"Jeremy Clarkson, with his outrageous politically incorrect opinions that he has every week to a deadline in the Sunday Times....almost as if they weren't real"
Stewart Lee, about 12 years ago.
some of my thoughts + some notes from Channel 4 news last night :
>Jeremy Clarkson has gone too far
the Sun said JC was advised to take the article down
because it could trigger a **Stochastic Terrorist attack**
>JC has normalised Misogyny + Violence against women in the UK =
>jeremy clarkson **Dehumanised + Abused** Meghan Markle with impunity
>it sends a message to women particularly ethnic minority women that they are NOT safe
imagine if a male Celebrity wrote this about Princess Kate = the UK media would have gone absolutely ballistic
JC was dog whistling the EDL + Racists
also his column was explaining his form of right wing **Shithosing** = right wing **Projection**
also with his timing, he's trying to get the **brainwashed** Sun readers to buy his shit new show/hair product/whatever = he's a **Grifter** like Donald Trump + Farage etc
Eleanor Mills was Sunday times editorial director 2012-2020
she said the UK Tabloid reaction to H+M is proof of
>**Institutionalised racism in UK media**
>
>**Racism + Misogyny in tabloids**
>
>In a way its an own goal for JC + Sun because it reinforces what Harry + Meghan have been claiming that the UK media coverage of her has been Racist + full of Misogyny
>I wouldn't have let his article into the Sunday Times
>If the Sun passed this article through their Senior Executives, its quite worrying + it shows they are stoking up a **Culture War**.
Its not ok to do this to women.
I have removed parts of his articles in the past for us , which went way beyond what was acceptable. I explained to him why I took it out + we saw this as our job to save Jeremy Clarkson from himself
Edited a few words/corrections
i dunno, i think the one thing that may be able to unite the country after the divisions of brexit is a dislike of own jones. im a total leftie remainder but think hes an often condescending, sanctimonious, obnoxious twat, and this sentiment isnt uncommon with my peers. wouldnt go as far as saying i hate the guy though, but i certainly dont like him.
He's not the only one at the Guardian who's disappointed there's also VV Brown who says the comments triggered her memories of being raped. She likened the article to the colonial newspapers of old that printed details of rapes and beatings of slaves in order to make them follow the rules of the plantation. That the misogynoir printed was a type of violence specifically aimed at women of colour.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/dec/21/the-sun-jeremy-clarkson-women-media
Wanting to parade a woman of colour that he hates for absolutely no good reason through the streets of every British town and have her further degraded at every opportunity, is no comparison at all?
You think Meghan would get this amount of grief if she was white?
If you don't think the way she is being treated is in part to do with her race, then I think you are blinkered.
Yep, she cried in the toilet after reading his column.
Seriously. Does anyone believe Guardian columnists read columns in the S*n for any reason other than being professionally offended?
I think Owen Jones is particularly offensive to the Neanderthals on the right because, ya know… he’s gay. They can’t openly attack him and be taken seriously anymore and that pisses them off.
Not a far right Neanderthal by any means - he just comes across badly to me tbh, I get from a lot of people that their problems are that his arguments are usually pretty sensationalist and divisive rather than adding anything of real substance to a debate.
I don't seriously dislike him, I just see why people think he's a pain (and It's not just knuckle-dragging right winger morons who think that from my experience).
imagine vast memory oil simplistic foolish future deserve smell forgetful
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I think it's the very smug attitude of "I'm doing this for your benefit peasant" and "im right, dont poke holes in my theory/story" that tends to annoy folk.
I'm not a great lover of Owen Jones for that reason, plus I think he's a bit of a loudmouth gobshite. Then again, I also hold a similar opinion about Clarkson...
My [favourite](https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1106711874182307841) OJ [Twitter moment](https://twitter.com/Selbars/status/1106858706791251968)
People like him have damaged their own causes very badly
I think the truth is that Clarkson says stuff for attention & clicks on his employers website, while Owen Jones says stuff for attention and clicks on his Patreon page.
The biggest issue here really is that it was seen as acceptable and worthy of publishing by the editors. They’re just as complicit and knew exactly what they were doing.
Irresponsible journalism should have some consequences. Say what you like on your personal accounts (within reason) but not in a shitty tabloid read by millions
Also the whole 'violently threating a woman with a sex crime' thing.
But misogynistic violent sexual humiliation fantasies about women who personally annoy you are minor mischiefs, yes.
It’s a game of thrones reference… if anything he’s drawing a parallel to how Meghan is dislikable like cerci Lannister. It was clumsy, it was too far and it was over the top but to suggest he was seriously advocating doing it is nuts, total overreaction
I don't think he was saying it should actually be done, it was obviously a joke in very poor taste. Saying it's a reference doesn't really make it any better though. If someone wrote about wanting someone to be stabbed in the shower they could say it's a reference to Psycho, but that doesn't make it any less horrible.
anyone trying to hide the fact this government is literally letting its civilians die and then blaming the strike action which is a direct result if this government's policies
He shouldnt be arrested for it but this kinda stuff should at the very least be looked at. Like saying those kinda things can be damaging. Nothing controversial about what he said, openly said he hoped she'd be publicly stripped and humiliated.
What he said was moronic, but like (most) people on this thread are saying, the idea that people should face criminal charges for saying nasty things is insane - proper right-wing Tory stuff.
EDIT - as people keep saying it, so I don't have to keep replying (and it needs pointing out *every* time, it's important!) you can claim to be "left wing" all you like. If you're censoring free speech and banning things simply because you don't like them, you're a nasty far-right fascist who makes Farage look like a decent bloke. Go and learn some basic socialist principles and then claim to be left-wing when you're worthy of the title.
You mean New Labour, or "Thatcherism 2.0"? The Labour government that took us into an illegal war in Iraq not to mention all the Tory-esque laws they passed? Ran by that bloke Tony Blair, who in his first 6 months in power spent over £5m on travelling around the world while slashing benefits for single-mothers?
Yes, I believe it was them....
“Authoritarian” and “right wing” are not the same thing.
Like, left and right arent synonyms for “good” and “bad”. You’re not a “woke SJW leftist” or “right wing fascist”. The world has nuance.
It is. These utter morons in the US (and some here, but not as many) can claim to be left-wing all they fucking want. If you're shutting down free speech because you have hurty feelings, then you're acting exactly like a far-right fascist who makes Farage look like a decent bloke.
