Jeremy Clarkson suspended by BBC...
Discussion
Randy Winkman said:
turbobloke said:
don4l said:
legzr1 said:
277 pages?
Sad.
Nonsense.Sad.
This is a joyous thread.
We have before us, on full display, the faux outrage of the professionally offended, politically correct lefties.
They appear to be angry about a show that they don't watch. How, does that work, eh?
What I especially enjoy is the way that anybody who disagrees with them must be wrong... even when you provide them with incontrovertible evidence.
Some of the logic employed by the lefties has been a wonder to behold. For example, when asked if Oisin should have any input into Clarkson's punishment, they all cried "No!".
I wonder what these people would have said if I had asked if a rape victim's statement should be taken into account when the judge is considering his sentence.
They would, of course, have said "Yes".
Lefties tend to be hypocrites.
Here is a typical example:- order-order.com/2015/03/30/tax-dodge-shame-of-labo...
If that didn't convince you, there is more:- order-order.com/2015/03/31/labours-martin-fairness...
It's all excellent stuff, and nothing more than a bit of fun.
Randy Winkman said:
Oh well, I had been thinking we could change a few words and say basically the same things about pro-Clarkson UKIPers. Depends on your starting point I suppose.
The Venn diagram for Kippers, Clarkson apologists and BBC haters seems to have one hell of an overlap doesn't it?don4l said:
I get the impression that you weren't working in 1988.
I was, and if I had punched someone at work, then I would have been sacked on the spot. No ifs, no buts.
Assault meant instant dismissal.
Drink driving was not seen in the same light then as it is now,... but assault was an absolute no-no.
The thing that has changed the most is the gender issue. Men and women used to work in an atmosphere of sexual tension. It is difficult to explain, but both sexes enjoyed it enormously. In 1986, I worked at an electronics distributor. All of the people on the sales desk were female. For a couple of years they all got into a "who is the sexiest" competition, and they all wore stockings and suspenders to work.
One day, I had a customer visit our office. At the end of the tour I introduced him to the girl who would do his quotations. I said to her "Give him a twang", and she gripped her suspender through her skirt and lifted it and released it. My customer was stunned!
This all sounds primitive to you, but the girl was happy at the effect she caused. The customer was impressed. I got more business.
Indeed. This mirrors my own experience of electronics distributors in the early '80s. You were almost guaranteed to find them chock-full of tasty crumpet who were "game for a laugh". Even the chubsters were up for a fumble. When I tell younger colleagues nowadays its just dismissed as some sort of male-menopausal fantasy I was, and if I had punched someone at work, then I would have been sacked on the spot. No ifs, no buts.
Assault meant instant dismissal.
Drink driving was not seen in the same light then as it is now,... but assault was an absolute no-no.
The thing that has changed the most is the gender issue. Men and women used to work in an atmosphere of sexual tension. It is difficult to explain, but both sexes enjoyed it enormously. In 1986, I worked at an electronics distributor. All of the people on the sales desk were female. For a couple of years they all got into a "who is the sexiest" competition, and they all wore stockings and suspenders to work.
One day, I had a customer visit our office. At the end of the tour I introduced him to the girl who would do his quotations. I said to her "Give him a twang", and she gripped her suspender through her skirt and lifted it and released it. My customer was stunned!
This all sounds primitive to you, but the girl was happy at the effect she caused. The customer was impressed. I got more business.
TKF said:
Randy Winkman said:
Oh well, I had been thinking we could change a few words and say basically the same things about pro-Clarkson UKIPers. Depends on your starting point I suppose.
The Venn diagram for Kippers, Clarkson apologists and BBC haters seems to have one hell of an overlap doesn't it?
turbobloke said:
How simplistic and misleading! The account of the person assaulted in the previous era shows that management were desperate to retain the assailant. Today, with the TG incident, there have been links in this very thread (not particularly necessary) showing that Clarkson was by no means the subject of desperate retention. Your naive omission of management bias as a pertinent factor is curious.
Why would I conclude that a pertinent factor? That's a casual connection. I'd think it more likely to be a product of a different culture and approach to applying 'the rules' at the different points in time. turbobloke said:
Because they had no valid point, evidenced previously and ignored by you repeatedly. Two people at least have shown from direct experience that conditions back then around workplace violence were the same as now, all that's needed to reject your curious backing for the lost cause. There's little point in going around the circle again. Post a reply, have the last word, and we can move on
They were making a point to the people who were saying 1) it should end up as a handshake and 2) it would be 'brushed off' in the private sector. That was perfectly valid to towards those within 1) and 2). How was that not valid? From what I can read you fundamentally agree with the correct application of misconduct proceedings so I don't see what you objected to.
don4l said:
I get the impression that you weren't working in 1988.
