Well… how come nobody is defending Brown?

(Jeremy Clarkson, is a famous car nut and journalist who presents one of the BBCs most popular shows, Top Gear, among other things, for those of you who don’t know.  )

J.C. is in the news for insulting British Prime Minister Gordon Brown “a one eyed Scottish idiot” while in Australia and compared him to the Australian PM.

The controversial presenter compared Mr Brown to Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, shortly after Mr Rudd had addressed the country on the severity of the global financial crisis.

Clarkson said: “He [Rudd] genuinely looked terrified. The poor man, he’s actually seen the books.

“[In the UK] we’ve got this one-eyed Scottish idiot.

“He keeps telling us everything’s fine and he’s saved the world and we know he’s lying, but he’s smooth at telling us.”

Now, what gets me is that so far nobody has complained about him calling Brown a liar or an idiot. He’s been attacked for calling him “one eye” by the Royal National Institute fot the Blind. And the Scottish Labour chief minister said “Most people here are proud that the prime minister is a Scot”.

Yet… I have yet to find a single complaint about actually insulting Brown. Hmmm. Guess not even a politician wants to tarnish his soul that much!

(later: Dad just sent me this link: Clarkson factually correct! True and funny.)

24 Replies to “Well… how come nobody is defending Brown?”

  1. Mr Brown is certainly one eyed and Scottish. Whether he is an idiot is a matter of personal judgement. Clarkson is an arrogant fool seeking publicity for himself.
    I would rather see a UK government led by Brown than by Cameron who is a privileged novice with absolutely no perception of the international consequences caused by the greed and deceit of his upper class friends who have destroyed the UK banking system. If elected Cameron will undoubtedly destroy all that is good about the skills, inventiveness and creativity of British people… The last person to do this was another Tory, Margaret Thatcher, who will undoubtedly be recorded by history as the country’s most iniquitous leader, even worse than Cromwell who murdered more than 150,000 English and over 750,000 Irish.

  2. Yep, Brown (Mr “Gold will never go higher than $275 so let’s sell now”) is a magician.

    Sooner we get rid of these corrupt leftie bastards and get a fresh face into the UK the sooner we can forget all of Labours nonsense and get up and running again.

    Oh, and it was Labour that loosened all the banking laws over the last 10 years to allow Camerons “upper class” deceitful banker friends to do what they did. Thatcher was actually the person who managed to get the country into decent shape after the last Labour shambles.

  3. Opinions containing language like “corrupt leftie bastards” does nothing to support an informed view of anything! So a sensible discussion on this subject is impossible on this matter. Such is often the case when people are both ill-informed and prejudiced which clearly is the situation here. Usually to be expected by readers of the Daily Mail or Telegraph who traditionally are the most biased among the Brits.

  4. More of a Times man myself. 🙂

    Still, you were the one starting off the unpleasant opinions by comparing Thatcher to Cromwell.

    I stick to my guns – the sooner Brown and his pals are up against the wall and shot the sooner the world will be a better place.

  5. Who else would you like to shoot? Where do you stop? Do you choose on the basis of colour, ethnicity, race or gender? Probably all four. Such comments are worthy only of the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Bin Laden and similar bullyboys who cannot argue their corner without resolving to violence. You would have loved Franco, I bet!!!!
    I am rather disappointed that you are clearly incapable of holding any sort of sensible discussion but it’s your blog.

  6. All right, the shoot bit was a bit over the top, but so was comparing Thatcher to a genocidal maniac, who at least managed to get rid of the monks.

    But back to Brown.. it’s thanks to 10 years of Labour that people of my generation live beyond our means, cannot get on the property ladder or expect to have a pension. He and Blair have presided over the deconstruction of society, without replacing it with anything useful, leaving a whole social strata isolated on benefits without being able to do anything useful with their lives.

