson when he called for Meghan to be paraded naked through the streets).

There is nothing to be gained from paddling around in this swamp. Harry and Meghan’s campaign against Britain and its royal family can be better taken apart through forensic analysis of their claims and the hypocrisy they reveal minute by minute in their Netflix series (let’s not fall into the trap of calling it a documentary). Yes, this couple really did boast of the air miles they had run up during their relationship – while lecturing the rest of us on climate change.

Give Harry and Meghan the slightest chance to crawl onto the moral high ground and all this gets suppressed. Clarkson has handed them a PR victory by refusing to stand

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...ke-capitulate/

I'm normally someone that normally supports free speech, even on topics that a lot of people would strongly disagree with me on, and think of me as prejudiced for holding those opinions.

However talking about having someone stripped naked and have **** thrown at her (knowing that she has a strong hate base) is potentially causing incitement, therefore it shouldn't be allowed imo.

This isn't a right or left thing for me, no grown adult should be in public talking about wanting to publicly humiliate someone, and compare them to a sadistic serial killer when talking about how much they hate said person.

Some of the more mentally ill people that have read Clarkson's column might try to take things into their own hands.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Kevin the Carrot

Piers Morgan is comparing apples & oranges.

Where's the violent threat towards for example William? And if there is one towards him I would personally stick up for him as well.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Jeremy Clarkson's Meghan Markle humour column is now the most complained
about newspaper article in HISTORY





The number surpassed the total number of complaints the media regulator received in 2021 – 14,355.

The previous most complained-about article was published in the Scottish Sun in August 2020, about the Stonehaven train derailment, which received more than 16,860 complaints.

https://www.gbnews.uk/news/jeremy-cl...history/410225

[Crimson Dynamo]

Im afraid the issue is firmly with the Editor who would have seen this piece and passed it instead of politely saying that "sorry Jez but that is too much in light of recent very public attacks on young women - I get your column is all tongue in cheek and that its refers to a GOT famous moment and that Markle is a narcissistic passive-aggressive annoyance but that is too far and will create a sh1tstorm"

That is her job and she did not do it.

[Beso]

Originally Posted by Kevin the Carrot

Im afraid the issue is firmly with the Editor who would have seen this piece and passed it instead of politely saying that "sorry Jez but that is too much in light of recent very public attacks on young women - I get your column is all tongue in cheek and that its refers to a GOT famous moment and that Markle is a narcissistic passive-aggressive annoyance but that is too far and will create a sh1tstorm"

That is her job and she did not do it.

Useless woman...sack her now.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Kevin the Carrot

Im afraid the issue is firmly with the Editor who would have seen this piece and passed it instead of politely saying that "sorry Jez but that is too much in light of recent very public attacks on young women - I get your column is all tongue in cheek and that its refers to a GOT famous moment and that Markle is a narcissistic passive-aggressive annoyance but that is too far and will create a sh1tstorm"

That is her job and she did not do it.

That is a fair point.

How on earth did it pass by the Editor?

[bots]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

That is a fair point.

How on earth did it pass by the Editor?

like i said earlier. Traditional newspapers are not what they were 5 years ago let alone 10 or 20. They are staffed by kids fresh out of college because they are cheap and looking for a start.

The whole newspaper thing has been completely dumbed down to click bait. I thought it was obvious.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by SantaslettertoMeghan

like i said earlier. Traditional newspapers are not what they were 5 years ago let alone 10 or 20. They are staffed by kids fresh out of college because they are cheap and looking for a start.

The whole newspaper thing has been completely dumbed down to click bait. I thought it was obvious.

It does make sense I suppose.

Hopefully this will be a lesson to the people that run these Newspapers, make sure to check what's being written by your workers.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

It does make sense I suppose.

Hopefully this will be a lesson to the people that run these Newspapers, make sure to check what's being written by your workers.

We don't have genuine NEWS papers Mock in my view.
We have publications only peddling their own agendas.
Distorting news and facts rather than printing real news.

I can't bear any of them.
I never buy any or read any.
I only see the headlines etc; posted on here and they're bad enough without reading the rest of their more like garbage.

Why people waste hundreds of pounds a year at least on them is astonishing to say the least.
That people believe their content is even more concerning.

This is the Sun after all which along with the Mail is one of the really sick and misleading gutter trash publication it's possible to be.

Clarkson with his divisive, sick and vile opinions is well suited to the Sun.
It's no surprise they'd eagerly put it into print in THEIR paper.
Supporting his vile agenda platform they have given him.

Your other post before this one.
Where you mention free speech I also agree fully with that.
The content of the comments he made are a disgrace and indefensible in any area of any decency.

Why people like him get any media outlets to spout out their vile bigotry and bile is sickening, to me anyhow.

[Glenn.]

Imagine if his personality was more than hounding Meghan Markle

[Nicky91]

oh shut up Piers, don't interfere with someone else's opinions

[Liam-]

Piers’ picture should be placed next to ‘bunny boiler’ in the dictionary, he’s actually obsessed, she needs a restraining order against him asap, he’s clearly deranged

[Nicky91]

don't quote that user's posts who i have on ignore

[Glenn.]

Imagine still defending what he said.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Glenn.

Imagine if his personality was more than hounding Meghan Markle

Originally Posted by Glenn.

Imagine still defending what he said.

Imagine propping up the couple’s grievance machine

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Glenn.

Imagine still defending what he said.

"If WOKEMY Clarkson won't stand by what he says then I'll jolly well do it for him by gum!"

[Glenn.]

Sure

[Crimson Dynamo]

Well well what have we here

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kevin the Carrot

Well well what have we here

Jeremy Clarkson't!

[joeysteele]

A bit rich from Farage after all his deceit and lies in the EU referendum.