Thread: Is Auntie Beeb finally growing a pair? Burn in Heck, Clarkson. Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029893

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Clarkson Suspended.
Don't know why yet, though. But it is long overdue, IMO.
Don't hate the man, but don't like his continued crossing the racism boundaries and being given special dispensation.
This thread would be more appropriate on a Heck board, but not feeling kindly disposed enough for Purg.
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
Damn beat me to it.

At the risk of wasting more useless internet space on the specious ignoramus I hope that is the end of this sordid episode.

Hubris.
 
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Clarkson Suspended.
Don't know why yet, though.

The Telegraph are reporting that he tried to punch a producer.

While I deplore Clarkson's views on most things, and violence in general, I will give him the concession that he once punched Piers Morgan. That must be the one item in his "good column".
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Top Gear sales around the world, to all 174 territories, have been doing sterling work to support Auntie Beeb in her hour of need - 2013 figures
 
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :
 
...and #bringbackClarkson is already trending on Twitter.

sigh
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Coin purse ethics.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
I was in the audience before the recording of Any Questions when we were asked for ideas that might improve the BBC. One of the audience suggested getting rid of Clarkson and we were asked for a show of hands. The waving forest only diminished slightly when the financial implications (raised licence fee) were pointed out. The man who suggested it kept arguing his case.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Maybe Mr Clarksona and Mr Wilman should be given a pair of boxing gloves and invited to settle their differences according to Queensbury Rules?

[ 10. March 2015, 19:55: Message edited by: L'organist ]
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
If he did actually try to punch a producer, the BBC will have had to choose between losing Clarkson and facing legal action from the producer, so they've erally had no choice.
Lesson is that the Beeb mustn't get into a position where it becomes so financially dependent on one brand and one presenter.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
I used to watch and enjoy Top Gear. Not for the last decade, though, because Clarkson has become a parody of himself. He developed a reputation for being a "bit of a lad", and so had to live up to this, and push it further. That seemed to be more important than anything else for a long time.

So I am glad he has been suspended. It doesn't matter how significant he it to the BBC, he should not be allowed to get away with poor behaviour - any more than Jimmy Saville should have been decades ago. If he is too big to fail, there needs to be a realignment, because, as we have found out, that is dangerous.

TBH, I even find the other two presenters are getting tedious too. They are boring and trite, and we should move beyond them.
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
So let me see if I've got this right. He attempted to hit someone while already on a final warning. Anyone else would have been sacked without notice.
 
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :
 
I can't help feeling really sorry for the people who had tickets for the studio recordings of the rest of the series; there was apparently a waiting-list as long as your arm, and if I'd been one of them, there wouldn't be words to describe how pissed off I'd be.

If he really did try to hit someone, then I suppose the Beeb won't have any choice but to sack him, but it does rather leave his co-hosts (both excellent broadcasters IMHO) in the lurch.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
I do not feel sorry for the audience. They are part of feeding his ego and they have ignored his behaviour.
Minimal sorrow for his cohosts as they participate in, and contribute to, the objectionable behaviour.
The only people I might feel sorry for are the crew if it affects their employment.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The only people I might feel sorry for are the crew if it affects their employment.

Not to mention physical, emotional and mental well being if they are in danger of getting punched or otherwise bullied.

Not to mention sometimes having to go to places where relationships with Britain are not great (like, Argentina) accompanying someone with the diplomatic nous of a few tons of hot bricks. I'm surprised he hasn't managed to convince the BBC to sign up the Navy to send a couple of gunboats in with him.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
It doesn't matter how significant he it to the BBC, he should not be allowed to get away with poor behaviour - any more than Jimmy Saville should have been decades ago.

I didn't notice this initially. Kindly don't make this kind of comparison. There is a world of difference between "poor behaviour" in terms of being rude and obnoxious and committing criminal acts.

orfeo
Hellhost

 
Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Piglet:
If he really did try to hit someone, then I suppose the Beeb won't have any choice but to sack him, but it does rather leave his co-hosts (both excellent broadcasters IMHO) in the lurch.

They could bring back Angela Rippon to fill the vacancy...
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Any number of people could fill the vacancy. I don't know why they pulled the show, they should just have wheeled in another comedian and got on with it.

Let his absence cause not even a ripple.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
So let me see if I've got this right. He attempted to hit someone while already on a final warning. Anyone else would have been sacked without notice.

Quite.
BTW for Uk shipmates at least you can hear Arthur Smith brilliantly demolishing Top Gear at the beginning of this programme.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
^ Can be listened to internationally, in fact. I know that's not always the case but in this case it works.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Any number of people could fill the vacancy. I don't know why they pulled the show, they should just have wheeled in another comedian and got on with it.

Let his absence cause not even a ripple.

I doubt that. If he is sacked, I would think that Sky will immediately hire the three of them, and the Beeb would struggle to replace them. In fact, I bet Sky are already drawing up the contracts.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
The problem is that "there's no such thing as bad publicity". I suspect there might be more than a little interest in a reopening on another Channel.

I've never been a fan of Top Gear and won't miss it. But it seems clear that lots of people will. There seems to be a market out there for non-PC "bad boys".

Or maybe it's just "bad boys", regardless of PC-ness?

Getting suspended/sacked by the Beeb hasn't done Russell Brand any harm. I expect Clarkson will prosper, whether or not the Beeb ditches him for good.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
There have been various clones of Top Gear around the world, and they tend not to work, but I think a lot of this is the chemistry between the three presenters. If C is sacked, it will depend on whether they stick together; possibly they might want to split, but as a unit they will command big bucks. Judging by their tweets, they seem unconcerned.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Four of the ten most-read stories on the BBC News website are currently about this.

It epitomises why I hate the media.

Four-tenths of what used to be the benchmark of objective reporting is consumed with a story about... itself. It is stoking both sides of the debate and egging on those petitioning to get the man reinstated as though he were a god, no doubt nurturing a hope that once reinstated some other dirty little (or large) secret will emerge so they can go through a whole new round of finger-pointing, soul-searching, introspection and clickbait.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Four of the ten most-read stories on the BBC News website are currently about this.

It epitomises why I hate the media.

Four-tenths of what used to be the benchmark of objective reporting is consumed with a story about... itself. It is stoking both sides of the debate and egging on those petitioning to get the man reinstated as though he were a god, no doubt nurturing a hope that once reinstated some other dirty little (or large) secret will emerge so they can go through a whole new round of finger-pointing, soul-searching, introspection and clickbait.

Well, I suppose so. But I think there is a place for gossip, bad jokes, and general trash, in the media. We can't be reading analyses of geopolitics all the time.
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Piglet:
I can't help feeling really sorry for the people who had tickets for the studio recordings of the rest of the series;

Why? It's not as if they'd paid for the tickets.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
If he is sacked, I would think that Sky will immediately hire the three of them

You're probably right, but only because Sky have sufficient resources to win the bidding war.

Like it or not, there is a massive audience out there wanting to watch Clarkson et al be laddish, tell off-colour jokes and drive fast cars. Someone is going to provide it for them.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Fine. But not a public service broadcaster with a mission to educate and inform as well as entertain, thank you.
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
If he is sacked, I would think that Sky will immediately hire the three of them

You're probably right, but only because Sky have sufficient resources to win the bidding war.

Like it or not, there is a massive audience out there wanting to watch Clarkson et al be laddish, tell off-colour jokes and drive fast cars. Someone is going to provide it for them.

Bear in mind that the BBC own all the rights to the Top Gear format. If Sky (or any other broadcaster) were to try and copy it they'd have a massive legal battle on their hands.

ETA: As for hiring the other two, that may not happen (at least for a while) as they are probably tied into contracts with the Beeb.

[ 11. March 2015, 12:09: Message edited by: Spike ]
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
I agree that Mr Clarkson comes across as overly laddish - which is bad enough in anyone, let alone a man of 53 - but I think that sometimes he is berated for things that either aren't true.

For example, the 'slope' comment was very obviously made about the pitch of the bridge: anyone who says otherwise either hasn't watched the footage or is incapable of following a commentary in plain English.

Similarly, the Porsche car with the so-called Falklands numberplate: that is the registration originally issued to the car by the DVLA when it was imported into the country.

Anyone suggesting that the plate was in any way making a statement about the Falklands conflict is being obtuse - specifically because, as we all know, the Argentinians refer to the islands as Las Malvinas: if Clarkson and crew had wished to upset people they'd have gone for a numberplate with MAL at the end.

The 'eeny-meeny-miny-mo' thing: there are thousands of us out here who were taught the same rhyme because when we were growing up no one thought about it: similarly school libraries were full of books now considered questionable and most children had a golly. It is unfortunate that Mr Clarkson used the original rhyme but hardly a hanging offence.

Whatever the outcome of the latest row, it can't be denied that Mr Clarkson is deemed by many to be a thick, right-wing petrol-head who'd rather be out hunting than sitting down with a book: which may or may not be true but is no good reason for people to call for his banishment from out TV screens.

FWIW I loathe Top Gear and think the format was better when it had Quentin Willson with the reliability surveys - but then I'm an old-fashioned type.
 
Posted by passer (# 13329) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I doubt that. If he is sacked, I would think that Sky will immediately hire the three of them, and the Beeb would struggle to replace them. In fact, I bet Sky are already drawing up the contracts.

That would be Sky, who are owned largely by Murdoch. Who loathes and despises all things BBC because they deny advertising revenue to his TV empire simply by existing. Murdoch who also owns News Corp. Who own the ST and the Sun. For whom Clarkson is a columnist. For whom Guido Fawkes is also a columnist. The Guido Fawkes who started up the on-line petition to retain Clarkson ten minutes after the suspension announcement, thus ensuring a laddish support-base and laying the foundation for what you suggest, quetzalcoatl.

Multi-pronged assault anyone, from a business rival, directed at a competitor (in their eyes) shackled by a funding model necessitating them being all things to all people?

Clarkson (whose programmes I quite enjoy) has a reputation as an arrogant misogynist who is so far up his own ass there isn't room for anyone else to squeeze in. Member of the Chipping Norton set, and friend of the PM, who once appeared on his programme. Imagine what would happen if the BBC didn't discipline him. Like many others, he's a victim of his own persona. I'll miss him if he gets dumped, and hope he doesn't, but he's the author of his own misfortune again.
 
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
... For example, the 'slope' comment was very obviously made about the pitch of the bridge ...

Similarly, the Porsche car with the so-called Falklands numberplate: that is the registration originally issued to the car by the DVLA when it was imported into the country ...

The 'eeny-meeny-miny-mo' thing: there are thousands of us out here who were taught the same rhyme because when we were growing up no one thought about it ...

Well said, L'Organist - those were exactly my thoughts when the incidents in question happened. I didn't even know that "slope" was a rude word until JC got into trouble for using it.

If Auntie insists on replacing him, may I suggest Angus Deayton? [Devil]

Or Boris ... [Killing me]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
TBH it's his irresponsible attitudes towards road safety and the environment that bother me the most. The former especially when some shit for brains ignoramus shouts "pay your fucking road tax!" as he overtakes my bike far too close.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
I still think that the BBC should have suspended him but made sure the show went on as usual.

He's soon be forgotten if they put someone like Chris Evans in his place.

By cancelling the next couple of programmes they've left things wide open for negotiation. If Mr C had been taken ill I bet the show would have gone on.
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
For example, the 'slope' comment was very obviously made about the pitch of the bridge: anyone who says otherwise either hasn't watched the footage or is incapable of following a commentary in plain English.


Yes. the comment was probably made referring to the pitch of the bridge and later the footage was edited to show a lone Asian bloke standing on the bridge. Clarkson probably wasn't personally responsible for the edit, but I'd be surprised if he wasn't aware of it.
quote:

Similarly, the Porsche car with the so-called Falklands numberplate: that is the registration originally issued to the car by the DVLA when it was imported into the country.

Anyone suggesting that the plate was in any way making a statement about the Falklands conflict is being obtuse - specifically because, as we all know, the Argentinians refer to the islands as Las Malvinas: if Clarkson and crew had wished to upset people they'd have gone for a numberplate with MAL at the end.


Maybe it was a coincidence. Maybe it was also a coincidence in the episode where they has great hilarity about the fact that he was driving a car where the registration plate was an anagram of C**T and that the one James May was driving was an anagram of GOSH.

It's interesting that after the Argentina incident, he tweeted "... for once we did nothing wrong". This, to me, implies that he was admitting that all the previous faux pax that he claimed were innocent were, in fact, deliberate
quote:

The 'eeny-meeny-miny-mo' thing: there are thousands of us out here who were taught the same rhyme because when we were growing up no one thought about it: similarly school libraries were full of books now considered questionable and most children had a golly. It is unfortunate that Mr Clarkson used the original rhyme but hardly a hanging offence.


Taken in isolation it may not seem such a big thing, but add it to his comments about black Muslim lesbians, the one eyed Scottish idiot, his joke that all Mexicans are lazy or comparing modern day Germans to the Third Reich. All of them individually taken in isolation don't amount to much, but add them all up ...
quote:

Whatever the outcome of the latest row, it can't be denied that Mr Clarkson is deemed by many to be a thick, right-wing petrol-head who'd rather be out hunting than sitting down with a book:


I don't think he's thick. The rest of it is about right though.
quote:

which may or may not be true but is no good reason for people to call for his banishment from out TV screens.

Maybe not. Assaulting a colleague for delivering his sandwiches late seems a pretty good reason though.

[ 11. March 2015, 13:41: Message edited by: Spike ]
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
I think William Woollard's still about, isn't he? Perhaps he might like the gig if Angela Rippon isn't available.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by l'organist:

quote:
The 'eeny-meeny-miny-mo' thing: there are thousands of us out here who were taught the same rhyme because when we were growing up no one thought about it: similarly school libraries were full of books now considered questionable and most children had a golly. It is unfortunate that Mr Clarkson used the original rhyme but hardly a hanging offence.
Ah yes, those roseate days of innocence when we used racist epithets as part of a nursery rhyme.

The man is supposed to be a television presenter, for crying out loud. If we were talking about an elderly good hearted senior citizen who had inadvertently referred to, say, Lenny Henry as a coloured gentleman i might have some sympathy but, really, a professional television presenter who is paid a shit load of money for his job not thinking "Do you know, as this is being recorded, I'm going to do what every seven year old in the country now does and use the term 'Vicar' instead". How much sympathy did you have with Gordon Brown when he was rude about Gillian Duffy on air? Exactly. The racism is quite bad enough but when you make Nicola Murray look like Angela fucking Merkel in the old not being an utter halfwit stakes you clearly need to have a quiet word with yourself.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I don't think he's thick, certainly. He's constructed a persona which appears to be popular; and the three of them are rather like licensed fools. I do doubt that the chemistry would work, with a replacement, or whether the other two would cooperate.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Dunno, that's what they said when Angus Deyton was sacked.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think he's thick, certainly. He's constructed a persona which appears to be popular; and the three of them are rather like licensed fools. I do doubt that the chemistry would work, with a replacement, or whether the other two would cooperate.

Suppose Clarkson had been killed in a car crash. Would the Beeb then say that it was time to wind up the show, or would they try to find a replacement, assuming Hammond and May (a - to me- surprisingly cultured and thoughtful man, BTW) were up for it? My money'd be firmly on the latter.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
The man is supposed to be a television presenter, for crying out loud. If we were talking about an elderly good hearted senior citizen who had inadvertently referred to, say, Lenny Henry as a coloured gentleman i might have some sympathy but, really, a professional television presenter who is paid a shit load of money for his job not thinking "Do you know, as this is being recorded, I'm going to do what every seven year old in the country now does and use the term 'Vicar' instead".

You seem to be confusing "as this is being recorded" with "as this is being broadcast".

Also, I'm always fascinated by this argument that being in the spotlight - television personality, sports star - suddenly makes it necessary for you to be a perfect human being. Seriously, it gets to the stage where Jesus might struggle with his actions being perceived in a certain light.

I do think that there are some things that Clarkson has done which he should answer for, but it always seemed to me that the nursery rhyme incident was ridiculously overinflated, not least because he self-corrected!
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
It's interesting that after the Argentina incident, he tweeted "... for once we did nothing wrong". This, to me, implies that he was admitting that all the previous faux pax that he claimed were innocent were, in fact, deliberate

Or he could just be making an ironic joke.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think he's thick, certainly. He's constructed a persona which appears to be popular; and the three of them are rather like licensed fools. I do doubt that the chemistry would work, with a replacement, or whether the other two would cooperate.

Like an ugly, low-rent Boris Johnson?

Few thought "I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue" would survive without Chairman Humph, but Jack Dee does a decent job. Top Gear won't be the same without Clarkson, and the yob element would decry any changes, but it could survive. I'd get a genuine motoring journalist in to contrast with the personalities.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I just read May's reply, when a journo asked, is Clarkson guilty? May said, without a beat, yes, of being a knob. I that captures some of their appeal, well I laughed.
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
After much thought as to why the man vexes me so much and why I have spent all day expectantly watching the digital media pick at crumbs (which is very unlike me) I can honestly say it is not because he is a twonk who dabbles in feckless misogyny and racism.

It is because he is a Trojan horse for his right wing entitled buddies. While he may not openly tickle Murdoch's balls for money he does privately and laughs at those who slavishly adore him while he manipulates them for whatever whim takes his master's fancy.

He is a meretricious capitalist fop. I want to sign a petition to keep him on the isle of man for the next 40 years
 
Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

The 'eeny-meeny-miny-mo' thing: there are thousands of us out here who were taught the same rhyme because when we were growing up no one thought about it: similarly school libraries were full of books now considered questionable and most children had a golly. It is unfortunate that Mr Clarkson used the original rhyme but hardly a hanging offence.

I'm 51 and, I have to say, that I'd NEVER heard the "n****r" version growing up--it was always "tiger". Perhaps sensitivity to that particular epithet was later coming in the UK than in the western US? Either way, he's an absolute idiot to have used it NOW.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think he's thick, certainly. He's constructed a persona which appears to be popular; and the three of them are rather like licensed fools. I do doubt that the chemistry would work, with a replacement, or whether the other two would cooperate.

Like an ugly, low-rent Boris Johnson?

Few thought "I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue" would survive without Chairman Humph, but Jack Dee does a decent job. Top Gear won't be the same without Clarkson, and the yob element would decry any changes, but it could survive. I'd get a genuine motoring journalist in to contrast with the personalities.

Interesting point about Boris. You could see Clarkson as an actor, who plays a character called Clarkson. But this time it's the actor, who's in trouble, whereas usually it's the character - unless this itself has been set up. It's all too Brechtian for me.
 
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :
 
I agree with Siegfried. I'm 53 and I never heard anything but "tiger" in that rhyme until I was an adult and read about it.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
A friend just said to me that the best thing about TG is that it's very silly, and I thought that's quite perceptive. Clarkson on his own is not my cup of tea, but the three of them do tickle my tickling stick; they are also reasonably tasteless, which again appeals to me.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by l'organist:

quote:
The 'eeny-meeny-miny-mo' thing: there are thousands of us out here who were taught the same rhyme because when we were growing up no one thought about it: similarly school libraries were full of books now considered questionable and most children had a golly. It is unfortunate that Mr Clarkson used the original rhyme but hardly a hanging offence.
Ah yes, those roseate days of innocence when we used racist epithets as part of a nursery rhyme.

The man is supposed to be a television presenter, for crying out loud. If we were talking about an elderly good hearted senior citizen who had inadvertently referred to, say, Lenny Henry as a coloured gentleman i might have some sympathy but, really, a professional television presenter who is paid a shit load of money for his job not thinking "Do you know, as this is being recorded, I'm going to do what every seven year old in the country now does and use the term 'Vicar' instead".

If he'd said it once and caught himself, there might be an excuse. He said it at least 4 times and had the presence of mind to lower his voice and mumble. How many brain cells does it take to connect and realise you can substitute the word or use a different rhyme?
----------------
As to the slope comment, it is not obvious he meant the bridge. It is not obvious he meant the man either. It is simply not obvious which he meant. But given his history.....
---------

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
I can honestly say it is not because he is a twonk who dabbles in feckless misogyny and racism.

Hmmm, good enough reason for me.
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:

It is because he is a Trojan horse for his right wing entitled buddies. While he may not openly tickle Murdoch's balls for money he does privately and laughs at those who slavishly adore him while he manipulates them for whatever whim takes his master's fancy.

