Jeremy Clarkson dropped from Top Gear Watch

James Milibanter
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#141
Report 4 years ago
#141
(Original post by Life_peer)
Clarkson can be an arse but he's a bloody funny arse. He's the main character of the show which is a worldwide hit and sacking him because he was unpleasant and probably punched someone is a huge overreaction, just like going to the hospital with a bleeding lip, or many times before when they were making fuss over catching by a toe or a slope. The one time I think he really went over the line, which I condemn, was “one-eyed Scottish…”

Right now I hate BBC because they cancelled the rest of the show and only hurt the fans. I hope Jezza and the other two will be back soon on another channel.
He did punch the poor bloke.

The only other profession in which you wouldn't be fired for punching someone is boxing.

He's also been accused of being a bigot and a racist many a time, and has recently given a speech calling the BBC "F***ing *******s".

It was the absolute right thing to do. Whether he appears to be funny on screen or not, it is wrong to punch a guy because you don't like ham.
0
reply
The Shed End
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#142
Report 4 years ago
#142
Plot twist, Clarkson, Hammond and May leave the BBC and carry Top Gear on on Dave, whereupon the BBC start playing reruns of old Top Gear.
0
reply
Life_peer
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#143
Report 4 years ago
#143
(Original post by James Milibanter)
He did punch the poor bloke.

The only other profession in which you wouldn't be fired for punching someone is boxing.

He's also been accused of being a bigot and a racist many a time, and has recently given a speech calling the BBC "F***ing *******s".

It was the absolute right thing to do. Whether he appears to be funny on screen or not, it is wrong to punch a guy because you don't like ham.
And that is precisely what's wrong with this country! He's not an antisocial maniac who must be kept away from other people (and I'm sure it wasn't just over ham) hence I don't see any reason for punishment that essentially ends the whole show. Why can't two men solve their problems between themselves? Are we really living in times when adult men can't handle a squabble and need their employer to step in?!

I'd say he should have punched him back and the two would have gone for a beer afterwards, or sue for damages. Clarkson should have been ordered to make amends, not sacked. It doesn't solve anything at all, only creates new problems.
0
reply
Appeal to reason
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#144
Report 4 years ago
#144
Well Top gear is going to become the new fifth gear.
1
reply
Aku-gila
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#145
Report 4 years ago
#145
Good. The dumbass had enough chances.
1
reply
chocolate hottie
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#146
Report 4 years ago
#146
Very very stupid of the BBC.

Top Gear was their biggest single earner as everyone knows:

http://www.theguardian.com/media/201...rldwide-profit

Clarkson and the other two will be snapped up by ITV or an American Broadcaster, they will get a huge pay rise, the station will get a proven winner and ratings, only the BBC will lose ratings and revenue, to be covered by the poor old licence fee payer.

It is typical of how badly run the BBC is.

This kind of thing goes on all the time in the creative industries with prima donna stars. They should have kept to the maxim "what happens on tour, stays on tour" given the w***y producer a pay rise and promotion somewhere else and no-one needed to be the wiser.

Once it leaked (from where??) they had to be seen to fire him.

If the BBC was a properly run organisation which needed to make a profit, rather than the amateurish joke it is, it would be protecting its major revenue stream.

But its all our money not theirs, and they don't care.
0
reply
James Milibanter
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#147
Report 4 years ago
#147
(Original post by Life_peer)
And that is precisely what's wrong with this country! He's not an antisocial maniac who must be kept away from other people (and I'm sure it wasn't just over ham) hence I don't see any reason for punishment that essentially ends the whole show. Why can't two men solve their problems between themselves? Are we really living in times when adult men can't handle a squabble and need their employer to step in?!

I'd say he should have punched him back and the two would have gone for a beer afterwards, or sue for damages. Clarkson should have been ordered to make amends, not sacked. It doesn't solve anything at all, only creates new problems.
Are you actually being serious?

Because the man that WAS BEING BULLIED by Clarkson couldn't defend himself he therefore should have to "suck it up".

I agree with you about the suing for damages but since healthcare is free in this country (and rightly so) there isn't much of a claim that the poor chap could make.

The BBC has the right to hire and fire as they choose, and Clarkson who has been a source of mass controversy and headache for them had finally crossed the line. Verbal and physical abuse is that line, a bit of casual racism here and there is all well and good but you do not punch an employee, and it is because of this that I believe the BBC did exactly the right thing.
0
reply
scorpion95
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#148
Report 4 years ago
#148
Its the end of top gear, I can see another channel taking them on and having it under a different name. This will cost the BBC a lot of money. It is rare now to get this type of humor on tv now with all the pc morons about
0
reply
Life_peer
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#149
Report 4 years ago
#149
(Original post by James Milibanter)
Are you actually being serious?

