Always intrigued about programmes are pulled at short notice. I noticed
yesterday that Clarkson's programme about PQ17 was supposed to be on
again. I thought I might take a look as it was better than the
alternatives but found a programme on the Bayeux Tapestry. I was
wondering why and only just occurred to me that it must be because he
has upset the Markle Fan Club by speaking the truth about her.

In message <tokgvk$c0u8$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> writes
>Always intrigued about programmes are pulled at short notice. I
>noticed yesterday that Clarkson's programme about PQ17 was supposed to
>be on again. I thought I might take a look as it was better than the
>alternatives but found a programme on the Bayeux Tapestry. I was
>wondering why and only just occurred to me that it must be because he
>has upset the Markle Fan Club by speaking the truth about her.
>

Ah, yes that's probably the reason - though some of the things he said
about her I thought were pretty vile, even though I don't have any time
for her. I'd been hoping to see the PQ17 programme, as I'd missed it
when it was on before. I'd already seem the Bayeux Tapestry one, I
think, so didn't watch it.
--
John Hall "Do you have cornflakes in America?"
"Well, actually, they're American."
"So what brings you to Britain then if you have cornflakes already?"
Bill Bryson: "Notes from a Small Island"

"John Hall" <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote in message
news:+$7dLuAo0crjFwri@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk...
> In message <tokgvk$c0u8$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> writes
>>Always intrigued about programmes are pulled at short notice. I noticed
>>yesterday that Clarkson's programme about PQ17 was supposed to be on
>>again. I thought I might take a look as it was better than the
>>alternatives but found a programme on the Bayeux Tapestry. I was
>>wondering why and only just occurred to me that it must be because he has
>>upset the Markle Fan Club by speaking the truth about her.
>>
>
> Ah, yes that's probably the reason - though some of the things he said
> about her I thought were pretty vile, even though I don't have any time
> for her. I'd been hoping to see the PQ17 programme, as I'd missed it when
> it was on before. I'd already seem the Bayeux Tapestry one, I think, so
> didn't watch it.

I don't particularly like MM - she's too outspoken and too woke for my
liking. But nothing, repeat nothing, would induce me to express the sort of
sentiments that Clarkson did - probably not even to people who I knew shared
the same feelings, and *definitely* not in a published article where I knew
my opinions could cause offence to people that thought differently to me.
What was he thinking? And what was the newspaper thinking for publishing the
article?

A lot of people have said that the article was racist and have wondered what
would have happened if a black writer had written the same things about a
white member of the royal family. I don't see it as racist. It is would be
just as offensive no matter what race or gender was being written about.

Even Victor Lewis Smith, who was known for making very cutting, derogatory
remarks, would have toned down what he wrote, I think.

NY wrote:

> Victor Lewis Smith, who was

was? oh, that had passed me by ...

In message <k16412F3qp1U1@mid.individual.net>, Andy Burns
<usenet@andyburns.uk> writes
>NY wrote:
>
>> Victor Lewis Smith, who was
>
>was? oh, that had passed me by ...

Yes, he died just a few weeks ago.
--
John Hall "Do you have cornflakes in America?"
"Well, actually, they're American."
"So what brings you to Britain then if you have cornflakes already?"
Bill Bryson: "Notes from a Small Island"

On 29/12/2022 18:42, John Hall wrote:
> In message <k16412F3qp1U1@mid.individual.net>, Andy Burns
> <usenet@andyburns.uk> writes
>> NY wrote:
>>
>>> Victor Lewis Smith, who was
>>
>> was?  oh, that had passed me by ...
>
> Yes, he died just a few weeks ago.

Yes, although it was all rather a low key announcement, not much coverage.
It's almost as if he's exercised one of his spoofs, and the press
release read like one of his Honest Obituaries  !  !

