Jeremy Clarkson

[CiderHider]

Can't believe all the stick he's got, I mean...It's Jezzer, what do you expect!? A very intelligent and intellectual Journalist and extremely funny.

[Barrs Court Red]

Look at the type having a go though, union leaders and ed miliband. It's like a who's who of personality bypasses.

[TRL]

With Jezza you know what you are going to get.

I find him funny, many don't But to take his jests at face falue is incedibly dumb. People need to get overthemlves and either ignore it or enjoy the humour for what it is.

For Christ sake, he works for the BBC, after all which is public sector, so I would imagine he is getting the same type of pension as many striking anyway.

Union members seem to forget this. Bloody idiots

[Robbored]

The over-sensitive unions should lighten up. After all Clarkson is nothing more than a professional buffoon. He's forged a long career through being a boorish oaf who gets to drive cars that most of us would never be able to afford.

[Riaz]

Fair play to clarkson. He went too far with the joke. But all this protesting is a load of bollox

Times are hard and we all have to take our hit.

[Kid in the Riot]

A very intelligent and intellectual Journalist and extremely funny.

Please tell me you're joking?

He's a complete cock, and what he said was neither funny or clever.

Is it intelligent to say on a prime time BBC1 show watched by families that people who were on strike (2 million of them) should be executed in front of their families?

He is a clown, who's made millions out of his right wing views. Why would he give a sh1t about low paid public sector workers?

[CiderHider]

Please tell me you're joking?

He's a complete cock, and what he said was neither funny or clever.

Is it intelligent to say on a prime time BBC1 show watched by families that people who were on strike (2 million of them) should be executed in front of their families?

He is a clown, who's made millions out of his right wing views. Why would he give a sh1t about low paid public sector workers?

Blame the editors of the W*nk show, which imo is a complete load of cock, JC has at least put the show on the radar.

[Super]

Please tell me you're joking?

He's a complete cock, and what he said was neither funny or clever.

Is it intelligent to say on a prime time BBC1 show watched by families that people who were on strike (2 million of them) should be executed in front of their families?

He is a clown, who's made millions out of his right wing views. Why would he give a sh1t about low paid public sector workers?

Spot on. The guy is a Grade A *****, so up his own ass, him and the other tool Hammond are the unfunniest people on TV.

[Nibor]

I want to see Clarkson driving a monster truck over union bosses and strikers on the next episode of Top Gear.

They're the most irritating, over sensitive people..........................................in the world.

[CiderHider]

I want to see Clarkson driving a monster truck over union bosses and strikers on the next episode of Top Gear.

They're the most irritating, over sensitive people..........................................in the world.

Hhaha, I'd like to see that! Was so funny watching some union idiot on C4 news suggesting JC is inciting racial hatred and should be arrested! What would the CHILDREN think who's parents were on strike who heard this? Ummmm..Kids don't watch the one show....and Now 23'000 complaints? LMFAO, I would LOVE to get a hold of those, there would be some pure comedy genius among that lot

[fka dagest]

I'd like to see a groups of angry vegetarians thrash Clarkson with bunches of stinging nettles. LIVE BBC 19.00 prime time. Send in your donations and they'll keep going.

Union bosses over sensitive? Maybe, but if standing up for your rights is over-sensitiveness then good.

David Camoron and his millionaire friends can afford to chuck money at the IMF, prop up the Indian economy, give money to Brussels, pay for Royal Weddings, bomb Libya, patrol Afghanistan, but it can't afford to honour the contracts it made with the working people of this country.

It's quite shameful that private sector workers are content to stick the knife in too, these are the people we sit next too at Ashton Gate, we travel on your buses, and we frequent the same pubs. But no, you choose the Tories millionaire club.

Of course, you could stand up for yourselves too or continue to believe the lie that we're all in it together.

[Monkeh]

Clarkson is only saying what the majority are thinking,

Why should I as a privite sector working face tax raises just to cover a shortfull in the unsustainable prension fund,

[fka dagest]

Clarkson is only saying what the majority are thinking,

Why should I as a privite sector working face tax raises just to cover a shortfull in the unsustainable prension fund,

Point 1: The pension fund is sustainable. Look at the findings of the Hutton Report if you want to know the truth.

