BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 07:59 PM

According to rumours, the blustering fat oaf threw a hissy fit,
swung a punch at a hapless minion
and completely missed...

Now that would have been very amusing to witness...

If Clarkson is not sacked he should seen to be willingly doing penance
by being obliged to present a series on road safety & responsible driving,
strategies for preventing road rage, and cycling as a healthier greener option.

.. and be be forced to sit out the next series of Top Gear confined to the studio
presenting items on child seats and cycle racks, affordable driving accessories & novelty nodding head dogs,
whilst cooking all the rest of the cast & crew's dinners...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 07:54 PM

i don't watch the programme. but i would appreciate a programme that doesn't treat me as a wimp be cause i am not interested in high performance cars. like everyone else. i buy sensible cars.

the sight of that tosser and his two sycphantic twerpettes is weariness of the flesh - even just scrolling past the channel.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: melodeonboy
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 07:32 PM

I'm actually a big supporter of the BBC; (one of the reasons I'd rather Clarkson wasn't involved with it!). I'm also a big supporter of the licence fee. I was making the point that I - like you - have a right to express my opinion on a matter of topical importance that involves the BBC, and that I don't need a clever dick to tell me that I should just turn it off if I don't like it rather than expressing my opinion. The title of this thread may give you a clue as to why I commented on this particular programme rather than others!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 07:15 PM

Well I hate Casualty and Holby City and Eastenders and Pointless and Eggheads and Question Of Sport and Call The Midwife and Songs Of Praise and Waterloo Road and Masterchef and Bakeoff and anything about buying houses in the country. Not to speak of the whole content of both Radio 1 and Radio 2 and anything that has Graham bloody Norton in it. I have, as a licence fee payer, the right to have an opinion on all this dross, and I do have. But I love the Beeb, and I love paying my very good value licence fee. I love, for example, watching football, but, in order to watch just four months of top-league footie, much of which I can already get on free channels or on BT Sport, for that alone I'd have to pay as much as for one year of that Beeb licence fee which covers EVERYTHING that the Beeb has on offer. So do continue to be on your high horse apropos of your precious licence fee about ONE programme and ONE bloke you don't like. Consider that you are not alone on this planet, that nothing (not even Wolf Hall) will ever please everybody, and that, if you still don't like it, you can always go and watch all those bloody adverts on ITV!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: melodeonboy
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 06:32 PM

So both MGM-Lion and Steve Shaw seem to think that if you don't like Clarkson, then the simple answer is to turn him off. As a licence fee player, I do believe I have a right to have an opinion on his suitability for employment, especially as I imagine my licence fee goes towards paying the wages of those who appear on the BBC!

There is also the issue of his being a role model for younger people. I'm aware that a lot of adolescents - and probably younger children too - watch Top Gear. It's a matter of concern if adolescents end up believing that the kind of ideas and behaviour propagated by Clarkson are acceptable in civilised society. This latter issue has been raised many times with reference to the behaviour of professional footballers. It should apply to anyone that we feel has influence on our young people.

If it is found that he has assaulted a colleague, then he should face the same sanction that I - and the average man in the street - would face, i.e. sacking!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 05:31 PM

they believe in demonising those whom they apparently feel superior to

Errm, kettle-pan, pan-kettle. Have you met before?

Scuse me while I go and throw up...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,BrendanB
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 05:03 PM

I've seen Top Gear and don't like it. I think that Clarkson is a twat. It is alleged that he threw a punch at a producer. I have had artistic differences with people who lost it and lashed out. It's no big deal. Like I say, I think that Clarkson is twat, but he is a twat who brings in loadsamoney, and will no doubt be given another 'last chance'.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 04:31 PM

For all who agree with Steve's
"I was not aware that either Stephen Fry or Jeremy Clarkson were in the business of trying to restrict anyone's "free speech","

The point which I made and which you failed to comprehend, is that neither of them practice what they preach, they believe in demonising those whom they apparently feel superior to, or those who disagree with them ideologically.

One by sneering and bullying, the other by weasel words and the peddling of mythology.

Well, whether you agree with any of this post or not, I fail to see what it has to do with restricting anyone's "free speech". Incidentally, I should like to know precisely what this poster thinks Mr Fry or Mr Clarkson are "preaching" about. Any example of such "preaching" would be useful.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 04:22 PM

In places where I have worked an alledged assault on a colleague meant instant suspension (on full pay) pending an enquiry. The only fault on the part of the Beeb was treating Clarkson like they would anybody else.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Squeezer
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 04:14 PM

The problem for the Beeb is that he was given a final warning for mumbling something unspeakably racist on screen a little while back. On the one hand, management has to stick to HRE policies and procedures so that all staff are treated the same, particularly as an assault on a colleague is a pretty serious offence. On the other, the Beeb now owns all rights to the show since buying Clarkson's share of Top Gear (for £8.4m) a couple of years back. If it all goes belly up then they lose an enormous amount of revenue.

Saturday's show was not filmed, so no doubt some lash-up is being frantically rushed into production right now, and sleb lists scanned for a possible replacement. Finding a mouthy petrol head shouldn't be an insurmountable problem, and no doubt JC will be forgotten history in a matter of weeks. Whether or not he will be given another chance later is anyone's guess as he has annoyed Auntie quite a lot in the past, most notably in the Argentina debacle. Incidentally, I don't think he was fired and then re-hired in the past - I think it was a suspension.

Perhaps it's time for a wholesale replacement of presenters and a break from the tiresome know-it-alls who prattle on about brake horse power and compression ratios. Dara O'Briain and the Mock the Week line-up would be a refreshing change. Or Jo Brand. Or Wallace and Grommit.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 03:59 PM

For all who agree with Steve's
"I was not aware that either Stephen Fry or Jeremy Clarkson were in the business of trying to restrict anyone's "free speech","

The point which I made and which you failed to comprehend, is that neither of them practice what they preach, they believe in demonising those whom they apparently feel superior to, or those who disagree with them ideologically.

One by sneering and bullying, the other by weasel words and the peddling of mythology.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,BrendanB
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 03:31 PM

I have watched 'Top Gear', don't like it, don't like Clarkson. He's accused of throwing a punch at a producer. I have had creative disagreements with people that have ended up with someone losing it and lashing out. It's not really that big a thing. I suspect that someone has overreacted because Clarkson is a twat. But he's a twat who brings in loadsamoney, and as such will no doubt be given another chance.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 03:13 PM

"I was not aware that either Stephen Fry or Jeremy Clarkson were in the business of trying to restrict anyone's "free speech", whatever other sins they might be guilty of. As for Clarkson's "catering for the 'yobbish right'", well I know a good few lefties who love Top Gear and a few right-wingers who think he's a complete twat. He's doing no such thing. Like all light entertainment telly programme celebs, he's catering for people who like to flop into a chair for half an hour with a cup of tea or glass of beer in hand who want to indulge in a bit of escapism. Harmless fun for the most part, peddled by three blokes who don't mind taking the piss out of themselves. If you don't like it turn it off."

Couldn't agree more, Steve. Spot on. 👍

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 03:05 PM

Richard, Musket claims to be 3 people, so it was only a one in three chance of this one being "Mithers."

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Gurney
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 02:55 PM

Oh, by the way, the Beeb did sack Clarkson from the show once before, the ratings dropped away, and they quietly reinstated him.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 02:53 PM

Can Top gear survive without Clarkson ?

Easy - just give the job to Stephen Fry.. or.. Graham Norton, or Alan Carr..

Why not ? they are the hosts of just about every other 'near the knuckle' show on UK telly..

They're all top flight entertainment presenters - why should 'typical' Top Gear fans object to any of them ???

Presumably, at least one of them can drive...???

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Gurney
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 02:51 PM

Steve Shaw, you have it exactly. In my opinion.

My reason for starting this thread is to encourage people to read the comments on the petition, and see how many countries are (sort of) represented. Yes, even Argentina.

Not too impressed by the spelling in some of the English entries, though.

The show has spawned clones in America, Germany, and Australia. Anywhere else?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 02:49 PM

"peddled by three blokes who don't mind taking the piss out of themselves"

Ha!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,MikeL2
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 02:29 PM

hi michael

<" Still can't see quite where my distant-ish sort-of-friend Stephen Fry fits into the discourse, mind.">

Couldn't agree with you more, and indeed with all the comments in your post.

Regards

MikeL2

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 02:01 PM

I was not aware that either Stephen Fry or Jeremy Clarkson were in the business of trying to restrict anyone's "free speech", whatever other sins they might be guilty of. As for Clarkson's "catering for the 'yobbish right'", well I know a good few lefties who love Top Gear and a few right-wingers who think he's a complete twat. He's doing no such thing. Like all light entertainment telly programme celebs, he's catering for people who like to flop into a chair for half an hour with a cup of tea or glass of beer in hand who want to indulge in a bit of escapism. Harmless fun for the most part, peddled by three blokes who don't mind taking the piss out of themselves. If you don't like it turn it off.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Sol
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 01:47 PM

Clarkson is the sole reason the word 'plonker' was invented.
Contrary to quite a few previous posters, I quite like Stephen Fry.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Mr Red
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 01:35 PM

165000 votes, running at about 1000 per hour, from most countries in the world.
in the time I listened to the "Media Show", it jumped from 350,000 to 400,000.

An interesting question but - how many votes from Argentina?

Those that live by the sordid, dye (in the wool) by the..........

FWIW he doesn't do irony (as he thinks), he does bombast. As with all these stories, is this just stupidity or is there an engineered agenda to go for higher fees elswhere? Like Sky?
He isn't stupid, but he is capable of stupidity. It is called believing your own hype.
Is it that important? Top Gear can survive without him, should we want it (?). Whether it will make as much money is a moot point.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 12:30 PM

Silencers of alternative opinions is, if you had not gathered Michael, code for those who will not put up with some of the things that are said on this forum. Quite how Clarkson, one who says the same type of thing, and Fry, one who will rail against it, get to be lumped together can only be explained as the workings of a deranged mind. In my opinion that is.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Selby
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 12:17 PM

The incident is supposed to have happened a week ago. The BBC has been made to look idiots by this, why have the people involved not been called into the bosses office and given their sides of the story, a decision made as to the punishment, then metered out,
Or as the cynic in me thinks, there is no such thing as bad publicity, with a Top Gear Tour taking place, the longer it stays in the news the more tickets we sell.
Keith

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Mr Happy
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 12:05 PM

Horrible man, forever advocating bad driving & celebrating aggressiveness as though it were a virtue

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 11:59 AM

The adjectives should perhaps have been put in quotes,Guest Ed; they were meant to represent the implications of the comments made above, not my own opinions, which obviously, as you imply, I do not have regarding this particular manifestation, having never experienced it. They were, if you reread, presented sort of ironically, as antithetical to the programme's undoubted success.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Ed
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 11:41 AM

Hmmm, MGM·Lion

You say that you've never watched the guy's programme

and yet are able to consider it a terrible, dire, insufferable programme

How does that work?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 11:32 AM

Well M, they are both a certain type of media "celebrity".
One catering for the "yobbish" right, which though only a small section of conservative opinion, is a most voluble one.
Mr Clarkson pretends to champion free speech but only on subjects which he thinks are suitable. In reality he is a silencer of alternative opinions.
Fry on the other hand pretends to represent the whining "liberal" rights orientated, theatrical left, but when cornered into being forced to confront some of the contradictions in his ideology, the beast comes to the surface. In reality he is a silencer of alternative opinions.

"BOOKENDS"

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 11:16 AM

To best of my recollection I have never watched the guy's programme, and have barely heard of him except as one of those names that crop up every now & again as being in some way newsworthy. But if he is really as inept and ineffectual, or else so bullying and oppressive, to hear some of you tell it, why then, how clever of him to present this terrible, dire, insufferable programme, that would nevertheless appear to have a firm viewer fanbase, excellent ratings, &c &c &c... The guy must surely be doing something right?

≈M≈

Still can't see quite where my distant-ish sort-of-friend Stephen Fry fits into the discourse, mind...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Peter
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 11:10 AM

Has he hit someone? I thought no-one had the full details yet.
"Allegedly" according to The Times.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 10:44 AM

Look on the bright side. The USA has Ann Coulter.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 10:30 AM

Has he hit someone? I thought no-one had the full details yet. Surely, if he had, he would also be guilty of assault and liable for criminal prosecution? Richard? Until we do know the details I think such speculation is useless.

Punkfolkrocker - Yes :-)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 10:25 AM

It was less a comment on people's taste, more a comment on the sheep mentality of people in general. We live in a world where ignorance and violence is lauded on a daily basis, as the Clarkson debacle shows. He can hit someone far less protected by the BBC than himself and yet nigh on half a million people (and counting) think this kind of bullying is OK. By signing that petition people become complicit in the bullying that's taken place.

It's never fun to be on the receiving end of the consequences of some alpha male dick-swinger's (or the female equivalent) inferiority complex manifesting itself in the vicinity of your own person.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 10:21 AM

So what's the big deal then, that this petition has amassed world wide signatures
from a few hundred thousand fanboy reactionary wannabe 'alpha males'...???

hmmmm... and so many of the signatures from nation's notorious for unenlightened & intolerant attitudes
towards minorities and democratic rights....


Btw... my mrs has absolutely no interest in cars and thinks Clarkson is a complete right wing arsehole,
but she still watches Top Gear because she finds him hilarious...

He's an oafish clown to be laughed at !!!


funny old world....??????

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 10:15 AM

Unfair, Stu. Bad taste is not the prerogative of the masses. Just look at some of the works of art by Tracy Emin and Damian Hirst :-)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Megan L
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 09:55 AM

Why should we pay the BBC if they want to make programmes let them fight for advertising money like everyone else.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 09:50 AM

"Looks like my bad taste is a popular affliction..."

There's safety in numbers. Baaaa!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 09:42 AM

I obviously enjoy utter shite then.

The BBC reckon that the main show and the franchised ones between them get over a billion viewers per episode.

Looks like my bad taste is a popular affliction...

A rather well known celebrity appears to have acted a bit like a prima donna. And they say there is no such thing as bad publicity? The Top Gear Roadshows taking place from the end of next month were already sold out before this.

I suppose it is a problem when you create a character for the telly and shallow fools talk as if the character exists. Meanwhile, the nutter on the radio today who said paying him out of licence fee money is wrong fails to notice how wrong his jibe is. Jeremy Clarkson brings in millions and millions to subsidise The BBC.

Meanwhile, one of the best programmes worth watching in my opinion has been dropped. A bit of a bugger really.

Back to watching old QI repeats on Dave Sunday night then. (someone said the excellent documentary Stephen Fry did about the stigma of mental health is on one of the other channels this weekend. Worth a re watch.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 08:23 AM

Clarkson reminds me of one of those bullies at school who was always on the periphery of the gang of year toughs but wasn't accepted by them. The bully always had a witty admirer under his wing to do his bidding (snitching etc) and give him a sense of importance as the admirer constantly fawned over him.

These bullies would never take on anyone that could beat them, and for folk like me in the lower social/educational strata they made our lives a misery. All the lads and girls in our class who were crap at sports because we were too skinny and weak (me), fat (my mate), weren't very academic, undiagnosed dyslexics, gay, struggled with learning or had any other of the myriad of character/physical traits that drew the ire of this sort of person were constantly and continually bullied through school. Then one day one of these bullies would push someone too far and one of us would hit them and we were left alone . . . until we were caught alone at some point later. We laughed at them for their one-dimensionality and stupidity, but we feared them for sure.

