Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[super_realist]

First topic message reminder :

It's more the leaving it to the last minute which is nonsense. It is appalling business practice for the buyer to do this, as the seller knows they can keep the price high.

What is the point in the window being open for two months if nothing gets done until the last day? Just make it a day long, the opposite of a DFS sale.

[westisbest]

[beninho]

Similarly, in British law the phrase racial group means "any group of people who are defined by reference to their race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origin".[24] - found this on Wiki.

So can we stop stating what is or isn't racism. Calling someone an Irish/Welsh/Pakistani/Swedish whatever could legally be classed as racism.

[GunsGerms]

Super knows that already. He seems to prefer prison rules/playground justice though.

[navyblueshorts]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-34756952

How much does Terry love himself that he'd commission a picture of himself? What a plum

Looks a truly crap pose, even if the guy painting it has some skill. Terry looks like the childish human he undoubtedly is.
Edit: either that or he's having a crap on the field.

[super_realist]

Similarly, in British law the phrase racial group means "any group of people who are defined by reference to their race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origin".[24] - found this on Wiki.

So can we stop stating what is or isn't racism. Calling someone an Irish/Welsh/Pakistani/Swedish whatever could legally be classed as racism.

I've already said that I consider that to be ridiculous, the fact it is considered law and how absurd that is, is the point. It's a sad reflection of how the law is pandering to the professionaly offended.


I'll tell you what though, I bet it didn't come around because Swedish, Danish, French, Latvian etc were complaining about their nationality and claiming they were being racially abused.

[GunsGerms]

Similarly, in British law the phrase racial group means "any group of people who are defined by reference to their race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origin".[24] - found this on Wiki.

So can we stop stating what is or isn't racism. Calling someone an Irish/Welsh/Pakistani/Swedish whatever could legally be classed as racism.

I've already said that I consider that to be ridiculous, the fact it is considered law and how absurd that is, is the point. It's a sad reflection of how the law is pandering to the professionaly offended.


I'll tell you what though, I bet it didn't come around because Swedish, Danish, French, Latvian etc were complaining about their nationality and claiming they were being racially abused.

Haha I think you've lost the plot Super. I'm guessing the laws are very similar in the countries that you have bizarrely singled out.

I think you should write your own manifesto and give it to David Cameron. I'd say he would love it.

[super_realist]

Where do you draw the line, Football Team, Town they live in, Sandwich Filling, Car they Drive?
Seriously, placing nationality under the banner of something which can be constituted "racist" is lamentable.

I'm sure the laws are probably similar in those countries, but I bet they're not the sort of countries which cry "racism" when someone calls them by their country of origin.

We've been through this before, but the Irish in particular, seem especially reactionary in regards to it.
Wonder if it comes from Back To The Future "McFly you Irish bug"

[westisbest]

Id say those people from those countries would be offended if you called them a sweedish/ latvian whatever.

Not all obviously, but certainly some.

Your singaling Ireland out because your not a fan of irish people.
You act like a child at times, hard to believe you are 40ish.

End of the day, you have got to be a jacka55 to insult someone using where they are from, its a weak insult.

Banter and all is fine with your mates, but taking it to another level,
childish and sad.

Anyway, on the subject of Irish people, off to watch the boys in green hopefully qualify for France 2016.

[incontinentia]

Hope we can beat those Bosnian c*nts tonight!

[Davie]

I must admit I agree with Super though I wouldn't argue it as vociferously as him (or bring the subject up every three or four weeks, so it seems)

If someone were to call me an English [insert-whatever-insulting-expletive-you-care-here] it wouldn't be the English part I'd moan about! Yes I know that's what the law says, and I'm sure super knows too - but that's the point of the debate; pointing out the stupidity of the law

If the only difference between the case in law is between "lazy Irish ****" and "lazy ****" then the law is indeed an ass. What would the claim have been if he'd just said "lazy ****"?

[pedro]

Hear hear Davie.

[SmithersJones]

So Oisin you lazy Kumquat, you've brought this case because you were offended by Mr Clarkson calling you Irish? As a self confessed lazy Kumquat, I assume you can't be bothered to tell the court why you're so offended by someone highlighting your nationality? No, thought as much, case dismissed.