In message <k167spF49v3U2@mid.individual.net>, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> writes
>On 29/12/2022 18:42, John Hall wrote:
>> In message <k16412F3qp1U1@mid.individual.net>, Andy Burns
>><usenet@andyburns.uk> writes
>>> NY wrote:
>>>
>>>> Victor Lewis Smith, who was
>>>
>>> was?  oh, that had passed me by ...
>>
>> Yes, he died just a few weeks ago.
>
>Yes, although it was all rather a low key announcement, not much coverage.
>It's almost as if he's exercised one of his spoofs, and the press
>release read like one of his Honest Obituaries  !  !

The Telegraph's obit was pretty full and seemed to give a good flavour
of the man.
--
John Hall "Do you have cornflakes in America?"
"Well, actually, they're American."
"So what brings you to Britain then if you have cornflakes already?"
Bill Bryson: "Notes from a Small Island"

On 29/12/2022 18:14, NY wrote:
>
> But nothing, repeat nothing, would induce me to express the sort
> of sentiments that Clarkson did - probably not even to people who I knew
> shared the same feelings, and *definitely* not in a published article
> where I knew my opinions could cause offence to people that thought
> differently to me. What was he thinking? And what was the newspaper
> thinking for publishing the article?

+1 The man's a deeply unpleasant shit, that's all there is to it.

As for the original topic of the thread, I've seen both programmes
anyway, but have no idea why the original programme was changed,
although I would be surprised if it was just because Clarkson happened
to be doing the commentary.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

"Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:toks65$dbjr$1@dont-email.me...
> On 29/12/2022 18:14, NY wrote:
>>
>> But nothing, repeat nothing, would induce me to express the sort of
>> sentiments that Clarkson did - probably not even to people who I knew
>> shared the same feelings, and *definitely* not in a published article
>> where I knew my opinions could cause offence to people that thought
>> differently to me. What was he thinking? And what was the newspaper
>> thinking for publishing the article?
>
> +1 The man's a deeply unpleasant shit, that's all there is to it.

He came across as a bit bombastic and "full of himself" when he was a
reporter on the "proper" Top Gear (back in the days when it was about
ordinary cars that the public could afford, before it went badly wrong and
turned into three overgrown lads and their loutish behaviour).

He presented an excellent film about Brunel, in the Greatest Britons series.
He came over fairly well in his episode of "Who Do You Think You Are". He
was a blunt, honest-speaking Yorkshireman. I actually quite liked him - in
small doses.

Then it all started to go wrong. Top Gear became Three Louts Pratting Around
in Cars. Clarkson was sacked from Top Gear after he punched his producer
when he turned up at his hotel after a day's filming and found that the
hotel kitchen had closed and only cold food was available. Why someone
didn't suggest a trip to the chippy in Hawes (the nearby town), I don't
know. Maybe they did.

But nothing prepared us for the vitriolic and downright nasty article about
Meghan Markle. That was an order of magnitude worse than his behaviour on
previous occasions. I wonder what will become of him: that article was
distinctly career-ending.

In article <tokv62$dm2n$1@dont-email.me>, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> "Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:toks65$dbjr$1@dont-email.me...
> > On 29/12/2022 18:14, NY wrote:
> >>
> >> But nothing, repeat nothing, would induce me to express the sort of
> >> sentiments that Clarkson did - probably not even to people who I knew
> >> shared the same feelings, and *definitely* not in a published article
> >> where I knew my opinions could cause offence to people that thought
> >> differently to me. What was he thinking? And what was the newspaper
> >> thinking for publishing the article?
> >
> > +1 The man's a deeply unpleasant shit, that's all there is to it.

> He came across as a bit bombastic and "full of himself" when he was a
> reporter on the "proper" Top Gear (back in the days when it was about
> ordinary cars that the public could afford, before it went badly wrong
> and turned into three overgrown lads and their loutish behaviour).

> He presented an excellent film about Brunel, in the Greatest Britons
> series. He came over fairly well in his episode of "Who Do You Think You
> Are". He was a blunt, honest-speaking Yorkshireman. I actually quite
> liked him - in small doses.

> Then it all started to go wrong. Top Gear became Three Louts Pratting
> Around in Cars. Clarkson was sacked from Top Gear after he punched his
> producer when he turned up at his hotel after a day's filming and found
> that the hotel kitchen had closed and only cold food was available. Why
> someone didn't suggest a trip to the chippy in Hawes (the nearby town),
> I don't know. Maybe they did.

They were late because Clarkson wouldn't leave the pub as requested.

> But nothing prepared us for the vitriolic and downright nasty article
> about Meghan Markle. That was an order of magnitude worse than his
> behaviour on previous occasions. I wonder what will become of him: that
> article was distinctly career-ending.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 29/12/2022 08:09 pm, Java Jive wrote:
> On 29/12/2022 18:14, NY wrote:
>>
>> But nothing, repeat nothing, would induce me to express the sort of
>> sentiments that Clarkson did - probably not even to people who I knew
>> shared the same feelings, and *definitely* not in a published article
>> where I knew my opinions could cause offence to people that thought
>> differently to me. What was he thinking? And what was the newspaper
>> thinking for publishing the article?
>
> +1  The man's a deeply unpleasant shit, that's all there is to it.

How on Earth did you manage to shift the topic of conversation on to
James O'Brien?

On 29/12/2022 17:23, John Hall wrote:
> when it was on before. I'd already seem the Bayeux Tapestry one, I
> think, so didn't watch it.

I might have missed it but I did not hear them mention that the German
seperated the panels of the tapestry and re-arranged them to fit with
their Aryan beliefs.

On 29/12/2022 21:01, NY wrote:
> He came across as a bit bombastic and "full of himself" when he was a
> reporter on the "proper" Top Gear (back in the days when it was about
> ordinary cars that the public could afford, before it went badly wrong and
> turned into three overgrown lads and their loutish behaviour).
>
> He presented an excellent film about Brunel, in the Greatest Britons series.
> He came over fairly well in his episode of "Who Do You Think You Are". He
> was a blunt, honest-speaking Yorkshireman. I actually quite liked him - in
> small doses.
>
> Then it all started to go wrong. Top Gear became Three Louts Pratting Around
> in Cars. Clarkson was sacked from Top Gear after he punched his producer
> when he turned up at his hotel after a day's filming and found that the
> hotel kitchen had closed and only cold food was available. Why someone
> didn't suggest a trip to the chippy in Hawes (the nearby town), I don't
> know. Maybe they did.
>
> But nothing prepared us for the vitriolic and downright nasty article about
> Meghan Markle. That was an order of magnitude worse than his behaviour on
> previous occasions. I wonder what will become of him: that article was
> distinctly career-ending.

I have not read his article but her fan club will not accept any
criticism of her, after what she and Ginger have been saying and writing
about the Royal Family and in particular the Queen when she was
terminally ill, I have absolutely no sympathy for them.

I have not watched Clarkson & Co for many years (or their replacements).
I just found Top Gear boring. I remember one programme where they
'reviewed' hatchbacks, one made a comparison of boot capacity and
Clarkson(?) just said they were not interested in that.

It us a pity because Clarkson obviously can make intelligent programmes
when he wants to, the other two are no better but they all know what
their target audience wants and pander to them.

I have no idea what you are talking about to be honest. I findhim as
becoming a caricature of himself of late, and although I do not wish any
harm to the man, I've not been held captive by his great output for some
time now. Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"MB" <MB@nospam.net> wrote in message news:tokgvk$c0u8$1@dont-email.me...
> Always intrigued about programmes are pulled at short notice. I noticed
> yesterday that Clarkson's programme about PQ17 was supposed to be on
> again. I thought I might take a look as it was better than the
> alternatives but found a programme on the Bayeux Tapestry. I was
> wondering why and only just occurred to me that it must be because he has
> upset the Markle Fan Club by speaking the truth about her.
>

