I bet some incredibly funny comedian will comment on this and blame immigration rules and the like, just for a piece of tongue in cheek humour. That will probably attract complaints also. I, my brother and father are all/have been professional drivers and found it to be funny (my misses cringed a little but thats just to be expected of a woman ) and i cannot imagine many drivers tut tutting and shaking their respective heads in disgust for a distasteful joke.
Right I've watched the episode now and I am as expected both shocked and dissapointed. I do not expect such comments from a respectable leader of the people; Mr Clarkson. I'm off now to lay the grave stone on my sence of humour.
what i can't believe is that people have taken the time to complain at all. its not like i have something better todo in my time. the complaint i have is if you don't like them don't watch it. the russel brand and johnathan ross inceident only got two complaint on the day, which means the people who didn't watch or listen to these jokes, just complained anyway for the sake of complaining.
It's not just about 'hey I think it's funny' it's about a culture where values are eroding. A lot of younger people might thing it ok, say, to swear in the foulest manner on TV - but just wait till you're watching a programme at half nine with your thirteen year old kid. You won't think it's so funny, I bet, because it's training them in what is acceptable.
'I think it's funny' simply wouldn't be acceptable to your boss, would it, if you'd over stepped the mark?
The bosses of the BBC are us, the people who pay for it, and if a significant amount of people don't want a casual culture of foul language, crude jokes, insults to the Queen, on it, then it shouldn't happen, simple as.
Just as the shamefully biased coverage of the American election this morning shouldn't have happened.
I reall like Jonathan Ross and Brand - and I love Billy Connelly. But certain types of humour have their time and place. Why are we so eagre to destroy all values and get rid of the line between adult and children's humour? It's an error that we're already paying for in our culture.
That's just not how it is. If you pay for a TV licence then you have a valid say in what that money goes towards. It doesn't matter whether you heard the show live or heard it on the internet, or evne just read the transcript. Your money entitles you to a say on everything the BBC is doing.
It entitles you to a complaint if your money is being used to fund things that you don't agree with. It makes no difference whether you actually heard it or not.
I think it makes an important difference if you are going to take the time to protest against something you should take the time to watch or listen to it so you know if it is worth complaining against. When you see things in context they are often very different from how they are portrayed in papers looking to rile up a moral crusade.
Also swear words on TV after 9.30. Dear God, what's the world coming to! I suppose we should ban all swear words untill 11pm when we can be sure no teenagers are watching TV. Honestly FQ do you really think 13 year olds don't already know all the swear words and know when it is/isn't ok to say them?
Top Gear is one of the few really good programmes on the BBC, so i hope they don'y get rid of JC, because the show wouldn't be the same, his humour may offend the odd few but basically thats tough sh**, if you don't like him don't watch him. Its the only programme i look forward to on the weekend, most others bore me silly (family fortunes, come dancing). I'll just watch top gear on Dave instead.
People have always complained about this kind of thing. I'd be willing to bet that the truck drivers' union would've complained about this 5 years ago, 10 years ago, 20 years ago. The only difference is that it's now "newsworthy" rather than being filed under "bin".
It's the whole paedophile thing all over again - society is not changing, only the latest target for an easy "outrage" story is changing.
Brand and Ross's actions weren't blown out of proportion - and also, proportion can be relevant to age. To my parents their actions were grossly distasteful - but, part of what we're getting at here is that the views and values of the older generations aren't considered important. My parents pay their licence fee - their view should count, and the more people who fel the same as them, the more it should count.
Yes, I would ban swearing till after 11. I KNOW my teenage sons know how to swear - but I want them to have older, British values. There's a lot to be said for incorporating some values in to national broadcasting.
Gee, do you not get the connection between 'it being ok as long as it's funny' and teenagers kicking someone to death in the street as they laugh and film it?
I just don't accept that 'if you don't like it don't watch' idea, and I tell you what, a vast, growing number of other people don't either. What about, if I don't like I don't have to pay for it? Because I AM paying for it, so whether I like it or not, I have a say in it.