[kwinigolfer]

It looks like fifteen to twenty US State Governors are issuing orders forbidding the admission of Syrians to their States.
Looks like Vermont is the only State to come forward and welcome them, albeit it in small doses.
Are the other States being racist?
(PS: It is not clear that States have the authority their Governors think they have but Alabama, for instance, reportedly only has 3% of it population born outside the USA, compared to almost 13% nationally.)

[super_realist]

Id say those people from those countries would be offended if you called them a sweedish/ latvian whatever.

Not all obviously, but certainly some.

Your singaling Ireland out because your not a fan of irish people.
You act like a child at times, hard to believe you are 40ish.

End of the day, you have got to be a jacka55 to insult someone using where they are from, its a weak insult.

Banter and all is fine with your mates, but taking it to another level,
childish and sad.

Anyway, on the subject of Irish people, off to watch the boys in green hopefully qualify for France 2016.

It's not that I dislike the Irish, it's that I dislike how precious and sensitive they are about their nationality. Plenty Scots are the same about that, simply can't take a joke about it, but more than willing to joke about others.

The English are far more self deprecating, and I really can't think of anyone being "offended" if they were called an English kumquat. THey'd just brush it off, but the Irish seem so sensitive about it, and I'd like to know why.

To me, an insult like that, if you can call it an insult, wouldn't even register, i'd treat it the same as if someone called my mum a slag. It's almost as if people think they are supposed to react to that, rather than actually be offended. Why wouldn't you just laugh it off, or consider it so pathetic that you wouldn't respond. Exactly what is offensive about that, how does it affect anyone's life to have an "insult" like that?

It really is as absurd as the insults thrown by the French soldiers on Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

"Your mother was a hamster and your father smells of elderberries" QUICK, CALL MY LAWYER. RACIST!

[westisbest]

I agree with what your saying in terms of laugh at a silly 'insult' off or ignore it.

Again im sure there are people in every country that may get offended, if you called them an english/irish/Scottish/australian whatever.
Should they be offended, well down to the individual.

Your saying the Irish are so sensitive obviously comes a few getting offended, bit like in my experience very rarely have i met an irish person who would get offended at being called an stupid paddy, mick,
etc.

Now of course there are some that would, but as i said im sure there are some from other countries that would get offended to, probably count on it.

Also to do with being proud of where a person comes from.

Somebody calls someone an irish, english insult, they may take it as insulting where they are from.

Again i think its down to the individual.

You dont get offended SR and fair play to you, but someone as close as your neighbour may very well get offended by the same insult thT was thrown as you.

Just my take on it.

[GunsGerms]

SR does get offended all the time. Its pretty obvious from his reactionary and often illogical posts. However, his whole internet persona revolves around claiming he is never offended so that he can justify his own bigotry to himself and in doing so offend whoever or whatever he pleases. Its so embedded in his psyche I think he believes it himself at this point.

Discriminating someone based on their culture or nation is no different to discrimination based on race which is why they tend to be categorized together in law. The words/insults used by Clarkson are largely unimportant except that they reveal that whole tirade of verbal and physical abuse seemed to be motivated by the fact that the victim was Irish. At least that is what the court will opine on.

Personally I am glad that Clarkson will have to in some way be accountable for being the bully that he is. The fact that he seems desperate to settle out of court suggests he knows what he did is wrong.

[beninho]

Is it not just, as everything, based on context. I can call my mates an Indian/Irish/Pakistani whatever as a joke. But if someone calls me an English whatever as part of a tirade and with the intention to insult me, then why not take offence. The person calling me whatever name in that manner is the person in the wrong, not me. Why should I brush it off as if nothing has happened.

This case is that someone of a different nationality used the other persons nationality as part of an insult and apparent tirade of abuse, which resulted in physical abuse. There is only one person in the wrong, and its not the person who was verbally and physically abused.

I really do not believe that many people will accept someone shouting, swearing, abusing them verbally and calling them or their family all names under the sun, and just walk away. With the claim that I do not take take the abuse. Its nonsense.

And the claim that the law is an ass, on the nationality/racism front is wrong. Otherwise people can discriminate because they do not like people of a different nationality.

Some people think the law is an ass because they cant drug a girl and get their end away, or murder someone they do not like, or have sex with kids.

[super_realist]

That's a quite ridiculous analogy Ben.