Just adds more reason.
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:

He is a meretricious capitalist fop. I want to sign a petition to keep him on the isle of man for the next 40 years

What have you against the Isle of Man?
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Not Isle of Man- Sark- no cars there!
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
He's the sort of "blokeish" man that gives some of us a bad name. We're not all fascinated by cars and football - some of us have real lives.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
He's the sort of "blokeish" man that gives some of us a bad name. We're not all fascinated by cars and football - some of us have real lives.

I don't think it's either/or, is it?
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
A friend just said to me that the best thing about TG is that it's very silly, and I thought that's quite perceptive. Clarkson on his own is not my cup of tea, but the three of them do tickle my tickling stick; they are also reasonably tasteless, which again appeals to me.

I feel much the same way. I can't stand Clarkson but I must admit I often enjoy watching Top Gear
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
A friend just said to me that the best thing about TG is that it's very silly, and I thought that's quite perceptive. Clarkson on his own is not my cup of tea, but the three of them do tickle my tickling stick; they are also reasonably tasteless, which again appeals to me.

I feel much the same way. I can't stand Clarkson but I must admit I often enjoy watching Top Gear
I'm sorry, I can't remember what sex you are, but one thing that shocked me is how many female friends watch it. Well, trash heals.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
A friend just said to me that the best thing about TG is that it's very silly, and I thought that's quite perceptive. Clarkson on his own is not my cup of tea, but the three of them do tickle my tickling stick; they are also reasonably tasteless, which again appeals to me.

I feel much the same way. I can't stand Clarkson but I must admit I often enjoy watching Top Gear
I feel the same, I think. I wouldn't want to be stuck in a lift with Clarkson, say, but I'm rather miffed that my Sunday night viewing for the next three weeks has been ruined.
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
I agree with Siegfried. I'm 53 and I never heard anything but "tiger" in that rhyme until I was an adult and read about it.

I knew nothing but the N version at school.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I think I'll set up a new web-site for secret Top Gear watchers. Anonymity guaranteed.

Some stats show a 40% female audience, maybe they like cars.
 
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
I agree with Siegfried. I'm 53 and I never heard anything but "tiger" in that rhyme until I was an adult and read about it.

I knew nothing but the N version at school.
I'm 37 and it was the N version when I was at school also. As far as the instance of Clarkson using that version now goes, it seems to me it was crass and discourteous of him (what a surprise), because he is unlikely to have not realised that it would upset a lot of people, but it doesn't seem racist to use the N word in that context - it's a quotation, it doesn't represent anything about the reciter's views on the topic of race. Should we excise the C word from Chaucer on the same basis?* It is considered a very bad word now - quite an insult, not just a descriptor.

*Not that I am trying to suggest that similar weight be given to Chaucer and nursery rhymes.
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Minimal sorrow for his cohosts as they participate in, and contribute to, the objectionable behaviour.

That's because in most people's mind Clarkson is the focus of all that is bad about TG.

Clarkson has been blamed on this thread and in my morning paper of calling Mexicans lazy and feckless. That was Richard Hammond who was also involved in the Slope joke.

But this is a program that sells across the world. People in foreign countries do not seem to have the same problem with Top Gear's implicit mild racism. The odd diplomat may complain, but the TV companies keep on buying.

Top Gear may succeed abroad because of the racist, sexist element rather than despite it.
 
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think I'll set up a new web-site for secret Top Gear watchers. Anonymity guaranteed.

Some stats show a 40% female audience, maybe they like cars.

I like to watch Top Gear. I'm female, on the other side of the world, and have very little interest in cars. Here's why I like it: It's funny, often laugh-out-loud funny, and it seems like there is precious little to laugh about much of the time, so I'm grateful for any funny stuff I can plonk myself in front of.

Lest anyone have a sniff at me for laughing at Mexicans being insulted or truck drivers being compared to serial killers, I should say that I actually find that stuff excruciating - and I did once see some outtakes from Top Gear in which Jeremy Clarkson did a really excessive amount of cleavage-leering, accompanied by comments, which was just gross. The thing is, they could quit all that stuff entirely and still have a show that was side-achingly funny. The train made of caravans! The off-road caravanning! The Reliant Robin section! Comedy gold! That last one still makes me laugh out loud whenever I see it, and I've seen it quite a number of times. The thing is, apart from the fact that it wastes materials, this sort of thing is completely harmless fun, and it turns out that I, cubicle farm worker number 80045271, haven't quite dried out and shriveled up to the point where I can't delight in seeing others have fun. Even if it is scripted a lot of the time.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think I'll set up a new web-site for secret Top Gear watchers. Anonymity guaranteed.

Some stats show a 40% female audience, maybe they like cars.

Yes, some women do. Cars can be quite interesting. I like seeing what the presenters do with them, and I enjoy their adventures, the stunts, and having a look at the different countries they visit. I wish I had as much ease and confidence with driving! The three of them are amusing, juvenile, blokey, annoying, but good television.

Top Gear without Clarkson wouldn't be the same. I wouldn't particularly want to meet him in person but as part of a three-way combination with the other two presenters, it works quite well. Break that up and you lose the formula.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
I agree with Siegfried. I'm 53 and I never heard anything but "tiger" in that rhyme until I was an adult and read about it.

I knew nothing but the N version at school.
I'm 37 and it was the N version when I was at school also. As far as the instance of Clarkson using that version now goes, it seems to me it was crass and discourteous of him (what a surprise), because he is unlikely to have not realised that it would upset a lot of people, but it doesn't seem racist to use the N word in that context - it's a quotation, it doesn't represent anything about the reciter's views on the topic of race. Should we excise the C word from Chaucer on the same basis?* It is considered a very bad word now - quite an insult, not just a descriptor.

*Not that I am trying to suggest that similar weight be given to Chaucer and nursery rhymes.

I think it's already been pointed out that eenie meenie was not shown on TV, so how would it upset people?
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think I'll set up a new web-site for secret Top Gear watchers. Anonymity guaranteed.

Some stats show a 40% female audience, maybe they like cars.

Yes, some women do. Cars can be quite interesting. I like seeing what the presenters do with them, and I enjoy their adventures, the stunts, and having a look at the different countries they visit. I wish I had as much ease and confidence with driving! The three of them are amusing, juvenile, blokey, annoying, but good television.
Dear Alien Being,

Please give us back Ariel, we will pay a reasonable sum.

Pyx_e
 
Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think it's already been pointed out that eenie meenie was not shown on TV, so how would it upset people.

I think it was his vehement denial on Twitter following the initial report that he would ever say that word, and his excuse to the programme makers that it inadvertantly sounded like he had.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
The new forum on Top Gear will include sections on shame, coming out to friends and family as a covert TG watcher, and, crucially, how belief in a higher power (non-denominational), gave you the courage to emerge. My name is Cuthbert, I fought my demons, and I watch TG. Hold me.
 
Posted by Darllenwr (# 14520) on :
 
Whilst I grant that the current Clarkson-Top Gear persona is sometimes tiresome, don't insist that this is all there is to the man. Go and watch his documentary on the VC, and then comment on what you see in him.
 
Posted by molopata (# 9933) on :
 
I'm male, totally uninterested in cars, but I like Top Gear in a way. Mainly because, as someone said further up, it is silly. In fact, it is insanely silly.

But having said that, Clarkson is a bastard and on his own a rather likeable person. His nastiness is only shored up by the relative likeability of this side-kicks. However, I must concede that the edgy anti-PCness of his show does resonate somewhere in me and possibly brings out my own bastardness.

That is all very drole, but of recent the shows have just become re-runs of themselves. They've milked it for what they can, and I think that after 20+ series it's time to lower the curtains and send it the same way as Friends. What better way than to end it on a Clarksonian bombshell?

All three are damaged goods. The only character capable of running his own future show would be the Stig.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Darllenwr:
Whilst I grant that the current Clarkson-Top Gear persona is sometimes tiresome, don't insist that this is all there is to the man. Go and watch his documentary on the VC, and then comment on what you see in him.

Well, I think that's the point; he is playing a character, which people may not like. It reminds of when people used to ask why Clint Eastwood is such a bastard. Erm ...
 
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :
 
I am totally in agreement with anoesis and Ariel -- I am not Top Gear's target demographic, but I enjoy the humour in it though I couldn't be less interested in cars. I enjoy it because of Clarkson, not in spite of him -- though a smaller subset of that is that I enjoy Clarkson in spite of his racist/sexist comments, not because of them. I commented in Heaven when we were discussing Top Gear that he is the only comedian I can think of who I find hilarious although I disagree with almost everything he says. With most comedians my appreciation of their humour is based on sharing, at least to some extent, their political and cultural prejudices; with Clarkson I find him funny even when he's expressing views I disagree with (minus the really overtly racist and sexist stuff). I quite get that not everyone likes him and he certainly deserves to be disciplined, but there are quite a lot of people who you might not identify as the "typical" Top Gear fan or Clarkson fan, who enjoy both him and the show.

[ 11. March 2015, 20:18: Message edited by: Trudy Scrumptious ]
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
Despite what I've said earlier about Clarkson, his journalism is very good, I think. His car reviews in the Sunday Times are often brilliantly entertaining. (Perhaps they're more enjoyable because you don't have to listen to him while reading them?)
 
Posted by St. Gwladys (# 14504) on :
 
I used to enjoy Top Gear but now just find it irritating, which is why I watched Call the Midwife on my computer whilst Darllenwr and Lord P watched Top Gear on the TV.
Darllenwr has said that Clarkson can be a serious presenter - he has done some good, serious programmes. Hammond and May have also done some serious work and have had their own series. IMO, Clarkson of Top Gear has become a brand, and he acts the brand.
I don't know how much control he has over the script of Top Gear, but there are times where he really does go too far and it's cringeworthy. This still doesn't excuse him for thumping a producer.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
The man is supposed to be a television presenter, for crying out loud. If we were talking about an elderly good hearted senior citizen who had inadvertently referred to, say, Lenny Henry as a coloured gentleman i might have some sympathy but, really, a professional television presenter who is paid a shit load of money for his job not thinking "Do you know, as this is being recorded, I'm going to do what every seven year old in the country now does and use the term 'Vicar' instead".

You seem to be confusing "as this is being recorded" with "as this is being broadcast".

Also, I'm always fascinated by this argument that being in the spotlight - television personality, sports star - suddenly makes it necessary for you to be a perfect human being. Seriously, it gets to the stage where Jesus might struggle with his actions being perceived in a certain light.

I do think that there are some things that Clarkson has done which he should answer for, but it always seemed to me that the nursery rhyme incident was ridiculously overinflated, not least because he self-corrected!

That which is recorded can be subsequently broadcast, or at least played back to your enemies.

And we are not talking about Ed Miliband looking a bit odd eating a bacon sandwich. We are talking about two g's, an i, an n, an e and a r. And I'm not just about to break into a chorus of "only a ginger, can call another ginger, ginger".

Now if you think that it is acceptable to use the word 'n*gg*r' in polite conversation, then fair enough. But I suspect that there will be a certain amount of outrage that I have just used the word 'n*gg*r' despite the fact that I am using it to point out that Jeremy Clarkson was being racist to use the word 'n*gg*r' and that you appear to think that it was all right for Jeremy Clarkson to use the word 'n*gg*r', because he "auto-corrected" after using the word 'n*gg*r'.

So you have to decide. Either the last paragraph was unacceptable and I should have known this. In which case please accept my auto-correction. Or the N-word is a semi-acceptable part of public discourse, if one is being edgy and transgressive.

On balance, I've decided that using the word marks one down irredeemably as being a bit of a c-word. So I've gone back and inserted asterisks. Because the word n*gg*r ought not to be used in public discourse, just to show how clever one is.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
I agree with Siegfried. I'm 53 and I never heard anything but "tiger" in that rhyme until I was an adult and read about it.

Well, I'm 41 and I learnt Clarkson's version, and would struggle not to use it. But I'm Australian, and the whole world knows that Australians are a bunch of horrible racist bastards anyway.

As to whether sensitivity about "nigger" reached the UK (and Australia) later: absolutely, because it's simply not the case in those countries that people treat the word as the absolute screaming offence that it's treated in the USA. It's still considered a bad word here, but it is noticeable that American Shipmates don't want to write the word out in full in the way I just did, whereas to me it's not filled with any more nastiness than fuck, shit or various other nasty words that get written down here in Hell.

EDIT: And I wrote all that before observing Callan's efforts to tiptoe around writing it.

[ 11. March 2015, 20:42: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :
 
Do some people really substitute "Vicar"?

I'm 49 and Canadian, and grew up saying "tiger." Only heard about the n-word version years later -- possibly as a teenager.
 
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
I agree with Siegfried. I'm 53 and I never heard anything but "tiger" in that rhyme until I was an adult and read about it.

I knew nothing but the N version at school.
Me too - I'm 57
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
TG has me reaching for the off switch even faster than the Match of the Day theme or the Archers, both of which break Einstein's strictures regarding the speed of light. And that was beforr I realised what an unpleasant little troll Clarkson is.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

As to whether sensitivity about "nigger" reached the UK (and Australia) later: absolutely, because it's simply not the case in those countries that people treat the word as the absolute screaming offence that it's treated in the USA.

Might be a reason other than the poster's nationality. Wonder what that could be?
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

It's still considered a bad word here, but it is noticeable that American Shipmates don't want to write the word out in full in the way I just did, whereas to me it's not filled with any more nastiness than fuck, shit or various other nasty words that get written down here in Hell.

Well, White folks in the US, and by proximity Canada, have had that drilled into them.
The UK and Australia, hmmmm, I think your perception is off.
White Brits and Aussies don't think it is any more offecive. Not everyone else agrees.
 
Posted by St. Gwladys (# 14504) on :
 
54, and never heard "tiger" in that rhyme. I suppose I would have used the version I know without even thinking about it - then realised and felt very guilty. (Not that I've ever had any reason to use the rhyme)
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
I agree with Siegfried. I'm 53 and I never heard anything but "tiger" in that rhyme until I was an adult and read about it.

I heard 'Chinaman' when I was a child; I also heard some nasty Chinese-specific rhymes.

Moo
 
Posted by Darllenwr (# 14520) on :
 
A valid observation was made by one of my colleagues in work at lunchtime today, when the place was wall-to-wall with Clarkson; if one of us had thrown a punch at a work colleague, it would have attracted instant dismissal. It would be treated as gross misconduct and, for that, no prior warnings are necessary. My Employers would have just one word to say to me: "Goodbye". They might continue with, "Your P45 will be in the post."

One might ask why Clarkson is so different to the rest of us ...

It was also observed that the BBC have something of a problem; given the relative pay scales, it is perhaps difficult for them sometimes to work out who is the boss (said, slightly tongue in cheek, to our Site Manager).
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The UK and Australia, hmmmm, I think your perception is off.

Or my circumstance is different?

If you like, I could do a quick survey of people in their early 40s who grew up in this Australian city and find out whether they grew up with any kind of notable population of black Africans present. But I'm pretty sure I can tell you the answer. There is simply no reason to learn to be hypersensitive about offending people you are never going to meet.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Well, I'm 41 and I learnt Clarkson's version, and would struggle not to use it. But I'm Australian, and the whole world knows that Australians are a bunch of horrible racist bastards anyway.

In my childhood (and I'm about your age) there was some playground debate over whether the word in the rhyme was "nigger" or "nicker". The latter was presumably a thief - someone who nicks, which made sense of the catching by the toe part, as homophonic ladies undergarments don't typically have toes. Nobody knew what a "nigger" was, except that it was the word that half the playground thought went in the rhyme.

I didn't grow up with racism against black people, because there weren't any. Any racism that was going around was directed against the Chinese, who were the only significant ethnic minority in my neck of the woods. The only black face in my childhood was the wonderful Floella Benjamin on Play Away - the first black person I remember encountering in real life was a boy from Ethiopia who joined my school when I was about 10.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Response to orfeo:
I understand this. But given how much culture is imported from the US, it is difficult to credit that the majority have no exposure to the weight of the word.
And, in the UK, there have long been things like the colour "nigger-brown". Unless there has been a "Chalky-Bastard White" colour that I have missed, the history does not paint a pretty picture.
And if Clarkson doesn't understand the meaning of every slur he's mentioned, I'll join the petition to keep him on.
And the very fact he muttered instead of speaking out loud might be a teensy-weenie clue as to his awareness.

[ 11. March 2015, 21:42: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Response to orfeo:
I understand this. But given how much culture is imported from the US, it is difficult to credit that the majority have no exposure to the weight of the word.

On the contrary. Given how much the word is censored in the US, it is difficult to credit that any culture exported over here would expose us to the word to enable us to appreciate its weight.
 
Posted by molopata (# 9933) on :
 
Never heard of the tiger version until I read this thread. I grew up with the N-version and the monkey version (to which parental guidance consistently directed us).
Oh, that was the 70s.
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Darllenwr:
Whilst I grant that the current Clarkson-Top Gear persona is sometimes tiresome, don't insist that this is all there is to the man. Go and watch his documentary on the VC, and then comment on what you see in him.

Whatever else he is, he - when he wants to be - is a great journalist.

This - The Greatest Raid of All Time (2007) is an astounding piece of work. Similarly his contribution to The Greatest Britons (Brunel) is also a fine piece of work.

It's very clear that there is a significant number of people who's got it in for him.

Of course, If he did hit someone then he should be sacked. Otherwise, can I go back to watching Top Gear please?

AFZ
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
The Guardian has an article about how the Beeb treated the journalists who came up with the news stories on Jimmy Savile.

Moo

[ 11. March 2015, 23:22: Message edited by: Moo ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Hostly furry hat on

There has already been a hostly warning about importing Saville's crimes on this thread.

Let's just not.

Hostly furry hat off

DT
HH

 
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
I think William Woollard's still about, isn't he? Perhaps he might like the gig if Angela Rippon isn't available.

I've just Googled them; William Woollard is 75 and Angela Rippon is 70. Both are at the stage of life when one has to get medical permission for one's driving licence to be renewed, so it seems unlikely that they'd be serious candidates for replacing the presenter of a motoring show.

Just my 2p.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Top Gear isn't really a motoring show. It's silly entertainment that happens to include a few cars. If you were thinking of buying a new car, and wanting to see a comparison between the latests 3-door run-arounds from Ford, Vauxhall, Renault and Nissan you wouldn't watch Top Gear to find out.

Top Gear used to be a motoring show, but it was axed by the BBC and the whole production moved to Channel 5 (where it ran with most of the same presenters and the same format as "Fifth Gear"). Fifth Gear might even provide useful information on your choice between 3-door run-abouts.

The problem faced by the BBC is that the current version of Top Gear was reintroduced by Clarkson, he devised the format and most of the features. If he retains any rights to the idea (and, he's a smart cookie so I'd be surprised if he didn't) the BBC may not be able to continue the show without his permission.
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

The problem faced by the BBC is that the current version of Top Gear was reintroduced by Clarkson, he devised the format and most of the features. If he retains any rights to the idea (and, he's a smart cookie so I'd be surprised if he didn't) the BBC may not be able to continue the show without his permission.

My understanding is that Clarkson owned 50% of the rights, but a few years ago the BBC bough his share and now own all the rights to the format, but I'd need to look that up for verification.

[ 12. March 2015, 07:10: Message edited by: Spike ]
 
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

The problem faced by the BBC is that the current version of Top Gear was reintroduced by Clarkson, he devised the format and most of the features. If he retains any rights to the idea (and, he's a smart cookie so I'd be surprised if he didn't) the BBC may not be able to continue the show without his permission.

My understanding is that Clarkson owned 50% of the rights, but a few years ago the BBC bough his share and now own all the rights to the format, but I'd need to look that up for verification.
Yes. See the section of this article entitled "Who makes the loot?"
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
And, to prove my point, the other Murdoch testicle tickler adds his pound of honey tasting venom to the tightly controlled attempt to prop up the Trojan horse that is Clarkson.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Re the rhyme:

I'd heard of the N version; sometimes used the tiger version; but I think we mostly used other animals--a froggy, maybe?


quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:


I didn't grow up with racism against black people, because there weren't any. Any racism that was going around was directed against the Chinese, who were the only significant ethnic minority in my neck of the woods. The only black face in my childhood was the wonderful Floella Benjamin on Play Away - the first black person I remember encountering in real life was a boy from Ethiopia who joined my school when I was about 10.

I grew up in a very vanilla, Euro-Am place, with sprinkles of people of other ethnicities. And most of the E-Am folks were of N. Euro ancestry--which meant that even Italians were a bit exotic. AFAIK, there were no African-Americans there for most of my childhood. First time I saw an African-American in real life was driving past one, in another town. I think the first time I *met* anyone A-Am was when I was around 12, and we got a few new kids at school. (Not a busing situation, AFAIK, because I hadn't seen any A-Am kids in town.) I tried too hard to make friends with them.

I've had some things to sort out in that area: I had some A-Am role models, admired various famous people, heard of great things in African history--and, of course, sung in Sunday School about Jesus loving little children of all colors.

But it was the '60s and '70s, which meant seeing A-Am riots on the news, the Black Power movement, protests, etc. Scary stuff. For a kid without appropriate experience, it was very confuddling.

As an adult, I haven't been around many A-Ams in daily life (college, work, residence). Not something I sought out. I've been around many people of many other ethnicities--but, for whatever reasons, very few African Americans.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Darllenwr:
A valid observation was made by one of my colleagues in work at lunchtime today, when the place was wall-to-wall with Clarkson; if one of us had thrown a punch at a work colleague, it would have attracted instant dismissal. It would be treated as gross misconduct and, for that, no prior warnings are necessary. My Employers would have just one word to say to me: "Goodbye". They might continue with, "Your P45 will be in the post."

One might ask why Clarkson is so different to the rest of us ...

Yes, that's what I thought too. It all looks like he's got way too big for his boots and feels he has to maintain his blokeish persona for his "fans."

The alternative possibility is that it is all some kind of publicity stunt .... after all, how did the news actually get out?
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Monkey when I was growing up 40 years ago. A lot later I heard the N version. Indeed, I don't know that I knew the N word at primary school.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Apparently the row was about dinner.

The presenters' contract says they get a hot meal at the end of the day - which, since it is usually a 10-12 hour day with much of it spent outdoors, is not unreasonable.

The production team have known this for ages, but this time they managed to book a hotel where food service normally stops at 9.30pm and didn't make arrangements either for the chef to stay on or for food to be available elsewhere. Instead the crew were offered a cheese and cold meat platter, and Mr Clarkson objected.

If you had been looking forward to a hot meal after a day (it was cold, wet with snow flurries) spent shooting outside and were offered bread, ham and cheese, would YOU be delighted?

And since the production team had known about the problem for days, wouldn't you expect them to have made efforts to fix it?

Wrong to take a swing at someone - YES. Understandable that he was moved to want to - YES.

I'd call that a score-draw. Both parties in the wrong. Kiss-and-make-up and let the rest of the world get on with the more serious stuff.
 
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :
 
I believe the first version I heard was "tinker" because that's the clean version I remember my parents used. I heard the N version pretty early too though.
 
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :
 
Of course now that I think of it tinker probably had overtones of anti-Romany prejudice so...

But then as I found out in my teens, a lot of the milder swearing alternatives were not unproblematic if you dug into them. My parents tolerate "blimey" for example but might not if they'd known it was a shortening of "God blind me".
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Piglet:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
I think William Woollard's still about, isn't he? Perhaps he might like the gig if Angela Rippon isn't available.

I've just Googled them; William Woollard is 75 and Angela Rippon is 70. Both are at the stage of life when one has to get medical permission for one's driving licence to be renewed, so it seems unlikely that they'd be serious candidates for replacing the presenter of a motoring show.

Just my 2p.

Well, role modelling for older drivers!
But the green light indicates that a joke is intended.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Apparently the row was about dinner.

The presenters' contract says they get a hot meal at the end of the day - which, since it is usually a 10-12 hour day with much of it spent outdoors, is not unreasonable.

The production team have known this for ages, but this time they managed to book a hotel where food service normally stops at 9.30pm and didn't make arrangements either for the chef to stay on or for food to be available elsewhere. Instead the crew were offered a cheese and cold meat platter, and Mr Clarkson objected.

If you had been looking forward to a hot meal after a day (it was cold, wet with snow flurries) spent shooting outside and were offered bread, ham and cheese, would YOU be delighted?

And since the production team had known about the problem for days, wouldn't you expect them to have made efforts to fix it?

Wrong to take a swing at someone - YES. Understandable that he was moved to want to - YES.

I'd call that a score-draw. Both parties in the wrong. Kiss-and-make-up and let the rest of the world get on with the more serious stuff.

Apparently. We just don't know. Even if it was the case then it doesn't justify assault on an individual. [In any event most filming has catering provided in the day].

Why not go somewhere else? Get a takeaway? Go on a diet - he's not exactly small is he?

As has been pointed out - in any other context this would mean a P45 possibly with Police Action following. And, yes - I've known it to happen ...

The worst part of all this? Everyone trying to excuse this ex public schoolboys boorish behaviour.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
Do some people really substitute "Vicar"?

I'm 49 and Canadian, and grew up saying "tiger." Only heard about the n-word version years later -- possibly as a teenager.

When my daughter started eeny-meenying I listened with horrified fascination until she got to the V-word. De Rigeur in all the best English school playgrounds, she tells me. Occasionally she substitutes 'Bishop', but then at the age of five she gave me a stern lecture in the bath as to what to tell the Archdeacon about my career prosopects so i'm going to go out on a limb here and say she's not had an entirely normal upbringing.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I'd call that a score-draw. Both parties in the wrong. Kiss-and-make-up and let the rest of the world get on with the more serious stuff.

If you're equating not organising a hot meal for a multi-millionaire, and punching someone in the face... I'm kind of glad I don't work for you. Or with you. Or have to interact with you in RL.
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
So much discussion around whether his faux pas are intentional or accidental. The essence of good bullying is to find ways to hurt people, put them down, make them feel small, that can be passed off as entirely innocent. The victim then not only has to suffer the original blow, but also be thought over-sensitive if they try to point out what's going on.

Clarkson is very popular. Bullies often are.
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
Also, the idea that it's OK for people who work long hours to want to punch people who haven't made them a hot meal has been the excuse for domestic violence for years. Give it a rest.
 
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :
 
It's a petty frustration. The kind that most of us endure on a pretty regular basis. Frankly at the end of a long working day I'd be quite pleased to settle down in a hotel where I didn't have to clean up, cook my own dinner and feed the cats etc. I would also be delighted with bread and cheese but I recognise that my taste in food isn't (neuro)typical. It would never occur to me that I was entitled to punch anyone. It didn't occur to me to punch the letting agent when they ignored my boiler problems in the middle of winter. I didn't consider punching the BA attendant who told me that we might not be able to go on the flight we'd booked because it was overbooked. I simply don't have the level of entitlement to think that violence is an appropriate response to this kind of frustration, and I really think I'm the norm, not the exception, there. This is behaviour that parents are supposed to train out of you before you get old enough for your punches to hurt someone.

[ 12. March 2015, 10:49: Message edited by: Liopleurodon ]
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
I don't condone the punching either, but I agree with Clarkson feeling entitled here. That's because he is entitled. The hot meal in the evening is in his contract. He kept his end of the contract, the other people didn't.

That's different from me arriving in a hotel somewhere at 10pm and finding all restaurants closed. And it's also different from a husband who feels entitled to a hot meal when he arrives home.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I don't condone the punching either, but I agree with Clarkson feeling entitled here. That's because he is entitled. The hot meal in the evening is in his contract. He kept his end of the contract, the other people didn't.


So that entitles him to chin someone?

No, he was on a final warning and even if he wasn't, hitting a co-workr is usually regarded as gross misconduct and a no-warning dismissal.

Even if you have a sense of "entitlement".
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Sioni Sais: So that entitles him to chin someone?
No, and if you had a shred of intelligence in your stupid brain, you would have read the first line of my post where I explicitly denied this.

What he was entitled to, is to that meal. Very much so.
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The 'eeny-meeny-miny-mo' thing: there are thousands of us out here who were taught the same rhyme because when we were growing up no one thought about it

I'm a year older than Clarkson, and remember, as a young child, my mother's shock at us using 'nigger' in the rhyme. As children we always substituted 'tigger' (as in Winnie the Pooh).
 
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :
 
Absolutely he was entitled to the hot meal. And returning to my petty frustrations: I was entitled to having a functioning boiler in the flat for which I was paying rent - that was also in a contract. The "sense of entitlement" I was referring to is the sense that you're entitled to act however you like when you don't immediately get the things you're supposed to have.

Yeah it would have been annoying not getting that meal. Particularly as it was in the contract. But I'd be amazed if it isn't the case that every single poster on this thread has been through greater discomfort and inconvenience than this due to someone failing to do things they were contracted to do, and nonetheless we all managed not to punch someone as a result.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Sioni Sais: So that entitles him to chin someone?
No, and if you had a shred of intelligence in your stupid brain, you would have read the first line of my post where I explicitly denied this.

What he was entitled to, is to that meal. Very much so.

How the hell do you know he kept his end of the contract?

It's a guinea to a gooseberry that there are terms in that contract, or at any rate implied terms, that insist on good conduct. That would be backed up by the "final warning" which is supposed to have been in place.

It looks like he didn't behave himself, so where's your "entitlement" now, sunshine?

(FWIW I reckon Auntie will climbdown describing the whole affair as an "unfortunate misunderstanding" and reinstate the fat git)
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Sioni Sais: It looks like he didn't behave himself, so where's your "entitlement" now, sunshine?
That is later. What he is entitled to, is to being angry for not getting that meal.

I travel a lot, and it often happens that I arrive in a city late at evening, I'm hungry after a long travel, but all restaurants are closed. So I make do with the packet of crisps from my room's minibar. I don't like that, but sometimes that's life. From what I understand on this thread, this sometimes happens to other Shipmates too.

It would be very easy to tut-tut Clarkson based on this "If I can make do with a sandwich, then who is he to get angry about this?"

But what does make a big difference to me, is that the hot meal is in his contract. When I arrive late in a city, if it is in my contract that I would get a hot meal and I wouldn't receive it, I would react differently. I wouldn't punch someone on the nose (only in my thoughts), but I would require justification and possibly compensation. And it is very probable that when arriving in a room and just seeing a sandwich, my first reaction would be anger.

Clarkson isn't entitled to punch someone. But he's very much entitled to his anger. And I completely understand that.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
On 'nigger', I also remember it as a name for dogs, most famously with Guy Gibson (Dambuster). It's even claimed that the code-word for success was 'nigger' in morse code. I believe that the film changed this.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
No, correction, the film (1955) kept nigger for both the dog and the codeword, but some TV showings of the film bleeped it out.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Clarkson: it now transpires there was no hot food catering on set and Mr C complained about that on behalf of the crew as well as himself. He was calmed down with the promise of hot food at the end of the filming.

Then arrived to find no hot food available at the hotel, which is in the middle of the North York Moors National Park - in other words, in the middle of nowhere when it comes to finding food at 9.30 in the evening. The hotel brasserie stops serving at 8.45pm in the evening so any BBC employee who offered food after filming must have known it was a non-starter (sorry about the pun).

And it wasn't a punch - it was an 'air-punch' which is a bit like an air-kiss but without the pucker.

So: no one hurt but lots of people not fed.

NOW who says Mr C should go?
 
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :
 
Of course he's allowed to be angry. He's allowed to have whatever internal emotional state happens to occur. But if he manages those emotions with the impulse control of a toddler rather than a grown-ass man then he shouldn't expect to keep his job.

Have sharp words with the manager. Demand justification/compensation. Warn the producer that this is unacceptable and demand to know how they're going to make sure it doesn't happen again. Do any of the many things that reasonable adults do in this kind of situation. Nobody's saying that he has to say "sandwiches! Hurrah!"

[crosspost]

[ 12. March 2015, 12:00: Message edited by: Liopleurodon ]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

And it wasn't a punch - it was an 'air-punch' which is a bit like an air-kiss but without the pucker.

So: no one hurt but lots of people not fed.

NOW who says Mr C should go?

A swing and a miss is still a swing. Try it next time you're in a night club. I'm sure the door staff will understand.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Clarkson: it now transpires there was no hot food catering on set and Mr C complained about that on behalf of the crew as well as himself. He was calmed down with the promise of hot food at the end of the filming.

Then arrived to find no hot food available at the hotel, which is in the middle of the North York Moors National Park - in other words, in the middle of nowhere when it comes to finding food at 9.30 in the evening. The hotel brasserie stops serving at 8.45pm in the evening so any BBC employee who offered food after filming must have known it was a non-starter (sorry about the pun).

And it wasn't a punch - it was an 'air-punch' which is a bit like an air-kiss but without the pucker.

So: no one hurt but lots of people not fed.

NOW who says Mr C should go?

Both parties are going to spin a story that's going to put them in the best possible light. Winning the PR war is far more important than what actually happened. Particuarly as the presenter's contracts are up for renewal. [Big Grin]

I'm astonished that anyone could think that pretending to hit someone, for whatever reason, is acceptable behaviour. [Confused]

Tubbs

[ 12. March 2015, 12:15: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Clarkson: it now transpires there was no hot food catering on set and Mr C complained about that on behalf of the crew as well as himself. He was calmed down with the promise of hot food at the end of the filming.

Then arrived to find no hot food available at the hotel, which is in the middle of the North York Moors National Park - in other words, in the middle of nowhere when it comes to finding food at 9.30 in the evening. The hotel brasserie stops serving at 8.45pm in the evening so any BBC employee who offered food after filming must have known it was a non-starter (sorry about the pun).

And it wasn't a punch - it was an 'air-punch' which is a bit like an air-kiss but without the pucker.

So: no one hurt but lots of people not fed.

NOW who says Mr C should go?

As things stand, still me. Threatened violence is also completely unacceptable in a scenario like this.

Secondly - your information comes from where?

Thirdly - Hawes (where I gather this happened) is nowhere near the NYM National Park. it's in the Dales.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Clarkson: it now transpires there was no hot food catering on set and Mr C complained about that on behalf of the crew as well as himself. He was calmed down with the promise of hot food at the end of the filming.

Then arrived to find no hot food available at the hotel, which is in the middle of the North York Moors National Park - in other words, in the middle of nowhere when it comes to finding food at 9.30 in the evening. The hotel brasserie stops serving at 8.45pm in the evening so any BBC employee who offered food after filming must have known it was a non-starter (sorry about the pun).

And it wasn't a punch - it was an 'air-punch' which is a bit like an air-kiss but without the pucker.

So: no one hurt but lots of people not fed.

NOW who says Mr C should go?

Both parties are going to spin a story that's going to put them in the best possible light. Winning the PR war is far more important than what actually happened. Particuarly as the presenter's contracts are up for renewal. [Big Grin]

I'm astonished that anyone could think that pretending to hit someone, for whatever reason, is acceptable behaviour. [Confused]

Tubbs

Because it's Clarkson, who "everybody" likes. It's exactly the same reason the bullying shits who made my school life a fucking misery had a free pass - because the teachers liked them because they were "good sportsmen".

Or cunts, as I prefer to say.

(Disclaimer - I'm sure there are top sportsmen who are salts of the earth, brilliant people, wonderful etc. etc. It's just that virtually all the talented sportsmen I knew at school were bullying cunts.)
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:

Have sharp words with the manager.

It's got nothing to do with the manager. It's not the hotel's fault at all. Small hotels do not, and are not expected to, keep their chef hanging around all night on the off chance that someone comes in hungry.

It's clear that whatever gopher is responsible for making the arrangements for food is no good at his job. That gives Clarkson the right to be angry, to yell at the responsible party, and maybe to have him fired for incompetence. "Have some Wensleydale, Grommit?" really won't do at the end of a long day.

None of this gives Clarkson the right to hit anyone. (My employer had a somewhat similar case a couple of years ago. One of our most competent guys got into an argument with a rather less-than-stellar fellow worker. Competent was frustrated because he was trying to get his work done (long days, difficult conditions) and Useless was being a general hindrance, failing to provide the necessary equipment, and generally failing to do any useful work whatsoever.

In the course of an argument, Competent hit Useless. Competent was sent home, and three days later was escorted to his area with a small cardboard box.

(We don't employ Useless any more either, but it takes rather longer to get rid of people for bad performance. It's unfortunate that we had to get rid of Competent - he was better at his job than most of our remaining people - but punching people is pretty non-negotiable.)
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
According to James May, on Pyx_e's linked article he was "blind drunk" when the dust up happened. Which indicates, my dear Watson, that they had been back at the hotel for a bit before enquiring about the possibility of hot food. Whilst I can see that it would be galling to miss one's chance of a decent meal because one was in the bar getting plastered, whilst steak and chips o'clock slipped silently past, it's not really grounds for handbags at six paces.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
And that, comrades, is how you deal with violence and incompetence in the workplace.

(x-post - referring to Leorning Cniht)

[ 12. March 2015, 12:36: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
 
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :
 
I'm still bewildered by the concept of an "air punch" which is "just like an air kiss".
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
I'm still bewildered by the concept of an "air punch" which is "just like an air kiss".

I had a boyfriend who punched me in the face while, so he claimed, "jokingly" swinging a fist because he didn't like a meal I'd made.

Ha ha ha.

Ha.
 
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :
 
Yeah, my thinking is that any kind of punch-like gesture, even if the fist doesn't make contact, is going to come across as pretty damn intimidating when it comes from a guy who's well over six feet tall, used to getting his own way, and visibly angry.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
I'm still bewildered by the concept of an "air punch" which is "just like an air kiss".

It's like an air Glasgow kiss.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
I'm still bewildered by the concept of an "air punch" which is "just like an air kiss".

I had a boyfriend who punched me in the face while, so he claimed, "jokingly" swinging a fist because he didn't like a meal I'd made.

Ha ha ha.

Ha.

Ouch! I wonder if some people's response would be different if it had been a female producer.

Tubbs
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
I wonder if some people's response would be different if it had been a female producer.

Or, indeed, if it had been the producer who threw the punch. I'm sure there would have been plenty lining up to say Clarkson was a boorish oaf who utterly deserved it had that been the case...
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
I wonder if some people's response would be different if it had been a female producer.

Or, indeed, if it had been the producer who threw the punch. I'm sure there would have been plenty lining up to say Clarkson was a boorish oaf who utterly deserved it had that been the case...
Except of course that isn't what happened and we only have your fantasy-land to trust that that's what would have happened.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
I wonder if some people's response would be different if it had been a female producer.

Or, indeed, if it had been the producer who threw the punch. I'm sure there would have been plenty lining up to say Clarkson was a boorish oaf who utterly deserved it had that been the case...
The only possible doubt has to be whether Clarkson is a boorish oaf or merely an ordinary guy who makes a very good living from portraying a boorish oaf.

To borrow a phrase that will be heard in pubs up and down the land tomorrow "Leave 'im alone. E's not worth it".
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Clarkson did punch Piers Morgan; many people seemed to rejoice.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Clarkson: it now transpires there was no hot food catering on set and Mr C complained about that on behalf of the crew as well as himself. He was calmed down with the promise of hot food at the end of the filming.

Then arrived to find no hot food available at the hotel, which is in the middle of the North York Moors National Park - in other words, in the middle of nowhere when it comes to finding food at 9.30 in the evening. The hotel brasserie stops serving at 8.45pm in the evening so any BBC employee who offered food after filming must have known it was a non-starter (sorry about the pun).

And it wasn't a punch - it was an 'air-punch' which is a bit like an air-kiss but without the pucker.

So: no one hurt but lots of people not fed.

NOW who says Mr C should go?

Oh threatening behaviour lowers the stakes from assault does it?

I think Master Clarkson needs sending to bed early, after a stint on the naughty step. Oh, don't give him his cocoa either. bad, bad, boy
 
Posted by Nenya (# 16427) on :
 
Mr Nen reckons it might be a conspiracy. [Biased] The Top Gear contracts are up for renewal shortly so the Beeb engineered a situation to put Clarkson in the black book so they can negotiate keeping him on, but more cheaply.

