chubbster

...Teso car park, Sunday 18th May, 3pm.

That's it - I've decided - I'm REBELLING.

I REFUSE to remove my tax disc from my windscreen.

I'm starting a campaign.

This October I am KEEPING my tax disc in my windscreen - arrest me, I don't care - I might even make my own ones.

Do I start a new thread?

I suppose you've removed the weight in the boot lid?

I like tax discs

I shall miss the challenge of trying to tear the perforations perfectly, to make a perfect circle without cheating by using scissors. No lumps, no torn bits and no portions missing. Takes a while, but it is do-able.

Yes - I'm OCD too.

And what I don't understand is why you guys have got a demand for £500. Mine plopped through the letterbox today too - and it's for £485. Is it because I have a 370?

Yes - I too feel that someone may lock this thread, for reasons best known to themselves. I've witnessed that kind of action before on forums.

So, before it's locked, let me just say how sad it is that there seem still to be racists and their defenders* all over the place in our fine country. I live in hope that one day they will see.

*many of whom claim, "I am not a racist"!

Oh, FFS, you're still debating on this, get a life people!

Personally, I'm not debating currently - the polarised positions are already very well established - but I support anyone who wishes to debate. Sadly, as you can see, continued debate has lead to personal abuse and baiting from certain members of the 'Clarkson's not a racist' camp and I'm not stooping to that level. I'm just waiting for Ofcom's ruling. Ofcom don't have the vested interest that is clouding the BBC's judgement on the Burma comments.

I hope you're not suggesting it's not a serious subject for debate, because it certainly is. Clarkson is the most influential character on the world's most popular car show. If he makes racist comments, it's serious - as he himself agrees in his apology.

Surely until there is a resolution, the issue is still live. If you find it boring, why not read or do something else?

The fat lady may not have started singing yet...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/jeremy-clarkson-racism-claims-ofcom-launches-investigation-into-top-gear-presenters-slope-comment-9329240.html

...Personalised number plate. No point in flashing - I was in my wife's Smart car

Well, ive just read all of the comments on this thread, and I must say, most of you are very nice, genuine people. However, some of you really are rather rude to call someone sad and pathetic just because they have a picture of themself as their "avatar" or whatever its called. If you take a look around there are plenty of lads that have links to their pages etc on here but im guessing you haven't noticed that. I had never even been on a firum for cars before and hadnt read any posts so I thought you were supposed to have a picture of either yourself or your car. I do apologise if all ive done is not to your taste, and are certainly entitled to having your own opinion. But maybe think twice before making yourself like a royal aresehole by using such hurtful words.

 

 

I will be the bigger person and leave it at that.

 

One last think actually...... this is my 11th car and I do infact love cars, just none as much as I love my zed.

 

 

Thank you.

Well said!

I'm sure you realise that I made this thread for a bit of a laugh. Inevitably, testosterone will rear its head from time to time on a sports car forum - I'm sure you know that already.

It's clear to me (and many others) that your 'car credentials' are at least the equal of many users here.

Finally, I enjoyed your phrase, "making yourself like a royal aresehole" - very succinct

Sportsman's bet?

.

Yeah, go on then! Tell you what, let's make it interesting: £5 to a charity of your choice if he gets the boot over this in the next two weeks.

 

The beeb wheels turn slowly. Make it 4 weeks, to let the outcry gain a head of steam and you're on.

 

 

 

Edit - should we both have a veto over the other's charity, just in case you don't want me to tell you to give it to something totally radical and vice versa?

Sounds like a plan

 

*e-handshake*

Only just caught up here.

e-handshake it is then (although currently, if I were a neutral, I'd be backing you, because it seems like the beeb's currently suffering from another nasty outbreak of Savilitis, the main symptom of which is a weak will and lack of a backbone, caused by an overarching concern for profits. I may have given them more credit than they deserve - time will tell).

Edit - I see he's safe now - he has Farrage and Gove in his corner.

I think perhaps your distaste for Clarkson may be clouding your judgement here.

Any person with his public image who sings a racist rhyme out loud when he knows he's on camera, shooting a piece for a national TV show, should be arrested and charged. It's the people who like him whose judgement is clouded, not mine.

