Do you think he needs to be sacked? Does this need to go to the police as some want? The comments made were completely out of line and this could be one step too far for him in my opinion. The BBC have said sorry for him too many times. But don't think it warrants police intervention.
No, he's within his rights. Would we be up in arms if a random person said it? Anyway It was quite clearly a joke, it's more a case of "I don't like him so he can go fest himself"
As he said on Top Gear to Alastair Campbell - "I don't believe what I write, any more than you believe what you say". Whether that makes it right to say the things he does is a different matter, but you can't take anything he says at face value because it's a persona.
Anyway, someone who has punched Piers Morgan in the face gets cut slack by me.
It was a serious point made in his usual crashing joke style. Cant see the issue with it myself. For Unison to be taking legal advice shows how much effing money they must have stored in their coffers to start a fight with.
Clarkson isn't high on my list of favourite people, but his comments always seem to get blown hilariously out of proportion.
He's been on our screens for God-knows-how-many-years with his same style of humour and still people haven't learned to recognise it, or simply refuse to recognise it.
That and if Clarkson gets the sack, you can pretty much kiss Top Gear and the viewers it brings goodbye, which would be a large step backwards for the BBC.
davidjones wrote:It was a serious point made in his usual crashing joke style. Cant see the issue with it myself. For Unison to be taking legal advice shows how much effing money they must have stored in their coffers to start a fight with.
Sorry, what was his 'serious point'?
Whether or not you agree with their reasons for striking on this occasion, the rights to form trades unions and to take industrial action are legally unequivocal. To see an overpaid buffoon like Clarkson condemning nurses, teachers and public servants for exercising a legal right in defence of a contractual entitlement (and indeed to hear him utter the words 'public service' with such distaste) on the BBC, is more than a little distasteful.
English Assassin wrote:To see an overpaid buffoon like Clarkson condemning nurses, teachers and public servants for exercising a legal right in defence of a contractual entitlement (and indeed to hear him utter the words 'public service' with such distaste) on the BBC, is more than a little distasteful.
Distasteful is entirely the wrong word.
To you it is. I think it's brilliant and I think he is funny, so do millions of others. YMMV.
It's also testament to the BBC's famously impartial broadcasting. Considering every time I have checked their website this week I've seen some craggy faced militant union gangster waffling on endlessly about how everyone supports them even though they don't, I was extremely pleased when I logged on today and saw JC having a big of a laugh. I also sat through the other half of the video with the sour faced union bint overreacting hugely. Legal action!? Do me a favour.
Go with a bunch of your trendy friends and see a "right-on" comedian like Ben Elton and see some of the disgustingly offensive things they say about the Royal Family or David Cameron or anyone unlucky enough to go to a private school (but not anyone from the labour party even though they all go to private school as well). Its far far worse than this bloke comically saying "line em up and shoot em!"
Of course, the BBC wouldn't then give air time to someone needlessly over reacting and demanding they take legal action against said comedian. It's a joke, people tell jokes that certain people find offensive/hilarious depending on their political/religious beliefs every single day of the week. You don't see the Pope demanding action against the any number of comedians who say truly offensive things about the Catholic church. When they call the Royal family deeply offensive names you dont see staunch Royalists like me going on telly and demanding "action".
This is just more of the truly staggering hypocrisy I expect from lefties, union mobsters and anyone who writes for the Guardian.
Oh my, those poor over-privileged rich children with their vast fortunes, instant directorships and holidays to Aspen. Truly how terrible it is that they might be mocked....
ArbeitsSchu wrote:Oh my, those poor over-privileged rich children with their vast fortunes, instant directorships and holidays to Aspen. Truly how terrible it is that they might be mocked....
You have quite clearly missed the point entirely. Eveyone wants to be rich. Im not saying they are unlucky because their lives are gak, Im saying unlucky because that makes you the target for abuse by crass people who display little common sense.
Your a class warrior then? You have a needless and prejudiced hate for any people who happen to have wealthy parents?
How is that their fault?
And how is your labelling them all any different from racism if someone happens to be black?
While I can understand why some people might be offended by that (Jezza's long been known to have a very poor brain to mouth filter) it annoys me that some of those nutcases are intending to initiate legal action.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:Oh my, those poor over-privileged rich children with their vast fortunes, instant directorships and holidays to Aspen. Truly how terrible it is that they might be mocked....
You have quite clearly missed the point entirely. Eveyone wants to be rich. Im not saying they are unlucky because their lives are gak, Im saying unlucky because that makes you the target for abuse by crass people who display little common sense.
Your a class warrior then? You have a needless and prejudiced hate for any people who happen to have wealthy parents?
How is that their fault?
And how is your labelling them all any different from racism if someone happens to be black?
Far from it. I got into a 500 post argument on a Disability Rights site the other night over the idiot notion that Rich = Evil, Poor = Good. I don't happen to think in sweeping stereotypes, because its ridiculous and far from reflective of the reality of humanity. What I DO understand is that having a guaranteed income for life based on vast personal wealth is a hell of a lot of compensation for being called names by poor people. For example, A4E's director Emma Harrison. Being handed a company by daddy, then given an award for being an "entrepreneur" whilst you "advise" the government on how to give your free company more money whilst living in a stately home, and lauded as some sort of expert on family life at the same time is a very comfortable situation to be in when someone who gets paid less than 60 quid a week calls your company £4Emma. Water slides off a ducks back very well when that Duck is MADE OF GOLD. David Cameron was "unlucky" enough to have a family wealthy enough to buy him into power? Poor Dave. My heart bleeds for him, it truly does.
What I realise is that when someone spits upwards, its fair game. When someone spits downwards its just bullying, which is usually only funny to other bullies.
Far from it. I got into a 500 post argument on a Disability Rights site the other night over the idiot notion that Rich = Evil, Poor = Good. I don't happen to think in sweeping stereotypes, because its ridiculous and far from reflective of the reality of humanity. What I DO understand is that having a guaranteed income for life based on vast personal wealth is a hell of a lot of compensation for being called names by poor people. For example, A4E's director Emma Harrison. Being handed a company by daddy, then given an award for being an "entrepreneur" whilst you "advise" the government on how to give your free company more money whilst living in a stately home, and lauded as some sort of expert on family life at the same time is a very comfortable situation to be in when someone who gets paid less than 60 quid a week calls your company £4Emma. Water slides off a ducks back very well when that Duck is MADE OF GOLD. David Cameron was "unlucky" enough to have a family wealthy enough to buy him into power? Poor Dave. My heart bleeds for him, it truly does.
What I realise is that when someone spits upwards, its fair game. When someone spits downwards its just bullying, which is usually only funny to other bullies.
Yes mate and as I said you missed the point, "unlucky" was a sarcastic jibe because the abuse comes for no other reason than being rich. Of course its great if you go to private school and your Dads got a yacht! But the point is, Its not like you earn the abuse like someone who actually does something wrong, but you will still get some.
gak, for myself Id let someone call me names 12 hours a day if I got 5 million pounds off them. Its why I think footballers need to man up. The crowd get to throw mars bars at you if your fat, and you get to be rich as feth. Seems a fair one to me. For that money you should have the professionalism not to kung-fu kick the crowd like Eric Cantona!
And regards your heart bleeding for Dave, he hasn't been complaining about class warfare has he? Im sure he is like you or I, and is happy to be called names as long as he has beluga caviar and a 12 bedroomed house.
The rest of your post I can agree on. I'm the son of a welder from Middlesbrough, Im not even remotely rich, I just argue alot on behalf of rich people because I am of the opinion (possibly from having several great "posh" officers in the Marines) that disliking someone because of their family background is just as ridiculous as disliking someone who happens to be born black, gay or ginger.
I absolutely think he should be sacked, but mainly because he isn't funny and certainly isn't worth his £1million contract (which I pay for).
The BBC is too in thrall to its big stars, such as Clarkson, Paxman, Marr, Forsythe & Norton and are under a misguided impression that their audiences would dry up if they stop making programmes with these aforementioned personalities.
The only two people who come close to providing value for money are David Attenborough and James May.
I think that was Clarkson being Clarkson. It's been a few months since he mortally offended a gigantic group of people. He's been about as uncivil to the entire country of Mexico and truck drivers.