We watch Top Gear. It's silly and often irritating but the chemistry between the three of them can be good fun. It's also one of the few things Mr Nen and I watch together, and when the Nenlets were at home it was family viewing. For me, the dynamic of watching it with them is the only thing I enjoy. I realised this when I was on my own one evening and turned it on out of habit. Within minutes I was thinking "Wtf?" and turning it off again.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Clarkson did punch Piers Morgan; many people seemed to rejoice.

That was rather like the Mohammed Fayed v Neil Hamilton libel trial. No one minded so long as someone lost.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Clarkson did punch Piers Morgan; many people seemed to rejoice.

And it is wrong to rejoice at that, even though Morgan is a massive knob.
 
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
... Some stats show a 40% female audience, maybe they like cars.

Or maybe we like James May. [Biased]

(And cars [Big Grin] )
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
I wonder if some people's response would be different if it had been a female producer.

Or, indeed, if it had been the producer who threw the punch. I'm sure there would have been plenty lining up to say Clarkson was a boorish oaf who utterly deserved it had that been the case...
True. Actually, if you ignore the fact it's Clarkson / Another Famous Person what it really boils down to is that at an offsite there is a disagreement between two colleagues that turns nasty. Getting confirmation of exactly what happened is difficult, but it seems that one threw a punch at the other. On further investigation, the person who threw the punch is on a final warning due to other issues.

I know how that would be likely to go at my workplace.

Tubbs

[ 12. March 2015, 19:15: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
 
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :
 
The BBC should let him go; the show has a strong format; a strong presenting team who could do well without the presence of the supposed main anchor; and it has been around for long enough that an injection of new talent - or perhaps regular injections of new talent - could revitalise something which might otherwise begin to flag.

Rather like 'Have I Got News For You' when Angus Deayton was sacked, I suggest weekly guest presenters. Of course, just as HIGNFY works best when the guest presenter resembles to some degree their witty, urbane predecessor, some care will be needed to choose the right people to host.

I suggest wk 1, Nigel Farrage; wk2, Boris Johnson. Your suggestions for wk3?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
I'd like to welcome all the BBC board members who have joined us down here for this discussion, and thank them for publicly sharing how they'll be voting on this matter.

I'm sure that all of our regular Shipmates who are completely powerless and therefore understand that their opinion on this subject is essentially valueless will give you their full attention, instead of rabbiting on with their usual inflated sense of self-importance.
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
quote:
Your suggestions for wk3?
not the two wk'ers you suggested for wk 1 and 2.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Nicola Sturgeon, Natalie Bennett and in a surprise coup, Angela Merkel.
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
I'm surprised nobody has suggested Steve Coogan
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
I suggest wk 1, Nigel Farrage; wk2, Boris Johnson.

Is it possible to make sure they test drive some ridiculously over-powered sports car and have some form of nasty accident? Now, don't get me wrong - not something fatal, or that wrecks an expensive toy - I think shitting themselves, with May and Hammond making sure it's mentioned every conceivable opportunity through the rest of the programme, would suffice.
 
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
I'm surprised nobody has suggested Steve Coogan

Someone already has (he's mentioned quite a way down the article, between Vicki Butler-Henderson and Piers Morgan).
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
There's a change.org petition to replace Jeremy Clarkson with Julian Clary....
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
That would be brilliant!
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
The BBC should let him go;

I disagree.

Fire him.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'd like to welcome all the BBC board members who have joined us down here for this discussion, and thank them for publicly sharing how they'll be voting on this matter.

I'm sure that all of our regular Shipmates who are completely powerless and therefore understand that their opinion on this subject is essentially valueless will give you their full attention, instead of rabbiting on with their usual inflated sense of self-importance.

If it were not for that the Ship would be a very quiet place indeed.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
I suggest wk 1, Nigel Farrage; wk2, Boris Johnson.

Is it possible to make sure they test drive some ridiculously over-powered sports car and have some form of nasty accident? Now, don't get me wrong - not something fatal, or that wrecks an expensive toy - I think shitting themselves, with May and Hammond making sure it's mentioned every conceivable opportunity through the rest of the programme, would suffice.
Only if they have Salmond on the same terms on week three.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
One of my favourite comedic writers has a somewhat different perspective.
 
Posted by QLib (# 43) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Clarkson: it now transpires there was no hot food catering on set and Mr C complained about that on behalf of the crew as well as himself. He was calmed down with the promise of hot food at the end of the filming.

Then arrived to find no hot food available at the hotel, which is in the middle of the North York Moors National Park - in other words, in the middle of nowhere when it comes to finding food at 9.30 in the evening. The hotel brasserie stops serving at 8.45pm in the evening so any BBC employee who offered food after filming must have known it was a non-starter (sorry about the pun).

And it wasn't a punch - it was an 'air-punch' which is a bit like an air-kiss but without the pucker.

So: no one hurt but lots of people not fed.

NOW who says Mr C should go?

There are some very different versions out there, suggesting the presenters were drinking late rather than working late and allegedly alleging that the alleged victim needed treatment in A+E for a split lip. And that he's taking legal advice.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
The Guardian has an article about how the Beeb treated the journalists who came up with the news stories on [another prominent BBC figure]

Whilst bearing in mind the hostly warning following that post, I think there's an important point here.

It's never a good thing when within an institution, individuals have such a perceived influence for good (in terms of revenue, star value, or whatever) that they essentially acquire total immunity.

It's not a good thing for the individual, because it leaves them free to behave badly, potentially harm others, and get away with it.

And it's not a good thing for the institution, because even constructive critics from within are ostracised (as is alleged in the article Moo links to), so it loses the checks and balances that prevent it from losing touch with reality and becoming toxic.

Clarkson should be held to the same standards as anyone else at the BBC. If he's not, it would appear they have learned nothing of value from their own recent history.

The similarity with that recent history is not the misdeeds involved but the institutional failure to hold properly to account.

And there is a big lesson, not often learned, for churches and other Christian institutions here, too.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
I've never seen Top Gear and am unaware of the details. But in the web noise around this it was pointed out that Clarkson owns 50 percent of the show and it produces a great deal of global revenue for the BBC.

They may not be able to replace him on the show. They could get rid of the show, but that would be a major revenue loss for the BBC and it would probably be picked up by another British network.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
We covered Clarkson's stake in the show here where it was concluded, on the basis of media reporting, that BBC Worldwide bought him out in 2013 and now have full rights to the show.

So, if he's given the push from the BBC, Clarkson can go to Sky (or A N Other broadcaster) and produce a car-based TV show. But, he wouldn't be able to use the name "Top Gear" or many of the features of the BBC show - no "mystery" racing driver, no stars in a reasonable price car. At least, not without someone paying BBC Worldwide a hefty load of cash to buy the rights.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
We covered Clarkson's stake in the show here where it was concluded, on the basis of media reporting, that BBC Worldwide bought him out in 2013 and now have full rights to the show.

So, if he's given the push from the BBC, Clarkson can go to Sky (or A N Other broadcaster) and produce a car-based TV show. But, he wouldn't be able to use the name "Top Gear" or many of the features of the BBC show - no "mystery" racing driver, no stars in a reasonable price car. At least, not without someone paying BBC Worldwide a hefty load of cash to buy the rights.

Hmmm. Although it occurs to me that one of the noticeable things about this debate has been the number of people saying TG was a tired format a couple of years past its sell by date.

If you were really cynical, given that JC's contract is up this year anyway, you'd say that this was the perfect opportunity to go to another channel, reinvent things from the bottom up (on the pretext that you're Not Allowed to do certain things) and take most of your audience with you.

I think the BBC is only going to lose here unfortunately.
 
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
... I think the BBC is only going to lose here unfortunately.

It looks as if they already are losing - apparently 4½ million viewers in the slot where TG should have been on Sunday night.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
He's still down to be a host on "Have I Got News For You".
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
He's still down to be a host on "Have I Got News For You".

I expect there will be stacks of jokes about whether his dinner will be ready after the show.
 
Posted by Darllenwr (# 14520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
He's still down to be a host on "Have I Got News For You".

I expect there will be stacks of jokes about whether his dinner will be ready after the show.
You might note that the BBC do not produce "Have I got news for you" themselves - they buy it in from, I think, Hat Trick; an independent company. Who they chose to host their programs is their problem, not the BBC's, though the BBC may decide not to screen the episode with Clarkson as host.
 
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :
 
According to the Telegraph Messrs. May and Hammond aren't happy about the idea of TG without JC. I can see their point: the show certainly wouldn't be the same without the chemistry of all three.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Piglet:
According to the Telegraph Messrs. May and Hammond aren't happy about the idea of TG without JC. I can see their point: the show certainly wouldn't be the same without the chemistry of all three.

I understand them (and their agents). Would we have heard of Hammond and May had they not joined Top Gear?
 
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :
 
Possibly not; I suppose Richard Hammond might have eventually turned up in one of the other shows he does, either for British TV or some of the stuff we get over here, like The Science of Stupid.

I could imagine James May being a kind of successor to the likes of James Burke, doing science/history/generally quirky documentaries (which sadly didn't cross the Pond) like the space one and the one where he built a full-size Lego house. Whether they would have happened without his having made his name with TG is anyone's guess.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Would we have heard of Hammond and May had they not joined Top Gear?

Or, indeed Clarkson himself.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Would we have heard of Hammond and May had they not joined Top Gear?

Or, indeed Clarkson himself.
Wasn't Clarkson a journalist before TG? He'd probably be writing similar stuff to Richard Littlejohn somewhere. (Not linking to the Daily Mail thank you! Littlejohn gets enough publicity without my help!)

I suspect that they'd all be doing something in the media industry, just maybe not at the level they're at now. TG works because of the format, the subject and the chemistry between the three of them. And it's given all of them a springboard to do other things. It's possible that one of them may have lucked out and found something else to give them that if TG hadn't happened, but all three?! Together?! Nah!

Kudos to Hammond and May for refusing to do it. Given that if the whole thing does go wrong, neither of them are as big a deal as Clarkson on their own.

Hopefully the whole thing will be resolved soon one way or another.

It's actually the producer I feel most sorry for. If understand it, he's a jobbing producer who goes from contract to contract rather than a paid employee of the BBC. I can't imagine this doing his career any good!

Tubbs

[ 20. March 2015, 12:17: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Wasn't Clarkson a journalist before TG?

Yep, doing car reviews for some motoring magazine or the other.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Tubbs, I like you. So don't take this as an attack on you. But fuck Hammond and May for the same reasons I say Fuck Clarkson. They are complicit and, in Hammond's case at least, participatory.
The only reason this is being dragged along as far as it has is money. Primrose path.

[ 20. March 2015, 17:41: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
The Stig took to a tank to deliver the petition (with more than 1,000,000 names) to the BBC demanding that Mr Clarkson not be sacked.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
...thereby ensuring that the BBC cannot now not sack him without looking like they have cravenly caved in to a populist backlash.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The Stig took to a tank to deliver the petition (with more than 1,000,000 names) to the BBC demanding that Mr Clarkson not be sacked.

Proof positive people suck.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
It's more like proof positive that not everyone has the same opinion. It's true, occasionally I find difference of opinion enough to conclude that people DO suck, but you really want to make Jeremy Clarkson being sacked the basis of your moral dividing line?

I mean, he's no Natalia Kills.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's more like proof positive that not everyone has the same opinion. It's true, occasionally I find difference of opinion enough to conclude that people DO suck, but you really want to make Jeremy Clarkson being sacked the basis of your moral dividing line?

No. I would see him sacked because he violated BBC policy and would have been sacked if he were anyone else.

And I think people suck because 1,000,000 of them signed a petition for a filthy rich entertainer who knowingly put himself into the position he is in. I doubt very many of them would be arsed to help those truly in need.
And they suck because the entertainer they wish to help perpetuates the casual racism under the cover of which more serious racism flourishes.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

I mean, he's no Natalia Kills.

She is a piece of work. Her and her no single piece of originality cover band tool of a husband.

[ 22. March 2015, 01:22: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And I think people suck because 1,000,000 of them signed a petition for a filthy rich entertainer who knowingly put himself into the position he is in. I doubt very many of them would be arsed to help those truly in need.

They're not even helping Clarkson. They're helping themselves. He is, as you said, an entertainer. And they find him entertaining, and they want to be entertained.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Doesn't make them suck less. Just the opposite
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
No. I would see him sacked because he violated BBC policy and would have been sacked if he were anyone else.

There does seem to be a bit of uncertainty as to what actually happened. Was a punch thrown? Was a punch landed? Was there blood? Was Clarkson finally placated by a steak sandwich or was it a cold meat platter?

Hopefully the BBC investigation will give us some facts as well as a decision.
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Doesn't make them suck less. Just the opposite

Funny. I remember growing out of assuming people "suck" because they don't like the same things as me when I discovered diversity was a reasonably good thing.

[ 22. March 2015, 13:56: Message edited by: deano ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
So, racism is a difference of opinion? Not incredibly shocked that you would think so.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Doesn't make them suck less. Just the opposite

Funny. I remember growing out of assuming people "suck" because they don't like the same things as me when I discovered diversity was a reasonably good thing.
When will that be, I wonder?
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So, racism is a difference of opinion? Not incredibly shocked that you would think so.

Of course it does depend on whether the racism is really racism, given the number of people who self-generate false positives constantly, usually driven by Guardian or Independent editorials.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
Clue: they are referring to you.

Could you do us all a favour and start a new Hell thread explaining why we're all mistaken for assuming that your blatantly racist posts correlate to you being a racist? It just seems more expedient.
 
Posted by Wet Kipper (# 1654) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The Stig took to a tank to deliver the petition (with more than 1,000,000 names) to the BBC demanding that Mr Clarkson not be sacked.

Not quite
It was someone in a fencing suit and a fake racing helmet made to look like the Stig™ as a publicity stunt for their petition
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Clue: they are referring to you.

Could you do us all a favour and start a new Hell thread explaining why we're all mistaken for assuming that your blatantly racist posts correlate to you being a racist? It just seems more expedient.

Well I would like evidence of this so-called racism.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Well, I would like to know what you meant by this.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Well I would like evidence of this so-called racism.

Thank God I read that while my tea was brewing, instead of while drinking it.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Tubbs, I like you. So don't take this as an attack on you. But fuck Hammond and May for the same reasons I say Fuck Clarkson. They are complicit and, in Hammond's case at least, participatory.
The only reason this is being dragged along as far as it has is money. Primrose path.

I didn't. You're disagreeing with me. In Hell. [Help]

I'm crediting them both with a degree of loyalty to someone they've worked with for a number of years. But you could be right and they're just following the money. I'm slightly confused about Hammond being a participant. What do you mean by that?

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Well I would like evidence of this so-called racism.

Thank God I read that while my tea was brewing, instead of while drinking it.
I was eating my lunch. I was so amazed by that comment, missed my mouth and poked myself in the face with my own fork!

Tubbs

[ 23. March 2015, 12:24: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
Come on then... List them.

Alan. I don't like muslims. I don't have to except so far as the law dictates. But muslims are NOT a race. Many different races follow islam. It is something, but it isn't racism.

False positive number one.

Bring 'em on. Find me a genuine piece of racism. You know, as pertaining to denigrating a RACE.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
It doesn't matter. The 2010 Equality Act makes discrimination on cultural or religious grounds iillegal as it already was on grounds of race, ethnicity or nationality.

I suppose that makes me bad for my opinions about golfers.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Come on then... List them.

Alan. I don't like muslims. I don't have to except so far as the law di ctates. But muslims are NOT a race. Many different races follow islam. It is something, but it isn't racism.

False positive number one.

Bring 'em on. Find me a genuine piece of racism. You know, as pertaining to denigrating a RACE.

That's a bit like saying you don't like Jews but you're not antisemitic. It is amazing how much time people don't spend worrying aboit caucasian muslims.

Also, define race - it has no biological basis so what are going with colour, culture or nationality ?

[ 23. March 2015, 14:03: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Tubbs,

Hammond made the comments about Mexicans which gave the show trouble. And, looking at it again, May was also a participant.
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
It doesn't matter. The 2010 Equality Act makes discrimination on cultural or religious grounds iillegal as it already was on grounds of race, ethnicity or nationality.

I suppose that makes me bad for my opinions about golfers.

So as long as I don't discriminate....
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Come on then... List them.

Alan. I don't like muslims. I don't have to except so far as the law di ctates. But muslims are NOT a race. Many different races follow islam. It is something, but it isn't racism.

False positive number one.

Bring 'em on. Find me a genuine piece of racism. You know, as pertaining to denigrating a RACE.

That's a bit like saying you don't like Jews but you're not antisemitic. It is amazing how much time people don't spend worrying aboit caucasian muslims.

Also, define race - it has no biological basis so what are going with colour, culture or nationality ?

I don't have to define race. Maybe if some of the others who generate false-positives had a good look though they might be less bothersome in the real world.

And as far as I know there are muslims in all races. Your analogy is arse-about-face.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Deano, I remember criticising you quite heavily precisely because you failed to recognise there were white European Muslims, especially in Albania and Bosnia. And treated Jesus like he was a blonde blue eyed English lad.

I for one am not going to bother playing link hockey, because you'll either have a smart Alec answer or ignore any that are too inconvenient.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Tubbs,

Hammond made the comments about Mexicans which gave the show trouble. And, looking at it again, May was also a participant.

Thanks for clarifying. I got confused and thought you were implying that Hammond and May were involved in the incident with the producer. But you're not wrong, they're each as bad as the other in some ways.

Tubbs
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
It doesn't matter. The 2010 Equality Act makes discrimination on cultural or religious grounds iillegal as it already was on grounds of race, ethnicity or nationality.

I suppose that makes me bad for my opinions about golfers.

So as long as I don't discriminate....
...you're legal, but still a prejudiced bigoted arsehole.
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Deano, I remember criticising you quite heavily precisely because you failed to recognise there were white European Muslims, especially in Albania and Bosnia. PAnd treated Jesus like he was a blonde blue eyed English lad.

I for one am not going to bother playing link hockey, because you'll either have a smart Alec answer or ignore any that are too inconvenient.

That may have been how it played out in your mind, but the reality was quite different. I'm sure you will post something to prove me wrong though. I wait with baited breath.

[ 23. March 2015, 16:35: Message edited by: deano ]
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
It doesn't matter. The 2010 Equality Act makes discrimination on cultural or religious grounds iillegal as it already was on grounds of race, ethnicity or nationality.

I suppose that makes me bad for my opinions about golfers.

So as long as I don't discriminate....
...you're legal, but still a prejudiced bigoted arsehole.
Good, good. As long as I'm legal. I would hate to break the law. If I did I might have to emigrate, perhaps... Syria?
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
Great line. Very logical, funny, and exposes the hypocrisy of everyone else all at once. Very deanoluded.
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Deano, I remember criticising you quite heavily precisely because you failed to recognise there were white European Muslims, especially in Albania and Bosnia. PAnd treated Jesus like he was a blonde blue eyed English lad.

I for one am not going to bother playing link hockey, because you'll either have a smart Alec answer or ignore any that are too inconvenient.

That may have been how it played out in your mind, but the reality was quite different. I'm sure you will post something to prove me wrong though. I wait with baited breath.
Well, this post sort of implies that all Muslims are non-white
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Deano, I remember criticising you quite heavily precisely because you failed to recognise there were white European Muslims, especially in Albania and Bosnia. PAnd treated Jesus like he was a blonde blue eyed English lad.

I for one am not going to bother playing link hockey, because you'll either have a smart Alec answer or ignore any that are too inconvenient.

That may have been how it played out in your mind, but the reality was quite different. I'm sure you will post something to prove me wrong though. I wait with baited breath.
Well, this post sort of implies that all Muslims are non-white
No it doesn't. It implies that some muslims in some parts of English towns are themselves incredibly racist.

False-positive two.
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
This is going way off topic, so I've started a new thread.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Originaly posted by mdijon:

quote:
Very deanoluded.
[Killing me] [Overused]

[ 23. March 2015, 17:47: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
Getting back in topic ...

It was reported in this morning'g Metro that Clarkson says he will sue the BBC if he is sacked.
 
Posted by passer (# 13329) on :
 
That would be the Metro owned by the Daily Mail Group, I assume.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
The free newspaper owned by ... oh, who cares who owns it. It's free.

You get what you pay for.
 
Posted by passer (# 13329) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The free newspaper owned by ... oh, who cares who owns it. It's free.

You get what you pay for.