  7. OK you get a few “Brownie points” for retracting your “shooting” comments but don’t forget that Thatcher personally sanctioned the brutal decision to sink the Belgrano resulting in the deaths of over 500 young Argentinean sailors. She also destroyed the UK coal mining industry with the loss of over 250,000 jobs. She abolished the Training Boards, many public healthcare and primary education services and reduced numerous other benefits that have thankfully since been restored.
    The problem with the downfall of Cromwell is that he was not replaced with anything better. A few rich of the rich landed gentry restored the monarchy and we now have to put up with an unelected head of state who lives in the country’s most expensive council house sponging off the hard work of British people. I wasn’t aware that the “monks” were a problem especially as Henry VIII had already destroyed the Monasteries, at least in England.
    I don’t understand your comments that Brown is responsible for people of your generation living beyond their means. Most debt is caused by greed and selfishness. Surely, we all must be responsible for managing our own affairs? If people borrow money they don’t repay, live in houses they can’t afford and buy things they don’t need, that is not the responsibility of government unless you want a Nanny state, or even totalitarianism. If a particular government turns out to be useless, as may be the case with Brown’s, vote for someone else.
    Like most expat Brits living here in Spain I have found that UK pensions and investments have decreased by more than 30% but I can’t blame the government. I live in Spain because it affords me a better quality of life with plenty of sunshine, abundant fresh affordable food and a society that has retained its family values and sense of culture.
    It’s easy to criticise what Brown is doing in the UK and only time will tell. What I am not hearing is reasoned proposals and argument for better solutions by other less experienced potential leaders. Getting rid of Brown at this time will not solve anything – the solution probably lies in Washington, Beijing and other leading capitals.

  8. First off, Thatcher is to me somebody from the history books, as I was far too young during her reign to have any personal recollection.
    Although some would say that since we had been attacked by an evil totalitarian Junta who wanted to colonise our lands we were permitted to use all and any measures to defend ourselves (cough, cough, remind you of anything recent?)
    Let’s see – some would argue that Brown is one of the main factors behind the current economic crisis; by artificially inflating the British economy by selling off anything of value and allowing banks to give lots of cheap credit, also modifying the banking laws, he artificially heated up the London market, which is one of, if not the major, economic powerhouse of the western world.

  9. I don’t understand what you mean by “evil totalitarian Junta”. What you say about everything else is your opinion sadly unsupported by facts. Perhaps you could respond to the substance of my comments rather than just disagree with them. To persuade the other party in a debate you must produce the evidence to backup your views. So far I’ve heard plenty of rhetoric but nothing of merit. May I suggest you provide clear historical facts in future?

  10. Sorry, got my facts wrong there. G. Galtieri was a model of restraint and good civil leadership, and Battalion 602 were actually a subset of the boy scouts. And the Falklands war was actually liberation of the poor Falklanders from under the jackboot of British oppression.

    Again – Brown is an incompetent one eyed Scottish idiot. Thatcher was the best PM since Churchill.

    Blair and Brown have presided over the biggest breakdown in social cohesion ever, and are currently turning Britain into a “big brother” state where every movement of it’s citizens are watched and controlled by the state.

  11. Your comments regarding the Belgrano sinking are of course hollow. The ship was an obsolete training vessel mostly crewed by over 500 novice sea cadets whose average age was 19. In fact it was steaming away from the war zone at the time of the sinking because the Argentine navy wanted to protect its vulnerable young sailors. The sinking was undoubtedly a war crime under the rules of the Geneva Convention, in particular the use of “disproportionate force”. The ship presented no real threat to the British and it’s destruction in no way affected the outcome of the conflict. No doubt that Galtieri was an evil dictator who was removed from the Falklands by brave British soldiers, but that’s no excuse for Thatcher’s appalling decision to unlawfully kill these young boys and girls. This wasn’t collateral damage but unmitigated and deliberate slaughter.
    Precisely what, if any, evidence is there that Thatcher was the best PM since Churchill? Even Churchill got many things wrong but was probably the best at that time. I believe Halifax was a better administrator but still admire WC and his achievements. As a leader he was supreme but as a PM a bit too “old school” for me, as confirmed when he was thrown out after the War.
    You continue to personally insult Brown without proposing any substantive alternatives. Whilst I don’t agree with your views I don’t insult you. Whilst I defend your right to hold such opinions surely you can come up with some helpful proposals instead of carping about your poorly informed personal views based on prejudice and without supporting facts. Normally, I enjoy reading other people’s blogs in the hope that I might learn something. I’m still waiting so please don’t give up – yet!

