SleepyWill

​Wait, you think that me saying "and they just have again, with your blessing, it seems!" was polemic? A ferocious verbal attack? Firstly, it was by text, and I know in some circumstances in the internet age it is appropriate to converge the two, but in this case, with this word, absolutely not, it is purely for verbal, aggressive shouting, the kind of shouting where you would have been sprayed with crumbs from things I ate earlier. What Clarkson did in fact. You have not been subject to that, not even close, and hilariously, by misusing such a loaded word, you have insulted the poor people who have had to face down such a thing. People like Oisin, for example, who I'm sure would be delighted that you have so trivialised this thing that has turned his life upside down. As for the indefensible, I am not defending anyone or anything, I am attacking the BBC. I agree, the way they have managed their staff in this case is indefensible, so instead of trying to deflect to a week old conversation in which you threw out ALL of your toys and took your ball home, why don't you answer the question I actually raised in this thread. By all means, if you wish to continue the conversation in which I "defended" Clarksons actions (By which you mean, I asked people to stop making assumptions as to what actually happened and stop flinging around loaded terms before we knew all the facts because idiots like you act like little clingons to Phillip Bloom - who by the way, was not impressed in the slightest by you), reply in that thread, where that was the topic of conversation. But in this thread, I am posing the questions about the BBC and why they did not act in accordance to the law, why they allowed this situation to happen and how they should have acted, many years ago. If you have a comment to make about that, feel free to, otherwise, back over to the other thread, troll. EDIT: My bad, polemic can be about written words in modern english - in my native tongue we have a word, near identical from the same etymological root which means as I have described it, so apologies about that. In english, it basically has been weakened to the point it means "disagreed with" but I still don't think I was directly disagreeing with you, merely making the point that what you are accusing Clarkson of not getting away with, I am also accusing the BBC of actually getting away with. I don't think that's polemic, by any definition of the word.

It's curious isn't it, since I suggested that I believe the BBC shirked their duty of care towards their employees, just how many people have taken the time to try, in their own ways to shut down the conversation. I could understand it if they were forced to read this thread, or browse this website, but to take the time to come here and post their displeasure at the conversation and make various plees or threats to stop talking, it's like they don't want this line of thinking to be talked about. Like you want to apply your own ineffectual brand of censorship to an argument that you have no legitimate response to. If you genuinely don't want to browse this website or read about this subject, you wouldn't have. You did, which tells us all one thing, you care, you want to voice your opinion, but mine has proven you wrong. You don't have the strength of character, unlike Lammy, who I respect a great deal for his intelligence and nuanced responses, to challenge your own assumptions, you would rather try to censor the opinion instead.

​and they just have again, with your blessing, it seems!

When adults behave like that there is a reason. We are bags of chemicals, and we react in very predictable ways. While there are some minor differences, we do know the effects of long term stress and pressure, and we know he was under stress and pressure. Go to the website of the British Mirror and search for Jeremy Clarkson, tell me that you wouldn't be under stress and pressure if you were being subject to that barrage of tabloidism. That's just one singular source, now multiply that by 100. Without the pressure of his work, we can say for certain that he was being placed under pressure, he was stressed, because who wouldn't be. Now we can also say with some certainty that the BBC were aware of this stress and pressure, and I can't imagine he hid his drinking while on those extended shoots, thus the crew absolutely would have known. Which meant that the BBC absolutely would have known. So what was going on in their minds that they didn't pull him from work when all this started, give him the help he needed and bring him back on when he was ready, better equipped to deal with the ghouls - the same aspect of humanity that is now bullying and abusing Oisin. I'll tell you what - £££££££££. If we give him help, not only do we have to pay for it, but we will lose viewers who tune in specifically for him. The BBC are absolutely shirking their responsibilities here and that is a dangerous thing to defend, because tomorrow it will happen to someone who we don't ever hear about. And the day after and the day after. I'm not justifying what he did, I'm just suggesting that if we were to walk a mile in his shoes, we may actually find he is not so different from the rest of us after all.

