Top Gear host Jeremy Clarkson has been suspended by the BBC "following a fracas" with a producer.
The corporation said the 54-year-old presenter had been suspended "pending an investigation".
"No one else has been suspended. Top Gear will not be broadcast this Sunday," it said.
Clarkson was given what he called his "final warning" last May after claims he used a racist word while filming the popular BBC motoring show.
At the time, he said the BBC had told him he would be sacked if he made "one more offensive remark, anywhere, at any time".
The BBC gave no further details on the current incident involving Clarkson, and said it would not be making any further statements at this time.
Clarkson's representatives have yet to reply to requests for a comment.
The presenter himself has remained silent. Last month, though, he tweeted a post saying a "new presenter for Top Gear" was wanted.
"Applicant should be old, badly dressed and pedantic but capable of getting to work on time," his message went on.
Top Gear
This weekend's episode of Top Gear was set to feature Clarkson - who has fronted the show since 2002 - along with regular co-hosts Richard Hammond and James May at a classic track day.
Former footballer and pundit Gary Lineker was also to appear as the "star in a reasonably priced car".
Former Top Gear presenter Chris Goffey told BBC Radio 5 live that while discussions on the programme sometimes became heated when he worked on the show, "it must have been something fairly serious behind the scenes to warrant his immediate suspension.
"I can't think what the hell's gone on, but there you go. When you've got a very strong character who likes things his own way, if somebody stands up to him, there's going to be a row."
Clarkson has courted controversy on several occasions during his time hosting Top Gear.
The show's executive producer, Andy Wilman, described last year as "an annus horribilis" for the programme.
It followed an incident in Argentina where the presenters and crew were forced to flee the country after trouble erupted over a number plate reading H982 FLK - which some suggested referred to the Falklands conflict of 1982.
Last year the show was also censured by Ofcom for breaching broadcasting rules after Clarkson used a derogatory word for Asian people during its Burma special programme.
TV critic Toby Earle told the BBC he was not surprised a Clarkson's suspension. "This incident is the one that's really forced management to take action," he said.
"Part of the show's appeal, to many viewers, has been it's sort of edginess and the fact that it's rough around the edges - in some ways takes no prisoners.
"But of course there is a very delicate line to tread with that, and it has crossed that line I feel."
It was meant to be his last warning last time. Plenty of room on Sky for a man of his talents.
I find it amusing the other two can't be trusted to stand around in front of the idiot convention that is the audience for 60 minutes by themselves, so the beeb have pulled it completely, Never mind
It followed an incident in Argentina where the presenters and crew were forced to flee the country after trouble erupted over a number plate reading H982 FLK - which some suggested referred to the Falklands conflict of 1982.
So they legitimately had to flee the country for that? I remember those episodes, and one of the 3 (I forget who) made, what I thought at the time was a joke about the plate... which led to Jeremy having a gape at the other 2's car plates as well.
Though I wonder if they had to flee Argentina as quickly as they did The South in their Special done in America (where they painted horrible things on each others' cars)
It followed an incident in Argentina where the presenters and crew were forced to flee the country after trouble erupted over a number plate reading H982 FLK - which some suggested referred to the Falklands conflict of 1982.
So they legitimately had to flee the country for that? I remember those episodes, and one of the 3 (I forget who) made, what I thought at the time was a joke about the plate... which led to Jeremy having a gape at the other 2's car plates as well.
Though I wonder if they had to flee Argentina as quickly as they did The South in their Special done in America (where they painted horrible things on each others' cars)
Did you not see the end of the episode? Where mobs waited on the road they were on as they approached the border crossing? Being pelted by eggs, rocks, prolly other things. Significant cosmetic damage and some bumps and bruises from where rocks crashed through car windows but yes, they really had to leave that quickly. Crossed the border to Chile illegally because the police said that the mob at the actual border had closed off Argentina's side of it and would not let them out of the country. So, crossing a river and into Chile illegally.
But, if Clarkson is gone, not sure if the show will carry on. The 'specials' without him are almost universally dull. The three have this on-camera chemistry that makes the show very enjoyable, but even I know on-camera is just a small percentage of the time and I get to turn my TV off at the end of it.
He makes them too much cash, theres no way theyd be stupid enough to ditch him (where, as has been said, he will simply go to Sky or somewhere else) for punching some media studies spod.
It followed an incident in Argentina where the presenters and crew were forced to flee the country after trouble erupted over a number plate reading H982 FLK - which some suggested referred to the Falklands conflict of 1982.
So they legitimately had to flee the country for that? I remember those episodes, and one of the 3 (I forget who) made, what I thought at the time was a joke about the plate... which led to Jeremy having a gape at the other 2's car plates as well.
Though I wonder if they had to flee Argentina as quickly as they did The South in their Special done in America (where they painted horrible things on each others' cars)
The US one was a setup. Fortunately the US has a sense of humor and start threatening diplomatic sanctions over a joke. The Argentinian government however are not. Apparently it is 100% fine to film an Olympic promo (at night so no one would stop them) showing an Argentinian athlete training in the Falklands, including on the Falklands war memorial, with the tag line "To compete on English soil we train on Argentine soil.", but a car which may or may not refer to the Falklands war (which seems unlikely given the background) is an excuse for violence, which by all accounts was politically orchestrated.
Pete Melvin wrote: He makes them too much cash, theres no way theyd be stupid enough to ditch him (where, as has been said, he will simply go to Sky or somewhere else) for punching some media studies spod.
Pete Melvin wrote: He makes them too much cash, theres no way theyd be stupid enough to ditch him (where, as has been said, he will simply go to Sky or somewhere else) for punching some media studies spod.
My local radio station has been offering him a job and say they can provide him with a company car (a Smart car) and as he is really keen on all things green, an electric bike and he can do reports driving around central Oxford
Darkjim wrote: I find it amusing the other two can't be trusted to stand around in front of the idiot convention that is the audience for 60 minutes by themselves, so the beeb have pulled it completely, Never mind
They should have got the Stig to host the episode. The interview with the guest star would have been interesting.
According to BBC news, they are planning on scrapping the rest of the current series entirely (3 episodes). Now, the series has been a bit medicore recently anyway, but that's not the point.
If the reports he punched someone are true (and we have no confirmation or context for this either) then maybe they have a point, although they are shooting themselves in the foot, as with Clarkson, TG just won't happen, and SKy or ITV will have the three of them doing a new idiot show (I hesitate to call it a car show, the falling over/setting things on fire/breaking caravans bits are all more entertaining ) in months.
Still, at least this wasn't a case of some tiny minority of viewers complaining about something that wasn't in any way intended to offend/wasn't actually broadcast/was a complete accident like the last few times they've 'warned' him.
Is Top Gear still the highest rated show on the BBC? Fire the guy over policy, even though they aught to, is still going to have the higher ups booting the ones who do it. Its all about the money, and its not as if the BBC has scruples. =P
It is, according to the Guiness book of records, the most watched 'factual' (ha) program... in the world. So I'd guess it's their highest rated, and it's certainly their biggest export (they've sold it to 214 countries apparently).
SilverMK2 wrote: My local radio station has been offering him a job and say they can provide him with a company car (a Smart car) and as he is really keen on all things green, an electric bike and he can do reports driving around central Oxford
Jack FM by any chance? They can't afford a Smart car or an electric bike, and should know full well that congestion is more of an issue in Oxford. They should see this every morning down Woodstock Road. Get him to take the bus.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Paradigm wrote: I hesitate to call it a car show, the falling over/setting things on fire/breaking caravans bits are all more entertaining
Paradigm wrote: It is, according to the Guiness book of records, the most watched 'factual' (ha) program....
To be fair they Top Gear make jokes about it being a car show or a factual show all they time. They know it's entertainment and there is a reason why Fifth Gear died a death. Segments on the relative practicality of the latest B sector super mini are unrelentingly dull. Most people want to watch stuff blowing up and supercars being driven sideways, not if you can get better MPG from a Focus or an Astra.
Shame, I like Jezza. Bit of a buffoon but he did punch Piers Morgan, which more than makes up for it. And he speaks his mind in a world where speaking your mind is being increasingly frowned upon.
Paradigm wrote: I hesitate to call it a car show, the falling over/setting things on fire/breaking caravans bits are all more entertaining
Paradigm wrote: It is, according to the Guiness book of records, the most watched 'factual' (ha) program....
To be fair they Top Gear make jokes about it being a car show or a factual show all they time. They know it's entertainment and there is a reason why Fifth Gear died a death. Segments on the relative practicality of the latest B sector super mini are unrelentingly dull. Most people want to watch stuff blowing up and supercars being driven sideways, not if you can get better MPG from a Focus or an Astra.
Oh, I quite agree, I just find it amusing it's still classed as 'factual' when you have hovercraft races, cow-herding in supercars and home-made hearse-ambulances. But yes, the boring car bits are by far the most dull parts.
Thinking about it, it possibly is right to call it factual for the Guinness book of records. It's just not about cars. I learned quite a bit about Australia from that cow herding. The ambulances, less so, although I do thing they stretched that out far too much. It should have been a section on a normal show rather than a full show on it's own.
Paradigm wrote: I hesitate to call it a car show, the falling over/setting things on fire/breaking caravans bits are all more entertaining
Paradigm wrote: It is, according to the Guiness book of records, the most watched 'factual' (ha) program....
To be fair they Top Gear make jokes about it being a car show or a factual show all they time. They know it's entertainment and there is a reason why Fifth Gear died a death. Segments on the relative practicality of the latest B sector super mini are unrelentingly dull. Most people want to watch stuff blowing up and supercars being driven sideways, not if you can get better MPG from a Focus or an Astra.
Oh, I quite agree, I just find it amusing it's still classed as 'factual' when you have hovercraft races, cow-herding in supercars and home-made hearse-ambulances. But yes, the boring car bits are by far the most dull parts.
Weren't they told by the US that upon review they couldn't get permission to film there if they called themselves factual, rather they were an entertainment program?
I don't get the point of this. His whole appeal is that he is an obstinate 13yr old boy in a grown man's body. Why suspend for being the idiot that he is? That's what's he's been making them off of all this time.
He makes too much money.
Not be too punished, top gear makes millions a episode, there not gonna kill a cash cow like that.
Minus one of them, it all fails.
Yeah I don't see Clarkson getting fired honestly. I am happy that he continues to insist on having his own way as well. What makes the show so amusing is the fact that it is not shy to go a little overboard at times and a Clarkson that didn't speak his mind would be amazingly dull.
