Ah you may wish to listen to the apology again. With regards to your 'tear down':
1) Agreed, he says as much himself.
2) My interpretation was that he was keen to avoid the use of the word, to quote:
"Now of course, I was well aware that in the best known version of this rhyme there is a racist word that I was extremely keen to avoid." Note that he was keen to avoid, not disguise, he is also aware that there are multiple versions of the rhyme, which I think we are all agreed on.
3) He listened to all three versions (I assume) and noted that one of the three, two of which were 'mumbled', bore a resemblance to the 'n' word and insisted that this particular version was not used as it was not intended to sound that way, again to quote:
"When I viewed this footage several weeks later, I realised that in one of the mumbled versions, if you listen very carefully with the sound turned right up, it did appear that Iâd actually used the word I was trying to obscure.", to which he further adds
"I was mortified by this, horrified. It was a word I loathe. I did everything in my power to ensure that that word did not get in the programme that was transmitted."
So to be clear, and based on accepting his word on the version of events (that is all either of us can do):
- He knew that a well known version of the rhyme contained an offensive term
- Did not intend to use the term
- Accepts that one of the three takes unintentionally sounds like he is using the offensive term.
- Is clarifying that he did not intend the term to be used - disguised or otherwise.
Therefore I am not sure how that disagree's with anything I have said, perhaps you could clarify with quotes where applicable?
One thing I will say is that having listened to the mumbled version a couple of times I actually think it sounds
more like he used the offensive term than it did initially (to me), but I currently see nothing that makes me think it was anything other than an unintentional likeness to the sound of the word than an attempt to conceal it in plain sight for provocative purposes. If it were the case that he was intending to conceal it in plain sight would the second of the mumbled clips also not show this?
They key differnce is you believe he was saying it to cause offence via obfuscation of the offensive word, but as far as I can see there was no intent to cause offence, but again perhaps you could clarify with quotes?
Now if he was setting out to cause offense of course that's a different kettle of fish but based on what we know and assume that Clarkson is telling the truth we cannot infer anything else (as far as I can see), from what's been said.
No misunderstanding, I know you aren't saying people are/were offended by what was broadcast, but I believe you to be incorrect in the assertion that Clarkson was wrong to use the rhyme due to one variation of it containing an offensive term. My understanding of your argument is thus: Clarkson should not have used eeny meeny miny moe due to one of the variations containing an offensive term, is that correct?
If so I stand by the point that it was not incorrect to use a non-offensive version of the rhyme to illustrate the point. Which is a seperate issue from whether he used the offensive word or not, is it not?