Jeremy Clarkson

Oh, roll on the day when British television is full of well behaved, politically correct, upstanding and totally boring non-personalities. It will keep the stuffed shirts quiet. Great.

Anniebach don't let's get too emotional about this. They're grown men, and nobody died.

Blimey! The DM's got a nerve! It was them that ran the headline about Clarkso/Saville.

Good for JC for fighting back about that. Hope he sues the newspapers as well. Diabolical.

Marty, I assume the man he allegedly thumped - he has not denied the accusation - has or had parents

I fully support the complains by the travelling community too , why should they not take being called pikeys offensive , should they not be offended because they are not middle class of Oxfordshire

Is it acceptable to offend because it wasn't allegedly meant to be taken seriously? Very Bernard Manning

I also like JC vampirequeen. I don't take anything he says seriously and I expect he doesn't either.

Anniebach why would Jeremy Clarkson thump anyone's son!!!

We still don't know if he actually thumped the producer.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2999715/Clarkson-fights-furious-attack-BBC-bosses-brings-lawyers-Savile-comparison-senior-TV-source.html

Would Clarkson fans still admire him if he thumped their son?

I'm late to this and sorry if I'm repeating anything that has already been said but...

...I like Jeremy Clarkson.

Why is it taking so long to make a decision- ridiculous.

My nine year old GS has decreed that he should be banned for just one programme, and then be allowed back.

I think it's a fairly safe bet that he did something reprehensible, though maybe not criminal.

The interesting thing for me is to see what will happen to him now. Will he be suspended/sacked or will his lofty status and friends in high places save him.

Spot on, soon, about it being up to every individual "whether they choose not to guess whether someone is guilty or innocent of an alleged crime". The reverse, choosing to guess rather than waiting for (hopefully plain) facts is also an option. The former is the option I'm choosing.

Please don't apologise. There is no need.

There is a reason, a good one, why the word alleged is used in such cases.

Lots of posts since I was constructing my last one.

Yes, thatbags doesnt mind bluntness.

If I overdid it, I am sorry.

I agree you care about justice.
And it is up to anyone whether they choose not to guess whether someone is guilty or innocent of an alleged crime.

I did assume you were buddies and that is, I agree, a thing to be appreciated.

I'm still not sure I would want my friends to rush in to defend me though, before I had had a chance to say something myself.

I might feel disempowered.

But that's just me.

I have no problem with bluntness. Keep it up, soon

Friendship might account for it, petallus —that defence thing you mentioned—and I appreciate absent's friendship even if you don't.

soontobe was being just a little bit blunt though! .

I often wonder why some posters rush to the defence of other posters, as if they are unable to speak for themselves.

I don't agree with your last para either absent. A bit rosy spectacles but no offence to Bags.

I think most people do that thing soon mentioned: start from an emotionally arrived at point of view and then argue backwards to support it with logic.

Thank you for your analysis, soon. I'm not sure I understand it but perhaps I will in due course. I think you are mistaken about whether I care about whatever. I care very much about truth and justice, whoever or whatever the subject of the case. In this particular case, whether one likes Jeremy Clarkson's public persona is beside the point. The issue is whether he committed a crime. He has been accused of a crime by "the papers" (not by the person against whom he is said to have committed said crime) and that is all we know at the moment. I have been at pains to point this out a few times when I feel people have made unjustified assumptions (e.g. that he is guilty of the above mentioned crime). That is all.

Now, like everyone else, I'm waiting for further information before making any further judgment about the case.

I don't think everyone would agree with that last paragraph Absent, especially your last sentence. And you also can be abrupt and quite patronising in certain posts. It may be that those who are being criticised do not mean to sound as they do, though sometimes being a 'model of clarity' equates to a bluntness that others find rude.

In fact most posters are polite.

Not only is that nonsense soontobe, it's extremely rude.

Jeremy Clarkson's sense of humour is well known for being iconoclastic, to choose a polite word, and he is much appreciated by some for his willingness, even eagerness to demolish sacred cows. He usually judges his audience well but occasionally oversteps the mark, as with his comments about lazy Mexicans.

More importantly, the facts about this recent altercation are not fully known, at least not to the general public. The various news media give different versions of the same story. It is always unwise to jump to conclusions without knowing the facts and the kangaroo court of public opinion is never a good guide. These facts are most likely to be revealed as a result of the formal investigation.

Although I don't always agree with the opinions thatbags expresses, I think the way she expresses them is invariably a model of clarity and her comments always have the merit of being relevant. She is also always polite to other posters (except when following a long-standing tradition of bandying words with jingl). That is a lot more than can be said of some posters.

You find an end result you want first. Then work it backwards.

I have finally worked out what you do thatbags.

You say you dont care about someone or something, but on the one hand you are sure that, to take this example, JC is mucking about, and obviously doesnt mean his wee comments, racist comments etc etc,[no facts needed there I notice, even though he has written many 100o's of words] and on the other side of the equation, there will be facts for you about what he might if done only once the BBC has completed their investigations.
Thus currently making him innocent of everything.
Yeah!

I expect he'd have been advised by his lawyer to keep a low profile in any case. I hope the people sending death threats are caught.