Surely Clarkson has had the far more "offensive" slur thrown at him by a BBC executive likening him to Jimmy Saville, yet I don't see him rushing to his lawyers for defamation.

It's true, that whatever the Irish fellow's name was, shouldn't be subject to a tirade of abuse by a colleague, but to feign offence at one word of that seems petty, juvenile and extremely cynical and opportunistic. Talk about milking a non event.

To claim offence at the term "irish" would be a concession that there was something less than desirable about being Irish. Is there? I don't think so, so what is there to be offended about.

It really is as stupid as. "You lazy cheese sandwich loving, 5'11, brogue wearing kumquat" Who'd take offence at that?

[Bob_the_Job]

I think this guys says it best about being offended HERE

[beninho]

If you changed kumquat to c*nt, and shouted it in someone's face, I would assume that a lot of people would find it offensive.

I dont think the offence is being called Irish. I don't imagine anyone would take offence at being called their nationality. It appears to be what was preceding the word Irish or following it. You Irish C*nt or you Lazy Irish C*nt. Is offensive, if said in a manner to be insulting. To call some one a C*nt in a certain way is offensive, but to bring nationality into it, and if said by someone of a different nationality changes the context into something more you are a c*nt because you are irish/welsh/Indian.

[GunsGerms]

That's a quite ridiculous analogy Ben.

Surely Clarkson has had the far more "offensive" slur thrown at him by a BBC executive likening him to Jimmy Saville, yet I don't see him rushing to his lawyers for defamation.

It's true, that whatever the Irish fellow's name was, shouldn't be subject to a tirade of abuse by a colleague, but to feign offence at one word of that seems petty, juvenile and extremely cynical and opportunistic. Talk about milking a non event.

To claim offence at the term "irish" would be a concession that there was something less than desirable about being Irish. Is there? I don't think so, so what is there to be offended about.

It really is as stupid as. "You lazy cheese sandwich loving, 5'11, brogue wearing kumquat" Who'd take offence at that?

He isn't feigning offense but rather suing Clarkson because he believes the abuse in total was racially (as defined in UK law to include nationality) motivated as demonstrated by Clarkson's own words. Its not hard to understand Super. Stop pretending to be obtuse to justify your own prejudices.

[super_realist]

I'm not being obtuse, it's simply flabbergasted that someone can't just shrug it off as the pathetic ranting of a moron.

I doubt he is really offended about it, rather he has been advised by some team of lawyers he can sue for it, so it appears he's more opportunistic, than actually "hurt", especially as it's taken him 6 months to do it.
I suppose he's legally entitled to do it (rather pathetic in my view), but if he is genuinely hurt by the "offensive term" why isn't he also pressing Clarkson to be charged with assault, why isn't he suing for physical injury too?

[beninho]

Why should he shrug it off?

Where do you draw the line at what to shrug off and what not to?

There appears to be one person in the wrong, and it is not the guy that was verbally and physically abused.

[super_realist]

I think this guys says it best about being offended HERE

Very good clip.

[super_realist]

Why should he shrug it off?

Where do you draw the line at what to shrug off and what not to?

There appears to be one person in the wrong, and it is not the guy that was verbally and physically abused.

Why should he shrug it off? Because that's what ADULTS do in response to being called a NAME.

[beninho]

But he was also punched. He was physically and verbally abused. All part of the same incident.

If he called him a black C*nt..then would you still be defending it?

[super_realist]

Exactly, take action on the punch, not being called Irish. Why is it he's only suing for "racist" abuse and not assault?

calling him an actual racist name wouldn't be acceptable as there is a long history associated with genuine racist issues, Racism on the grounds of skin colour is properly defined, and I've already said that the ENTIRE problem with this (in my opinion) is the absurdity of nationality being shoe-horned in with racism.

how much more terms are we going to throw under the umbrella of racism?

If nationality is in, why not your football team, sandwich filling, shoes, finger nail condition etc?

There's never been a history of people being abused and discriminated against on the basis of their nationality like this (i.e. an entire nation discriminated against on the grounds of being (insert country here kumquats)

Surprised Mac Corbyn isn't chiming in here with his opinions.

[GunsGerms]

I'm not being obtuse, it's simply flabbergasted that someone can't just shrug it off as the pathetic ranting of a moron.

