Jeremy Clarkson dropped from Top Gear Watch

41b
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#201
Report 4 years ago
#201
(Original post by SmallTownGirl)
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.



But my point is that just because people support someone, doesn't mean they should keep their job.
If I had to choose between one million poor people dying of hunger and Jeremy Clarkson going even a little hungry, which one do you think I'd choose? 😋
0
reply
Andy98
  • Study Helper
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#202
Report 4 years ago
#202
(Original post by SmallTownGirl)
Well maybe you need to hear more jokes. If you require someone to be insulted to find something funny then that is a fault with your character.
Welcome to humanity, a species full of *******s. People need to loosen up and relax a bit more

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
ozzyoscy
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#203
Report 4 years ago
#203
(Original post by Juicy J)
Sacked over nothing. The show is nothing without him. The BBC clearly isn't interested in making lots of money.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Clarkson defenders talking about work: "This guy I work with is a ****, he doesn't do his job, but they can't do anything because he's good at his job and no one's got balls or cares. It's ****ing ridiculous and unfair. If I was boss, he'd be sacked immediately."

Clarkson defenders talking about Clarkson: "Y U SACK CLARKSON? He make you money, lol stupid now you get no money."
1
reply
Observatory
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#204
Report 4 years ago
#204
(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.
If Savile were still alive he would be spending the rest of it in prison.

If Clarkson appeared before a magistrates' court - which he still might - he would receive a nominal sentence.
0
reply
blue n white army
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#205
Report 4 years ago
#205
(Original post by SmallTownGirl)
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.
Like I said I'm not excusing it. No food might have just been one of many factors that lead to him flipping.

But if we're going to use your logic we can say "many people everyday suffer from being severely assaulted, getting angry and filing a complaint over a single punch is completely ignoring their existence"
0
reply
InnerTemple
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#206
Report 4 years ago
#206
I don't think the BBC had much choice. It would have been ridiculous if they had not fired him.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Maker
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#207
Report 4 years ago
#207
I am surprised the BBC did not have a clause in his contract that said if Clarkson did anything that affected the programme, he would be liable for costs incurred and any loses which must be in the millions for the BBC.

I expect any contract Clarkson signs with another broadcaster will have that clause in to stop him doing anything as stupid again.
0
reply
rockrunride
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#208
Report 4 years ago
#208
Thank ****.
0
reply
young_guns
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#209
Report 4 years ago
#209
(Original post by Birkenhead)
I think it's quite silly to suggest that because of one law
That would indeed be silly. Lucky I didn't suggest that.

Perhaps it began with Magna Carta
Free speech? You're mistaken, there are no free speech provisions in Magna Carta. And simply reeling off a list of statutes and texts that have a kind of "vibe" of freedom doesn't really amount to an argument.

I do think such a tradition exists in this country despite many instances going against it. It is more of a tradition that has built up over time rather than having always existed fully formed (inevitably)
I don't mean to be too acute, but if you'd read my comments you'd realise that was precisely my point. It is moronic to claim we had some prior age of free speech that we need to hark back to. The tradition of free speech has developed over time.

Your referring to Queen Elizabeth saying she didn't want to make windows into mens' souls is, I'm afraid, demonstrating a slight deficit in historical knowledge because it was under the Elizabethan religious settlement that Englishmen were forced to attend the services of the established church on Sunday, and were heavily fined if they didn't.

I am perfectly comfortable asserting that free inquiry and and free expression were far more developed in England than they were on the continent (and I edited my comment before you made yours to express that with greater particularity). But it is asinine to assert, as 41b was, that we had some incredible history of pure and unqualified free speech. To make such a claim merely exposes one to accusations of historical ignorance.

To be quite honest, I wasn't really asking for your opinion. I merely copied you in because I thought you might appreciate the language of the statute. Maybe legal English isn't quite to your tastes
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#210
Report 4 years ago
#210
(Original post by Birkenhead)
I think it's quite silly to suggest that because of one law passed under one monarch in one period - of a nation thousands of years old and making up many millions of previous and future citizens - an entire tradition can be said to never have existed. Perhaps it began later, such as during Elizabeth I's reign when she insisted on the principle that she 'would not open windows into men's souls', and was bolstered by Milton's 'Areopagitica', the 1689 Bill of Rights, JS Mill's 'On Liberty' and a series of small victories from Darwin's battle with religious fundamentalists in attempting the publication of scientific theory to DH Lawrence's 'Lady Chatterley'. Perhaps it began with Magna Carta - the 'Great Charter of the Liberties' - and was bolstered by everything since, suffering many interruptions along the way. I do think such a tradition exists in this country despite many instances going against it. It is more of a tradition that has built up over time rather than having always existed fully formed (inevitably), such that wherever you find the union jack today - to paraphrase one of the workmen interviewed in Inside the Commons - you find liberty and democracy, to an extent that is more pronounced and assured than any other nation on earth precisely because of the long tradition of liberty we have in this country.
I enjoyed that series too, but there was an awful lot of flannel in it. There are such a lot of lies behind the smug assumption that the British Parliament is the global cornerstone of true democracy. All too often, British governments engage in secretive, manipulative and underhand conduct and are not properly scrutinised by Parliament, since unlike the parliaments of many other countries we influenced, the checks and balances are very limited. Hence Select Committees, despite recent increases in powers, remain hopelessly inadequate to the task and in too many cases are little more than talking shops. The Executive does as it pleases and the PM acts as an elected dictator too much of the time.

