Proof Waxy is a Daily Mail-reading nut

James H · Mon 10 Nov, 2008 13.55

So, Ross is thinking of suing the BBC for broadcasting his filth? That's probably the funniest thing to ever come from his direction.

That's rather like a burglar suing the owner of the house he broke into because they called the police. I hope he does try to sue them, it would be the prefect excuse to never employ his again when he loses.

Ross and Brand broke the law by making obscene phone calls. The fact that some of them were broadcast is largely irrelevant.

What they did wasn't comedic or remotely clever.

I have nothing against shopping channels, but I do hope that is the only place Ross is likely to be seen in the future.
- Stuart, Plymouth, UK, 10/11/2008 12:50

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -down.html

Nini · Mon 10 Nov, 2008 13.58

We need proof?

Sput · Mon 10 Nov, 2008 14.02

What an odd post. I don't think it was suggested that he was considering it, just that it was an avenue. As I understand it, them broadcasting it despite some objections (apparently from Jonathan Ross and Manuel) would leave them open to being sued for loss of earnings because it was their procedural fumble.

Nini · Mon 10 Nov, 2008 14.05

I hope he does try to sue them, it would be the prefect excuse to never employ his again when he loses.

His writing skills need work.

Sput · Mon 10 Nov, 2008 16.47

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ceman.html

I'm finding this sublime. They're trying their hardest to make Jeremy Clarkson out to be obscene because he held a middle finger up near an american policeman but even the Mail's own readers won't bite!

Jovis · Mon 10 Nov, 2008 17.42

Whether it was funny or clever couldn't be further from the point, so well done on that Plymouth.

Though I highly doubt that you'll post in this thread - but because I've said that you now will.

Alexia · Mon 10 Nov, 2008 21.19

At risk of this turning into a Daily Mail-bashing thread (not that one is not already overdue), they try to imply that "spear chucker" is a racist term:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ucker.html

Good quote half way down mind, given that Tessa Sanderson is female:
But ITV have announced that the presenter has accepted his wording was unwise, and has personally contacted Sanderson to ask his forgiveness.

I think the Daily Mail mistaking Sanderson's gender is a tad more offensive.

Chie · Mon 10 Nov, 2008 21.32

Daily Mail readers love Jeremy Clarkson (although not in a gay way obviously) so I don't understand why the paper's suddenly turned against their hero.

Charlie Wells · Tue 11 Nov, 2008 08.20

Chie wrote:Daily Mail readers love Jeremy Clarkson (although not in a gay way obviously) so I don't understand why the paper's suddenly turned against their hero.

Interestingly it would seem that the article (linked earlier in thread) no longer works and you get an error screen...

Sorry...

The page you have requested does not exist or is no longer available.

...I guess someone has had a u-turn after seeing the reader's reaction in favour of Clarkson.

Gavin Scott · Tue 11 Nov, 2008 08.47

Charlie Wells wrote:
Chie wrote:Daily Mail readers love Jeremy Clarkson (although not in a gay way obviously) so I don't understand why the paper's suddenly turned against their hero.
Interestingly it would seem that the article (linked earlier in thread) no longer works and you get an error screen...
Sorry...

The page you have requested does not exist or is no longer available.
...I guess someone has had a u-turn after seeing the reader's reaction in favour of Clarkson.

Ha! So they're only morally outraged when they think its what their readers want?

Fucking whores.

Sput · Tue 11 Nov, 2008 09.04

I'd say they only stir up the outrage when they think they can. This was a bit of a miscalculation.

What's really sinister is that they never directly attack the person they're attacking, but hide behind "x was hurled into ANOTHER row". Much like "some people say" on Fox News, no-one but them is actually saying it.