Chongara wrote: I don't get the point of this. His whole appeal is that he is an obstinate 13yr old boy in a grown man's body. Why suspend for being the idiot that he is? That's what's he's been making them off of all this time.
He is supposed to have punched someone he works with, allegedly in an argument about food. Would you like to work with or employ someone like that?
Realistically how can the BBC condone yet another idiotic thing that the man has done? He may make them money but there is a limit and the BBC is supposed to have integrity.
The man in an absolute arse and TV land would be a much better place without him.
Pete Melvin wrote: He makes them too much cash, theres no way theyd be stupid enough to ditch him (where, as has been said, he will simply go to Sky or somewhere else) for punching some media studies spod.
BBC are a set of prats.
Sadly, I must QFT
Many in the BBC are gunning for him because of his politics. He has outserved his purpose.
Chongara wrote: I don't get the point of this. His whole appeal is that he is an obstinate 13yr old boy in a grown man's body. Why suspend for being the idiot that he is? That's what's he's been making them off of all this time.
He is supposed to have punched someone he works with, allegedly in an argument about food. Would you like to work with or employ someone like that?
How much am I getting paid, that's a pretty big factor. Like assuming his punches don't do any real damage I'd be willing to get socked by the moron once every month or so for the right price.
loki old fart wrote: Am I the only one here that thinks he's a dinosaur. The guys a moronic over paid oaf, and that's the only thing that makes him funny.
I'm entirely onboard with that description. Watching him is sort of a guilty pleasure.
loki old fart wrote: Am I the only one here that thinks he's a dinosaur. The guys a moronic over paid oaf, and that's the only thing that makes him funny.
I thought that was the point? I like watching that show because of exactly those reasons.
There's a limit to how much bs management will take from their talent. The more money that talent makes, the more bs the organisation will accept, but no amount of money ever pushed the tolerance up to 'infinite bs'.
People are quick to latch on to the BBC part of this, but look at Chuck Lorre & Charlie Sheen - Two and Half Men made ludicrous piles of cash for everyone, but in enough time Sheen's behaviour caused CBS to pull the plug.
Paradigm wrote: It is, according to the Guiness book of records, the most watched 'factual' (ha) program... in the world. So I'd guess it's their highest rated, and it's certainly their biggest export (they've sold it to 214 countries apparently).
That's pretty good going, when there's less than 200 countries in the world
If he did indeed punch somebody, I honestly don't know the answer to this one. There doesn't seem to be a clear cut way through.
Someone who is so so high profile on a family entertainment show should in theory set a better example than to go lamping someone they disagree with. However human nature doesn't work that way. Everyone is flawed.
But if I were to physically assault someone in a working environment, I'd expect to be fired or face disciplinary action. Reinstating him immediately, per the petitions circulating, would also show a tremendous lack of respect for the person he allegedly punched.
I like Top Gear, and I love that it gives people I care for a source of entertainment. But Clarkson is such a parody of himself at this point, I do wonder at what stage it is no longer funny, and we're watching an older man genuinely struggle to cope in a progressive world. Aaah, he can't use his sat nav. Aaaah, some joke about hybrid cars. In a few years time, will this still be considered witty, or just deeply sad?
Buttery Commissar wrote: I like Top Gear, and I love that it gives people I care for a source of entertainment. But Clarkson is such a parody of himself at this point, I do wonder at what stage it is no longer funny, and we're watching an older man genuinely struggle to cope in a progressive world. Aaah, he can't use his sat nav. Aaaah, some joke about hybrid cars. In a few years time, will this still be considered witty, or just deeply sad?
He isn't actually struggling to cope with the modern world, he's just found a grumpy old fart persona that works. But for that joke to keep being funny you have to keep taking it further and further. Sooner or later every 'personality' becomes a parody of themselves.
This is Clarkson we're talking about... the idiot who's always yelling about "POOWWWWA" and things like that... hell, he showed the world that he dont know how to drive in snow, with snow chains on in the recent trip to Canda
I think the producers keep putting him in "green" cars to spite him (notice recently how many awesome cars May gets to drive?)
loki old fart wrote: Am I the only one here that thinks he's a dinosaur. The guys a moronic over paid oaf, and that's the only thing that makes him funny.
I thought that was the point? I like watching that show because of exactly those reasons.
Indeed. Clarkson is an arse and a buffoon, he just happens to be one that, on a good day, is flippin' hilarious! Yes, he has become a parody of himself (so are the other 2, really), but that doesnt stop it being funny.
sebster wrote: Sooner or later every 'personality' becomes a parody of themselves.
Aye, I'll agree. Apart from Tom Baker who is somehow managing to be markedly less insane as he ages. His autobiography is a glorious lesson in self-depreciation.
Well, that escalated quickly:
Jeremy Clarkson suspension leaves BBC facing multimillion-pound bill The BBC is facing a multimillion-pound bill over its decision to suspend Jeremy Clarkson from Top Gear, with foreign broadcasters eligible for compensation and rival TV companies poised to poach the embattled presenter.
Jeremy Clarkson suspension leaves BBC facing multimillion-pound bill The BBC is facing a multimillion-pound bill over its decision to suspend Jeremy Clarkson from Top Gear, with foreign broadcasters eligible for compensation and rival TV companies poised to poach the embattled presenter.
Read a bit of the article, and watched the little "interview" with Captain Slow and all I really have to say is.... Really May??? You drive ridiculous vehicles for a living, are presumably quite wealthy and have a nice car and all that.... and your front door squeaks!?!?!
The BBC have moved to put a few of the old series of Top Gear on YouTube. 2,3 and 4 are now available to watch. This was not the case before all this sparked off. I wonder why?
As for Clarkson himself. The blokes an outmoded, outdated idiot. And that's why I love watching him.
I do hope I get whatever channel Jeremy goes to should BBC be dumb.
I hope some other channel rushes in to poach him and he continues his behavior or continues to get worse and does something Really bad that explodes in the new companies face.
sarpedons-right-hand wrote: The BBC have moved to put a few of the old series of Top Gear on YouTube. 2,3 and 4 are now available to watch. This was not the case before all this sparked off. I wonder why?
As for Clarkson himself. The blokes an outmoded, outdated idiot. And that's why I love watching him.
What I find exceptionally odd/amusing/somewhat hypocritical of the BBC is that, while channel-hopping the other night, I came across some of the last series of TG on BBC3. What is the point of suspeding the current series on the basis that the presenter has misbehaved, yet showing some of the older stuff? What is the difference to either them or the viewer whether it's a new episode or an older one?
sarpedons-right-hand wrote: The BBC have moved to put a few of the old series of Top Gear on YouTube. 2,3 and 4 are now available to watch. This was not the case before all this sparked off. I wonder why?
As for Clarkson himself. The blokes an outmoded, outdated idiot. And that's why I love watching him.
What I find exceptionally odd/amusing/somewhat hypocritical of the BBC is that, while channel-hopping the other night, I came across some of the last series of TG on BBC3. What is the point of suspeding the current series on the basis that the presenter has misbehaved, yet showing some of the older stuff? What is the difference to either them or the viewer whether it's a new episode or an older one?
To everyone saying that he'll move and make loads of money elsewhere, I would be fine with that. It means that airtime and funding (which comes from the taxpayer to a large extent) would be available to help push some fresh talent and new programmes, as opposed to just seeing the same ten people on multi-million pound contracts with inflated concepts of their own self-worth soaking it all up.
Ketara wrote: To everyone saying that he'll move and make loads of money elsewhere, I would be fine with that. It means that airtime and funding (which comes from the taxpayer to a large extent) would be available to help push some fresh talent and new programmes, as opposed to just seeing the same ten people on multi-million pound contracts with inflated concepts of their own self-worth soaking it all up.
Agreed.
But thinking about it, didn't that happen before.?
Or we could get yet more crap filling up the airwaves, rather than something mildly entertaining that isn't a show you have to phone in and vote for something...
Jeremy Clarkson bust up caused because he wanted STEAK for dinner and got a cheese platter JEREMY Clarkson was involved in the furious bust-up, which led to his Top Gear suspension after being offered a cheese platter instead of a steak for his dinner after filming finished late.
Clarkson, 54, and his crew had a private dining room reserved for 8pm but did not arrive back at their country hotel until after 10pm – by which time the restaurant chef had gone home.
But staff at Simonstone Hall Hotel in Upper WensleyDale, North Yorks, had prepared a cheese platter, meat platter and soup after being warned of their late arrival.
But when told steak was no longer available Clarkson erupted in fury storming: “So, there is no food”.
It is understood producer Oisin Tymon, 36, bore the brunt of his anger as Clarkson seemingly looked to blame someone for not ensuring the chef stayed until he had arrived.
The ‘fracas’ occurred on Wednesday evening last week as the remote hotel held it’s weekly ‘local’s night’.
An eyewitness said: “Clarkson erupted when told there was only a cold platter. The general manager offered them everything the chef had prepared but Clarkson said, ‘So, there’s no food’. We were all thinking meat platter and soup – surely that’s food.
“We were so surprised at his reaction. He was shouting and swearing using every single word you can think of. There were F words and C words. The producer was being very quiet and looked very embarrassed.”
The witness revealed they did not see any punches being thrown but said Clarkson appeared to be held back.
He added: “There was no punch, he didn’t hit him. It was more like a scuffle.”
Another hotel guest said: “He had been due to arrive at the hotel at 8pm but didn’t arrive until after 10pm. By that time the chef had gone home
“Clarkson was extremely upset when they offered him sandwiches and soup instead of a juicy steak.
“Nobody saw any violence in the main bar area or dining room. But we understand he ended up getting a steak.”
It is understood that with no chef present general manager Robert Scott took to the kitchen to cook for the crew.
Clarkson enjoyed an 8oz sirloin steak in the private dining room along with fondant potatoes, pan fried wild mushrooms, grilled cherry toms and green peppercorn sauce. The meal cost £21.95.
“Clarkson was extremely upset when they offered him sandwiches and soup instead of a juicy steak.
“Nobody saw any violence in the main bar area or dining room. But we understand he ended up getting a steak.”
It is understood that with no chef present general manager Robert Scott took to the kitchen to cook for the crew.
Clarkson enjoyed an 8oz sirloin steak in the private dining room along with fondant potatoes, pan fried wild mushrooms, grilled cherry toms and green peppercorn sauce. The meal cost £21.95.
The Top Gear crew had been staying at Simonstone Hall Hotel in Upper WensleyDale, in the North York Moors National park all last week having booked out 11 rooms – including three delux rooms, after negotiating an £80-per night bed and breakfast arrangement with the management.