Far from it. I got into a 500 post argument on a Disability Rights site the other night over the idiot notion that Rich = Evil, Poor = Good. I don't happen to think in sweeping stereotypes, because its ridiculous and far from reflective of the reality of humanity. What I DO understand is that having a guaranteed income for life based on vast personal wealth is a hell of a lot of compensation for being called names by poor people. For example, A4E's director Emma Harrison. Being handed a company by daddy, then given an award for being an "entrepreneur" whilst you "advise" the government on how to give your free company more money whilst living in a stately home, and lauded as some sort of expert on family life at the same time is a very comfortable situation to be in when someone who gets paid less than 60 quid a week calls your company £4Emma. Water slides off a ducks back very well when that Duck is MADE OF GOLD. David Cameron was "unlucky" enough to have a family wealthy enough to buy him into power? Poor Dave. My heart bleeds for him, it truly does.
What I realise is that when someone spits upwards, its fair game. When someone spits downwards its just bullying, which is usually only funny to other bullies.
Yes mate and as I said you missed the point, "unlucky" was a sarcastic jibe because the abuse comes for no other reason than being rich. Of course its great if you go to private school and your Dads got a yacht! But the point is, Its not like you earn the abuse like someone who actually does something wrong, but you will still get some.
gak, for myself Id let someone call me names 12 hours a day if I got 5 million pounds off them. Its why I think footballers need to man up. The crowd get to throw mars bars at you if your fat, and you get to be rich as feth. Seems a fair one to me. For that money you should have the professionalism not to kung-fu kick the crowd like Eric Cantona!
And regards your heart bleeding for Dave, he hasn't been complaining about class warfare has he? Im sure he is like you or I, and is happy to be called names as long as he has beluga caviar and a 12 bedroomed house.
The rest of your post I can agree on. I'm the son of a welder from Middlesbrough, Im not even remotely rich, I just argue alot on behalf of rich people because I am of the opinion (possibly from having several great "posh" officers in the Marines) that disliking someone because of their family background is just as ridiculous as disliking someone who happens to be born black, gay or ginger.
Well.. maybe not that last one.
I very much doubt that most of the abuse going "up" gets anywhere near the ears of our "betters". I have a worrying feeling that Dave really does actually believe that he understands the common man, and that we really are "all in it together".
For the record, I don't particularly think that Clarkson should be fired, or sued, or whatever. But I will say that I think fat-arse TV talking heads who get paid to go on international holidays in supercars should be herded into camps and gassed....
If we had to put up with Ben Elton, lefties should put up with Clarkson.
The difference being Elton had a persistent political agenda wrapped in comedy which the BBC propogated.
Comedy isnt neutral any more, this is a bad thing, but at least Clarkson was giving his comments on an armchair in a chat show rather than part of a routine.
Also having people shot is a turn of phrase, to him, only a dimwitted union twit would see otherwise. Problem is, there are plenty of those people around.
Incidentally, Clarkson is occasionally to be seen having a quiet pint around our area. Given that its a northern "Red Or Dead" ex-mining town, this sort of comment is rarely heard from his lips, for fear that some ex-miner will stave his head in.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:Incidentally, Clarkson is occasionally to be seen having a quiet pint around our area. Given that its a northern "Red Or Dead" ex-mining town, this sort of comment is rarely heard from his lips, for fear that some ex-miner will stave his head in.
Well, he has been vocal on Top Gear that he only actually agree's with half of what he says to be fair.
And there is the other obvious one, is your comment to be considered insulting? Its hardly cowardly to not gob off when your having a quiet pint and you know that 90% of the pub would happily stamp on your face. Plus he would look ridiculously boorish, saying this gak on TV is one thing, I doubt he is trying for laughs when he wants a quiet pint.
For example, If I walked into a pub and Islam4UK were having their yearly get together I think it would be eminently sensible to keep my mouth shut.
Something that any good parent would do if they had the cash to do so.
Two sides to everything my friend. OK, they get a somewhat higher level of education, most of which though tend to become far too snobby and stuck up as a result of this. Mummy and daddy tend to do alot for spoilt children.
Im sorry, but throwing money at a child does not make them any better, no matter what it is you have brought them with it. You simply keep the child in his/her own little safe bubble away from the real world.
If given the choice i would have turned down private schools anyway. I would also refuse to pay for a child to attend one. Character and morals are not earned through throwing money at something.
Anyways, back on topic: Nothing wrong with clarkson. Been this way for years, will be the same for years to come. Its simply a case of him being himself and throwing out jokes that may case some offence.
However, there are allways people to complain, its a trend now.
Yikes, I think some people are seriously over reactting to what he said. I mena, you could CLEARLY tell he was making light of it. I mean before he said it he even says "Oh this is the BBC, so it needs abit of balancing doesnt it?" then jokes about having those people shot. Cmon now......wheres the sense of humor in them? He said Much worse things when their show came to America, it could of easily been taken very insultingly, but instead of being insulted, I was to busy crying from laughing at what he was saying
Depends how you want to interpret it really. He may not say such things when he's out and about in Donny because he knows he'll get grief. Or it could be read as evidence that it really is put on for TV, and that he doesn't actually think anything of the sort.
Good example: My old manager said (for comedy effect) "Its been twenty years since they closed the mines. Retrain already. Get over it" whilst sat at the bar. Behind him, a gentleman stood up... "How fckin dare you...(cue very angry rant about mining and dead children and all manner of ills). It was quite funny watching my managers face drop as he realised he had made his "comedy joke" in front of a miner. I knew from experience that he was actually being satirical, but it took a LOT of explaining to the customer to stop him getting filled in. Even then, the outrage followed him around.
So yeah, it could be either. I would like to think that it is in fact the latter. Its always saddening to discover that someone claiming to be "putting on an act" isn't really acting at all.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:Oh my, those poor over-privileged rich children with their vast fortunes, instant directorships and holidays to Aspen. Truly how terrible it is that they might be mocked....
feth off.
I go to a private school, and my parents are massively in debt putting me through it, even with my scholarship.
If you think that "Private School" automatically indicates someone who has massive amounts of money and influence, then you're sadly mistaken.
Both of my parents lived in council houses, and it's only through the fact that my mum has worked her metaphorical bollocks off that I can go to the school that I do.
On the topic of Clarkson, I am of the opinion that he's a massive tosser, partly influenced by the fact that my history teacher was a boarding master at the private school that Clarkson was "Unlucky" enough to attend and get kicked out of for swearing at a governor whilst returning from the pub at 1am, and by whose accounts, Clarkson was a thoroughly unpleasant person to be near.
Also on the topic of Clarkson, one of the children that you hear about in those occasional "Jeremy Clarkson swears at crying child" stories is in the year below me at school.
mattyrm wrote:
For example, If I walked into a pub and Islam4UK were having their yearly get together I think it would be eminently sensible to keep my mouth shut.
See if I walked into a pub ad that was occurring my first thought would be: 1) Holy crap how did I get to England? 2) Holy crap am I in England? 3) Holy crap the Haggis Police can finally get me for all the jokes I made about haggis!; 4) Holy crap what are all these people saying? Its like English but...wrong...
ArbeitsSchu wrote:Depends how you want to interpret it really. He may not say such things when he's out and about in Donny because he knows he'll get grief. Or it could be read as evidence that it really is put on for TV, and that he doesn't actually think anything of the sort.
Good example: My old manager said (for comedy effect) "Its been twenty years since they closed the mines. Retrain already. Get over it" whilst sat at the bar. Behind him, a gentleman stood up... "How fckin dare you...(cue very angry rant about mining and dead children and all manner of ills). It was quite funny watching my managers face drop as he realised he had made his "comedy joke" in front of a miner. I knew from experience that he was actually being satirical, but it took a LOT of explaining to the customer to stop him getting filled in. Even then, the outrage followed him around.
So yeah, it could be either. I would like to think that it is in fact the latter. Its always saddening to discover that someone claiming to be "putting on an act" isn't really acting at all.
Ye, a good example of how people take things far to seriously (my father in law was a miner btw).
See if I walked into a pub ad that was occurring my first thought would be: 1) Holy crap how did I get to England? 2) Holy crap am I in England? 3) Holy crap the Haggis Police can finally get me for all the jokes I made about haggis!; 4) Holy crap what are all these people saying? Its like English but...wrong...
See if I walked into a pub ad that was occurring my first thought would be: 1) Holy crap how did I get to England? 2) Holy crap am I in England? 3) Holy crap the Haggis Police can finally get me for all the jokes I made about haggis!; 4) Holy crap what are all these people saying? Its like English but...wrong...
