Jeremy Clarkson- rat killer???



Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Howard

Guest
I am sure that I heard on the news a couple of days ago that Jeremy 'get out of my way' Clarkson has
been accused of taking part in the 'sport' of 'rat killing'. This involves a load of halfwits with
clubs going into a locked barn or similar and bashing the brains out of large numbers of rats
especially collected for the purpose. The story also mentioned that Clarkson has boasted of
deliberately running down foxes and cats as he regards them as 'vermin'.

Thing is this story does not seem to have circulated very much. Has anyone seen the story in print
anywhere? I am beginning to think that I was hallucinating...

If it is true does the story allow us to understand better the murky depths of his 'thought'
processes, so enlightening us as to why he spouts so much selfish, irresponsible ****?
 
"Howard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I am sure that I heard on the news a couple of days ago that Jeremy 'get out of my way' Clarkson
> has been accused of taking part in the 'sport' of 'rat killing'. This involves a load of halfwits
> with clubs going into a locked barn or similar and bashing the brains out of large numbers of rats
> especially collected for the purpose.

specially collected ? I wouldn't have thought that was needed or possible

put a barn in a country location, wait a few days and it will be chock full of rats and other highly
destructive vermin with all sorts of diseases which threaten livestock and people alike. and before
you think 'threaten people'? think about rat wee and weils disease, which killed a friend of mine.

> The story also mentioned that Clarkson has boasted of deliberately running down foxes and cats as
> he regards them as 'vermin'.

this is chinese whispers par excellence. He claimed to have run a a fox over rather than swerve into
the oncoming traffic. a sensible action under any circumstances. people 1 fox 0 and rightly so.

the animal rights lot, divested of humour anyway, went and took the 'deliberately' bit seriously and
reported him to plod. an act of self centered timewasting, imo.

your mention of cats is the first mention I've heard and I've been following the story quite
closely. next he will be biting the heads off kittens and puppies whilst mowing down old ladies and
children in his range rover !

> Thing is this story does not seem to have circulated very much. Has anyone seen the story in print
> anywhere? I am beginning to think that I was hallucinating...

possibly, partially. it was in the times last week, or was it the sun last Sat ? I read all the
majors on a weekend, online, and I was amused by the story and how it threatened to spiral out of
hand. everyones, apparently.

> If it is true does the story allow us to understand better the murky depths of his 'thought'
> processes, so enlightening us as to why he spouts so much selfish, irresponsible ****?

he does it:

because it's funny

because he gets paid a very large wad to do so.

because he knows that humourless, gullible people all over the country will take him seriously and
expose themselves as humourless and gullible. then they'll get themselves into a right old lather
about off the cuff, flippant, anti PC (but largely harmless) comments meant to be read with a light
heart and a tounge firmly in cheek.

think pinch of salt, freedom of expression and good old english eccentricity.

that's my take on it, anyway.


Albert
 
To Albert.

I thought I wasn't hallucinating, I would still like to see an 'in print' version of the story
though. I heard about it whilst listening to the radio over in N.Wales.

Yes, rats are vermin but there does seem to be something rather suspect about people gathering
together to batter wild animals to death for fun, even rats.

I have heard this 'freedom of expresssion ****' before. How about the freedom to use the public
highway free of the fear of being mown down by some boy racer whose limited mental powers have been
overly influenced by watching the antics of wan*kers like Clarkeson on TV?

How about the freedom to be allowed to continue to live rather then being killed or maimed by some
guillable halfwit who has been conned into spending every spare penny they earn on some overweight,
overpowered car because they don't have the intelligence and independence of thought to construct a
truly meaningful life?

'Mostly harmless'? OK, so 'Top Gear' now seems to use a race track for its demonstrations of
handbrake turns and so on, but it still encourages an irresponsible attitude to car use, if only
because it suggest that cars are primarily a way of 'having fun' and 'excitement, rather then being
tin boxes to get one from A to B. Certainly the local petrol heads, not having access to a private
race track, seem to think that the street outside my house is a suitable place to replicate the sort
of behaviour seen on programs like 'Top Gear'.

Yes, I am fully aware that Clarkson is a **** taker, and of the view that his opinions should be
seen a a bit of a joke. However, I don't think that the 3500 a year killed by speeding and
irresponsibly/incompetently driven cars, or rather their grieving relatives, see the joke much, nor
are they likely to regard Clarksons selfish and dismissive arrogance with a 'light heart' ...

Of course, if any of the above leaves you feeling a little 'humourless' just remember that it is not
only Clarkson who enjoys winding people up...
 
"Howard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> To Albert.
>
> I thought I wasn't hallucinating, I would still like to see an 'in print' version of the story
> though. I heard about it whilst listening to the radio over in N.Wales.

it was in last saturdays edition of clarkson on saturday in the currant bun it's not in the archive
(I tried to find a link for you) perhaps Mr Clarkson would email the article to you.. but with legal
action pending, he may not.

> Yes, rats are vermin but there does seem to be something rather suspect about people gathering
> together to batter wild animals to death for fun, even rats.

indeed there does. I don't know if it was for fun, I wasn't there.

if it happened at all I bet it was crazy. the thought of a load of grown men with sticks
walloping rats in a barn for whatever reason is, rats rights aside, a stange image with loads of
mileage for humour...

> I have heard this 'freedom of expresssion ****' before.

it's hardly ****, you're doing it now. if that's **** so's what you are saying.

> How about the freedom to use the public highway free of the fear of being mown down by some boy
> racer whose limited mental powers have been overly influenced by watching the antics of wan*kers
> like Clarkeson on TV?

sadly, it doesn't exist, and without the boy racers being made as aware of their responsibilities as
they are about thier rights it's going to remain a dog eat dog caper each time we venture out on the
roads with car or bike.

> How about the freedom to be allowed to continue to live rather then being killed or maimed by some
> guillable halfwit who has been conned into spending every spare penny they earn on some
> overweight, overpowered car because they don't have the intelligence and independence of thought
> to construct a truly meaningful life?

I couldn't agree more old bean. though it is possible to buy and run a car without being conned or
mowing down assorted peds, bikers and cyclists. best not lump everyone in the same highly
generalised category

> 'Mostly harmless'? OK, so 'Top Gear' now seems to use a race track for its demonstrations of
> handbrake turns and so on, but it still encourages an irresponsible attitude to car use, if only
> because it suggest that cars are primarily a way of 'having fun' and 'excitement, rather then
> being tin boxes to get one from A to B. Certainly the local petrol heads, not having access to a
> private race track, seem to think that the street outside my house is a suitable place to
> replicate the sort of behaviour seen on programs like 'Top Gear'.

no, his outlandish comments about our neighbours and his irreverence about the hand that feeds him
is what I was on about. the recent move to micopenis v micropenis on a 'racetrack' is, I think both
wrong and a pendulum like reaction to the saftey nazis and lifestyle police that forced top gear to
concentrate on mpg, features and the urban cycle for so long.

> Yes, I am fully aware that Clarkson is a **** taker, and of the view that his opinions should be
> seen a a bit of a joke. However, I don't think that the 3500 a year killed by speeding and
> irresponsibly/incompetently driven cars, or rather their grieving relatives, see the joke much,
> nor are they likely to regard Clarksons selfish and dismissive arrogance with a 'light heart' ...

1500 people die falling down stairs. hundreds of people present to A & E with incedents involving
cotton wool. you can't legislate stupidity out of the gene pool, sadly. I think the confluence of
increased awareness and improved vehicles will lower the figures somewhat, but there will always be
casualties and it has to be said that it's quite remarkable that, given the speeds involved and the
miles travelled, there are so few deaths.

every death is an upset for the relatives but some may be doing the gene pool a favour by taking
themselves out.