The entire crew bill came to £5,760 for the week
The news comes as Clarkson announced he was set to quit the BBC last night as rivals ITV considered a £10million bid to sign him up.
The controversial Top Gear host spent yesterday cracking jokes about the “fracas” which led to him being suspended.
But broadcasting sources claimed the 54-year-old presenter was prepared to leave the corporation whether reinstated or not.
They claim ITV and Sky plan a bidding war to secure the star’s name and a show which earns the BBC £50million a year.
Clarkson and co-hosts James May and Richard Hammond’s contracts expire next month and they were due to hold renewal talks.
But his suspension for allegedly punching Top Gear producer Oisin Tymon, 36, has left a massive question mark over the whole series.
The 6ft 5in Yorkshireman is understood to have denied throwing a punch but admitted there were “handbags and pushing”.
A friend told the Radio Times that his relationship with key BBC executives is so broken as to make his future untenable whatever the outcome of his disciplinary charge.
“Can I see him going back to film another BBC series?” one pal said. “I don’t think so. But he’ll be fine. The other broadcasters will bite his arm off.”
Yesterday, Clarkson emerged from his apartment in London’s Kensington to joke: “I’m off to the job centre. I’ve been suspended.”
Dressed in a quilted coat and trademark jeans, he added that his exile left him free to watch Chelsea play.
The broadcaster spluttered “No, no, no!” when asked about claims that the row was over food, before driving off in a Ford Kuga.
The hotel’s management declined to comment.
Corporation chiefs have delayed screening the final three episodes in the current BBC Two series and sources believe the show could be scrapped.
Mr Tymon’s lawyer said he “intends to await the outcome of the BBC investigation and will make no comment until that investigation is complete”.
Co-presenter James May said yesterday he knew “not very much” about the incident, adding: “I was blind drunk.”
Top Gear fans clamored online for the reinstatement of Clarkson yesterday.
BBC director general Lord Hall said: “We have got an investigation going on. I am a fan of Jeremy Clarkson but this is a serious thing that is alleged to have taken place.”
Former culture secretary Maria Miller said: “I think they need to sort this mess out quickly and not be seen to be punishing the fans.
“The BBC needs to be better at managing its talent.”
The row is the latest in a string of controversies. Clarkson was put on what he called his final warning last year after claims he used the racist “N-word” when reciting a nursery rhyme.
The BBC said: “Following a fracas with a BBC producer, Jeremy Clarkson has been suspended pending an investigation. No one else has been suspended.”
SilverMK2 wrote: Or we could get yet more crap filling up the airwaves, rather than something mildly entertaining that isn't a show you have to phone in and vote for something...
I'll wager we could fund a dozen programmes out of Clarkson's grossly inflated paycheque. Odds are, one of them will be just as good, maybe even two! And if none of them work, you can the lot and start over next year.
That's where theoretically original programmes come from, anyway. You wouldn't get Python today, because all the money goes to the next Dr Who/Top Gear/Jonathan Ross show. Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with paying a good wage for a good entertainer, but when you start hitting eight times the salary of the Prime Minister, we're entering the realms of lunacy considering the BBC is a state funded and protected organisation. If people want to be a millionaire diva celebrity, that's well and good, but they should do it on their own time, or work elsewhere. In an age of austerity and severe budget cuts, I don't pay my taxes so that Clarkson can get paid a million quid for making a show about cars. Sorry, but no dice.
If I had my way, we'd cap the salary for all BBC employees at £150,000 and leave it there. It's not an unreasonable sum, and if some big shot 'celebrity' feels they deserve more, good luck to them, and leave the rung nice and clean for the next person climbing the ladder.
The above newspaper skirts over a couple of thorny issues.
Firstly the reason they were back so late is because Clarkson was sat in another pub for 2 hours and refused to leave.
Worst of all he was drinking Rose ! Who the hell does that.
... One also cannot help but notice that they don't mention any of the relevant staff at ITV ....
...Director of Comedy and Entertainment, Elaine Bedell.
She was the woman who had the dubious pleasure of being papped in an intimate clinch with him back in 2000 and 2003.
(It was the Mirror's use of
these photos which started the
Clarkson/Piers Morgan feud.)
H.B.M.C. wrote: The trio leave and go to Sky or ITV or whatever and make a new car show - Best Gear, or something. BBC is left with nothing.
So what you're saying is TV presenters should be allowed to scream abuse and take swings at production staff in ways that would have any normal member of the public charged with assault, and the network should ignore and even reward that behaviour in case they lose out on some revenue? If Sky or ITV are so ethically vacant as to hire this sad caricature of a man that's up to them, it shouldn't prevent the BBC from(for once) doing the right thing and chucking his arse out the door.
Most of Clarkson's bumbling idiocy is just him playing to his single-digit-IQ audience by shouting loudly about how "PC culture" or whatever doesn't anyone talk about the things he's talking about in the ways he talks about them at length, frequently, in the national media. Most of the rest is just his natural Tory-living-in-luxury showing through the veneer of Farage-style "regular blokie bloke" he puts on. This was a pampered man-child howling abuse and trying to hit a supposed-colleague because the after-filming craft services were not up to his exacting standards - anyone, anywhere, in any job should get the sack for that.
The problem there is your rathert missing a few points.
1) no one appart from the papers has said anyone was punched. James May has implied no one was, the producer involved has said he was not punched and the independant witness said nothing about a punch.
2) your acting again like the papers talking about how anyone else shouting at someone would get the sack. They wouldn't nessaceraly. Someone shouting and swearing at someone who failed to do there job may be dissablined, but not automatically sacked. In many companies it would be considerd normal management behaviour. I'm not saying it's right, but it does happen. Look at Gordan Ramsey. He runs several restaurants and is well known to shout and swear at staff. I don't with it agree at all, but it's not always even a case of being seen as wrong.
You seem to hate him personaly though, and by the sound of it disslike him because of his money and success. The bumbling idiot on TV is a caricature of the real person. He openly says it himself. If you look at his background he is far from a privalaged background. I'm not someone to defend the privalaged who don't know how their rich Parants gave them what they have and say "anyone can do it if they work hard", like many in media, but he is someone who has come from humble background to do well.
Yodhrin wrote: So what you're saying is TV presenters should be allowed to scream abuse and take swings at production staff in ways that would have any normal member of the public charged with assault, and the network should ignore and even reward that behaviour in case they lose out on some revenue? If Sky or ITV are so ethically vacant as to hire this sad caricature of a man that's up to them, it shouldn't prevent the BBC from(for once) doing the right thing and chucking his arse out the door.
Yep. That'e exactly what I said. Word for word Mr. Scarecrow.
Wyrmalla wrote: Is Top Gear still the highest rated show on the BBC? Fire the guy over policy, even though they aught to, is still going to have the higher ups booting the ones who do it. Its all about the money, and its not as if the BBC has scruples. =P
I read in the Evening Standard that Death In Paradise is the BBC's most watched show.
However it isn't all about the money. For one, the BBC is not a for profit company and for two, every company has to obey the law. If the producer -- who apparently is 36 years old, pretty experienced as you would expect for someone working on a big show -- raises a grievance the BBC will have to be seen to deal with it correctly. Also you cannot put up with infinite BS from your talent, you have to put the foot down somewhere.
Apparently Chris Evans is in the frame to take over at Top Gear. He would be a good choice, popular, experienced, and keen on cars. He might easily achieve the chemistry with the other two presenters, if they decided to stay with the show.
Chris evens may fit the role, but dropping him into s slot so filled for so long by another, 22 seasons, 13 years and the only other presenter was replaced in a year of starting with james may in 2003
Going to be hard to get him to fit right when the trio as is has had years to build up a way of working, interacting and audience opinion.
It sounds like quite a bit of drinking had been going on. Clarkson had been drinking Rose(?!) and James May was 'blind drunk', maybe a lot of of the crew had been too. And some people get really difficult when they've been drinking.
Agh, god, not Chris Evans! I find him possibly the most sycophantic, bland and uninteresting presenter on the BBC (or TV as a whole). Yes, he's a bit of a petrolhead, but I just can't stand to watch him!
Wyrmalla wrote: Is Top Gear still the highest rated show on the BBC? Fire the guy over policy, even though they aught to, is still going to have the higher ups booting the ones who do it. Its all about the money, and its not as if the BBC has scruples. =P
I read in the Evening Standard that Death In Paradise is the BBC's most watched show.
However it isn't all about the money. For one, the BBC is not a for profit company and for two, every company has to obey the law. If the producer -- who apparently is 36 years old, pretty experienced as you would expect for someone working on a big show -- raises a grievance the BBC will have to be seen to deal with it correctly. Also you cannot put up with infinite BS from your talent, you have to put the foot down somewhere.
Apparently Chris Evans is in the frame to take over at Top Gear. He would be a good choice, popular, experienced, and keen on cars. He might easily achieve the chemistry with the other two presenters, if they decided to stay with the show.
For a moment there, I genuinely believed you were talking about Captain America, and thought "Well, he does love his motorbikes, but I'm not sure he's that big of a fan of cars!"
1) no one appart from the papers has said anyone was punched. James May has implied no one was, the producer involved has said he was not punched and the independant witness said nothing about a punch.
2) your acting again like the papers talking about how anyone else shouting at someone would get the sack. They wouldn't nessaceraly. Someone shouting and swearing at someone who failed to do there job may be dissablined, but not automatically sacked. In many companies it would be considerd normal management behaviour. I'm not saying it's right, but it does happen. Look at Gordan Ramsey. He runs several restaurants and is well known to shout and swear at staff. I don't with it agree at all, but it's not always even a case of being seen as wrong.
You seem to hate him personaly though, and by the sound of it disslike him because of his money and success. The bumbling idiot on TV is a caricature of the real person. He openly says it himself. If you look at his background he is far from a privalaged background. I'm not someone to defend the privalaged who don't know how their rich Parants gave them what they have and say "anyone can do it if they work hard", like many in media, but he is someone who has come from humble background to do well.
1. Note I said "take swings", not "hit", since from the story I read he did not actually hit the guy but had to be held back to prevent him doing so.
2. And yes, they would; any normal person in a normal job does not get to scream "f'ing c't!" etc at their colleagues or even subordinates without getting the sack, and referring to another entitled TV-celeb manbaby like Ramsey is hardly an argument that disproves that point. Clarkson went to the pub after shooting rather than right to the hotel, and by the time he sauntered in the chef had been gone for hours - despite that, the hotel laid on food, and Clarkson decided to throw a tantrum because baby wanted his steak dinner and apparently the producer should have been able to telepathically divine Clarkson's intention to lump around in a pub rather than come back and force the chef to stay on hours after their shift would have been over. There is no part of the scenario as its been described which is the producers fault, and nothing he did or failed to do made him deserving of the level of vitriol he was subjected to.