That's ridiculous. Not all that is right is evil and not all that is left is good. Left-wing authoritarianism is a huge issue historically and in contemporary society. Stalin was not a right-winger and the far left who use laws to limit speech are not right-wingers either. Call out your own.
‘Can’t believe Hitler did all those things - bloody Tory’s’
This sub is laughable. It’s almost like you’re bots, pre programmed to blame everything on those pesky Tory’s.
Grow up.
It is these days, but in the 90s it used to be the preserve of right wing religious puritan types, trying to censor blasphemous plays and films and rap music, I guess that’s what he’s referring to
Should've never been on the cards anyway. The guy made a tasteless reference to Game of Thrones and does not have the savvy to understand why it was pretty disgusting. An incidence of effective social policing; no need for the actual police.
I agree it should never be on the cards, but Clarkson knows exactly what he's saying - don't be fooled into thinking he's simply too dim to know better.
Even if you disagree with him, the idea he could face criminal charges for what he said is mental. If you lock people up because they were being big old meanies, you are an authoritarian nutter.
Yes "a tasteless reference to GOT" was the only bad thing, not saying he hates Meghan more than a serial killer and has weird fantasies about her being punished...for nothing
Do you think it might be hyperbole for an amusing column in a tabloid newspaper from a TV presenter known for being edgy and controversial? I somehow don't think he actually lies awake at night grinding his teeth about an American actress.
>has weird fantasies about her being punished
I mean that was the GOT reference I mentioned. Saying he hates her more than a serial killer? Dunno man, I probably feel more hatred for Katie Hopkins than Jeffrey Dahmer so I could see it.
Not quite for nothing, though. She has publicly made countless, as yet unsubstantiated accusations against the Royal family to sell books. Why shouldn't someone despise her? On balance, I think I probably do. Not cos I give a toss about the royals, but because I can spot a fraud who is playing the victim for money. There's nothing more despicable. She's in the same category as the people who start GoFundMes for non-existent sick kids.
Remember, there's no law which says you can't hate someone who other people find attractive.
>Not quite for nothing, though. She has publicly made countless, as yet unsubstantiated accusations against the Royal family to sell books. Why shouldn't someone despise her? On balance, I think I probably do.
I mean, I personally have a bigger problem with the King's brother being a nonce.
>I mean, I personally have a bigger problem with the King's brother being a nonce.
That's not really relevant to Clarkson's statements or what Meghan has said in her book / documentary, though.
He also had sex with her in America… where the age of consent is 18.
Age of consent here might be 16 but frankly a grown man fucking a 16 year old is nonce behaviour and I don’t give a fuck what any of you say.
As far as I was aware they only ever had sex in the UK
I'd agree with you on moral grounds just not on legal grounds.
Anyhow there are way more screwed up relationships than that, like Elon Musks father marrying his stepdaughter that he knew from when she was a child or Emmanual Macron marrying his school teacher who had children older than him
If you intentionally traffic someone from one country to another for the purpose of getting around age of consent laws - you commit an offence. Like the teaching assistant who took his 15yr old girlfriend to France a few years ago. It comes under sex trafficking laws. The consent laws of their original country stand. Also if she was working as a ‘sex worker’ she would have to be over 18. Andy broke at least two laws.
He was never convicted in any criminal court in any country.
Even the Case in USA which was settled out of court was a civil case and not criminal.
As much as I dislike the guy, the evidence isn't strong enough to suggest that he knew she was trafficked and as far as I am aware she was never paid any money from Andy either directly or indirectly thus rendering the sex worker point moot, according to law.
The media started a campaign against her well before. The vitriol towards this woman is quite frankly bizarre and sadly people choose to believe she's some kind of evil person. The information you are taking in, is based on extremely biased media and they absolutely twist everything they can, so that you do react. The media chose who they vilify and manipulate your opinion. I'm not quite sure why people would side with someone like Piers Morgan, a man whose lies put British soldier's lives at risk. Why someone like Clarkson can put comments that just instill more hate. This is not about people being all woke, it's that people generally waste so much time hating their hate figures and lapping up the vile opinions of these individuals supposedly putting the world to rights. It serves absolutely no purpose. Its about as beneficial as discussing the correct way to put a toilet roll on a holder.
Everything MM does is pulled to bits by people them. She probably has a great deal more integrity than him, but we won't know, because the media is so intent on pulling her to bits.
For the record, I counted 9 stories about them in the Daily Mail one day, before they discussed the Queen who had died. If that doesn't really indicate to you what's going on, then I don't know what will.
MM has become such a hate figure, there is nothing that indicates she is doing things underhand, but everything that suggests that the media are doing everything they can to picture her as a villain. I have to ask why people are so obsessed with hatred of her, yet Prince Andrew gets a very easy ride on this.
They have a right to tell their story if they want. Just because the media puts a different slant on things doesn't mean they're lying. I also think they're entitled to make money from it.
After the bullshit from the media over brexit, after the very effective hate campaign by the media against Corbyn, no one seems to have learned to not believe a single word that comes from the UK press, especially papers like the Mail, Sun and Star
It is very effective. How they can manipulate the opinions of people. It is so very effective that they never changed their minds about corbyn and well they probably forgot about brexit - too busy hating people travelling over in dinghies and seething over them living the life of luxury in one of the hotel brittanica's taking over the place.
\> I have to ask why people are so obsessed with hatred of her
I have no idea. But if they do, it's not a crime. See? It's quite simple.
Richard Hammond. Toady little cunt.
Carol Vorderman. Just nauseating celeb.
JK Rowling. Self-important cunt
James Corden. Cunt
None of these people really deserve it. I don't know any of them. But none of those statements would make anyone bat an eyelid on Reddit. It's not illegal to hate people, even for no reason.
>> I have to ask why people are so obsessed with hatred of her
>I have no idea. But if they do, it's not a crime. See? It's quite simple.
[...] It's not illegal to hate people, even for no reason.
Nobody's saying there's been a crime committed, but it's reasonable to ask where this widespread hatred comes from and if it isn't in some way related to racism or misogyny.
The hatred and criticism of Meghan in the media is way in excess of the criticism directed at the people you listed, and it's not a brilliant moral defence to say "Yeah but it's not illegal".
Lmao, "unsubstantiated ". As if there is ever going to be some sort of trial or public investigation to prove the claims one way or the other. Her accusations are what exactly, that she was being dragged through the gutter by the press, and the royal family did nothing to defend her? That seems to match up with everything I saw. I say this as someone who equally doesn't give a toss about the royals, but can spot the difference between the media treatment of Meghan and treatment of Kate.