5) pop round for some 40k, drinking and ribs
Well, you do have excellent beer. I'd have to introduce you to something called Tex-Mex. Afterwards you may have astrange desire to get on a horse and invade some innocent poor unsuspecting neighboring country that also has excelent hooch (looks in Belgium's direction).
ArbeitsSchu wrote:Oh my, those poor over-privileged rich children with their vast fortunes, instant directorships and holidays to Aspen. Truly how terrible it is that they might be mocked....
feth off.
I go to a private school, and my parents are massively in debt putting me through it, even with my scholarship.
If you think that "Private School" automatically indicates someone who has massive amounts of money and influence, then you're sadly mistaken.
Both of my parents lived in council houses, and it's only through the fact that my mum has worked her metaphorical bollocks off that I can go to the school that I do.
On the topic of Clarkson, I am of the opinion that he's a massive tosser, partly influenced by the fact that my history teacher was a boarding master at the private school that Clarkson was "Unlucky" enough to attend and get kicked out of for swearing at a governor whilst returning from the pub at 1am, and by whose accounts, Clarkson was a thoroughly unpleasant person to be near.
Also on the topic of Clarkson, one of the children that you hear about in those occasional "Jeremy Clarkson swears at crying child" stories is in the year below me at school.
The majority of people that attend private schools can afford it, just because you're family actually worked for it (which I respect hugely) doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of people born with the "right" to attend private schools.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:Oh my, those poor over-privileged rich children with their vast fortunes, instant directorships and holidays to Aspen. Truly how terrible it is that they might be mocked....
feth off.
I go to a private school, and my parents are massively in debt putting me through it, even with my scholarship.
If you think that "Private School" automatically indicates someone who has massive amounts of money and influence, then you're sadly mistaken.
Both of my parents lived in council houses, and it's only through the fact that my mum has worked her metaphorical bollocks off that I can go to the school that I do.
I'm sure that's very exciting for you, and i wish you well in your education. You've been given a great opportunity, so I'm not going to lose any sleep that you might decide that you are being unfairly treated. There are people who live in stately homes who are massively in debt. They still live in stately homes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Paul wrote:
ArbeitsSchu wrote:Depends how you want to interpret it really. He may not say such things when he's out and about in Donny because he knows he'll get grief. Or it could be read as evidence that it really is put on for TV, and that he doesn't actually think anything of the sort.
Good example: My old manager said (for comedy effect) "Its been twenty years since they closed the mines. Retrain already. Get over it" whilst sat at the bar. Behind him, a gentleman stood up... "How fckin dare you...(cue very angry rant about mining and dead children and all manner of ills). It was quite funny watching my managers face drop as he realised he had made his "comedy joke" in front of a miner. I knew from experience that he was actually being satirical, but it took a LOT of explaining to the customer to stop him getting filled in. Even then, the outrage followed him around.
So yeah, it could be either. I would like to think that it is in fact the latter. Its always saddening to discover that someone claiming to be "putting on an act" isn't really acting at all.
Ye, a good example of how people take things far to seriously (my father in law was a miner btw).
I was kind of hoping he might mention how much he admired Margaret Thatcher. They'd have set him on fire for that.
Not sure how it takes a yank ti point out the truth in this story. Well posted Mr Cracker.
Storm in a tea cup on a slow news day. At worst the media attempting to smeer Cameron fit his friendship with Clarkson.
Any way how could he have made the joke work by saying the strikers should have been sacked. It would have been too close to public opinion to be funny.
Think you kind of missed the point. Not all that many children will choose what school they go to - if their parents send them to the local comp, a private school, what choice does the child actually have?
Hating them because they had no choice in how they were brought up is all kinds of silly. In the same way that it is kind of silly to hate someone because their parents were dirt poor and paid no attention to their child or their education.
mattyrm wrote:For example, If I walked into a pub and Islam4UK were having their yearly get together I think it would be eminently sensible to keep my mouth shut.
Hang on a sec... what are Islam4UK doing in a pub?
Give the man a medal for putting the stuffed shirts noses out of joint. Sack the union bosses for over-reacting, and then send them for a sense of humour implant.
The only way to make it more clear it was a joke would have been if he was holding a sign saying "Joke" as he made it.
mattyrm wrote:For example, If I walked into a pub and Islam4UK were having their yearly get together I think it would be eminently sensible to keep my mouth shut.
Hang on a sec... what are Islam4UK doing in a pub?
Oh yeah, because Religious people never say one thing and do the other do they?
Hasn't the One show been flagging in the ratings since the human potato and that woman left? How terribly untimely and unfortunate that this has been picked up on.
BBC news should be congratulated for their dedication.
Since Jeremy Clarkson works for the BBC is he not also a public servant? Up against the wall jezza! Time for one last bit of entertainment for your wife and kids!
I agree completely about the legal side being ridiculous. However I still think it is just too many times that he has wound people up like this. I can see the funny side to the joke, but still made me cringe. What makes me biased is that I had mates out on the picket line, and if I had actually started my new job, I could have been with them (got a job with NHS).
H.B.M.C. wrote:Police investigation for what? All he's done is offend some people. If you get offended nothing happens - you just get offended. Move on.
People are being offended because they are being shown the 'offending' section out of context as it's being reported by the media elsewhere. It's really pathetic, it's a great example of how selective reporting can twist a story to the needs of journalist.
Matt Baker: And we've got Jeremy Clarkson!
Jeremy Clarkson: Thank you very much.
Matt Baker: So Jeremy, schools, hospitals, airports, even driving tests have been affected. Do you the strikes are a good idea?
Jeremy Clarkson: It's been fantastic. Seriously, never had … London today has just been empty. Everybody stayed at home, you could whizz about, your restaurants were empty.
Alex Jones: The traffic actually has been very good today.
Jeremy Clarkson: Very light. Now airports, you know, people streaming through with no problems at all and it's also like being back in the 70s, it makes me feel at home somehow.
Alex Jones: Do you know anybody who …
Matt Baker: [interrupts – inaduiable] – being on strike today?
Jeremy Clarkson: What, in public service? Of course I don't. No, absolutely. We have to balance it though, don't we because this is the BBC.
Alex Jones and Matt Baker: Exactly.
Jeremy Clarkson: Frankly, I'd have them all shot!
[studio laughs]
Jeremy Clarkson: I would take them outside and execute them in front of their families. I mean how dare they go on strike when they've got these gilt-edged pensions that are going to be guaranteed while the rest of us have to work for a living?
Matt Baker: Well, on that note of balancing an opinion of course those are Jeremy's views.
Jeremy Clarkson: I just … ! I was just giving two views for you!
Alex Jones: Well, we will be talking to Jeremy more later.
It's pretty obvious from the full piece that he was not bothered by the strike and points out it was of no inconvenience to him. Then he jests that he has to 'balance it out' for impartiality so says something wildly stupid, and then finishes with saying that he was only giving "two views".
How much more obvious does it need to be it was a joke and not to be taken seriously? Those selectively reporting only the sentence in the middle can only be taking a mendacious approach for some agenda or other.
George Spiggott wrote:Hasn't the One show been flagging in the ratings since the human potato and that woman left? How terribly untimely and unfortunate that this has been picked up on.
Is it a book or a DVD that Mr. Clarkson is trying to flog for Xmas currently ?
I think it was pretty obvious he was joking. To be honest I winced more over the comments about people who commit suicide. Given the sad events of the weekend and the ongoing horror stories being dredged up in an ongoing inquiry I thought that was pretty poorly timed.
... funny how none of the newspapers started talking about that eh ?
Funny how people are jumping to defend him saying "that's just who he is". Well "just who he is" is a freaking unrepentant jackass, why shouldn't his employment come up for review? I'd probably have been fired for something like that in my previous jobs...
I could see the point of somebody complaining because it trivialised a somewhat serious point the strikers are trying to make. Should public sector workers loose their pensions because the private sector can't run pension schemes correctly? Probably not.
Isn't that the point of humour though?
Jezza is a legend, if you can't see that he is joking I might as well come round and execute you in front of your family...
H.B.M.C. wrote:Police investigation for what? All he's done is offend some people. If you get offended nothing happens - you just get offended. Move on.
I think in the UK you can go to jail if you offend the wrong group. I think it extends from the royal practice of the right of the Queen to say "off with his head! and my feet hurt, someone bring me a nice fat pig to put my feet on" or something or other. Maybe its stems from Euro bureaucrats. Regardless, I think we've all learned something here, that it is wrong to be French.