​I disagree, and so does UK law, at least in the letter of it - in two respects - the work being responsible for the health and safety of it's employees is one, the other is the idea that if you by your action or inaction cause harm to a human, you are liable to undo the harm you allowed to happen. I will never agree with the principal that you can abuse your employees by overworking them, burning people out with stress and causing serious mental and physical illnesses and not take responsibility for that. We are not talking about schools excluding naughty children, children are, by definition immature and not able to act appropriately. When an adult does not act appropriately, it is perfectly reasonable to ask "Why has he not acted appropriately" and if there is the suggestion that he was under a large amount of stress and pressure, it is perfectly reasonable to ask "Who continued putting him under stress and pressure, despite there being large warning signs that he needed help". At that point, serious questions need to be asked of the people who did that, how they did that, why they did that. In this case we know who - the BBC, we know why - money. The BBC burned a man out, and when he was all done, threw him away, because they wanted money. You are correct in that he could have played the PR game, which I read as lying to people about his state of mind in order to further his career and public status, however, I have more respect for him that he doesn't play games and is just straight forward. We need to celebrate people who are themselves, not a carefully managed image, we need more people who can be joke and be happy after losing jobs, more people for whom the glass is half full. Finally, the people abusing Oisin are disgusting, the absolute worst side of humanity. I have nothing to say beyond I hope the police investigate each and every last one of them.

​Don't forget to apply the "crop factor" to the f number as well, the lens which will give you a similar fov and dof to a 10.5mm f0.95 is a 21mm f1.9 on full frame which absolutely does exist (f1.8) and faster (21mm summilux f1.4 - the equivalent of a 10.5mm f0.7 on m4/3) , as do speed boosters to bring them to APS-C. Not to take anything away from the voightlander, it is a fine looking piece of glass, but it certainly is not unique in it's characteristics.

​ ​Yeah, I'm pretty sure there are two versions of the lens, I've seen plenty of others claim the same - wondering if there are two factories producing them or something? Either way, it is worth being careful, I can try to post a video in a week or so when I am back home showing what I am getting

​Possibly, yes. I have always struggled with improving myself, trying to be better. And trust me, I am way more critical of myself than I am of others. I would direct you to my own blog in which I talk quite openly about the struggles I put myself through but I am the target of a sustained and nasty cyberbullying campaign and do not wish to link this profile with the other in case I give them more ammunition to trawl up, bring those people here or give them further details about my personal life, helping them to zone in on who I am in the real world. In my opinion though, actions speak louder than words. We know that the BBC will say that they are in favour of seeking professional help for their stars who have problems, but they don't actually seem to seek professional help for their stars who have problems (which is almost certainly a high percentage of them, increasingly so for the ones who lead a higher profile life). Neither do they sack them straight away. They keep using them and using them until they make a mistake which puts them in the firing line for some criticism, then they get rid of them. If they happen to rehabilitate themselves, maybe they come back. Yes I may contradict what I said last week, but that was last week, when the events were fresh and I hadn't given the subject much thought. This week I have had thousands of percent more time to think the subject through, it's only natural that my mindset will evolve and improve over time, I am constantly challenging my own assumptions. And if Clarkson was a new employee who had done this, I stand by my earlier comment. However, having the long history he has with the BBC, I would be shocked if his problems were not caused by his work and therefore, in a right world, are the responsibility of his work. No congrats necessary for Clarkson, that was work, though if you are impressed by celebs, I could spin your mind with a list of names. I will accept it for the Dali Lama though, that was a personal epiphany, getting to talk with him. He really is a beautiful person and regardless of belief, I highly recommend seeking him out.

​Just watch out for that pump action focus thing, in manual mode it is still fly by wire and a significant number of people, including myself experience it focusing in steps in that mode and as nice and smooth as it feels, it is useless for video.

