Clive "misinterpret" is an unusual term in this respect I think.
I dont think any interpretation was present.
A cheap joke was made ... and midly humourous in racial/national stereotype fashion ... but THEN it was built on and made more extreme and continued beyond the funny stage.
I was always taught a simple tool to aid wider appreciation of issues like this......
WHen someone makes a joke of or at a class or type of person or group THEN imagine your mum was one of "those" and ask yourself if you think she woudl be "Happy" to hear/read those words and comments.
You rightly raised the legal siode of the debate and I'm not sure anyone is advocating imprisonment for Clarkson -- well not for this anyway 
But a recognition that there ARE limits and that these by definition are subjective is important I think and so individuals have to realise when they've crossed that subjective line.
oh and ( THANK God ) we live in societies where proof of guilt is required ... no assumption can be permitted.
Guilt has to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt.
So what you see as lawyers "cheating the system" is they are testing that reasonable doubt and when "obviously guilty" go free it's because the doubt was found.
I'd NEVER want it to be any other way. Because then you or I may be arrested for implications from posts here and imprisoned with no chance of defence on facts rather than opinion or belief.
Last edited by Matra et Alpine; 02-08-2011 at 02:33 AM.
"A woman without curves is like a road without bends, you might get to your destination quicker but the ride is boring as hell'
Reply With Quote