Mannahnin wrote:...or from Lichtenstein. [shakes fist]
Clarkson was a bit of a dick, but it was clearly a joke. Overreacting people are overreacting.
Indeed. Its the secret tunnels from Switzerland to Leichtenstein, alowing them to harnass the Dark Land's powers, that kep them free from Red Skull during WWII.
Help me out, isn't this the car guy? Is he a big deal over there?
Yes, he's the big tall funny guy on Top Gear. Yes, he is very popular and funny, but has a history of saying dickish things and went through a scandal not long ago cheating on his wife, IIRC.
He's a cretin for saying such a thing but when I heard his comment on the news, in context, it did sound like he was using his sometimes well out-of-the-box humour
Brother-Captain Scotti wrote:He's a cretin for saying such a thing but when I heard his comment on the news, in context, it did sound like he was using his sometimes well out-of-the-box humour
He was taking the mick out of the BBC, and had his comments taken out of context. Take out the media and execute them in front of their families for twisting his words and causing him all this trouble.
Well as an update Clarkson has apologised for his remarks since very few people can take a joke or a hint these days.
THough from his comments I got two thoughts from it. First that yes, shooting people infront of their families is a bit OTT but the main thought was his point. Union chiefs are lazy buggers with fat salaries and gold-plated diamond-encrusted pensions and expenses who cry everytime the Government wanted to make them have reasonable wages like everybody else. Current Union chiefs can't handle it and should be removed, which is what I thought Clarkson was getting at. Notice how during Labour's power Unions barely cried, more like threw wild parties. Conservatives roll in and propose reasonable changes and Unions begin crying outrage again.
But as usual the media missed this and took said lines to heart, reforged them into something evil and now Clarkson is getting calls for resignation again. Surprise surprise.
English Assassin wrote:To see an overpaid buffoon like Clarkson condemning nurses, teachers and public servants for exercising a legal right in defence of a contractual entitlement (and indeed to hear him utter the words 'public service' with such distaste) on the BBC, is more than a little distasteful.
Go with a bunch of your trendy friends and see a "right-on" comedian like Ben Elton and see some of the disgustingly offensive things they say about the Royal Family or David Cameron or anyone unlucky enough to go to a private school (but not anyone from the labour party even though they all go to private school as well). Its far far worse than this bloke comically saying "line em up and shoot em!"
Of course, the BBC wouldn't then give air time to someone needlessly over reacting and demanding they take legal action against said comedian. It's a joke, people tell jokes that certain people find offensive/hilarious depending on their political/religious beliefs every single day of the week. You don't see the Pope demanding action against the any number of comedians who say truly offensive things about the Catholic church. When they call the Royal family deeply offensive names you dont see staunch Royalists like me going on telly and demanding "action".
This is just more of the truly staggering hypocrisy I expect from lefties, union mobsters and anyone who writes for the Guardian.
Well done, you've managed to encapsulate everything that's wrong here, the worst part of which is the reduction of all political discourse to "for or against". The right to take industrial action is enshrined in law: whether or not you (or Clarkson) agree with the reasons invoked in this particular instance, it is a legal right, and one worthy of defence. But it's much easier just to trot out some tired stereotypes about "union mobsters" the Guardian and Ben Elton, eh? (Also, seriously, Ben Elton? You need to update your rhetoric; the only thing for which I know of him is writing that diabolically poor Queen musical. Why not have a crack at 'That Was The Week That Was' while you're at it?)
There is something seriously wrong with the political climate when pointing this out gets me labelled as "trendy" and "right-on". (For the record, I went to a public school - note to Americans, that means a particularly old private school, work in academia, and, shall we say, don't vote Labour.) What is relevant to the complaint is less the BBC's commitment to impartiality as its concern for quality; Clarkson's remarks were simply embarrassing, lowest common denominator stuff, and, whether or not he intended it, exceedingly - and unhelpfully - polarising. As a public figure he has a responsibility - as the BBC does as a broadcaster - to ensure that statements on a current affairs programme (even lowbrow rubbish like The One Show) are within the bounds of civilised discourse. What Clarkson has instead done, as this thread rather sadly demonstrates, is turn a debate between the government and civil service over pensions, into a popularity contest between himself and the trades unions.
It does warm my cockles to see massively overpaid media personalities (paid from the public purse, mind you) attacking actual public servants. It's bloody brilliant.
If being a public servant was so awesome, there'd be a lot more people trying to get into it. As is, piles of your teachers are not from the UK, at the very least.
Da Boss wrote:It does warm my cockles to see massively overpaid media personalities (paid from the public purse, mind you) attacking actual public servants. It's bloody brilliant.
Did you read the transcript of the full section of the program (above)?
Da Boss wrote:It does warm my cockles to see massively overpaid media personalities (paid from the public purse, mind you) attacking actual public servants. It's bloody brilliant.
If being a public servant was so awesome, there'd be a lot more people trying to get into it. As is, piles of your teachers are not from the UK, at the very least.
Yes, love the way the second the Conservatives got in, the public sector was suddenly a bunch of leeches drinking our fill from the public purse. The vast majority of us aren't paid all that much. I'm a transport professional, yet earn under the average wage. The way the media portray it, we're sucking the country dry with our greed. The point is, nobody goes into the public sector for a decent wage. They go to make a difference and do a job they believe in.
Another big attraction for me was the stability of the job, in fairness. The private sector is a lot less stable for most people. Silver: Looking at that I am amazed this even made the news. Then I remembered that we are dealing with the british press.
Flashman wrote:Yes, love the way the second the Conservatives got in, the public sector was suddenly a bunch of leeches drinking our fill from the public purse. The vast majority of us aren't paid all that much. I'm a transport professional, yet earn under the average wage. The way the media portray it, we're sucking the country dry with our greed. The point is, nobody goes into the public sector for a decent wage. They go to make a difference and do a job they believe in.
I think they were just looking for something they can cut to save money in the long run. Public sector pensions do "cost" a fair bit, though I personally am of the view that they should be protected. Certainly when politicians have final salary pensions (of their, generally, much larger salary), pay in about 2/3 as much for 2/3 as long as everyone else and are constantly voting themselves more it is extremely bad show to try and rip away pretty much the only good thing about working in the public sector.
Da Boss wrote:It does warm my cockles to see massively overpaid media personalities (paid from the public purse, mind you) attacking actual public servants. It's bloody brilliant.
If being a public servant was so awesome, there'd be a lot more people trying to get into it. As is, piles of your teachers are not from the UK, at the very least.
Yes, love the way the second the Conservatives got in, the public sector was suddenly a bunch of leeches drinking our fill from the public purse. The vast majority of us aren't paid all that much. I'm a transport professional, yet earn under the average wage. The way the media portray it, we're sucking the country dry with our greed. The point is, nobody goes into the public sector for a decent wage. They go to make a difference and do a job they believe in.
Of course they do.
Anyway, moving on... It was funny! It was funny because it was a joke! Y'know, 'haha'? Remember that? I also loved the one about the miners from the previous page. My retort to the irate ex-miner would probably have been along the lines of ' So, you didn't starve to death then? Good for you.'
Da Boss wrote:It does warm my cockles to see massively overpaid media personalities (paid from the public purse, mind you) attacking actual public servants. It's bloody brilliant.
If being a public servant was so awesome, there'd be a lot more people trying to get into it. As is, piles of your teachers are not from the UK, at the very least.
Yes, love the way the second the Conservatives got in, the public sector was suddenly a bunch of leeches drinking our fill from the public purse. The vast majority of us aren't paid all that much. I'm a transport professional, yet earn under the average wage. The way the media portray it, we're sucking the country dry with our greed. The point is, nobody goes into the public sector for a decent wage. They go to make a difference and do a job they believe in.
I didn't know UK government workers were all altruists. The ones in the US sure aren't.
Flashman wrote:
Yes, love the way the second the Conservatives got in, the public sector was suddenly a bunch of leeches drinking our fill from the public purse. The vast majority of us aren't paid all that much. I'm a transport professional, yet earn under the average wage. The way the media portray it, we're sucking the country dry with our greed. The point is, nobody goes into the public sector for a decent wage. They go to make a difference and do a job they believe in.
Of course they do.
Well I do And I shall carry on until the UK transport system is working perfectly
Flashman wrote:
Yes, love the way the second the Conservatives got in, the public sector was suddenly a bunch of leeches drinking our fill from the public purse. The vast majority of us aren't paid all that much. I'm a transport professional, yet earn under the average wage. The way the media portray it, we're sucking the country dry with our greed. The point is, nobody goes into the public sector for a decent wage. They go to make a difference and do a job they believe in.