I was, and if I had punched someone at work, then I would have been sacked on the spot. No ifs, no buts.
Assault meant instant dismissal.
Drink driving was not seen in the same light then as it is now,... but assault was an absolute no-no.
The thing that has changed the most is the gender issue. Men and women used to work in an atmosphere of sexual tension. It is difficult to explain, but both sexes enjoyed it enormously. In 1986, I worked at an electronics distributor. All of the people on the sales desk were female. For a couple of years they all got into a "who is the sexiest" competition, and they all wore stockings and suspenders to work.
One day, I had a customer visit our office. At the end of the tour I introduced him to the girl who would do his quotations. I said to her "Give him a twang", and she gripped her suspender through her skirt and lifted it and released it. My customer was stunned!
This all sounds primitive to you, but the girl was happy at the effect she caused. The customer was impressed. I got more business.
I don't disagree with your experiences and conclusions. The point I was making was that things change, for whatever reason. Whether it's major or merely the scope to not apply existing processes correctly. I was, and if I had punched someone at work, then I would have been sacked on the spot. No ifs, no buts.
Assault meant instant dismissal.
Drink driving was not seen in the same light then as it is now,... but assault was an absolute no-no.
The thing that has changed the most is the gender issue. Men and women used to work in an atmosphere of sexual tension. It is difficult to explain, but both sexes enjoyed it enormously. In 1986, I worked at an electronics distributor. All of the people on the sales desk were female. For a couple of years they all got into a "who is the sexiest" competition, and they all wore stockings and suspenders to work.
One day, I had a customer visit our office. At the end of the tour I introduced him to the girl who would do his quotations. I said to her "Give him a twang", and she gripped her suspender through her skirt and lifted it and released it. My customer was stunned!
This all sounds primitive to you, but the girl was happy at the effect she caused. The customer was impressed. I got more business.
I'm happy to hear the gender inequality has moved forward from what you're describing.
Countdown said:
don4l said:
Nonsense.
This is a joyous thread.
We have before us, on full display, the faux outrage of the professionally offended, politically correct lefties.
They appear to be angry about a show that they don't watch. How, does that work, eh?
What I especially enjoy is the way that anybody who disagrees with them must be wrong... even when you provide them with incontrovertible evidence.
Some of the logic employed by the lefties has been a wonder to behold. For example, when asked if Oisin should have any input into Clarkson's punishment, they all cried "No!".
I wonder what these people would have said if I had asked if a rape victim's statement should be taken into account when the judge is considering his sentence.
They would, of course, have said "Yes".
Lefties tend to be hypocrites.
Here is a typical example:- order-order.com/2015/03/30/tax-dodge-shame-of-labo...
If that didn't convince you, there is more:- order-order.com/2015/03/31/labours-martin-fairness...
It's all excellent stuff, and nothing more than a bit of fun.
How do you know it's "lefties" that are the ones who are "offended"?This is a joyous thread.
We have before us, on full display, the faux outrage of the professionally offended, politically correct lefties.
They appear to be angry about a show that they don't watch. How, does that work, eh?
What I especially enjoy is the way that anybody who disagrees with them must be wrong... even when you provide them with incontrovertible evidence.
Some of the logic employed by the lefties has been a wonder to behold. For example, when asked if Oisin should have any input into Clarkson's punishment, they all cried "No!".
I wonder what these people would have said if I had asked if a rape victim's statement should be taken into account when the judge is considering his sentence.
They would, of course, have said "Yes".
Lefties tend to be hypocrites.
Here is a typical example:- order-order.com/2015/03/30/tax-dodge-shame-of-labo...
If that didn't convince you, there is more:- order-order.com/2015/03/31/labours-martin-fairness...
It's all excellent stuff, and nothing more than a bit of fun.
And "offended" by what? If indeed it is the lefty-brigade who are anti JC then surely they'd be pleased rather than offended? Surely it's the swivel-eyed for others who are offended that their "Chosen One" has been defrocked?
Still, I agree. It's excellent stuff watching people make strawmen
Maybe, the realisation that Clarkson, Hammond, May and Tymon will all appear on another TV station soon means that they have lost the war.
How are you doing with the £100k problem?
don4l said:
Well, I agree. The leftie brigade should be pleased. It appears that their desire to be offended outweighs the fact that they have won this battle.