As for the rest; no, I don't "hate" him, that would require a level of emotional investment I'm not even remotely arsed to dedicate to a TV presenter. I do think he's a cretin, not because he's wealthy but because regardless of where he came from, now he's a snob and a berk, and not just when he's "in character", and I do think it's a shame that there's a large enough audience out there that believes "speaking your mind" means "being a rude and abrasive arse" to support the careers of people like him.
loki old fart wrote: BBC executive who tells the paper he believes Clarkson is "self-destructing".
I wouldn't be surprised if a front page like that wasn't actionable. Clarkson has allegedly behaved in a very unprofessional manner. To say he is 'like a mass child raping paedophile' is just ridiculous. There was some discussion about misleading titles during the Leverson Inquiry, as while the small print goes on to say other things, a glance at the headline could reasonably lead someone to conclude Clarkson was a paedophile.
Indeed, the Saville analogy is entirley misleading and frankly uncalled for. One was an absolutely despicable monster of a hunman being who consistently abused his position of power, the other is someone who, in a single instance, acted out of turn (I'm not saying what Clarkson did is right, if the 'facts' we have are true, but neither is it something to completely vilify him for. Everyone makes mistakes)
Typical sensationalist headline from the Daily Hate Mail there. When I glanced at that headline this morning I really thought I'd missed something and woken up in a surrealist, disjointed reality. Clarkson 'like Saville'?! WTF? Yes, Clarkson acted out of turn and if he punched his producer then he should suffer the consequences. But, as Paradigm pointed out, to compare him to a Paedophile as prolific as Saville is just wrong. If I was Clarkson I would seriously be considering legal action, or at least a retraction. Just wrong.
I think they are comparing Clarkson's apparent Teflon armour with Savile's. If you remember, it was widely suspected that there was something a bit wrong about Savile for years, but every bit of complaint and evidence was hushed up, often by the BBC.
This is not to say that Clarkson has done anything like Savile's crimes, but there is possibly a parallel in the BBC hushing up Clarkson's misdemeanours for the sake of the ratings.
The BBC is still mired in the post-Savile fallout and probably wants to avoid any appearance of favouritism towards another presenter going off piste.
As for it being actionable, if these remarks were made in private, then the Daily Mail certainly could face a libel suit from Clarkson, but the BBC guy would be in the clear.
However the Daily Mail has plenty of media law experts on hand and I doubt they would make such a schoolboy error in a high profile case like this.
Isn't it pathetic that with the huge amount of fething gak going on in the world, ISIS, the Vanuatu crisis, the Grexit and so on, the news agenda is dominated by the possibility of a car show presenter losing his job?
They're not really quoting anyone, they're just attributing comments to some unnamed source. The way they phrase it on their cover is implying something that it shouldn't.
Da Boss wrote: Claskson is a right eejit. I hope they do fire him, no one should be able to get away with that sort of behaviour just because they are popular.
"There's no food." Grow up, Jeremy.
It is important to note this wasn't a "work place incident" but happened after they'd finished work, just the nature of their job being what it is they don't necessarily get to go home at the end of every day like the majority of people.
Secondly, it is not the first time in the history of the world that a drunk person with low blood sugar made a bad call on their own behaviour. If we were to fire people for getting cross with someone because they were drunk and hungry, there'd be a lot of new jobs being advertised every Monday morning.
There's a world of difference between lamping a colleague in the middle of the office on a Tuesday afternoon and falling out with them hours after work on the outside of a few pints. The only reason this is a thing is because he's famous and has a reputation.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Incidentally, I just realised I was typing my last post in front of a BBC program presented by Richard Bacon.
The same Richard Bacon who got fired from Blue Peter (a real "jewel in the crown" BBC children's TV program that's been going since the 1950s for anyone unfamiliar) for getting caught taking cocaine, but then subsequently has enjoyed a successful time presenting on BBC radio and regularly popping up on TV too, once the dust had settled.
It really would be massively hypocritical for the BBC to fire someone for being drunk and grumpy when they're evidently willing to forgive consumption of class A.
Oh, and Angus Deyton got fired from Have I Got News For You for something didn't he?
Azreal13 wrote: The only reason this is a thing is because he's famous and has a reputation.
Or if someone, most likely the producer, made a formal complaint. I certainly would have.
In reality this kind of behaviour would not be tolerated by my employer and I see no reason why some apparently pampered 'celebrity' should be any different, especially considering that Clarkson is by his own admission on his final warning.
Azreal13 wrote: The only reason this is a thing is because he's famous and has a reputation.
Or if someone, most likely the producer, made a formal complaint. I certainly would have.
In reality this kind of behaviour would not be tolerated by my employer and I see no reason why some apparently pampered 'celebrity' should be any different, especially considering that Clarkson is by his own admission on his final warning.
What, you'd run a chance of getting fired if you fell out with a colleague you were spending time with outside of work hours?
Highly doubtful.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Paradigm wrote: Apparently, Clarkson himself reported the event to the BBC, the producer in question didn't mention it.
Yep, this is apparently the case, and the cynic in me wonders why all this happened very close to contract renewal time.
Azreal: I think you are being a bit disingenuous by suggesting that it's "outside of working hours". Their working hours are not defined like ours, and it clearly happened in a work context.
Plus, hell yeah I might get fired if I had attacked another member of staff like that and used language like he used. Absolutely. Especially if I had a history of bad behavior.
I have no interest in making excuses for Clarkson. He's obviously a pampered man-child.
What, you'd run a chance of getting fired if you fell out with a colleague you were spending time with outside of work hours?
Highly doubtful.
If I had a highly visible alcohol fueled tantrum that required me to be restrained in a work setting? At the very least I would get a severe bollocking, if I had a history of being a bellend I would almost certainly be getting a P45.
Not especially, like I said, there working life isn't exactly typical, but having worked in a hotel that occasionally hosted the odd film crew back in the day, I can assure you that once they're done for the day and back at the hotel, it is categorically not in anything resembling any work environment I've encountered.
It isn't wholly inaccurate to say they're were in a work environment, but equally, it isn't exactly accurate either.
So, is it acceptable for Clarkson to hold the guy accountable for the hotel not putting steak on for him and physically go for him then? Sounds like he's angry about it because he sees having the steak there as part of the guys job. I mean, threats to have the guy fired also play into that.
If someone I worked with called me a "lazy Irish c***" in that context, I might have showed a lot less restraint that the producer showed.
None of what Clarkson did was acceptable, why the hell would you even ask that question?
My contention is that it isn't anything that doesn't happen all over the world every day of the week and pass without comment (drunk, hungry people do stupid stuff) and that considering the circumstances under which it seems to have happened, while he might have a working relationship with the other party, it isn't necessarily a matter for their employer.
Plus there's the fact their contracts are all due for renegotiation in the very near future and that Clarkson himself apparently reported the incident (suggesting either an ulterior motive or genuine remorse) and the fact that James May called it not too big of a deal (or words to that effect) when the press door stepped him, AND that apparently there's an anti-competition clause in Clarkson's current contract which would be invalidated should he get fired, and I think there's way more to this than meets the eye, while simultaneously not actually being anything like as big a deal as the press are making it out to be.
I like Top gear and Clarkson is funny at times, the bad thing is that he has no respect for other cultures, and has no remorse on anything he said in the past.
On top of that he seems to have diva tantrums? He is the Ted Nugent of the car lobby.
One part of the article I do certainly agree with:
Clarkson said... "Top Gear has been a great show, but has been ruined by the corporation". Yep, compared to the old stuff, it's hard to argue that recent series haven't been sanitised and made dull, probably by pressure from on high.
I look forward to "Best Gear" on Sky/ITV/Chanel 4 in a few month's time...
Update: The Stig delivers the petition to reinstate Jeremy Clarkson... in a tank.
The Stig’ has delivered a petition with nearly one million signatures to the BBC in a bid to get Clarkson reinstated following his ‘fracas’ with a producer.
Someone dressed as Top Gear’s tame racing driver caused scenes in London today by posing on top of a moving tank, as it took to the streets of Central London.
At the time of writing, the petition, set up by political blogger Guido Fawkes, is just over 8,000 signatures short of the one million mark.
It comes after Clarkson reportedly alleged that he’d been sacked, and told his charity gala audience that Top Gear used to be great, but ‘bosses had f***** it up’.
The BBC is refusing to confirm rumours that Clarkson has been sacked, saying BBC Scotland head Ken MacQuarrie is considering the evidence and a verdict will be reported next week.
Previous Stigs, Ben Collins and Perry McCarthy have both spoken out this week, disagreeing about whether Top Gear needs Clarkson.
One part of the article I do certainly agree with:
Clarkson said... "Top Gear has been a great show, but has been ruined by the corporation". Yep, compared to the old stuff, it's hard to argue that recent series haven't been sanitised and made dull, probably by pressure from on high.
I look forward to "Best Gear" on Sky/ITV/Chanel 4 in a few month's time...
It also looks like May and Hammond won't do the show without Clarkson either..
The BBC can't win. They're being bashed for having a leftie bias and pushing him out. He punched a colleague in the face, nobody can dp that and not face sacking. Some are even drawing comparisons to the BBC covering up Jimmy Saville's abuse as signs of their bias against Clarkson, because I supppsr not acting on rumours 30 years ago means you shouldn't act on a reported physical assault today. Anyway, Saville was a Tory boy who hung around with conservative MPs.
If the BBC hadn't sacked him they would be bashed for playing favourites and letting their stars get away with anything and whitewashing stuff. It's pretty much evidence that whatever the BBC does there are certain people looking to criticise them. Frankly as much as I like Top Gear, what he did was extremely unprofessional and the BBC responded in probably the best way.
The only dubious part about this for me is the 'unnamed' boss who drew comparisons between Clarkson and Saville. Either the newspapers printing that were making it up or there's senior people in the BBC who are also being unprofessional and hiding behind anonymity, which isn't acceptable IMO.
Daily Mail stories have a lot more truth to them than you might think, they get the 'liar' label because its expedient combined with the fact that other papers will not run the same stories, with exception of the Daily Express.
A lot of the 'PC gone mad' stories are actually true but no other paper would generally touch them.