​If that was the case, why didn't we hear about this on the morning of the 5th of March? Why did we only hear about it on the 10th of March, the morning after he reported it himself? I'm sure you have enough of a working knowledge of the news to know that 5 days is an eternity, to be 5 days late with a story is commercial suicide. ​Well, fortunately for you, you are not as famous and recognisable as Clarkson, so no matter who you work for, no-one is going to tape you in public. You would have to do something extraordinary indeed to warrant someone caring. I'm not being derogatory, I'm setting up a point for later: ​Again, 4 days later is not "ahead of the story" and if your PR agent thinks it is, he is not decent. Besides which, doesn't Jeremy Clarkson use BBC PR? I can't find a single statement or quote from any PR agency for or about him that isn't demonstrably working for someone else. Maybe you could link your evidence that he is using his own? As I said in my post, it is vile and scummy that anyone would have the attitude "Let's not make sure we care properly for our employees mental health and well being, because money. Let's instead work him to the point of substance abuse and stress related disorders and then can him" So you, in my eyes are corporate scum, the bane of society, defying human decency and ethics for your paymasters. The "marquee" that you bear on your lanyard impresses me not at all. ​I said exactly that myself, but it's hardly the point is it? The point is a giant corporation has acted like shit and no-one, except Andrew has called them out on it. If they had acted as responsibly as they want you to believe they had, Clarkson would not be an alcoholic nor would he have hit a man. ​Here we get to the point I set up earlier. This is codswallop, absolute bullshit. Everyone who has ever existed has done something shameful. I had the honour of speaking to the Dali Lama on an occasion, I asked him how he maintained such a pure (translation is difficult, but close enough) lifestyle, he laughed at the question and told me that he was not to be held in the esteem I had, he was as normal as anyone else. Just because you haven't been caught on film doing something the internet would digest and pick over for weeks, doesn't mean that I believe that you haven't done it. As shameful as punching a man whilst drunk, certainly. If you genuinely don't believe that you have, then you need to take a long hard look at your self perception, it is skewed because you are claiming to be more pure than the Dali Lama, who, for what it's worth, according to Barber Gates claims he has hit someone, in anger and described it as "not so bad"

Just wanted to say stab, that the video you posted was gorgeous! I could never be brave enough to do any wedding video and on the basis of what you just showed, if I were in the Netherlands when I got married, you would be top of my list!

