Jeremy Clarkson retweets pornographic image involving a dog to 5.42 million Twitter followers
He took it down moments later, suggesting even he found it distasteful
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Jeremy Clarkson appeared to retweet a pornographic image involving a dog to his 5 million followers last night, leading many to wonder if his account was hacked.
The equally viable option, of course, would only confirm he just has a pretty poor (and dark) sense of humour.
The tweet sent to Clarkson read “My dog has gone missing. This is the only pic I have of him but if you see him please @ me! His name’s Ralph.”
Clarkson retweeted it, along with the graphic image, but after alarming several people he seemed to undo his RT.
Clarkson is used to causing problems online.
Last month he and Richard Hammond upset fans with a dated gay slur while outside a fudge shop.
He will he returning to screens alongside Richard Hammond and James May soon, as Amazon has announced they have signed the three up to front an as-yet untitled car show.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments