In todays news...

[irie]

Buttercup? , he wrote "I hate her. Not like I hate Nicola Sturgeon or Rose West. I hate her on a cellular level. At night, I’m unable to sleep as I lie there, grinding my teeth and dreaming of the day when she is made to parade naked through the streets of every town in Britain while the crowds chant, 'Shame!' and throw lumps of excrement at her."... not on the spur of the moment but in a newspaper column that he would have proof read and so would the newspaper. It reflects extraordinarily badly on anyone who thinks that this is acceptable and tries to defend this. I'd go so far as to say you'd have to be way beyond stupid, verging on being a really grim person. Jo Brand was reported to the police by the way.

He said it was a "dream".

Clarkson is a known exaggerator, and in any case it is free speech.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-l ... e-59727118

He was using dream in the context of 'look forward to' or 'anticipating'.

It is free speech (well, unless it incites someone) but it's still vile and I can't abide people who express views like this.

If he gets fired it won't be because he was 'cancelled', it'll simply be because he reduced the readership of the sun, rather than increased it.

The only interest I have in Clarkson's rants is that if the freedom to make such rants is legally curtailed then so will be freedom of speech.

[dern]

He said it was a "dream".

Clarkson is a known exaggerator, and in any case it is free speech.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-l ... e-59727118

He was using dream in the context of 'look forward to' or 'anticipating'.

It is free speech (well, unless it incites someone) but it's still vile and I can't abide people who express views like this.

If he gets fired it won't be because he was 'cancelled', it'll simply be because he reduced the readership of the sun, rather than increased it.

The only interest I have in Clarkson's rants is that if the freedom to make such rants is legally curtailed then so will be freedom of speech.

It won't be though.

[Dodgy69]

Tbh, I'm surprised folk take his comments so seriously... I doubt it'll happen anyway.

[DefTrap]

The only interest I have in Clarkson's rants is that if the freedom to make such rants is legally curtailed then so will be freedom of speech.

It'll never be effectively curtailed and rightly so. He can be an obnoxious pig and titter to his mates and say really abhorrent things that he would never dream of saying to a close friend, in the name of humour.

That we can see who is being a twat and who is encouraging him to be a twat is a good thing. On the other hand, will anyone miss the sort of paid drivel that makes up Clarkson's opinion column? It's hardly curtailing free speech, reminding some silly old ruddy faced millionaire to effing think before he submits his copy to a rubbishy red top.

[demographic]

Innit, the left don't muck about when it comes to a hate consumed narcissistic witch hunt.

Most of the people have just taken the piss out of Clarkson for being a elderly midlife crisis manchild.
Youre the snowflake whining about peoples comments about him.
Get over it petal.

[Ant]

Innit, the left don't muck about when it comes to a hate consumed narcissistic witch hunt.

Most of the people have just taken the piss out of Clarkson for being a elderly midlife crisis manchild.
Youre the snowflake whining about peoples comments about him.
Get over it petal.

I haven't whined about anything, buttercup.

[demographic]

Innit, the left don't muck about when it comes to a hate consumed narcissistic witch hunt.

Most of the people have just taken the piss out of Clarkson for being a elderly midlife crisis manchild.
Youre the snowflake whining about peoples comments about him.
Get over it petal.

I haven't whined about anything, buttercup.

Aww, need a tampon?

[Ant]

Most of the people have just taken the piss out of Clarkson for being a elderly midlife crisis manchild.
Youre the snowflake whining about peoples comments about him.
Get over it petal.

I haven't whined about anything, buttercup.

Aww, need a tampon?

Ok, this is the part where I don't understand what you're saying. I guess you've run out of 'argument'?

[irie]

The only interest I have in Clarkson's rants is that if the freedom to make such rants is legally curtailed then so will be freedom of speech.

It'll never be effectively curtailed and rightly so. He can be an obnoxious pig and titter to his mates and say really abhorrent things that he would never dream of saying to a close friend, in the name of humour.

That we can see who is being a twat and who is encouraging him to be a twat is a good thing. On the other hand, will anyone miss the sort of paid drivel that makes up Clarkson's opinion column? It's hardly curtailing free speech, reminding some silly old ruddy faced millionaire to effing think before he submits his copy to a rubbishy red top.