I really can't believe all the faeces being slung in this thread, can we be clear on one point here, what Andrew is talking about is not "one rule for one, and one rule for another", that is very clearly not correct. (Unless, you are working on a cure for cancer according to horshack, then it is one rule for you, apparently, because that's how moral crusaders roll). Neither was he saying that assault or abuse is on any way ok. I mean he literally, directly stated that. I believe he is saying the following, and I agree with all points: 1) The BBC were wrong to drag this into a public forum before they began their investigation. 2) People make mistakes, we are all human and everyone is different and thus will make different mistakes. 3) When people make mistakes, deal with it appropriately. How can I justify supporting these statements in the context of work place assault? 1) Come on. There was a clear ulterior motive to the BBC going public with this in the way they did and with the wording they used. They deliberately presented a very one sided point of view at a time when they had not even started investigating. The investigation was clearly a scam, a con, a public display of fairness when in reality the die was set from the moment they decided to go public. 2 & 3) Clarkson made a mistake. It is clear that he felt remorse because he reported it himself. Personally I don't believe in punitive punishment, this idea that you've broken the law therefore you will be punished to discourage you from breaking the law is a failure. At times in history when the punishments were harsh and severe, including death for even petty crimes, people still committed crime. Punitive action does not work, fact. Rehabilitation works. I do not believe Clarkson should be punished, he should be rehabilitated. Plenty on "lawyers" on here have been talking about the law in absolute terms in this thread, well how about this little nugget of British legislation: The employer has a duty of care towards their employees. Clarkson and Oisin were both employees, and the BBC have absolutely failed in their duty of care towards them both. They failed to help Clarkson with his problems, which they had a duty to do, and in failing to do so, they failed Oisin by putting him in direct contact with a man who had the problems and placed them both under stress by working them hard all day. What did they expect to happen? They could have stepped in at any moment, got Clarkson the help he quite clearly needs and never have had this happen. When a human being is suffering the problems that Clarkson is, the cowardly thing to do is to turn your back on them, get rid of them, cast them out of your group. The brave thing to do is to help them, to accept that "there but for the grace of God go I". In this case, Clarkson is even making the BBC so much money that paying for the help he needs would be a drop in the ocean - but that is a particularly cynical view, that a group of humans should only help another human if they are worth it. All of you people who are saying that it was correct to sack him are talking with a particularly nasty corporate mindset. A corporation is a human construct, one designed to gather and horde money. It is the ultimate expression of capitalism. Any human being who turns their back on another human in need of help to protect this capitalist machine is in my eyes, scum. They are stating loud and clearly "This machine created and designed to gather money is more important to me than the health and well being of any person, even one who has given their talent to help that machine gather money." Any person who has said, it doesn't matter, the BBC has plenty of talent who can do the job are saying "People are replaceable, we don't need to look after them properly. When we break one, we will put another in their place". And you're doing this under the banner of being a caring human being, you care about Oisin, so this monster who bashed him must be cast out. But you are brainwashed by the corporate culture we live in. Dystopia is here already, money, and the ability to gather it chooses our politicians and our laws which it happily ignores, it dictates what you eat, drink and how you will be treated if you are ill. Every single part of our lives is dictated to by faceless entities, using friendly names, reaching into your wallet to take your money from you. I once attended a conference on how to price your product - attended by someone I was making a documentary on. In the audience was a man who represented a baby food company. I watched as he cheered and hollered to the devious ways the presenter was showing them to raise the price of your product and I thought of my sister who had to choose at the time whether to buy food for her baby or for herself. I thought of this man cheering and hollering as he took so much money from my sister that she couldn't eat properly. That is capitalism. That is what you defend when you tell me that the BBC was correct to fire Clarkson. So what should have happened? Simple, Clarkson should have been cared for by the BBC. They have a legal duty of care towards him. He is a human being and you are arrogant if you assume that you could never behave like that, all that means is that you have never been put under the kind of stress that would make you behave that way. You know that fame is not pleasant or enjoyable right? Today, I sat behind a camera as two people in front of it agreed that they hated the red carpet experience. This was not an isolated view, I am yet to meet any person for whom fame has been a positive to their mental health. Yes Clarkson makes a lot of money, but all the money in the world does not matter if you are under so much strain and pressure that you have serious problems. Time is the only currency with any meaning, as we have a limited amount of it. I don't care how many nice cars he buys, he has lost time to this stress and pressure that he will never get back. The BBC have chewed him up and spat him out when they felt they didn't want the bad publicity anymore. And what suffers? As has been rightly pointed out, not Top Gear, they will slot in a new cog, and start grinding them down with ridiculous hours and stress. Not the BBC, he's gone. Done and dusted. Not their responsibility any more. Not even Clarkson, this may actually be very good for him. It is the art of what we do and create that suffers. Like it or hate it, Clarksons Top Gear was. And art existing is important, even if you don't like it, even if you refuse to accept that it is art. Diversity in art is what makes it so important. I can't stand Tracy Emin, but if she stopped shitting in tents, the art I do like would be poorer because of her demise. For art, TV, cinema, literature, music et al to be healthy, it needs diversity. Without diversity and with corporate interference, you end up with bland, homogenized art/TV/cinema/literature/music made for the widest audience, in the safest way without risk. And this won't affect us, we grew up in a world where Clarkson entered out lives, gave us an opinion on the man, whatever that opinion was, it helped shape us. The problem will be in 10 years time when the kids today grow up in a world with one less Clarkson, one less strong figure to be opinionated over, one more element of bland BBC security in the world. Today was a bad day for the industry. As for Oisin, he is the product of a millennia of genetic refinement, his ancestors have survived fire and ice, starvation and poor nutrition to pass his genes on. They hunted, gathered, became warriors to fight for their freedom. He'll get over a little split lip. He'll be absolutely fine. And since when did we stop being annoyed at people who clog up hospitals with cuts and scrapes that can't be healed any quicker by having a doctor or nurse look at it?

Creativity in the music industry took a dive into the mud since The Verve, Bittersweet Symphony was attributed to Richards & Jagger as writers.

​Russell brand absolutely did hit someone, allegedly! And not so allegedly threw someones mobile through a hotel window and goosestepped across a stage in protest of the events sponsor having made nazi uniforms!