Even on the commercial stations, we all have a say in what the mass media is influencing our society towards. It's our society - why should we accept it, if we don't like it?
That's rubbish. Look at the outcome of this hysteria. The controller resigned, the presenter who hosted the show resigned, the guest was suspended for 3 months and new measures have been instigated to make sure edgy programmes are tighter regulated. Is that really what you think complaints being ignored looks like? Your parents view count but they don't determine what is acceptable for all of society.
You're entitled to raise your sons whatever way you want but that doesn't mean that broadcasting standards should change to suit your socially conservative views.
No because thats a ridiculous conclusion. The vast majority of people who watch edgy comedy do not kick people to death in the street for laughs and I think that the kind of people who do that are unlikely to have been inspired by the antics of Russell Brand.
I'm tempted to believe you are just portraying a parody of a social conservative but sadly I think you're serious.
Right you're entitled to your opinion just as we are all entitled to point out how silly those complaining are. Society isn't going to go down the drain because of a joke on top gear...
Well that's a twisting of what's happened. These complaints would have been ignored if it wasn't that there was such an unexpected back lash. Funny - there wouldn't need to be a back lash if people hadn't finally had enough of it. It isn't an indication that the BBC has always been answerable to the people - far from it - it's an indication that people are finally standing against it. There's got to be some limits.
No, but if hundreds of thousands of people agree with them, then has to be taken in to account, not just ignored as 'old fuddy duddies' which is exactly how they've been not only treated, but portrayed through the media.
Well that's something we have to consider as a society. My sons have to share this society with you as well, so you have a concern in how they are brought up. Do you want them smashing yor car or beating up your kids - or you - for a laugh?
Well where do you think the erosion of social values is coming from? Outer space? It's happening from within.
Well, being a 'social conservative' doesn't mean I don't klike edgy comedy, it just means I want the society we live in to have certain standards of behaviour, respect and action.
I didn't say it was. But, humiliating elderly people on national radio with foul and abusive language is helping society godown the drain. And it is going down the drain.
We're informed by our mass media institutions - if they don't have standards, standards disappear - and they are.
A backlash created by the tabloid press deciding it was time for a moral crusade. It wasn't a spontaneous uprising of the silent masses. It was the usual moral crusade pushed by the Daily Mail and it's about as valid as all the other moral crusades they have pushed in the past.
How is that how they've been treated in light of all the sanctions, dismissals and suspensions that have been bandied about? Let's also be clear I would imagine a sizable amount of those complaining are in fact 'old fuddy duddies'. I don't like Russell Brand and I agree both he and Jonathan Ross overstepped the boundaries but since the old man involved has said he has accepted the apology and doesn't want more hassle AND resignations have occurred and punishments have been handed out, I feel the issue has been more than satisfactorily resolved and no deep issue with society has been revealed.
Also, it wasn't hundreds of thousands.
No but I don't think listening to Jeremy Clarkson tell a joke or Russell Brand be a fool will cause them to do so.
You're assuming I accept social values are being eroded. I don't. I think things change and that people always look back to the past with rose tinted glasses. The good old societies of the 1950's were also rife with racism, sexism and homophobia. Our society has problems just like all societies but I don't think comedians making jokes in bad taste are likely to be the cause of the downfall of society. In fact I'd say it's much more damaging to society to have stringent censorship than it is to have a few questionable jokes slip through.
These are things that everyone wants. I think Jeremy Clarkson should be allowed to make jokes AND that we should have standards of behaviour, respect and action. It's not an either/or choice.
As I said in the other thread on this issue, as a public service, the material on the BBC has to be broad enough to cover all tastes, so you're never ever going to have a BBC which everyone likes or agrees with everything it does. So yes, if there are things you don't like on the BBC, don't watch it! Simple. How arrogant is it to think the BBC has to cater to you personally, or that you have a right to get something removed because you and a few others don't approve. Instead of focusing on what you dislike about the BBC, why not focus on all the good is produces.