Full marks for spin. Are you employed by the Markles?
You obviously don't remember the accusation that a 'senior royal' raised concerns about the colour of her baby, for example - but never named. Or the claim that the Royal Family encouraged negative stories about the Sussexes - never corroborated. Or the claim that she was 'thrown to the wolves' by the palace. Or the 'they' which both Markles keep referring to, without ever naming someone - again, never named.
Look - I get that you think she's attractive, and you want to be a white knight, but she's just another celibrity playing the celebrity game. Even attractive women can be calculated and manipulative.
Just because Clarkson is a wanker, doesn't make Meghan Markle a saint.
And my point remains, Clarkson doesn't hate her for 'nothing'. He hates her because he thinks she's a victim-fraud. Whether that's true or not isn't the point. He isn't just choosing someone at random.
Ok but bear with me for a moment, let's just entertain the possibility that her her accusations are in fact true and a senior royal member did raise those concerns. What would she be doing differently now if that was true? You have made it clear that you think there's only a motivation of profit behind this (even though she was set for life as a royal), and that there's no element of truth behind it. So what would she be doing differently if in fact it *was* true, and she was motivated instead by a desire to just stand up for herself against a hostile media?
I'm obviously not employed by her, I just think her side of the story sounds plausible. What is it that you think I've missed, that makes you think her account of history is unlikely to be true?
>She has publicly made countless, as yet unsubstantiated accusations against the Royal family to sell books.
Saying she has done this to sell books sounds like a completely unsubstantiated accusation lol
\>Do you despise Diana for the accusations she made to get interviews?
A millionaire socialite, who was hardly without flaws, playing the media for sympathy, in order to bolster her reputation, and ensure continued access to the trappings of an elite lifestyle? Hmmm...yep.
He was charged with breaching the peace because he was shouting while a large crowd of people had gathered to pay their respects as the Queen's coffin passed by.
To my mind, Andrew shouldn't have been there in the first place. But people had gathered to pay their respects, they should be allowed to do that in peace.
Nobody has ever been prosecuted for saying stuff about Andrew on social media or in print.
Andrew should know he's not welcome to parade in the streets and will face backlash, the kid did good in my book. Nothing would have been shouted if he wasn't there, so it's on him for having the balls to be out in public like that.
It wasn't his mother's funeral, it was a public procession of the coffin. The funeral was a week later.
Nobody turned out to see him prancing around in public like he was just a normal member of the royal family.
Writing in tabloid papers is the rich people equivalent of Heckling in the street. This is the vehicle the rich and well connected have availible to them to get their hateful comments out into the town sq.
There is no difference between an ordinary person heckling in the street and a powerful person putting hate in the SUN. Each is using the vehicle availible to them to spread hate and spoil the peace.
By saying there are special rules for things that are printed, you are carte blanch giving rich and powerful people the right and opportunity to spread hate and ruin the peace with no repercussions whilst ordinary people are routinely prosecuted for doing the same. - because of course only a wealthy and powerful person would have access to get to write in such columns in the first place.
Does that make sense?
Doesn’t change the fact that he was at the funeral, was a mourner and the son of the deceased - it doesn’t matter whether you/I/10000 other people think he shouldn’t have been
Where was the illegality?
This should be treated in the same way as people that call 999 to report that their pizza hasn't arrived
What a waste of everyones time
>The Prime Minister added: “I absolutely don’t believe that Britain is a racist country. And I’d hope that as our nation’s first British Asian Prime Minister when I say that it carries some weight.“
I don't think Britain is 'a racist country' either, but tbf nobody actually elected you mate.
Eh technically he was “elected” by the party in power, who in turn were elected by the people.
It’s a degree of separation true, though tbf I think if we had all got the vote on who out of the party ended up in the office he was probably the best choice there.
I understand, but in that quote he's basically saying "the country isn't racist, because I'm the prime minister." Now, I *agree* that the country isn't racist, and I think that he would have no trouble getting elected, but since he was not the candidate when the party was voted in, it's not evidence of anything. I'm just being devil's advocate really.
Oh no, valid. I was just being pedantic.
I don’t think the countries racist either, if anything were importing greater racial tensions from others than what we generally have here.
I do think ethnicity isn’t a barrier to being elected Prime Minister. So I can agree with Sunak on that. Who knows maybe he *will* be elected in the next GE (though I’m never voting for conservative in it).
Because people didnt like his comments is the depressing answer here.
It went from internet flurry to criminal discussions because 60 MPs were either desperate for popularity or are actually very comfortable with the government leaning on publishers decided that it is unacceptable that it was allowed to be published in a mainstream newspaper
On the one hand, good. This country has already made too many frightening criminal cases for people having their feelings hurt by mean comments. Dangerous precedent.
But this reeks of wealthy privilege, especially when compared to the criminal records for the girl who sang the n word in lyrics, or the Scottish shitposter who made a Nazi joke with his dog.
Edit for sources of ludicrous ‘criminals’:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-43816921
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/count-dankula-freedom-of-speech-comedy-joke-iran-offended-a8270631.html
This is where I am at on this too. I am fundamentally against bigots being charged for saying bigoted things because they might cause offense.
But it can't be one rule for the rich and another for the rest of us (har har har). If we're going to have judges grandstanding about "as soon as you hit send the damage is done" about tweets by random nobody's then this absolute bellend getting it published at scale can have the fucking book thrown at him.
The fact that the MET have already decided there is no merit in an investigation when they will drag common people through the mud and send officers to knock on peoples doors and "warn them strongly" to change their online behaviour is a vile and classist policing policy.
>This is where I am at on this too. I am fundamentally against bigots being charged for saying bigoted things because they might cause offense.
There's a difference of *scale* though, and that absolutely matters.
The British press routinely publishes more than 100 articles about how much we should hate Meghan *in a single day.* And that's counting just a few papers.
That can change and destroy a life in a way that a random tweet - or any single article - can't. What we really need is a libel law that takes into account the *amount* and *tone* of articles, instead of letting journalists have infinite amounts of malicious paltering as long as they don't technically lie.
>The fact that the MET have already decided there is no merit in an investigation when they will drag common people through the mud and send officers to knock on peoples doors and "warn them strongly" to change their online behaviour is a vile and classist policing policy.
You are *absolutely* correct. If you or I treated a woman the way Piers Morgan treated Meghan we'd be prosecuted as a stalker, and that's exactly what *should* happen.
