How Does One Say 'Fracas'?

Over the past few weeks, this has been one of the main questions that everyone is asking: How do you pronounce 'Fracas'? Essentially, is the 's' silent or not? Well, I've looked into this, and like normal, it depends on whether you speak properly (English), or if you're one of those people (American) from the country which regularly bastardizes the English language. In English, it's silent, and in American, it's said completely wrong.

While we're discussing 'fracas', let's look into what brought this issue to the nation's attention. There was an incident in a workplace, which involved one member of staff verbally and physically attacking another, leading to the suspension of an employee. Only, it wasn't that simple because it involved Jeremy Clarkson; like most incidents seem to these days.

We heard a few weeks back that he had a verbal and physical disagreement with a producer, when he noticed a lack of food after a day filming. Clarkson was suspended, and a lot of news outlets spent too much of their time being obsessed with this. A local Kent newspaper found a local angle for this new story, due to part of the last aired episode being filmed in the county. It then went on to refer to an incident where someone working in a pub was glassed in the face, as a 'fracas'.

Anyway, this then led to over a million people signing a petition to reinstate him; showing that people care a lot more about an over-paid, over-zealous individual, than they do about having a functioning health system. And now, he's sacked.

The news that he was sacked came yesterday afternoon, not long before the news that someone had left One Direction. I was out, and by the time I got home and read the news, all the good jokes had already been used on Twitter. I was distraught.

@haveigotnews 

But were they right to sack him? That's the question a lot of people have been asking since. Firstly, everyone can see that the BBC were never going to come out of this well. They either sacked him, and lost their biggest star (and biggest money maker), and risk losing their most globally-popular franchise. OR, they allow someone, regardless of status, to get away with bullying in the workplace, and allow another celebrity to get away with what they want.

Whether it was the right choice will never be agreed, but one has to admire the BBC for the decision they took. It shows that they have a conscience, and didn't allow commercial interests to blur that. The Tweet Rupert Murdoch made after this news, shows that he would have made the other choice, and therefore is probably agreed to be the wrong one too.

How stupid can BBC be in firing Jeremy Clarkson? Funny man with great expertise and huge following.

— Rupert Murdoch (@rupertmurdoch) March 24, 2015

I think, or at least I hope, that no-one is condoning bullying or violence of any kind. Yet, Clarkson was on a final warning, when he then hit someone, and now he is sacked. That sequence of events makes complete sense; he committed a sackable offence. However, a lot of people find this unreasonable. I really like him and the show, but I still agree with this decision; even if I am completely surprised that they actually made this decision.

Twitter is full of people blindly supporting Clarkson, and saying dreadful things about the producer, Oisin Tymon. But remember, Clarkson reported the offence himself. It has been found that Clarkson verbally abused the producer for over 20 minutes, before beginning a 30 second round of physical abuse on him, which only ended after one of the other presenters broke it up. This happened in a hotel, in front of guests, and led to Tymon having to take himself to A&E. And now, he is the latest victim of Twitter trolling.

@m_maclennan Read more on V.Point here.

So what does the future hold? Well, if looking back at the Jonathan Ross fiasco a few years back proves anything, Clarkson will already be receiving offers from ITV, Channel 4, Sky, and probably even Netflix, to go over to them and help produce a car program which will rival Top Gear. After all, look at all the cooking and baking shows that exist of TV... Yet, I can only think of two other motoring programs. I think Top Gear are due some real competition as, after all, a lot of people watch Top Gear for the characters, and not really for the cars.

And what will become of Top Gear? It existed before Clarkson, and it will exist after. They say they will keep Hammond and May, but I think that will be a mistake. They need to completely start from scratch, and distance themselves from the reign of Jeremy. We all know that one of the new presenters will be female, because that is how the BBC fix most things these days. But Chris Evans is the favourite so far. However, my money is on Guy Martin, and I think he would be the best man for the job. From what I've watched of him, his personality and interests are a perfect match; especially if they do keep the other two presenters.

So overall, the decision has been made, and there is no need to dwell on it any longer. Perhaps the BBC could/should have gone about this very differently, and perhaps tried to resolve this internally? Let's just move on and see where the future of motoring programs go. But please, can we stop comparing this to the BBC's handling of Jimmy Saville? It's an ignorant comparison, which trivialises what was atrocious and incomparable situation. Also, can we just let Oisin Tymon try to carry on his life and career in peace? And finally, can we just let Jeremy Clarkson have some warm food next time he asks?

Thou Shall Not Share Thy Opinion

You have an opinion that you would like to express do you? Well, let us make some checks... Is it remotely racist? Can it be construed as sexist? Are you mocking religion? What about being homophobic? Could it be gingerist? How about insulting fat people or discriminating the disabled? Are you Fascist or Ageist? Is what you are saying stereotyping a group within society, like Gypsy's or Dwarfs or is it a joke about class? Are you promoting genocide or heightism? Does this comment hate on young people? Are you pointing fun at Goths etc? Could this be you thinking you're satirising politics? Is it judging people with a certain taste of music? Are you generalising people with certain jobs like estate agents or lawyers? Do you want to share findings which you have spent years researching and have conclusive proof for what you want to say? Are you just pointing out the bleeding obvious?

If it is any of the above, then I would keep quiet if I were you. I mean, we don't want to start a worldwide scandal here. Mind you, if you really have no choice and you have to express your opinion, then take the following advice: Stand your ground. Or, failing that, run away as soon as someone slightly disagrees with your opinion and apologise until you have completely worn away all twenty eight of your teeth and then resign from your job, no matter what it is. You're an I.T. Technician whole commented on a ginger person standing in the queue in front of you to your friend the next day? Resign! You’re an old lady who said to a tall black man “You’re very tall dear, aren’t you; and surprisingly nice...”? Well run away before he gets offended dammit! How dare you people try and carry out the basic human right of Freedom of Speech. You disgust me! Moving your tongue about like a free spirit; you Hippie! Oh no, now I've done it. I'll have to get a job and resign straight away to prove how deeply sorry I am for any offence I may caused to anyone, ever!

Shall we take a break from the sarcasm and calm down now?

In case you are yet to notice, this blog is trying to make sense of this new trend we have of complaining about someone's opinion and thus taking a metaphorical sledge hammer to Freedom of Speech after being deeply offended by something we heard someone might have said.

In recent weeks, television personalities have been at the front of this worldwide misunderstanding. The BBC had to apologise to China after an innocent joke, made on Qi a little while back, was completely misunderstood by the entire nation and taken as slanderous racism. The little bloke on Top Gear forced the BBC to apologise to Mexico after he called them all lazy and flatulent. Maybe he took it slightly too far in the end, but it was merely exaggerating on a stereotype, which doesn't translate well in other countries. The latter scandal infuriated everyone who didn't particularly care. Steve Coogan is one, as he ranted to The Daily Express about the trio’s casual racism and calling them bullies. Yes, you see, sharing your opinion is no longer considered to be decent honesty; it is now called 'bullying'.

Take another recent example: the sexism scandal of Sky Sport pundits, which resulted in Andy Gray being sacked and Richard Keys resigning. The entire thing was due to them merely expressing the opinion that a female football official would not be able to under the Off-Side Rule. It isn't even as if they said it publically on TV; the pair was just recorded off air saying it. Now, how many blokes do you think sat in pubs watching the game and said exactly the same thing? I wouldn't like to guess how many. I don't think that was a comment to be taken as gospel; I think it was just part of a blokey shenanigan. Mind you, Andy Gray did lose his case when it was revealed he asked a female to help 'tuck him in', but even that was just a bit of banter, and it was off air.

We are nearing a time when you might as well be sacked for thinking. This must be a scary time if you are one of those lunatics that constantly wears a tinfoil hat for fear that the CIA are reading your mind. If even a slightly racist thought crossed their brain waves for more than a nanosecond, they would constantly fear the risk of being prosecuted. Many times I have had the thought to kill people. Could I therefore be charged for Intention to kill or commit GBH? If I had a barely racist thought, that doesn't mean I'm going to don the KKK's white cape and start chasing black people does it!? The world needs to get a grasp of how ridiculous it is becoming in an attempt to remain politically correct at all times.

Twitter is making this even worse as well. Over a year ago, a man called Paul Chambers tweeted "FUCK! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!" That is very unlikely to have been a real threat. I mean, you don't see al-Qaeda making threats on social networking sites. That would ruin the point of them. This was clearly an attempt at humour by the accountant, albeit slightly ill-conceived. This man has been charged of 'sending a menacing electronic communication'. Utter ridiculousness!

Paul Chambers, the bastard who tried to have a sense of humour!

I'm currently a bit peeved at the NHS and how I have been untreated with my dental pain the past few months because of bureaucratic slowness, so if I should tweet: "FUCK! Kent and Canterbury Hospital are irritatingly slow. They have one week to get me an appointment or I'm blowing the hospital sky high!"* am I going to be prosecuted? I probably won't because there is no real menace behind it, and if I know that and you know that, then where is the threat? It's the same thing.

Another example of this is a Conservative councillor being arrested for comments he made on Twitter about a Journalist, saying she should 'be stoned to death'. This has led to the man losing his job as councillor. I think it is a scary thought that normal people can be convicted through comments made on social networking sites. The amount of times I've called Piers Morgan a cunt, or continuously ranted about Jade Goody and applauding her eventual death. I tweeted the other day that I wanted to punch a small child in the face because my toothache was getting unbearable; am I now at risk of being arrested? Well, I hope not. I tweeted a long time ago that I drove through a set of red lights (accidentally, I'm not a dickhead). I didn't get contacted by the DVLA, but why is that any different? That is an actual crime that I committed; not an empty threat about blowing an airport up.

Twitter is also the centre of other scandals, such as comedians pointing out the bleeding obvious to Keith Chegwin. A comedian pointed out to the ageing unfunny man that a lot of the jokes he tweeted were not actually his, and were in fact material by current comedians working the circuit, and he claiming it as his own material. Other comedians then backed up the claims which 'Cheggers' refused to admit to, and carried on tweeting the jokes of people like Milton Jones. It has resulted in a continuous debate on Twitter with many slanderous comments being passed about. All this just because someone noticed that Chegwin tweeted jokes of other people; and it was painfully obvious. It was a friendly comment which ensued into electronic carnage with various top Tweeters abandoning the social networking site.

I mean, both sides of the debate have fair points. Jokes are a comedian’s livelihood. You don't steal famous artworks and claim them as your own handiwork. However, can someone actually claim ownership of a joke? Someone put the words in the right order to cause laughter, but can they actually own it? That's the beauty of jokes; you can share them with the world, and they get passed around and changed.

We just live in silly times where people are easily offended. I don't know the Offside Rule in Football particularly well, but accuse me of not knowing it; I'm not going to get offended. You can call me overweight if you want, I'm not going to get offended. You can make fun of my race and nationality; I'm not going to get offended. You can call me ginger if you want, I won't get offended (Mind you, I'm not ginger, so I'd just be confused...). So the list could carry on. It's an opinion, not fact. You see, the fact seems to be that you have the freedom of speech, but just don't be moronic enough to actually practice your rights.

That is what happens when you let people read The Daily Mail. Their journalists and columnist regularly flex their outrage muscles and think up slanderous opinions about anyone and anything, link it up to some comment about immigration, and BAM! That person's opinion has been turned into fact just because Daily Mail readers are gullible enough to believe anything. Tell them that Princess Diana, The Nations Princess, was actually killed by a giant Octopus brandishing the Eiffel Tower as a weapon, who then got stuck in the tunnel, and was also under the awesome power of an asylum seeker with a vengeance, they'd probably believe you. The Daily Mail has ruined England, and is the source of a virus that is spreading worldwide, which allows people to be told when they are outraged. It's the next pandemic: Offendere Flu. How do we cure this? Well, I'm afraid morons are just going to have to be culled in their millions in a frantic bid to save the uninfected members of the Human Race.**

I have no conclusive end for this blog. I get annoyed by people being offended and big scandals being born from someone sharing their opinions with another, joking about, being misunderstood or just pointing out the bleeding obvious that everyone is also thinking. This needs to come to an end, but I don't actually see a way in which this can resolved. I think it's a scary moment to voice unappreciated opinions. Thank God no-one has heard from Jim Davidson for a while. What? He's making a comeback this year? Oh mercy!

*This is a joke. I am not going to blow up Kent and Canterbury Hospital, or any other hospital. This was an ill-conceived attempt at humour which I deeply regret and hope no-one has been inconvenienced by my comment. No malice was intended.

**This is a joke. When I said I wanted all moronic people culled, I was misquoted and I am deeply apologetic for any offence caused to the community of complete morons...