Jeff Bezos - Fire Transphobic Jeremy Clarkson Planet Transgender!!!

In what could only be described as a nightmare former Top Gear presenter, Jeremy Clarkson sought out parents of a transgender girl at a birthday party where he was a guest and proceeded to assail them with a transphobic rant. It is not known if the transgender girl was present but the friends who invited him said they were shocked.
According to News Au.com Clarkson wanted to tell the parents that they were "free to live a lunatic life" but they shouldn't "be allowed to poison the mind of a child."
Clarkson said as far as he was concerned, transgender people were “only found on the internet or in the seedier bits of Bangkok”.
“They were called ladyboys, and in my mind, they were nothing more than the punchline in a stag night anecdote,” he wrote in the piece.
Fresh from being fired from Top Gear after allegedly assaulting a producer, Jeremy Clarkson has just begun filming at Amazon Prime doing a car show which will be available online in the US, UK, Germany and Austria.
Amazon which just begun overcoming a transphobic past has now earned a corporate rating of 85% by HRC while expanding their operations presumably in a bid to attract the best talent.
Employing Clarkson is contrary to Amazon's own Corporate smile policy.
We are outraged about Jeremy Clarkson's inexcusable behaviour and are curious if Amazon wants such a man to damage their hard earned reputation and position in the marketplace.
Jeremy Clarkson goes to great lengths to make a point that he lives without concern for others rendering him basically irredeemable.

We implore Amazon to fire Jeremy Clarkson .

https://www.change.org/p/jeff-bezos-...eremy-clarkson

That man is a prize tit.
Think I could punch him til my arms got tired.

Here is the full article Clarkson wrote for The Sunday Times in case anyone wants to read it before they head to the petition page:

http://failover-www.thesundaytimes.c...le1659305.html

Having just read the article it would appear people have been reading headlines and jumping to conclusions.

I'm no Clarkson fan but the final point he makes doesn't seem bad at all:

But then I thought of something. Let’s just say for a moment that one in 1,000 are transgender. Or one in 100,000. Or even that it’s actually just one. Let’s say that there is one person out there who is a woman living in a man’s body, or the other way around.

I started to imagine what life might be like for the poor soul. It would be dreadful. Absolutely awful. And all they seem to want to make their life better is a third gender option box on official documents. That’s not really the end of the world for everyone else, is it?

I'd love to know how many people who signed the petition read the above; and how many just went it's Clarkson I'm signing that.

Kill Clarksonaaarrrrggghhhh ... Oh wait. Nvrmnd.

Its pathetic the lengths some people go to assassinate the character of people they don't like. Fuckin' wankers.

JC said nothing wrong.

I agree that the last few paragraphs are reasonable. I don't really understand where the beginning part of his analysis fits in with these last paragraphs except to explain the progression of his views.

Perhaps he was saying that once upon a time he held antiquated, insensitive views about ts individuals and has since developed more sensitive and progressive views. Was the end part signalling that he repudiated the previous statements (all the shit about people with napoleon complexes and french outfits) or that he believes a little bit of everything he wrote but is coming around?

Because the beginning paragraphs really did sound like obnoxious nonsense....which would be fine if his point at the end was to say that he had been wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

I agree that the last few paragraphs are reasonable. I don't really understand where the beginning part of his analysis fits in with these last paragraphs except to explain the progression of his views.

Perhaps he was saying that once upon a time he held antiquated, insensitive views about ts individuals and has since developed more sensitive and progressive views. Was the end part signalling that he repudiated the previous statements (all the shit about people with napoleon complexes and french outfits) or that he believes a little bit of everything he wrote but is coming around?

Because the beginning paragraphs really did sound like obnoxious nonsense....which would be fine if his point at the end was to say that he had been wrong.

---

I read it to be a progression of views. And whilst some of what he has said has been reported as actually happening it read to me more like here are extreme things I contemplated or could have done but I thought about it and this is the point I've reached mentally. Opinion pieces like that are a bit like essays; if you read the parts of the argument without getting to the conclusion you really will miss the point. Something which I think in the midst of their general Clarkson dislike many people have done.

Ironic really judging someone/or their opinions on an incomplete picture - much like he said he did/could have done had he not stopped to consider how much the issue matters to even just one person (in this case of course - I'm not excusing him from other discretions).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

I agree that the last few paragraphs are reasonable. I don't really understand where the beginning part of his analysis fits in with these last paragraphs except to explain the progression of his views.

Perhaps he was saying that once upon a time he held antiquated, insensitive views about ts individuals and has since developed more sensitive and progressive views. Was the end part signalling that he repudiated the previous statements (all the shit about people with napoleon complexes and french outfits) or that he believes a little bit of everything he wrote but is coming around?

Because the beginning paragraphs really did sound like obnoxious nonsense....which would be fine if his point at the end was to say that he had been wrong.

---

Yes, I think that's exactly what he's saying: he's starting to to denounce dogma and maybe even that it's better to follow the old wiccan rede of 'an it harm none, do what ye will'. I think Clint Eastwood; known misogynist, bigot, and all-round uber white Conservative tough-guy did similar through his movies starting with Million Dollar Baby. Like he suddenly realized that what he'd been preaching for years in movies like Dirty Harry was really just a single possibly flawed point of view and he's tried to balance things somewhat by making movies about strong women (Million Dollar Baby), misunderstood immigrants (Gran Torino), and showing both sides of an historical event that's often just portrayed as a rah rah America great moment (Flags of Our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima)

We're capable of adjusting our thinking and adapting to change without bemoaning the end of anything. Maybe Jeremy's doing such or maybe he's just taking the piss.......he is English after all.

.......someone better throw some flame retardant on Seanchai's skirts ;)

Insensitive claptrap from the prize tit, with a truly cringeworthy mini-back track at the end. Luckily for him, my ignorant right wing colleagues ensure his income by buying into his asinine games.

I've just read that and can't really see what the fuss is about.

It's Clarkson. What were you expecting? He's just a polemicist for the masses. He's no Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins; just a middle-aged bloke who still smokes, wears jeans, and takes a swing at the occasional TV producer ... ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by simes

Insensitive claptrap from the prize tit, with a truly cringeworthy mini-back track at the end. Luckily for him, my ignorant right wing colleagues ensure his income by buying into his asinine games.

---

Sounds very much like you are another who having made up your mind about the man have also decided that anything he ever says is objectionable.

It's so refreshing how open minded people can be isn't it...

Not true. I have found the man amusing and exasperating in equal measure. This I find to be spurious and trying a little too hard to be controversial, which is odd when you consider how easy he has found controversy in the past. Some of his writing has been genuinely witty, but unfortunately he sees himself as some purveyor of truths only he has the courage to speak. Like AA Gill, his best is a long way behind him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by runningdownthatdream

.......someone better throw some flame retardant on Seanchai's skirts ;)

---

I'd read the full article. The copy in my OP was from the online petition. His last line means nothing, he's not coming back from claiming parents were 'lunatics' or comparing transsexuals to believing they were 'Napoleon' by stating, 'well if they just want an extra box on the form, I can accept that'.

Anyone who knows me, knows I'm not one for political correctness, for bending to liberal social justice warriors on whims. But while this sort of copy is out there, and while he's a celebrity which loads of 'blokes' follow all around the world, then it just helps perpetuate transsexuals as jokes or freaks. And if that's how you feel, then you're really on the wrong board.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shelf

I've just read that and can't really see what the fuss is about.

It's Clarkson. What were you expecting? He's just a polemicist for the masses. He's no Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins; just a middle-aged bloke who still smokes, wears jeans, and takes a swing at the occasional TV producer ... ;)

---

And has an audience in which people think his views are acceptable. Some are funny. I enjoy a lot of Top Gear. Other views, simply aren't. If you've got that platform, you have to respect it and what you state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GroobySteven

If you've got that platform, you have to respect it and what you state.