I freely admit that I dislike him intensely, but my judgement is crystal clear.

To give different examples - what if the Pope sang this rhyme to camera? What if David Cameron sang it to camera? What if Ed Miliband sang it to camera? Would it be brushed under the carpet? Of course not - They would GO.

This is the kind of attitude that allowed Jimmy Savile to get away with it.

Please allow me to comment on your arguments...

1. Paragraph one, whilst amusing, is irrelevant. Your ex neighbour's dog who barked at everyone, has nothing to do with this issue. Jeremy Clarkson is not a dog - that is an insult to dogs. Yes, it is true that Clarkson makes sickeningly disgusting remarks about many types of people, but calling him a dog does not excuse him. He is a human being who should know better. He cannot be innocent like a dog, because he's not a dog, he's human, sadly.

2. Paragraph two - He's not a 'harmless old racist'. I am seven years older than Jeremy Clarkson. You CANNOT excuse him because of his age. That is just ageist (and I'm not joking here).

3. Paragraph three - "he's not doing anyone any harm". He IS doing us harm (it's the main part of his self-devised job-spec to do us harm - he makes his living out of it). He's doing us harm by encouraging people with bigoted views, by expressing them himself. He is responsible for increasing the divisions between us.

4. Paragraph four - Ignorance of the law is no excuse, even if you are from another country. Would you excuse a man who said, "Well, in my country it's legal to have sex with a girl of 12?", just because he's from another country, or "in my country female genital mutilation is acceptable", or "in my community we torture and kill people we disagree with", just because he's from elsewhere?

You've still got a nice car, by the way.

For what it's worth:

 

1) I'm the youngest of 7 siblings, the eldest three are 'mixed race', British, Indians.

2) My best friend in Junior school was called Khalid and was from Sri Lanka

3) My favourite TV show growing up was a little show on Channel 4 called Desmonds

4) My eldest sister married an Egyptian Muslim and had two 'mixed race' kids who are British, Indian and Egyptians

5) I work with a Muslim guy called Akeem from Nigeria and an Hindu guy called Kamal from India

6) My step daughter is a Lesbian

7) I used the rhyme at school with the N word in it, without realising it's meaning

8) I felt 'odd' the other day when someone I know is NOT a racist, used the phrase "Nigger in the woodpile" on the phone to me

9) I do NOT feel that Clarkson was in any way being racist and because I used that same rhyme at school, could easily have made the same Gaff.

10) I'm white, blonde haired, blue eyed, straight and voting UKIP

 

I am NOT A F%#!ING RACIST, nor a bigot and I am SICK and TIRED of the morons in this country, who insist on making mountains out of molehills and issues out of nothing! The Gay Marriage thing was another one, I couldn't give a flying f%#! if gay people can get married or not, I really don't care. Were I an MP, or had there been a referendum, I'd have abstained from a vote, for the simple reason I care not about the outcome, that's their issue and it's up to them to push it, only they didn't did they? The people who did, are the wet lefty liberal STRAIGHT people! I asked a gay friend of mine who owns a 300zx the other day, if he and his civil partner were going to get married now that they can, you know what he said? "No of course not, marriage is between a man and a woman!". I laughed and corrected him, then realised WTF I was doing! That is HOW f%#!ed up this world is now, me, a straight guy, started telling my gay friend that his opinion of marriage was wrong, because he thought it didn't apply to him!

 

Someone summed it all up earlier in this thread "If the Mirror had never shown the footage, surely no one would have been offended?". He's absolutely ****ing BANG ON! Clarkson isn't the one to blame here, if anyone is offended, blame the Mirror! If you believe TG is scripted, then the script writer is to blame for the original footage and it explains why Clarkson tried to mumble the word, then decided it was just too close to the bone to be aired. If you believe it's spontaneous, Clarkson gaffed because he's an old git, who used the N word in the rhyme at school, then made sure it wasn't aired and realised his mistake. Either way, this is a NON ISSUE and it's @*!# like this, that stirs up the bloody BNP and the EDL and the National Front etc. Pack it the **** in!

...and then I read the message under your sig pic...

