Interesting that you and others on here continue to claim this when in reality the reverse is true.

Climate change is now fully backed by science and requires no belief, only the intelligence to understand facts.

Wheras climate change denial requires faith, the faith to ignore inconvenient facts.

It doesn't work like that. But never mind.

And even if they did, as you wrote, the fact that you used the past tense means they did and now they don't -perhaps when they realised how ludicrious they were.

Is the response proportional to the crime in this case ? He's put in what he thought would be a joke. He's overstepped the mark in today's more careful society. He has apologised and he wrote to them apologising, both of which he has done in public.

Note that he isnt a personality who is on the wane. Clarkson's farm is a roaring hit, he has been doing fine on Who Wants to be a Millionaire and his car series, The Grand Journey or something, has the original top gear crew in so I expect is popular. He was not about to be demoted to a C list celeb.

In response to that Harry and Meghan - who lets remember want to strive for making a change in the world to make a better society through their charitable foundation, have repeatedly declined to accept the apologies and put the full PR weight into trying to destroy his 40 year career in broadcasting and ensure every commercial provider he is with, ends their relationship with him.

Is the response proportional to the crime ? If it is, then ok, in today's society it is, but we must also strive to achieve that level of equality across every sector, where any controversial statement - whether misinterpreted or not - ensures that the person who said it, whether rock star, charity worker, peace activist or accountant - has absolutely no place in society from that point forward, has their career trashed and remains a pariah for their remaining days.

Harry and Meghan are obsessed with demonstrating their power, like a wizard from Harry Potter. This may have ugly sexism at the start of it, but the message from them is crystal clear: "Mess with us, pal, and we'll smash your face in".

I think that inadvertently backs up my point, to be honest. The courtesy of "proportional responses" were not extended to the Sussexes, and before them, the Cambridges and before them Diana. Massive hullabaloos were created over the slightest and most trivial of details.

Diana's hounding ceased only upon her death, whereupon those self-same rags changed their tune 180 degrees and elevated her to "the People's Princess". The hounding of "Waity Katey" only ceased when the press went too far and published topless photos of her and, besides, redirected their clickbait to the new, brown American on the scene. The Sussex package is just the relatively new clickbait subject on the scene. My guess is that the press will continue until the clickbait runs out or people stop clicking, then they'll move onto someone else. When does Prince George hit drinking age..?

I'm not sure you can put it down to "a more careful society". Writing vile shit like that about a woman would have been considered incredibly poor taste even in my grandparents' days. Perhaps even more so. I think the real difference is these days that it's somehow "cool" to be championing free speech with most of the cheerleaders confusing it with hate speech. The more hateful, the better.

Indeed:

Ok so I can understand you think the response is proportional to the crime. Prince Harry dressed up as a Nazi back in his earlier days. On a matter of principle here, not in reality as the event has passed, would your preference there been that he was cancelled, removed of his public duties and disappeared from view for the remainder of his life ?

The description he is also bringing to life is from Game of Thrones. Can you still watch this series ? Or was it stopped after this episode was broadcast ?

No. But then again I never once called for Clarkson to be "cancelled" either. Although I can understand that the likes of ITV and Amazon act for their business first and have to protect their brand. Maybe GB News will have him? That seems to be the final resting place for disgraced public figures that still have some kind of axe to grind and need the drug of an audience.

My whole point is that certain people just come across with a self-imposed and bold entitlement (and probably more than a bit of attention-seeking) to be a nasty and vile shit, and anyone who takes exception is a whining woke-ist.

You don't need religion to tell you not to be vile to others, nobody EVER needed religion for that. Object, disagree, outsmart, call stuff out, whatever. I just don't see the point of the utterly foul way that certain people with a public platform behave. I guess as long as there are enough people shuffling along after them simpering an apology and shutting down anyone who objects, it will continue if not escalate.

Harry's Nazi uniform and Clarkson's vile piece are two sides of the same ill-judged coin. Simple heartfelt apology and learn from it - don't do it again. Easy. It's only the media that draw it out and that's likely only to milk the profit angle of it.