And you get the agenda of whoever supplies it for free. If only there was a proverb or a saying about smiling people bearing gifts, or some such.
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
I would say "beware of Greeks bearing gifts" but I am pretty sure *eano does not like Greeks and it will just set him off again.
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
............ plus screw Clarkson, he has been a 5th columnist at the BBC for years, playing a game for his imp master. Undermining, belittling, faux vox populi*. Now as his game is up he reaches into his underpants for a pile of festering poo to fling in a vain attempt to keep his name on the front page.
 
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
... Hammond made the comments about Mexicans which gave the show trouble. And, looking at it again, May was also a participant.

My understanding was that Mr. May said he didn't like Mexican food.

If that makes him a racist, then heaven help us. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
First, I didn't say May was racist. I said he was complicit in the behaviour which garnered complaint.
Second, he did not simply say he didn't like Mexican food.
quote:

James May introduced the car as "The Tortilla", then remarked that he did not remember what it was called. Hammond then stated: "Cars reflect national characteristics... a Mexican car's just going to be a lazy, feckless, flatulent oaf with a moustache, leaning against a fence asleep, looking at a cactus with a blanket with a hole in the middle on as a coat". This was followed up by James May suggesting that all Mexican food resembles "refried sick",

So, I have friends who are racist. If I say nothing to their comments, or join in mildly, would it not be fair to think I might share their attitudes?


The state of Mexican food in the UK is far from good, this is true. But to come from a country whose national spice rack had 2 slots before pillaging India and offer food critique....
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
[...] But to come from a country whose national spice rack had 2 slots before pillaging India and offer food critique....

Forgive me: what spices were these before India? Thanks.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
Nettles and parsley. Very nice in soup, served after a mug of hot water with a splash of milk in it.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Actually, parsely is Mediterranean. The Protestant Reformation brought the advent of "plain and rubust" food which became the staple of the island.
There is a reason the chief place to find British food in other countries also involves getting ripped off your tits.
British food is comfort food, but it is not fine dining.
And, the reason Mexican food in the UK is sub-par isn't the fault of Mexicans.
Note for Americans: much of the Mexican food found in the UK is a an amalgam of Taco Bell and Chipoltle as interpreted by Lunch Lady Doris
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Mexican food in London has had Cafe Pacifico since 1976, long before Taco Bell arrived. That has been more recently joined by the Wahaca chain.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
I think the point is that the vast majority of 'Mexican food' in the UK comes out of the same mindset as Taco Bell. Basically, take something we'll call a 'taco' (that has some similarities to, but a long way from identical to, what you will get in Mexico) serve it with something very spicy and a bit of mashed avocado on the side ... and that's 'Mexican food'. Naturally, all prepared and served by people who have probably never been to Mexico, and if they had they didn't get beyond the beach at Cancun.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Exactly Alan.

It is telling that Oaxaca had to be respelt to Wahaca.
But this is a common phenomenon in many countries. Not until a significant number of immigrants arrive do the foods begin to resemble their origin.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Nettles and parsley.

Surely those are herbs rather than spices? There are lots of herbs that would have been used in British cooking for millenia before we started importing from the Mediterranean, India and beyond. Thyme, mustard, chives, mint, rosemary all have wild British varieties and cultivated varieties that have been used in some cases since at least the Bronze Age. Others like nettles, heather, blackcurrent leaves are now rarely used. British spices are much fewer in number. Horseradish and juniper berries being the ones most commonly still used.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
Meanwhile, to return to the OP (remember that?) it looks like the end of the road for Clarkson and his show, at the BBC at any rate.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Right decision. Though, if the the article is correct, Clarkson will not feel the sting of the door on his arse as Lord Hall's lips will still be attached.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Looks like another BBC cock-up then, since so far no one from the Beeb has interviewed Mr Clarkson.

Kangaroo Court, anyone?
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Do we actually know that the Beeb have not interviewed Clarkson, and done whatever else is necessary to take representations from him as part of the disciplinary process? It seems inconceivable thaat they wouldn't: it would seem to be pretty basic HR practice and if they don't follow due process they are lining themselves up for litigation.
 
Posted by Drifting Star (# 12799) on :
 
As I understand it, Clarkson actually reported himself to the BBC in the first instance, so they have certainly had input from him.

There seems to be very little bottom-line thinking about this. Whoever he is, and whatever he has or hasn't done in the past, he 'spent 20 minutes verbally abusing' a colleague 'before launching a 30 second physical assault on him'. How could any organisation not fire an employee for doing this once the facts had been established and verified?

And a 30 second physical assault is more than a punch - which would have been too much anyway.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
The bit about the '30 second physical assault' has been denied by the producer in question.

There has been no denial that there was no hot food available to the crew on location on a day when average temperatures struggled to get above freezing. The BBC has also not denied that there was no hot food available at the hotel, nor that the time when such food was available at the hotel would never have fallen within the requirements of the programme makers, nor that the hotel is in a part of the dales where there is no alternative available.

Whatever the rights and wrongs - and I don't condone violence - the BBC production team screwed-up badly on this one.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
You can't go round thumping people just because they get on your nerves. End of. Obviously, I am not privy to the disciplinary processes of the Beeb but I cannot imagine that they decided to give the bloke who, hitherto, constituted a right to print money for them, the old heave-ho without checking with m'learned friends whether or not this would end up before the beak or not.

If Clarkson has gone it's because his position was untenable.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The bit about the '30 second physical assault' has been denied by the producer in question.

There has been no denial that there was no hot food available to the crew on location on a day when average temperatures struggled to get above freezing. The BBC has also not denied that there was no hot food available at the hotel, nor that the time when such food was available at the hotel would never have fallen within the requirements of the programme makers, nor that the hotel is in a part of the dales where there is no alternative available.

Whatever the rights and wrongs - and I don't condone violence - the BBC production team screwed-up badly on this one.

Yet, somehow, you are ...

Tubbs
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The bit about the '30 second physical assault' has been denied by the producer in question.

There has been no denial that there was no hot food available to the crew on location on a day when average temperatures struggled to get above freezing. The BBC has also not denied that there was no hot food available at the hotel, nor that the time when such food was available at the hotel would never have fallen within the requirements of the programme makers, nor that the hotel is in a part of the dales where there is no alternative available.

Whatever the rights and wrongs - and I don't condone violence - the BBC production team screwed-up badly on this one.

Utterly irrelevant. I don't care if Clarkson found he had a bag of crisps and a packet of bourbons, he had no fucking excuse for violence. Personally I'd have pressed charges with the police. Anyone who ever assaults me will find that I will press charges because I WILL NOT let anyone ever assault me.

[ 25. March 2015, 12:23: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :
 
I accept that if he really did hit Mr. Tymon then he has to go, but I'll be very sad to see the end of the show in its present form.

Replacing JC but keeping the other two would IMHO be better than nothing, but the chemistry would still be lost. If you replace one element in a chemical compound with a different one, it's not the same compound.
 
Posted by Drifting Star (# 12799) on :
 
According to the BBC, discussions are taking place with Chris Evans about him taking over the role. This may be wishful thinking on the part of the BBC, though, because he has apparently previously ruled himself out. Personally I think that he is one of very few people who would be able to do it well in his own right.

I think that Boogie made that suggestion here right at the beginning of recent events.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
[Eek!] Eeeeeeeeek I won't be watching it if they do.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Am I the only one who's always thought Top Gear one of the most boring pieces of shite on the box?

Evidently.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
Yes.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Drifting Star:

I think that Boogie made that suggestion here right at the beginning of recent events.

Boogie the prophet [Biased]

The BBC has just announced that they won't be renewing JCs contract.
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
Jesus Christ's?
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
They way some people talk you'd think they were the fucking same.

Personally I'm glad to see the back of the monumental tosser. May he fall down a fucking hole.
 
Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wesley J:
Jesus Christ's?

The BBC cancelled his contract years ago [Biased]

I'll miss watching Clarkson on Top Gear, but it's absolutely the right decision.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The bit about the '30 second physical assault' has been denied by the producer in question.

There has been no denial that there was no hot food available to the crew on location on a day when average temperatures struggled to get above freezing. The BBC has also not denied that there was no hot food available at the hotel, nor that the time when such food was available at the hotel would never have fallen within the requirements of the programme makers, nor that the hotel is in a part of the dales where there is no alternative available.

Whatever the rights and wrongs - and I don't condone violence - the BBC production team screwed-up badly on this one.

Utterly irrelevant. I don't care if Clarkson found he had a bag of crisps and a packet of bourbons, he had no fucking excuse for violence. Personally I'd have pressed charges with the police. Anyone who ever assaults me will find that I will press charges because I WILL NOT let anyone ever assault me.
The Guardian has a summary of the report's findings:

quote:
... Tymon was "subject to an unprovoked physical and verbal attack” by Clarkson during which he was “struck, resulting in swelling and bleeding to his lip”.

The attack “lasted around 30 seconds and was halted by the intervention of a witness” and Tymon “offered no retaliation”.

It said Tymon was “shocked and distressed by the incident” and “drove to a nearby A&E department for examination”.

It said Clarkson verbally abused Tymon “on more than one occasion – both during the attack and subsequently inside the hotel – and contained the strongest expletives and threats to sack him.

“The abuse was at such volume as to be heard in the dining room, and the shouting was audible in a hotel bedroom.”

I look forward to L'Organist justifying that.

Tubbs
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Yes, I will miss seeing them; it had to be done of course. Maybe on another channel.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Looks like another BBC cock-up then, since so far no one from the Beeb has interviewed Mr Clarkson.

Kangaroo Court, anyone?

The allegations amount to actions of Gross Misconduct which under employment law permit immediate suspension pending investigation.

The relevant investigation has been undertaken and a decision made on the balance of the evidence. Opportunity for submissions on both sides will have been given, as legal advice will have been sought.

The first gripe I have with the BBC is why they persisted with this individual for so long given other incidents which, for any normal employee, would have meant dismissal many months ago.

Then I wonder why it's taken so long/cost so much to get this done. In many workplaces it would be done and dusted in a few days.

The real question with the BBC is why it allows its employees to become caricatures of themselves and fails to recognise the power of example of bad behaviour. The one million plus signatories to the petition to reinstate him simply demonstrates how far we have to go in eliminating blokey violence from British culture.

Oh - and don't give him a reference either.

In case, L'Organist, you feel the response is disproportionate try being aggressive with one of your choir members and see where it gets you. The words brown envelope and P45 are coming to mind ...
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, I will miss seeing them; it had to be done of course. Maybe on another channel.

In the English Channel perhaps?
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, I will miss seeing them; it had to be done of course. Maybe on another channel.

In the English Channel perhaps?
Having discovered that - IMO surprisingly - Clarkson is anti-UKIP and pro-EU, might I suggest that he be pushed into "La Manche" instead?

[ 25. March 2015, 14:44: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Exclamation Mark
Rest assured, I wouldn't dream of acting like that towards any member of my choir - not even towards some clergy who behave boorishly either.

I'm not an avid Clarkson fan - in fact if I was asked to list them, Top Gear would appear in my personal top ten of most disliked TV shows; but neither am I an fan of this sort of 3 ring circus with the BBC relying on other media outlets and leaks to make its case and the protracted way of dealing with it all.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, I will miss seeing them; it had to be done of course. Maybe on another channel.

In the English Channel perhaps?
Well, I am nicking this as a possible stunt for them, going across the Channel in floating Minis, or even better, Robin Reliants. Not sure how much dosh is in it for me, but it's perfect for TG.
 
Posted by passer (# 13329) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
.. the BBC relying on other media outlets and leaks to make its case and the protracted way of dealing with it all.

Might you possibly care to elaborate on that load of bollocks?
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Am I the only one who's always thought Top Gear one of the most boring pieces of shite on the box?

Evidently.

No, you're not. I agree wholeheartedly. On the other hand lots of people would find, say, the Concilliarist movement in late medieval Europe, Karl Popper and the latest series of Hannibal profoundly uninteresting. Or for that matter evolutionary biology, science fiction and dungeons and dragons. The fact that you or I think that a given thing is uninteresting is no more a definitive repudiation of its value than the discovery that Messrs X, Y and Z think that what you and I find interesting is a bit dull means that we are missing the point. Different people are interested in different things. It's not wrong for the beeb to put on stuff just because you and I, personally, would rather watch paint dry if a load of other people think it's shiny and exciting.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Am I the only one who's always thought Top Gear one of the most boring pieces of shite on the box?

Evidently.

No, you're not. I agree wholeheartedly. On the other hand lots of people would find, say, the Concilliarist movement in late medieval Europe, Karl Popper and the latest series of Hannibal profoundly uninteresting. Or for that matter evolutionary biology, science fiction and dungeons and dragons. The fact that you or I think that a given thing is uninteresting is no more a definitive repudiation of its value than the discovery that Messrs X, Y and Z think that what you and I find interesting is a bit dull means that we are missing the point. Different people are interested in different things. It's not wrong for the beeb to put on stuff just because you and I, personally, would rather watch paint dry if a load of other people think it's shiny and exciting.
Wasn't suggesting they shouldn't. Merely that the universal "it's such a wonderful programme, shame to lose it" stuff isn't, well, universally held. I'm getting more than a little tired of this tiresome little bully being described as a "national treasure". Is he fuck, and I feel similarly about "his" programme - whilst not feeling any need to be reasonable in Hell. For my part, whilst the BBC is very good at putting on boring shite, it'll be quite a challenge for them to replace TG with something worse. IMV, that is.
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
I wonder if he will be charged with assault?
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
neither am I an fan of this sort of 3 ring circus with the BBC relying on other media outlets and leaks to make its case and the protracted way of dealing with it all.

The BBC has, quite properly, made little comment on the substance of the case (since it shouldn't be seen as prejudging the investigation). It has no power to prevent other media outlets from doing what they like. The BBC published its statement on its website with a link to the report. (The Guardian story was up within 10 minutes.) AFAICT, the BBC allowed a couple of hours before it started treating the outcome as a news story.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
I used to watch Top Gear and found it mildly amusing.
But how one feels about the show should be irrelevant.
Would we have the massive letters of support if the person in question had been Piers Morgan?
Would we have the justification of verbal and physical assault if a different fat man missed a meal?
 
Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
I wonder if he will be charged with assault?

It's possible. The police are looking at the evidence. But what astonished me today was the length of time the verbal assault went on. That nobody belted Clarkson is remarkable. And creditable, I suppose. I'd have kicked the arsehole. I think.
 
Posted by Drifting Star (# 12799) on :
 
He also carried on the verbal assault after the physical assault, so it wasn't a case of lashing out and then being horrified or remorseful.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
I wonder if he will be charged with assault?

It's possible. The police are looking at the evidence. But what astonished me today was the length of time the verbal assault went on. That nobody belted Clarkson is remarkable. And creditable, I suppose. I'd have kicked the arsehole. I think.
Clarkson is 6'5" and solid with it. He has traded on that for years but now his physical intimidation will get him nothing.

Where's Courtney Lawes when you need him?
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Exclamation Mark
Rest assured, I wouldn't dream of acting like that towards any member of my choir - not even towards some clergy who behave boorishly either.

I'm not an avid Clarkson fan - in fact if I was asked to list them, Top Gear would appear in my personal top ten of most disliked TV shows; but neither am I an fan of this sort of 3 ring circus with the BBC relying on other media outlets and leaks to make its case and the protracted way of dealing with it all.

You've spent most of the thread telling everyone that Clarkson was somehow justified losing his temper because they were in the arse end of nowhere with no hot food at the end of a long day. FFS

Tubbs
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Exclamation Mark
Rest assured, I wouldn't dream of acting like that towards any member of my choir

What if a member of your choir behaved that way towards you though? Would you be happy for that person to remain a member?
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
Any job I've had, if I bloodied someone's face without being physically attacked by them or without defending someone else being physically attacked, I'd be out on my ass. Period. And properly.

Is it different in the UK?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
No.

Though, apparently if you're a celebrity and some people find you entertaining some people think there should be exceptions.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
You've spent most of the thread telling everyone that Clarkson was somehow justified losing his temper because they were in the arse end of nowhere with no hot food at the end of a long day.

Being in the arse end of nowhere at the end of a long day, and discovering that the person whose job it is to sort out a decent meal has failed to do so is a reasonable excuse for losing your temper. One shouldn't, of course, but it's understandable. It's certainly grounds for replacing the responsible party with someone more competent.

It's not grounds for punching him.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
You've spent most of the thread telling everyone that Clarkson was somehow justified losing his temper because they were in the arse end of nowhere with no hot food at the end of a long day.

Being in the arse end of nowhere at the end of a long day, and discovering that the person whose job it is to sort out a decent meal has failed to do so is a reasonable excuse for losing your temper. One shouldn't, of course, but it's understandable.
No, no it actually isn't. It is understandable to be upset, but not lose temper. Unless you think being an over-indulged rich bugger gives one licence that no one else is allowed.
Don't know what you do, but think of the same thing in your world. Would a tantrum such as that, even minus the violence, be acceptable?
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
Especially as they'd worked together for 10 years, the TG lads and the producer! Good riddance, I say.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
It's certainly grounds for replacing the responsible party with someone more competent.

It is interesting the contrast between wanting someone sacked for a single instance of failing to produce a hot meal compared with the idea that someone shouldn't necessarily be sacked for losing one's temper and being verbally and physically aggressive.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
It's certainly grounds for replacing the responsible party with someone more competent.

Your standard is that you'd replace someone with 10 years service for one error?

I'm certainly not coming to work for you any time soon.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
It's certainly grounds for replacing the responsible party with someone more competent.

Your standard is that you'd replace someone with 10 years service for one error?

I'm certainly not coming to work for you any time soon.

It seems that Clarkson's sense of entitlement and arrogance is so powerful that it extends outside his own mind and into others'
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
You've spent most of the thread telling everyone that Clarkson was somehow justified losing his temper because they were in the arse end of nowhere with no hot food at the end of a long day.

Being in the arse end of nowhere at the end of a long day, and discovering that the person whose job it is to sort out a decent meal has failed to do so is a reasonable excuse for losing your temper. One shouldn't, of course, but it's understandable. It's certainly grounds for replacing the responsible party with someone more competent.

It's not grounds for punching him.

Is it fuck reason to lose temper. You make do, like people have to do day in and day out when things don't go their way. It's life, deal with it. Problem is that people start thinking they're too important to have to cope with things going wrong.

Besides which, it was Clarkson's own bloody fault for insisting on spending hours in a pub in Essex getting pissed instead of getting to the hotel whilst the chef was still working. He was the author of his own misfortune, but unfortunately he's the sort of twat who thinks that everyone else should put themselves out for him.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You make do, like people have to do day in and day out when things don't go their way. It's life, deal with it.

Yeah, when our usual Thursday research group meeting (usually finishes around 9pm, allowing me to get 9.30 train and home for 10pm - at which point it's usually a Pot Noodle for dinner) over-runs and I miss the train with the next at gone 11pm I go to the convenience store at the station and find out what they have left. The same as anyone else who finds themselves delayed by over-running meetings at work, get whatever is available.

quote:
Besides which, it was Clarkson's own bloody fault for insisting on spending hours in a pub in Essex getting pissed instead of getting to the hotel whilst the chef was still working.
Or, at least pointing out to his driver "It's getting late, pull off the motorway and find us a pub where I can get a pie and chips". There wouldn't have been any lack of places to eat between Essex and Yorkshire.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
posted by Tubbs
quote:
You've spent most of the thread telling everyone that Clarkson was somehow justified losing his temper because they were in the arse end of nowhere with no hot food at the end of a long day. FFS
At no time have I said violence was justified.

I have said that losing one's temper in such circumstances would be justifiable and I still consider that to be true. But I do not consider violence and abuse justifiable.

FFS indeed: Auntie managed to 'organise' going somewhere where they must have known that hot food finished at 8.30pm, where there is no room service, and the only drinks available would either be from the bar or by using the tea/coffee facilities in the room (and we all know how comprehensive those are in a 2 star hotel). This on a day when temperatures were below freezing. Part of the contract for such shoots includes the availability of hot drinks during shooting and hot food at the end of it. The Beeb didn't even find a hotel capable of fulfilling the contract.