A good example:
The also posted a lot of critique of New Labour ijn the last decade that no other paper would touch either. the Daily Mail alone posted the story in 2006 of a secret deal to sell out Gibraltar by Blair. No other paper touched it. Because the Daily Mail did it was 'lies' however the memoires of a retired senior Labour politician Peter Hain published in 2012 confirmed the story. It was only then that the Daily Mail could effectively revisit the story.
The Guardian is just as extreme the other way but avoid the same taint.
Orlanth wrote: Daily Mail stories have a lot more truth to them than you might think, they get the 'liar' label because its expedient combined with the fact that other papers will not run the same stories, with exception of the Daily Express.
A lot of the 'PC gone mad' stories are actually true but no other paper would generally touch them.
A good example:
The also posted a lot of critique of New Labour ijn the last decade that no other paper would touch either. the Daily Mail alone posted the story in 2006 of a secret deal to sell out Gibraltar by Blair. No other paper touched it. Because the Daily Mail did it was 'lies' however the memoires of a retired senior Labour politician Peter Hain published in 2012 confirmed the story. It was only then that the Daily Mail could effectively revisit the story.
The Guardian is just as extreme the other way but avoid the same taint.
No, the Mail has the label of "liar" because half of the stuff they print is complete crap. They know their target audience and they write stories in order to sell their worthless rag to them, normally involving something along the lines of "Herp, derp, immigrants are bad". The Daily Express... well, there's a reason you can play bingo with the headlines...
No, the Mail has the label of "liar" because half of the stuff they print is complete crap. They know their target audience and they write stories in order to sell their worthless rag to them, normally involving something along the lines of "Herp, derp, immigrants are bad". The Daily Express... well, there's a reason you can play bingo with the headlines...
Just because you don't like what they print doesnt make it 'complete crap'.
In case you haven't noticed there are race relations issues in the UK. That's not a myth or a lie. Rather the elephant in the room.
The BBC have some hard decisions to make, its clear the trio will appear elsewhere, though when cameramen appeared at James May's door he was very careful what he said.
The trouble with a follow up show is that it wont be as good. The UK has a strong nanny state attitude and Top Gear can get away with messing about because it was made by the government.
A private concern trying the same stuff will be health and safety'ed to death.
You certainly have a lot of people who think that, I'll give you that much.
So are you refuting it or are you just pointlessly sniping at Orlanth?
I'm just sniping, because there's nothing to refute. He's making a claim, not I. Regardless, seeing that the UK is typically an economically more liberal country than the rest of Europe, making a case for it being a nanny-state is going to be rather interesting, to say the least.
I'm just sniping, because there's nothing to refute. He's making a claim, not I. Regardless, seeing that the UK is typically an economically more liberal country than the rest of Europe, making a case for it being a nanny-state is going to be rather interesting, to say the least.
ok where to begin. Over in the Uk the concept of 'nanny state' is well established in the public psyche with good reason. So I didn't think to have to add examples.
I know some rescue workers though and the stories they tell.
Apparently the emergency services need special individual certification to enter water more then three foot deep, because health and safety.
I heard reports of a fire service team who stoop on the banks of a canal while a victim drowned because they wouldn't enter the water, even in survival gear.
This was because of a separate incident when two policemen were sacked for misconduct for entering water to rescue someone in violation of health and safety.
ok where to begin. Over in the Uk the concept of 'nanny state' is well established in the public psyche with good reason.
Generally amongst Daily Mail readers rather than the 'public psyche'. It's a phrase that gets wheeled out in between articles of 'bad immigrants' and 'political correctness gets hardworking english man sacked'.
In other words, like those two things, there's a grain of truth to it, but it's mostly second hand or badly reported stories blown up and exaggerated for the purpose of rabblerousing and newspaper sales.
The Daily Mail is trash, it's a tabloid so what can you expect? Full of stories about immigrants to provoke knee jerk reactions. They also have a peculiar habit of juxtaposing finger-wagging morality pieces opposite 'phwoar, she's growing up nicely' type pieces with attractive women on beaches. Some of their columnists are grotesque, writing pieces that are little more than the equivalent of clickbait.
If you want to read a right wing paper that doesn't make you feel grubby, try the Times or Telegraph.
in the end, if a nanny state is one where you get punished for assaulting your work colleagues then i'm ok with that. you'd have to be a complete arsehole to think that his behaviour in this case is ok. britain isn't a nanny state though, its one where all the power is being given to the rich elites at the expense of the poor and powerless.
I never got why Clarkson was so beloved. I mean, his banter is amusing, but he always came off as something of an arrogant jerkwad, not a terribly likeable guy.
It may just be a cultural thing, I'm an American, not a Brit, and haven't seen hundreds of episodes of the show, but I was just never particularly impressed by Clarkson in the few dozen episodes I've seen over the years.
Vaktathi wrote: I never got why Clarkson was so beloved. I mean, his banter is amusing, but he always came off as something of an arrogant jerkwad, not a terribly likeable guy.
It may just be a cultural thing, I'm an American, not a Brit, and haven't seen hundreds of episodes of the show, but I was just never particularly impressed by Clarkson in the few dozen episodes I've seen over the years.
It's not so much Clarkson alone as much as the synergy between the three hosts, of which Jeremy played the roll of ring-leader. He was the most vibrant and forward personality on the show whereas James and Hammond (or rather their TV personas) are less entertaining to watch on their own.
It may just be a cultural thing, I'm an American, not a Brit, and haven't seen hundreds of episodes of the show, but I was just never particularly impressed by Clarkson in the few dozen episodes I've seen over the years.
You're not alone.
The sad truth is, there's a core of not particularly intelligent or emotionally healthy men, that harbour a love for 'manly' things, like 'just telling it how it is', football, and big fast cars. They approve of chauvinism or mild violence, and think those who don't have been brainwashed by 'the PC brigade'. They don't approve of poofs, think beer is the equivalent of liquid bread, and indulge in mild anti-intellectualism.
There are many people who have one or several of these traits, and are perfectly nice people. But there's a particular type of bloke who generally ticks most of those boxes, and they're the ones who worship Clarkson.
But there's a particular type of bloke who generally ticks most of those boxes
And due to their generally loud and obnoxious nature they seem more common than they actually are. Primarily they drive taxis so they're no real danger to anyone, they are incredibly boring on the drive to the airport however. mmm hmm mhhm something about UKIP you say? you been busy? What time you on to?
ok where to begin. Over in the Uk the concept of 'nanny state' is well established in the public psyche with good reason.
Generally amongst Daily Mail readers rather than the 'public psyche'. It's a phrase that gets wheeled out in between articles of 'bad immigrants' and 'political correctness gets hardworking english man sacked'.
In other words, like those two things, there's a grain of truth to it, but it's mostly second hand or badly reported stories blown up and exaggerated for the purpose of rabblerousing and newspaper sales.
However the Guardian also covered nanny state, as does much of the mainstream media, and parliament. The name came from quotes from the House of Commons initially. The words 'nanny state' are still used in the House poltically without explanation needed. Its also apparently crossed over to the US and Oz.
It may just be a cultural thing, I'm an American, not a Brit, and haven't seen hundreds of episodes of the show, but I was just never particularly impressed by Clarkson in the few dozen episodes I've seen over the years.
You're not alone.
The sad truth is, there's a core of not particularly intelligent or emotionally healthy men, that harbour a love for 'manly' things, like 'just telling it how it is', football, and big fast cars. They approve of chauvinism or mild violence, and think those who don't have been brainwashed by 'the PC brigade'. They don't approve of poofs, think beer is the equivalent of liquid bread, and indulge in mild anti-intellectualism.
There are many people who have one or several of these traits, and are perfectly nice people. But there's a particular type of bloke who generally ticks most of those boxes, and they're the ones who worship Clarkson.
And I thought you were against stereotyping Ketara.
And I thought you were against stereotyping Ketara.
This is hardly stereotyping. It's a description. In order for you to be screaming for Clarkson to be reinstated right now, you must:-
a) like big fast cars (or you wouldn't watch top gear),
b) approve of mild violence and not be particularly emotionally healthy(or you wouldn't be disregarding the fact he decked someone),
c) like big bluff people who 'tell it like it is' against the 'PC brigade' (or you wouldn't like Clarkson).
The only additions of mine are that the type of people described above tend to like beer, football, and mild chauvinism. That's not saying that all people who like beer or football are that type of person. Simply my observation that the people who already tick the boxes which are inherent in A through C tend to like those things as well.
Orlanth, you linked three opinion pieces as "proof" that there's a nanny state, one of which used up my weekly allowance for slippery slope fallacies. You're going to have to do a lot better than that.
In fact, that Daily Mail article perfectly illustrates why they're not taken seriously.
And I thought you were against stereotyping Ketara.
This is hardly stereotyping. It's a description. In order for you to be screaming for Clarkson to be reinstated right now, you must:-
a) like big fast cars (or you wouldn't watch top gear),
b) approve of mild violence and not be particularly emotionally healthy(or you wouldn't be disregarding the fact he decked someone),
c) like big bluff people who 'tell it like it is' against the 'PC brigade' (or you wouldn't like Clarkson).
That's the worst case of stereotyping, I've seen in a long time.
And I thought you were against stereotyping Ketara.
This is hardly stereotyping. It's a description. In order for you to be screaming for Clarkson to be reinstated right now, you must:-
a) like big fast cars (or you wouldn't watch top gear),
b) approve of mild violence and not be particularly emotionally healthy(or you wouldn't be disregarding the fact he decked someone),
c) like big bluff people who 'tell it like it is' against the 'PC brigade' (or you wouldn't like Clarkson).
That's the worst case of stereotyping, I've seen in a long time.
I suppose it's theoretically possible that one could have an artistic passion for the general aesthetic shape of cars, be from an alternate universe where punching people is seen as a morally good action, and have a homosexual crush on Clarkson. In which case, yes, it would be stereotyping you, as you'd have completely different motivations for wanting Clarkson reinstated right now.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: To be fair, I watch Top Gear because much of the humid is genuinely funny, and I don't give two figs about cars.
Ah, but are you agitating for the reinstatement of Clarkson?
I'm getting the impression here that people think my criteria are supposed to be for someone who watches Top Gear, when if you look a little closer, I'm actually talking about the ones who are obsessing over getting him back on the BBC.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: To be fair, I watch Top Gear because much of the humid is genuinely funny, and I don't give two figs about cars.
Ah, but are you agitating for the reinstatement of Clarkson?
I'm getting the impression here that people think my criteria are supposed to be for someone who watches Top Gear, when if you look a little closer, I'm actually talking about the ones who are obsessing over getting him back on the BBC.
