Just to illustrate my point here. Please do not see this as a personal attack. Its not meant as such. I am just using something you said:
Here you state your opinion about things you have read or know otherwise about JC and the incident.
You support this view by your confidence in your judgement of character.
This is all subjective and might very well be based on wrong facts.
It doesn't HAVE to be, mind you, I understand that, but you are threading on the fine line here.
Do you know JC? Do you know any of his co workers? Were you present in such a way that you can really fund your judge of character by observing JC's behaviour on the workfloor on a regular basis? If not, where do you get your details from?
If you are member of his inner circle then you do know, but then I would find it disingenious to mouth off about someone in public where he isn't present to defend himself.
And if not, I hope I have put my point across in an understandable way.
Again, not trying to send a personal attack here. I hope that comes across.
Had you or I assaulted someone while at work, we'd have been fired for it; I don't see why Clarkson should get off any lighter simply because he's famous.
No, of course not. You're just claiming that the BBC don't have the information from a BBC investigation led by someone from the BBC investigating someone from the BBC who assaulted someone else from the BBC, the results of which were reported on by the BBC.I don't claim it is false
No, you don't read. I don't claim it is false. I just question the fact that people tend to eat whatever the media feeds them.
And I question the act of mouthing off over individuals eventhough they are not present to defend themselves.
But I digress. Perhaps I need to be more clear.
No, of course not. You're just claiming that the BBC don't have the information from a BBC investigation led by someone from the BBC investigating someone from the BBC who assaulted someone else from the BBC, the results of which were reported on by the BBC.
Robin, the only response I can give to that is that you if you don't believe all of the overwhelming and consistent reports about the incident that took place then nothing else will likely convince you. Since you were not there to personally see what happened, I suppose you can write it all off as a big conspiracy. I can't really debate that with you because if that's the way you feel, its just the way you feel.
Your point seems to be "Ignore the BBC; after all, all they did was conduct the investigation themselves".I just used this example for my bigger point, which you don't seem to understand.
Might very well be me not getting it across very well.
And again you try to put words in my mouth. I have, on multiple occasions, said that I don't feel on way or the other towards the JC case.
For all I know it is true.
I just used this example for my bigger point, which you don't seem to understand.
Might very well be me not getting it across very well.
Let's just leave it and race some more!
I have demonstrated, repeatedly, that you're talking out your back-end. Yet you seem wilfully ignorant of the basic facts. So report me all you like, it won't change the fact that you're completely wrong here.I am not sure why you resort to insults. It only shows your inability to properly discuss matters.
So why are you pitching the deceitful media narrative? Lulz?I don't feel on way or the other towards the JC case.
For all I know it is true.