Point 2: People who quote Clarkson often feel he speaks for the masses - he doesn't

Point 3: Are you content to face tax rises to pay for European membership, IMF contributions, wars, Royal Weddings, as above etc?

Point 4: Given that most of the public sector are ordinary working people, would you prefer to see UK tax-payer contributions spent on giving people a living wage and pension after retirement or would you prefer see money given to those elements referred to above?

Point 5: Assuming the Tory govt get's their way and dishonours the written contracts they agreed to, do you imagine that you will receive some sort of tax rebate or that you will in fact be better off?

Point 6: How many private sector workers have considered the consequences of reducing the spending power of public sector workers? We will spend less and your company/business will suffer. You may lose your job.

Point 7: Taking point 5 and 6 together, assuming you don't receive a tax rebate and your company's trade/business declines etc will you actually still feel rather pleased that at least public sector workers will have to work to 67/68, be £60-70 worse off a month and receive significantly less as a pension?

Something perhaps for you all to ponder upon, either that or you can just soak up the Tory fed propaganda provided by their milionaire friends in the press industry.

[Nibor]

Point 1: The pension fund is sustainable. Look at the findings of the Hutton Report if you want to know the truth.

Point 2: People who quote Clarkson often feel he speaks for the masses - he doesn't

Point 3: Are you content to face tax rises to pay for European membership, IMF contributions, wars, Royal Weddings, as above etc?

Point 4: Given that most of the public sector are ordinary working people, would you prefer to see UK tax-payer contributions spent on giving people a living wage and pension after retirement or would you prefer see money given to those elements referred to above?

Point 5: Assuming the Tory govt get's their way and dishonours the written contracts they agreed to, do you imagine that you will receive some sort of tax rebate or that you will in fact be better off?

Point 6: How many private sector workers have considered the consequences of reducing the spending power of public sector workers? We will spend less and your company/business will suffer. You may lose your job.

Point 7: Taking point 5 and 6 together, assuming you don't receive a tax rebate and your company's trade/business declines etc will you actually still feel rather pleased that at least public sector workers will have to work to 67/68, be £60-70 worse off a month and receive significantly less as a pension?

Something perhaps for you all to ponder upon, either that or you can just soak up the Tory fed propaganda provided by their milionaire friends in the press industry.

This in itself is propaganda.

1. The Hutton report says nothing of the sort. It makes a number of recommendations it considers necessary to provide a sustainable pension in future which are those being rejected by unions.

2. No evidence either way for your assertion.

3. Hyperbole, the figures spent on these things are relatively small proportionally. Why should proportionally more of annual public spending every year go towards funding guaranteed final salary linked public sector pensions?

4. Presenting this as a mutually exclusive choice is completely false.

5. The Hutton report specifically recommends honouring in full pension promises already accrued. The government's proposal is in line with this.

6. Funding final salary pensions would place a burden on the taxpayer that would be worse for both the private and public sector than this in my opinion.

7. Public sector pensions will still be significantly better than private sector pensions for comparable jobs because they will be linked to (career average) salary and guaranteed, not individually funded and not exposed to the performance of the markets. I won't be pleased some people are worse off, but I think having a system that is sustainable and not increasingly proportionally expensive year on year is necessary.

I find the notion that the striking public sector workers are interested in fairness frankly laughable. This is self interest, pure and simple, there is no higher motive here.

Final salary pensions aren't reasonable or fair in the least, they have to go. People are living longer, they have to work longer. We all face that. People will still work for a lower proportion of their adult life than they did in the 20th century.

If the public sector unions want taking seriously they should drop the facade and publish their reasonable alternative proposals that deal with the very clear problems the Hutton report identifies.

[fka dagest]

This in itself is propaganda.

1. The Hutton report says nothing of the sort. It makes a number of recommendations it considers necessary to provide a sustainable pension in future which are those being rejected by unions.