Maybe, the realisation that Clarkson, Hammond, May and Tymon will all appear on another TV station soon means that they have lost the war.
could you show me a link to an unhappy lefty on this thread?Maybe, the realisation that Clarkson, Hammond, May and Tymon will all appear on another TV station soon means that they have lost the war.
I hope C,H,M,&T get other jobs. I also hope that JC might curb his knobbish tendencies, otherwise he's going to run out of potential employers.
don4l said:
How are you doing with the £100k problem?
I gave up when you suggested that a £20k rent/rates bill per employee was realistic and reasonable . And you somehow managed to get a spreadsheet which showed average employee cost as £32k to equal £103k.La Liga said:
turbobloke said:
How simplistic and misleading! The account of the person assaulted in the previous era shows that management were desperate to retain the assailant. Today, with the TG incident, there have been links in this very thread (not particularly necessary) showing that Clarkson was by no means the subject of desperate retention. Your naive omission of management bias as a pertinent factor is curious.
Why would I conclude that a pertinent factor? That's a casual connection. I'd think it more likely to be a product of a different culture and approach to applying 'the rules' at the different points in time. turbobloke said:
Because they had no valid point, evidenced previously and ignored by you repeatedly. Two people at least have shown from direct experience that conditions back then around workplace violence were the same as now, all that's needed to reject your curious backing for the lost cause. There's little point in going around the circle again. Post a reply, have the last word, and we can move on
They were making a point to the people who were saying 1) it should end up as a handshake and 2) it would be 'brushed off' in the private sector. That was perfectly valid to towards those within 1) and 2). How was that not valid? From what I can read you fundamentally agree with the correct application of misconduct proceedings so I don't see what you objected to.
don4l said:
I get the impression that you weren't working in 1988.
I was, and if I had punched someone at work, then I would have been sacked on the spot. No ifs, no buts.
Assault meant instant dismissal.
Drink driving was not seen in the same light then as it is now,... but assault was an absolute no-no.
The thing that has changed the most is the gender issue. Men and women used to work in an atmosphere of sexual tension. It is difficult to explain, but both sexes enjoyed it enormously. In 1986, I worked at an electronics distributor. All of the people on the sales desk were female. For a couple of years they all got into a "who is the sexiest" competition, and they all wore stockings and suspenders to work.
One day, I had a customer visit our office. At the end of the tour I introduced him to the girl who would do his quotations. I said to her "Give him a twang", and she gripped her suspender through her skirt and lifted it and released it. My customer was stunned!
This all sounds primitive to you, but the girl was happy at the effect she caused. The customer was impressed. I got more business.
I don't disagree with your experiences and conclusions. The point I was making was that things change, for whatever reason. Whether it's major or merely the scope to not apply existing processes correctly. I was, and if I had punched someone at work, then I would have been sacked on the spot. No ifs, no buts.
Assault meant instant dismissal.
Drink driving was not seen in the same light then as it is now,... but assault was an absolute no-no.
The thing that has changed the most is the gender issue. Men and women used to work in an atmosphere of sexual tension. It is difficult to explain, but both sexes enjoyed it enormously. In 1986, I worked at an electronics distributor. All of the people on the sales desk were female. For a couple of years they all got into a "who is the sexiest" competition, and they all wore stockings and suspenders to work.
One day, I had a customer visit our office. At the end of the tour I introduced him to the girl who would do his quotations. I said to her "Give him a twang", and she gripped her suspender through her skirt and lifted it and released it. My customer was stunned!
This all sounds primitive to you, but the girl was happy at the effect she caused. The customer was impressed. I got more business.
I'm happy to hear the gender inequality has moved forward from what you're describing.
Nobody groped her.
She had no fear of being molested, and indeed, she wasn't molested. She flicked her suspender, and a man responded in a way that she felt was complimentary. It boosted her self confidence.
She loved it. He loved it.
You want to be offended???
Welshbeef said:
NinjaPower said:
A guy from my office was sacked in January this year because he got to drunk at the work Christmas do in December and said some quite lairy/suggestive things to a few women of the office.
One phrase he uttered was "Phwooaaar! Look at the arse on this one!" whilst leering at my admin girl Stacey who was wearing a black leather mini skirt and high heels.
Seriously he was sacked for a drunken comment at a Xmas do.... PC gone mad. One phrase he uttered was "Phwooaaar! Look at the arse on this one!" whilst leering at my admin girl Stacey who was wearing a black leather mini skirt and high heels.
It was a work do where we all went to a a conference type thing in the afternoon with staff award presentations and all that, then got ferried to a large hotel in coaches, where we proceeded to have dinner and drinks followed by a bad DJ and 'disco' as you get at these sort of things.
