Personally I see it as just the latest in a long, long series of things. It is the hypocrisy that gets me. The BBC came down on Brand and Ross over Sachsgate, despite no one complaining for a week until the Daily Mail started reporting on it, but seemingly Clarkson can do whatever the fuck he wants and they’ll do nothing.
And why? Because Top Gear is their biggest international earner.
No, we generally just deal with bad shit in a different way to you.
Clarkson’s a professional winder up. Hyperbole is his whole schtick. It’s never worth getting upset over his proposals 'cos he’ll always take them to the most absurd lengths. Hence the “leave suicides to the scavengers” bit tacked on to a perfectly reasonable thought that jumping in front of a train is a selfish way to kill yourself. He knows it is completely ridiculous - so many reasons it is a bad idea - but saying it gets him a nervous laugh and more attention.
You say the Beeb won’t do anything to him as Top Gear is its biggest international earner but even if this was true it only applies as long a the audiences like what Clarkson does i.e. say the outrageous and wind up a section of the population. Getting people cross with him - whether the Unions, the Mexican Ambassador, feminists, or left wingers - just makes those that like him like him more and ensures they keep watching Top Gear and reading his columns and books.
Incidently, I don’t agree there is any comparison between Clarkson on the strikers (I was one of them!) and Brand/Ross with Andrew Sachs. I thought the BBC’s response to the incident was ridiculous but there is a clear difference between making daft suggestions about a group (the strikers) - particularly as part of a longer piece where he’d been saying how they had helped him - and Brand and Ross harrasing an individual by leaving messages on his answering machine including references to fucking Sachs’ granddaughter.
I personally think Clarkson has been misrepresented on this one but - and it is a big but - he has a long, long history of such things including more personal attacks (see his views on Gordon Brown). Sachsgate was a single incident.
And don’t forget that next to no one complained about Sachsgate, including Sachs himself (and I can only find record of Sachs’ agent writing a letter of complaint), until the Daily Mail started going on about it a week later. According to Wikipedia there had been two complaints that week about the show, for swearing. The vast majority of those that complained in all likelihood never even heard it. I highly doubt a single complainee heard it when it was originally broadcast.
Umm. A fair point about Gordon Brown though I think most people see politicians (at least senior politicians) as fair game - not really human 
I agree about the malicious impact of the Daily Mail - reading it on any individual day leaves a nasty taste in the mouth - but I still think Brand and Ross’ “prank” was pretty mean spirited. Distinctly unfunny and puerile with two guys in their 30s and 40s (?) acting like teenage boys showing off to each other. Not really surprising there were no complaints about the broadcast itself as anybody deliberately listening to Jonathan Ross, especially when he’s working with Russell Brand, probably knows what to expect! Of course the BBC reaction was way over the top driven by tabloid and political pressure but there was some sort of case to answer.
Doesn’t “bolshy” mean “leftist”?
I guess the origin of “bolshy” is Bolshevik, but to me it also means “spiky”, “combative” especially when it comes to opinions. I’m fairly sure that this is a common UK usage.
He didn’t really say anything supportive about the strike - being glad that the roads were quieter is not being supportive of the strike itself, and that was all he said otherwise. And he scabbed during the recent BBC strike.
I don’t think what he said was a big deal, really, but I’ve seen several people defending him by saying that he supported the strike in his other comments; he didn’t.
As bad as committing suicide by stepping in front of a train, that method’s even worse because you wouldn’t be only be killing yourself but thoughtlessly taking other people with you. As a way of killing yourself, it’s almost on par with driving your car into on-coming traffic so you can collide head-on with a car going the opposite direction.
This is one case where being right doesn’t count for or help much (the whole reason “white lies” were invented in the first place).
I probably agree that train suicides are selfish for not considering the inconvenience and trauma they inflict on others, but what’s the point (other than a wind-up) of harping on it? His “solution” is ludicrous, and he can’t seriously believe pointing this minor fact out will deter a real suicide (at best it would encourage one to try a different method).
IMO the whole thing is more of the usual angry white male sense of privilege lashing out indiscriminantly at the decisions of his perceived lessers. Or a wind-up. It’s so hard to tell anymore in the age of irony…
I’ve no great love for Clarkson - he can be an entertaining TV presenter, but he’s an attention whore. I don’t believe he sincerely holds the views he appears to espouse - he just blurts out whatever controversial nonsense he thinks will get him some airtime.
But suicide by train… my journey home from work last night featured two hours of standing around on freezing cold train platforms, waiting for service to resume from disruption caused by a ‘person hit by a train’ (which usually means a suicide) near London.
In my opinion, people tend to underestimate the impact of the disruption caused by these incidents. I get that it’s a tragedy someone took their own life, and that they probably left behind a shattered mess of family and friends who will never quite be the same.
But… these incidents do more than just mildly inconvenience a handful of grumpy commuters.
The incidents nearly always seem to happen at the start of the evening rush hour - when the timing of the train schedules is packed and most sensitive to disruption - and as a result, services are disrupted, often cancelled completely, for hours - sometimes until the end of service for the day.
So thousands upon thousands of people experience hours of delay in getting home, incur the extra expense of finding alternative travel options, feeding themselves on the way, in some cases, not reaching their destination at all and having to find somewhere to stop overnight.
They arrive home hours late, possibly freezing cold and wet. In some cases, the disruption will have caused them to break arrangments, including childcare handovers, medical appointments, contractual obligations, provision of care to elderly relatives, etc.
The total cost of a severe example of one of these incidents can be huge - and not necessarily all monetary.
I’m sure the people I’ve heard muttering curses upon the announcement of a train delay due to “pedestrian incident” weren’t all white males. :rolleyes: To be fair, they were to some degree angry and lashing out. 
Oh, and to follow up on Mangetout’s excellent discussion of the effects of a major disruption on the thousands of passengers (AKA, why it’s not merely a “sense of privilege” at work):
In my experience (Metra commuter rail in Chicago), the affected line can be closed for an hour or more. The delay is typically a lot shorter in the handful of cases where nobody’s killed, because (a) the ambulance takes the injured to the hospital as soon as possible, and (b) there’s no death investigation.
I’m always a bit (pleasantly, of course) surprised when one incident doesn’t spawn another.
My particular commuter line has three tracks, with the center track carrying express trains, and two platforms per station. The cascade of delays from a crossing incident causes confusion as to when the next train is due and what track it’ll be on – the schedule goes out the window. People see two sets of headlights in the distance and start dithering as to whether to take the local if it comes first (bird in the hand and all that) or wait for the express. As it becomes clearer, people pick the local or express platform. But if the two trains stay basically neck-and-neck for a while, people wait until the last minute to choose, and there’s always some people running across after the gates have already come down. :smack: I haven’t seen, or heard of, a second pedestrian incident occurring in this manner, but IMHO it’s only a matter of time.
I’m a subway train driver. And I say this: fuck suicide jumpers. They deserve whatever pain they were in.