So confirmed then that you've switched to yet another username, because I didn't complain about the English language skills under this username, I complained about the English language skills of "Jay Edgar" right after you, under that username criticised my English language skills. This is a forum frequented by broadcast professionals and those interested in the industry the man works in. I wouldn't make that guess personally. I myself have indeed worked with him, spoken with him off camera and as I stated in my very first post under that first thread, would lake very lightly the opinion of someone who makes assumptions of the man based on his tv personality, in much the same way I would take very lightly the opinion anyone hold of Brad Pit if they are making assumptions of his personality based on his character Tyler Durden. ​But good of you to confirm that you have never seen anything of him that someone hasn't published. Now we can take your comments in context. ​You seriously don't understand the difference between putting women into every show, no matter who the intended audience is and making quality programming actually designed for women? Let me put it this way, one is an act of futility, it will only serve as a tick box exercise but will do nothing to actually correct the problem of under-representation of women. It is a step backwards, towards tokenism which was rightly called out as a derogatory practice in it's own right. You like Seinfeld, so do I. Would Seinfeld have been as good if the network had forced George Costansa to be a black character portrayed in a positive light, therefore not allowing Jason Alexander to play him, not allowing the character to be short, stocky, slow witted or balding? Would that have done anything for race relations in the US at all? No, it would have damaged a good show for absolutely no gain what-so-ever. Instead, allow the Fresh Prince of Bel Air to exist, give it prime time slots and you may just create better diversity on the tv, allowing a black person to become a genuine star on his own merit, not because he was shoehorned into Seinfeld on the basis of "diversity". ​Calling someone "racist" is not criticism, it's name calling. Now, you may be able to justify how I am racist with my stance that putting token women into shows does not help improve diversity on tv, but so far, you have failed to do so. Being a critic is a nuanced business. For starters, you have to be able to enunciate in the language you are choosing to be a critic in, exactly what your opinion is, how it is relevant to your audience that you hold this opinion, why you hold it and how it makes sense - but in order for your criticism to be constructive, you also have to be open to the idea that some people are not going to share your opinion. As a critic, it is your role to explain where you are coming from, because otherwise, who cares about you and your opinion. I certainly don't. You've done nothing to make me consider myself racist, or triggered any desire to take a long hard look at myself. Maybe consider the following example. You are stupid. Notice how this doesn't make you question your intelligence, it doesn't make you take a long hard look at yourself. It's just me calling you a name. It's not valid criticism. Now consider this: As someone who has worked in tv and cinema production for the last 30 years, I recently found I was called racist for holding the following view "I believe there should be more quality programming for women, rather than tokenism". It is my assessment that the person who called me racist is stupid. He is a videographer called Viktor Ragnamar and I don't make this assessment of his intellect lightly. I have viewed his work, he seems to be deeply enamoured with racial debate, going so far as to post a highly derivative work where he highlights some words in a interview by Martin Luther King in a special, sparkly computer generated effect. However, I believe that Viktor demonstrated his stupidity quite openly when he conflated gender with race. It should be fairly obvious to any with a modicum of intelligence that there are indeed men and women of every race, thus my comment on programming for women was not at all linked to any comment on programming for black or white people. It would be my assessment that Viktor does not understand the issue he is so passionate about. I would suggest he takes some time to educate himself about the differences between gender and race and ultimately how those two concepts cannot, by any intelligent human being, be treated as the same thing. Maybe there is some nugget of truth in his work, after all, a stopped clock shows the correct time twice a day, but even if we do find it, can we honestly attribute that to Viktor? Is the lucky monkey the new Shakespeare, or just a monkey who got lucky. Do you see the difference between criticism and name calling now, here's a hint. One is difficult and hard work, the other is name calling. One has a value to the debate and discussion, the other is name calling. Finally, one justifies it's existence, the other is... yeah, you got it! Wait, what, you actually do believe that Will Smith can play George Costansa as well as Jason Alexander, because the actors themselves are just blank slates right, and writers certainly never write for their actors! Holy shit dude, everyone, hold the phones! It turns out Viktor No-one has made an epic discovery! We can save a fortune, we don't need casting any more. Gone are the days of "90% of your product hinges on casting" it turns out actors are plug and play! You can remove a woman from a role who was cast as the best actor for the job and insert a man, because the writers only ever write gender and race neutral script! Or not. And I can't help but to notice, on your vimeo channel, you have a lot of videos of men, one that caught my eye was the one in which you have a white skin-headed man working in a red light district talking about problem black people. Yet you seem averse to putting those black people on camera, especially so they could put their side of the story across. Why didn't you put a black man on camera or interview a woman who lives there, as per your 50% black, 50% women regulation... is it because: 1) That level of regulation would have meant that you didn't ever create that video 2) You are racist and sexist

​You only know of Clarksons TV persona... you don't know him off screen. You know literally nothing about him off screen, except what you've been told about him by other people. With agenda's. ​If you engage your brain when you read what I wrote, you will see that I fully endorsed the regulation of tv. I stated quite clearly though that it should be done at a programming level, not a content level, which I criticised as I do not believe it will solve the problem, and will in fact make the problem worse. But if you believe that any attempt to combat discrimination should be beyond criticism, even if the approach is demonstrably going to make the problem worse, burying critics with slurs like "racist" or "sexist" instead of putting forward well reasoned arguments of your own, then you are perhaps in more dire need of education than any here. ​Random capitalisation of nouns, which are not proper nouns... yeah, you're the same person, switched accounts again. Come forward, tell us who you really are, put your regular forum name to your words, coward.