---

He's paid to offend or provoke outrage. As a reader, you should expect to be outraged. There's a big market these days for complaining about stuff on social media. Clarkson is merely feeding the beast. I'm not going to let his unpalatable views spoil my day ... ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shelf

He's paid to offend or provoke outrage. As a reader, you should expect to be outraged. There's a big market these days for complaining about stuff on social media. Clarkson is merely feeding the beast. I'm not going to let his unpalatable views spoil my day ... ;)

---

They don't spoil my day but I'm also not going to condone his views - or not let my feelings be known about it. It's more palatable if he's stuck to a paper (like that horror Littlejohn) but when a progressive company like Amazon is hiring him, then they should think again.

For those who didn't click the link to the article, here is the very last two paragraphs...

"But then I thought of something. Let’s just say for a moment that one in 1,000 are transgender. Or one in 100,000. Or even that it’s actually just one. Let’s say that there is one person out there who is a woman living in a man’s body, or the other way around.
I started to imagine what life might be like for the poor soul. It would be dreadful. Absolutely awful. And all they seem to want to make their life better is a third gender option box on official documents. That’s not really the end of the world for everyone else, is it?"

To get to these last two segments, you had to read through the usual bullshit like male prisoners just wanting to be in a prison with women instead. Or as Seanchi referenced, the stupid comparison to people who think they are Napoleon (insinuating that it's just a mental disorder). Or the one that Mike Huckabee used here in the USA about boys just wanting to shower with girls at a girls school and "dream impossible dreams." It's not a human rights issue to him, its not a moral issue to him. We are all "transgender enthusiasts" who support them, people who have helped "poison" the minds of children, and adults.

So he makes an statement at the end supporting a third box. So what. He doesn't support it, he doesn't believe in it, he just is sick of hearing about it. And in the mean time, he is just as insulting and repulsive as ever. You won't change this caveman. But you can limit his influence, and if you're on this site, you should want to limit his influence.

Sign the damn petition.

"Sign the damn petition." From jeniferparishusband.

wow ow I think I'd prefer to make my own mind up thank you as I'm sure others would. You no better than JC demanding people fall in line with your instruction. Unbelievable. The hypocritical nature of some on her is truly shocking.

Jenifer I will sign the petition but because I want to not through you dictatorship demands.

The reality of this topic (regardless of people's opinions of the article) is that a petition will make no difference.

If a taxpayer funded very PC organisation such as the BBC opted not to fire Clarkson despite all the things he did wrong over the years a company like Amazon never will.

Clarkson's BBC contract was not renewed but was allowed to expire following an assault, even though at that point the BBC owned the format to the Top Gear cash cow they still chose not to sack him.

Anyone who thinks Amazon would choose to do something the BBC didn't because Amazon are worried about their image is simply deluded. If they were that image obsessed the massive complaints regarding their tax avoidance would be much more of an issue than one sub-contracted TV show content provider. Add in the fact this time issue is related to what (sadly) most Amazon customers will see as an unimportant minority there is simply no pressure for a company like Amazon to do anything.

If they were even the slightest bit concerned about image over money they would never have hired him in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maleforts

"Sign the damn petition." From jeniferparishusband.

wow ow I think I'd prefer to make my own mind up thank you as I'm sure others would. You no better than JC demanding people fall in line with your instruction. Unbelievable. The hypocritical nature of some on her is truly shocking.

Jenifer I will sign the petition but because I want to not through you dictatorship demands.

---

Dictatorship demands? Perhaps the first section referencing an earlier post might have hinted that this post was not directed at the particular asshole who decided to respond to it? But I'm glad you took such a stance on making up your own mind. Can you learn to take a stance on correct spelling & punctuation in the future? You know, so I can at least be able to pretend I'm having a conversation with someone possessing an IQ above 50.