Edit - lovely pic of your car, by the way

Just came across this, thought chubster might like it:

 

Eeny meeny miny mo

Jeremy Clarkson’s got to go

It’s quite his thing, being far right wing

Do UKIP need more staff? Er, no!

 

There was an old racist called Jezza

Who courted the public’s displeasure

He went way too far

And was driven by car

For a stay at her majesty’s pleasure.

 

boom boom - not my best ever, but not my worst.

 

Are you taking Ekonas Bet ?. Boom Boom..

 

Try reading my posts.

 

They are to long..is the answer Yes or No..

To be honest, I find it strange that you've appointed yourself to 'be in charge' of a bet between me and someone else. However, if you insist on being redirected to the specific post where I reply to Ekona's suggestion of a fiver bet between me and him, here you go LINK - and by the way, it's a very short post, so you'll be ok.

Just came across this, thought chubster might like it:

 

Eeny meeny miny mo

Jeremy Clarkson’s got to go

It’s quite his thing, being far right wing

Do UKIP need more staff? Er, no!

 

There was an old racist called Jezza

Who courted the public’s displeasure

He went way too far

And was driven by car

For a stay at her majesty’s pleasure.

 

boom boom - not my best ever, but not my worst.

 

Are you taking Ekonas Bet ?. Boom Boom..

Try reading my posts.

Not me, but I've used R-Tec several times - used to live in St Albans when I owned my 350's. Good shop. Got my 370z eibach spacers from you not too long ago. Your price matching is genuine.

Just came across this, thought chubster might like it:

 

Eeny meeny miny mo

Jeremy Clarkson’s got to go

It’s quite his thing, being far right wing

Do UKIP need more staff? Er, no!

There was an old racist called Jezza

Who courted the public’s displeasure

He went way too far

And was driven by car

For a stay at her majesty’s pleasure.

boom boom - not my best ever, but not my worst.

He is a victim of nothing other than his own old age and stupidity.

 

Ageism

 

I was talking to a client on the phone a few weeks ago, he was of the older generation when words like that were commonplace. When describing the last remaining issue to be resolved, he used the phrase "The only nigger in the woodpile".

 

I was quite shocked. He didn't know if I was black or not as we had never met in person. I didn't kick off and start petitioning the golf club for him to be sacked. I out it down to his generation and an innocent slip of concentration.

 

Why isn't Prince Phillip up on reciting racial hatred charges? Because people put it down to a gaff. Its a completely different matter than using the word in a deliberately offensive manner.

Fair comment in a general sense, but even Clarkson himself isn't using that defence, so you can't defend him in that way. Clarkson knows it was wrong and knew it was wrong at the time and still didn't try to stop himself from saying it and now he's wriggling like a worm on a hook.

Edit - thinking about it, he could actually be a giant maggot, couldn't he?

He is a victim of nothing other than his own old age and stupidity.

Ageism

Sportsman's bet?

.

Yeah, go on then! Tell you what, let's make it interesting: £5 to a charity of your choice if he gets the boot over this in the next two weeks.

The beeb wheels turn slowly. Make it 4 weeks, to let the outcry gain a head of steam and you're on.

Edit - should we both have a veto over the other's charity, just in case you don't want me to tell you to give it to something totally radical and vice versa?

TVR = Telephone Vehicle Recovery - - - - but they sound so sweet.

Ah, so it's actually covered by the Public Order Act, that makes a bit more sense then. Ta.

 

I still don't think you could prove both using insulting language and intent/likely to cause racial hatred. The first probably, the latter no chance. He definitely won't (and shouldn't IMHO) be sacked, I don't think there's enough pressure for that plus TG is too big a cash cow.

Sportsman's bet?

Stuff

stuff II

Cheers Ekona. The following clip, taken from the CPS website, is quite interesting and to the point LINK HERE...

"Incitement to racial hatred

This offence is committed when the accused person says or does something which is threatening, abusive or insulting and, by doing so, either intends to stir up racial hatred, or makes it likely that racial hatred will be stirred up. This can include such things as making a speech, displaying a racist poster, publishing written material, performing a play or broadcasting something in the media.

One of the first things we have to prove for this offence is whether the behaviour is threatening, abusive or insulting. These words are given their normal meaning but the courts have ruled that behaviour can be annoying, rude or even offensive without necessarily being insulting.