I watch Top Gear, I want Clarkson back on it, and I fit into none of the criteria you have posted previously, except maybe that I do prefer people who 'tell it like it is" over bland, sycophantic and dull presenters. (As far as I'm concerned, someone on TV has just as much right to have/voice an opinion).
I do not think that what Clarkson did in this case was right, and agree that some form of reprimand should have been made. My problem is how the BBC have handled him up until this point, and the fact that he was even on a Final Warning. Had he not been wrongly in that position, I don't think he would have been fired over just this one event, and that's why I think this whole thing is somewhat unfair on both him and the viewer.
I watch Top Gear, I want Clarkson back on it, and I fit into none of the criteria you have posted previously, except maybe that I do prefer people who 'tell it like it is" over bland, sycophantic and dull presenters. (As far as I'm concerned, someone on TV has just as much right to have/voice an opinion).
I do not think that what Clarkson did in this case was right, and agree that some form of reprimand should have been made. My problem is how the BBC have handled him up until this point, and the fact that he was even on a Final Warning. Had he not been wrongly in that position, I don't think he would have been fired over just this one event, and that's why I think this whole thing is somewhat unfair on both him and the viewer.
See, I'm of the opinion that anyone who thinks that you should be able to assault coworkers over something as stupid as, 'Not having my steak dinner ready when I'm two hours late after being the pub', and NOT be fired, fits quite well into the second category I gave.
Matter of opinion and your moral outlook on life I suppose.
I watch Top Gear, I want Clarkson back on it, and I fit into none of the criteria you have posted previously, except maybe that I do prefer people who 'tell it like it is" over bland, sycophantic and dull presenters. (As far as I'm concerned, someone on TV has just as much right to have/voice an opinion).
I do not think that what Clarkson did in this case was right, and agree that some form of reprimand should have been made. My problem is how the BBC have handled him up until this point, and the fact that he was even on a Final Warning. Had he not been wrongly in that position, I don't think he would have been fired over just this one event, and that's why I think this whole thing is somewhat unfair on both him and the viewer.
See, I'm of the opinion that anyone who thinks that you should be able to assault coworkers over something as stupid as, 'Not having my steak dinner ready when I'm two hours late after being the pub', and NOT be fired, fits quite well into the second category I gave.
Matter of opinion and your moral outlook on life I suppose.
Like I say, I don't think it was right. It was undoubtedly wrong. But I also don't think it's entirely fair anyone, TV presenter or not, to lose their job over one single incident, and I also don't believe that, had it not been Clarkson, the outcome would have been quite different, and not necessarily involved a firing/non-renewal of contract. Say, for example, it had been one of the BBC News presenters involved in a similar incident, I imagine it would have ended with a financial reprimand and perhaps a broadcast apology, but not a firing.
Clarkson has been unfairly demonised by the BBC and the media simply for having a personality in an age where being on TV seems to require one to be bland/uninteresting and to tow the line, and it's resulted in this whole incident and its consequences being blown way out of proportion.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: It wasn't over just one incident though; he's had plenty of warnings in the past.
And that is my whole issue. None of those previous warnings were for anything I'd consider wrong (ie. there was no violence, substance abuse, anything like that), and he shouldn't have been on the Final Warning in the first place. When warnings are given for things like using an inappropriate word in footage that was never even broadcast, that is what I call unfair targeting.
Are we going to start following everyone who's ever been on TV round with a camera and mic to make sure they never say anything out of line when off air?
Well, some of these things he said on air, and they were pretty offensive,
I think Clarkson's popularity as a "straight talker" helped him to get away with this stuff for a lot longer than he probably should have, and I am glad he was fired for assaulting a co-worker after verbally abusing him.
Any other BBC employee who did the same should also be fired, regardless of their status and how many warnings they'd had. Assaulting someone who works "for" you is just low.
Da Boss wrote: Well, some of these things he said on air, and they were pretty offensive,
I may be in a minority here, but I draw a big distinction between saying something that could be branded 'offensive' and actually saying it with intent to cause offence or harm (something Clarkson doesn't do, most of his on-air 'offensive' remarks are simply jokes or ribbing, not personal attacks on anyone or any group). Think of it like swearing; there is a difference between just swearing (ie. for emphasis or because you are stressed) and actually swearing at someone (which is rightly regarded as wrong and worse than the former). For example, if you say "that was a ing good burger", you are using the same word as if you are saying " off you Ing ", and yet one is seen as, if a tad uncouth, at least acceptable within certain situations (obviously not on daytime TV, or in front of children ect), wheras the other isn't.
I apply that same line of thought to the stuff Clarkson says, with the intended effect being emphasis/humour and quite clearly not part of a one-man crusade to offend the various peoples of the world. Look back at older Top Gear, like the first US special- the amount of jokes made at the expense of Americans is huge, and yet no one is upset, offended or cries out in complaint; the joke is taken in good nature by all involved, and life goes on. But as soon as a similar joke is made about a group or nation that could be seen as disadvantaged or a minority, it's all of a sudden racist hate-speech and Clarkson is the Devil's right-hand-man. I don't see that that's right, when neither the intent nor the outcome was meant to cause any offence.
The day when it becomes morally wrong to make a joke at the expense of someone else, that is meant in good nature and causes no harm whatsoever, then humour will truly be dead.
Like I say, I don't think it was right. It was undoubtedly wrong.
I never said you claimed it to be right.
But I also don't think it's entirely fair anyone, TV presenter or not, to lose their job over one single incident,
Really? One incident is never enough? So murder would be cool? Or you should only have to rape someone three times? GBH should get you a stern rap on the knuckles? Or indeed, just attacking a coworker because you showed up late to dinner and the chef had gone home? Where do you draw the line?
Me, I don't believe that violence is necessarily due an insta-fire. If the producer had slept with Clarkson's wife, or even been shouting and squaring up to Clarkson, I'd give him a rap on the knuckles, but that would be it. Attacking a coworker because you didn't get what you wanted for dinner? Get out of the office, and don't let the door hit your arse. Assault with no reasonable grounds is the sort of incident that yes actually, you do lose your job for.
and I also don't believe that, had it not been Clarkson, the outcome would have been quite different, and not necessarily involved a firing/non-renewal of contract.
Really? Because if I attacked my manager because the vending machine at work didn't have my favourite chocolate bar in, I daresay I'd have my letter of dismissal within two days. I think most people are in that position.
Say, for example, it had been one of the BBC News presenters involved in a similar incident, I imagine it would have ended with a financial reprimand and perhaps a broadcast apology, but not a firing.
I don't know. I f Jeremy Paxman attacked a cameraman because he wanted sticky toffee pudding at the staff canteen, and they didn't have it, again, I don't think Paxman would be invited back for another interview session.
Clarkson has been unfairly demonised by the BBC and the media simply for having a personality in an age where being on TV seems to require one to be bland/uninteresting and to tow the line, and it's resulted in this whole incident and its consequences being blown way out of proportion.
Oh right. Being fired for attacking people, a.k.a. trying to physically hurt them, because you didn't get what you wanted for dinner, that's demonisation, right? What a poor victim of due process Clarkson must be! Having to fight off all that politically correct nonsense and all those blasted rules which stop you beating up producers when you don't get what you want for dinner!
As Ii have said several times, I won't try and defend Clarkson's conduct in this one instance. What he did was wrong, and I agree he should have suffered a severe punishment for it. But I also think that these are grown men involved in a silly argument (who have worked together and been friends for years), and a solution could have been reached between Clarkson, Tymon and the BBC that left everyone in a better place.
For example,Clarkson takes a very hefty financial penalty and pays compensation to Tymon, and both keep their jobs. The BBC keeps their best-selling and most-watched program, the massive audience for the show get to keep watch the show they love, and everyone is, at the end of the day, happy. I get the impression that both Clarkson and Tymon would be perfectly happy to just shake hands, apologise and let it all blow over.
To reiterate, the only issue I have here is how Clarkson has been treated by the BBC and the media at large in the past, that has probably hugely increased the dimensions and effects of this one-off incident, beyond what it merits and beyond what all parties actually involved (Clarkson and Tymon) would want.
For example,Clarkson takes a very hefty financial penalty and pays compensation to Tymon, and both keep their jobs
Why? To put it absolutely bluntly, why should Clarkson keep his job? He assaulted a coworker. If anything, the police should be involved here. Assaulting people is a crime. Do you not think that the BBC has a duty of care to its other employees, to keep them safe from clearly dangerous individuals who lose their cool and attack people because they didn't get what they wanted for dinner?
To reiterate, the only issue I have here is how Clarkson has been treated by the BBC and the media at large in the past, that has probably hugely increased the dimensions and effects of this one-off incident, beyond what it merits and beyond what all parties actually involved (Clarkson and Tymon) would want.
Clarkson is a lunatic who flew into a fit of rage and attacked a man because he was late for dinner and didn't get what he wanted to eat. And because he's a celebrity, people pay attention to it. But if I were to attack my manager for that reason, I would also be fired. So I don't see any basis for the claim that he's being treated unfairly on account of celebrity here.
Are you still saying then, that you believe that Clarkson being fired for attacking a man for no adequate reason is not acceptable behaviour from the BBC?
Why? To put it absolutely bluntly, why should Clarkson keep his job?
Because the BBC is on record having kept pedophiles and heavy drug addicts on their payroll?? Slapping/hitting/punching... whatever the physical contact was kinda pales in comparison.
I certainly see where you're coming from, and no, I won't say that the BBC are wrong for letting Clarkson go (which isn't to say I'm happy with the decision as a customer of theirs, simply on the basis I won't get to enjoy future episodes of one of the few shows they make I watch). I do wonder, though, if Tymon is actually happy with this ourcome either. Would he really want to see a long-term friend and co-worker out of a job based on one mistake? Maybe, and all power to him if that is the case,, but seeing as he's not wanting to press charges at all, I would hazard a guess he would be perfectly content to just get on with life (after all, when new Top Gear gets reinvented as a boring car show, bombs and he loses he job, he's lost out as well).
As pointed out again and again, in this case, the BBC are right in how they've handled it. It is only the treatment of his past 'incidents' that I have a real issue with, as outlined above, and I freely admit that's not entirely relevant to this particular topic.
As pointed out again and again, in this case, the BBC are right in how they've handled it. It is only the treatment of his past 'incidents' that I have a real issue with, as outlined above, and I freely admit that's not entirely relevant to this particular topic.
Okay. In that case, we seem to have been arguing at crosshairs. My apologies. I thought you were claiming that he should not have been fired for his actions, because you said that 'a solution should have been worked out' which would have allowed him keep his job.
