Who are they to judge that though? Who made them moral gatekeepers (besides themselves obviously)?

At least the reaction to Jeremy Clarkson's apology has done the Royals a great favour though, as it shows how the dreadful couple would react if the Royal Family went ahead and played their little game. Ignoring them completely is by far the best treatment, which is what Jeremy Clarkson should have done too.

haha, long time ago and it was not about morals. It's about "you broke this in my house", "I had to hide your car keys and you insulted everyone", "you pissed on...____". One comes with a juvenile explanation about serving too generously the last beer from the pitcher and friends are like "nope, it's every time". So, ended having a long conversation with the mirror (metaphorically).

Same thing happened to Mr. Clarkson's story about not thinking really well in 1 column, being rushed to write 1 time. Nope, it's every time.

Asking to the mainstream media to forget about them? hahahahaha. What would the Sun publish instead?

Oh come on TC, it wasn't long ago that you said that Western religions (aka Christianity) were the moral gatekeepers of Western society. (In intent if not the same phrasing).

So who made Christianity the moral gate keepers?
(would you like an answer to that?)

So clearly the comparison of religion and wokism has been a massive trigger for you. I can see why because it seems this nouveau culture of plazzy god-botherers follow their own brand of Convenient Christianity, and calling it out clearly touches a nerve. Selective forgiveness, generosity, humanity and humility seem to be the new cornerstones followed, terms and conditions apply. All held together with a tissue-thin fabric of hypocrisy.

You are comparing two completely different situations. Clarkson launched an unprovoked and vile attack detailing his "cellular level" hatred and wishing humiliation on her (prompting death threats towards her), and rightly apologised. The Sussexes believe (rightly or wrongly - we're not to judge cos we're not plazzy Christians, right?) that they have been wronged by their own families and the press, and don't seem to be looking for any apology, just an open dialogue. HTH.

Ummm... where did Clarkson call for her death?

What Clarkson said was foul, but he apparently didn't call for her death.
Harry does appear to be seeking an apology from the royal family.

Correction. Yes, I should have clarified that it provoked death threats towards her in the wake of the article, not him directly wishing her dead.

Clarkson is a loudmouthed tw@t and deserves to be cancelled.

For many years he epitomised the loudmouth, agressive lad culture that Brits are proud of - good riddance to him.

Alternatively, he is a highly entertaining, intelligent and successful man, who should have the right of free speech just like any other person.

I'm not saying I agree with everything he says, or that I am a sycophant of his. But labelling him like that is just one point of view. Having read his columns and articles in The Sunday Times for many many years I have to say I admire his writing and intellect very much.

Putin has been cancelled from the WEF.

He does have the right of free speech... Just like others have the right to choose to not like him for what he says.

Fun thing is that a significant amount of WEF VIPs have been cancelled by armed insurrections, executions, in jail...that kind of stuff.

I agree to a point but I found the article about Meghan Markle pretty unforgivable. Not sure what it says about people who cheered this on under the guise of "freedom of speech", though. Similarly, the incident that got him turfed out of the BBC was also indefensible.


Agree with this, too. He's a decent journo - just a shame he can't keep his temper and bitterness under control.

You should see some of the things that have been written about Jeremy Clarkson over the past 30 years. Was any consideration given to his children?
Tbf, he is a successful conservative white man so is considered fair game.

This is the business, if you can't stand the heat then stay out of the kitchen. In the end they're only words.

Just the 2000 years of history Tom, or are you still pretending to yourself that the moral standards we enjoy in the West just sprung up out of thin air?

I'm not sure about "he can't"; I think his style was highly acceptable even admired when he was a younger lad and times have changed. And he can't keep up with these changes. Maybe this is part of that "lad culture" someone else was talking about?

Did anyone write a whole article about stripping him naked, parading him through the streets and throwing shit at him?

Did anyone write an article urging someone to drag him out of his house into the street and shoot him in front of his family, simply for striking for better pay?

"Conservative white male" seems to be synonymous for feeling entitled to use a public platform to spew whatever hateful shite that pops into your mind.

Is that all part of your "moral standards" you are "enjoying in the west". How delightful.

There are many countries with high moral standards in the world which have no Christianity.

But if, as you say, it is all down to Christianity then it's certainly got a lot to answer for including the slave trade, plundering other countries, lynching black people.

Or are you just going to cherry pick?

Moral standards?

Like the way Catholics Spaniards who landed in North America tortured and raped and burned alive the indigenous population, including the children, if they didn't convert to Christianity? Or how about burning women alive out of the delusional belief that they were witches? Or the many, many Christians who enslaved black people for hundreds of years?

Or maybe you'd prefer to live in a world where people stone their children to death?



Religion isn't necessary for morals. Empathy and compassion are.

They sprang from the ability to curb the influence of predominant religion, its cultural influence and its political power. So to clear this once and for all: the moral standards of West are based on the society that broke free from morals based on the religion and not on the superiority of its religion (which happened to be Christianity).

And for Clark, he is just becoming more and more boring and bitter. A difference between a witty critic of society and a jerk is not in his/her worlds but in his/her moral standards. And by Clark we can find out with each incident, that he doesn't have much to offer.

This just simply isn't true though is it? What are human rights, if not a derivative from of Christianity? They're not self-evident there's no reason for them, certainly not in the time in which they were conceived.

A strange side effect of wokism and "edgy" atheism is denying history that is so obviously true. In doing so sawing off the branch of the tree that they're sitting on.