Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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.

 Vaktathi wrote:

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?

 Ketara wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:


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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

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.

 Orlanth wrote:

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.

 Ketara wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

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.

 loki old fart wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

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.

But what are the odds of that?

To be fair, I watch Top Gear because much of the humid is genuinely funny, and I don't give two figs about cars.

 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.

 Ketara wrote:

 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.

 Paradigm wrote:


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.

 Ketara wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:


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.

It wasn't over just one incident though; he's had plenty of warnings in the past.

 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.

If he punched a producer, not renewing his contract was the right choice.

As much as I love Clarkson - when he's not fishing for controversy for the sake of it - it's a very serious issue.

I'll miss top gear, the specials were always great...

 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.

 Paradigm wrote:

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.

 Paradigm wrote:

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?

 Ketara wrote:


I suppose it's theoretically possible that one could have an artistic passion for the general aesthetic shape of cars,

I like nice looking cars.
And as for Clarkson, he's the reason I don't watch top gear. Some of the cars he recommends, are absolute rubbish.

 Ketara wrote:

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.

 Ketara wrote:

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 he was the cause of the late arrival back at the hotel. If he had left the pub when asked, he wouldn't have been late.

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.

 Paradigm wrote:

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.

 Ketara wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:

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.

 Ketara wrote:


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.