2. No evidence either way for your assertion.

3. Hyperbole, the figures spent on these things are relatively small proportionally. Why should proportionally more of annual public spending every year go towards funding guaranteed final salary linked public sector pensions?

4. Presenting this as a mutually exclusive choice is completely false.

5. The Hutton report specifically recommends honouring in full pension promises already accrued. The government's proposal is in line with this.

6. Funding final salary pensions would place a burden on the taxpayer that would be worse for both the private and public sector than this in my opinion.

7. Public sector pensions will still be significantly better than private sector pensions for comparable jobs because they will be linked to (career average) salary and guaranteed, not individually funded and not exposed to the performance of the markets. I won't be pleased some people are worse off, but I think having a system that is sustainable and not increasingly proportionally expensive year on year is necessary.

I find the notion that the striking public sector workers are interested in fairness frankly laughable. This is self interest, pure and simple, there is no higher motive here.

Final salary pensions aren't reasonable or fair in the least, they have to go. People are living longer, they have to work longer. We all face that. People will still work for a lower proportion of their adult life than they did in the 20th century.

If the public sector unions want taking seriously they should drop the facade and publish their reasonable alternative proposals that deal with the very clear problems the Hutton report identifies.

Well, at least you're honest, yes, what you have submitted is propaganda.

Point 1: NAO says changes have already taken place to ensure pensions are sustainable. Does the National Audit office do propaganda?

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2010/12/early-pension-reforms-are-already-saving-money-says-nao/

http://falseeconomy.org.uk/blog/this-is-not-a-pension-reform-it-is-simply-a-pay-cut

Point 2: I don't assert Clarkson is the people's voice/champion or whatever - others do. I assert he is a ***** - unprovable, but I earnestly believe it.

Point 3: I don't consider EU membership fees (40/50 million a day according to most estimates), Royal Wedding bills (20 million), IMF contributions (40 billion possibly) - small fees? Why? It's contractually agreed? Are contracts binding on both parties or not? Does your employer change your contract on a whim?

Point 4: Every choice between 'a' or 'b' is mutually exclusive - pointing that out doesn't answer the question, but you clearly don't want to. What do you prefer to see tax payers' money spent on? Workers pensions or the litany of other things?

Point 5: What? Do you think you'll receive a rebate or even be better off?

Point 6: I don't agree.

Point 7: I understand that Public sector pensions are marginally better than Private ones. However, the issue as I understand it is that most people in the private sector don't have a pension. Regarding affordability refer to point one, For what it's worth I don't agree with final salary pension, I think career average is fair.

Of course it's self-interest. The fairness comes in with the government being honest. They seem incapable.

The government should honour their contractual obligations. Changes are already in place to ensure pensions are affordable.

[Monkeh]

This in itself is propaganda.

1. The Hutton report says nothing of the sort. It makes a number of recommendations it considers necessary to provide a sustainable pension in future which are those being rejected by unions.

2. No evidence either way for your assertion.

3. Hyperbole, the figures spent on these things are relatively small proportionally. Why should proportionally more of annual public spending every year go towards funding guaranteed final salary linked public sector pensions?

4. Presenting this as a mutually exclusive choice is completely false.

5. The Hutton report specifically recommends honouring in full pension promises already accrued. The government's proposal is in line with this.

6. Funding final salary pensions would place a burden on the taxpayer that would be worse for both the private and public sector than this in my opinion.

7. Public sector pensions will still be significantly better than private sector pensions for comparable jobs because they will be linked to (career average) salary and guaranteed, not individually funded and not exposed to the performance of the markets. I won't be pleased some people are worse off, but I think having a system that is sustainable and not increasingly proportionally expensive year on year is necessary.

I find the notion that the striking public sector workers are interested in fairness frankly laughable. This is self interest, pure and simple, there is no higher motive here.

Final salary pensions aren't reasonable or fair in the least, they have to go. People are living longer, they have to work longer. We all face that. People will still work for a lower proportion of their adult life than they did in the 20th century.

If the public sector unions want taking seriously they should drop the facade and publish their reasonable alternative proposals that deal with the very clear problems the Hutton report identifies.

thanks save me alot of write the public sector need to start living in the real world where we actually work for a living instead of the 35 hour week and 35 days holiday you lot get,

I'm a contractor for Network Rail (a govenment funded firm) I know all about their terms and conditions as I have been offered countless jobs by them there are two people do this job at my firm and 15 doing the same job for network rail,

this is why the counrty is in a mess Labour (I'm a labour voter) created too many easy jobs in the public sector these are now going and the privte sector is expected to pick up the mess,

Lot of the people striking wednesday and in for a real wake up call very soon they lost public sympthy and have made the govenment dig its heels in,

Striking never solved anything

[CiderHider]

This is why I don't argue with Dagest and Nibor

[Nibor]

Well, at least you're honest, yes, what you have submitted is propaganda.

Point 1: NAO says changes have already taken place to ensure pensions are sustainable. Does the National Audit office do propaganda?

http://www.publicfin...money-says-nao/

http://falseeconomy....imply-a-pay-cut

Point 2: I don't assert Clarkson is the people's voice/champion or whatever - others do. I assert he is a ***** - unprovable, but I earnestly believe it.

Point 3: I don't consider EU membership fees (40/50 million a day according to most estimates), Royal Wedding bills (20 million), IMF contributions (40 billion possibly) - small fees? Why? It's contractually agreed? Are contracts binding on both parties or not? Does your employer change your contract on a whim?

Point 4: Every choice between 'a' or 'b' is mutually exclusive - pointing that out doesn't answer the question, but you clearly don't want to. What do you prefer to see tax payers' money spent on? Workers pensions or the litany of other things?

Point 5: What? Do you think you'll receive a rebate or even be better off?

Point 6: I don't agree.

Point 7: I understand that Public sector pensions are marginally better than Private ones. However, the issue as I understand it is that most people in the private sector don't have a pension. Regarding affordability refer to point one, For what it's worth I don't agree with final salary pension, I think career average is fair.

Of course it's self-interest. The fairness comes in with the government being honest. They seem incapable.

The government should honour their contractual obligations. Changes are already in place to ensure pensions are affordable.

1. The first is an article from a public sector leaning website about a report with no link to it, and the second is an article containing unsupported projections from a union chief. The Hutton report is an independent expert report but you're ignoring that now? Is that because it doesn't support your argument and these rather poorer publications do?

2. You made a strawman and knocked it down with an assertion. The whole thing was nonsense.

3. We spend just over £700 billion a year. IMF contributions are loans not spends and the current exposure is about a tenth of the £40bn ceiling you quote. War comes out of a defence budget that is one third of the NHS budget. The rest is peanuts. Instead of putting up a pretty fictional picture of what we're spending on _instead_ of giving guaranteed final salary pensions (fictional because instead covers a whole lot more ground), please justify why we should spend proportionally more on public sector pensions.

4. The choice between A and B is false, there are any number of things we can spend on, presenting it as A and B is a logical fallacy designed to mislead. You know this. Would you rather see the money spent on pensions or on helping sick babies? It's easy and pointless to use this sort of tactic. There are limited resources and decisions about how they are allocated must be taken with a much wider view.

5. I think taxes will not increase by as much as they would have to in order to continue to support final salary pensions. There'll be no rebate. Note that the proposal does not affect contributions already made nor people who retire within 10 years. Pretending there is some sort of dishonouring of contracts here is quite simply lying.

6. Fair enough.

7. Your original point one is plain incorrect, read the Hutton report. Public sector pensions will continue to be significantly better than private ones (slightly my ass). They're guaranteed income, private ones are not, and they're linked to earnings not contributions.

The government aren't suggesting that they won't honour obligations, just that they will not in the future make obligations it will be prohibitively expensive to meet. Despite the media pandering to the strikers over the last few days, I have not heard a single alternative proposal that addresses the problems faced - just lots of hyperbole and propaganda from the public sector unions. You've followed this pattern.

Make a reasoned argument about what should be done instead and how it addresses the problems defined in the Hutton report and this could be interesting, otherwise it's just more selfish union bullshit.

[Gazred]

the public sector need to start living in the real world where we actually work for a living instead of the 35 hour week and 35 days holiday you lot get,

Striking never solved anything

Just for the record i am currently a civil servant, i work 40 hours a week and get 25 days a year, please dont tar us all with the same brush. I understand where that stereotype comes from though, i have seen plenty of people that are overpaid, overvalued and practicaly work part time hours under the guise of flexi-time within local goverment. Myself, i just see it as another job really, there is no cushty setup for me, i work hard for my salary, just as i did when in the private sector. I didn't strike, im not part of a union and to be honest if you work directly for the goverment, come a recession or change of power your going to be in the firing line.

Totally agree that striking will solve nothing, well not in the way we currently do it. It needs to be tools down for everyone if you want to achieve anything. Don't suppose there were many private sector workers joining in this time!

[Nibor]

Just for the record i am currently a civil servant, i work 40 hours a week and get 25 days a year, please dont tar us all with the same brush. I understand where that stereotype comes from though, i have seen plenty of people that are overpaid, overvalued and practicaly work part time hours under the guise of flexi-time within local goverment. Myself, i just see it as another job really, there is no cushty setup for me, i work hard for my salary, just as i did when in the private sector. I didn't strike, im not part of a union and to be honest if you work directly for the goverment, come a recession or change of power your going to be in the firing line.

Totally agree that striking will solve nothing, well not in the way we currently do it. It needs to be tools down for everyone if you want to achieve anything. Don't suppose there were many private sector workers joining in this time!

In my experience there are plenty of overpaid, useless non entities in the private sector. It's a symptom of large organisations IMO, they create lots of hiding places for people since it's easy to avoid personal responsibility. Blame the process, don't expect people to have and use skills. You get skilled hard working people in both, the only thing different is the public sector is mostly large organisations with a lot of bureaucracy so maybe the problem stands out a little more.

[Monkeh]

Just for the record i am currently a civil servant, i work 40 hours a week and get 25 days a year, please dont tar us all with the same brush. I understand where that stereotype comes from though, i have seen plenty of people that are overpaid, overvalued and practicaly work part time hours under the guise of flexi-time within local goverment. Myself, i just see it as another job really, there is no cushty setup for me, i work hard for my salary, just as i did when in the private sector. I didn't strike, im not part of a union and to be honest if you work directly for the goverment, come a recession or change of power your going to be in the firing line.

Totally agree that striking will solve nothing, well not in the way we currently do it. It needs to be tools down for everyone if you want to achieve anything. Don't suppose there were many private sector workers joining in this time!

I'm sorry for taring you with the same brush as some other but as I can see by your post you share some of the frustrations people are having

[Gazred]

I'm sorry for taring you with the same brush as some other but as I can see by your post you share some of the frustrations people are having

No worries at all mate. As Nibor highlights the problem crosses over into both sectors anyway but the public sector will always come under more fire due to the way its funded etc

[Riaz]

No worries at all mate. As Nibor highlights the problem crosses over into both sectors anyway but the public sector will always come under more fire due to the way its funded etc

Public sector also comes under fire, because of the ridiculous red tape which causes many problems.....

[Frome Valley]

He also made a comment about not using trains due to people delaying them by commiting suicide.

I am in a union, I was not offended as it comes with the territory. He is hardly going to provide incisive social commentary.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Mixed views- probably Clarkson and a combo of classic shock jock, 'all publicity good publicity' and frankly being somewhat of a ****...

I see to some extent though why there was a bit of a furore- some while ago Tolpuddle Martyrs...Touchy subject in some quarters no doubt. I dunno, do people praising him want a return to such values/regime etc?

[Gazred]

Public sector also comes under fire, because of the ridiculous red tape which causes many problems.....

Tell me about it! It's almost a daily occurrence for me.

[Eddie Hitler]

He puts tremendous effort into his use of language in his columns and on Top Gear; his metaphors and similies approach those of PG Wodehouse.

Then he has these occasional yobbish outbursts to garner free publicity when he has a book to sell.