Of course they do.
Well I do And I shall carry on until the UK transport system is working perfectly
Man, in that case, feth pensions! If you can pull that off they should give you a small Carribbean island!
Incidentally your union boss, Bob Crow, earns over £130k per year plus expenses totaling around £10k, which puts him on par with the Prime Minister.
I'm sure he just does it for the love, though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
purplefood wrote:
Flashman wrote:
SilverMK2 wrote:The revolution can't come soon enough.
When they line them up against the wall, Osborne is mine
Oh hang on, that could be construed as being offensive
I call dibs on killing Clegg...
It will be slow and oh so painful...
He'd probably kick your head in, mate. As would Cameron. They're both fairly big blokes who work out every day, and who no doubt know their way around a Rugby ball. You'd get minced.
Also not in the union, by the way. I hate the union heads. Another way to manipulate people to get their damn money. Holding the education system at home back.
I actually feel sorry for Clegg, tbh. A good chunk of the hate that gets fired at him should be landing on the tories and labour, in my view. Though the lib dems are mostly crazy and stupid, too.
I was nonplussed about the strike in general, but I dislike the rhetoric spouted that suggests that all public sector workers are lazy and that they are not providing value for money.
(I am drunk and exhausted if this post makes no sense by the way)
Public sector is often badly managed. By the managers. That would be the echelons above the level that is busy losing its jobs en masse.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albatross wrote:
Flashman wrote:
Albatross wrote:
Flashman wrote:
Yes, love the way the second the Conservatives got in, the public sector was suddenly a bunch of leeches drinking our fill from the public purse. The vast majority of us aren't paid all that much. I'm a transport professional, yet earn under the average wage. The way the media portray it, we're sucking the country dry with our greed. The point is, nobody goes into the public sector for a decent wage. They go to make a difference and do a job they believe in.
Of course they do.
Well I do And I shall carry on until the UK transport system is working perfectly
Man, in that case, feth pensions! If you can pull that off they should give you a small Carribbean island!
Incidentally your union boss, Bob Crow, earns over £130k per year plus expenses totaling around £10k, which puts him on par with the Prime Minister.
I'm sure he just does it for the love, though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
purplefood wrote:
Flashman wrote:
SilverMK2 wrote:The revolution can't come soon enough.
When they line them up against the wall, Osborne is mine
Oh hang on, that could be construed as being offensive
I call dibs on killing Clegg...
It will be slow and oh so painful...
He'd probably kick your head in, mate. As would Cameron. They're both fairly big blokes who work out every day, and who no doubt know their way around a Rugby ball. You'd get minced.
No offence.
Seems a bit odd to assume that the people making the threats aren't equally or even more capable than Bobblehead Dave and his butt-puppet sidekick? I'm quite confident that a great many of the people who would love to physically inconvenience Cleggy are a sight more dangerous than a public school boy who might have played rugger twenty or thirty years ago. (There are a few steel workers I can think of who would happily bend him in half after that Forgemasters debacle.) . Bit of a daft diversion, all said.
Jeremy Clarkson wrote: Now airports, you know, people streaming through with no problems at all and it's also like being back in the 70s, it makes me feel at home somehow.
Like the 70's you say?
OFF WITH HIS HEAD! Clarkson must be sacked immediately! We can't have people thinking the strike is viewed as positive by a man who feels at home in the 70's. Have him shot!
Albatross wrote:The thing is, for many of us, the public sector isn't providing value for money.
It's difficult to argue against this, but this is largely because of bureaucracy and just because you involve the private sector, doesn't mean you remove that bureaucracy. If anything, you add more. About half Southampton City Council is now run by a private partner and often they refuse to do even the most simple task because it's "not in the contract". Outsourcing services just bogs a local authority down with legal wranglings as the private partner tries to say "we didn't agree to do that" at every given opportunity.
The best argument I can think of is the still incomplete Edinburgh tram. Now ok, all major infrastrucure projects are handled by the private sector these days and that's not going to change, but the fiasco in Scotland's capital is a prime example of the private sector making a hash of a project. The original cost estimates were about £500 million which for an 11km stretch of route is fairly steep to begin with. Yet as work commenced, the private company delivering the project discovered more and more issues with laying the track along Edinburgh's historic streets. For each and every one of these problems, they went back to the city authority and whinged "You never told us about this, we need more money." You may have seen coverage of the works snarled up in Princes Street as contract negotiations broke down time and time again.
The outcome of this was an overall rise in the project costs which now stand at something like £700 million. It came to a head this summer when the current political administration wanted to scale down the project further (all planned future phases have alredy been cancelled) so that the tram line would only run from the airport to haymarket which is just outside of the city centre. Now to a transport planner, that's beyond hilarious. Not only would it not use the track laid in Princes Street (where a significant portion of the costs have been generated), but the number of trips generated would be slashed. Nobody would use a tram route that stops before it gets to the main destination. Fortunately this decision was overturned, but the result = more money needed. Edinburgh tax payers are boned.
I have an entire list of reasons why outsourcing to the private sector is irresponsible, but that is for another thread perhaps
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
Seems a bit odd to assume that the people making the threats aren't equally or even more capable than Bobblehead Dave and his butt-puppet sidekick?
Wow. Really mature. Do you not feel just a little bit childish resorting to name-calling?
In response to your question, why would you assume that just because a person is posh they are not able to handle themselves in a fight? A lot of the people saying that they would love to beat the PM and Nick Clegg up are probably spotty basement-dwelling nerds indulging in power fantasies, and we're talking about two 6ft+ men who are in good nick, physically. That's all I'm saying.
Hey. If you're allowed to assume they're spotty, basement-dwelling nerds, it's fair for them to pretend to be ex-marine combat veterans build like brick privies. Fair's fair.
You have a reasonable point, though most times when someone says they'd like to hit a given public figure who offends them, that doesn't mean we consider it to be a sufficiently-likely eventuality that we start assessing their relative merits in combat.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
Seems a bit odd to assume that the people making the threats aren't equally or even more capable than Bobblehead Dave and his butt-puppet sidekick?
Wow. Really mature. Do you not feel just a little bit childish resorting to name-calling?
In response to your question, why would you assume that just because a person is posh they are not able to handle themselves in a fight? A lot of the people saying that they would love to beat the PM and Nick Clegg up are probably spotty basement-dwelling nerds indulging in power fantasies, and we're talking about two 6ft+ men who are in good nick, physically. That's all I'm saying.
Not in the slightest. Its a fitting description. Bobblehead. Its about as mature as the "who would win in a real fight." argument. Forge-masters employees are just one group of people who intensely dislike our glorious leaders, who are more than physically capable of doing damage to an executive type who "works out" occasionally. I already pointed that out. Given that this forum is frequented by everyone from "spotty nerds" to full blown combat veterans, it merely seems foolish for you to assume that a poster is one thing or another.
And its usually accepted knowledge that "come the revolution" whatever "leader" is being overthrown could be built like the proverbial brick gak, and still come a cropper at the hands of the people. I believe this is the mood in which such comments have been made? We aren't talking about Queensbury Rules here. We're speaking of brickbats and the risen masses.
Besides, both Dave and Nick are starting to look a little tired these days.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote:I reckon Dave could knack Arbeit like..
Pfft. I've met bigger. Two years behind a bar without recourse to licensed door staff means you meet all sorts of giant knobheads who spend their days engaged in rather more energetic pastimes than "returning the nation to a Victorian standard of living" and "being a meatshield for the ones making the bad decisions."
But as I say, its rather silly to make assumptions about what people can or cannot do when one does not know them. We are all just words on a screen, and thus predominantly unknown quantities.
What I don't like is that there isn't an option to post tally comments in support of Clarkson on this issue.
I think we would get more than 21000 signitures.
While everyone except a union twit would likely understand that the comment is nort to be taken literally, the strike is not as popular as they are making out, and it is not justified. Civil Servants; its time you paid for your pensions like the rest of the tax paying populace.
Survey Monkey offers a way to explore the issue further.
Part of the UK's problem is that many private sector workers aren't paying for pensions. The state pension is being slashed significantly -- mine is going down 74%. There are going to be a lot of people on very poor incomes in the future.
His position with the BBC should be reevaluated and either docked pay/suspended without pay or fired. It was a witless and offensive thing to say.