We also have to consider whether the offender intended to stir up racial hatred or whether racial hatred was likely to result. Hatred is a very strong emotion. Stirring up racial tension, opposition, even hostility may not necessarily be enough to amount to an offence.

Sometimes it may be obvious that a person intends to cause racial hatred, for example, when a person makes a public speech condemning a group of people because of their race and deliberately encouraging others to turn against them and perhaps commit acts of violence. Usually, however, the evidence is not so clear-cut and we may have to rely upon people's actions in order to infer their intention.

If we are not able to prove that someone intended to stir up racial hatred, we have to show that, in all the circumstances, hatred was likely to be stirred up. 'Likely' does not mean that racial hatred was simply possible. We therefore have to examine the context of any behaviour very carefully, in particular the likely audience, as this will be highly relevant.

These offences appear in the Public Order Act 1986, which is generally designed to prevent acts of violence, disorder, harm or threats. Although it will often be present, the risk of commission of a criminal act of this nature is not essential to prove the commission of an offence of stirring up hatred on the grounds of race.

When people hate others because of race, such hatred may become manifest in the commission of crimes motivated by hate, or in abuse, discrimination or prejudice. Such reactions will vary from person to person, but all hatred has a detrimental effect on both individual victims and society, and this is a relevant factor to take into account when considering whether a prosecution is appropriate.

It is essential in a free, democratic and tolerant society that people are able robustly to exchange views, even when these may cause offence. However, we have to balance the rights of the individual to freedom of expression against the duty of the state to act proportionately in the interests of public safety, to prevent disorder and crime, and to protect the rights of others.

As these decisions involve questions of public policy, a specialist team of lawyers based at CPS Headquarters reviews the police file in all such cases and decides whether there is enough evidence. In addition, a case of incitement to racial hatred cannot be brought without the permission of the Attorney General, who is the senior Law Officer for the Crown.

The law only covers acts that are intended, or are likely to stir up, racial hatred. Whilst the definition of what constitutes "race" or "racial" is wide, it is clear that it does not cover "religious" hatred."

I haven't been selective, just copy/pasted the relevant bit. I reckon if I were a barrister I could have a pretty good crack at a conviction in this case. I don't think it will happen, but I'm waiting to see what pressure the BBC comes under in the next few days. They're already on the back foot and can't afford to be seen to be complacent, so this may have been Clarkson's last gaff.

The word itself, on its own, in no other context, can be considered as incitement to racial hatred, but in addition to this, the heinous context in which it was used (as part of a well-known racist rhyme, whilst knowingly being filmed for a national TV show) makes it uncontestably so.

What would you say if your child's schoolteacher used this rhyme and got your child's class to recite it? Would you be defending that person too? I'm very surprised that someone as astute as you is questioning this. You ask what should his punishment be?... whatever the law of our country decides, if he were to be found guilty. Personally I think in this particular situation a conviction would be punishment enough, but I am not the judge.

The " I tried not to say it" excuse is pitifully similar to the sort of thing a seven year old would say to his teacher, but less excusable, because he isn't a seven year old, he just behaves like one.

 

I cannot fathom why you are trying to defend a man who has admitted that he was totally wrong - Even he is not on your side.

 

...and if you want to provoke me into answering the question in your first sentence - clearly the answer is yes - and you seem to be quite comfortable there. I feel sad that you are happy to parade this disgusting word as you do. Why not apologise, as Mr. Clarkson quite rightly has already done?

Thanks for replying.

 

So you believe he should be charged for inciting racial hatred, correct? But you decline to say what punishment you think he should get for that, why? Conviction is not a punishment. Should it be community service, jail, execution? You must have an opinion on this, I'm sure.

 

I'm not defending his usage of the word, nor the phrase, what I am is against the witch hunt over nothing. At worst it's casual racism, but really I struggle to see why suddenly it's the biggest crime in the world and headline news. It wasn't broadcast, and I would imagine at least 10-20 people had seen that clip either when it was recorded or when the editing was happening, so are we to charge them with casual racism as none of them reported it? At what point do we all stop being offended on the behalf of other people?