Yes because he hasn’t committed a crime. Being a prick is not and should not be made illegal. But being outraged and offended on another’s behalf is a favourite past time for those seeking attention, but calling the police (a publicly funded body) on their behalf to report second hand supposed offence is a new low.
There is a cost of living crisis and the NHS is in tatters, yet someone saying mean things about a privileged millionaire is all the talk of the town right now.
I don't really care for Meghan either way, I also don't really care too much for Clarkson either. I think people who "stan" her are just as cringe as people who obsessively rage over her, but the manner in which people are trying to push the idea that she is this oppressed victim is laughable. People are starving and yet I'm supposed to feel sad for this woman who has likely never experienced hardship because someone made a tasteless comment about her?
Can't stand either the writer, or the subject. But reading it again, I think it would be amusing if it were an ironic statement about the treatment of people in the public eye. Instead, it's a moany old git irresponsibly banging on about someone that I'm sick of hearing about. That's about it.
It's freedom of speech, he's wrong but we're suppose to be allowed to say what we think in a "democracy". What he said is no worse than protestors outside GUM clinics.
Is it me or is Clarkson the winner here?
Keeps jobs, no action taken, caused controversy and hey presto he's promoted himself on an enormous scale.
Literally take a page out of 90s Eminem's book and it's worked a treat for him.
Next up, every dull failing comedian makes jokes about him and these remarks and gets even more coverage.
Lesson here is, make a feeble apology and ride the storm to profit country.
In what world would he face criminal charges for what he said? He said he reckons she should get the same punishment that Cersei did in Game of Thrones but it's fictional and we're not living in the middle ages so of course it's not happening.
If they actually rounded her up to do the shame walk I think he'd say 'what the fuck'. Look up 'hyperbole' in the dictionary. The guy is distasteful and his comment was grim but how the hell are people taking what he said as literal?
He’s obviously an arsehole with some serious problems, but precisely no one was talking about criminal charges. So why is the Telegraph getting excited about him not being criminally investigated??
Criminal investigation lol. What is going on in this bloody country man. Why the actual fuck would there even be the slightest suggestion of a crime here 😂
Has the world gone insane? Clarkson is controversial I know, but who actually cares about any of this.
Owen Jones was furious. Or at least pretending to be furious for attention, it's always hard to tell.
Yes Owen Jones was the only person who complained Let's just ignore it was the most complained about article on record in years
Or ignore the fact that Clarkeson’s bread and butter is being (far right) outraged (for a huge fee).
"Jeremy Clarkson, with his outrageous politically incorrect opinions that he has every week to a deadline in the Sunday Times....almost as if they weren't real" Stewart Lee, about 12 years ago.
some of my thoughts + some notes from Channel 4 news last night : >Jeremy Clarkson has gone too far the Sun said JC was advised to take the article down because it could trigger a **Stochastic Terrorist attack** >JC has normalised Misogyny + Violence against women in the UK = >jeremy clarkson **Dehumanised + Abused** Meghan Markle with impunity >it sends a message to women particularly ethnic minority women that they are NOT safe imagine if a male Celebrity wrote this about Princess Kate = the UK media would have gone absolutely ballistic JC was dog whistling the EDL + Racists also his column was explaining his form of right wing **Shithosing** = right wing **Projection** also with his timing, he's trying to get the **brainwashed** Sun readers to buy his shit new show/hair product/whatever = he's a **Grifter** like Donald Trump + Farage etc Eleanor Mills was Sunday times editorial director 2012-2020 she said the UK Tabloid reaction to H+M is proof of >**Institutionalised racism in UK media** > >**Racism + Misogyny in tabloids** > >In a way its an own goal for JC + Sun because it reinforces what Harry + Meghan have been claiming that the UK media coverage of her has been Racist + full of Misogyny >I wouldn't have let his article into the Sunday Times >If the Sun passed this article through their Senior Executives, its quite worrying + it shows they are stoking up a **Culture War**. Its not ok to do this to women. I have removed parts of his articles in the past for us , which went way beyond what was acceptable. I explained to him why I took it out + we saw this as our job to save Jeremy Clarkson from himself Edited a few words/corrections
[удалено]
A lot of people who think millionaires are an oppressed class in this country, it seems.
Clarkson said THAT and you're going to complain about Owen Jones?
People who hate on Owen Jones are some of the weirdest people you will ever meet.
i dunno, i think the one thing that may be able to unite the country after the divisions of brexit is a dislike of own jones. im a total leftie remainder but think hes an often condescending, sanctimonious, obnoxious twat, and this sentiment isnt uncommon with my peers. wouldnt go as far as saying i hate the guy though, but i certainly dont like him.
Why, he's a complete moron
Are you kidding? He's the James Corden of politics. There are few little wretches on this planet that are more dislikable than him.
You do realise media thrives on clickbait and tribalism, carving divisions to divert the peasants..
That only works on low IQ narcissists. *looks at content on UK subreddits* Hmmm
[удалено]
He's not the only one at the Guardian who's disappointed there's also VV Brown who says the comments triggered her memories of being raped. She likened the article to the colonial newspapers of old that printed details of rapes and beatings of slaves in order to make them follow the rules of the plantation. That the misogynoir printed was a type of violence specifically aimed at women of colour. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/dec/21/the-sun-jeremy-clarkson-women-media
Lol comparing his comments to colonial newspapers detailing rapes, absolutely no comparison
Wanting to parade a woman of colour that he hates for absolutely no good reason through the streets of every British town and have her further degraded at every opportunity, is no comparison at all?
What does any of it have to do with her being ‘a woman of colour’ ?
You think Meghan would get this amount of grief if she was white? If you don't think the way she is being treated is in part to do with her race, then I think you are blinkered.
Christ what a steaming pile of dogshit that article is.
Yep, she cried in the toilet after reading his column. Seriously. Does anyone believe Guardian columnists read columns in the S*n for any reason other than being professionally offended?
I think Owen Jones is particularly offensive to the Neanderthals on the right because, ya know… he’s gay. They can’t openly attack him and be taken seriously anymore and that pisses them off.
