Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To ask what exactly Clarkson

897 replies

Nogbreaks · 19/12/2022 08:26

Feels Meghan has done to him to justify the vitriol and misogyny of that article he wrote where he’d like to see her naked and assaulted?

I mean WTF? How in earth did a major publication think that it was fine to publish his little sexual fantasy about hurting a woman like that?

I’m no fan of the Royals in any form, and could care less about their infighting, but why are we surprised that there is so much violence against women and girls when this kind of article by an influential man is seen as okay to write?
Where’s his description of a naked, vulnerable Harry being assaulted??

OP posts:
TheKeatingFive · 19/12/2022 14:53

How was she going to justify what she did

Because there was clearly a lot more going on in a relationship than one incident. Is that really that hard to grasp?

wincarwoo · 19/12/2022 14:54

TheKeatingFive · 19/12/2022 14:53

How was she going to justify what she did

Because there was clearly a lot more going on in a relationship than one incident. Is that really that hard to grasp?

That's no defence. Reverse the sexes here.

TheKeatingFive · 19/12/2022 14:55

I didn't say it was a 'defence' I said it was clearly complicated. He stopped supporting the charges against her, remember?

Rowthe · 19/12/2022 14:58

Nogbreaks · 19/12/2022 14:31

‘Someone higher up than him must be rattled for him to be issuing this half-arsed apology.’

has he? I can’t be bothered to look, I’m pretty sure it’s along the lines of it’s a joke, or he meant it light heartedly or some such balls. We women are famously unable to take a joke or understand ‘bants’
if he has made some excuse it’ll be because his agent and PR people are having a fit.

He hasnt apologised.

Hes just said something along the lines.

Oh dear I've upset people.

I'll be more careful next time.

wincarwoo · 19/12/2022 14:59

TheKeatingFive · 19/12/2022 14:55

I didn't say it was a 'defence' I said it was clearly complicated. He stopped supporting the charges against her, remember?

She would have had to defend her actions in court. I have no idea what the story is behind him dropping charges. There is more than one conclusion to be drawn from that.

TheKeatingFive · 19/12/2022 15:03

She would have had to defend her actions in court. I have no idea what the story is behind him dropping charges. There is more than one conclusion to be drawn from that.

Of course. Many complicated things to unpack that no doubt go far beyond that one incident. Things which never saw the light of day because she didn't make it to that point.

derxa · 19/12/2022 15:17

OllytheCollie · 19/12/2022 14:40

From the 'apology' and the column is it possible he really was trying to make a poor taste joke on himself that neither he nor his editors could see doesn't work because they all 'got' the joke. Presumably what he was saying was that the debate frames ridiculous stereotypes of him and old people like him as loathing Meghan to an unbelievable degree. Of course he doesn't really want to throw poo at her abd nor would he defend anyone who did. It's a classic reductio ad absurdam about her haters. On the other hand stereotyped young people think she had no agency and is an absolute victim of everything that happened (controlled by the palace and expected to embroider kittens). Again a reductio ad absurdam of Meghan's defenders. And actually the whole narrative is more complex than that. His tragedy is his 'joke' was so clever no one gets it. But also everyone who defends him is also undermining his argument, in that they are saying 'sure why shouldn't people publish articles saying they fantasise about inflicting violence on Meghan in the mainstream media, that's a completely normal opinion he's entitled to hold and not at all weird. Like the stuff they won't publish about covid vaccines or paedophiles running the White House'. When he was trying to argue the opposite. I almost feel sorry for him. But not really.

I get what you're saying. He's gone too far with his joke though.
My problem is with Game of Thrones . Why is such a mysoginistic show so popular?
Also one of the women mentioned in his article was Nicola Sturgeon who he apparently hates as much as Rose West. I can't stand Nicola but where is the outrage on her behalf? She's condemned the article in robust terms but just gets on with her business.

