Is it acceptable for Jeremy Clarkson...

Bloodtangerine said:
150% is an actual %. (eg) 150 is 150% of 100 or I have a target of selling 40 apples and sell 80 so I’ve hit 200% of target

Did you not realise that??
Click to expand...
True. But I don’t think it’s possible to have 150% of Daily Mail readers?

Which would make Southshore 50% right and you 50% wrong.
 
Well what a surprise Clarkson is a gobshite who likes abusing women but will he keep his job on who want to be a millionaire
 
Lala said:
because it can be….

More Than 100 Percent? – The Math Doctors

www.themathdoctors.org www.themathdoctors.org
Click to expand...
Yes but….

If you go to the market with 100 apples and sell 100 apples then you’ve sold 100% of the apples you hoped to sell.

If you go to the market with 100 apples but with a target of selling 50 apples and you sell 75 apples, then you’ve sold 150% of the apples you hoped to sell.

Corking. Except that you go home with 25 apples and probably less money than you’d have if you’d sold 100% of the available apples.

Which just goes to show you can never trust numbers.
 
I probably shouldn't but I quite like some of his humour, but he is also a self opinionated entitled prick. I do wonder how pissed he was when he wrote this latest stupid remark.
 
Recidivist3 said:
I seem to recall you getting a little bit upset when I posted a photo of a paedo who looks a lot like you

If only you’d accepted it in the comicesque style in which it was meant
Click to expand...
It was a ridiculous and ill thought out thing for Clarkson to write. It was rather different to implying someone resembles a paedophile though and anyway I seem to ‘recall’ you wrote something equally obnoxious about our queen recently…
 
Last edited:
Sooty59 said:
I probably shouldn't but I quite like some of his humour, but he is also a self opinionated entitled prick. I do wonder how pissed he was when he wrote this latest stupid remark.
Click to expand...
How pissed was the sub editor and editor to agree to publish it? No excuses. Disgraceful, offensive and done for publicity.
 
Mexboroseasider said:
Yes but….

If you go to the market with 100 apples and sell 100 apples then you’ve sold 100% of the apples you hoped to sell.

If you go to the market with 100 apples but with a target of selling 50 apples and you sell 75 apples, then you’ve sold 150% of the apples you hoped to sell.

Corking. Except that you go home with 25 apples and probably less money than you’d have if you’d sold 100% of the available apples.

Which just goes to show you can never trust numbers.
Click to expand...
You'll go home with 25 apples you throw away, so probably out of pocket 😉
 
Mexboroseasider said:
True. But I don’t think it’s possible to have 150% of Daily Mail readers?

Which would make Southshore 50% right and you 50% wrong.
Click to expand...
That’s not what Southshore said though.

He said 150% of Daily Mail readers think 150% is an actual percentage.

Nowhere in that statement makes him right. Not even 50% right.
 
Lala said:
That’s not what Southshore said though.

He said 150% of Daily Mail readers think 150% is an actual percentage.

Nowhere in that statement makes him right. Not even 50% right.
Click to expand...
Well you can’t have 150% of Daily Mail readers. So Southshore was 50% right.
 
Lala said:
That’s not what Southshore said though.

He said 150% of Daily Mail readers think 150% is an actual percentage.

Nowhere in that statement makes him right. Not even 50% right.
Click to expand...

My point was you cant have 150% of a finite quantity, which is where percentages are often misused.

Maybe I should have put more thought into it, but that's 120% not me.
 
Mexboroseasider said:
Well you can’t have 150% of Daily Mail readers. So Southshore was 50% right.
Click to expand...
No he didn’t say you can’t have 150% of Daily Mail readers. He actually said 150% of Daily Mail readers ……

He’s accepted the error of his ways with grace now 😏
 
Well, reading today's headlines, it appears as though some broadcasters are distancing themselves from him as a result of H&M not accepting his apology (TBF I'm not sure how an apology could make it for the what he said).

He doesn't need the money, but he will miss the 'fame' - I foresee a successful stint in the jungle to rehabilitate himself and tell his truth.
 
Not a fan of Clarkson but I have to agree with him on this. They can give it but not take it. The WOKE couple of leftist hypocrites.
 
spudgun said:
...to use the media to inform us that his extreme hatred of Meghan Markle extends to fantasising of her being paraded naked through every town in the UK whilst people throw excrement at her, or are such thoughts best kept to oneself?

Anybody think this is normal and justifiable behaviour from Clarkson, his editor, the Sun newspaper?

Does anyone deserve such public vilification?
Click to expand...
I have never been a fan of Clarkson but he has gone up in my estimation since this comment. The WOKE left have blown a gasket. I love it well done fat man👍
 
southshore said:
Deeply unfair.

I'm oft maligned, misquoted and misunderstood.

Its a burden I've learned to bear, mainly by consuming copious quantities of decent beer.

Your round, Mex.
Click to expand...
Without us grammar police, some would say you're calling Mex obese...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top