Ultimately people like Clarkson are mediocrities. Outwardly funny, capable of pulling off some good (if rather obvious) pranks but actually a seriously insecure individual whose only way of coping with his issues is by taking it out on others and constantly drawing attention of himself. They actually contribute little to wider society and give the appearance they couldn't care less about it when the rely on it for everything that makes them who they are.

He's one of many of these types in the media and wider establishment (see UKIP/Tories?Labour/LibDems for starters). A boorish, insecure and ultimately one-dimensional mediocrity that constantly seeks approval for his immature and sadly pathetic character.

Top Gear has been utter shite for many, many years.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 08:17 AM

The man creates excellent free publicity for himself and the programme as a sort of anti hero. Not surprising he is a cult figure. If the Beeb fire him , he'll still back on our screens working for another channel and a new programme or talk show.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 07:58 AM

Now, now, Michael. Leave poor Ake alone. After all, Clarkson and Fry do both have testicles and relatively deep voices. What more in common do you want!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 07:55 AM

Melodeo -- you too could quite easily "see the back of him" insofar as you pesonally are concerned, by the simple expedient of not switching on to his programme. Why all this censoriousness, FCOL!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: melodeonboy
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 07:51 AM

A vile man with vile ideas. A thug with the advantage of a good education and a veneer of blokey "humour". I'd love to see the back of him.
Are all those people who want to reinstate him actually aware of what he is, or are they just happy to watch a know-it-all oik driving a high performance car?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 07:50 AM

Then why watch the bloody programme, Al, for crying out loud, if you hate it so much? It's perfectly optional, you know.

Ake -- I don't think it's just that he is a fairly distant but affable acquaintance, from Cambridge theatre days and later the Groucho Club, which makes me wonder quite what you have against Stephen Fry, & where you see any sort of similarity [even if only polarity-wise] to Clarkson: or indeed any relevance whatsoever on his part to this thread. Seems to me you have sort of determination to intrude him here for the sole purpose of exercising some sort of denunciatory mnemonic bias. Why?

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 07:43 AM

We don't know yet what he's supposed to have done. I don't like him much and I don't watch Top Gear that often, but he strikes me as being a bit of a parody of himself. And if he earns the Beeb enough to keep me licence fee down...

As for Stephen Fry, well, he's a very intelligent gay man. Hey, Akenaton, why don't you like him? Wouldn't you have thought that absolute opposites in every respect would attract...?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 07:25 AM

well i think any programme about cars would be a hard sell to me.

but the guy's such a twat. most of us buy cars that he thinks are below his dignity to comment on. yet it would actually be useful to have someone who actually notices the stuff that is important to ordinary people.

availabilty of auto model
price
luggage space.
loading facility.
leg room
ease of moving the seats, putting the back down.
is there alip on the back.
motability terms
diesel or petrol
mpg

instead we have three arseholes buggering about in maseratis. it reminds me of when the PE dept at a school organised a skittles evening. no one else got a look in. the PE teachers monopolised the skittles - the rest of us sat round bored shitless.

Clarkson would have been a good PE teacher. so disinterested in the human condition, as is.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 07:21 AM

There is no such thing as publicity. discuss.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 07:11 AM

Huge similarities between Clarkson and Fry.....nothing whatever to do with their sexual preferences.

In short, both are ego driven balloons and cynical manipulative bullies, in equal measure.

Don't start me on about Fry, who in his own peculiar way is as crass and creepy as Clarkson.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 06:36 AM

And recall his on-screen bullying of little Hamster.

Do you not think that was staged, Richard? I do, but I could be wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 06:34 AM

Try to keep up with the facts, Mither. And refresh your memory of Clarkson's attempts to block rights of way. And recall his on-screen bullying of little Hamster. On that one the big arse deserved to be thrown down the mountain after the hardtop to the car the Hamster was driving. Clarkson is vile.