Sure, JC behaved grossly and boorishly and there is now sufficient evidence to show that the decision to sack him is correct, but that doesn't excuse or make acceptable the BBC breaking contractual obligations.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Oh well, maybe now the BBC can put something worthwhile into the slot vacated by TG.

How about re-showing Civilisation for a start and then something uplifting about, say, the subversiveness of Breughel and some of his fellows?
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
Just on a point of order...

Having heard Alan Yentob interviewed by Eddie Mair on PM last night, Clarkson hasn't actually been sacked. They've announced that they're not going to renew his contract, which expires at the end of the month.

Between yesterday and then, he in fact remains a BBC employee (albeit suspended), in receipt of his salary (otherwise known as "hardworking licence-fee payers' money" (TM)).

Make of that what you will, but he hasn't actually lost his job over this, just a possible future job...

To be fair to Eddie Mair, he was quite incredulous about this.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
To be fair to a big company dealing with employment law and HR processes, sacking someone rather than letting them work out a 1 month contract would be a pretty poor return in terms of costs and liabilities for the license fee payer.
 
Posted by Smudgie (# 2716) on :
 
What infuriates me is the outcry that blames the BBC for the demise of Top Gear.
The only person in this whole fiasco who had any control over the future of Top Gear was the arrogant idiot who thought that the world revolves around him and used his position to intimidate a colleague, blaming him for a situation which would never have arisen if Clarkson had returned to the hotel for his meal at the time when he was supposed to.
The BBC had no choice. Dismissal was the only option.
I hope the police do take it further.
Appalled at the way that people are blaming the producer who was the victim of verbal and physical abuse!
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
To be fair to Eddie Mair, he was quite incredulous about this.

It was indeed a classic Mair moment.

"What do you have to do to get sacked at the BBC?"

The answer to which is ... we don't know, since Yentob bottled it.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Tubbs
quote:
You've spent most of the thread telling everyone that Clarkson was somehow justified losing his temper because they were in the arse end of nowhere with no hot food at the end of a long day. FFS
At no time have I said violence was justified.

I have said that losing one's temper in such circumstances would be justifiable and I still consider that to be true. But I do not consider violence and abuse justifiable.

FFS indeed: Auntie managed to 'organise' going somewhere where they must have known that hot food finished at 8.30pm, where there is no room service, and the only drinks available would either be from the bar or by using the tea/coffee facilities in the room (and we all know how comprehensive those are in a 2 star hotel). This on a day when temperatures were below freezing. Part of the contract for such shoots includes the availability of hot drinks during shooting and hot food at the end of it. The Beeb didn't even find a hotel capable of fulfilling the contract.

Sure, JC behaved grossly and boorishly and there is now sufficient evidence to show that the decision to sack him is correct, but that doesn't excuse or make acceptable the BBC breaking contractual obligations.

You seem to be overlooking the fact that Clarkson brought this on himself by insisting on spending the afternoon in a pub instead of getting back to the hotel. His own fault. He should have accepted that rather than throwing his toys out of the pram like a spoilt brat.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Part of the contract for such shoots includes the availability of hot drinks during shooting and hot food at the end of it. The Beeb didn't even find a hotel capable of fulfilling the contract.

Judging by the reports I've read, they found somewhere to serve hot food at the end of the day. On a day filming cars, outdoors where the reason for being there is the scenery, in winter it probably wasn't unreasonable to think that 4 or more hours between the end of filming and the last orders for hot food at the hotel would be sufficient for the film crew to pack away their gear and get back to the (local) hotel for a hot meal.

What the production team didn't count on was Clarkson deciding to go on a bender before setting off on a long journey and so turning up after 8.30. Presumably without letting the production team know his expected arrival time so that they could advise him to eat on the way, or arrange for the chef to stay on a bit longer to cook a hot meal.
 
Posted by Smudgie (# 2716) on :
 
Hot food "at the end of shooting".
Seems to me, the BBC did provide hot food "at the end of shooting"
Clarkson chose not to turn up at the time at which it was being served.
His choice. His mistake. His problem to rectify.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Exclamation Mark
Rest assured, I wouldn't dream of acting like that towards any member of my choir - not even towards some clergy who behave boorishly either.

Glad to hear it .... but if you did lose the plot over a missed top C, you'd be out on your ear. Why allow Clarkson different standards just because its the BBC and he's a "celebrity/"

The BBC's response is typically craven: Clarkson should be dismissed not simply told you're a bad boy and we aren't playing with rude boys like you any more.

Top Gear "lads?" Please everyone - they're grown ups. Treat them like it and perhaps they will behave like it. One person's cheeky chappie is another's blokeish lout.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Tubbs
quote:
You've spent most of the thread telling everyone that Clarkson was somehow justified losing his temper because they were in the arse end of nowhere with no hot food at the end of a long day. FFS
At no time have I said violence was justified.

I have said that losing one's temper in such circumstances would be justifiable and I still consider that to be true. But I do not consider violence and abuse justifiable.

FFS indeed: Auntie managed to 'organise' going somewhere where they must have known that hot food finished at 8.30pm, where there is no room service, and the only drinks available would either be from the bar or by using the tea/coffee facilities in the room (and we all know how comprehensive those are in a 2 star hotel). This on a day when temperatures were below freezing. Part of the contract for such shoots includes the availability of hot drinks during shooting and hot food at the end of it. The Beeb didn't even find a hotel capable of fulfilling the contract.

Sure, JC behaved grossly and boorishly and there is now sufficient evidence to show that the decision to sack him is correct, but that doesn't excuse or make acceptable the BBC breaking contractual obligations.

The sounds of frantic backtracking. What you’ve said throughout this thread is that Clarkson was justified in losing his temper with a member of BBC staff because hot food should have been provided at the end of the day. You even said it was an unselfish act because the crew hadn't been fed either and he was speaking up for them! And that he has been treated unfairly and the BBC is somehow culpable.

As more reports have come out about the incident, they show that wasn’t the case. Hot food was provided at a specific time, but Clarkson went to the pub instead and arrived after the kitchen was closed. He then had a drunken temper tantrum at a BBC producer for twenty minutes. The temper tantrum included racial abuse, the c-word, threats to get the man sacked and destroy his career as well as an assault. The only reason he stopped was that someone intervened. Some of the witnesses expressed surprise that someone hadn’t intervened earlier.

Essentially, drunk man throws loses his temper because he was late for his dinner. I’d respect you more if you just admitted that you were wrong.

Tubbs

[ 26. March 2015, 09:37: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
The underlying assumption here appears to be that Clarkson's so important that the chef should have hung around, the team should have made him do so, everyone should have been put out to satisfy his whims.

He's not.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
To be fair to Eddie Mair, he was quite incredulous about this.

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It was indeed a classic Mair moment.

"What do you have to do to get sacked at the BBC?"

It's a good question. I wonder if part of the answer would be "have more than 1 month left on your contract" - a pragmatic position that I'd have sympathy with but probably wouldn't play any better than staying quiet.

[ 26. March 2015, 10:07: Message edited by: mdijon ]
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Many a time I've conducted pleas in mitigation in front of the magistrates on behalf of clients who were there because of some variation on the following set of facts: late evening, person gets drunk, loses temper with someone else, hits them. The magistrates would invariably take a dim view of this sort of behaviour and the defendants would more often than not find themselves going on a holiday as a guest of Brenda for a few weeks.

I see no reason on the set of facts which have now been published as to why Clarkson should be treated any differently.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
I'm not sure from the reports I've read whether the chef was asked to hang on. It's not clear that the BBC staff knew he needed to hang on, just that Clarkson hadn't turned up yet. If he had been asked he'd have been within his rights to refuse a last minute change in his hours, or to make sure he was getting well paid for the inconvenience.

Or, maybe they expected the hotel manager to apologise for not being able to fix a salad because they're fresh out of waldorfs.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm not sure from the reports I've read whether the chef was asked to hang on. It's not clear that the BBC staff knew he needed to hang on, just that Clarkson hadn't turned up yet. If he had been asked he'd have been within his rights to refuse a last minute change in his hours, or to make sure he was getting well paid for the inconvenience.

Or, maybe they expected the hotel manager to apologise for not being able to fix a salad because they're fresh out of waldorfs.

Surely they should have driven to every takeaway in a 100 mile radius; ordered everything off the menu; driven it back to the hotel and then kept it warm because Clarkson is entitled to a hot dinner when he finally decides to turn up?! And a man of his importance should have some sort of choice ...! [Big Grin] [Biased] [Razz]

Tubbs

[ 26. March 2015, 10:22: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Many a time I've conducted pleas in mitigation in front of the magistrates on behalf of clients who were there because of some variation on the following set of facts: late evening, person gets drunk, loses temper with someone else, hits them. The magistrates would invariably take a dim view of this sort of behaviour and the defendants would more often than not find themselves going on a holiday as a guest of Brenda for a few weeks.

I see no reason on the set of facts which have now been published as to why Clarkson should be treated any differently.

It's funny, I was just talking with my wife about how familiar Clarkson's mid-life clusterfuck seems, (technical term), thus, death of mother, end of marriage, alcoholism, fighting, police caution.

I am curious how Clarkson goes forward, as sometimes these things are almost engineered as an escape route, if one can find one, that is. But I've had a ton of clients in the same clusterfuck, and sometimes they make it OK, and sometimes they don't.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm not sure from the reports I've read whether the chef was asked to hang on. It's not clear that the BBC staff knew he needed to hang on, just that Clarkson hadn't turned up yet. If he had been asked he'd have been within his rights to refuse a last minute change in his hours, or to make sure he was getting well paid for the inconvenience.

Or, maybe they expected the hotel manager to apologise for not being able to fix a salad because they're fresh out of waldorfs.

Funnily enough, that episode has been in my mind as well.
 
Posted by passer (# 13329) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

Sure, JC behaved grossly and boorishly and there is now sufficient evidence to show that the decision to sack him is correct, but that doesn't excuse or make acceptable the BBC breaking contractual obligations.

*engagement of reverse gear and change of direction duly noted*

Is "somewhere in England" in the home counties, and is your real name Sir Herbert Gussett? Or are you perhaps secretly shagging Mr Clarkson? Your determination to transfer responsibility for his sins to a third-party is intriguing. Enquiring minds need to know.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

Sure, JC behaved grossly and boorishly and there is now sufficient evidence to show that the decision to sack him is correct, but that doesn't excuse or make acceptable the BBC breaking contractual obligations.

It's no longer illegal to punch someone and spilt their lip then?

I would most certainly be sacked (in the very least, if not arrested for ABH) if I did that.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

Sure, JC behaved grossly and boorishly and there is now sufficient evidence to show that the decision to sack him is correct, but that doesn't excuse or make acceptable the BBC breaking contractual obligations.

It's no longer illegal to punch someone and spilt their lip then?

I would most certainly be sacked (in the very least, if not arrested for ABH) if I did that.

I don't really go to Guido for straight news reporting, but it is interesting this morning that he's reporting that a recently previous BBC Director General once bit an underling on the arm in a fit of rage. And that was *before* he made DG. I think the BBC really doesn't seem to function like normal businesses...
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
I think senior management of any large organisation don't face the same consequences for their actions as the vast majority of people in their employment.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

Sure, JC behaved grossly and boorishly and there is now sufficient evidence to show that the decision to sack him is correct, but that doesn't excuse or make acceptable the BBC breaking contractual obligations.

*engagement of reverse gear and change of direction duly noted*

Is "somewhere in England" in the home counties, and is your real name Sir Herbert Gussett? Or are you perhaps secretly shagging Mr Clarkson? Your determination to transfer responsibility for his sins to a third-party is intriguing. Enquiring minds need to know.

It's because someone's head would explode if they had to admit that they were wrong.

[ETA: Besides, whatever point Clarkson may have had, he lost it when he called the guy the c-word, racially abused him and punched him. For a not inconsderable length of time]

Tubbs

[ 26. March 2015, 13:21: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
It was before the war but still involved BBC and the way they bend over backwards to accomodate talent.

The story goes that a couple were found in flagrante in the green room off a studio. The decision went right to Sir John Reith who said they would have to go. It was pointed out that the show was the most popular on the radio at the time (maybe half a million) so he suggested that the man would be dismissed only to be told that the act was consensual and besides, he got more fanmail than anyone else.

Eventually it was decided to burn the table they were screwing on.

[ 26. March 2015, 11:55: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
I'm quite sure that, if Mr Clarkson feels that the BBC broke its hot food contract, he can sue them. And recover a princely sum, such as the price differential between a salad and a fish'n'chips.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
It was before the war but still involved BBC and the way they bend over backwards to accomodate talent.

The story goes that a couple were found in flagrante in the green room off a studio. The decision went right to Sir John Reith who said they would have to go. It was pointed out that the show was the most popular on the radio at the time (maybe half a million) so he suggested that the man would be dismissed only to be told that the act was consensual and besides, he got more fanmail than anyone else.

Eventually it was decided to burn the table they were screwing on.

Good story. Clearly it was not only Sir John who used to bend over backwards to acccommodate talent in those days.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I thought it was going to say he got more fanny than anyone else; then you have to deal with all the envy.
 
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :
 
Credit where it's due
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Good on him for that. Changes nothing else.
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Besides which, it was Clarkson's own bloody fault for insisting on spending hours in a pub in Essex getting pissed instead of getting to the hotel whilst the chef was still working. He was the author of his own misfortune, but unfortunately he's the sort of twat who thinks that everyone else should put themselves out for him.

Quite. I've worked in a job where hot meals were included in my conditions (in a hotel).

Had I rocked up a couple of hours after the advertised mealtime expecting to be fed, I'm fairly sure I would have been told in no uncertain terms to fend for myself out of the fridge.
 
Posted by passer (# 13329) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
Credit where it's due

Looks like they'll still be doing Christmas cards.
 
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm not sure from the reports I've read whether the chef was asked to hang on. It's not clear that the BBC staff knew he needed to hang on, just that Clarkson hadn't turned up yet. If he had been asked he'd have been within his rights to refuse a last minute change in his hours, or to make sure he was getting well paid for the inconvenience.

Or, maybe they expected the hotel manager to apologise for not being able to fix a salad because they're fresh out of waldorfs.

Surely they should have driven to every takeaway in a 100 mile radius; ordered everything off the menu; driven it back to the hotel and then kept it warm because Clarkson is entitled to a hot dinner when he finally decides to turn up?! And a man of his importance should have some sort of choice ...! [Big Grin] [Biased] [Razz]

Tubbs

No need for that. Just always pack a bag with three or four different flavours of Pot Noodle. I'm sure the room had a kettle.
 
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Tubbs
quote:
You've spent most of the thread telling everyone that Clarkson was somehow justified losing his temper because they were in the arse end of nowhere with no hot food at the end of a long day. FFS
At no time have I said violence was justified.

I have said that losing one's temper in such circumstances would be justifiable and I still consider that to be true. But I do not consider violence and abuse justifiable.

FFS indeed: Auntie managed to 'organise' going somewhere where they must have known that hot food finished at 8.30pm, where there is no room service, and the only drinks available would either be from the bar or by using the tea/coffee facilities in the room (and we all know how comprehensive those are in a 2 star hotel). This on a day when temperatures were below freezing. Part of the contract for such shoots includes the availability of hot drinks during shooting and hot food at the end of it. The Beeb didn't even find a hotel capable of fulfilling the contract.

Sure, JC behaved grossly and boorishly and there is now sufficient evidence to show that the decision to sack him is correct, but that doesn't excuse or make acceptable the BBC breaking contractual obligations.

You must have an enormous hard-on of dislike for the Beeb.

As I understand it they were in a hotel that they've used regularly for a lot of the shoots they do. So presumably everyone knew the deal.

If the talent decides to get wankered for a couple of hours before hopping in the chopper back to the hotel, then if no-one's actually been tipped the wink, they should be smart enough to know it's bugger all for tea.

And even if you put the best possible gloss on it, and assume that the producer was told the presenters were knocking them back and that alternative arrangements would be needed, once you get beyond an exasperated shout of "Oh for fuck's sake you utterly useless cunt, I'm fucking starving. ARSEHOLES!" (allowing for alcohol and ten years' familiarity) you've more or less exhausted the acceptable limit of a tantrum. Not 20+ minutes of ranting, which takes quite some doing.

One is left with the conclusion that Mr Clarkson is dealing with "issues" to flip out like he did.
 
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
... One is left with the conclusion that Mr Clarkson is dealing with "issues" to flip out like he did.

According to an article in the Telegraph, if he'd still been married to the former Mrs. Clarkson (who was also his agent) she'd have told him to catch himself on and the whole thing wouldn't have happened.
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
Putting aside Hellish bluster for a moment, it is obvious the guy has issues and I hope he calms down and finds a better direction.

Having said that I still can not help feel a little glee at his self induced train wreck. But having gone off the tracks more than once myself I do hope he walks more in his lighter self soon.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Putting aside Hellish bluster for a moment, it is obvious the guy has issues and I hope he calms down and finds a better direction.

Having said that I still can not help feel a little glee at his self induced train wreck. But having gone off the tracks more than once myself I do hope he walks more in his lighter self soon.

He sounds to me like a classic 50 something wreck, recent bereavement, marriage ended, drinking, job gone. Yeah, I hope he picks up.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
Except that he's rolling in cash with a very marketable personal following, so not very typical in that respect.
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
Though, on the basis that he's not an idiot, the nature of some of that personal following might actually be troubling, rahter than reassuring.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Troubling to the rest of us, if not to him...
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
That he has any sort of personal following is deeply troubling to me.
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
Well he is the high priest of Chav so he is bound to.
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
Further speculation on a replacement for Clarkson [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Smudgie (# 2716) on :
 
Perfect!

Trouble is, I'm now depressed. The Smudgelet hasn't even heard of him.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Smudgie:

Trouble is, I'm now depressed. The Smudgelet hasn't even heard of him.

And who failed to show him those old cartoons?
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Smudgie:

Trouble is, I'm now depressed. The Smudgelet hasn't even heard of him.

And who failed to show him those old cartoons?
Bastard TV companies who put things on like Wacy Races on after you've packed the kids off to bed. That and bastard DVD companies who didn't release them at a time when the child was at the right age for sharing. (I did manage to sneak Bagpuss and the Clangers into the Tubblet's childhood though).

Tubbs

[ 04. April 2015, 19:29: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
Further speculation on a replacement for Clarkson [Big Grin]

Or the Slag Brothers. At least the political opinions will be more up to date than Clarkson's.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
I see that North Yorkshire police have concluded their investigations, and no charges will follow. Presumably that means that they don't consider anyone else was affected other than Oisin Tymon, who decided not to press charges, and the behaviour didn't breach any public order offenses.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Aaaaaand he's back (HIGNFY)

[Father Jack] Why is that gobshite on the television again? Is he never off? [/Father Jack]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
"You can't keep a good man down", or so they say.

Clearly the same applies to a twat.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
Have the BBC learned nothing?

Looks rather like a put up job to me.
 
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 
The bbc don’t make HIGNFY they buy it from the company that makes it, Clarkson has been a presenter before and was already booked to make this one.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
I may be wrong but:

- I didn't think that Clarkson was actually sacked from "Top Gear". They just said that they wouldn't renew his contract.

- I suspect that his HIGNFY appearance comes under a separate contract. If they pull him from it now he could cost them a lot of money.

- If the Police had pressed charges, things might have been different.

I certainly won't be watching that night. And I suspect that Hislop and Merton will run rings round him.

[Cross-posted with comment above].

[ 09. April 2015, 08:22: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
HIGNFY do have a history of bringing in people who have recently been in the news, usually for doing something stupid. And, for Hislop and Merton to mock them mercilessly, constantly making reference to what they did, etc.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I didn't think that Clarkson was actually sacked from "Top Gear". They just said that they wouldn't renew his contract.

That is technically accurate. But, I suppose for most people with a contract renewal coming up, and being given every indication that it would be renewed, not having the contract renewed (especially with less than the normal period of notice for termination of employment) would feel very much like being sacked.

Of course, Clarkson isn't most people. For most of us expecting a contract renewal to suddenly find ourselves out of work in a month, without having looked for alternative employment let alone having anything lined up, would be a significant hardship. Now where's the mortgage coming from? How will I afford heating and food on the dole? These are big issues.