There are a loot of people in the world I do not agree with, but they are
welcome to their views. As towhat sort of person she is, that is often in
the eye of the beholder and some people get on or don't. What is the point
in going on and on about it.
Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"John Hall" <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote in message
news:+$7dLuAo0crjFwri@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk...
> In message <tokgvk$c0u8$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> writes
>>Always intrigued about programmes are pulled at short notice. I noticed
>>yesterday that Clarkson's programme about PQ17 was supposed to be on
>>again. I thought I might take a look as it was better than the
>>alternatives but found a programme on the Bayeux Tapestry. I was
>>wondering why and only just occurred to me that it must be because he has
>>upset the Markle Fan Club by speaking the truth about her.
>>
>
> Ah, yes that's probably the reason - though some of the things he said
> about her I thought were pretty vile, even though I don't have any time
> for her. I'd been hoping to see the PQ17 programme, as I'd missed it when
> it was on before. I'd already seem the Bayeux Tapestry one, I think, so
> didn't watch it.
> --
> John Hall "Do you have cornflakes in America?"
> "Well, actually, they're American."
> "So what brings you to Britain then if you have cornflakes already?"
> Bill Bryson: "Notes from a Small Island"

In article <tokgvk$c0u8$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> Always intrigued about programmes are pulled at short notice. I noticed
> yesterday that Clarkson's programme about PQ17 was supposed to be on
> again. I thought I might take a look as it was better than the
> alternatives but found a programme on the Bayeux Tapestry. I was
> wondering why and only just occurred to me that it must be because he
> has upset the Markle Fan Club by speaking the truth about her.

Is it "Carkson's programme" because he did all the research, etc? Or does
he just act as 'presenter' with his own views? I also noticed it was AWOL
but assumed an error in shedule announcements as I've seen a few examples
elewhere of what looks like that.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On Fri, 30 Dec 2022 09:18:32 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 29/12/2022 21:01, NY wrote:
>> He came across as a bit bombastic and "full of himself" when he was a
>> reporter on the "proper" Top Gear (back in the days when it was about
>> ordinary cars that the public could afford, before it went badly wrong and
>> turned into three overgrown lads and their loutish behaviour).
>>
>> He presented an excellent film about Brunel, in the Greatest Britons series.
>> He came over fairly well in his episode of "Who Do You Think You Are". He
>> was a blunt, honest-speaking Yorkshireman. I actually quite liked him - in
>> small doses.
>>
>> Then it all started to go wrong. Top Gear became Three Louts Pratting Around
>> in Cars. Clarkson was sacked from Top Gear after he punched his producer
>> when he turned up at his hotel after a day's filming and found that the
>> hotel kitchen had closed and only cold food was available. Why someone
>> didn't suggest a trip to the chippy in Hawes (the nearby town), I don't
>> know. Maybe they did.
>>
>> But nothing prepared us for the vitriolic and downright nasty article about
>> Meghan Markle. That was an order of magnitude worse than his behaviour on
>> previous occasions. I wonder what will become of him: that article was
>> distinctly career-ending.
>
>
>I have not read his article but her fan club will not accept any
>criticism of her, after what she and Ginger have been saying and writing
>about the Royal Family and in particular the Queen when she was
>terminally ill, I have absolutely no sympathy for them.

Perhaps you should have read the article before commenting on the reaction to
it?

In a discussion about the article in the Radio 4 Today programme, they thought
that two Sun sub editors and the Sun editor had not read the article before
publishing it and that their Australian boss was not amused by it. The article
is the vilest thing I have seen in a newspaper ever. Most of what is written
about She and Ginger is the creation of the gutter press. Perhaps you should
judge the press and not their target?

>
>I have not watched Clarkson & Co for many years (or their replacements).
>I just found Top Gear boring. I remember one programme where they
>'reviewed' hatchbacks, one made a comparison of boot capacity and
>Clarkson(?) just said they were not interested in that.
>
>It us a pity because Clarkson obviously can make intelligent programmes
>when he wants to, the other two are no better but they all know what
>their target audience wants and pander to them.