I doubt he is really offended about it, rather he has been advised by some team of lawyers he can sue for it, so it appears he's more opportunistic, than actually "hurt", especially as it's taken him 6 months to do it.
I suppose he's legally entitled to do it (rather pathetic in my view), but if he is genuinely hurt by the "offensive term" why isn't he also pressing Clarkson to be charged with assault, why isn't he suing for physical injury too?

He is suing for personal injury too and rightly so. Based on Clarkson's history of racial slurs and the comments he made in his 40 minute rant it is fairly likely the incident was motivated by discrimination so he is quite right to sue for that too.

You are running out of excuses Super.

http://www.theweek.co.uk/jeremy-clarkson/62887/jeremy-clarkson-tweets-photo-showing-new-amazon-team-scouting-for-locations
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/nov/13/jeremy-clarkson-bbc-sued-racial-discrimination-top-gear-oisin-tymon

I think the fact that Clarkson has a long history of racial slurs and getting away with it is probably the main reason this guy is making a stand against him. Its about time someone stood up to him. The BBC were certainly too weak to do so.

[SmithersJones]

Am I the only one picturing SR being ostracised at school for having brie & grape sandwiches? But he's not bitter....

[GunsGerms]

Exactly, take action on the punch, not being called Irish. Why is it he's only suing for "racist" abuse and not assault?

calling him an actual racist name wouldn't be acceptable as there is a long history associated with genuine racist issues, Racism on the grounds of skin colour is properly defined,  and I've already said that the ENTIRE problem with this (in my opinion) is the absurdity of nationality being shoe-horned in with racism.

how much more terms are we going to throw under the umbrella of racism?

If nationality is in, why not your football team, sandwich filling, shoes, finger nail condition etc?

There's never been a history of people being abused and discriminated against on the basis of their nationality like this (i.e. an entire nation discriminated against on the grounds of being (insert country here kumquats)

Surprised Mac Corbyn isn't chiming in here with his opinions.

Discrimination is discrimination. It doesn't matter if is based on race, creed or nationality etc.

Your attempts to justify one form of discrimination over another are really pathetic.

[GunsGerms]

Am I the only one picturing SR being ostracised at school for having brie & grape sandwiches? But he's not bitter....

I'd say it is very likely that he was bullied at school.

[Bob_the_Job]

Discrimination is discrimination. It doesn't matter if is based on race, creed or nationality etc.

Sure is. However, calling someone a name, or referring to their race, creed or nationality is not discrimination. Taking an action that is detrimental to them purely because of their race, creed (gender, sexual orientation) or nationality is.

You're Irish != Discrimination
You're Irish, and because of that I'm not giving you this job = Discrimination

[beninho]

There has been a long history of associated with "racism" towards the Irish.

[GunsGerms]

Discrimination is discrimination. It doesn't matter if is based on race, creed or nationality etc.

Sure is.  However, calling someone a name, or referring to their race, creed or nationality is not discrimination.  Taking an action that is detrimental to them purely because of their race, creed (gender, sexual orientation) or nationality is.  

You're Irish != Discrimination
You're Irish, and because of that I'm not giving you this job = Discrimination

Exactly and therefore beating someone up in work and threatening to fire them while calling them an Irish **** is most definitely a case for discrimination under UK law. It can be brought to the court that Clarkson treated Tymon the way he did because he is Irish simply because Clarkson referred to his nationality while mistreating him. If the victims nationality didn't play a part in Clarkson's actions then why did he bring it up?

Do the crime do the time. He will hopefully get what he deserves and its fairly over due to be honest. Personally I hope that the Amazon deal falls through too because he is a very bad role model and undeserving of such a global platform.

[super_realist]

Role model? He's not a role model.
Why does everyone think whoever is in the public eye is a role model?

[Bob_the_Job]

I think people often confuse the concept of role model with being in the public eye.

Clarkson (although I don't follow him much) appears to be the poster boy for arrogant, overly-entitled, boorish, poorly informed, potentially racist, opinionated Muppet.  Which by definition means he is not any reasonable persons idea of a role model.  If the general populace is too stupid to realise that they should not aspire to copy every person they see on TV, then we'd best stop showing documentaries about Hitler just in case.