The security services run amok and are wholly unaccountable. The legal independence of the police and judiciary remain unclear at key times and generally prove (with the benefit of history) to have been controlled by politicians. A striking example from today's news is that Special Branch have routinely spied on many MPs and maintained surveillance files on them. In many democracies that would be regarded as bordering on a coup.

There is no constitution and there are few constitutional protections for citizens. Government after government has sought to get rid of jury trials, to extend detention without trial and now (most bizarre of all) hold trials in secret and without even admitting such trials are taking place. The men who fought for Oliver Cromwell must be turning in their graves.

In addition, Parliament is in almost every meaningful way a tool for the corporations. Streams of highly paid lobbyists challenge every detail of legislation on behalf of their corporate clients with privileged access to ministers and endless pressure on backbenchers. The parties operate as cash funnels, pushing the money from corporates and rich fatcats into their war chests to keep the whole system going.

To be honest, Parliament now is almost a joke and those self-important officials banging on about how marvellous it all is, a cossetted and privileged elite of protected buffoons stuck in the past.
1
reply
icdjabtjk
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#211
Report 4 years ago
#211
(Original post by qasidb)
It will be called, "High Gear"
They should call it 6th gear to say FU to 5th gear imo haha.
0
reply
apen610
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#212
Report 4 years ago
#212
It's political correctness gone mad!
0
reply
Isambard Kingdom Brunel
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#213
Report 4 years ago
#213
I couldn't stand Clarkson. He was a bigot and too old-fashioned for ma telle. Look at his dress sense wtf.
0
reply
Laomedeia
Badges: 21
#214
Report 4 years ago
#214
(Original post by flutterby-x303)
To be fair I can see why the bbc did it. They had to be seen to uphold their standards and sacking a man, however popular he may be, because he punched a producer was the correct decision.

However, I love top gear and part of that is because the three presenters have such good chemistry. James and Richard already said they wouldn't do it without jeremy so what's to happen?

I would love it if the three of them started a new motoring show on itv. Or the bbc need to realise top gear won't work at all now and they ought to sell it to itv.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Then it will be full of ******* ADVERTS!. I dont mind a few ads, but the sheer volume of them makes watching TV completely unbearable for me. There should be a limit of 5 mins of ads per hour of programming. No more than 1 ad break per hour or program. Problem solved.
0
reply
domonict
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#215
Report 4 years ago
#215
(Original post by Laomedeia)
There should be a limit of 5 mins of ads per hour of programming. No more than 1 ad break per hour or program. Problem solved.

Top gear cost £500k per episode. How do you think they will finance it with so few adverts?
0
reply
Laomedeia
Badges: 21
#216
Report 4 years ago
#216
(Original post by domonict)
Top gear cost £500k per episode. How do you think they will finance it with so few adverts?
By actually paying for it themselves, just like us normal people pay for things in life. Bloody w*****ers.
0
reply
Veggiechic6
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#217
Report 4 years ago
#217
Serves him right, the arrogant prat. I hate people who think they can behave and treat people in a disgusting way and somehow it's ok because they're 'famous'. I think it's even more disgusting that some people have contacted the victim on his twitter to threaten him as though he's somehow at fault! I've never watched Top Gear but I would say it doesn't matter how good of a presenter he is, he can't be allowed to get away with this.
0
reply
chocolate hottie
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#218
Report 4 years ago
#218
(Original post by domonict)
Top gear cost £500k per episode. How do you think they will finance it with so few adverts?
The high production values are a large part of why it is so popular.

Despite the fact that it cost so much to make it earned £50 million in revenue last year of which £8 million in profit. WITHOUT any ads, on the BBC.

The commercial broadcaster who win the bidding war (after a decent period of mourning for appearance's sake) will make far even more of a profit, because they will be able to sell advertising on top.

Don't worry about that though, J C makes politically incorrect jokes so obviously had to be sacked by the left wing BBC...

It is run by the liberal metropolitan elite and only produce programmes palatable to these ivory tower liberals, who have probably never been in a proper pub or gone to a football match in their lives. You know, mixing with all those awful working class oiks. Oooh Tristan did you hear him say that?

Top Gear was one of the very few BBC shows that reached the C2DE demographic. And was wonderfully, hilariously, politically incorrect. Shirley some connection?



It becomes ever more remote, the BBC, with its cultural insularity and biased political reporting.

ABOLISH THE LICENCE FEE! Maybe if they have to stand on their own two feet without the TV tax they will be a little more careful to keep making one of the few shows that are seen by a vast section of the nation and makes the big bucks worldwide...
1
reply
chocolate hottie
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#219
Report 4 years ago
#219
(Original post by Veggiechic6)
Serves him right, the arrogant prat. I hate people who think they can behave and treat people in a disgusting way and somehow it's ok because they're 'famous'. I think it's even more disgusting that some people have contacted the victim on his twitter to threaten him as though he's somehow at fault! I've never watched Top Gear but I would say it doesn't matter how good of a presenter he is, he can't be allowed to get away with this.
Who do you think leaked the story to the media and tied the BBC's hands?

Jeremy?
0
reply
Veggiechic6
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#220
Report 4 years ago
#220
(Original post by chocolate hottie)
Who do you think leaked the story to the media and tied the BBC's hands?

Jeremy?
So what if he did, he's an innocent victim! If someone punched me and everyone thought the world of that person, I'd do my utmost to expose him to the world for the thug that he is!
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

How has the start of this academic year been for you?

Loving it - gonna be a great year (128)
18.21%
It's just nice to be back! (193)
27.45%
Not great so far... (251)
35.7%
I want to drop out! (131)
18.63%

Watched Threads

View All