ReneBumsWombats · 19/12/2022 15:21

His tragedy is his 'joke' was so clever no one gets it.

Oh ffs. He's not fucking Hamlet.

Reindeersnooker · 19/12/2022 15:22

His so called joke doesn't make any difference whatsoever to the content or the decision to publish.

Untitledsquatboulder · 19/12/2022 15:23

TheKeatingFive · 19/12/2022 14:55

I didn't say it was a 'defence' I said it was clearly complicated. He stopped supporting the charges against her, remember?

Lots of women drop or won't support charges against the men who hit them. Doesn't mean the hitting is not abuse.

Roussette · 19/12/2022 15:23

ReneBumsWombats · 19/12/2022 15:21

His tragedy is his 'joke' was so clever no one gets it.

Oh ffs. He's not fucking Hamlet.

Agree.

I hate men like this. I've met many like this. They think they are so clever and cutting edge and funny. When in fact they are just outdated mysogynistic dinosaurs who should just fuck off. He's had too long on TV and in print, he's outstayed his welcome.

Reindeersnooker · 19/12/2022 15:26

OllytheCollie · 19/12/2022 14:40

From the 'apology' and the column is it possible he really was trying to make a poor taste joke on himself that neither he nor his editors could see doesn't work because they all 'got' the joke. Presumably what he was saying was that the debate frames ridiculous stereotypes of him and old people like him as loathing Meghan to an unbelievable degree. Of course he doesn't really want to throw poo at her abd nor would he defend anyone who did. It's a classic reductio ad absurdam about her haters. On the other hand stereotyped young people think she had no agency and is an absolute victim of everything that happened (controlled by the palace and expected to embroider kittens). Again a reductio ad absurdam of Meghan's defenders. And actually the whole narrative is more complex than that. His tragedy is his 'joke' was so clever no one gets it. But also everyone who defends him is also undermining his argument, in that they are saying 'sure why shouldn't people publish articles saying they fantasise about inflicting violence on Meghan in the mainstream media, that's a completely normal opinion he's entitled to hold and not at all weird. Like the stuff they won't publish about covid vaccines or paedophiles running the White House'. When he was trying to argue the opposite. I almost feel sorry for him. But not really.

No. This is an absurd reach and not in keeping with the tone of the article. Your interpretation is like an undergraduate literature student who doesn't yet realise you need to employ good judgement and discernment when applying a theory. You can't just make stuff up and your theory is not supported by the text. You also are left with the bare facts of what has been said being given the green light to be published which is appalling. Hate speech is not ok.

OllytheCollie · 19/12/2022 15:33

With respect @ReneBumsWombats I do literally make the same joke in that post - i.e. that you could almost feel sorry for him (but I don't). He isn't Hamlet - he might be Lear though given his daughter's response. None of this is OK. But the alternative explanation that he sat down and just wrote I want to fling poo at the Duchess of Sussex because I hate her even more than Rose West and Nicola Sturgeon with no irony intended is not plausible. This explanation makes sense of the facts. It doesn't make it funny because it is not funny and everyone who complains is entitled to do so and anyone who says he is entitled to his opinion is...well they have some pretty odd opinions. I am just trying to work out how an otherwise successful albeit generally horrible person could do something so stupid, and the best explanation is that he thought he was being clever.

ReneBumsWombats · 19/12/2022 15:35

OllytheCollie · 19/12/2022 15:33

With respect @ReneBumsWombats I do literally make the same joke in that post - i.e. that you could almost feel sorry for him (but I don't). He isn't Hamlet - he might be Lear though given his daughter's response. None of this is OK. But the alternative explanation that he sat down and just wrote I want to fling poo at the Duchess of Sussex because I hate her even more than Rose West and Nicola Sturgeon with no irony intended is not plausible. This explanation makes sense of the facts. It doesn't make it funny because it is not funny and everyone who complains is entitled to do so and anyone who says he is entitled to his opinion is...well they have some pretty odd opinions. I am just trying to work out how an otherwise successful albeit generally horrible person could do something so stupid, and the best explanation is that he thought he was being clever.