Because the man that WAS BEING BULLIED by Clarkson couldn't defend himself he therefore should have to "suck it up".

I agree with you about the suing for damages but since healthcare is free in this country (and rightly so) there isn't much of a claim that the poor chap could make.

The BBC has the right to hire and fire as they choose, and Clarkson who has been a source of mass controversy and headache for them had finally crossed the line. Verbal and physical abuse is that line, a bit of casual racism here and there is all well and good but you do not punch an employee, and it is because of this that I believe the BBC did exactly the right thing.
Yes, I'm serious. Boo-hoo! He was bullied. Like a baby! He's an adult man, FFS! :rolleyes: I can't judge without the details but for a man, one case of verbal abuse followed by a punch should be nothing. Sadly, this is what we get in a society full of metrosexuals and oversensitivity.

People can sue for damages even if they suffered psychological trauma so pain and suffering would make a valid case regardless of medical expenses (which in this case was probably an adhesive bandage – such wound, much pain, wow!). Plus they could have agreed on a financial settlement to keep the BBC out of it.
0
reply
chocolate hottie
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#150
Report 4 years ago
#150
(Original post by young_guns)
That's you're or you are, not your.


Actually it isn't. In that context he was correctly using "your" as the possessive case of "you."

As an attributive adjective.
0
reply
James Milibanter
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#151
Report 4 years ago
#151
(Original post by Life_peer)
Yes, I'm serious. Boo-hoo! He was bullied. Like a baby! He's an adult man, FFS! :rolleyes: I can't judge without the details but for a man, one case of verbal abuse followed by a punch should be nothing. Sadly, this is what we get in a society full of metrosexuals and oversensitivity.

People can sue for damages even if they suffered psychological trauma so pain and suffering would make a valid case regardless of medical expenses (which in this case was probably an adhesive bandage – such wound, much pain, wow!). Plus they could have agreed on a financial settlement to keep the BBC out of it.
Nobody should be bullied while at work trying to earn a wage to provide for themselves and/or their family. I, as have many other people, had an absolute verbal pounding from my boss, but there was never a line crossed. One does not attack an employee, whether the person can stand up for himself or not.
The Beeb would have been stupid not to have fired Jezza, he's a headache and too much of a liability. As well as a violent sod.
0
reply
Life_peer
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#152
Report 4 years ago
#152
(Original post by blue n white army)
Gutted the show is over.

Given that oisin tymon has said that up until now they had experienced a positive and successful relationship (i.e. it's not continued bullying), tymon didn't file a complaint and said he would continue working with him if he attended anger management. Surely, with all this in mind, they could have come to an alternative arrangement which didn't result in effectively cancelling the show.

This decision has punished pretty much everyone but clarkson. The fans of the show lose the show they love, oisin tymon is no longer a producer on the most successfully BBC programme (instead he is a producer on a show which is at best doomed to mediocrity), further more he will be the victim of vicious trolling and have a damaged reputation for years (wrongly). The BBC lose out on about 4million viewers and £50,000,000 a year.
Jeremy Clarkson however, will take a few months out, relax and then get a massive payrise with another channel
Precisely. But hey, it's the BBC so the only thing the management needs to care about is their politically correct and ethical reputation – everything else will be covered by taxpayers! :mad:
0
reply
Life_peer
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#153
Report 4 years ago
#153
(Original post by James Milibanter)
Nobody should be bullied while at work trying to earn a wage to provide for themselves and/or their family. I, as have many other people, had an absolute verbal pounding from my boss, but there was never a line crossed. One does not attack an employee, whether the person can stand up for himself or not.
The Beeb would have been stupid not to have fired Jezza, he's a headache and too much of a liability. As well as a violent sod.
Grow up, please…
0
reply
Observatory
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#154
Report 4 years ago
#154
(Original post by blue n white army)
Gutted the show is over.

Given that oisin tymon has said that up until now they had experienced a positive and successful relationship (i.e. it's not continued bullying), tymon didn't file a complaint and said he would continue working with him if he attended anger management. Surely, with all this in mind, they could have come to an alternative arrangement which didn't result in effectively cancelling the show.

This decision has punished pretty much everyone but clarkson. The fans of the show lose the show they love, oisin tymon is no longer a producer on the most successfully BBC programme (instead he is a producer on a show which is at best doomed to mediocrity), further more he will be the victim of vicious trolling and have a damaged reputation for years (wrongly). The BBC lose out on about 4million viewers and £50,000,000 a year.
Jeremy Clarkson however, will take a few months out, relax and then get a massive payrise with another channel
Spot on analysis IMO.
0
reply
Mad Vlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#155
Report 4 years ago
#155
It was the correct decision but this is the end of one of my favourite programmes on TV, which makes me sad. Without Clarkson, the show is nothing.
0
reply
James Milibanter
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#156
Report 4 years ago
#156
(Original post by Life_peer)
Grow up, please…
I have made some points, none of them link to immaturity. No one should be bullied whilst at work, yes it happens, anyone who's had a job will tell you. But that doesn't make it right and physical violence is quite simply crossing a line.
0
reply
Dalek1099
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#157
Report 4 years ago
#157
(Original post by Life_peer)
Yes, I'm serious. Boo-hoo! He was bullied. Like a baby! He's an adult man, FFS! :rolleyes: I can't judge without the details but for a man, one case of verbal abuse followed by a punch should be nothing. Sadly, this is what we get in a society full of metrosexuals and oversensitivity.