As does the gutter press.
--

Martin in Zuid Holland

In message <tomad8$kdsg$2@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> writes
>I have not read his article but her fan club will not accept any
>criticism of her, after what she and Ginger have been saying and
>writing about the Royal Family and in particular the Queen when she was
>terminally ill, I have absolutely no sympathy for them.

Criticism of her is one thing, and I agree with a lot of it. But vile
abuse of the kind that Clarkson wrote is something else. And then he
didn't even have the courage of his convictions, and afterwards gave
what had to be an insincere apology.
--
John Hall "Do you have cornflakes in America?"
"Well, actually, they're American."
"So what brings you to Britain then if you have cornflakes already?"
Bill Bryson: "Notes from a Small Island"

On 29/12/2022 17:40, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> Is it "Carkson's programme" because he did all the research, etc? Or does
> he just act as 'presenter' with his own views? I also noticed it was AWOL
> but assumed an error in shedule announcements as I've seen a few examples
> elewhere of what looks like that.

I get the impression with the some of the documentaries that he has a
genuine interest in the subject and has been involved in the production.
Does David Attenborough do all his own research or is he now just a
'brand'?

On 29/12/2022 18:14, NY wrote:
> "John Hall" <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:+$7dLuAo0crjFwri@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk...
>> In message <tokgvk$c0u8$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> writes

>>> Always intrigued about programmes are pulled at short notice.  I
>>> noticed yesterday that Clarkson's programme about PQ17 was supposed
>>> to be on again. I thought I might take a look as it was better than
>>> the alternatives but found a programme on the Bayeux Tapestry.  I was
>>> wondering why and only just occurred to me that it must be because he
>>> has upset the Markle Fan Club by speaking the truth about her.

>> Ah, yes that's probably the reason - though some of the things he said
>> about her I thought were pretty vile, even though I don't have any
>> time for her. I'd been hoping to see the PQ17 programme, as I'd missed
>> it when it was on before. I'd already seem the Bayeux Tapestry one, I
>> think, so didn't watch it.
>
> I don't particularly like MM - she's too outspoken and too woke for my
> liking. But nothing, repeat nothing, would induce me to express the sort
> of sentiments that Clarkson did - probably not even to people who I knew
> shared the same feelings, and *definitely* not in a published article
> where I knew my opinions could cause offence to people that thought
> differently to me. What was he thinking? And what was the newspaper
> thinking for publishing the article?

Maybe people missed (or ignored) the Game of Thrones reference (to a
female character who walks naked through the streets and has excrement
thrown over her).

> A lot of people have said that the article was racist and have wondered
> what would have happened if a black writer had written the same things
> about a white member of the royal family. I don't see it as racist. It
> is would be just as offensive no matter what race or gender was being
> written about.

The character is white. I only watched the first four episodes. It was
the blond bint with long hair.

--
Max Demian

On 30/12/2022 10:16, Martin wrote:
> In a discussion about the article in the Radio 4 Today programme, they thought
> that two Sun sub editors and the Sun editor had not read the article before
> publishing it and that their Australian boss was not amused by it. The article
> is the vilest thing I have seen in a newspaper ever. Most of what is written
> about She and Ginger is the creation of the gutter press. Perhaps you should
> judge the press and not their target?

Perhaps you need to read some of the many analyses of the truth of their
claims and both of their own histories.

On 29/12/2022 18:14, NY wrote:
> "John Hall" <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:+$7dLuAo0crjFwri@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk...
>> In message <tokgvk$c0u8$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> writes
>>> Always intrigued about programmes are pulled at short notice.  I
>>> noticed yesterday that Clarkson's programme about PQ17 was supposed
>>> to be on again. I thought I might take a look as it was better than
>>> the alternatives but found a programme on the Bayeux Tapestry.  I was
>>> wondering why and only just occurred to me that it must be because he
>>> has upset the Markle Fan Club by speaking the truth about her.
>>>
>>
>> Ah, yes that's probably the reason - though some of the things he said
>> about her I thought were pretty vile, even though I don't have any
>> time for her. I'd been hoping to see the PQ17 programme, as I'd missed
>> it when it was on before. I'd already seem the Bayeux Tapestry one, I
>> think, so didn't watch it.
>
> I don't particularly like MM - she's too outspoken and too woke for my
> liking. But nothing, repeat nothing, would induce me to express the sort
> of sentiments that Clarkson did - probably not even to people who I knew
> shared the same feelings, and *definitely* not in a published article
> where I knew my opinions could cause offence to people that thought
> differently to me. What was he thinking? And what was the newspaper
> thinking for publishing the article?
>
> A lot of people have said that the article was racist and have wondered
> what would have happened if a black writer had written the same things
> about a white member of the royal family. I don't see it as racist. It
> is would be just as offensive no matter what race or gender was being
> written about.

Freedom of speech *is* the freedom to offend.

Lord Justice Sedley ruled: "Free speech includes not only the
inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the
heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided it does not tend
to provoke violence."

"Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having".

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/jul/24/johnezard

On 30/12/2022 15:25, Norman Wells wrote:
>
> Freedom of speech *is* the freedom to offend.
>
> Lord Justice Sedley ruled: "Free speech includes not only the
> inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the
> heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided it does not tend
> to provoke violence."
>
> "Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having".
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/jul/24/johnezard

Freedom to offend *WITHOUT REASONABLE CAUSE* is not a freedom worth
having! Whatever happened to the old tradition that in general you
should respect others unless given particular, good, and just reason not
to do so? Effectively all Clarkson was doing was publicising, and
thereby endeavouring to legitimise, his own massive character failing of
extreme bigotry. To any rational individual reading it, his irrational
tirade explains a great deal more about his own shortcomings of
character than it does about about the people he targetted.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 30/12/2022 16:00, Java Jive wrote:
> On 30/12/2022 15:25, Norman Wells wrote:
>>
>> Freedom of speech *is* the freedom to offend.
>>
>> Lord Justice Sedley ruled: "Free speech includes not only the
>> inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the
>> heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided it does not tend
>> to provoke violence."
>>
>> "Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having".
>>
>> https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/jul/24/johnezard
>
> Freedom to offend *WITHOUT REASONABLE CAUSE* is not a freedom worth
> having!  Whatever happened to the old tradition that in general you
> should respect others unless given particular, good, and just reason not
> to do so?  Effectively all Clarkson was doing was publicising, and
> thereby endeavouring to legitimise, his own massive character failing of
> extreme bigotry.  To any rational individual reading it, his irrational
> tirade explains a great deal more about his own shortcomings of
> character than it does about about the people he targetted.

People are actually entitled to be extreme bigots if they want. It's a
valued freedom we all have. We can all hold our own views, and are free
to express them.

Long may it continue.

On 30/12/2022 16:33, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 30/12/2022 16:00, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 30/12/2022 15:25, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>
>>> Freedom of speech *is* the freedom to offend.
>>>
>>> Lord Justice Sedley ruled: "Free speech includes not only the
>>> inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the
>>> heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided it does not
>>> tend to provoke violence."
>>>
>>> "Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having".
>>>
>>> https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/jul/24/johnezard
>>
>> Freedom to offend *WITHOUT REASONABLE CAUSE* is not a freedom worth
>> having!  Whatever happened to the old tradition that in general you
>> should respect others unless given particular, good, and just reason
>> not to do so?  Effectively all Clarkson was doing was publicising, and
>> thereby endeavouring to legitimise, his own massive character failing
>> of extreme bigotry.  To any rational individual reading it, his
>> irrational tirade explains a great deal more about his own
>> shortcomings of character than it does about about the people he
>> targetted.
>
> People are actually entitled to be extreme bigots if they want.  It's a
> valued freedom we all have.  We can all hold our own views, and are free
> to express them.

Not so, there are a great many views that you might hold that you cannot
express publicly.

> Long may it continue.

As it doesn't happen now, it cannot continue.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk