I suspect as usual Clarkson was being satirical, he makes a lot of money by appearing right-wing while seemingly taking the mick more out of right wing views than anything else.

It's always hard to tell when he's being vindictive instead of satirical.

As many have pointed out, he actually makes a lot of money out of being a form of public sector worker, he's in the BBC who are paid for directly thought the TV licence. And certainly doesn't really do anything our society couldn't do without. (It wouldn't surprise me if he brings revenue into the BBC, but there is always another "cash cow" awaiting in the back wings ready to take a place, so if they did sack him I doubt it would cause much in the way of a financial problem for them in anything but the very shortest of terms. Worth remembering that Top Gear would go on, with or without him, just like 'Have I Got News For You' continued if not fine but perhaps even better without it's host. So that's again not really a factor in revenue terms.)

I generally think Unison would have done well to ignore him BUT I suspect they are taking this as a great opportunity to get some real media coverage, they know that if they can get him into court it will mean months of coverage over their cause, if it wasn't for this possibility I suspect they would have just ignored him.

Further to my previous comment: Two young guy recently were jailed for 4 years for posting on Facebook during the riots that people should go out and riot and NOTHING actually happened as a result. It is my understanding that one aspect of their defence was that they were "only joking" but this was dismissed and the conviction was upheld on Appeal. Now we are expected to accept in Clarkson's defence that HE was "only joking" so that's OK. I smell a double standard here and utter hypocrisy. As I said, Clarkson should be given the sack by BBC for what he said. HE has NO defence.

Or, don't invite Jeremy Clarkson on the BBC on the day of a public sector strike. He has nothing to do with anything but cars. Why didn't they invite a striker on instead?

Whilst I beleive that Mr clarkson should at least have to publicly face up to his comments this issue is rooted in the increasing public sector bashing that goes on from top to bottom in our society. It has become commonplace and I beleive it is very short sighted to beleive that many public sector workers are unnecessary. Please whath the effects of the cuts - which will likely include rising crime, more deaths through overstretched and underfunded hospitals. Most of the public service bashers will be the first to complain when this starts to happen. Oh and by the way where does Clarkson think he will drive and park those expensive cars when the police can no longer do thier jobs because of cuts. come on NS you should be making these comments yourself.

Agreed, the comment wasn't offensive in the slightest -- however, what was offensive (well, irritatingly hypocritical) was the sentiment that public sector workers should somehow get a grip on their cushy lives, and get down on the ground with other people.

All I can say to this is: if the government threw some more tax at Paxman's end of society, his whining would cause riots in dog shelters.

john henry: You lot see double standards and conspiracies everywhere.
The left is sour, humourless and boring and always quick to take offence, the truth is the political-left isn't that trendy these days. What was funny was watching the faces of that unshaven northern bore with rotton manky teeth and that Welsh women.

Clarkson should be allowed to speak what passes for his mind. He serves as a useful reminder that the nasty party is still precisely that, despite Cameron's futile attempts to decontaminate the brand.

Brand and Ross's sins were, arguably, less serious. It's the example the BBC should be looking to when they make a decision on what is to be done.

Shoot him in front of his family

I went on strike on Nov 30th. I would describe myself as left-wing.

I didn't take offence at Jeremy Clarkson. It is simply him being him. I enjoy his right-wing banter. I am poles apart from Jeremy. I will still watch Top Gear.

I never met any fellow lefties who took offence. I don't deny that they exist. We have our share of twerps as well as the Tories.

All this outrage has merely boosted Clarkson's DVD sales.

So there is some shooting going on. Not by Mr. Clarkson, but by some hotheads towards their own feet!

This is disgusting, that 15seconds is from a couple of minutes of context and taken completely out of it.

The BBC should respond to these criticisms in the way the dealt with the Daily Mail led attack on Ross and Brand. Well, actually they should have left both to just dissipate and let more serious comment on the issues of the day get heard. Not buying the 'public persona' defence of Clarkson either. If you were a public schoolboy with an unjustified sense of entitlement who couldn't stop blabbering ill judged and ill informed opinions- wouldn't you say just that?