O, speak to me no more!

(Lord, what fools these mortals be.)

newnamethanks · 19/12/2022 15:35

Listening to Shelagh Fogarty on LBC. One of her callers has read JCs autobiography in which he details hideous levels of bullying he underwent at Repton. This didn't do him any harm, he says; it made him the man that he is.

ReneBumsWombats · 19/12/2022 15:36

newnamethanks · 19/12/2022 15:35

Listening to Shelagh Fogarty on LBC. One of her callers has read JCs autobiography in which he details hideous levels of bullying he underwent at Repton. This didn't do him any harm, he says; it made him the man that he is.

Why does everyone who says abuse didn't do them any harm also show in the same breath how much harm it did them?

derxa · 19/12/2022 15:42

ReneBumsWombats · 19/12/2022 15:35

O, speak to me no more!

(Lord, what fools these mortals be.)

Show quote history

Heaven forfend that a poster might be trying to understand why a person does the things they do.

ReneBumsWombats · 19/12/2022 15:44

derxa · 19/12/2022 15:42

Heaven forfend that a poster might be trying to understand why a person does the things they do.

Show quote history

And heaven forfend that anyone might counter what they're saying on a discussion forum.

Lord, what fools etc etc.

OllytheCollie · 19/12/2022 15:48

@Roussette I am uzzled as your point is pretty much exactly what I am saying. JC is trying to be clever, and failing, because he is not and could never be as clever as he thinks he is. That's basically been the shtick of his entire journalistic career. I don't think there's any defence in the fact people haven't seen the alleged 'joke', that is the defence he was making (and will go on to make, no one understands him, and then if his column or TV shows get cancelled there'll be handwringing broadsheet columns about it etc, Giles Coren has no doubt already had a couple of wanks before starting to write this Saturday's column about it, and a few no-marks at the DM will be getting ready to appear on TalkTV to elaborate their explanations of why talking about your own life on Netflix is absolutely unacceptable but saying you want to fling poo at the Duchess of Sussex is perfectly OK in a free society). Actually we all win if JC never publishes another word or presents another TV programme because it establishes that beyond beating people up at work (which just means you have to change jobs) there are standards of behaviour and speech we as a society cannot tolerate. I was simply pointing up the irony that the one thing I think we can probably say with some confidence, especially if you know (as it appears we both do) the group of sneery, misogynistic privileged men who think 'jokes' like this are funny is that JC has not literally fantasised about hurting the Duchess of Sussex. He just doesn't have the moral courage to care if anyone else does or to take responsibility for the consequences of his speech.

Roussette · 19/12/2022 15:53

Don't be puzzled. We agree in a roundabout way. You condemn his article. I condemn his article

Rosieroe · 19/12/2022 16:00

I am so angered by this misogynistic oaf and by everyone who thought it was okay to put his filthy outpourings into print. Not only because it degrades all women but particularly because it has given the Harkles (who I can’t stand) their best Christmas present ever: verification of what they have been saying about the British press. I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that Clarkson and his backers will be sued. Stupid stupid stupid. He deserves to be cancelled. 😡

TheKeatingFive · 19/12/2022 16:05

Lots of women drop or won't support charges against the men who hit them. Doesn't mean the hitting is not abuse.

And ... I didn't suggest anything different

Beachbabe1 · 19/12/2022 16:07

Please sign the petition to have him sacked from The Sun!!!

BearWoman · 19/12/2022 16:11

Utterly despicable.

FrippEnos · 19/12/2022 16:45

TheKeatingFive · 19/12/2022 16:05

Lots of women drop or won't support charges against the men who hit them. Doesn't mean the hitting is not abuse.

And ... I didn't suggest anything different

But you are defending her and have posted that there must have been something else going on.

Swipe left for the next trending thread