As pointed out again and again, in this case, the BBC are right in how they've handled it. It is only the treatment of his past 'incidents' that I have a real issue with, as outlined above, and I freely admit that's not entirely relevant to this particular topic.
Okay. In that case, we seem to have been arguing at crosshairs. My apologies. I thought you were claiming that he should not have been fired for his actions, because you said that 'a solution should have been worked out' which would have allowed him keep his job.
Fair enough, then. While I do think there was certainly scope for an alternate solution if all parties involved would be content with one, it's entirely possible I used the wrong phrasing and gave the impression that that way the BBC handled this was abjectly wrong, when in fact I agree that, while not ideal for fans of the show, in this case the result (at least on the part of the BBC, rather than tabloid jouralists looking to start a fight) is certainly a, if not the best (for the audience, company or participants), right way of doing it. Apologies for the confusion.
I'm getting the impression here that people think my criteria are supposed to be for someone who watches Top Gear, when if you look a little closer, I'm actually talking about the ones who are obsessing over getting him back on the BBC.
I think, possibly more tragically, that there are a lot of people who really like the show (including our Prime Ministers children) who don't want to miss out on something they like because a rule bending idiot broke another rule and did something wrong.
The "Sure, he shouldn't have punched that guy, but I quite like Top Gear, so he shouldn't be sacked". In the same way there's always people who want forgiveness for pop stars for doing all sorts of illegal things (mostly drugs) that wouldn't do the same for normal people.
If it was a presenter from one of the smaller car shows on channel 5 or quest no-one would be complaining.
I'm actually suspecting it's more of a stunt - Top Gear has started to become increasingly stale and canned, so I think this was a rouse to move him off to another channel to be even more outrageous, whilst the BBC re-invents it as a more serious car show. Which will be a mistake because no-one watches it for the cars.
Da Boss wrote: Well, some of these things he said on air, and they were pretty offensive,
I think Clarkson's popularity as a "straight talker" helped him to get away with this stuff for a lot longer than he probably should have, and I am glad he was fired for assaulting a co-worker after verbally abusing him.
Any other BBC employee who did the same should also be fired, regardless of their status and how many warnings they'd had. Assaulting someone who works "for" you is just low.
I find it interesting that Clarkson is held solely responsible for comments made on programme that's at least semi-scripted and rehearsed. There's an entire production team involved in writing, filming, editing and then you have the BBC itself having the right whether to question any content they air. If Clarkson says something offensive on Twitter then it's off his own back and in person. On Top Gear he's playing a semi-scripted persona and many people were involved in letting something potentially offensive get to air. Yet Clarkson carries all the responsibility for every rude thing said.
That said I don't agree with someone above about him being reprimanded instead. It's perfectly acceptable to sack someone for even a first time offence in cases of gross misconduct such as punching a colleague in the face. Honestly would any of us get away with that?
Squidmanlolz wrote: He was the most vibrant and forward personality on the show whereas James and Hammond (or rather their TV personas) are less entertaining to watch on their own.
I missed this first time round, both May and Hammond have loads of other smaller psudeo-educational shows aired from time to time like Hammonds "Should I worry about?", or Mays "Man Lab". Whilst it's not the Top Gear style of entertainment ("accidently" writing penis on a car door or sat nav route), I find their shows to much better than the ones Clarkson did on his own.
That said, he was key to the grouping and I don't think the dynamic would be the same without him.
Squidmanlolz wrote: He was the most vibrant and forward personality on the show whereas James and Hammond (or rather their TV personas) are less entertaining to watch on their own.
I missed this first time round, both May and Hammond have loads of other smaller psudeo-educational shows aired from time to time like Hammonds "Should I worry about?", or Mays "Man Lab". Whilst it's not the Top Gear style of entertainment ("accidently" writing penis on a car door or sat nav route), I find their shows to much better than the ones Clarkson did on his own.
That said, he was key to the grouping and I don't think the dynamic would be the same without him.
Clarkson has also shown to be totally inept outside of Top Gear. Looking uncomfortable and a bit out of his depth in anything else he is in, be it being a guest on chat or panel shows or his own chat show thing that he briefly had.
I shall miss his antics on Top Gear but the BBC were right not to renew. They would have had to dismiss him if not for the violence then the racial slurs. I do not thing it is a great argument to say that because pedophiles and others got away with lots in the past of the BBC that Clarkson should also get a free ride.
Orlanth wrote: Daily Mail stories have a lot more truth to them than you might think...
I used to be heavily involved in a forum that did a lot of fact checking on Daily Mail stories, and wrote a couple of university essays based on Daily Fail stories, and while they generally contain the legally required tiny grain of truth they are so full of bias and politically motivated conclusion jumping that you would be better informed about current events diving them from chicken entrails and the flight of birds rather than reading that 'news'paper.
The sad thing about Clarkson is that it is inevitable that some other broadcaster will pick up his contract so he can continue polluting the airwaves with his loutish and ignorant behaviour.
Orlanth wrote: Daily Mail stories have a lot more truth to them than you might think...
I used to be heavily involved in a forum that did a lot of fact checking on Daily Mail stories, and wrote a couple of university essays based on Daily Fail stories, and while they generally contain the legally required tiny grain of truth they are so full of bias and politically motivated conclusion jumping that you would be better informed about current events diving them from chicken entrails and the flight of birds rather than reading that 'news'paper.
If strong political slant was the offense rather than facts you could rule out the Sun, Mirror, Express and Guardian. So why don't people?
Orlanth wrote: If strong political slant was the offense rather than facts you could rule out the Sun, Mirror, Express and Guardian. So why don't people?
Because the right wing is "evil". That's the way it works.
The right thinks the left are stupid.
The left thinks the right is evil.
It's a different mindset. One dismisses the other because they're just dumb and misguided. The other seems to actively seek out opportunities to shame and defame because their opponents are "bad people".
I don't read any newspapers anymore. The mail deserves special consideration though due to the absolute gak that it prints and its baffling popularity. The Express is arguably worse and the people who actually buy the Sun shouldn't be allowed to vote (or breed).
Orlanth wrote: Daily Mail stories have a lot more truth to them than you might think...
I used to be heavily involved in a forum that did a lot of fact checking on Daily Mail stories, and wrote a couple of university essays based on Daily Fail stories, and while they generally contain the legally required tiny grain of truth they are so full of bias and politically motivated conclusion jumping that you would be better informed about current events diving them from chicken entrails and the flight of birds rather than reading that 'news'paper.
If strong political slant was the offense rather than facts you could rule out the Sun, Mirror, Express and Guardian. So why don't people?
I would rule out anything written by the first three instantly. I might pay some attention to the Guardian on occasion, but you have to know what their equivalent of 'immigrant' stories in the Daily Mail are (for example, Israel), so you can ignore/read between the lines appropriately.
Get me The Times, the Independent, the Guardian, and the Telegraph, filter the stories from any through a fine mesh of bias knowledge, and you get the most accurate variant. Pay any attention to the Daily Star, Express, Mail, Sun, Mirror, or anything like that, and you might as well be reading a more politicised dumbed down version of the Metro.
Squidmanlolz wrote: He was the most vibrant and forward personality on the show whereas James and Hammond (or rather their TV personas) are less entertaining to watch on their own.
I missed this first time round, both May and Hammond have loads of other smaller psudeo-educational shows aired from time to time like Hammonds "Should I worry about?", or Mays "Man Lab". Whilst it's not the Top Gear style of entertainment ("accidently" writing penis on a car door or sat nav route), I find their shows to much better than the ones Clarkson did on his own.
That said, he was key to the grouping and I don't think the dynamic would be the same without him.
I personally found May's other shows (Man Lab, and the earlier toy one... forgot the name) to be boring as hell... he does the same gak on those as he does on Top Gear, only difference is, in Top Gear, they either do a nifty cut where his incessant droning dwindles into the next shot, or Jeremy and Richard override him with whatever they are going to say next. Seriously, the dude could spend 20 minutes of a 30 minute episode talking about the pros and properties of the particular type of plastic that Air Fix uses in their model kits. No one really fething cares about that, and it gets old and boring real quick.
Orlanth wrote: Daily Mail stories have a lot more truth to them than you might think...
I used to be heavily involved in a forum that did a lot of fact checking on Daily Mail stories, and wrote a couple of university essays based on Daily Fail stories, and while they generally contain the legally required tiny grain of truth they are so full of bias and politically motivated conclusion jumping that you would be better informed about current events diving them from chicken entrails and the flight of birds rather than reading that 'news'paper.
If strong political slant was the offense rather than facts you could rule out the Sun, Mirror, Express and Guardian. So why don't people?
Because it is fine to have a slant but that is different from making things up.
Because it is fine to have a slant but that is different from making things up.
Which you keep on insisting is the case when in FACT as examples were given already stories they cover and none else does are found out in hindsight to be true.
Perhaps you are mistaking 'making things up' for 'not being in line with the progressive concensus'. Not unlikely in this increasingly dogmatised society people are being mentally consditioned to beleive that if something isnt PC it must be either a lie or hatespeech. It is in vacuums like this that problems like the Rochester abuse fester.
Orlanth wrote: If strong political slant was the offense rather than facts you could rule out the Sun, Mirror, Express and Guardian. So why don't people?
Because the right wing is "evil". That's the way it works.
The right thinks the left are stupid.
The left thinks the right is evil.
It's a different mindset. One dismisses the other because they're just dumb and misguided. The other seems to actively seek out opportunities to shame and defame because their opponents are "bad people".
In this case, no, it's nothing to do with that, the Daily Mail really is just that bad. The Daily Mail is known for fact-free sensationalist ranting in the same way the Guardian is known for wishy-washy middle-class leftism and terrible spelling/sub-editing, or the Sun is known for...erm...bewbs? I mean seriously, it's wall-to-wall "hang-em-all, bloody immigrants, bloody foreigners, This Thing Will Give You And/Or Cure Cancer!, Is There A Pedo In Your Garden Shed? The Answer Will Shock You! Cont. on page 7, Shock Expose: Brown People Exist, Hide Yo Wife, Hide Yo Daughters!". This is why people ridicule the Daily Mail:
Also, that's a lovely wide brush you have there, so easy to paint those lovely broad strokes. I've met plenty of lefties who consider the right misguided but fundamentally good-intentioned, and plenty of right wingers who view anyone marginally to the left of Ayn Rand as Stalin reincarnated as a Communist fifth-columnist that should be locked away in a dungeon lest their twisted and evil ideas gain any purchase.
Interesting article in the Guardian this morning...
