Jeremy Clarkson dropped from Top Gear Watch

blue n white army
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#181
Report 4 years ago
#181
(Original post by SmallTownGirl)
I don't believe comedians should be able to insult people because some people think it's funny.
Offence is taken, not given. There are very few funny jokes which aren't offensive to some people.

I like this quote from stephen fry


2
reply
username457532
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#182
Report 4 years ago
#182
(Original post by Aj_16)
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.
0
reply
thunder_chunky
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#183
Report 4 years ago
#183
It's just a shame the BBC faffed around for as long as they did and they just said his contract won't be renewed. Really what they should of done is just fired him for gross misconduct and assault. Anyone else would get fired. It's pretty pathetic that about a million people signed a petition which effectively said that said behaviour is ok because of who he is and the popular show he presents. These people need their tiny brains checking.
He's gone, he deserved to go, he should of gone sooner. End of.

Moving on.

(Original post by Aj_16)
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.
Lol don't be ridiculous.
0
reply
blue n white army
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#184
Report 4 years ago
#184
(Original post by Aj_16)
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.
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.
0
reply
Aj_16
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#185
Report 4 years ago
#185
(Original post by SmallTownGirl)
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.
0
reply
thunder_chunky
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#186
Report 4 years ago
#186
(Original post by Aj_16)
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.
0
reply
41b
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#187
Report 4 years ago
#187
(Original post by thunder_chunky)
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.
0
reply
thunder_chunky
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#188
Report 4 years ago
#188
(Original post by 41b)
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.
0
reply
41b
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#189
Report 4 years ago
#189
(Original post by thunder_chunky)
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.
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.
0
reply
Sam Walters
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#190
Report 4 years ago
#190
(Original post by qasidb)
The guy had to go to the hospital!
No it didnt. He had a cut lip and a bit of swelling.

Waste of NHS time and money and a bit of a drama queen.

But was it right to sack him.
0
reply
Aj_16
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#191
Report 4 years ago
#191
(Original post by thunder_chunky)
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.
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.
0
reply
thunder_chunky
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#192
Report 4 years ago
#192
(Original post by 41b)
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.
1
reply
41b
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#193
Report 4 years ago
#193
(Original post by thunder_chunky)
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.
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.
0
reply
Aj_16
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#194
Report 4 years ago
#194
(Original post by thunder_chunky)
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?
0
reply
41b
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#195
Report 4 years ago
#195
(Original post by Aj_16)
"Now run along". What entitles you to speak with such arrogance?
The liberal mindset.
0
reply
thunder_chunky
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#196
Report 4 years ago
#196
(Original post by Aj_16)
I never said democracy is the answer to everything?
And therefore it's not suited to every situation, like this. Ergo the idea that it should be left to the public is redonkulous.

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.
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.
0
reply
thunder_chunky
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#197
Report 4 years ago
#197
(Original post by 41b)
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.
Fire the guy who got punched? Good idea. I'm sure a petition of that nature will appear at some point, penned by a load of butthurt Clarkson supporters.
(Original post by Aj_16)
"Now run along". What entitles you to speak with such arrogance?
Because I know I'm right.

(Original post by 41b)
The liberal mindset.
Lol politics is irrelevant in this matter, and you don't even know my politics.
0
reply
Aj_16
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#198
Report 4 years ago
#198
(Original post by thunder_chunky)
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 it is as the BBC is a "public" corporation - not a private one.

N.b No need for so many expletives on TSR.
0
reply
thunder_chunky
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#199
Report 4 years ago
#199
(Original post by Aj_16)
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.
1) Nope, when I said the opinion of every single Top Gear fan I was speaking generally. And it's still irrelevant, move on.
2) Conduct does not and should not rank below finance. You speak about the welfare of a whole society versus that of two employees, but it's still only a TV show. It wouldn't look good from a moral standpoint or a professional standpoint for the BBC. It would quickly earn them a poor reputation as an employer.
3) I am required to pay all sorts of fees, because I am an adult in full time employment. As a taxpayer, you'd think I have a say in anything
that is government related. Any decision in any situation, big or small. But do I? Do I really? Probably not.
Should you have a say in every little matter that the BBC concerns itself with? Probably not, otherwise nothing would get done. Nothing would get done because millions of people would keep contacting the BBC, complaining and demanding it is done they're way. No, that's just nonsense.
4) The situation does not involve you or I, therefore it's a situation that should be resolved by management. The last thing they need is millions of people trying to micromanage.
0
reply
username457532
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#200
Report 4 years ago
#200
(Original post by blue n white army)
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.
Many people in this country go hungry every night due to poverty. Saying it is in any way reasonable to get angry over lack of food is completely ignoring their existence.

(Original post by Aj_16)
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.
But my point is that just because people support someone, doesn't mean they should keep their job.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you made up your mind on your five uni choices?

Yes I know where I'm applying (152)
59.61%
No I haven't decided yet (58)
22.75%
Yes but I might change my mind (45)
17.65%

Watched Threads

View All