​I forgot to answer this little diamond. Here goes: Nearly all tv is written with a target audience in mind. If you had a brilliant idea for a show and you approached the BBC with it, you would have to tell them who you had written it for, which demographic were going to watch your product. Imagine you run a successful panel show, say, The Last Leg, which is written for a disabled audience, who put women guests on when they find a woman guest that they think their audience will find interesting. Now, if you broadcast on the BBC, you would be forced, by compliance to put an equal number of women guests in, whether they were of interest to disabled people or not. Actually this is an interesting example because The Last Leg has changed it's remit over the last couple of seasons to "teens through to middle aged of any ability but still with a focus on issues that affect the disabled", but it's interesting in a way that doesn't affect the question you asked. And yes, I am well aware that the vast majority of TV produced in Britain is targeted at white males. Not so sure about the middle aged bit myself, but certainly white male. What I am saying in the quote above is that I agree with the BBC that it is a problem. I don't agree that the solution is to force people to put females into their shows, weakening the show for the audience who enjoy it. It's not that they are females that weakens the show, it's that they would already be on the show if they were the strongest candidate as a guest. So you end up not including a stronger candidate, to put on the weaker candidate in order to meet the absurd ruling and making your show less relevant to the people who watch it. So, my idea to solve this problem, which I stated in your quote, is to make more tv that targets a black audience, a female audience, an older audience, a younger audience... just diversify what programming is actually put out. If you put on programs that target women as the core audience, you will naturally find that you have a greater number of women being represented in a gender positive way on tv, because these shows will naturally find that women will have much more to say of interest and relevance to women. Look at Loose women, it demonstrates exactly that I am correct. We need more shows like that, competing for the prime time slots, and the diversity of tv will happen naturally, tv will get stronger for it and most importantly, no woman will ever be told "You're only on here because of compliance, our first choice was a man."

Wait, you, a native English speaker is passively aggressively insulting my English (For whom it is a third language) when you misspell did as "dd", randomly capitalise words mid sentence, like "Wife" which is not a proper noun in the context you used it and push the definition of sentence to include "Post/Proxy/Colonialism.". They teach this stuff to 7 and 8 year old children! OK, I'll play. My wife works at CERN, so presumably her boss in your scenario is someone like Stephen Hawking (Forgive me for not having a better grasp of physicists, but as far as I know, he is the superstar physicist in the world, the Jeremy Clarkson of the field, if you will). You're asking me what I would do if Stephen Hawking (Who is a foreigner) hits out at my wife violently and she falls. Well, I would have to consider this very carefully, because on the one hand, Stephen Hawking is an inspiration to several generations of humans, he has achieved so much and can continue to achieve so much more. On the other hand, I'm not a misogynist who would presume to speak and act for my wife. She's perfectly capable of fighting her own battles, acting in an appropriate way without her husband sticking his oar in and I would fully support her in whatever action she decided was appropriate. Even if that action, as with Oisin, was to not take any action. Hmmm... How else do you interpret the following: "Andrew...you can use the N word or any other word and I won't be offended if its in person." That right there is you tolerating the use of the word nigger. Oh, for what it's worth, writing or saying "The N Word" is no different to writing or saying nigger, only some find it more offensive! Did it feel good to type it out? Yes, every time. I grew up in a "White neighbourhood", well, a white country and was abused with the word for most of my life. When certain black rappers took the power out of the word by using it in their music, in their banter, openly removing the sting of that word I was delighted. I will continue to use the word that has been a yoke to my culture for the rest of my life and I couldn't give a monkeys about what you think about me. Oh... did you assume I was white? And finally, while I don't agree 100% with Matt, I will call out your passive aggressive cowardice whenever I see it. You are a coward by the way, we all know this account is a shill for your real account. Say this under your real username, or are you intending on calling Andrew racist as well, but want to continue to post here without repercussions for trying to wrongly smear him? ​

Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten, habe ich geschwiegen; ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat.