Clarkson, of course, has no such worries. Not only is he obscenely rich anyway. But, he's already got a stage show tour lined up and a HIGNFY gig.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
HIGNFY do have a history of bringing in people who have recently been in the news, usually for doing something stupid. And, for Hislop and Merton to mock them mercilessly, constantly making reference to what they did, etc.

As they did with their very own Angus Deayton.
 
Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on :
 
I suppose it depends when the episode was recorded.

We can hope that everyone else on the program will be wearing riot assault gear - just for fun of course.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
It won't have been recorded yet. To make the show as topical as possible, they record on Thursday, ready for editing and transmission on the Friday.

[ 09. April 2015, 10:36: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
Further speculation on a replacement for Clarkson [Big Grin]

Or the Slag Brothers. At least the political opinions will be more up to date than Clarkson's.
What exactly have someone's political opinions got to do with their suitability for appearing in a show about cars?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
If Top Gear were just about cars, we would not be having this discussion.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
What else is it about then?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
You've never watched it? Or are you being disingenuous? Next you'll claim X-Factor is about music.
Cars are the excuse. It is about a middle-aged twat and his sycophant pals.
 
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You've never watched it? Or are you being disingenuous? Next you'll claim X-Factor is about music.
Cars are the excuse. It is about a middle-aged twat and his sycophant pals.

I've never watched it as I can't stand that middle-aged twat and his sychopantic pals..

I'm not that interested in cars either...
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
I love cars. Could talk about them for hours.
And I would be lying if I said there was never anything about Top Gear I liked. Just that the bad, and the mediocre, far outweighs the good.
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
[QUOTE]What exactly have someone's political opinions got to do with their suitability for appearing in a show about cars?

Considering Clarkson's vendetta against environmentally friendly and/or fuel efficient cars and his condemnation of anyone who promotes environmental issues, I'd say his political opinions are entirely relevant.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You've never watched it? Or are you being disingenuous? Next you'll claim X-Factor is about music.

Yes, I've watched it. Seems pretty much about cars to me. Sure, there's entertainment to be had from the interactions of the hosts, but that's not the primary purposely the show as far as I can see.

And yes, X-Factor is about music. Or about people who sing to varying degrees of ability, anyway.

quote:
Cars are the excuse. It is about a middle-aged twat and his sycophant pals.
You're only saying that because you don't like him, and therefore see only the negative things about him.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
What exactly have someone's political opinions got to do with their suitability for appearing in a show about cars?

Considering Clarkson's vendetta against environmentally friendly and/or fuel efficient cars and his condemnation of anyone who promotes environmental issues, I'd say his political opinions are entirely relevant.
So am I to conclude that your position is that anyone who doesn't agree with you about environmental issues shouldn't be considered suitable to appear in a show about cars?

Are there any other political views that you think should cause someone to be barred from employment in the televisual industry?
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
I don't think Top Gear is mainly about cars. I think it was - with Clarkson and co - mainly about Clarkson and Co's opinion of, and adventures with, cars. Which is something else.

I suppose some people thought the weekly segment of blowing up caravans, or attaching a ridiculously souped-up engine onto a Reliant Robin was funny. I know I laughed a bit. And it was kind of entertaining to watch celebrities earn a fee by driving round a race-track in some car or other. A bit interesting, on a slow day. to find out that some premier league footballer could go round Silverstone quicker in a Lexus, than some soap star in a Vauxhall Zafira. But I don't think very much of this could've honestly been described as being about the cars themselves.

If my decrepit memory serves me right, it was more about the cars when Angela Rippon hosted the show; when a true magazine format was used, for those seriously interested in shopping for a decent motor. And as I recall the BBC sacked her from Top Gear because she - what was it? - did something on ITV. The morning breakfast show, or something?

Of course, as with everything else, it's money that talks. And I'm sure Angela's programme didn't net the big bucks that Clarkson's fun-packed escapades on four wheels did! I don't think serious car consumerism is ever going to trump populist entertainment.
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
What exactly have someone's political opinions got to do with their suitability for appearing in a show about cars?

Considering Clarkson's vendetta against environmentally friendly and/or fuel efficient cars and his condemnation of anyone who promotes environmental issues, I'd say his political opinions are entirely relevant.
So am I to conclude that your position is that anyone who doesn't agree with you about environmental issues shouldn't be considered suitable to appear in a show about cars?

Are there any other political views that you think should cause someone to be barred from employment in the televisual industry?

No to both questions. I was simply replying to your post that asked what a person's political views had to do with presenting a motoring programme.

However, now you've mentioned it, if the main presenter of a current affairs programme had such an obvious bias towards one side or the other they probably wouldn't last very long.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Yes, I've watched it. Seems pretty much about cars to me. Sure, there's entertainment to be had from the interactions of the hosts, but that's not the primary purposely the show as far as I can see.

So, then, what have you learned about cars from the show? Super cars are fast, cheap cars are cheap and the hosts hate caravans? I'd wager, if you've watched more than a couple of episodes, you could answer more general questions about Clarkson than any of the motors featured. Wheeler Dealers features more info on cars and I would still say it is a personality show more than anything.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

And yes, X-Factor is about music. Or about people who sing to varying degrees of ability, anyway.

It is a freak show and a popularity contest. If Cowell's father had been a grocer rather than a music industry exec, the show would feature produce.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Cars are the excuse. It is about a middle-aged twat and his sycophant pals.
You're only saying that because you don't like him, and therefore see only the negative things about him.
Yes, you've found me out, I am ever so shallow.
 
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :
 
Please God, no.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Yeah, that would be horrible. She's nothing like a Top Gear host. She's funny, intelligent....
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
Personally I think the idea of replacing Loudmouth Clarkson with a woman is quite inspired.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
Personally I think the idea of replacing Loudmouth Clarkson with a woman is quite inspired.

A woman would be good, but that would be the wrong woman.

Don't replace Clarkson, and forget about May and Hammond too because they are utterly dependent on him.

After a decent interval, say eighteen months, put another show on. Include some old favourite features, but ditch the laddishness.

[ 10. April 2015, 10:46: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
I was simply replying to your post that asked what a person's political views had to do with presenting a motoring programme.

My post was about how such views affect the person's suitability to present the programme. If there is such an effect then it follows that certain views will render one unsuitable for the task.
 
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
... that would be the wrong woman ...

She would indeed, but as she's a lesbian, they could tick two PC boxes for the price of one ... [Devil]

(Am I allowed to say that in Hell? If not, then my apologies).
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
This is not about "PC". Clarkson had more warnings than nearly anyone else would be allowed without getting sacked. He hit someone, in a situation he himself caused. Regardless on your views of his words, he needed to go.
The BBC do not need to go for PC, all they need do is get someone who is not as much an arse as Clarkson.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Yes, I've watched it. Seems pretty much about cars to me. Sure, there's entertainment to be had from the interactions of the hosts, but that's not the primary purposely the show as far as I can see.

So, then, what have you learned about cars from the show? Super cars are fast, cheap cars are cheap and the hosts hate caravans? I'd wager, if you've watched more than a couple of episodes, you could answer more general questions about Clarkson than any of the motors featured. Wheeler Dealers features more info on cars and I would still say it is a personality show more than anything.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

And yes, X-Factor is about music. Or about people who sing to varying degrees of ability, anyway.

It is a freak show and a popularity contest. If Cowell's father had been a grocer rather than a music industry exec, the show would feature produce.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Cars are the excuse. It is about a middle-aged twat and his sycophant pals.
You're only saying that because you don't like him, and therefore see only the negative things about him.
Yes, you've found me out, I am ever so shallow.

We live in an area close to two football training grounds - one league, one premiership. One of the games we play to make the journey times pass more quickly is the "spot a sports car game". Due to a fairly high proportion of footballers, the hit rate is quite high.

Thanks to Top Gear, I can now name actual supercars rather than just squeak, "A thingy ... That's a thingy". I still particularly proud of the day I recognised a Noble as it shot past us. Hammond had been driving one a few weeks before.

Sue Perkins?! WTF?! Just ... No

Tubbs
 
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :
 
I agree, Tubbs - although I'm no petrolhead, there's something very satisfying about saying "Ooh look, a Ferrari/Lambo/Noble/Aston/whatever and knowing that I've got it right; I wouldn't have a clue if it weren't for TG.

LilBuddha, I think you misunderstood me - I didn't mean that Clarkson's sacking was anything to do with political correctness, but that Miss Perkins would fit with the BBC's politically-correct agenda.

My apologies if I didn't make myself clear.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
If they want baffled unpc insanity, how about Tom Baker ?
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
Probably too old at 81.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Piglet:
but that Miss Perkins would fit with the BBC's politically-correct agenda.

Big assumption there Piglet. What evidence do you have that Sue Perkins - or Clare Balding - enjoy their success because they are gay rather than because they are good at being a presenter or commentator?

I think it is more the case that a person needs to be skilled at what they do, plus have an acceptable social persona. I agree that at one time being known to be gay would be a career stymie. And before that perhaps being divorced or having an affaire. That tolerance has gone up for gayness - and down for xenophobia or sexual predation - doesn't seem to me a bad thing.

OK, attitude change is not uniform across society, but would you really want the BBC to be at the Bernard Manning rather than the Sue Perkins end of the spectrum?
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Probably too old at 81.

I think the grandad persona would work quite well - May and Hammond could do the contests, he could do Little Britainish commentary from the nice warm studio and hanker for a Bentley.

[ 12. April 2015, 12:56: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
I can't stand him, and wouldn't watch the programme if he presented it, but YMMV. Having said that, I can't think who might be a suitable replacement for Clarkson.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
How about Rory McGrath, don't particularly like him but he might fit the ethos - or maybe Frankie Boyle ?
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
What evidence do you have that Sue Perkins - or Clare Balding - enjoy their success because they are gay rather than because they are good at being a presenter or commentator?

I can't help thinking that Clare Balding is never off our screens because she happens to be married to a senior production executive at the Beeb.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
or maybe Frankie Boyle ?

He is much funnier than Clarkson, but....
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
I can't help thinking that Clare Balding is never off our screens because she happens to be married to a senior production executive at the Beeb.

The entertainment industry is riddled with nepotism. Always has been, always will be.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
lilBuddha
Where do we start with the wrongness in the last post?

1. Frankie Boyle is funnier: are you referring to his 'joke' about Madeleine McCann and Jimmy Savile? or the one about Jordan's disabled son?

2. I'd have thought the term nepotism particularly inappropriate, given its origin.

3. In any case, Ms Balding's partner left the BBC 2½ years ago.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
lilBuddha
Where do we start with the wrongness in the last post?

1. Frankie Boyle is funnier: are you referring to his 'joke' about Madeleine McCann and Jimmy Savile? or the one about Jordan's disabled son?
....

Boyle's live work is very different from his TV work. His stuff on the Scottish referendum was really well done. He's an excellent TV presenter and panelist, but his Channel 4 show was dreadful and I wouldn't see him live.

I've got no problem with Sue Perkins or Claire Balding as presenters. But part of the appeal of Top Gear was the fanboy element. All three presenters really love cars. Never got that from either Perkins or Balding. Philip Glenister is being touted as a potential replacement. He's done car programmes before IIRC and is a proper petrolhead. Could be interesting ...

In the same article, it appears that Clarkson has pulled out of presenting HIGNFY. Because he was worried about what Merton and Hislop would say to him. Chicken.

Tubbs

[ 12. April 2015, 21:04: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
lilBuddha
Where do we start with the wrongness in the last post?

1. Frankie Boyle is funnier: are you referring to his 'joke' about Madeleine McCann and Jimmy Savile? or the one about Jordan's disabled son?

Did you not notice the ellipsis?
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

2. I'd have thought the term nepotism particularly inappropriate, given its origin.

Nepotism - the practice among those with power or influence of favoring relatives or friends, especially by giving them jobs. Words often outgrow their origins, nepotism has.
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

3. In any case, Ms Balding's partner left the BBC 2½ years ago.

Nepotism gets you in, it doesn't necessarily boot you the minute your patron departs. However, the nepotism in Ms. Balding's case would be her family.
quote:

In June 1995, she made her debut as a television presenter, introducing highlights of Royal Ascot.

Her family have a slight notoriety in the "Sport of Kings".
If you think this did not facilitate her introduction, I've a palace or two for sale you might be interested in.
One might well argue she earned her continuance, but the origin of her opportunity is not greatly in doubt. This is not a slam on her, it is quite common.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
Philip Glenister would get my vote. Not that I have one but he'd be a good choice.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
.
One might well argue she earned her continuance, but the origin of her opportunity is not greatly in doubt. This is not a slam on her, it is quite common.

Certainly is. Is there a member of the Redgrave/Richardson family for example, who didn't act? And Victoria Coren-Mitchell was unlikely to have found her way into the prominent journalism that led to her current stardom on TV without having been Alan's daughter to begin with.

But - as with Ms Balding - all these people fully justify their five-star rating, in their own intrinsic right.

But who will replace Clarkson? They should either junk the show, or re-format it completely. It's clear from the (in my view) incomprehensible show of support he received from the public when all this BS broke out that Top Gear was popular largely because of his controversial entertainment value. So what's the point of trying to persist with it, without him.

No show without Punch, as Granny used to say.
 
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:
Originally posted by Piglet:
but that Miss Perkins would fit with the BBC's politically-correct agenda.

Big assumption there Piglet. What evidence do you have that Sue Perkins - or Clare Balding - enjoy their success because they are gay rather than because they are good at being a presenter or commentator?
None whatsoever; what I meant was that the very fact of her sexuality would be a point in her favour. My intention was a dig at the BBC's apparent policy - not at Miss Perkins (although I have to admit I found her very irritating on The Great British Bake-off).
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Piglet:
What I meant was that the very fact of her sexuality would be a point in her favour. My intention was a dig at the BBC's apparent policy -

I can believe the BBC - as should any employer - tries to ensure that no one is disadvantaged because they are gay/black/asian/female etc- but that is different to claiming that any one is actually preferred on those grounds.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
I'd be surprised if more than five percent on the folk on screen for the BBC are gay.

The reason I mentioned Frankie Boyle, was the continuence of controversy.

As for fanboyness, Chris Evans would have been the obvious choice if he hadn't ruled himself out. Rowan Atkinson is a car fan, with an international following, but a thousand documentaries give me the impression he's quite difficult to work with.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Went and looked at who the bookies are touting, and now I think Guy Martin. If you kept the two other presenters, Martin would do the sort of hardcore stunts Hammond did before his accident.

He's a fan less of cars than of speed. But I think that could work.
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
Philip Glenister already does a really good car show on Channel 4, For the Love of Cars. He may still be contractually obliged to stay with them.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Course Guy Martin is genuinely working class, non-establishment, didn't go to public school etc - so he may not be in with a chance.
 
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Piglet:
What I meant was that the very fact of her sexuality would be a point in her favour. My intention was a dig at the BBC's apparent policy

Of course, the white cis/hetero dude is so much considered the default that anyone who differs from that only got the job because of that difference. And not because they were actually good at the job.

I know you're being glib, but I see this shit all over and it pisses me off. Factual programmes in particular, from silly ones like Top Gear to hardhitting documentaries or current affairs programmes, are so overwhelmingly presented by white men that yes, it'd be nice to see a bit of variation in that.

Before someone jumps in to list exceptions, I've never said that every single factual programme is presented by a white dude, so that doesn't actually invalidate my argument. The fact is, they are dominant, particularly on the programmes with the largest budget. I'm just pointing this out because if anyone genuinely thinks that the BBC has a bias against hiring white men to be presenters, they must think that everyone else is so phenomenally stupid and useless that they're failing to get jobs in spite of the bias in their favour.

ETA: also public school / Oxbridge educated helps, of course.

[ 13. April 2015, 11:01: Message edited by: Liopleurodon ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
ETA: also public school / Oxbridge educated helps, of course.

When Lenny Henry guest-edited the Today programme he could, with a bit of shuffling around, find enough BME staff to run the show.

If I was inexplicably offered the job and called the whole production staff together, then asked everyone who was privately educated to leave, we'd be looking at 3 hours of dead air.
 
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :
 
I was at a Neil Gaiman event for a reading of one of his books, and Lenny Henry was there performing one of the characters. When it came to questions, someone asked NG about being allowed to make canonical changes to Doctor Who. He said something like "I think the format works, so I'm not going to jump in and say that the next Doctor should be... a dog-"

At which point LH interrupted and said "Yeah, but they'll do that before they have a black guy though." The whole audience errupted into applause... because we all knew it was frustratingly true.

Actually this sums up the issue here quite nicely. A time-travelling alien who could take the form of any kind of human turns up as a long succession of white men, because "white man" is considered the default human setting. But as soon as the Doctor deviates from that, we'll get a huge shoutfest of THEY ONLY PICKED THAT ACTOR BECAUSE HE WAS BLACK. IT'S PC GONE MAD!
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
I can believe the BBC - as should any employer - tries to ensure that no one is disadvantaged because they are gay/black/asian/female etc- but that is different to claiming that any one is actually preferred on those grounds.

I'm not sure I would credit the BBC very much with trying that hard to ensure evenness of representation! Remember the famous sackings or removals to radio of those unsightly older women news readers a few years ago?

I'm guessing that unless Fiona Bruce keeps up the botox and wrinkle filler, she'll have a much shorter time on Antiques Road Show than wrinkly old Michael Aspel (who didn't even need to get rid of his eye-bags!).

What would the female equivalent of Clarkson have looked like; how would his wild hair, scraggy features, old jeans, crumpled shirt be allowed to translate to a woman of the same ilk? Would a woman be allowed to dress so negligently, without make-up or a 'proper' hair-do, and present a prestige programme? [Eek!]
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Spot on, Anselmina.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
What would the female equivalent of Clarkson have looked like; how would his wild hair, scraggy features, old jeans, crumpled shirt be allowed to translate to a woman of the same ilk? Would a woman be allowed to dress so negligently, without make-up or a 'proper' hair-do, and present a prestige programme? [Eek!]

Ever watch Two Fat Ladies?

Or there's Mary Beard, who got some terrible abuse on social media for not conforming to the expected norms.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
I was at a Neil Gaiman event for a reading of one of his books, and Lenny Henry was there performing one of the characters. When it came to questions, someone asked NG about being allowed to make canonical changes to Doctor Who. He said something like "I think the format works, so I'm not going to jump in and say that the next Doctor should be... a dog-"

At which point LH interrupted and said "Yeah, but they'll do that before they have a black guy though." The whole audience errupted into applause... because we all knew it was frustratingly true.

Actually this sums up the issue here quite nicely. A time-travelling alien who could take the form of any kind of human turns up as a long succession of white men, because "white man" is considered the default human setting. But as soon as the Doctor deviates from that, we'll get a huge shoutfest of THEY ONLY PICKED THAT ACTOR BECAUSE HE WAS BLACK. IT'S PC GONE MAD!

I can't be arsed to google, but there were rumours in the Who fandom that black actors had been considered for the role in the past. And at least one had been asked and they'd turned it down. They, sensibly, didn't want all the stuff that came with it. Let alone all the stuff that would come with being the first black Doctor. I can't blame them, but I was disappointed.

Hoping that Martha and Ricky aren't the first and last non-White companions too.

Tubbs
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Philip Glenister would get my vote. Not that I have one but he'd be a good choice.

His big brother Robert would be good also.

In fact I'd go for Robert over Philip. I think people are imagining Gene Hunt in the Quattro, but Philip Glenister, unlike his character Hunt, (or Clarkson) is not a '70s throwback.
 
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :
 
I'd have been one of the ones imagining him in the Quattro; I didn't know about his Channel Four show, so had only thought of him as an actor.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Ever watch Two Fat Ladies?

Well, sure. Their schtick was that they were old and fat, and liked food...

quote:

Or there's Mary Beard

Professor Beard is about the only woman on TV I can think of who fits the "average-looking person who just throws on an old suit or whatever and shows up" mould from which many of the men are cast. More power to her, but she's about the only exception to the primped-and-glossy set.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
In fact I'd go for Robert over Philip. I think people are imagining Gene Hunt in the Quattro, but Philip Glenister, unlike his character Hunt, (or Clarkson) is not a '70s throwback.

I wasn't thinking that. I've seen him being his normal self, and he wasn't a lot like Gene Hunt, but I still think he'd fit the role pretty well.
 
Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:

Hoping that Martha and Ricky aren't the first and last non-White companions too.