 

Ironically, and maybe it's because I don't read The Mirror, but I've yet to see a single black person complain about this. Should they not be the most offended here?

 

If you genuinely believe that I'm a racist because I dared to write the word n***** when it is being used in the context of a debate, then I genuinely feel sorry for you. Would I use it in person? In the same context of discussion, yes. Would I use it in person in the rhyme? Well, no. Would I use it when singing along to a rap song (secret fact: I'm a massive Snoop Dogg fan!)? Yup. Would I ever use it casual conversation? Absolutely not. However, we shouldn't suddenly be afraid to ever use a word when there's legitimate use for it. English is a great language, and whilst we clearly have some words that are no longer used in their original meaning because they are offensive, that doesn't mean we should never write them down when having a reasoned debate, or for educational purposes. That applies to everything, not the specific term in question here, and is a personal viewpoint.

 

 

So here's a very straightforward and direct question for you: Should the word be removed from society full stop? I'm including all art forms in that, so music & films. Should a black person be prosecuted for referring to a friend in the same manner? If not, why?

Thanks for the measured reply Ekona (more than a little better than thinking that telling me to 'get a life' somehow adds to the debate!) - To answer your question, I actually did say what I think should happen to Mr Clarkson. To elaborate slightly on what I said, I think he should be convicted and given a conditional discharge (ie no further punishment), on conditon that he agrees to refrain from using racist language in future. I think that would be fair.

Now may I ask you a simple question in return? If a primary school teacher sang this rhyme in front of a class of children, in your opinion would they be breaking the law? Yes or No?

As you can imagine, I don't think there is such a thing as 'casual racism'. Singing this racist rhyme is not 'the biggest crime in the world', but, as I hope you agree, it's still a crime. It actually doesn't matter what color anyone's skin is - a crime is a crime. Everyone should be offended by a person making racist remarks, not just black people, because it damages and debases humanity - along with the many other bad things people do.

To be fair, I think you have a good point about being able to use any word in the context of debate - you're absolutely right. If you were using the n word in that context I'd fiercely defend your right to do it. I just wouldn't use it myself, in any context. I apologise if I've taken your use of the word out of context - but I condemn you if you used it as a racist slur. I should have re-read your post, but I didn't.

To answer your final questions, no, the arts should not be censored in any way. If someone breaks the law through their art we have plenty of laws to deal with it. If you start banning words from the arts you will inevitably be preventing artists from making a case against things like racism. Censorship of the arts (like racism) is one of the first acts of a facist state. And finally - if a word is unacceptable, it's unacceptable for all - so I think it should not be used by anyone, black, white, green, grey or pinstriped.

I'm not trying to upset anyone here, but I have my views. And as for the people who find this boring - don't read it if you find it boring. There are plenty of other things to do. Personally, I feel it's quite important.

I wrote the word n****. Does that make me racist too?

 

FFS folks, get a grip. As has already been said, why is it okay for black Americans to use nigga as freely as I would use the word mate? Yes, there's a certain amount of trying to reclaim the word, and I get that totally, but it's hardly conducive to making a world where either version of the word is unacceptable to be used.

 

 

@Chubbster: What would you arrest him for? And what should his punishment be?

The word itself, on its own, in no other context, can be considered as incitement to racial hatred, but in addition to this, the heinous context in which it was used (as part of a well-known racist rhyme, whilst knowingly being filmed for a national TV show) makes it uncontestably so.

What would you say if your child's schoolteacher used this rhyme and got your child's class to recite it? Would you be defending that person too? I'm very surprised that someone as astute as you is questioning this. You ask what should his punishment be?... whatever the law of our country decides, if he were to be found guilty. Personally I think in this particular situation a conviction would be punishment enough, but I am not the judge.

The " I tried not to say it" excuse is pitifully similar to the sort of thing a seven year old would say to his teacher, but less excusable, because he isn't a seven year old, he just behaves like one.

I cannot fathom why you are trying to defend a man who has admitted that he was totally wrong - Even he is not on your side.

...and if you want to provoke me into answering the question in your first sentence - clearly the answer is yes - and you seem to be quite comfortable there. I feel sad that you are happy to parade this disgusting word as you do. Why not apologise, as Mr. Clarkson quite rightly has already done?