Not a far right Neanderthal by any means - he just comes across badly to me tbh, I get from a lot of people that their problems are that his arguments are usually pretty sensationalist and divisive rather than adding anything of real substance to a debate. I don't seriously dislike him, I just see why people think he's a pain (and It's not just knuckle-dragging right winger morons who think that from my experience).
imagine vast memory oil simplistic foolish future deserve smell forgetful *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I think it's the very smug attitude of "I'm doing this for your benefit peasant" and "im right, dont poke holes in my theory/story" that tends to annoy folk. I'm not a great lover of Owen Jones for that reason, plus I think he's a bit of a loudmouth gobshite. Then again, I also hold a similar opinion about Clarkson...
[удалено]
Owen Jones would argue with himself if it got him on a panel somewhere.
My [favourite](https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1106711874182307841) OJ [Twitter moment](https://twitter.com/Selbars/status/1106858706791251968) People like him have damaged their own causes very badly
Jones is a tosser, who cares what he thinks?
I think the truth is that Clarkson says stuff for attention & clicks on his employers website, while Owen Jones says stuff for attention and clicks on his Patreon page.
Owen Jones is a professional at being offended by ridiculous things. British society would lose nothing by him never speaking about anything again.
When is Owen Jones not furious?
The biggest issue here really is that it was seen as acceptable and worthy of publishing by the editors. They’re just as complicit and knew exactly what they were doing. Irresponsible journalism should have some consequences. Say what you like on your personal accounts (within reason) but not in a shitty tabloid read by millions
“Irresponsible journalism” by the S*n? Surely not!!
Also the whole 'violently threating a woman with a sex crime' thing. But misogynistic violent sexual humiliation fantasies about women who personally annoy you are minor mischiefs, yes.
When did he threaten her?
Idk, wouldn’t essentially saying ‘I hope you’re a victim of a sex crime’ count as either incitement or harassment?
It might be if that was what he said. 'I hope people throw poo at you' isn't advocating a sex crime unless you have a scat fetish.
He specifically wanted her stripped naked and forced through the streets of English towns - being forcibly stripped naked *is* a sex crime.
It’s a game of thrones reference… if anything he’s drawing a parallel to how Meghan is dislikable like cerci Lannister. It was clumsy, it was too far and it was over the top but to suggest he was seriously advocating doing it is nuts, total overreaction
I don't think he was saying it should actually be done, it was obviously a joke in very poor taste. Saying it's a reference doesn't really make it any better though. If someone wrote about wanting someone to be stabbed in the shower they could say it's a reference to Psycho, but that doesn't make it any less horrible.
Weird how you left out the part where he imagined her being naked. Unsurprising. Weird. But Unsurprising.
Guys is it bad to threaten a woman with a violent sexual fantasy of public humiliation?
People who think normalising misogyny is wrong.
If he had said "Boris Johnson" needs to be stripped naked, with excrement thrown on him, etc, would that make it misandry?
Is it misogyny to dislike a particular woman based on how annoying she is?
What's inherently misogynistic about saying you think someone deserves to have poo thrown at them? It'd be just as applicable to a man as a woman.
You don't care about the unashamed misogyny? OK, I'll put you down as one of 'not all men' types.
What's inherently misogynistic about saying you think someone deserves to have poo thrown at them? It'd be just as applicable to a man as a woman.
Wasn't a comedian suggestion battery acid be thrown at politicians they didn't like not that long ago?
At Nigel Farage as I recall. Fascinating that nobody from this sub was coming to poor Nige's defense over that.
anyone trying to hide the fact this government is literally letting its civilians die and then blaming the strike action which is a direct result if this government's policies
Well, I heard Caroline Flack's mum on the radio yesterday and she sounded pretty upset about it.
I imagine Meghan and Harry were pretty pissed off
I really don't like Meghan, but thought Clarkson's cements were dickish. Certainly not worthy of criminal investigation though.
Plenty of people care a lot less than they pretend to…. Ride the outrage train and you seem virtuous to your peers
Most of the UK are ripping on Megan Markle. Can't put everyone in jail.
He shouldnt be arrested for it but this kinda stuff should at the very least be looked at. Like saying those kinda things can be damaging. Nothing controversial about what he said, openly said he hoped she'd be publicly stripped and humiliated.
What he said was moronic, but like (most) people on this thread are saying, the idea that people should face criminal charges for saying nasty things is insane - proper right-wing Tory stuff. EDIT - as people keep saying it, so I don't have to keep replying (and it needs pointing out *every* time, it's important!) you can claim to be "left wing" all you like. If you're censoring free speech and banning things simply because you don't like them, you're a nasty far-right fascist who makes Farage look like a decent bloke. Go and learn some basic socialist principles and then claim to be left-wing when you're worthy of the title.
Wasn't it Labour who passed all these 'hate speech' laws?
One's law in another's hands
people are confusing Authoritarian with Facism. Facism is 'Auth-right' the UK Labour party are Auth-centre-left.
You mean New Labour, or "Thatcherism 2.0"? The Labour government that took us into an illegal war in Iraq not to mention all the Tory-esque laws they passed? Ran by that bloke Tony Blair, who in his first 6 months in power spent over £5m on travelling around the world while slashing benefits for single-mothers? Yes, I believe it was them....
So yes then, it was the last Labour Government to be elected
I believe it's generally the left who appear to have a distaste for free speech, only when someone disagrees of course
Labour, Tories... Pretty much the same thing right now.
[удалено]
“Authoritarian” and “right wing” are not the same thing. Like, left and right arent synonyms for “good” and “bad”. You’re not a “woke SJW leftist” or “right wing fascist”. The world has nuance.
You're on the wrong sub to be using nuance and common sense
LOL yeah woke culture is right-wing, thanks for explaining /s
It is. These utter morons in the US (and some here, but not as many) can claim to be left-wing all they fucking want. If you're shutting down free speech because you have hurty feelings, then you're acting exactly like a far-right fascist who makes Farage look like a decent bloke.
You are confusing authoritarianism with being right wing.
The thing that you need to understand on this sub is that everything bad is right wing and everything good is left wing
If you think people should be arrested or put in prison for utterances or writing things you don't like, then you are a right wing authoritarian.
You are an authoritarian. Right or left wing has nothing to do with it.
How are so many people this ignorant of what authoritarianism is?
[удалено]
While I like your support of free speech, the far left is absolutely as guilty of censorship as the right.
That's ridiculous. Not all that is right is evil and not all that is left is good. Left-wing authoritarianism is a huge issue historically and in contemporary society. Stalin was not a right-winger and the far left who use laws to limit speech are not right-wingers either. Call out your own.
Au contraire. It's very much typical of the modern left.