> Of course, if any of the above leaves you feeling a little 'humourless' just remember that it is
> not only Clarkson who enjoys winding people up...

oh, it takes more that a few harmless, freedom of expression type questions for me to lose my sense
of humour. after all, it's just a frank exchange of views.

be careful out there, people, it's not safe.


Albert
 
On Sat, 17 May 2003 06:41:51 +0000, Howard wrote:

> also mentioned that Clarkson has boasted of deliberately running down foxes and cats as he regards
> them as 'vermin'.

It was on 'Have I got News for You'. It is a satirical show fer goodness sake. If every remark on
that show was treated with seriousness and repeated on video playback all the participants would be
in jail, or on the wrong end of libel suits. Live a little, eh? I saw the show - Jeremy was just
playing up to his public persona of the cheeky chappie. IIRC, the subject of fox hunting came up and
he joked that he ran down a fox whilst driving, but made the error of using the word 'deliberate'.
 
Couldn't have said it better myself! "albert fish" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Howard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > I am sure that I heard on the news a couple of days ago that Jeremy 'get out of my way' Clarkson
> > has been accused of taking part in the 'sport' of 'rat killing'. This involves a load of
> > halfwits with clubs going into a locked barn or similar and bashing the brains out of large
> > numbers of rats especially collected for the purpose.
>
> specially collected ? I wouldn't have thought that was needed or possible
>
> put a barn in a country location, wait a few days and it will be chock
full
> of rats and other highly destructive vermin with all sorts of diseases
which
> threaten livestock and people alike. and before you think 'threaten
people'?
> think about rat wee and weils disease, which killed a friend of mine.
>
> > The story also mentioned that Clarkson has boasted of deliberately running down foxes and cats
> > as he regards them as 'vermin'.
>
> this is chinese whispers par excellence. He claimed to have run a a fox over rather than swerve
> into the oncoming traffic. a sensible action under any circumstances. people 1 fox 0 and
> rightly so.
>
> the animal rights lot, divested of humour anyway, went and took the
'deliberately'
> bit seriously and reported him to plod. an act of self centered
timewasting, imo.
>
> your mention of cats is the first mention I've heard and I've been
following
> the story quite closely. next he will be biting the heads off kittens and
puppies
> whilst mowing down old ladies and children in his range rover !
>
> > Thing is this story does not seem to have circulated very much. Has anyone seen the story in
> > print anywhere? I am beginning to think that I was hallucinating...
>
> possibly, partially. it was in the times last week, or was it the sun last
Sat ?
> I read all the majors on a weekend, online, and I was amused by the story and how it threatened to
> spiral out of hand. everyones, apparently.
>
> > If it is true does the story allow us to understand better the murky depths of his 'thought'
> > processes, so enlightening us as to why he spouts so much selfish, irresponsible ****?
>
> he does it:
>
> because it's funny
>
> because he gets paid a very large wad to do so.
>
> because he knows that humourless, gullible people all over the country will take him seriously and
> expose themselves as humourless and gullible. then they'll get themselves into a right old lather
> about off the cuff,
flippant,
> anti PC (but largely harmless) comments meant to be read with a light
heart
> and a tounge firmly in cheek.
>
> think pinch of salt, freedom of expression and good old english
eccentricity.
>
> that's my take on it, anyway.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Albert
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
 
A spirited defence of the 'right' to treat the public road as a race track but most of what you say
is largely irrelevant.

Of course people find all sorts of ways to hurt themselves, and long may they be allowed to do so.
The BIG difference with car use is that INNOCENT THIRD PARTIES ARE VERY OFTEN THE ONES THAT GET
HURT. If someone wants to drive at 150MPH on a race track, great. Indeed I have raced motorcycles
myself. If someone wants to rock climb or go off piste skiing, or do DIY without wearing ahard hat
and dust mask, great. However, people have NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to put other peoples lives at risk.
Big difference...

