Clarkson to be sued - I hope

[JohnL]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Alan Medic Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Not in mine. You hit someone (not too badly),

> swear at them, abuse their nationality and they

> > end up with ?100k. Perhaps Clarkson should be

> paying it all and not the taxpayers, but apart

> > from that what punishment would fit the crime?

>

> This is the problem with the legal system. Get

> hit by Fred Nobody? Suck it up. Get hit by

> someone famous? Quids in.

>

If it's a work night out (and you report it) - then

fired for sure - and no cushy job waiting on Netflix.

Mind, in my experience these things don't get reported

on a work night out.

[Mick Mac]

Jah Lush Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Mick Mac Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I wasn't talking about the money. The

> negligible

> > impact on Clarkson's employability was what I

> had

> > in mind.

>

> The BBC never sacked him. Just cancelled Top Gear.

> He lost nothing out of this. He walked pretty much

> straight into a much more lucrative contract.

> Kerching!

Exactly. Got off lightly as I said.

[malumbu]

I understand that Clarkson hung around with numerous other BBC celebrities in the news today. OK my apologies for a poor joke and I haven't named anyone!

[Loz]

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> > "Except absolutely nothing you have said detracts from my original point - that only people that got

> > punched by someone famous would get a pay out. And that ?100k for what is essentially a slightly cut

> > lip is ridiculous. Damages should cover actual monetary loss. Anything above that is being

> > punitive and that should not go to the person complaining.

> > The system is ridiculous. Your additional information only confirms that."

>

> Sorry, you're still talking out of your @rse. No one make a claim against someone who obviously

> can't pay - nothing to do with 'the system'. I have no idea how the ?100k figure was arrived at,

> but it wasn't by a court i.e. 'the system', and it's likely to have been (at least) a generous

> offer because Clarkson doesn't want the publicity.

You are obviously struggling with the concept here. If two people get punched/abused, why is one worth ?100k and the other nothing. That IS the system.

> "Damages should cover actual monetary loss" - really? What if I published a new story on the

> front page of The Times saying that you were a paedophile? Or stood outside your house every

> night playing Guns n Roses with my amp turned up to 11? Or took a shit on your doorstep just

> before you left the house for work every morning?

> Edited to add - in the latter case would you feel properly compensated by the cost of a tin of shoe

> polish?

If I have suffered no loss, then yes, no compensation. Clean up bills, of course, for my doorstep should be paid. And deodorant. Lots of deodorant.

But that doesn't mean you shouldn't be forced to have to stump up a lot of money or be otherwise punished - just that I shouldn't benefit from it. Why should I get lots of money from you, but my neighbour who also got his doorstep sullied daily by someone with less money get nothing?

If you house gets burgled, do you get compensation from the burglar if they are caught? Or do they get suitably punished (well, hopefully...).

[Mick Mac]

It was the price Clarkson paid for this not to go to court. End of.

[Alan Medic]

Never watched the programme. What I saw of JC I didn't like. But how should he have been punished if you think he got off lightly?

[Mick Mac]

If you committed a physical and racial (lazy Irish) assault on someone in your workplace Alan - what chance do you think you would have of immediately getting a new job on improved terms to the old one?

[Alan Medic]

Nil, so good point Mick. However, it's the shower who gave him the job who are to blame for that. From what I vaguely recall from reading he made a habit of insulting people in his programmes. Yet it appears he is extremely popular. As to what would have been a deserved punishment, it's a pity it didn't go to court.

[Mick Mac]

As I originally referred to his employability being apparently unaffected, I think he got off lightly.

Would have been better for everyone (bar JC) had it had gone to court - but if he had assaulted a black person in the same way he would have been unemployable.

[Jeremy]

I'm in two minds about this one. While I'd be quite happy to take a punch and a bit of verbal from Clarkson in exchange for 100K, it doesn't seem like justice has been done.

[JohnL]

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It was the price Clarkson paid for this not to go

> to court. End of.

Which does worry me a bit, as I'd probably just hug and make up.

Should I go for it if some celebrity hits me :)

[Mick Mac]

maxxi Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "A racial group means a group of persons defined

> by reference to race, colour, nationality

> (including citizenship) or ethnic or national

> origins."

>

> so your man may have a case

>

> which must be a comfort to those suffering real

> racial abuse

With Saint Patrick's day coming up nippin' at our heels; here's an Irish/American history lesson.... Enjoy.

The Irish slave trade began when James II sold 30,000 Irish prisoners as slaves to the New World. His Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the West Indies. By the mid 1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat. At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves.

Ireland quickly became the biggest source of human livestock for English merchants. The majority of the early slaves to the New World were actually white.

From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English and another 300,000 were sold as slaves. Ireland?s population fell from about 1,500,000 to 600,000 in one single decade. Families were ripped apart as the British did not allow Irish dads to take their wives and children with them across the Atlantic. This led to a helpless population of homeless women and children. Britain?s solution was to auction them off as well.

During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10 and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. In this decade, 52,000 Irish (mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia. Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to the highest bidder. In 1656, Cromwell ordered that 2000 Irish children be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers.

Many people today will avoid calling the Irish slaves what they truly were: Slaves. They?ll come up with terms like ?Indentured Servants? to describe what occurred to the Irish. However, in most cases from the 17th and 18th centuries, Irish slaves were nothing more than human cattle.

As an example, the African slave trade was just beginning during this same period. It is well recorded that African slaves, not tainted with the stain of the hated Catholic theology and more expensive to purchase, were often treated far better than their Irish counterparts.

African slaves were very expensive during the late 1600s (50 Sterling). Irish slaves came cheap (no more than 5 Sterling). If a planter whipped or branded or beat an Irish slave to death, it was never a crime. A death was a monetary setback, but far cheaper than killing a more expensive African. The English masters quickly began breeding the Irish women for both their own personal pleasure and for greater profit. Children of slaves were themselves slaves, which increased the size of the master?s free workforce. Even if an Irish woman somehow obtained her freedom, her kids would remain slaves of her master. Thus, Irish moms, even with this new found emancipation, would seldom abandon their kids and would remain in servitude.

In time, the English thought of a better way to use these women (in many cases, girls as young as 12) to increase their market share: The settlers began to breed Irish women and girls with African men to produce slaves with a distinct complexion. These new ?mulatto? slaves brought a higher price than Irish livestock and, likewise, enabled the settlers to save money rather than purchase new African slaves. This practice of interbreeding Irish females with African men went on for several decades and was so widespread that, in 1681, legislation was passed ?forbidding the practice of mating Irish slave women to African slave men for the purpose of producing slaves for sale.? In short, it was stopped only because it interfered with the profits of a large slave transport company.

England continued to ship tens of thousands of Irish slaves for more than a century. Records state that, after the 1798 Irish Rebellion, thousands of Irish slaves were sold to both America and Australia. There were horrible abuses of both African and Irish captives. One British ship even dumped 1,302 slaves into the Atlantic Ocean so that the crew would have plenty of food to eat.

There is little question that the Irish experienced the horrors of slavery as much (if not more in the 17th Century) as the Africans did. There is, also, very little question that those brown, tanned faces you witness in your travels to the West Indies are very likely a combination of African and Irish ancestry. In 1839, Britain finally decided on its own to end its participation in Satan?s highway to hell and stopped transporting slaves. While their decision did not stop pirates from doing what they desired, the new law slowly concluded THIS chapter of nightmarish Irish misery.

But, if anyone, black or white, believes that slavery was only an African experience, then they?ve got it completely wrong.

Irish slavery is a subject worth remembering, not erasing from our memories.

[KidKruger]

Wow MM, I did not know about this (and wonder why), thanks for the story.

[nashoi]

Maybe you didn't know about it is because it's bullshit peddled by white supremacists in the US partly in response to african american calls for reparations.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/beyondslavery/liam-hogan/%e2%80%98irish-slaves%e2%80%99-convenient-myth

[ianr]

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The Irish slave trade began when James II sold

> 30,000 Irish prisoners as slaves to the New World.

> His Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political

> prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English

> settlers in the West Indies.

...

...

"The original source of this article is Oped News and Global Research

Copyright ? John Martin, Oped News and Global Research, 2015"

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-irish-slave-trade-the-forgotten-white-slaves/31076

[Mick Mac]

nashoi Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Maybe you didn't know about it is because it's

> bullshit peddled by white supremacists in the US

> partly in response to african american calls for

> reparations.

> https://www.opendemocracy.net/beyondslavery/liam-h

> ogan/%e2%80%98irish-slaves%e2%80%99-convenient-myt

> h

That seems to be a minority view. A lot of books seem to have been written about it in the context of slavery and at the same time I respect the rights of African Americans to their protection of their past neglect as by far the worst example. The point that something "similar" may have happened to another group does not reduce their suffering.

But the point was posted in response to Maxxi's line "which must be a comfort to those suffering real racial abuse" - I believe Clarkson's attack constitutes a racial attack and anti Irish racism is embedded in the minds of some people and has been for centuries.

In the context of Warren Gatland's rapid and complete apology for originally referring to Joe Marler's gypsy comments as "banter" there is clearly a move to stamp out this type of abuse and more especially any attempt by others to rationalise it.

If you want to be part of that nashoi, then that's up to you.

[maxxi]

In Response??? fxxX me,

Shall I get back to you in a month or four?

[Seabag]

maxxi Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> In Response??? fxxX me,

>

> Shall I get back to you in a month or four?

Yeah you started it maxxi

[maxxi]

Seabag Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> maxxi Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > In Response??? fxxX me,

> >

> > Shall I get back to you in a month or four?

>

>

> Yeah you started it maxxi

Bollocksus, maximus nil sum - it was the bleeding Romans. Red cloaked, tin-breasted, Leather skirt wearing Jessies.

[ALimLee]

a

[DaveR]

"If you want to be part of that nashoi, then that's up to you."

Not worthy of you Mick.

Indentured labour has a long history in Britain and Europe and is clearly not the same as slavery - you won't find any sensible historian who equates the two. In the 17th and 18th centuries apprentices were still indentured and the rules they were subject to would be unrecognisable by comparison to what we think of as employment. Serfdom wasn't formally abolished in England until 1660 and persisted in many Western European countries until well into the 18th century. Different times.

Pointing out that the "Irish slaves" myth is just that does not make someone a racist sympathiser

[Mick Mac]

It was phrased as a question to nashoi.

And I felt the way nashoi's post was phrased was intentionally challenging the credibility of the point being made, so you know....

[Seabag]

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It was phrased as a question to nashoi.

> And I felt the way nashoi's post was phrased was

> intentionally challenging the credibility of the

> point being made, so you know....

And with wine?

[DaveR]

"And I felt the way nashoi's post was phrased was intentionally challenging the credibility of the point being made, so you know...."

He was intentionally challenging the point being made. And with good reason. Because what you posted, as a 'history lesson' is (let's be charitable) a highly politicised minority view of the relevant events. Your basic point (that anti-Irish prejudice shouldn't be dismissed as 'not real racism') is a good one, that I agree with. Citing bilge history in support is no help.

[????]

100