As to the public sector, I've moved from the UK to the US, every bloody one of you back there in blighty should thank your lucky stars for the NHS and fight to preserve it with your last breath. I am now living in a land where I pay more tax than I ever did back in the UK and then I get to pay for insurance and then I still have to pay the fething copay on top of the insurance rates. People here are frightened by a state healthcare system because they've never had anything other than the insurance company's reassuring fists up their bottoms, they don't know just how screwed over they are being.
Oh and we recently lost a family member to cancer over here, the bungling and lack of information sharing between private health companies and insurance firms and hand wringing over pennies was disgusting.
I'm telling you, Brits, fight for your National Health Service, don't let them take it from you.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: I am now living in a land where I pay more tax than I ever did back in the UK
How is that possible?
I thought that in the USA both the corporate and personal mean income tax rates were significantly lower than in the UK?
I remember reading an article about it a few years back on the BBC website that said British citizens were pessimistic and complained about our high taxes, but our tax rates are not as high as most people seem to think, and whilst we pay far less than other big European nations such as France or Germany, we were definitely above the USA.
I'm paying around 30quid more in taxes per month than I did in Bristol and then the insurance rates on top of that and then the copay, should I actually visit the hospital, on top of that...
RatBot wrote:Wait, the Top Gear guy? That guy is a friggin' riot! It seems like not even the British understand dry British humor anymore.
I don't give a gak about cars but I watch that show cuz those guys are brilliant.
Sure, that joke was a bit off-color, but they make off-color jokes all the time.
EDIT: And looking at the context in which it was made... well... come on, people.
Hasn't this thread taught you something?
Namely, the vast majority of us dont think the bloke did anything wrong!
Yeah, I know. The "come on, people" was directed at no one in particular. A general "wtf?" sentiment. I'm just truly perplexed at the media and these unions.
Melissia wrote:Funny how people are jumping to defend him saying "that's just who he is". Well "just who he is" is a freaking unrepentant jackass, why shouldn't his employment come up for review? I'd probably have been fired for something like that in my previous jobs...
This sketch gives a good idea of "The Clarkson".
"We have to clip them twice a year otherwise their woolly hair gets clogged up with all the gak that comes out their mouths see?"
Might have missed your notice, but the Conservative party is busy parcelling off bits of the NHS to private concerns every day. The most recent suggestion was that private companies be allowed access to your medical records, which popped up this morning I believe.
They may not declare wholesale that the NHS is "privatised", but they have no qualms about a more stealthy editing.
The idea that the Tories would disband the NHS is a completely ludicrous idea bandied about by unreconstructed socialist dinosaurs who wish it was still the 80s so they could re-fight the battle against economic progress all over again.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:"Disband"? No, why would they? "Use to generate income for private investors and shareholders"? Absolutely.
God, somebody stop this evil! I think that farming out certain NHS services to private contractors could work, actually. There are things that the NHS does terribly.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:"Disband"? No, why would they? "Use to generate income for private investors and shareholders"? Absolutely.
God, somebody stop this evil! I think that farming out certain NHS services to private contractors could work, actually. There are things that the NHS does terribly.
They already do that.
Private hospitals do some operations and are paid by the NHS/government for it.
I suppose it helps reduce waiting times and such...
ArbeitsSchu wrote:"Disband"? No, why would they? "Use to generate income for private investors and shareholders"? Absolutely.
God, somebody stop this evil! I think that farming out certain NHS services to private contractors could work, actually. There are things that the NHS does terribly.
They already do that.
Private hospitals do some operations and are paid by the NHS/government for it.
I suppose it helps reduce waiting times and such...
...and if increasing the amount that it is done helps to make our NHS more efficient, then that would be a good thing, wouldn't it?
ArbeitsSchu wrote:"Disband"? No, why would they? "Use to generate income for private investors and shareholders"? Absolutely.
God, somebody stop this evil! I think that farming out certain NHS services to private contractors could work, actually. There are things that the NHS does terribly.
They already do that.
Private hospitals do some operations and are paid by the NHS/government for it.
I suppose it helps reduce waiting times and such...
...and if increasing the amount that it is done helps to make our NHS more efficient, then that would be a good thing, wouldn't it?
Of course.
Though there are some parts of the NHs and surrounding parts it would be better to nationalise or privatise...
It does need some measure of reform.
Orlanth wrote:While everyone except a union twit would likely understand that the comment is nort to be taken literally, the strike is not as popular as they are making out, and it is not justified. Civil Servants; its time you paid for your pensions like the rest of the tax paying populace.
Is it? Maybe it's time you stopped licking the boots of your leash-holders like a whipped dog and demanded the same rights as civil servants instead of spitting on them for standing up for themselves.
e; I suppose it's reasonable to think the pensions are the sole purpose of the strike if you read nothing but rightwing propaganda and haven't paid any attention to statements made by some of the parties involved, but due to the absurdly restrictive laws regarding unions in this country, pensions are the only thing right now that a general strike can be called over. Workers can't strike (officially) about the NHS breakup, or the housing cuts, or the planned recindment of life-sustaining medications to terminal patients, or the fact that 27,000 British households will have to chose between eating or heating their homes this winter, or the mass layoffs, or the coalition's plans to draft the unemployed as unpaid labour for private companies (while laying off increasing numbers of people... gosh, wonder if there's a correlation there?) but they can hold a general strike over pensions, and a lot of workers taking part in the general strike did so in solidarity with other causes above and beyond the pension issue.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:"Disband"? No, why would they? "Use to generate income for private investors and shareholders"? Absolutely.
God, somebody stop this evil! I think that farming out certain NHS services to private contractors could work, actually. There are things that the NHS does terribly.
If a private contractor screws up an operation and you go to the press/complain about it then they can sue YOU. NHS can't do that. Also, private companies are clearly only accountable to their shareholders, not to "patients" (customers.) And frankly, private companies are just as likely to screw up as a nationalised one. Ever been on a CHEAP bus or a CHEAP train? Ever read about the abuse inherent in the care system being run by private concerns? Wonder about the sheer profits being made by the companies contracted to work "for" the DWP as compared to their inability to perform?
ArbeitsSchu wrote:"Disband"? No, why would they? "Use to generate income for private investors and shareholders"? Absolutely.
God, somebody stop this evil! I think that farming out certain NHS services to private contractors could work, actually. There are things that the NHS does terribly.
If a private contractor screws up an operation and you go to the press/complain about it then they can sue YOU. NHS can't do that. Also, private companies are clearly only accountable to their shareholders, not to "patients" (customers.) And frankly, private companies are just as likely to screw up as a nationalised one. Ever been on a CHEAP bus or a CHEAP train? Ever read about the abuse inherent in the care system being run by private concerns? Wonder about the sheer profits being made by the companies contracted to work "for" the DWP as compared to their inability to perform?
I reject such pessimistic arguments. It is precisely this pessimism that the Left is relying on, and in this country we have it in abundance: 'Oh, what's the point? It'll probably be rubbish anyway.' It's a national cancer, our tendency towards navel-gazing. The fact is, it CAN work, and we should try to make it work - we should look for a way to make our health service more efficient instead of using the Labour tactic of attracting positive headlines by just shoveling more money into it.
The proposal to allow pharmaceutical companies access to NHS patient data is actually one of the best ideas for a long time.
If the data is properly anonymised you get some of the largest sets of field trials results in the world, with no risk to patient privacy.
Britain has a pretty strong pharmaceutical industry. It's one of our more successful areas of research, development and export earnings. The industry will benefit from the additional data.
The NHS will benefit from being paid for the data.
Patients will benefit in the long run with better subscribing and treatments.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:"Disband"? No, why would they? "Use to generate income for private investors and shareholders"? Absolutely.
God, somebody stop this evil! I think that farming out certain NHS services to private contractors could work, actually. There are things that the NHS does terribly.
If a private contractor screws up an operation and you go to the press/complain about it then they can sue YOU. NHS can't do that. Also, private companies are clearly only accountable to their shareholders, not to "patients" (customers.) And frankly, private companies are just as likely to screw up as a nationalised one. Ever been on a CHEAP bus or a CHEAP train? Ever read about the abuse inherent in the care system being run by private concerns? Wonder about the sheer profits being made by the companies contracted to work "for" the DWP as compared to their inability to perform?
I reject such pessimistic arguments. It is precisely this pessimism that the Left is relying on, and in this country we have it in abundance: 'Oh, what's the point? It'll probably be rubbish anyway.' It's a national cancer, our tendency towards navel-gazing. The fact is, it CAN work, and we should try to make it work - we should look for a way to make our health service more efficient instead of using the Labour tactic of attracting positive headlines by just shoveling more money into it.
I think (speaking from experience here in the US) that making it an us/them argument doesn't serve your cause.
I can also say (speaking from experience here in the US) that a for-profit based system for healthcare means money gets sucked directly away from care to go to shareholders and executives, and companies are incentivized to provide less care, even to people who need it. Healthcare should be government, or at least Nonprofit. Profit shouldn't take priority over people's health any more than it does over fighting fires, stopping crime, or national security.
Maybe it's time you stopped licking the boots of your leash-holders like a whipped dog and demanded the same rights as civil servants instead of spitting on them for standing up for themselves.
Needlessly rude tone aside, its also a flat out ridiculous thing to say. You dont even know Orlanth personally, how do you know he licks the boots of his leash holder? Because he happens to have a job?
By your logic, everyone in the world who works for a private company licks the boots of their leash holders, so does that mean that every public servant is a militant union supporting gangster who is only interested in getting their fat fingers into the state cookie jar?
Seeing as your logic is flawless, maybe you can answer this question for me, because I can't get my head around it.
The bosses of the unions love talking about greed. They never shut up about greed, bankers are greedy, politicians are greedy, Cameron is greedy apparently, even though he is trying to balance the books of the country. He isnt trying to stiff the public sector because then he gets ten million pounds put into his bank account to buy a rolls royce is he? He is trying to stop our entire nation from haemorrhaging money because it has catastrophic effects on the nations economy. How is that him being greedy when he personally doesn't get a penny of the money saved? How do you square that circle?
But public sector workers... Teachers, firemen, what do they REALLY want if not money? Namely, more money off bankers, to be given to them? Surely its just about cold hard cash? Why are they against pension changes?
Money.
If Cameron gets a deal done and winds up not spending as many billions on the public sector pensions as he wants to, he personally makes nothing at all does he? He doesn't go "Nice one, I get 5 million pounds for a helicopter because every teacher in the UK is getting 40 quid less a month"
But if your a fireman and you go on strike, because you want 30k a year instead of 22k a year, then you personally are getting nothing other than money from the deal. Cold hard cash.
If your a teacher and you want to pay 5.4% of your yearly wage into your pension instead of 5.9% but get the same amount when you hit 65, then what are you gaining other than cold hard cash? Cash to buy Ipods, beer, designer clothes, fast cars, hookers, whatever floats your boat.
So tell me, because I am really interested to hear the answer.
How is it that a politician attempting to spend less on the public sector can be called "greedy" when he personally gains nothing from the deal, but a Fireman who goes on strike for the sole purpose of getting an 8 grand a year pay rise isn't?
Orlanth wrote:While everyone except a union twit would likely understand that the comment is nort to be taken literally, the strike is not as popular as they are making out, and it is not justified. Civil Servants; its time you paid for your pensions like the rest of the tax paying populace.
Is it? Maybe it's time you stopped licking the boots of your leash-holders like a whipped dog and demanded the same rights as civil servants instead of spitting on them for standing up for themselves.
.
Your lot sold our gold reserves squandered the nation into debt and Brown had no balls to take on the unions, thus the current unsustainable pension packet arrangement from 2009.
Its about time the lefties coughed up to help pay to get the nation out of debt, after all you 'benefited' from twelve years of glorious Blairism.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:"Disband"? No, why would they? "Use to generate income for private investors and shareholders"? Absolutely.
God, somebody stop this evil! I think that farming out certain NHS services to private contractors could work, actually. There are things that the NHS does terribly.
If a private contractor screws up an operation and you go to the press/complain about it then they can sue YOU. NHS can't do that. Also, private companies are clearly only accountable to their shareholders, not to "patients" (customers.) And frankly, private companies are just as likely to screw up as a nationalised one. Ever been on a CHEAP bus or a CHEAP train? Ever read about the abuse inherent in the care system being run by private concerns? Wonder about the sheer profits being made by the companies contracted to work "for" the DWP as compared to their inability to perform?
I reject such pessimistic arguments. It is precisely this pessimism that the Left is relying on, and in this country we have it in abundance: 'Oh, what's the point? It'll probably be rubbish anyway.' It's a national cancer, our tendency towards navel-gazing. The fact is, it CAN work, and we should try to make it work - we should look for a way to make our health service more efficient instead of using the Labour tactic of attracting positive headlines by just shoveling more money into it.
I think (speaking from experience here in the US) that making it an us/them argument doesn't serve your cause.
I can also say (speaking from experience here in the US) that a for-profit based system for healthcare means money gets sucked directly away from care to go to shareholders and executives, and companies are incentivized to provide less care, even to people who need it. Healthcare should be government, or at least Nonprofit. Profit shouldn't take priority over people's health any more than it does over fighting fires, stopping crime, or national security.
I'm not suggesting that we should have a purely 'for-profit' healthcare system, Mannahin. I support the NHS wholeheartedly - I firmly believe it makes our nation great. However, I would like to see greater competition for the delivery of services within the NHS. Far too many people do not get the service that they deserve, nor that the amount of money we spend on it warrants. We spend a fortune on it, and the tendency of those in power is to simply view it as a financial black hole that will always demand more money. That, I feel, is a mistake. It can be made to work efficiently and effectively. For starters, I would like to adopt a similar strategy to the ones the Indians have started using, whereby they run ultra-specialised hospitals that focus on one specific area and deliver a high volume of operations - this has helped them keep costs down, and because the staff are focused on only a handful of similar operations, they become massively experienced at delivering good results. This would work extraordinarily well here in the UK, given our relatively small geographical area.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:"Disband"? No, why would they? "Use to generate income for private investors and shareholders"? Absolutely.
God, somebody stop this evil! I think that farming out certain NHS services to private contractors could work, actually. There are things that the NHS does terribly.
If a private contractor screws up an operation and you go to the press/complain about it then they can sue YOU. NHS can't do that. Also, private companies are clearly only accountable to their shareholders, not to "patients" (customers.) And frankly, private companies are just as likely to screw up as a nationalised one. Ever been on a CHEAP bus or a CHEAP train? Ever read about the abuse inherent in the care system being run by private concerns? Wonder about the sheer profits being made by the companies contracted to work "for" the DWP as compared to their inability to perform?
I reject such pessimistic arguments. It is precisely this pessimism that the Left is relying on, and in this country we have it in abundance: 'Oh, what's the point? It'll probably be rubbish anyway.' It's a national cancer, our tendency towards navel-gazing. The fact is, it CAN work, and we should try to make it work - we should look for a way to make our health service more efficient instead of using the Labour tactic of attracting positive headlines by just shoveling more money into it.
These aren't "arguments".. these are actual occurrences of private companies given the reigns. The recent Winterbourne care home scandal is a great example of how badly a private company can treat "patients". Atos Healthcare have threatened legal action against websites for publishing factual accounts of their activities in "healthcare", and shut down several Disabled peoples internet groups for bad-mouthing the company, whilst being paid millions in taxpayers cash cocking up medical tests. Its not a great precedent for allowing greater private involvement in the NHS. That is not to say that the NHS is some kind of perfect model, or that it doesn't need organising properly.. it does. But there is great danger in allowing private companies to do it.
Just on the point about farming out services from the NHS to private companies - the hospital I work at transfers quite a number of patients out to the local private hospitals, who cherry pick the easiest, lowest risk patients who have been waiting the least amount of time, leaving all the complex, high risk, longest waiting patients to be done on the NHS.
The strange thing is that a lot of the surgeons working in the private hospitals are the same surgeons working in the NHS.
Another strange thing with the hospital I work at; they are just finishing up building a brand new hospital to combine the 3 sites the hospital currently runs in onto one site. A hugely expensive PFI project which, strangely enough, is providing less beds (despite higher demand), less theatre space (despite higher demand), and less jobs (as some wards are being merged as they are moved into the new hospital, etc). And the hospital will be paying for this for years, and paying a huge rent on it too. Oh, and far too few parking spaces; it is hard enough to park on the main site already, let alone with the other two sites moved down, and with only a handful of extra spaces.
Ireland (Republic of) has the sort of two tier health system you are talking about Albatross. It is considered by pretty much everyone who comes in contact with it to be an unmitigated disaster. If there is some way to do it and make it less inefficient and corrupt (and really on a GW forum, are we really arguing that private companies are always more efficient?)