It was said in jest and a lot of the population were probably thinking and saying something similar...all in passing. Not to actually do it! So be careful when you say "I'm gonna kill him" because you never know, you could be sued. Madness. Just stop this utter rubbish and waste of time and get on with some proper work.

@Stevo

I don't think anyone here is calling for his head. The BBC are going to have a hard time justifying anything less than that, that's all. They got it absolutely wrong on Ross and Brand but they would have to be seen to treat the matter with at least equal seriousness.

If Bob Crowe or any of the union leaders had said the same about greedy bankers or tax dodging CEO's
ther would have been a public out cry. The BBC would be apologising to everyone. The Mail would be ouraged, there would be questions in the House.
But this tosser is right wing he and the BBC will get away with it.

When Thatcher dies I am having a party..No Joke..

The problem is people over reacting to his stupidity thus glorifying him in the eyes of his groupies

This reaction is rediculous. Clarkson had previously said he supported the strikes (making the joke that the roads were clear for a change) and only made these second comments as an over the top reference to the fact that the BBC has to be independent so he needed to present both sides of the argument.

Also, when the One Show introduced him as the guest on the show, they mentioned the fact that he is sometimes a controversial figure - encouraging him to say something controversial again!

Eaton's wrong for this reason.

Clarkson has a global platform on the BBC. His talk show is also run in the States. This means that along with this priveledge (and nice salary and other perks), he's responisble for what he says and does. If I say something at work that my boss doesn't like, I can be sacked. Why? Because many employers follow "right to work" rules. I then have no legal recourse to fight back.

Why is he exempt from this? Is it because he's richer, more powerful and better connected than I am? Is it because his "talent" contract protects him from being sacked for what he says and does on the job? Is it because the BBC is desperate to have "name" talent to compete with the commercial competition?

The corporate "if you don't like it the just turn it off" response is missing the point.

I'm sorry this is the way fascism tests the boundaries and rouses the rabble. Do you think it's a coincidence that he recently can have been emboldened by current anti-riot, anti-occupation and racist rhetoric that gathers the same sort of mega-publicity to itself?
You'd be better employed investigating Clarkson's tax record (as I understand it he's a company subcontracted to the BBC and he has been confident he can take his brand elsewhere if sacked and I'm sure he's long since minimised his contribution to the public services).
Also we should hear from the BBC (would be a good One Show spot) who was it that picked up Richard Hammond and nursed him back to health from his self-inflicted injuries.

@Gordon Stokey

Both are irresponsible. Both should be treat with the same level of seriousness. Otherwise it's one rule for one pair of millionaires and one rule for another millionaire. We can't have that now can we? Seriously, though if they don't follow the same line they're going to have a tough time explaining why they didn't.

I love irony and borderline humour and of course we can choose to turn over, but unfortunately Clarkson's insensitivity and bigotry rubs off on those who don't (Yes, it does influence weaker minded individuals - I've seen it happen) and his example can be used to justify the bigotry of others - because 'it's just a joke' isn't it.

Personally this issue boils down to one thing for me - why should we have to pay the wages of a second rate buffoon to give him the platform to insult people who have to get out on the street and March to have their voices heard on a serious issue that affects their lives.

Give this idiot the boot and/or a broom and get him to do something more useful with his life.

I agree with SD - This is Clarkson's style of humour. We all know what he's like, especially if you have read his books. Unison and all those oh so supposedly outraged by his comments need to get a life and grow up. Call the Police and get him prosecuted? WHAT! How insanely daft can you get! The Police and CPS have got better things to do I can assure you.

Saying all strikers "should be shot in front of their families" belies an underdeveloped capacity to think critically. This is why Clarkson should be held accountable.

Good grief, get a sense of humour. People seem to look for differnt ways to be offended these days. Keep entertaining us Jeremy!!