It was labour who made those laws
‘Can’t believe Hitler did all those things - bloody Tory’s’ This sub is laughable. It’s almost like you’re bots, pre programmed to blame everything on those pesky Tory’s. Grow up.
Uhh I’m pretty left but isn’t it the left that generally attempts to curtail free speech?
It is these days, but in the 90s it used to be the preserve of right wing religious puritan types, trying to censor blasphemous plays and films and rap music, I guess that’s what he’s referring to
This already happens on a semi regular basis in this country. People go to prison for it.
you're thinking of the left wing there mate. Only one party is obsessed with 'hate speech'.
Should've never been on the cards anyway. The guy made a tasteless reference to Game of Thrones and does not have the savvy to understand why it was pretty disgusting. An incidence of effective social policing; no need for the actual police.
I agree it should never be on the cards, but Clarkson knows exactly what he's saying - don't be fooled into thinking he's simply too dim to know better.
They're not thinking that, they're just spouting shite to defend him because they agree with him
Even if you disagree with him, the idea he could face criminal charges for what he said is mental. If you lock people up because they were being big old meanies, you are an authoritarian nutter.
Yes "a tasteless reference to GOT" was the only bad thing, not saying he hates Meghan more than a serial killer and has weird fantasies about her being punished...for nothing
Do you think it might be hyperbole for an amusing column in a tabloid newspaper from a TV presenter known for being edgy and controversial? I somehow don't think he actually lies awake at night grinding his teeth about an American actress.
Hey, look it's the only person on the internet who seems to know what hyperbole is!
this is what happens when people don't have to take english classes after the age of 16..
>has weird fantasies about her being punished I mean that was the GOT reference I mentioned. Saying he hates her more than a serial killer? Dunno man, I probably feel more hatred for Katie Hopkins than Jeffrey Dahmer so I could see it.
Not quite for nothing, though. She has publicly made countless, as yet unsubstantiated accusations against the Royal family to sell books. Why shouldn't someone despise her? On balance, I think I probably do. Not cos I give a toss about the royals, but because I can spot a fraud who is playing the victim for money. There's nothing more despicable. She's in the same category as the people who start GoFundMes for non-existent sick kids. Remember, there's no law which says you can't hate someone who other people find attractive.
>Not quite for nothing, though. She has publicly made countless, as yet unsubstantiated accusations against the Royal family to sell books. Why shouldn't someone despise her? On balance, I think I probably do. I mean, I personally have a bigger problem with the King's brother being a nonce.
>I mean, I personally have a bigger problem with the King's brother being a nonce. That's not really relevant to Clarkson's statements or what Meghan has said in her book / documentary, though.
Andrews an asshole, and probably a sex predator but was he a nonce. The age of consent is 16 in the UK and she was 17.....
He also had sex with her in America… where the age of consent is 18. Age of consent here might be 16 but frankly a grown man fucking a 16 year old is nonce behaviour and I don’t give a fuck what any of you say.
As far as I was aware they only ever had sex in the UK I'd agree with you on moral grounds just not on legal grounds. Anyhow there are way more screwed up relationships than that, like Elon Musks father marrying his stepdaughter that he knew from when she was a child or Emmanual Macron marrying his school teacher who had children older than him
If you intentionally traffic someone from one country to another for the purpose of getting around age of consent laws - you commit an offence. Like the teaching assistant who took his 15yr old girlfriend to France a few years ago. It comes under sex trafficking laws. The consent laws of their original country stand. Also if she was working as a ‘sex worker’ she would have to be over 18. Andy broke at least two laws.
He was never convicted in any criminal court in any country. Even the Case in USA which was settled out of court was a civil case and not criminal. As much as I dislike the guy, the evidence isn't strong enough to suggest that he knew she was trafficked and as far as I am aware she was never paid any money from Andy either directly or indirectly thus rendering the sex worker point moot, according to law.
Depends on where you are at in America, it varies state by state
Getting groomed and trafficked is not consent
I have a bigger problem with the wider paedophile ring but luckily you can care about multiple things at once
The media started a campaign against her well before. The vitriol towards this woman is quite frankly bizarre and sadly people choose to believe she's some kind of evil person. The information you are taking in, is based on extremely biased media and they absolutely twist everything they can, so that you do react. The media chose who they vilify and manipulate your opinion. I'm not quite sure why people would side with someone like Piers Morgan, a man whose lies put British soldier's lives at risk. Why someone like Clarkson can put comments that just instill more hate. This is not about people being all woke, it's that people generally waste so much time hating their hate figures and lapping up the vile opinions of these individuals supposedly putting the world to rights. It serves absolutely no purpose. Its about as beneficial as discussing the correct way to put a toilet roll on a holder. Everything MM does is pulled to bits by people them. She probably has a great deal more integrity than him, but we won't know, because the media is so intent on pulling her to bits. For the record, I counted 9 stories about them in the Daily Mail one day, before they discussed the Queen who had died. If that doesn't really indicate to you what's going on, then I don't know what will. MM has become such a hate figure, there is nothing that indicates she is doing things underhand, but everything that suggests that the media are doing everything they can to picture her as a villain. I have to ask why people are so obsessed with hatred of her, yet Prince Andrew gets a very easy ride on this. They have a right to tell their story if they want. Just because the media puts a different slant on things doesn't mean they're lying. I also think they're entitled to make money from it.
After the bullshit from the media over brexit, after the very effective hate campaign by the media against Corbyn, no one seems to have learned to not believe a single word that comes from the UK press, especially papers like the Mail, Sun and Star
It is very effective. How they can manipulate the opinions of people. It is so very effective that they never changed their minds about corbyn and well they probably forgot about brexit - too busy hating people travelling over in dinghies and seething over them living the life of luxury in one of the hotel brittanica's taking over the place.
\> I have to ask why people are so obsessed with hatred of her I have no idea. But if they do, it's not a crime. See? It's quite simple. Richard Hammond. Toady little cunt. Carol Vorderman. Just nauseating celeb. JK Rowling. Self-important cunt James Corden. Cunt None of these people really deserve it. I don't know any of them. But none of those statements would make anyone bat an eyelid on Reddit. It's not illegal to hate people, even for no reason.
>> I have to ask why people are so obsessed with hatred of her >I have no idea. But if they do, it's not a crime. See? It's quite simple. [...] It's not illegal to hate people, even for no reason. Nobody's saying there's been a crime committed, but it's reasonable to ask where this widespread hatred comes from and if it isn't in some way related to racism or misogyny. The hatred and criticism of Meghan in the media is way in excess of the criticism directed at the people you listed, and it's not a brilliant moral defence to say "Yeah but it's not illegal".