Tubbs

K9 and Kamelion were both silver [Razz]
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
Latest news from BBC website

For fucks sake, some people really need to get a sense of perspective [Disappointed]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
You live by the watermelon, you're going to die by the watermelon.
 
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :
 
I admit I don't think she'd be right for Top Gear, but that's no excuse to be abusive towards her.

I don't tweet (I'm not that tech-savvy with mobile phones), but it seems to me that maybe some of the people who do shouldn't.
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
the original story was from a bookmaker. Someone must have thought Perkins could do the job enough to put a lot of money on her. (Or a lot of people bet on her, which I think is less likely.)

I think she could be good in the role, though Jodie Kidd would be better.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
I think it's already established that the Clarkson-adoring demographic may be large, but it's not pretty.
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
Like the man himself then.
 
Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
I think it's already established that the Clarkson-adoring demographic may be large, but it's not pretty.

As far as I'm aware the Clarkson-hating demographic is also large and not pretty.

Some of us like some things he does, don't like other things he does and move on past when anyone suggests that he is the Devil incarnate or God incarnate.

[ 15. April 2015, 11:42: Message edited by: The Rogue ]
 
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rogue:
... Some of us like some things he does, don't like other things he does and move on past when anyone suggests that he is the Devil incarnate or God incarnate.

[Overused]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rogue:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
I think it's already established that the Clarkson-adoring demographic may be large, but it's not pretty.

As far as I'm aware the Clarkson-hating demographic is also large and not pretty.

Some of us like some things he does, don't like other things he does and move on past when anyone suggests that he is the Devil incarnate or God incarnate.

So, which prt do you like? The racism?
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
I think it's already established that the Clarkson-adoring demographic may be large, but it's not pretty.

quote:
Originally posted by The Rogue:
As far as I'm aware the Clarkson-hating demographic is also large and not pretty.

And how many death threats has Clarkson received?
 
Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on :
 
Moving on past.
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
Gregg Wallace would be an ideal replacement for Clarkson.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Rather than demolish perfectly good caravans, he could do a cook-off with the limited facilities in them.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
Gregg Wallace is probably the most irritating man on television in the entire decade. I used to enjoy watching Masterchef in the days when Michel Roux was on it, then Gregg Wallace crashed in and that was the end of that.

The sight of him on television has me galvanized into a sudden flurry of activity grabbing the remote control to get him off the screen as quickly as possible, something I usually only did for either Tom Baker or Tony Blair. Any other incredibly irritating and unlikeable candidates for the post of replacement to Clarkson?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
But, we're talking about a replacement for Clarkson. Surely " incredibly irritating and unlikeable " are essential characteristics.

The make-over of Masterchef was very similar to the re-vamp of Top Gear. Masterchef was a show primarily about food, albeit in a competition format, but was revamped to being entertainment - with the character of the presenters coming to the front, and the interaction between the contestants becoming important factors in the format.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
perfectly good caravans

No such thing.
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
The reason for bringing up Wallace was that 18 months before the Clarkson incident, he had been in a fight in a hotel where he hit someone five times, only admits to it after the story has come out in the press.

Clarkson, also in a hotel, hits someone once, and own up to it to his bosses before any news has got out. How can the sacking of Clarkson be fair if we still have Wallace on TV?

It seems that to have kept his job, Clarkson should have:
  1. Kept schtum.
  2. Hit his producer another four times.

 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
C. Not had a history of creating problems for the BBC with stupid stunts, poorly chosen language etc ...
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Wallace didn't thump a producer, that's the big difference, isn't it? So it was basically a private quarrel, not happening during work. In fact, the BBC famously employed a murderer, but he didn't kill someone at work.

[ 19. April 2015, 08:27: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Wallace didn't thump a producer, that's the big difference, isn't it? So it was basically a private quarrel, not happening during work. In fact, the BBC famously employed a murderer, but he didn't kill someone at work.

The main difference appears to be that Wallace hit someone on his own time rather than the BBC's and doesn't have quite as much previous form as Clarkson.

The BBC took him off some programmes and limited his participation at live events afterwards so he wasn't entirely let off. (I don't mind Wallace as a presenter, but as a person not so much).

Which BBC employee was a murderer?

Tubbs

[ 21. April 2015, 12:39: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
 
Posted by trouty (# 13497) on :
 
The BBC will only broadcast unfunny wankers like Marcus Pigscock. That probably suits a lot of the smug gobshites who come on here just fine.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Fuck off Trouty. You only ever come on to post how fucking superior you are to all the lefty thickos here.
 
Posted by passer (# 13329) on :
 
Tubbs:

Here.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
Tubbs:

Here.

Of course! [Hot and Hormonal] I don't think of actors as "BBC employees" in the same way as I do presenters. Actors tend to go from job to job, but of course a soap is slightly different.

Thank you

Tubbs
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Different case regardless. Grantham paid his debt to society before appearing on the BBC. Slate clean (ish). The sex scandal is a different matter, though he did face minor discipline after.
 
Posted by MarsmanTJ (# 8689) on :
 
Is it just me, or is the BBC's furious back-pedalling to say that Clarkson might work there again (and he wasn't fired with cause, just his contract wasn't removed) a sign that they've realised that without at least two of their stars and their Executive Producer, a huge money-maker for the BBC may prove to be worth orders of magnitude less, and are preparing for potentially having to re-hire Clarkson if that proves to be the case?

[ 24. April 2015, 03:12: Message edited by: MarsmanTJ ]
 
Posted by passer (# 13329) on :
 
It's just you.
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
My Radio Times tells me that Clarkson is hosting Have I Got News For You tonight. However the website says he isn't; rumour has it he was scared of what Hislop and Merton would say.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Twas Steven Mangan
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Latest reports, overheard from a conversation down the pub, suggest Jodie Kidd, Philip Glenister and Guy Martin.
 
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :
 
They can call it "Top Gear", but it won't be Top Gear as we know it.

No disrespect to Messrs. Glenister and Martin, or Miss Kidd - it just won't be the same.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
Yeah. Glenister's all right but he needs to be a bit more assertive if he's going to take the lead. I don't know anything about the other two.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Don't know about the source: for a start, Jay Kay lives near Aylesbury so the chances of him being overheard in a Sussex pub aren't great...
 
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :
 
They would be if he happened to be visiting a Sussex pub ... [Big Grin]
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
The Torygraph seems to think so too.

I still would prefer the other Glenister.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
My Radio Times tells me that Clarkson is hosting Have I Got News For You tonight. However the website says he isn't; rumor has it he was scared of what Hislop and Merton would say.

Oh yeah, I forgot that about him.

Am I remembering correctly that he once got in a Twitter strop because a few people made jokes about his dead pet? Not that I think that's cool, but this is the guy who sniffed at other people's "sensitivity" when challenged. He really doesn't get the whole dish it/ take it thing.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
Farage, Clegg and Milliband are looking for new jobs. Farage would be a convincing substitute for Clarkson, Clegg could fill in for James May, and Milliband for Hammond.
 
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :
 
[Killing me]

There was a minor headline on the Telegraph web-site about the new Cabinet that mentioned "Hammond and May" (respectively the Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary) and I couldn't resist thinking "and what about Clarkson?".

[Devil]

[ 08. May 2015, 23:39: Message edited by: Piglet ]
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Farage, Clegg and Milliband are looking for new jobs. Farage would be a convincing substitute for Clarkson, Clegg could fill in for James May, and Milliband for Hammond.

I would prefer the other Milliband.
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
Just thought you all might like to know, me and family are off to the Motorpoint Arena, Sheffield to watch Clarson, Hammond and May Live, the new name for Top Gear Live.

I'll give you all a rundown of the main highlights later....
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
That's nice. I'm expecting friends round later to play board games, and then on Sunday we're going for a pizza with some Brazilian people.

So what's everyone else doing this weekend?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
We're taking any amount of stuff to the dump tomorrow then a trip to IKEA on Sunday afternoon. By Sunday evening my wife should have her very own craft room. My railway room will have to wait.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
I'm going to spend my weekend hunting you all down and making you regret thread necromancy.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
It was deano who did it sir!
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Haven't you got some holiday homes to burn down?
 
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 
I saw one of their huge trailers passing on the other side of the motorway on Wednesday - obviously heading Deano's way.

Maybe he would like to keep them?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
I'm not sure South Yorkshire is big enough for both Clarkson's and deano's egos. Though with a bit of luck, the combined density will cause a spontaneous collapse in the space-time continuum and suck them both into a universe where...

Actually, I don't care what happens there. Just as long as they're gone.
 
Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :
 
Whilst we are talking about our weekends, I am doing some work on the ethics of euthanasia.

Hmmm.
 
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:
Whilst we are talking about our weekends, I am doing some work on the ethics of euthanasia.

Hmmm.

Sounds better than clarkson.
[Smile]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Just thought you all might like to know,

God alone knows why you'd think we gave a shit where you were inflicting your obnoxious presence.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:
Whilst we are talking about our weekends, I am doing some work on the ethics of euthanasia.

Practical, or merely theoretical?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Just thought you all might like to know,

God alone knows why you'd think we gave a shit where you were inflicting your obnoxious presence.
And yet here you all are, responding.
 
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :
 
I'm not sure that I don't feel a little sorry for Messrs. Clarkson, Hammond and May for having Deano's presence foisted on them.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Piglet:
I'm not sure that I don't feel a little sorry for Messrs. Clarkson, Hammond and May for having Deano's presence foisted on them.

Pretty marginal IMHO. The Top Gear Gang all have Yorkshire connections which explains quite a lot, to a Lancashire lad.
 
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :
 
Wrong side of the Pennines, eh? [Killing me]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie on the 11th March:

He's soon be forgotten if they put someone like Chris Evans in his place.


Just call me Boogie The Prophet.


Thank you.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
Oh, hell, no. I won't be watching the series any more. I wonder who the other two presenters will be?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Replace one overpaid twat with another overpaid twat. It makes sense, I suppose, to keep the commercially successful format as close to unchanged as possible.
 
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :
 
Considering that back in March Mr. Evans categorically ruled himself out, I wonder how many Ferraris he'll be able to buy with his first year's salary?

The Beeb can call it Top Gear until they're blue in the face, but without Messrs. Clarkson, Hammond and May, it just won't be.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
Perhaps they could do this scene at the beginning with Clarkson staggering about a bit and then the flames shooting out of his denims and then suddenly it's Chris Evan patting himself and looking for a mirror? No?
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
But it was still Top Gear when it was presented by Angela Rippon, Noel Edmonds, William Woollard, Tiff Needell and Quentin Wilson, to name but a few other presenters over the last forty odd years. A different Top Gear, but a programme loosely based on cars broadcast by the BBC, the format of which has changed several times over that time.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
Perhaps they could do this scene at the beginning with Clarkson staggering about a bit and then the flames shooting out of his denims and then suddenly it's Chris Evan patting himself and looking for a mirror? No?

Why on earth would anyone extinguish the flames?
 
Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
Perhaps they could do this scene at the beginning with Clarkson staggering about a bit and then the flames shooting out of his denims and then suddenly it's Chris Evan patting himself and looking for a mirror? No?

[Overused] [Overused]
 
Posted by Thyme (# 12360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
Perhaps they could do this scene at the beginning with Clarkson staggering about a bit and then the flames shooting out of his denims and then suddenly it's Chris Evan patting himself and looking for a mirror? No?

[Overused] [Overused]
And again [Killing me] [Killing me] [Overused]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Perhaps have his ex (Billie Piper) standing by with a plate of fishfingers and custard.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
Ready to push it into his face?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Well, food should be eaten. But if it won't go into his mouth, around the mouth is close enough.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Perhaps have his ex (Billie Piper) standing by with a plate of fishfingers and custard.

He's having a female co-presenter ...
 
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :
 
Knowing the BBC, it'll probably be Clare Balding. [Devil]
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
I think Clare Balding ranks higher than 'sidekick' these days.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
Perhaps they could do this scene at the beginning with Clarkson staggering about a bit and then the flames shooting out of his denims and then suddenly it's Chris Evan patting himself and looking for a mirror? No?

Maybe Clarkson could be shown burning at the steak?

(sorry about that)
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Perhaps have his ex (Billie Piper) standing by with a plate of fishfingers and custard.

No, no, no no! That sweet girl was hooked up with that douchenozzle? Oh Billie! [Waterworks]
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
She was married to Evans, not Clarkson (if that makes it any better).
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
No, I got that, but he's a jackass, too, right? Least the way you all are describing him.
 
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
I think Evans is less of a twonk than Clarkson.

He's definitely had his moments in the past, but generally seems to have settled down pretty well. The Radio 2 breakfast show is actually quite good, and he is very, very media-savvy as well as being a car nut. He's also quite divisive, like Clarkson.

I think he could do well, and create an incarnation of Top Gear that's a bit more about the cars whilst still being enjoyable for people who just like well-presented idiocy.
 
Posted by not entirely me (# 17637) on :
 
I have no interest in Top Gear but Chris Evans is a sound presenter who deserves a chance.
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
I think Evans is less of a twonk than Clarkson.

One of many, or even most.
 
Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
I think Clare Balding ranks higher than 'sidekick' these days.

La Balding is nothing less than a National Treasure, alongside Nicholas Parsons, Alan Bennett and (inexplicably) Miranda Hart.

Now, that would be an episode of Top,Gear.....
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Inexplicably?? She's brilliant!
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Perhaps have his ex (Billie Piper) standing by with a plate of fishfingers and custard.

WRONG COMPANION! *thwack*
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
It's kind of a sacrament now, though, isn't it?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Perhaps have his ex (Billie Piper) standing by with a plate of fishfingers and custard.

WRONG COMPANION! *thwack*
I know. But, one could also say that of Evans as a regeneration of TG Host ...
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
It's kind of a sacrament now, though, isn't it?

That, my dear, was a 5-star response.

Brings the average of the thread up to about 1.05 of course.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I don't think Evans will work. TG was mate porn, which relied on mutually insulting banter, which worked because of their chemistry (although some people didn't like it). But Evans relies on self-congratulation, totally different. And he tries too hard.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
I'd never heard of Chris Evans, but I watched TFI Friday (was it last week?). I think I agree with Quetzalcoatl.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
Evans does irritate but since replacing Terry Wogan on BBC Radio 2's morning show in 2010 he has increased the audience to 9.5m, the highest radio auience in Britain.

He did a one-off TFI Friday recently and hosts BBC 1 TV's One Show .

I find him a lot less irritating than he used to be. Clarkson OTOH has not improved with age.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think Evans will work. TG was mate porn, which relied on mutually insulting banter, which worked because of their chemistry (although some people didn't like it). But Evans relies on self-congratulation, totally different. And he tries too hard.

Yep. Anyway, Clarkson, May and Hammond are getting together to have their own show on some other channel, so if I get the chance I'll watch that instead.
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Evans does irritate but since replacing Terry Wogan on BBC Radio 2's morning show in 2010 he has increased the audience to 9.5m, the highest radio auience in Britain.

He did a one-off TFI Friday recently and hosts BBC 1 TV's One Show .

I find him a lot less irritating than he used to be. Clarkson OTOH has not improved with age.

Yes one of things I really like about Evans is his self-awareness. He's knows he became a complete arse in the 90s and in several interviews I've heard him be very honest and open about it. He made an aside comment about it on his show last week. He's clearly a different person now compared to what he was then.

AFZ
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
Maybe so, but I remain unimpressed by "I'm 100% not going to be hosting Top Gear" followed by "there will 100% be a female presenter" when it isn't even his call.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Maybe so, but I remain unimpressed by "I'm 100% not going to be hosting Top Gear" followed by "there will 100% be a female presenter" when it isn't even his call.

IIRC Evans said that he would definitely not be doing Top Gear before all chances of a rapprochement between the BBC and Clarkson, Hammond and May were exhausted. He didn't want to be seen treading on a friend's toes.

Times have changed. Maybe, under the terms of his contract, he gets some say in co-presenters. He did on his morning radio show.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Maybe so, but I remain unimpressed by "I'm 100% not going to be hosting Top Gear" followed by "there will 100% be a female presenter" when it isn't even his call.

IIRC Evans said that he would definitely not be doing Top Gear before all chances of a rapprochement between the BBC and Clarkson, Hammond and May were exhausted. He didn't want to be seen treading on a friend's toes.

Times have changed. Maybe, under the terms of his contract, he gets some say in co-presenters. He did on his morning radio show.

That's what he's said in interviews, he wanted them to sort it and didn't want to complicate things. Fair play.

Evans will also be producing TG so he does get a say. I'm willing to give it a go. The new breakfast show is excellent. Just the right tone for me first thing in the morning. I hated Evans in the 90's and would have cheerfully punched him. But I'll see what the other three get up too as well.

We went out for beers with some BBC staffers a few weeks ago. They described Clarkson as a "tyrant". The only difference between this time and all the others is that people couldn't ignore it.

Tubbs

[ 19. June 2015, 12:49: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
Here you go, for all those Top Gear fans, it's now official - the trio have migrated to Amazon. You can still get your fix if you don't mind watching Amazon Prime.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
It looks like Jensen Button maybe signing for Top Gear.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Here you go, for all those Top Gear fans, it's now official - the trio have migrated to Amazon. You can still get your fix if you don't mind watching Amazon Prime.

Does anyone watch it? I expect most will wait a year or two then catch the repeats on Dave.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
I never heard of it and can't get Dave.

Still, I'm sure I'll find something else to fill the gap in my life.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
You haven't heard of Amazon ?
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
I hadn't heard that Amazon Prime did streaming video.
 
Posted by passer (# 13329) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I expect most will wait a year or two then catch the repeats on Dave.

Indeed. It's a bit of a drop from the most widely syndicated and watched programme in the world to a streaming site. Quite risky - but then I imagine that they're all sufficiently well off to be able to take a punt. And it will show whether they're capable of working together successfully outside of the confines of the BBC.
 
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :
 
We can't get Dave either [Waterworks] but with any luck they'll sell it on to one of the cable networks.

If not, I'll just have to find the equivalent of £80 from somewhere. I'd give up a fair chunk of the cr@p channels we've got to get one that shows their new show, whatever it's going to be called.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
It would be fun but I'm not shelling out £75 to watch it on my computer. If they want me to see it they'll have to move it to ordinary free television.

Early indications are they're already set to lose a chunk of their fan base who don't want to pay the subscription. Fair enough if most people are already shelling out for Sky or whatever.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
Quite risky - but then I imagine that they're all sufficiently well off to be able to take a punt.

I'm sure Clarkson, May and Hammond have made sure they'll get a big pay cheque for making at the first series of the new show. The risk is with Amazon - will they make enough from new subscriptions to Prime and selling the show to broadcasters to cover the production costs and the inflated pay packet for the presenters.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
I pay something like forty quid a year for amazon prime in order to get free delivery for stuff I buy from them, the streaming of music an video is a random extra really.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
I hadn't heard that Amazon Prime did streaming video.

I have Amazon Prime for the free deliveries (I do all my shopping online, so it's well worth the money)

With it comes -

Films, streaming video and TV
Music
Unlimited photo and data storage in Amazon cloud drive.
Kindle Owners' Lending Library

I use the cloud drive and Kindle Library a lot. The others not so much.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
The Amazon Prime membership which includes guaranteed next day delivery costs £79 a year or $99. There's also Amazon Prime Instant Video which is their attempt at Netflix, for £5.99 a month, no idea what that costs in the USA.

The addition of Top Gear is not a draw.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Checked my account, looks like the fee went up and I didn't notice. It tells me that for that fee I get:


[ 01. August 2015, 09:56: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
We swopped from paying for a TV licence to paying for Amazon Prime last year when we realised that days and weeks were going by in which we didn't watch any live TV, but were using our TV set purely to watch DVDs and for the kids to play games.

It's cheaper and was a better fit for us.

We won't be watching Clarkson, though.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
Just to point out that it is possible that the Clarkson/Hammond/May fan base is actually mostly outside of the BBC's typical service area, and that most of them are accustomed to viewing them via computer anyway.
 
Posted by passer (# 13329) on :
 
Ha!
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Hattrick should have an additional clause in his contract. "Must stay a minimum of 2m from any production staff to avoid accidental impact between fists and face"
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
HIGNFY has been going downhill for years.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0