​So I've watched the documentary again, here's what I think: It's a good piece of entertainment. If very much works on the principal that it is designed to give it's audience some warm fuzzy feelings. That audience is people who do not like or understand fundamentalism, which to be fair is a huge audience. It reaches out to them and gives them a mind cuddle, tells them that they are correct to believe that fundamentalism is not a good thing and feeds into a circular belief, makes you feel more comfortable than ever before that fundamentalism is wrong by name dropping "important" figures and celebrities whom the core audience will probably like, giving less favourable coverage to those the audience won't like so much. The end result is that the viewer will have either have switched off early because it does not agree or has no interest in the subject, or will feel really good about themselves. However, it is entertainment and not philosophy. If it wanted to actually engage the viewer in philosophical thoughts, it would have challenged them. It would have found an intelligent, funny, charismatic fundamentalist, who could go on camera and engage with the audience, explain why it feels that it needs to drizzle holy water on a pavement, or can explain how those who engage in that form of protest think. If you were in the head of the woman drizzling holy water on the pavement, you could understand why she feels this is appropriate behaviour, why she is happy that the program was not aired on the BBC. What's scary is that you might envisage a situation in which you would engage in similar behaviour. Fanaticism, which is what fundamentalism is, is a huge problem in the world. This is why I drew someone up earlier because they started with the word we. This tribalistic behaviour is something we need to evolve out of, but also understand that it is currently present in our psyche. We need to understand what triggers it and how it can get so strong that you can use it to turn well educated, balanced normal individuals into suicide bombers. There are some things we can think about. Everyone who becomes a fanatic over anything, from "windows vs apple" to "ISIS vs the west" start somewhere and I believe it starts with a vulnerability. That vulnerability can be any situation in which a person feels powerless, so maybe constantly getting searched by police because of the colour of your skin would cause you to feel this way. Maybe it's being a policeman alone in a bad neighbourhood, surrounded by people with a certain skin colour who make it clear that you are not welcome here, and that drug dealer on the corner will be walking away. It doesn't have to be something quite so obvious or powerful though, how about your childhood best friend moves away and you get lonely sometimes. Or your PC crashes losing some really important work. Your camera doesn't start up quickly enough and you miss the shot. We all like to think we are immune to these vulnerabilities but in truth, it is just a simple chemical process, nothing we can control or change and it happens in us all, probably every day. I got poo'd on by a bird this morning in front of my sons school. I sure as hell felt crap about it. When that happens, when you feel vulnerable OR if it happens enough that the feeling of vulnerability is always there, you reach out to people who can make it go away. 99.9999999% of the time, it's not someone with any ill intentions, because humanity is, on the whole pretty decent. But sometimes, even people with good intentions can trigger thoughts and feelings by accident that fanaticises you a bit, and people with an agenda prey on the vulnerability. "They keep searching you, hang out with us, they don't dare search us", "Your PC keeps crashing, try my mac, it never crashes" etc. Remember, it's not binary, being a fanatic is a scale of grey, not black and white. Over time, some people get to the point where they feel a sense of belonging with a group of fanatics, and they push each other further and further - more and more extreme - "Lets tell our family not to see the play" then "Well I told all the other mums at school not to see it" to "I'm organising a protest of the play". You want to keep this group of feel good close so you get swept along and there are of course natural brakes - some people won't risk harm to themselves, won't do anything illegal or maybe won't risk disapproval of someone close to them, so they back away when it gets too much. The rest, well they find themselves sprinkling holy water on a pavement in the UK. How does this relate to Top Gear. Well, just look at the behaviour of some of the people who don't like Clarkson. They don't like the show, maybe they associate it with "blokey culture" and this has triggered some vulnerability in them - which is funny, because trust me, I am so not a "blokey bloke", I hate foot-to-ball, it bores me to tears and I can't stand the fans of the sport, at least what I see of them. But it seems that the world has decided that Top Gear UK is a blokey show for blokes and so I'll run with that here. It's on some higher function level actually quite intimidating, when you know something is immensely popular but you don't like it. Like Stewart Lee, I get asked what team I support on a regular basis - often when meeting new people. Sometimes I lie and say a team that I know of. I've gotten quite good at talking about the sport and what my chosen team are doing, how they are being managed and making up bullshit that sounds intelligent - or maybe I'm not good at it and people are just being polite! Why do I lie though, because it's quite alienating to have to admit to someone that you don't like something so popular. It must be like that with top gear too. So when Clarkson is in the news again, people start speaking up against him. Have you noticed that when it happens, there is a high frequency of the term "I don't watch top gear" of people who are talking about it. You know why though, they are engaging in that tribal behaviour. They are clumping together under the banner of not watching the show, because in doing that, they don't feel alienated anymore. They reach out to like minded people and feel better for it - who can hold that against them. I know I do the same when people don't like foot-to-ball, it's like a massive relief, I feel stress lift as someone says that to me, I like that person much more. Just chemistry, but potentially powerful stuff. And it's not just the detractors who do this, look at that petition to get JC reinstated. That's the exact same process, but a little further along the road of fanaticism. They are taking action, trying to affect a decision to be made by the BBC. As we're a little further along the road, the people involved are a little more extreme, we've dropped some of the people who don't care that much - myself included - so the group is a little smaller, but what it has lost in size, it has gained in potential strength of reaction. Now, they are unified, under the banner to get JC put back on the air. But to deviate from that banner is to be cast out of the group. If you dare get caught saying that maybe we should see if he's actually assaulted a person, you're out. You're of no use to the group. If being a member of that group is giving you the feel goods, maybe you'll hold your tongue before stating that. You took a step towards fanaticism in order to remain one of them, to avoid feeling less good. In this way, each group will shed members who aren't prepared to take the next step, but those who do will egg each other on towards the next step. That's what I think about the documentary anyway.

Call me suspicious, but the unnamed witness who reported that he hit the guy and split his lip, also knows that he went to A&E, which hospital he went to and what he was treated for (dizziness). He is also the person who reported the "lazy irish cunt" quote and the 40 minutes quote. Clarkson reported the incident himself and the only things he denies are things this witness has said.

​Stewart Lee is very good... but he is a comedian. Try not to mistake his brand of light entertainment for philosophy though, for the same reason that you wouldn't actually try to survive in the wilderness "Bear Grills style". I would have also though that the way that Clarkson was the person who reported the incident to the BBC demonstrated his feelings of guilt over the incident way before his sun article.

​Not being English, I can only look in from the outside but it seems that in the era of slave trading, the lower classes and merchant classes generally couldn't afford plantations, restricting the ownership of slaves to the upper classes. Elitism is a dreaded notion, as bad as sexism or racism. You are not a better person than anyone else because of your ancestry. To believe otherwise is elitist. It has nothing to do with education, idealists, socialist movements or good behaviour. Indeed, some of the most obnoxious, ill mannered individuals I have ever met belonged to a royal family and believe you me, were some of the most elitist people of the face of the planet. Bad taste is in the eye of the beholder. Your opinion is no more or less valid than mine. You find top gear vulgar and in bad taste. Well done on having an opinion. I don't share your opinion. Not kindly stop trying to convince me that I am wrong, or am somehow worse than you because of the light entertainment I enjoy. It's ill mannered and shows a lack of empathy and understanding that the world doesn't revolve around you that is, quite frankly disturbing - and I would suggest, a more pertinant problem to solve in the world that white men who say nigger. Go watch Philip Blooms latest series, The Wonder List, and get a bit of perspective in your life as to the importance of a bit of paper with a family crest on it.

​Two things: 1) Your assertion that the upper classes are superior to the lower classes is some quite open classism and eliteism. 2) Those lovely polite old English gentlemen who upheld these Oxbridge ideals traded in slaves and colonised a third of the world causing repercussions from their rampant and destructive racism that echos today in organisations like ISIS, the IRA and Al Qaeda. I'm going to make a bold statement: That they queued politely at the post office does not make up for the atrocities they committed.

Nope, as I have said, everyone does something that everyone doesn't like. So there would be literally zero communication, because if all tv was gone what next? Get rid of all the people who have once in private said something I don't like from acting in movies. Bang, no movies because we have no actors. Then what, stop them from writing. Bang, no writing ever again. Then ban them from speaking in public and singing. Bang, no-one can use their voice in front of anyone, because literally every human who has ever existed, in their brief, fleeting time on this earth, including your own past self, have said things and done things that you at this instant in time don't like. I think you exist in this "Mr Tumble" type space where everyone is either Lawful Good or Chaotic Evil, with no nuance, no reasons, no expatiation and no grey areas. It must be nice to have such a simplistic, ignorant view of the world, but I wouldn't want to go back to that.