I dunno, I think it's a pretty massively complicated issue, but previous negative experience in privatisations (Rail in Britain is obscenely expensive, telecoms in Ireland are a joke) with no experience I can think of where privatisation improved something for the public, I am sceptical.
On the topic of public waste, the school I work at recently splashed out on a fancy new face recognition thingy for reception. God knows how much it cost, but it is less efficient than the old way of punching in a code (the software takes ages to work, so you get a big queue at the door at peak times when EVERYONE is in a hurry. And it doesn't work if you're too short. Or if you stand in the wrong place. )
Why do we have it? More secure apparently. Huh. Well. I guess it would also make the school more secure to have cameras and microphones in every class room, and doors I can lock automatically with a panic button. So we'll get those next, not the textbooks and computers I need for my lessons. Hooray!
In my job we have a private pension scheme organised by the company but run by a big insurance company.
The annual management fee is 0.25%. The pension is completely portable. Transfer or redemption value is 100% of current value. There are about 270 different funds on offer, which can be selected in automatic batches programmed according to your age, or controlled individually.
If you pay in 5% of salary the company matches that and doubles it, so you get an annual contribution of 15% of salary into your fund. (I pay in 10% owing to my age.) You can also make higher contributions according to the pension law.
That is pretty much the gold standard of modern pension schemes. It's personal, portable, flexible, and requires investment by the owner and by the employer.
If Britain has a problem with some pensions being too generous, it has a bigger problem of too many people with a crappy pension scheme if they are in one at all.
All those people are going to be on social security when they retire, so to a great degree the money saved on pensions is spent out on other forms of welfare.
Da Boss wrote:Ireland (Republic of) has the sort of two tier health system you are talking about Albatross. It is considered by pretty much everyone who comes in contact with it to be an unmitigated disaster. If there is some way to do it and make it less inefficient and corrupt (and really on a GW forum, are we really arguing that private companies are always more efficient?)
I dunno, I think it's a pretty massively complicated issue, but previous negative experience in privatisations (Rail in Britain is obscenely expensive, telecoms in Ireland are a joke) with no experience I can think of where privatisation improved something for the public, I am sceptical.
Private schools seem to regularly deliver good educational outcomes for their students, and there are private bus routes in Manchester that are excellent. I also think that internet service provision is a good example of a sector which delivers a vital service with competition at its heart, and which delivers a reasonably high standard of service to its users.
Da Boss wrote:Ireland (Republic of) has the sort of two tier health system you are talking about Albatross. It is considered by pretty much everyone who comes in contact with it to be an unmitigated disaster. If there is some way to do it and make it less inefficient and corrupt (and really on a GW forum, are we really arguing that private companies are always more efficient?)
I dunno, I think it's a pretty massively complicated issue, but previous negative experience in privatisations (Rail in Britain is obscenely expensive, telecoms in Ireland are a joke) with no experience I can think of where privatisation improved something for the public, I am sceptical.
Private schools seem to regularly deliver good educational outcomes for their students, and there are private bus routes in Manchester that are excellent. I also think that internet service provision is a good example of a sector which delivers a vital service with competition at its heart, and which delivers a reasonably high standard of service to its users.
Internal to the UK there might be a case that ISPs give reasonable service, but compared to the rest of Europe its overpriced rubbish sold with lies. I think one of the more worrying aspects of "privatisation" can be found in the utilities area. Many "local" utilities such as water are owned by foreign concerns which basically use our money to subsidise themselves abroad... so the UK pays premium price for second-rate service. Granted we often pay that now for the current NHS, but at least we aren't funding a premium service for Germany or France.
Albatross wrote:Private schools seem to regularly deliver good educational outcomes for their students, and there are private bus routes in Manchester that are excellent. I also think that internet service provision is a good example of a sector which delivers a vital service with competition at its heart, and which delivers a reasonably high standard of service to its users.
Private schools also get to pick their pupils. Pupils that fail tests are often asked to leave. All bus services in the UK are privately owned, they were deregulated years ago, but it's pleasing that you've found one good one. A few profitable routes aren't proof of a god bus service, any fool can run the profitable routes.
Albatross wrote:Private schools seem to regularly deliver good educational outcomes for their students, and there are private bus routes in Manchester that are excellent. I also think that internet service provision is a good example of a sector which delivers a vital service with competition at its heart, and which delivers a reasonably high standard of service to its users.
Private schools also get to pick their pupils. Pupils that fail tests are often asked to leave. All bus services in the UK are privately owned, they were deregulated years ago, but it's pleasing that you've found one good one. A few profitable routes aren't proof of a god bus service, any fool can run the profitable routes.
If the NHS charged for treatment on a scale comparable with private schools, most of us would be dead. Or we would be in America.
Where's this "good bus" anyway? Don't be greedy, share. We all want "good bus routes". Sadly, those aren't the same routes that First Mainline provide.
To heave this trainwreck back onto the rails, it's Clarkson. They asked JEREMY CLARKSON about PUBLIC SECTOR WORKERS STRIKING. What did they expect him to say? "Oh, I wish them all well"?
Mr G. Carlin said it best: "You can be offended if you want. It's not like I committed physical violence against you, you're just offended."
Albatross wrote:Private schools seem to regularly deliver good educational outcomes for their students, and there are private bus routes in Manchester that are excellent. I also think that internet service provision is a good example of a sector which delivers a vital service with competition at its heart, and which delivers a reasonably high standard of service to its users.
Private schools also get to pick their pupils. Pupils that fail tests are often asked to leave. All bus services in the UK are privately owned, they were deregulated years ago, but it's pleasing that you've found one good one. A few profitable routes aren't proof of a god bus service, any fool can run the profitable routes.
If the NHS charged for treatment on a scale comparable with private schools, most of us would be dead. Or we would be in America.
I wasn't asked to provide examples of cheap private public services, just ones which work, and private schools demonstrably do.
Where's this "good bus" anyway? Don't be greedy, share. We all want "good bus routes". Sadly, those aren't the same routes that First Mainline provide.
Ain't that the fething truth... The Transdev Burnley and Pendle services are great - clean, comfortable, frequent and and reasonably-priced. I also rate the Stagecoach services to South Manchester. You can pretty much get a bus any time, day or night, and they're cheap as chips. Also, the Metrolink is operated by a foreign contractor, and I happen to think it's fantastic. I've had nothing but good experiences with it. Once again - clean, comfortable, frequent and and reasonably-priced.
Its been pointed out (I can't remember if it turned up in this thread) that Clarksons comments were previously OK'd by the program editor.
Now if we assume that Clarkson is paid to be a Talking Head, and paid to be controversial in a similar manner to "shock-jocks" or certain stand-ups, and that his choice of words is not out of character for that, and that he was actually engaged in heavy sarcasm (which is clear from the full transcript.) and does not literally want to see strikers dragged out and shot, then we should instead look at who has hired him and paid him to make such commentary, and whether they are the ones who have acted inappropriately, or with poor timing?
If a Talking Head is just a box you put money in to say something "Clarksonian", did not the BBC act with poor taste by choosing him as the "celeb of the day"? and are they not the ones ultimately responsible for what is broadcast?
ArbeitsSchu wrote:Its been pointed out (I can't remember if it turned up in this thread) that Clarksons comments were previously OK'd by the program editor.
Now if we assume that Clarkson is paid to be a Talking Head, and paid to be controversial in a similar manner to "shock-jocks" or certain stand-ups, and that his choice of words is not out of character for that, and that he was actually engaged in heavy sarcasm (which is clear from the full transcript.) and does not literally want to see strikers dragged out and shot, then we should instead look at who has hired him and paid him to make such commentary, and whether they are the ones who have acted inappropriately, or with poor timing?
If a Talking Head is just a box you put money in to say something "Clarksonian", did not the BBC act with poor taste by choosing him as the "celeb of the day"? and are they not the ones ultimately responsible for what is broadcast?
I have to agree with you here - he's Jeremy Clarkson, a notoriously outspoken right-wing TV presenter, with a deserved reputation for being controversial. They put him on a prominent BBC show on the same day that strikes were taking place across the country, and asked him to comment on it. What did they expect him to say? He's not exactly Ken Livingstone or Polly Toynbee, is he?
It's like asking Nick Griffin to comment on the Notting Hill carnival.
Time for one last bit of entertainment for your wife and kids! 