Consider the difference between the way health and safety legislation is (quite rightly) applied and
our attitudes to car use. People might whinge about the 'nanny state' making ineffectual, token
gestures to try to control the way cars are used. However, if the same 'minimal risk' standards of
safety were expected when driving as in areas covered by health and safety legislation the maximum
speed in town would be resticted to 10 MPH. Whats more, not only would the driver but his boss and
the company executive might well end up facing manslaughter charges if anyone were killed.

It is also fatuous to claim that depictions of speed and power have no influence on the attitudes of
car uses. Most of the advertsing of cars exploits the vulnerability of the public to such messages.
The primary selling points of cars are speed and power with perceptions of status following on some
way behind (Even further behind come perception of personal safety. The notion of 3rd party safey
are conspicuous by their absence). Without this focus on performance we would by now be able to buy
lightweight, pedestrian friendly vehicles that could cruise at 70 MPh and do 300 MPG...

>
> be careful out there, people, it's not safe.
>

I am very well aware of that. The real question is how do we make thinks safer. Even minimal
restrictions on the way cars are driven would save huge numbers of lives and serious injuries.
As the recent PACTS report on speed pointed out, some very reasonable measures such as reducing
the average speed of all vehicles by 10 MPH would see the annual fatality rate drop to below
1000 per year.

In any case, the ways cars are used have an even wider impact then the number of casualties
themselves. For example, because they fear traffic, people feel compelled to drive, even when they
would prefer to walk or cycle. So much for freedom of choice...
 
> A spirited defence of the 'right' to treat the public road as a race track but most of what you
> say is largely irrelevant.

eh ? I was not defending anyone. I was expressing an opinon. and as I am of the opinon that public
roads should never be used as a racetrack your whole opening sentence is irrelevant to what I said.

ergo, I cannot go any further with this thread, it's a bit too contrived.


Albert
 
On Mon, 19 May 2003 18:35:39 +0100, "Paul Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I didn;t repeat it. It was an attachment. ****!

Actually you did repeat it, due to the evils of untrimmed top-posting. ASCII doesn't "do"
attachments.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.
 
On Mon, 19 May 2003 19:15:53 +0100, Just zis Guy, you know? scrawled: ) Actually you did repeat it,
due to the evils of untrimmed top-posting.

Everyone top-posts at work, generally in RTF or, if I'm lucky, HTML. Can I work in a dot-com
again, please?

J-P
--
Controversial swearing rock millionaire PETER BUCK of REM was bailed on air rage charges. The
captain mistook him for John Prescott, nobody wanted to hear his demos and his bilberry yoghourt
turned out to be
 
On Mon, 19 May 2003 20:34:12 +0000 (UTC), "j-p.s" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Everyone top-posts at work, generally in RTF or, if I'm lucky, HTML. Can I work in a dot-com
>again, please?

Same here, actually, but I try to remember not to in civilised company
:)

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.
 
On Mon, 19 May 2003 22:30:39 +0100, Just zis Guy, you know? scrawled: )>Everyone top-posts at work,
generally in RTF or, if I'm lucky, HTML. Can I )>work in a dot-com again, please? ) ) Same here,
actually, but I try to remember not to in civilised company

I am trying to do so at work too. Almost every e-mail that comes through me gets converted into
plain text, trimmed and replied to in a logical order i.e. sequentially through the e-mail and not
all at the top. I intend to quietly shift the focus of the people I work with from design, colour
and unpredictable indentation to readability.

(I don't mean they come through me in any dirty sense, in case anyone was wondering.)

J-P
--
May all your days be gold my child
 
"Paul Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> "Marc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Paul Saunders <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Couldn't have said it better myself!
> > Is that why you needlesly repeated it all?
> I didn;t repeat it. It was an attachment. ****!

This link into Google will show you how your message appeared to the world.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A5A1242A4 . Your "me too" was posted above the original message
(top-posted) which was quoted in full. The piece of junk you use as a news reader is at least
partly to blame.

--
Dave...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.