chubbster

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 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

.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.

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.

...and then I read the message under your sig pic... Edit - lovely pic of your car, by the way

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.

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.

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.

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?

Ageism

.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.

Sportsman's bet?

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.

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.

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?

Firstly - I'd think twice about repainting them unless they're badly scuffed, because they're a classic, sexy colour. Gold Brembos are lovely. Secondly, if you're determined to do it, DO NOT BUY THAT CHEAP CRAP PAINT OFF EBAY. It will be brilliant for your girlfriend's nail polish, but it's @*!# for brakes. Foliatec paint (which is also on ebay) is not cheap, but it's good quality. Yes, you can pay someone else to do them - but make sure they use suitable paint and only use someone you trust. If you do it yourself, preparation is the key. Take your time, clean properly and paint slowly.

With respect, I think that argument's already been won - whistleblowers rule and so they should. The important challenge (and the theme of this thread) continues to be racism. Let's not get diverted.

Thanks - good tip.

His video response is the pleading of a man who thinks he's commited a criminal offence and is squirming and wriggling for fear of the consequences. It's about time the fear of the law made him cringe. He knows he went too far this time and I enjoyed seeing him shrink for once. It doesn't matter how many racists try to defend him, or say it doesn't matter, or attempt to find excuses for him - he apologises because he knows the truth (which, strangely, some posters on this thread choose not to acknowledge) - and if you watch that disgusting video you'll see the truth too. He's a racist, like many many others, and now he's worried that in the current climate of targetting well-known faces he could get arrested. In my opinion he should be arrested, charged and tried. The evidence is there. One day it will all catch up with him - personally I hope that this is the day. Commit the crime, do the time. Just my opinion.

My cats get a good chasing too Powerslides are possible! Sadly they're only in yellow (if they've got any left) - they were on special offer a week ago, alongside a silver/grey amg merc.