There was the best part of 200 people there, and a few got quite tipsy on the drink provided by the company, but it was all good natured, but this guy took it too far by getting fairly blind drunk and then making his way around being very suggestive and extremely lewd to the women, and I believe slapped a few on their backsides etc.
They complained about his behavior and he was sacked for conducting himself in such a manner at what was classed as a work function.
I bet he had fun explaining to his wife why he got sacked.
I can see it from both sides. He's a grown adult. If he can't behave in the company of colleagues even after a drink then they don't want him. Simple as that.
From his point of view, it was free drink and a Christmas party and he wasn't technicaly 'at work'.
Edited by NinjaPower on Tuesday 31st March 22:05
don4l said:
There wasn't any gender inequality. The girl who flicked her suspender had total control of the situation.
Nobody groped her.
She had no fear of being molested, and indeed, she wasn't molested. She flicked her suspender, and a man responded in a way that she felt was complimentary. It boosted her self confidence.
She loved it. He loved it.
You want to be offended???
Absolutely, I remember joining a business in 1990 with a large telesales floor the women/girls loved making you go red (as a young man (20) I did that often) teasing you and being suggestive, but they were totally in control and enjoyed winding up the new boy. Nobody groped her.
She had no fear of being molested, and indeed, she wasn't molested. She flicked her suspender, and a man responded in a way that she felt was complimentary. It boosted her self confidence.
She loved it. He loved it.
You want to be offended???
Lots of marriages, children and partners came out of that business, I'm still with one of them as well....Oh how things have changed.
don4l said:
There wasn't any gender inequality. The girl who flicked her suspender had total control of the situation.
Nobody groped her.
She had no fear of being molested, and indeed, she wasn't molested. She flicked her suspender, and a man responded in a way that she felt was complimentary. It boosted her self confidence.
Just imagine how buzzed she would have been with a full on gang bang - women used to appreciate all this attention until the lefty right on PC brigade moved in Nobody groped her.
She had no fear of being molested, and indeed, she wasn't molested. She flicked her suspender, and a man responded in a way that she felt was complimentary. It boosted her self confidence.
psychiatric nurse talking to a patient.Countdown said:
don4l said:
There wasn't any gender inequality. The girl who flicked her suspender had total control of the situation.
Nobody groped her.
She had no fear of being molested, and indeed, she wasn't molested. She flicked her suspender, and a man responded in a way that she felt was complimentary. It boosted her self confidence.
Just imagine how buzzed she would have been with a full on gang bang - women used to appreciate all this attention until the lefty right on PC brigade moved in Nobody groped her.
She had no fear of being molested, and indeed, she wasn't molested. She flicked her suspender, and a man responded in a way that she felt was complimentary. It boosted her self confidence.
OMG what if... What if the sky fell in, What if you bent me over the punch bowl..
racinghep said:
Countdown said:
don4l said:
There wasn't any gender inequality. The girl who flicked her suspender had total control of the situation.
Nobody groped her.
She had no fear of being molested, and indeed, she wasn't molested. She flicked her suspender, and a man responded in a way that she felt was complimentary. It boosted her self confidence.
Just imagine how buzzed she would have been with a full on gang bang - women used to appreciate all this attention until the lefty right on PC brigade moved in Nobody groped her.
She had no fear of being molested, and indeed, she wasn't molested. She flicked her suspender, and a man responded in a way that she felt was complimentary. It boosted her self confidence.
OMG what if... What if the sky fell in, What if you bent me over the punch bowl..
The workplace should be a neutral area, it's not the place for overt sexuality. I've worked at plenty of places where people were boffing each other but still managed to deal with everyone professionally as a human being rather than totty vs rake.
Have you seen an episode of Benny Hill recently? It's f
king pathetic.At the risk of getting back on subject: now this may have come up in the last few pages, but I couldn't find it in amongst the "carry on up your distributer" memoirs.
Guy Martin was recently interviewed on UTV. They asked him about the top gear job. He replied that his boss would never give him the time off work, but never say never.
http://www.topgearlive.co.uk
http://www.u.tv/Sport/2015/03/30/Guy-Martin-talks-...
Guy Martin was recently interviewed on UTV. They asked him about the top gear job. He replied that his boss would never give him the time off work, but never say never.
http://www.topgearlive.co.uk
http://www.u.tv/Sport/2015/03/30/Guy-Martin-talks-...
Edited by robemcdonald on Wednesday 1st April 06:57
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff