Jeremy Clarkson is a Fascist Cunt

[Flagg]

Oh wait, his apology was to "anyone who was offended". So it's a non-apology apology.

[Captain Seafort]

Is what they get out of it NOW better than the pension (and, for the sake of argument, the English equivalent of Social Security) that non-governmental workers receive?

No - it's far, far worse, on the understanding that they effectively get a job for life and a damn sight better pension. The first of those went out the window a while ago, but the latter's still there, even with the changes.

[Captain Seafort]

Oh wait, his apology was to "anyone who was offended". So it's a non-apology apology.

No, it's an apology to anyone who's too thick to recognise a joke when they see one.

[Stark]

The funniest jokes are the ones where amazingly rich assholes talk about people with 'real jobs'.

[Flagg]

Oh wait, his apology was to "anyone who was offended". So it's a non-apology apology.

No, it's an apology to anyone who's too thick to recognise a joke when they see one.

You really are fucking stupid, aren't you? Jokes can offend people, and not be funny like the one Clarkson told about how he wanted to murder a bunch of innocent people over a political disagreement. And when you issue an apology to just the people offended, that's not really an apology, it's mealy mouthed bullshit.

[evilsoup]

So if I say all black people are stupid, then people aren't allowed to be offended and call me an asshole because 'it's a joke'?

Good to know.

[Captain Seafort]

So if I say all black people are stupid, then people aren't allowed to be offended and call me an asshole because 'it's a joke'?

For the love of Christ...

If the joke in question is about inherent, unalterable traits (colour, sexuality, etc), then I call foul. If it's targeting idiots for being idiots, then anyone who wants to whinge can grow a thicker skin.

[Akhlut]

If they have to work longer or put in a little more under current proposals, are they STILL putting in less than their public sector contemporaries?

I don't have the time at the moment, but in the US, a lot of public sector employees are seeing their current wages and hours slashed because of funding cuts. So, if the conditions are similar in the UK, the public sector employees are in as much danger as private sector employees.

Edit: reread the article about having to work longer hours and pay more for their pensions.

Now that I reread the article, there is still the matter that such an alteration to their work schedules might be untenable. Teachers, for instance, regularly put in enormous hours anyway and it isn't unreasonable for a person to want some time for regular human desires, like "free time" and "leisure." And if there have already been such cuts in hours due to funding cuts and then the demands for more hours worked, well, that is probably paving the way for layoffs of public workers, which is bad for numerous reasons.

Clarkson would not have gone off on his rant IMO if the answer to both of those is YES. And he's closer to it than I am.

He's also a super-rich guy who makes a living by driving fast cars in front of cameras and making jokes of questionable taste. I'm not sure he is in necessarily a position to know better than people outside of the UK.

I think that his professed ire was over the top, but I can't help thinking that there's a kernel of resentment in his head based on facts.

Opinion does not equal facts. There's also the matter that it is quite easy for a Union to be defanged quite easily once it starts making too many concessions regarding its ability to bargain or for its members to be out on their ass if a few too many options are compromised away.

[Flagg]

So if I say all black people are stupid, then people aren't allowed to be offended and call me an asshole because 'it's a joke'?

For the love of Christ...

If the joke in question is about inherent, unalterable traits (colour, sexuality, etc), then I call foul. If it's targeting idiots for being idiots, then anyone who wants to whinge can grow a thicker skin.

So strikers are all idiots. And the idea of them being executed in front of their families is amusing to you? Or is it just that anyone offended by the idea of it is a whinger?

[Captain Seafort]

So strikers are all idiots. And the idea of them being executed in front of their families is amusing to you?

When it's coming from an individual whose entire public persona is one of exaggerated indignation with any political stance left of Attila the Hun? Fuck yes!

[Akhlut]

So strikers are all idiots. And the idea of them being executed in front of their families is amusing to you?

When it's coming from an individual whose entire public persona is one of exaggerated indignation with any political stance left of Attila the Hun? Fuck yes!

He can still be subject to being called a fascist dick, though. Words have consequences, even when they're jokes. Hence, why no one likes Carlos Mencia.

[MarshalPurnell]

BBC Report:

It comes after an exchange, on Wednesday, in which Mr Clarkson presented two views when asked about that day's strike over pensions by public sector workers:

"I think they have been fantastic. Absolutely. London today has just been empty. Everybody stayed at home, you can whizz about, restaurants are empty," he said
"It's also like being back in the 70s. It makes me feel at home somehow," said the Top Gear presenter, before adding: "But we have to balance this though, because this is the BBC."
Mr Clarkson went on: "Frankly, I'd have them all shot. I would take them outside and execute them in front of their families. I mean, how dare they go on strike when they have these gilt-edged pensions that are going to be guaranteed while the rest of us have to work for a living?"
When the presenters pointed out that these were Mr Clarkson's personal views, he said: "They're not. I've just given two views for you."

In his apology, Mr Clarkson said: "I didn't for a moment intend these remarks to be taken seriously - as I believe is clear if they're seen in context.

I do not see any reason to believe it was not intended as an over-the-top piss take rather than, as Flagg seems to think, some kind of political position. The relative value of the joke is in the eye of the beholder, but presenting it as something other than bad taste does not fit the context of what he was saying.

[Flagg]

BBC Report:

It comes after an exchange, on Wednesday, in which Mr Clarkson presented two views when asked about that day's strike over pensions by public sector workers:

"I think they have been fantastic. Absolutely. London today has just been empty. Everybody stayed at home, you can whizz about, restaurants are empty," he said
"It's also like being back in the 70s. It makes me feel at home somehow," said the Top Gear presenter, before adding: "But we have to balance this though, because this is the BBC."
Mr Clarkson went on: "Frankly, I'd have them all shot. I would take them outside and execute them in front of their families. I mean, how dare they go on strike when they have these gilt-edged pensions that are going to be guaranteed while the rest of us have to work for a living?"
When the presenters pointed out that these were Mr Clarkson's personal views, he said: "They're not. I've just given two views for you."

In his apology, Mr Clarkson said: "I didn't for a moment intend these remarks to be taken seriously - as I believe is clear if they're seen in context.

I do not see any reason to believe it was not intended as an over-the-top piss take rather than, as Flagg seems to think, some kind of political position. The relative value of the joke is in the eye of the beholder, but presenting it as something other than bad taste does not fit the context of what he was saying.

Why can't it be both? I mean he clearly dislikes the strikers or he'd never have said such a thing.

[evilsoup]

So the original article was misleading (so was the ITV news clip I saw, which apparently selectively edited what he said). I withdraw what I said about Clarkson, in context that's actually pretty funny.

Flagg, from this latest article it looks more like he's taking the piss out of the BBC's impartiality rules than anything else.

[Crown]

I have a question; if Dame Edna Everage had made these comments, would you be equally as upset and outraged?

[Flagg]

I'd be outraged at whomever made the comments. Joke or not.

[Simon_Jester]

You're shifting the goalposts, Simon. England's economy is in shit shape, relatively speaking, like the rest of the Western economies. Public sector employees can, by and large, count on being employed continuously by a government agency for 10, 20 or 30 years. Is what they get out of it NOW better than the pension (and, for the sake of argument, the English equivalent of Social Security) that non-governmental workers receive? If they have to work longer or put in a little more under current proposals, are they STILL putting in less than their public sector contemporaries? Clarkson would not have gone off on his rant IMO if the answer to both of those is YES. And he's closer to it than I am.

I think that his professed ire was over the top, but I can't help thinking that there's a kernel of resentment in his head based on facts.

For public servants who signed on with the understanding that certain benefits would be there, and now find that they are not there, there is an understandable sense of betrayal and dismay. While I recognize that there may need to be adjustments to pension plans and benefits, they really ought to be handled carefully- there are a lot of government expenses other than pension plans and employee benefits that don't involve such a direct case of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Chocula, I think you're missing the historical pattern. We've seen the private-sector pension downsized, cut, carved up and taken apart systematically over the past few decades. Does it make sense to then complain that public-sector pensions haven't been?

This reminds me of that quote Akhlut uses as his sig:

"A unionized public employee, a member of the tea party, and a CEO are sitting at a table. In the middle of the table is a plate with a dozen cookies. The CEO reaches across and takes 11 cookies, turns to the Tea Partier and says 'look out for that union guy, he wants a piece of your cookie!'"

To extend the metaphor: I can understand the need to reduce the size of the cookie-piece guaranteed to unionized public employees, now that so many of the existing cookies are gone and eaten. But I think that going into hysterics over how terribly, terribly much of our precious, tiny reserve of remaining cookies goes to unionized public employees is shooting ourselves in the foot.

The savings will not, by and large, benefit the common taxpayer, and the cost will. The cost is a decline in the average caliber of individual willing to work in the public sector (since things like job security and benefits are powerful draws that help compensate for the red tape and limited salaries in the public sector). Drowning government in the bathtub hasn't worked in the US, it won't work in Britain, and if doing it isn't your goal then there's a pretty sharp limit on how critical it makes sense to be about public sector pension plans. There are bigger-ticket items on the budget than those.

[Teebs]

I'm pretty sure accrued benefits are not being affected by the changes, so it's not quite on the level of taking away something that people have already earned.

[Starglider]

For public servants who signed on with the understanding that certain benefits would be there, and now find that they are not there, there is an understandable sense of betrayal and dismay.

Reality is seeping into the public sector bubble, oh no poor things.

Chocula, I think you're missing the historical pattern. We've seen the private-sector pension downsized, cut, carved up and taken apart systematically over the past few decades. Does it make sense to then complain that public-sector pensions haven't been?

Final salary pensions are inherently unfair and immoral. Average salaray pensions are at least fair but still operate on the delusion that future income will only go up, and it is far too tempting for both company directors and politicians to act like pension promises are free; because they will be long gone by the time they have to be paid. The current conservative government is somewhat remarkable in actually seeming to care what will happen in 20 years time, although of course this is largely due to the close watch Britain is under by the bond vigilantes. Defined contribution pensions are fair and realistic, in that they don't try to pretend that the world is predictable or that anything can be made risk free, and concentrate on actual reserved assets instead of unbacked promises.

The savings will not, by and large, benefit the common taxpayer, and the cost will. The cost is a decline in the average caliber of individual willing to work in the public sector

I'm not sure that's possible. There are a lot of well qualified people unemployed at the moment. Considering that a large fraction of current public sector workers were hired during Labour's ridiculous spending spree when unemployment was relatively low, and were mostly people who were unemployable in the private sector, we would almost certainly see a net increase in talent if we fired the bottom 25% of public sector workers and rehired from the currently unemployed.

(since things like job security and benefits are powerful draws that help compensate for the red tape and limited salaries in the public sector).

They are powerful draws for people who want a job where they won't be fired no matter how badly they perform, and know they'd never get a performance benfit in the private sector so go after fixed entitlements instead. These are not people we want to attract to any job. The recent unrest is largely because for the first time since Thatcher, public sector workers are actually at risk of being fired (although of course with massively generous severance compared to private sector workers).

Drowning government in the bathtub hasn't worked in the US, it won't work in Britain

The UK has very few people who want to get rid of the government; the group of colleagues I mentioned earlier all dislike the public sector (or at least their stereotype of it), but they pretty much all want to reform it into working practices and attitude similar to the private sector rather than eliminate it. I broadly agree with that part; I would happily pay government workers a lot more if they were correspondingly more productive.

[aerius]

You can argue about pensions all you want, but the bottom line is this - can they be paid for in a sustainable manner? If not, then you're going to have to sit down and work out the contribution increases and/or benefit cuts needed to make it so. Who cares if the public sector is getting more than the private sector or whatever, if they can pay for & fund it, great, if not they're going to get creamed and the only question is when. Working out the funding is basic high school math, if you can't figure out whether your employer's pension plan is sustainable and good for the money, you're an idiot and you're going to get what you deserve.

As for getting your cookies eaten, let's just say public worker pension plans aren't exactly poor. The Ontario Teachers Pension Plan for instance has well over $100 billion in assets which is significantly more than the market cap of Royal Bank of Canada, the largest & richest corporation in the entire country. Yet they still cry all the time about being underpaid and not getting enough benefits, going on strike every few years to demand more of everything.

[Sephirius]

Flagg overreacts, needs sarcasm detector recalibration. Film at eleven:

Matt Baker [presenter]: Well Jeremy, schools, hospitals, airports, even driving tests, have all been affected. Do you think the strikes have been a good idea?

Jeremy Clarkson [guest]: I think they have been fantastic. Absolutely. London today has just been empty. Everybody stayed at home, you can whizz about, restaurants are empty.

Alex Jones [presenter]: The traffic, actually, has been very good today.

Jeremy Clarkson: Airports, people streaming through with no problems at all. And it's also like being back in the 70s. It makes me feel at home somehow.

Matt Baker: Do you know anyone who has been on strike today?

Jeremy Clarkson: Of course I don't, no. What, somebody public service? No, I don't. No, absolutely. But we have to balance this though, because this is the BBC.

Matt Baker: Yes, exactly.

Jeremy Clarkson: Frankly, I'd have them all shot. I would take them outside and execute them in front of their families. I mean, how dare they go on strike when they have these gilt-edged pensions that are going to be guaranteed while the rest of us have to work for a living?

Matt Baker: Well, on that note of balancing an opinion, of course those are Jeremy's views.

Alex Jones: Only Jeremy's views.

Jeremy Clarkson: They're not. I've just given two views for you.

[Starglider]

Who cares if the public sector is getting more than the private sector or whatever, if they can pay for & fund it, great, if not they're going to get creamed and the only question is when.

The assumption of the public sector is that their benefits can always be funded simply by raising taxes. Public sector unions and civil service middle managers in particular see the private sector i.e. the majority of workers as something to be ruthlessly strip-mined for their benefit. In that sense they are pretty similar to the financial elite; obviously they get less individually but there are a lot more of them.

[Flagg]

Flagg overreacts, needs sarcasm detector recalibration. Film at eleven:

Matt Baker [presenter]: Well Jeremy, schools, hospitals, airports, even driving tests, have all been affected. Do you think the strikes have been a good idea?

Jeremy Clarkson [guest]: I think they have been fantastic. Absolutely. London today has just been empty. Everybody stayed at home, you can whizz about, restaurants are empty.

Alex Jones [presenter]: The traffic, actually, has been very good today.

Jeremy Clarkson: Airports, people streaming through with no problems at all. And it's also like being back in the 70s. It makes me feel at home somehow.

Matt Baker: Do you know anyone who has been on strike today?

Jeremy Clarkson: Of course I don't, no. What, somebody public service? No, I don't. No, absolutely. But we have to balance this though, because this is the BBC.

Matt Baker: Yes, exactly.

Jeremy Clarkson: Frankly, I'd have them all shot. I would take them outside and execute them in front of their families. I mean, how dare they go on strike when they have these gilt-edged pensions that are going to be guaranteed while the rest of us have to work for a living?

Matt Baker: Well, on that note of balancing an opinion, of course those are Jeremy's views.

Alex Jones: Only Jeremy's views.

Jeremy Clarkson: They're not. I've just given two views for you.

Read the article I posted and try to come to a different conclusion without being a total fuckwit.

[Mr. Tickle]

I'm a civil servant (I work for HMRC).

Frankly Clarkson is just becoming a parody of himself, regardless of it was meant in jest, it was in very poor taste and not even that funny.

I've just had 2 year of pay freeze (I'm on the lowest level of the pay scale which that started, about 22k per year, the pay scale below had a £250 pay rise in the last year). Now we are going to have least a further 2 years of a 1% pay rise (which is just the cap in fact, so its likely going to be less than that). There's also plans to introduce a "regional" element to future pay deals to help stablise labour markets or some shit, basically it'll mean as I work in the north east my pay will go up less than someone in the south east for example.

On top of that because I am deemed to be "high earning" the pension changes mean I think I'll be paying another 3% into my pension which I'll have to work likely a further 7 years to get, which is now switched to career average rather than final salary AND increased in line with the lower inflation measure, CPI (I think, it might be RPI, but its the lower of the two measures).

So all in all, with inflation going at the rate it is and the increased pension contrib I'm going to have to make my earnings will be destroyed in a few years time. Luckly I've got parents who did well out of the housing bubble to help me, but others aren't so lucky...

Oh well.. at least we've all in this together... roll on the big society... etc etc

[Count Chocula]

Okay, so Flagg has been given context and content and is still on the JC is a FC riff. No conceding that the OT title is overblown, not even the possibility admitted that his reactions have been overblown. He didn't address the questions raised on the level of benefit England's public employees get, though others have stepped up admirably. It is clear to me, now, that Flagg simply has no sense of humor. That's sad. See me shed a tear.