Jeremy Clarkson V Bbc.

[tonyav]

He's instructed lawyers over Jimmy Savile smear. I don't blame him either.
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/jeremy-clarkson-instructs-lawyers-over-jimmy-savile-smear/ar-BBilcdP

[Baldric]

Don't blame him, that was well out of order!

[ToraToraTora]

Yep right out of order that.

[ummmm]

Agree...

[mazie]

Me too. I think he might just tell them to shove Top Gear where the sun don't shine !

[anotheoldgit]

The source isn't actually saying that Clarkson is just as bad as Saville, they are just saying that the approach taken towards Clarkson, is just the same as the approach taken over Saville.

/// The source said that politicians - including the Prime Minister - were turning a blind eye to Clarkson's bad behaviour, in the same way as people once did with Savile, the now notorious paedophile. ///

[ummmm]

So you should approach someone who puts his foot in it in the same manner as a serial paedophile.

[ToraToraTora]

Yes AOG but any association with Saville is toxic, he's right to set the lawyers on it.

[ichkeria]

What actually IS the "smear"?
I don't think anyone actually compared this individual to Savile at all did they? Just the response. Which seemed reasonable and understandable.
Still, it keeps the laywers in business I suppose and Clarkson in the news

[Baldric]

I can see, to some degree, what was meant by the remark, but there is no comparison between a minor spat in a Hotel dining room and Savile's antics whatsoever and it could give completely the wrong idea to the casual reader who was not familiar with JC.

///The source said that politicians - including the Prime Minister - were turning a blind eye to Clarkson's bad behaviour, in the same way as people once did with Savile, the now notorious paedophile.///

[ludwig]

The funny thing is, it's exactly the kind of thing he'd say himself.

[tonyav]

I wouldn't want my name mentioned in the same sentence as that nasty serial paedophile, aog. Therefore I don't blame him at all for taking legal action.

[andy-hughes]

The comparison was odious, ill-considered and deeply insulting - and for anyone is a position of any influence to be able to think that it is acceptable to say something like that should cause deep concern for that individual's colleagues and employers.

I am right behind JC on this - people in senior positions should think before they open their mouths to the media.

[ichkeria]

If people wish to misconstrue things that is their lookout
There was a headline in a recent Daily Mail which - as far as I can see - wilfully did just that so as to give a completely misleading impression of what was said,. If anyone should be attracting the attentions of legal folk, I suggest it should be that headline writer. Bit of course I realise it doesn't work like that and powerful people with their ear close to Number 10, or with a plainly enjoy an "immunity" the rest of us do not

[ToraToraTora]

The thing is ichk that any kind of comparison, however tenuous, with Saville is going to associate the target with paedophillia. We know what the person meant, but that's not what the masses will see or realise. It's like comparing a dog lover with Hitler who also loved his dog. Apologies for awaking godwins law!

[ichkeria]

There was no comparison: unless someone can find it.
Where did anyone say that Clarkson was like Savile? The trouble is that misleading media coverage has confused things in people's heads - as I say, we are on dangerous ground here

[ichkeria]

"It's like comparing a dog lover with Hitler who also loved his dog. Apologies for awaking godwins law! "

Dead right: and that would plainly be silly. And so is this

[ToraToraTora]

"There was no comparison: unless someone can find it.
Where did anyone say that Clarkson was like Savile?" - that is exctly what the comparison was, I cannot find the original article but in order to throw Lawyers at it they must have clear evidence so it's out there.