  12. The ARA General Belgrano only lost 323 souls, not 500. The Belgrano was the declared flagship for the attack group that was at that time circling the exclusion zone, which in any case was only declared for neutral vessels to avoid them coming into conflict!, and as such was a recognised military target under international law. This is recognised by the International Court of Human Rights in 2000; the Argentine Government (in a declaration published in 1994 for the report prepared for the ICHR, when they admitted that the military Junta of the time had ordered the attack group to attack any British ships they encountered) and confirmed by the Captain of the ARA G. Belgrano who admitted that his direct orders were to prepare an attack on the British Naval TaskForce.
    Thatchers decision may have been controversial, but it was correct and has been recognised as legal under international law in the courts.

  13. Your comments have been made wholly out of context and differ with those of the then Defence Secretary John Knott and Air-Vicemarshall Sir Stuart Hilbert. In Knott’s book he says he was told by the Admiralty that the Belgrano had “over 500” crew on board. Jane’s Fighting Ships puts the number at over 1000, which is more likely. Even if you are right that was not the belief of Thatcher, at the time. The ship was formally a US navy Cruiser built in 1936 and poorly armed. At the time of its sinking it was outside the British-declared Total Exclusion Zone of 370 km. in rough seas with over 10m waves. She was attacked by a heavily armed British nuclear submarine and there can be no justification for such a tragedy.
    You fail to understand that the use of disproportionate force is a war crime under International Law and can never be mitigated by any hostile action by another party. An appropriate case in point is that Hamas has declared, as part of its “Constitution”, the destruction of Israel but that does not give Israelis’ the right to use disproportionate force against the people of Gaza. The Belgrano was certainly no threat to the Royal Navy but if you think it was it could have easily been disabled under more civilised rules of war. They were a soft target and Thatcher ruthlessly and calculatingly condemned these youngsters to death. It’s hardly surprising that her daughter has been branded a racist and her son a criminal gunrunner. Apples don’t fall far from the tree……!

  14. Well, we can either go with the impartial review of the International Court of Human Rights (at that point the only international tribune capable of judging on an international point of law) which has been backed up by independent committees in the (now) democratic state of Argentina, or we can listen to a bunch of waahoos. The fact that Argentina only had a few old boats was irrelevant, they were using those weapons to attempt (with some success, I remind you) to attack our troops and our citizens. The Belgrano was the command centre of that flotilla, and had Thatcher wanted to make a point she would also have ordered the sinking of the rest of the flotilla.

    As for Israels use of force against Hamas… what was the final body count after their F15s stopped screaming across the sky? None of those children and mothers were in uniform, I assume. You can’t keep changing your position here Alex, either left or right wing, make up your mind!

  15. As this matter or Thatcher was never put to trial in a Court of Law we will never know what the outcome might have been. What is certain is that court would have asked what was in the mind of the attacker (Thatcher) at the time and the answer was irrefutably murder. She was told there were over 500 crew on board and the Admiralty knew for certain that the number was over 1000.
    I suggest your reference to “the impartial review” of the International Court of Human Rights should have referred to the “Advisory Opinion” of the International Court of Justice at The Hague. This was a report on various aspects of the conflict which heard only written submissions from the parties and drew no legal or moral conclusions. There was certainly no tested evidence given under oath, cross-examination, summing up by lawyers or judges or any other form of trial by any court of which I am aware.
    As to my stance on Hamas I thought I’d made my position clear. For the sake of clarity I am neither right nor left wing politically and frankly I don’t have to choose either. What is unequivocal is that clear distinction must be made between Hamas and the Palestinians who were used as human shields by a bunch of despicable terrorists.

  16. “She was told there were over 500 crew on board and the Admiralty knew for certain that the number was over 1000.”

    So by your own argument she was deceived by her own military advisor’s? In which case you have just exonerated her.

  17. Even if she believed it was 500 or 50 that doesn’t in any way diminish the crime. Yes, she probably was mislead by her own military but in no way does that amount to exoneration. It has been well established by International Courts as constituted by the Geneva Convention (confirmed at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials in 1946 and subsequent Appeals) that a war crime cannot be mitigated by claiming either “I was just following orders” or “I didn’t know” She was where the buck stopped and was legally and morally accountable for her decision which, in the event, was devastatingly flawed. As a now retired Human Rights lawyer I have no doubt that a trial in the ICJ would support this view.

  18. Ifs and buts… seems we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one.

    However, you do seem to have an irrational hatred of Thatcher. Were you a miner? In which case surely you would have more hatred of Blair who allowed the compensation scandal in which corrupt lawyers stole all the miners compensation?

  19. Sorry to disappoint you but I don’t actually hate anybody. It’s not in my nature neither does it help advance my argument. My opinions on Margaret Thatcher are based on her performance whilst in office, her values, the results of her strategy and the devastating effects she had on ordinary citizens and society.
    Regarding your further comments I prefer to deal with facts supported by reasonable evidence and certainly never make uncorroborated allegations of corruption as a shoddy swipe at lawyers or any other professional. If a bent lawyer steals clients’ money it is normally fully repaid by their Professional body (The Law Society) together with costs, loss of interest and damages and those involved will generally go to jail. If you have reasonable evidence any that lawyers stole miners’ compensation I would like to know precisely what it is. I would be more than happy to forward such information to the proper authorities. Of course, this may already have been done in which case I’d still like to know the details – if they exist!

  20. 7,5 billion pounds was paid out in compensation schemes to sick miners or their next of kin. It is estimated that anything up to 55% of that money was siphoned off (legally, semilegally and illegally) by the different law firms handling the case.
    See http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article5151524.ece and many, many, many other reports. All I can say is that Mr “Friend of the People” Blair & Brown didn’t seem to want to upset the apple cart…

  21. I assume that your figure of £7.5 billion represents compensation paid to miners and their families for contracting pneumoconiosis and other related industrial diseases. This was compensation won by the National Union of Mineworkers (yes – you remember Arthur Scargill) who had been fighting for over 50 years for justice.
    It turns out that your allegations of corruption are based on a story reported in an overtly right wing newspaper about a matter that, so they say, is currently under investigation? As stated previously, if there is real evidence of theft, those involved will be prosecuted and proper compensation paid. What has this got to do with my views on Thatcherism? Becoming rather disappointed with the lack of substance in your argument!

  22. I suggest you read up on the case before we start to discuss it. It has many interesting points.
    PS – The Times did support Blair when he first came to power, so I’m not sure about the “right wing” bit?

  23. I don’t know where this is going but seemingly nowhere! I have spent a lifetime working in the field of Human Rights including workers’ compensation claims and am now happy to leave it to others.
    As I’ve said before I don’t read the press because it’s full of garbage written by prejudiced reporters and edited by people who toe the line of the newspaper owner. In the case of the Times it’s Rupert Murdoch, well known for his impartial views on anything to do with creating his own wealth and empire building and never a supporter of a caring society or equal opportunity. Not only does he own and dictate the editorial policy of the Times but also the Sun and News of the World neither of which can be said to be seeking the truth or reporting the facts. Murdoch, like Thatcher, is just another dogmatic narrow minded self-absorbed extremist who seeks power by using false propaganda and distortion of the truth.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.