A key point of providing this link ...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-l ... e-59727118

... is that the police have indeed been trying to suppress what has now been ruled to be free speech.

Today's ruling backs Harry Miller's legal right to speak his mind and potentially cause offence - a freedom that he says is fundamental in the battle of ideas in a democratic society.

His victory is a headache for the College of Policing, which now has to come up with new "safeguards" to ensure that any future recording of non-crime hate incidents does not disproportionately interfere with the legal right to speak one's mind.

[Mussels]

Good to see, shame they seem to have buried the article in local news. I can't see it on the UK or England pages.

[JackyJoll]

This their example of what the Police were bothering Miller about:

In one tweet Mr Miller wrote: "I was assigned mammal at birth, but my orientation is fish. Don't mis-species me."
This tweet was among several others which were reported to Humberside Police as being allegedly transphobic and Mr Miller was visited by officers at his workplace.

[dern]

So is your point that given it’s legal to say stuff that’s offensive, then it’s ok to say stuff that’s offensive and people shouldn’t complain when they’re offended by it?

[Mussels]

So is your point that given it’s legal to say stuff that’s offensive, then it’s ok to say stuff that’s offensive and people shouldn’t complain when they’re offended by it?

The point is police should stick to recording crimes and not just anything that hurts someone's feelings.

[dern]

So is your point that given it’s legal to say stuff that’s offensive, then it’s ok to say stuff that’s offensive and people shouldn’t complain when they’re offended by it?

The point is police should stick to recording crimes and not just anything that hurts someone's feelings.

They have to (and they’re right to) investigate anyone who could be inciting other people.

You just seem to be defending the right to be unpleasant, why?

[dern]

In other words… we know you can say this stuff but why would you want to and why would you defend any does?

[Mussels]

So is your point that given it’s legal to say stuff that’s offensive, then it’s ok to say stuff that’s offensive and people shouldn’t complain when they’re offended by it?

The point is police should stick to recording crimes and not just anything that hurts someone's feelings.

They have to (and they’re right to) investigate anyone who could be inciting other people.

You just seem to be defending the right to be unpleasant, why?

It's the right to criticise someone that I worry for, sarcasm may be the lowest form of wit but it shouldn't be illegal.

[dern]

The point is police should stick to recording crimes and not just anything that hurts someone's feelings.

They have to (and they’re right to) investigate anyone who could be inciting other people.

You just seem to be defending the right to be unpleasant, why?

It's the right to criticise someone that I worry for, sarcasm may be the lowest form of wit but it shouldn't be illegal.

It isn’t.

[irie]

So is your point that given it’s legal to say stuff that’s offensive, then it’s ok to say stuff that’s offensive and people shouldn’t complain when they’re offended by it?

The point is police should stick to recording crimes and not just anything that hurts someone's feelings.

They have to (and they’re right to) investigate anyone who could be inciting other people.

You just seem to be defending the right to be unpleasant, why?

That's not what he said, you are (intentionally?) missing the point.

[dern]

The point is police should stick to recording crimes and not just anything that hurts someone's feelings.

They have to (and they’re right to) investigate anyone who could be inciting other people.

You just seem to be defending the right to be unpleasant, why?

That's not what he said, you are (intentionally?) missing the point.

I addressed what he said. That is that the police would look in to a potential incitement... that is a crime. They don't just look in to hurtful comments. They haven't looked in to what he said as far as I'm aware (although they did in the case Jo Brand, posted earlier as some kind of justification for what JC said). So therefore they are recording crime and not just anything that hurt's someone's feelings.

Are you both missing my point... why is it ok just to be bloody unpleasant?

[Yambo]

I addressed what he said. That is that the police would look in to a potential incitement... that is a crime. They don't just look in to hurtful comments. They haven't looked in to what he said as far as I'm aware (although they did in the case Jo Brand, posted earlier as some kind of justification for what JC said). So therefore they are recording crime and not just anything that hurt's someone's feelings.

Are you both missing my point... why is it ok just to be bloody unpleasant?

The police have, and may still be investigating and recording non-crime supposed hate incidents. If there is no crime, why are the police wasting police time, which is iirc, itself a crime?