EDIT: Ha! my original version had Tw@terry and was replaced by Muppet. Jim Henson will be spinning in his grave.

[pedro]

I think some of you have a very rigid and facistoid approach to this. Bringing stuff to court up front is not the right way of going. Defamation happens every day. If everybody should go to court everytime they are insulted what society will we end up having? Just look at the overly PC America where you hardly can say Merry Christmas in fear of insulting somebody.

[pedro]

Role model? He's not a role model.
Why does everyone think whoever is in the public eye is a role model?

Is John Terry a role model? He's a successful pro footballer and thousands of kids would love to be him?

[super_realist]

No, I don't see anyone off the TV as being a role model. Why would you?

[beninho]

Anyone can have someone as a role model, no issues with that. Just because someone is on Tv or good at football or any sport or a copper, then they should not be an automatic role model.

If you are an promising young centre half, then no issues if you want to use John Terry as your footballing role model. But that doesnt mean that he has to be squeeky clean or not enjoy himself by shagging around.

[pedro]

No, I don't see anyone off the TV as being a role model. Why would you?

Kids would. And their parents happily seem to finance it.

For my own part: Making 100K a week, plenty of leisure time, houses around the world, fast cars, partying and hot ladies? Would I want to live that sort of empty life? Naaaah!

[GunsGerms]

Perhaps not but giving a racist a multi million pound contract and a global audience might not be the wisest move.

I'm not saying that Clarkson has to act as a role model, there are no laws to suggest he should but I think that Amazon for lots of reasons will reconsider their deal if this case gains some momentum at the very least because despite their poor record of ethical business practices they will not want to associate themselves with such a poor role model both because it could damage their reputation and leave them liable for future law suits similar to what the BBC are going through now.

Furthermore, my original comment was that I don't believe he should be given a global platform but I accept that my opinion doesn't really matter to corporations such as Amazon.

[westisbest]

No harm in people seeing famous people as role models.

Up to them.

Kids for example, look up to people.
Sports starts, musicians, the public are fans of these people, younger people may aspire to be like them when they are older.

C'mon SR, just because you don't think anyone off the tv should be a role model, doesn't mean others shouldn't.

Bit like with taking offence, just cos you don't, doesn't mean others shouldn't.

Fine if you don't, but not everyone is like you.

[GunsGerms]

Saw that Charlie Sheen has HIV. Not too surprised really.

[pedro]

Saw that Charlie Sheen has HIV. Not too surprised really.

After shagging 5000 women (reportedly) I'd be surprised if he didn't have HIV.

[GunsGerms]

Saw that Charlie Sheen has HIV. Not too surprised really.

After shagging 5000 women (reportedly) I'd be surprised if he didn't have HIV.

He may not have contracted it from a woman.

[pedro]

Saw that Charlie Sheen has HIV. Not too surprised really.

After shagging 5000 women (reportedly) I'd be surprised if he didn't have HIV.

He may not have contracted it from a woman.

true dat gg!

[super_realist]

No harm in people seeing famous people as role models.

Up to them.

Kids for example, look up to people.
Sports starts, musicians, the public are fans of these people, younger people may aspire to be like them when they are older.

C'mon SR, just because you don't think anyone off the tv should be a role model, doesn't mean others shouldn't.

Bit like with taking offence, just cos you don't, doesn't mean others shouldn't.

Fine if you don't, but not everyone is like you.

I didn't say that. I said that just because someone is IN the public eye, doesn't automatically mean they are role models. People seems to assert that to be the case. Clarkson demonstrably is not a role model. Someone kicking a pigs bladder around a field, although it would be nice if they did, isn't under contract to be a decent human being, which is why the likes of Cole, Terry, Gerrard etc should not be considered role models. They are private individuals, and should not be forced to behave in a certain way just to provide an example to impressionable people.

Being famous, in many respects is exactly the polar opposite of what we should aspire to be like.

[Bob_the_Job]

Charlie Sheen... 5,000 women.. really? I'm surprised there's enough of him left to test.

[SmithersJones]

Aren't some of you rather missing the 'role' part of role model? John Terry is an excellent role model for the role of centre back, just as Charlie Sheen is an excellent role model for the role of comedy actor. If famous people are pleasant as well as successful that's a bonus.

[Sponsored content]