People can sue for damages even if they suffered psychological trauma so pain and suffering would make a valid case regardless of medical expenses (which in this case was probably an adhesive bandage – such wound, much pain, wow!). Plus they could have agreed on a financial settlement to keep the BBC out of it.
Yes it was a scrap a mistake(people make mistakes) for some reason the fact that this happened at the workplace makes it a worse crime, as if people got sacked for doing this outside the workplace there would be a lot less employees around the country(considering all the violence outside clubs at least plus other violence that happens).

Violence anywhere should result in the same punishment and this was hardly violence the man was left with only a cut lip and a bit of swelling, I think the BBC should have been strict with with and fined and reduced his wage but sacking him for this is ridiculous its something that really they should sort between themselves.Anyone who thinks a small fight(hardly a fight only lasted 30 seconds) is such a huge crime obviously hasn't had much experience of bad things happening to them in life. The police are unlikely to be able to charge him on the basis of a such a minor assault leaving the BBC's position as strange.We need to learn to forgive and give people second chances when they do bad things, as people are capable of change.

I think we should apply school like rules to situations like these instead of being stupid and going over the top with the punishment if a pupil punched you and left you with a cut lip the chances of them being expelled are almost 0% as they should be, if there are serious incidents then people are expelled yes it is bad behaviour from Clarkson that shouldn't be tolerated but at school did they expel pupils at the first sign of trouble no they gave people a chance to behave better, which is a better thing to do.

The Ched Evans controversy with him trying to get back to playing football at his old club gives you a good idea of the perspective you need on issues like this he raped a girl and served years in prison and yet it was a debatable issue as to whether to allow him to play again, this is what I mean by the sort of crime which you should be sacked for not some sort of minor assault or scrap over an argument over an issue like hot food.
1
reply
James Milibanter
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#158
Report 4 years ago
#158
(Original post by Mad Vlad)
It was the correct decision but this is the end of one of my favourite programmes on TV, which makes me sad. Without Clarkson, the show is nothing.
C'mon, everyone knows that James May carries the show
0
reply
SBKA
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#159
Report 4 years ago
#159
I'm not too concerned personally. A new show with exactly the same format as Top Gear and with exactly the same presenters will appear within the year on one of the BBC's rival channels.
0
reply
James Milibanter
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#160
Report 4 years ago
#160
(Original post by Dalek1099)
Yes it was a scrap a mistake(people make mistakes) for some reason the fact that this happened at the workplace makes it a worse crime, as if people got sacked for doing this outside the workplace there would be a lot less employees around the country(considering all the violence outside clubs at least plus other violence that happens).

Violence anywhere should result in the same punishment and this was hardly violence the man was left with only a cut lip and a bit of swelling, I think the BBC should have been strict with with and fined and reduced his wage but sacking him for this is ridiculous its something that really they should sort between themselves.Anyone who thinks a small fight(hardly a fight only lasted 30 seconds) is such a huge crime obviously hasn't had much experience of bad things happening to them in life. The police are unlikely to be able to charge him on the basis of a such a minor assault leaving the BBC's position as strange.We need to learn to forgive and give people second chances when they do bad things, as people are capable of change.

I think we should apply school like rules to situations like these instead of being stupid and going over the top with the punishment if a pupil punched you and left you with a cut lip the chances of them being expelled are almost 0% as they should be, if there are serious incidents then people are expelled yes it is bad behaviour from Clarkson that shouldn't be tolerated but at school did they expel pupils at the first sign of trouble no they gave people a chance to behave better, which is a better thing to do.
Jezza, went on a foul mouthed rant at the BBC claiming he was fired before he actually was.
He is a source of controversy, the beeb would be stupid to keep him.
As I said to LP, the casual racism was fine, it's not unusual for a boss to verbally lay into an employee but physical violence is where a line must be drawn.
If you are going to use school as a comparison, Clarkson was in a position of power and authority, which wouldn't make him a fellow student but a teacher. Any teacher who hit a pupil would be immediately fired.
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 (121)
65.05%
No I haven't decided yet (39)
20.97%
Yes but I might change my mind (26)
13.98%

Watched Threads

View All