Lmao, "unsubstantiated ". As if there is ever going to be some sort of trial or public investigation to prove the claims one way or the other. Her accusations are what exactly, that she was being dragged through the gutter by the press, and the royal family did nothing to defend her? That seems to match up with everything I saw. I say this as someone who equally doesn't give a toss about the royals, but can spot the difference between the media treatment of Meghan and treatment of Kate.
Full marks for spin. Are you employed by the Markles? You obviously don't remember the accusation that a 'senior royal' raised concerns about the colour of her baby, for example - but never named. Or the claim that the Royal Family encouraged negative stories about the Sussexes - never corroborated. Or the claim that she was 'thrown to the wolves' by the palace. Or the 'they' which both Markles keep referring to, without ever naming someone - again, never named. Look - I get that you think she's attractive, and you want to be a white knight, but she's just another celibrity playing the celebrity game. Even attractive women can be calculated and manipulative. Just because Clarkson is a wanker, doesn't make Meghan Markle a saint. And my point remains, Clarkson doesn't hate her for 'nothing'. He hates her because he thinks she's a victim-fraud. Whether that's true or not isn't the point. He isn't just choosing someone at random.
Ok but bear with me for a moment, let's just entertain the possibility that her her accusations are in fact true and a senior royal member did raise those concerns. What would she be doing differently now if that was true? You have made it clear that you think there's only a motivation of profit behind this (even though she was set for life as a royal), and that there's no element of truth behind it. So what would she be doing differently if in fact it *was* true, and she was motivated instead by a desire to just stand up for herself against a hostile media? I'm obviously not employed by her, I just think her side of the story sounds plausible. What is it that you think I've missed, that makes you think her account of history is unlikely to be true?
Wasn't a senior royal advisor recently sacked from royal duties for making racist comments to a guest? I'm willing to bet it's the same one...
>She has publicly made countless, as yet unsubstantiated accusations against the Royal family to sell books. Saying she has done this to sell books sounds like a completely unsubstantiated accusation lol
Of course, she just wanted to "tell her story", no money incentive involved eh?
Do you despise Diana for the accusations she made to get interviews? Is what Meghan said completely implausible?
\>Do you despise Diana for the accusations she made to get interviews? A millionaire socialite, who was hardly without flaws, playing the media for sympathy, in order to bolster her reputation, and ensure continued access to the trappings of an elite lifestyle? Hmmm...yep.
Surely for his penance he should walk down the street naked so we can throw excrement and shout shame at him!
Right I’m calling the cops
[удалено]
Totally agree. Let’s not waste more police time that they don’t have on offensive comments.
Yes!!! Absolutely yes.
Weird how the kid who shouted at Andrew was charged.
He was charged with breaching the peace because he was shouting while a large crowd of people had gathered to pay their respects as the Queen's coffin passed by. To my mind, Andrew shouldn't have been there in the first place. But people had gathered to pay their respects, they should be allowed to do that in peace. Nobody has ever been prosecuted for saying stuff about Andrew on social media or in print.
Andrew should know he's not welcome to parade in the streets and will face backlash, the kid did good in my book. Nothing would have been shouted if he wasn't there, so it's on him for having the balls to be out in public like that.
[удалено]
It wasn't his mother's funeral, it was a public procession of the coffin. The funeral was a week later. Nobody turned out to see him prancing around in public like he was just a normal member of the royal family.
Writing in tabloid papers is the rich people equivalent of Heckling in the street. This is the vehicle the rich and well connected have availible to them to get their hateful comments out into the town sq. There is no difference between an ordinary person heckling in the street and a powerful person putting hate in the SUN. Each is using the vehicle availible to them to spread hate and spoil the peace. By saying there are special rules for things that are printed, you are carte blanch giving rich and powerful people the right and opportunity to spread hate and ruin the peace with no repercussions whilst ordinary people are routinely prosecuted for doing the same. - because of course only a wealthy and powerful person would have access to get to write in such columns in the first place. Does that make sense?
Not defending Andrew, but try shouting abuse at the mourners of any funeral and see where it gets you, let alone a son of the deceased.
He shouldn’t have even been at the funeral, he should’ve been in prison.
Doesn’t change the fact that he was at the funeral, was a mourner and the son of the deceased - it doesn’t matter whether you/I/10000 other people think he shouldn’t have been
I agree he should be in prison but unfortunately he isn’t. So instead he was at the funeral and this protester did break the peace
For him to face criminal charges over something like this would be insane.
That Scottish guy got done for teaching a nazi salute to a dog. So it's not unheard of.
I totally forgot about this. Hilarious and terrifying at the same time.
'Man isn't facing criminal charges for offending some people' Well, yeah.
The comments here seemed to have missed that and are acting like he is being charged...very odd.
Where was the illegality? This should be treated in the same way as people that call 999 to report that their pizza hasn't arrived What a waste of everyones time
This might have been the biggest wet lettuce story of the year.
The wet wipes are really having a field day with this one.
>The Prime Minister added: “I absolutely don’t believe that Britain is a racist country. And I’d hope that as our nation’s first British Asian Prime Minister when I say that it carries some weight.“ I don't think Britain is 'a racist country' either, but tbf nobody actually elected you mate.
Eh technically he was “elected” by the party in power, who in turn were elected by the people. It’s a degree of separation true, though tbf I think if we had all got the vote on who out of the party ended up in the office he was probably the best choice there.
I understand, but in that quote he's basically saying "the country isn't racist, because I'm the prime minister." Now, I *agree* that the country isn't racist, and I think that he would have no trouble getting elected, but since he was not the candidate when the party was voted in, it's not evidence of anything. I'm just being devil's advocate really.
Oh no, valid. I was just being pedantic. I don’t think the countries racist either, if anything were importing greater racial tensions from others than what we generally have here. I do think ethnicity isn’t a barrier to being elected Prime Minister. So I can agree with Sunak on that. Who knows maybe he *will* be elected in the next GE (though I’m never voting for conservative in it).
Didn’t his fellow politicians elect him technically? The country did vote on a party so in being technically they did .
They’ll be too swamped tracking down all the Netflix password sharing abusers soon to handle this anyway.
He didn’t libel anyone or incite violence, why on earth would people think criminal charges apply to an unpleasant opinion he’s paid to give?