[kevinmabbuttshair]

Point 7: I understand that Public sector pensions are marginally better than Private ones. However, the issue as I understand it is that most people in the private sector don't have a pension. Regarding affordability refer to point one, For what it's worth I don't agree with final salary pension, I think career average is fair.

The government should honour their contractual obligations. Changes are already in place to ensure pensions are affordable.

Absolute garbarge!

Having had my final salary pension scrapped, by a company making billions, with the min consoltation, 90 days noitice take it or leave it, I can assure you that I'll be tens of thousands worse off in a money purchase scheme. I would've have give my right arm for a CAB pension. I would've also paid more and retired later. The deal you've got on the table is fantastic compared to what is offered in the private sector. Also no real mandate for strike action from the members as the majority didn't even vote on industrial action. Turn out was a piss poor 30%?

Time you entered the real world instead of living in your bubble.

[fka dagest]

Absolute garbarge!

Having had my final salary pension scrapped, by a company making billions, with the min consoltation, 90 days noitice take it or leave it, I can assure you that I'll be tens of thousands worse off in a money purchase scheme. I would've have give my right arm for a CAB pension. I would've also paid more and retired later. The deal you've got on the table is fantastic compared to what is offered in the private sector. Also no real mandate for strike action from the members as the majority didn't even vote on industrial action. Turn out was a piss poor 30%?

Time you entered the real world instead of living in your bubble.

The question you need to ask yourself is why working for a company that makes millions you have rolled over and taken it? Honestly most of the whining private sector workers on here could make themselves feel a lot better if they actually stood up for themselves, rather than saving all their hatred and ire for other workers who are doing just that.

Anyway, what's it got to do with me? I don't employ you and I don't determine your work conditions. You have that all to prevalent attitude of 'I've suffered, so should everyone else'. If you lost a leg in a road accident, would you insist everyone else had to lose a leg too?

Besides despite many civil servants not having a received a pay rise for at least two years, we still have to read about other private sector companies doing very well, and bosses receiving big bonuses. The whole private is suffering and public is laughing is just simplistic bullshit. The public sector has been punished for years. We conitually have to hear how we need to treated like shit because we mustn't unnecessarily burden the taxpayer, which of course is a mandate for slavery. Every Christmas we see people from companies enjoying Xmas booze ups, free lunches etc - we get eff all. Bonuses don't exist for us. And yet most of us know it's not all black and white, most my family works in the private sector. All working people are suffering. The whole private versus public is a nonsense fermented by the Tories and their press friends. it's called 'divide and conquer' and the end result will be us all ending up poor. Won't you feel better then!

Of course we keep hearing how our pensions are unsustainable, despite evidence to contrary provided by audit commissions and other economists. Most of us are reasonable enough to accept some change - it's already been happening. What we are upset about is continued wage freezes, deterioration in working conditions, and pension amendments which will see most people £60-70 worse of every month, a longer working life with less received at the end of it. Would you roll over and think of the country? No, it's quite clear your bitter about your own plight. What's the difference?

At the same time we see cash being siphoned off for EU membership, the Indian economy, dropping of bombs etc. Where's the great crusade asking whether all that is sustainable? Where is it?

The Tory attack on the public sector is political - they hate the public sector and welfare state. They want small government, where rich people aren't burdened with supporting the poor.

With regards to electoral turnout, who turns, turns out - it's that simple. People who don't vote, don't care for democracy or don't have a strong opinion. Nothing is invalidated. If you look at percentage turnouts for legitimising votes then we can write off many general elections for past couple of decades. No one suggests that. Do they? Do you want compulsory voting?

As for living in a bubble. Don't presume to know anything about me. You don't. I spent over a quarter of my life working the private sector. I've seen it from both sides. Have you?

As for Nibor we choose who we want to believe. You choose the Tory party who represent the millionaires club, I choose the Unions who represent the workers.

[Robbored]

Public sector also comes under fire, because of the ridiculous red tape which causes many problems.....

I could have stayed on in the NHS for another 2 years but because of the increasing bureaucratic red tap which tied me to a computer for one day a week inputting clients details that a school leaver could have done at a quarter of my hourly rate, I retired.