Jeremy Clarkson joins Guardian drive for fossil fuel divestment
The disgraced former Top Gear presenter Jeremy Clarkson has become the latest celebrity to support the Guardian’s campaign for fossil fuel divestment.
Following what he described as a “dark night of the soul”, Clarkson said he hoped to “regain the trust of the British public” by dedicating his time and financial resources to sustainable energy, road safety and forging mutual understanding and tolerance between people of different cultures and religions.
The 54-year-old said that the “fracas” last month, in which he punched a producer on the patio of a North Yorkshire hotel, had prompted him to “re-evaluate his priorities” and reflect deeply on his life, behaviour and carbon footprint.
The argument for divesting from fossil fuels is becoming overwhelming
Read more
The BBC opted not to renew Clarkson’s contract after the incident at the Simonstone Hall hotel, in the Yorkshire Dales, which left producer Oisin Tymon needing hospital treatment. More than 1.5 million Britons signed an online petition calling for Clarkson to be reinstated and for a relaxation of the laws against assault in cases that could be demonstrated to involve banter.
“Top Gear was a wild ride for an ordinary bloke like me,” said Clarkson, speaking to the Guardian at a pub near Chipping Norton, Oxfordshire. “But there comes a time when a man’s got to ask himself what he really stands for. And for me, that’s sustainable energy, traffic calming and an end to xenophobia and prejudice.”
Clarkson said he had experienced a “wake-up call” after being sacked by the BBC, which he likened to “ramming on the brakes on the autobahn to Damascus”.
“It was like a pit stop,” he said. “One minute I was cruising along in a Porsche Cayman S to Dark Side of the Moon. The next I was in a bloody Prius humming along to Keane.
“If you’d told me a month ago that I would be joining the tree-huggers in their hand-knitted kerb-crawlers I’d probably have punched you.
“But then I thought: ‘Where does physical aggro get you – apart from a few penalty points on your P45?’ I stopped off for a pint – and there was a bloody Guardian with all this stuff about climate change.”
Jeremy Clarkson Facebook Twitter Pinterest
Clarkson said he wanted to become a ‘poster person for carbon haters’. Photograph: Ana Poenariu/AFP/Getty Images
Clarkson admitted that, in his previous life, he was more likely to read the Methodist Recorder than the Guardian. “No disrespect,” he said, “but I’ve always thought the Guardian made the Vauxhall Vectra look quite classy.”
He added: “But then I saw this stuff about fossil fuels and it was like finding the G spot on a V8 F-type. I mean, God, I’ve had some pretty outrageous moments, like that time we drove a car into a tree in Somerset, or when we drove a car into a swimming pool, and some other outrageous moments that also involved cars.”
Jeremy Clarkson dropped by BBC after damning report into attack on producer
Read more
“But, in the end, this is bigger than Planet Clarkson. This is Planet Everybloodybody, including members of the traveller communities and our Burmese and Argentinian friends,” he winked.
Clarkson decided to join the actor Tilda Swinton, chef Yotam Ottolenghi and campaigner Bianca Jagger in lending his name to the campaign to demand prominent foundations divest from fossil fuels. About 145,000 readers have already signed a petition asking the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Wellcome Trust for such a commitment.
“One hundred and forty-odd thousand is a start,” he said. “But we’ve got to put some oomph under the bonnet of this campaign. I’ve got the thick end of five mill following me on Twitter. Think of the g-force if they all switched to giving a toss about the human race.”
Clarkson, who has offered to become the new face of the Guardian campaign, said: “I was the poster boy for petrolheads. Now I want to become a – perhaps less gendered – poster person for the carbon-haters.”
“I’ve been talking to the Top Gear team about getting some great merch,” said Clarkson, drawing back his blue blazer to reveal a T-shirt he designed with the slogan: “No fracking way to carbon.”
Advertisement
“It’s not quite there yet. But me and [Richard] Hammond had a few jars last night and we’re working on a campaign that basically says you’ve got to shove gigatonnes of the black stuff back where the sun don’t shine.”
He plans to boost the campaign by founding a charity to garner support for a 20mph speed limit on most British roads, rising to 45mph on motorways and dual carriageways.
David Cameron expressed his backing for Clarkson’s change of direction on Tuesday, describing the presenter, who lives in his Witney constituency, as a “great mate”, who often dropped by to watch an episode of the US TV series 24 on DVD.
The prime minister called Clarkson’s speed limit plans a “brilliant idea, which we should definitely implement immediately”. Downing Street later issued a statement clarifying that he had meant to say it was an interesting proposal worthy of consideration.
BBC sources said the director general, Tony Hall – who has reportedly received death threats following the decision not to renew Clarkson’s contract – has convened a “war cabinet” to decide Top Gear’s future. He is understood to favour a complete reinvention of the programme, with leading contenders to present the overhauled version including Bill Oddie and the former archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams.
Penguin Books, which has long published Clarkson’s bestselling series of opinionated works including The World According to Clarkson, For Crying Out Loud and Driven to Distraction, said next year it planned to publish a new instalment, provisionally entitled Here Are Some Thoughts That I Had, focusing primarily on Clarkson’s new-found sympathy for environmental issues, interfaith dialogue and intersectional feminism.
“But, in the end, this is bigger than Planet Clarkson. This is Planet Everybloodybody, including members of the traveller communities and our Burmese and Argentinian friends,” he winked.
Jeremy Clarkson is set to make his first appearance on the BBC since losing his job as co-presenter on Top Gear.
The controversial broadcaster will appear as the guest host of Have I Got News for You on 24 April.
"Jeremy's contract has not been renewed on Top Gear but he isn't banned from appearing on the BBC," a BBC spokesman said.
Clarkson has hosted the satirical news quiz on numerous occasions.
During one appearance in 2008, he threw a pen at regular panellist Ian Hislop that left the latter with a cut on his face.
Clarkson was suspended by the BBC on 10 March following a "fracas" with Top Gear producer Oisin Tymon in a hotel in North Yorkshire.
Mr Tymon suffered swelling and a split lip in the assault on 4 March and visited a hospital A&E department for his injuries.
Following an internal investigation, the BBC announced on 25 March Clarkson's contract on Top Gear would not be renewed.
More than a million fans signed a petition to reinstate the presenter, but BBC director general Tony Hall said "a line has been crossed" and "there cannot be one rule for one and one rule for another".
On Tuesday, North Yorkshire Police said there was "no need for further action" against Clarkson following an inquiry into the "fracas".
Top Gear is watched by some 350 million viewers worldwide and is one of the BBC's biggest properties - with overseas sales worth an estimated £50m a year.
The BBC has said the show will continue without Clarkson, however it is unclear whether co-presenters James May and Richard Hammond will remain.
Indeed, utter stupidity there, I really fail to see the point of sacking him from TG if they are going to keep paying him to appear on other shows. What kind of message does that send?
Paradigm wrote: Indeed, utter stupidity there, I really fail to see the point of sacking him from TG if they are going to keep paying him to appear on other shows. What kind of message does that send?
It's probably easier than trying to force the producer to work with him.
Paradigm wrote: Indeed, utter stupidity there, I really fail to see the point of sacking him from TG if they are going to keep paying him to appear on other shows. What kind of message does that send?
It's probably easier than trying to force the producer to work with him.
Top Gear was declining anyway.
To clarify, I'm not saying they shouldn't have dropped him from TG. Just that, if they are trying to make the point, as stated, that everyone has to follow the same rules, and be held accountable, then they should stick to that. As much as it would irritate me as a fan of the show, the BBC should really be stopping the reruns of Top Gear, deleting their Youtube channel and barring JC from their various panel shows. If they are going to cancel the current series to make a point and set an example, they should do it properly; to the viewer, the Clarkson in the cancelled TG episodes is the same one as features old reruns or on panel shows, so if one is made an example of, they all should be.
So much for the BBC's final warning. Honestly, if I worked in the accounting department of a company, punched someone and got fired, would it be reasonable for me to be hired by the same company to work in HR?
Paradigm wrote: Indeed, utter stupidity there, I really fail to see the point of sacking him from TG if they are going to keep paying him to appear on other shows. What kind of message does that send?
It's probably easier than trying to force the producer to work with him.
Top Gear was declining anyway.
Perhaps they could have "rewarded" that producer by moving him to another show with more prestige within the business? Obviously, TG is the money maker for BBC... what I'm suggesting is that, when it comes time for that producer to look for a higher ranking job (Executive producer, etc) it may "reward" him to work for a more prestigious show, such as nightly news or something with more pressure and scrutiny than TG. I don't work in TV, so I couldn't tell you if it really works that way, but it's just an idea/musing that sprang to mind.
Jeremy Clarkson has pulled out of his planned appearance as guest host of the BBC show Have I Got News For You.
He had been due to appear on 24 April in his first BBC appearance since being dropped as a co-presenter of Top Gear, following an attack on a producer.
Clarkson has hosted the satirical news quiz on numerous occasions.
Jimmy Mulville, managing director of show producers Hat Trick Productions, said he expected Clarkson to be available for a show later in the year.
Mr Mulville said: "On reflection, Jeremy Clarkson has decided not to host Have I Got News For You. We fully expect him to resume his hosting duties later in the year."
Probably for the best.
... Actually kinda wish they'd settle down on a permanent presenter, the guests thing whilst funny at times -- if at times for car crashesque reasons -- is getting a bit old now IMO.
Jeremy Clarkson has pulled out of his planned appearance as guest host of the BBC show Have I Got News For You.
He had been due to appear on 24 April in his first BBC appearance since being dropped as a co-presenter of Top Gear, following an attack on a producer.
Clarkson has hosted the satirical news quiz on numerous occasions.
Jimmy Mulville, managing director of show producers Hat Trick Productions, said he expected Clarkson to be available for a show later in the year.
Mr Mulville said: "On reflection, Jeremy Clarkson has decided not to host Have I Got News For You. We fully expect him to resume his hosting duties later in the year."
Probably for the best.
... Actually kinda wish they'd settle down on a permanent presenter, the guests thing whilst funny at times -- if at times for car crashesque reasons -- is getting a bit old now IMO.
You know, I never normally notice things like this, but the writing style in these two BBC articles is absolutely atrocious. A series of single sentence paragraphs, with only two of them actually being news at all, doesn't exactly represent quality journalism, in my opinion.
(888 posts... Maybe there's a reason this one has an angry undertone. )
Well, it is "Entertainment/Arts" after all. The BBC hardly is likely to assign its top journalists to cover a story about a sacked presenter pulling out of presenting a programme when there is a general election campaign and a crisis in the Middle East going on.
ing good burger", you are using the same word as if you are saying "