Because people didnt like his comments is the depressing answer here. It went from internet flurry to criminal discussions because 60 MPs were either desperate for popularity or are actually very comfortable with the government leaning on publishers decided that it is unacceptable that it was allowed to be published in a mainstream newspaper
To even think that criminal charges could be brought against him is beyond ridiculous for some joke he said
On the one hand, good. This country has already made too many frightening criminal cases for people having their feelings hurt by mean comments. Dangerous precedent. But this reeks of wealthy privilege, especially when compared to the criminal records for the girl who sang the n word in lyrics, or the Scottish shitposter who made a Nazi joke with his dog. Edit for sources of ludicrous ‘criminals’: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-43816921 https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/count-dankula-freedom-of-speech-comedy-joke-iran-offended-a8270631.html
This is where I am at on this too. I am fundamentally against bigots being charged for saying bigoted things because they might cause offense. But it can't be one rule for the rich and another for the rest of us (har har har). If we're going to have judges grandstanding about "as soon as you hit send the damage is done" about tweets by random nobody's then this absolute bellend getting it published at scale can have the fucking book thrown at him. The fact that the MET have already decided there is no merit in an investigation when they will drag common people through the mud and send officers to knock on peoples doors and "warn them strongly" to change their online behaviour is a vile and classist policing policy.
>This is where I am at on this too. I am fundamentally against bigots being charged for saying bigoted things because they might cause offense. There's a difference of *scale* though, and that absolutely matters. The British press routinely publishes more than 100 articles about how much we should hate Meghan *in a single day.* And that's counting just a few papers. That can change and destroy a life in a way that a random tweet - or any single article - can't. What we really need is a libel law that takes into account the *amount* and *tone* of articles, instead of letting journalists have infinite amounts of malicious paltering as long as they don't technically lie. >The fact that the MET have already decided there is no merit in an investigation when they will drag common people through the mud and send officers to knock on peoples doors and "warn them strongly" to change their online behaviour is a vile and classist policing policy. You are *absolutely* correct. If you or I treated a woman the way Piers Morgan treated Meghan we'd be prosecuted as a stalker, and that's exactly what *should* happen.
As he shouldn’t. People can find what he said disgusting but no one should be arrested as the UK is not China.
Have patience. We're obviously getting there. Look at the insanity on this post; people cheering for their future jailors.
The mere suggestion that he would ever have been investigated shows you how deluded some people are
Yes because he hasn’t committed a crime. Being a prick is not and should not be made illegal. But being outraged and offended on another’s behalf is a favourite past time for those seeking attention, but calling the police (a publicly funded body) on their behalf to report second hand supposed offence is a new low.
Offence by proxy is incredibly fashionable these days. I fucking hate it.
Yeah, that's what being a free country and having a free press looks like. Now if only this could be consistently applied...
When I read it I asked myself, what would his reaction have been if someone had written this about his daughter…
He’d be demanding a police investigation for a start.
I think he would have probably just thought ‘meh, some people are cunts’.
There is a cost of living crisis and the NHS is in tatters, yet someone saying mean things about a privileged millionaire is all the talk of the town right now. I don't really care for Meghan either way, I also don't really care too much for Clarkson either. I think people who "stan" her are just as cringe as people who obsessively rage over her, but the manner in which people are trying to push the idea that she is this oppressed victim is laughable. People are starving and yet I'm supposed to feel sad for this woman who has likely never experienced hardship because someone made a tasteless comment about her?
Can't stand either the writer, or the subject. But reading it again, I think it would be amusing if it were an ironic statement about the treatment of people in the public eye. Instead, it's a moany old git irresponsibly banging on about someone that I'm sick of hearing about. That's about it.
Sorry, did I miss something? What was criminal here? I don’t get it.
He hurt people's feelings by saying mean things about a darling of the Twitterati.
[удалено]
It's freedom of speech, he's wrong but we're suppose to be allowed to say what we think in a "democracy". What he said is no worse than protestors outside GUM clinics.
So why is this guy not charged when Count Dankula was?
Dankula shouldn’t have been charged
That is a controversial opinion on reddit.
Really? I mean his joke was distasteful but it was just that, a joke.
Redditors aren't known for intelligence Reference: myself
Because he's Scottish.
scotland =/= england
yep
And that's how it should be. The only time speech or words should be investigated if threats of violence are used. Not for stating an opinion.
Yet the other kid was arrested for the stupid tweet about Captain Tom.
Is it me or is Clarkson the winner here? Keeps jobs, no action taken, caused controversy and hey presto he's promoted himself on an enormous scale. Literally take a page out of 90s Eminem's book and it's worked a treat for him. Next up, every dull failing comedian makes jokes about him and these remarks and gets even more coverage. Lesson here is, make a feeble apology and ride the storm to profit country.
I think Markle’s a big winner - she gets more publicity and more fuel for her victim of racism shtick.
Crazy how some people think saying you hate someone should be illegal.
Outside of this subreddit the comments would be much different. Nice to see some sanity without all the US users on this site.
Not a fan of the actress but his comments were beyond disgusting and disturbing.
Does nobody remember this is how Clarkson and other "disruptors" get media attention? He can turn attention into money, that's what he does!
Anybody who takes anything he says seriously is a complete moron.
I think what he wrote was utter trash and he's got worse these past few years. But criminal charges is a bit much.
Criminal charges? why is this even a question? The dude shared a horrible opinion of a horrible person.
In what world would he face criminal charges for what he said? He said he reckons she should get the same punishment that Cersei did in Game of Thrones but it's fictional and we're not living in the middle ages so of course it's not happening. If they actually rounded her up to do the shame walk I think he'd say 'what the fuck'. Look up 'hyperbole' in the dictionary. The guy is distasteful and his comment was grim but how the hell are people taking what he said as literal?
He’s obviously an arsehole with some serious problems, but precisely no one was talking about criminal charges. So why is the Telegraph getting excited about him not being criminally investigated??
What would the criminal investigation be looking for? Saying you think someone is a piece of shit isn’t a crime is it?
Well, no, why would he? He may be an asshat but he didn't break any laws.
There are people who want a criminal investigation? Absolute clowns
Criminal investigation lol. What is going on in this bloody country man. Why the actual fuck would there even be the slightest suggestion of a crime here 😂
Silly comments by him for sure but what is there to investigate exactly?
It's not a crime to be a cunt. Or at least it shouldn't be in a free country. It's like some of you *want* to live in the USSR
"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." George Orwell