Atheism isn't a 'thing'. It's neither cool, nor a fashion.

You could say things like: "Do you remember when people thought that fairies lived at the bottom of gardens?"

or "Do you remember in the fifties when many people in the U.S. thought they had been abducted by aliens?"

Those things were cool. Those things were fashionable.

Would you think that Not believing in alien abductions is now fashionable, edgy or cool?

Not believing in something that cannot be proven is just not the same as believing in something.

It seems like you are clutching at straws to to try and convince yourself of your own beliefs.
Believe what you want to believe but not believing in something where there is no proof, or logic, or explanation really isn't cool, fashionable or cult-like.

That's a bit dramatic. People lose contracts and get new ones.

Mr. Clarkson is the poster child of "cancel culture" not destroying careers. Only fired from BBC and swiftly picked up by Amazon. So, who's going to hire him next?

Ok so now we are more in agreement. I too think nasty and vile people with self imposed entitlement and a load of attention seeking should be banished and thats why Harry and Meghan should be gone from our lives. It's a pity that the apology from Clarkson hasn't been accepted so he will be cast, as you say, into the fate of GB News where the oldies go to die at the moment.

The sad part for me is the really damaging, vindictive people in the sorry saga, Harry and Meghan, who will happily imply that their family were a bunch of racists in an Oprah interview, then six months later once they've got the money out of it claim on a technicality that no one actually said the word "racist" so it was them being picked on again. This kind of society-level damaging statements, which give a globally negative impression of the UK for example, this is where people should be cast off into GB News, but they cleverly hide it behind the banner of being angels - something poor old Jeremy can't do im afraid, he's been found out and career wise now, he's finished.

It would be funny if Netflix drop H and M and hire him!

The fairies in my garden are seriously upset by the callous disregard of their existence you parade around the interwebs. Sources close to the fairy ring indicate recalling their ambassador to your garden is currently under heated discussion. Some radical elements have also suggested casting a rather horrible spell on you.

Reminds me of this throwaway page of the HHGTTG
https://sites.google.com/site/h2g2th...Index/c/410073

There is a fairy at the bottom of the garden by the name of Nuff.

"Fair enough"

Hmmm... Does not work without audio!

One month since Elon was voted out as Twitter chairman but he is still there

Today's newspapers claim 500 advertisers have abandoned Twitter so daily revenue is down 40% year on year and even then it was lossmaking.

The first giant interest payment on Elon's loan to buy Twitter is due in days.

I hear they talk very quietly.

Nuff said....

For all that it matters, I think the Brexit saga has been way more damaging in terms of negative impression than the Meghan and Harry saga, which looks more and more like a family affair. It also brings to spotlight Murdoch's media empire of which Clarkson is a product too, he's not only the product of the "lad culture" and how much this media has changed the public and the information channels.

Two columns written 3 months apart by the same columnist that perfectly illustrate the problem with Cancel Culture.

One handcuffed a man to a radiator and beat him with a chain, the other made a poorly conceived/received joke. Guess which one he is calling for cancellation?

Boy George’s criminal past shouldn’t stop him being on I’m A Celeb

https://metro.co.uk/2022/11/10/boy-g...eleb-17735962/

Offensive Jeremy Clarkson should have been consigned to the scrapheap years ago

https://metro.co.uk/2023/01/17/jerem...-ago-18117748/

If only it was so benign Tom.

New Atheism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism

__________________
Thou/Thee

I used to be militantly Atheist during my Uni years, possibly as a push back against the overtly religious surroundings I'd grown up in. After a while I just stop caring about what other people believe, as long as they're not forcing it on other people, something I myself was guilty of with Atheism.

The possibility that this exists doesn't mean it is a mainstream thing amongst moth athiests. However this part...

...certainly has my full support. I see no good reason why any religious view should occupy a privileged position in society, it should be a purely personal thing not forced on to everyone.