Harry and Meghan

[^woody^]

Most right minded people will be able to recognise the difference between free speech, and abuse. It appears you struggle

Oh the irony. Read your own words FFS, before posting.

Typical lefty attitude to abuse and demonise a contrary opinion if you can't win the argument or you just don't like to hear it.

Stick to the argument if you can. You wont win it, but do have a try I'll be here all week.

 

[Munroast]

this boy quite eloquently describes the situation as I see it -

airing their dirty laundry in public to raise money - how utterly shameful of them.
Harry must be the most pathetic individual I can think of, all that privilege and he still moans.

 

[diy_fun_uk]

Meanwhile...

A Jeremy Clarkson column in the Sun about the Duchess of Sussex has provoked outcry online, with social media users labelling it “vile”, “horrific” and “abusive”.
In an article for the paper published on Friday, Clarkson wrote that he loathed Meghan “on a cellular level”. He said he was “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. Everyone who’s my age thinks the same way.”

No they don't ...

Regardless of anyone's views on her, this is a disgusting thing to say. I wonder if Clarkson genuinely would stand there with the crowds and throw excrement at her if she was forced to parade through the streets naked? Or is he simply doing what folk like him frequently do, stoking the fire and then saying 'nowt to do with me guv!' when things escalate.

 

[Vinty]

Not just have the intellect to write better, and for the reader to call out what is actually WRONG ?

You are showing, again, you agree with abuse. Most right minded people will be able to recognise the difference between free speech, and abuse. It appears you struggle. Maybe it is you who is in the wrong ?

Double standards as usual.
Didn't alleged comedian Jo Brand say she would like to throw acid on Nigel Farage.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Oh the irony. Read your own words FFS, before posting.

Typical lefty attitude to abuse and demonise a contrary opinion if you can't win the argument or you just don't like to hear it.

Stick to the argument if you can. You wont win it, but do have a try I'll be here all week.

Oh the level of comprehension. I am not a lefty.

Abuse is abuse. Especially at the juvenile level you are supporting.

Have you no idea about abuse? Have you any idea why they are speaking out? Any idea why Clarksons own daughter is removing herself from his comments? have you any idea at all ?

Free speech is different to abuse. It really isn't difficult to understand, if you try.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Double standards as usual.
Didn't alleged comedian Jo Brand say she would like to throw acid on Nigel Farage.

Was that right then? I didnt agree with that, and nor should any right minded person.

 

[^woody^]

Double standards as usual.
Didn't alleged comedian Jo Brand say she would like to throw acid on Nigel Farage.

That's the problem when folk shout about "standards". Everyone has standards however questionable, but the worst ones to have are double standards.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

That's the problem when folk shout about "standards". Everyone has standards however questionable, but the worst ones to have are double standards.

The worst standards are the low ones. No shortage of those it appears.

 

[^woody^]

Abuse is abuse

That's the snowflake conundrum. What is lawful and what is just something you don't like to hear? Further complicated by the classic snowflake reaction to feeling abused by proxy.

Abuse is a perception, a belief, unless it is defined by law.

Remind me how many Clarkson's readers have not complained?

 

[^woody^]

The worst standards are the low ones.

And who defines what low standards are? People like you? What are your benchmarks?

Double standards are much easier to define

 

[Notch7]

Double standards as usual.
Didn't alleged comedian Jo Brand say she would like to throw acid on Nigel Farage.

Jo Brand was criticised for her remarks as well, so not dbl stds

 

[carmanmemoranda]

And who defines what low standards are? People like you? What are your benchmarks?

Double standards are much easier to define

Common sense used to be the benchmark.

People now don't seem to know when abuse is abuse. As you demonstrate.

 

[JohnD]

Katie Hopkins is no mere inflatable bimbo,

Like you, she is a right-wing loony.

She thinks that immigrants are to blame for the poor performance of the NHS. She must mean immigrants like Johnson.

Most immigrants have no hand in running the country, so they have no responsibility for our government's failures.

 

[Justin Passing]

NO Clarkson. People are all a little bit xxxxxist or can smile at a witty jibe, and take a bit, even if they never dish it out.
Clarkson makes his living out of being an entertaining oaf, a buffoon. Someone people might listen to expecting a new or weird perspective on something, or a funny way of pointing out something he finds unacceptable in an "outrageous" way. Or a way that may be "mock" outrageous - we're left wondering which.
Sometimes he puts out a bit of sincerity, so people who enjoy his crudities can say "yeah but he's a decent bloke".
Going too far is at the odious end of his behaviour. Tactics like "Ooh sorry look at me I did a woopsie I went too far", he's worn out. It's not funny it's cheap, it's not clever it's childish.

Jo Brand's radio comment was off the cuff, not considered, and she apologised for going too far in her next breath. It's not a policy statement.
Clarkson published his views in a newspaper for posterity, with all the urge he could muster and an assurance that everyone thinks the same as him. Completely different. Neither comment is acceptable, but his, to me, is far worse.

Saying that some things on the abusive scale are acceptable and some aren't, isn't double standards, it's making a judgement of degree, which is fine.
Free speech only remains if you're responsible with it.

 

[diy_fun_uk]

As I've said before, I reckon many white folk in the UK (not all before you start!) live under the perception that the UK's ills would largely be resolved if their were no brown/black folk living here.

If we all vacated tomorrow, it would only be a matter of time until the next group was targeted, after said white folk realised various ills remained. Then the next group. Then the next group. And so on ...