Jeremy Clarkson dropped from Top Gear

I don't believe comedians should be able to insult people because some people think it's funny.

Sometimes there are two sides to a story and maybe the producer provoked him or there was some sort of internal conflict building up to this. Jeremy is an idiot but I don't for one second believe he attacked the producer for the reasons the media are saying. There must be an underlying issue.
At the end of the day license fee payers pay the BBC and thus if the majority of licence payers feel that they want Jeremy to present - he should present. If not, then not.

Sometimes there are two sides to a story and maybe the producer provoked him or there was some sort of internal conflict building up to this. Jeremy is an idiot but I don't for one second believe he attacked the producer for the reasons the media are saying. There must be an underlying issue.
At the end of the day license fee payers pay the BBC and thus if the majority of licence payers feel that they want Jeremy to present - he should present. If not, then not.

Sometimes there are two sides to a story and maybe the producer provoked him or there was some sort of internal conflict building up to this. Jeremy is an idiot but I don't for one second believe he attacked the producer for the reasons the media are saying. There must be an underlying issue.
At the end of the day license fee payers pay the BBC and thus if the majority of licence payers feel that they want Jeremy to present - he should present. If not, then not.

So if Savile was still alive and the majority of licence payers wanted him to present for the BBC then he should be allowed to even though it would put people at risk?

And unless you or someone else is in physical danger, there is no justifiable reason to hit someone.

What planet are you living on? After knowing Jimmy Savile is a paedophile, the democratic majority (viewers) would 100% not reinstate him.
However the democratic majority (viewers and also licence fee payers) may well reinstate Jeremy as his offence wasn't as severe as paedophilia.

Democracy isn't the answer to everything. Not everything has to come down to a vote. Your idea is pretty ridiculous given the circumstances, and it's irrelevant. As is the opinion of every single Top Gear fan who wanted him reinstated.

It bloody well is relevant, considering we the people are forced, under threat of imprisonment, to pay the damnable license fee.

And you think that means you deserve a democratic say in matters like this? Nope. I think the rules on unprofessional conduct overrule your ridiculous sense of entitlement. Now run along.

The guy had to go to the hospital!

Democracy isn't the answer to everything. Not everything has to come down to a vote. Your idea is pretty ridiculous given the circumstances, and it's irrelevant. As is the opinion of every single Top Gear fan who wanted him reinstated.

My entitlement? I've paid for it. I don't give a toss about rules of unprofessional conduct. Scrap the rules, fire Oisin and make Clarkson the head of the BBC.

Like Thatcher said: socialists are only good at spending other people's money.

These sort of rules exist anyway whether people like it or not, and that they are there for a reason. He had to go, it's just a shame he didn't go sooner. He should of been fired straight away, but never mind.

And you think that means you deserve a democratic say in matters like this? Nope. I think the rules on unprofessional conduct overrule your ridiculous sense of entitlement. Now run along.

"Now run along". What entitles you to speak with such arrogance?

I never said democracy is the answer to everything?

Firstly I'm not a Top Gear fan and I don't watch the show. Secondly, I believe economically, Jeremy is very good for the UK because of how many views Top Gear generates. What will ultimately happen is that Jeremy along with James May and Richard Hammond will go to another show and another corporation will make money which may not be British.
Thirdly, I don't understand how my idea is "irrelevant".
Fourthly, democracy is certainly not the answer to everything and please find me someone who thinks it is. But in this scenario, when the license fee is about £12 a month which is a lot for the average consumer, I believe its only fair they have a say in whether Jeremy goes. Especially as we don't know all the facts.

Perhaps. Reasonably, it's not right to get into a fight with someone at work.

But, at the same time, Oisin should be fired for incompetence.

"Now run along". What entitles you to speak with such arrogance?

The liberal mindset.

And therefore it's not suited to every situation, like this. Ergo the idea that it should be left to the public is redonkulous.



1. Whether you watch it or not and whether you like it or not is irrelevant. I for one don't care.
2. I don't believe economics should get in the way of something like this when it is a straight forward matter of conduct. I don't think it's right morally, or for a business to put finance over personnel, when the incident involves one employee striking another. If I were the person who had been hit, I wouldn't like to see my employers put finance as a priority over whether or not to discipline the culprit. Clarkson along with the other two may go to another channel, let them, but his departure from the BBC was necessary.
3. Because why should the public have a say in this matter?
4. Nope. That idea is ****ing ridiculous. That is bull**** entitlement. It's a corporate discipline matter. Nothing to do with me or you, or anyone else.

hahahaha this has proved how unintelligent you are - pedantic use of words doesn't hide a bad argument

1) "Whether I watch it or not is irrelevant" yet you insinuated I was a fan and made it relevant.
2) When economics involves more people than just two employees and an actual society in which income generated goes towards - it definitely matters more than your opinion. The welfare of a whole society versus the welfare of two employees. The welfare of the society is more important and the income generated from what Jeremy brings to the show can help in numerous ways which I will not begin to explain as I'll be here all night.
3) The public should have a say because they pay a bloody license fee - do you pay it. Do you know what its like to pay a legal fee and have no say in a matter?
4)Nothing to do with me, you or anyone else? It would be a entirely a corporate matter if the BBC was not a public corporation. However as it is it involves the "public".

N.b No need for so many expletives on TSR.

I agree with this. Not to justify what he did but I hate that people are saying he went crazy all because his steak wasn't done right. From what I've read it sounds like he's had a long hard day filming which has been riddled with problems and stuff ups, he's facing the prospect of working through the night to get the script done and he's done all this on the understanding that someone would arrange some food and he turns up to be told that there's only the cold starters left and it's the straw that broke the camels back and he flipped.

Like I say i'm not excusing what he did i just hate that it's being painted as happening over something so petty when in actual fact it was just one of a number of reasons that he lost it.

What planet are you living on? After knowing Jimmy Savile is a paedophile, the democratic majority (viewers) would 100% not reinstate him.
However the democratic majority (viewers and also licence fee payers) may well reinstate Jeremy as his offence wasn't as severe as paedophilia.