BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Mar 15 - 05:54 PM

On the number of names on the petition to reinstate the arse,

A chap being interviewed on the subject on BBC radio this morning, said, "Why cant we get 900,000 signatures for something which really matters"

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

seen in car spares store last week

'The only tool left in this vehicle is the driver'

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: The Sandman
Date: 15 Mar 15 - 03:47 PM

I dont have a television, thank god.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Mar 15 - 03:04 PM

You can get rid of him very quickly by turning the telly off. Why torture yourself?

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

How can anyone like him he's a bully and the quicker we get rid of him.
The better

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 15 Mar 15 - 02:45 PM

You should write for astrology magazines. Their readers go in for that sort of stuff.

(PFR - learn from the master. Shimrod gives a master class in sensationalism there....)
😎

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 15 Mar 15 - 12:50 PM

I read somewhere that Clarkson, May and Hammond's contracts with the BBC expire this year sometime. Perhaps this latest "fracas" has got something to do with 'burning bridges'? After all, JC is supposed to have voluntarily reported the incident to the Beeb management.

Perhaps there's a big, juicy contract, from some other broadcaster, lurking just around the corner (?) I wonder if the 'fracasticated' producer will move with them ? Was it, I wonder, a smart career move, on his part, to pose as a victim ?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Mar 15 - 10:46 AM

that reply was in response to Steve - didn't see your comment while I typing Musk..

me, sensationalist...??? how outrageous !!! 😜

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 15 Mar 15 - 10:41 AM

what - unfair to Saville ? or Clarkson ...????

As much as I dislike the idea of Clarkson, at least the blustering buffoon has a robust sense of humour...

Apparently more so than some of his over defensive fanboys...???

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 15 Mar 15 - 10:35 AM

I'm an ex miner who has been a disc jockey and lots of voluntary work in hospitals. Yet somehow, I don't think comparing my background to that of Saville is appropriate.

So comparing Clarkson, who's only similarity is being from Yorkshire and appearing on the telly isn't a good idea either.

Rather disappointed really PFR, you don't tend to be so sensationalist.

That said, your description of him as a caricature of what some think he is, is on the button

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Mar 15 - 10:24 AM

It was still an unfair and completely uncalled-for juxtaposition, no matter how carefully you try to explain it away.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 15 Mar 15 - 08:41 AM

"the celebrity industry"

Interesting turn of phrase.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 15 Mar 15 - 08:32 AM

Careful who you choose to dismiss as stupid...

My earlier sardonic 'comparison' was in regard to any institutions
cynical 'turn a blind eye' dependency on a cash cow celebrity,
to the extent of being in a state of denial of that celeb's 'problematic personal qualities'....

.. of course some folks can only read what they want to read
despite the reality and any other possible interpretations of other folks intended meanings.....???

Saville was an evil predatory rapist paedo
Clarkson is just an entertainingly oafish caricature of a boorish smug upper middle class right wing arsehole..

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 15 Mar 15 - 08:01 AM

He was compared with Saville earlier on this thread too..

Plus someone with a rudimentary understanding of law said he should be in prison.

Without such stupidity, the celebrity industry would falter through lack of punters I suppose.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Mar 15 - 07:43 AM

Sorry broken link - Fixed here

I hope.

If not, C&P this instead

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/11473066/BBC-boss-likens-Jeremy-Clarkson-to-Jimmy-Savile-after-establishment-support.html

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Mar 15 - 07:40 AM

And now someone at the Beeb is likening Clarkson to Savile.

Whether you are for or against the bloke, it looks like he is being hung out to dry.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 08:31 AM

Dunno. I once poured a pint over a journalist at a gig. Mind you, I was in a rock band, not at a folk club.....



His prediction however turned out to be accurate. We didn't last more than a few months...



Still, the beer was flat and I didn't fancy it.



I never did find out, after slagging us off in "New Wave" why he bothered turning up to a second gig? He was lucky to get my pint, the drummer offered to slip him a length.

Dry.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 07:05 AM

Really, be honest now, who hasn't at some time wanted to punch out a TV producer??? Especially when an OB crew turn up at a folk event and make impossible demands of performers.
Luckily, we're all pacifists here....

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 07:05 AM

My Great Granddad told me all about mods and rockers....

👴

A while ago, The Grauniad had an article that pointed out how the media world looked for Top Gear failures and pounced on them, mainly because no bugger likes runaway success, especially when the success is at the expense of political correctness. Apparently, advertisers prefer readers / listeners who are scared and not capable of forming views. Being BBC, they don't get to influence.

That too was a point of view, and let's face it, the vanilla "light entertainment" attracts the big advertisers, not the insightful documentaries. That said, I find it rather funny that Dave channel can demand more money to advertise half way through an old Top gear that has been repeated to death than something they are showing at prime time for the first time (for them..)

There again, showbiz controllers know that dense people fall for gossip, hence some of the less than intelligent contributions to this thread. I happen to like Top Gear, one of the other Muskets doesn't rate it. But I don't scream for Downton Abbey to be taken down and he doesn't want to deprive me of Top Gear.

(Or Wheeler Dealers, Fifth Gear etc etc. My goggle box needs are few but tasteful.)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 06:45 AM

Not not harsh, harsh. :-(

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 06:44 AM

Well, that's a violent suggestion which is meant to counter an act of almost infinitely less violence. Not harsh? It's bloody awful.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,BrendanB
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 06:32 AM

A quote from the New Statesman-

'If all the signatories (to the petition to reinstate Clarkson) were boiled down for biofuel the world would be a cleaner, better place. We live in a world of stupid and Clarkson is its king'.

It's a point of view I suppose - if a little harsh.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 06:12 AM

Oop north we had nebs too. I seem to recall that a neb was a rocker who couldn't afford a motorbike. Or was it scooterless mod....

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 05:58 AM

You must be nearly as old as me to remember Mods & Rockers

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 05:57 AM

LoL Musket ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Mr Red
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 05:15 AM

Yesterday's Matt cartoon in the Telegrope somewhat like this:

"Farrage, Clegg & Milliband. Perfect shoe-in for Top Gear replacement".

Other policians are available..............

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 03:36 AM

The mind of the rocker isn't much clearer...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 03:33 AM

As ever, the mind of the mod is most mysteriously mind-boggling...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 02:10 AM

One or two innocuous banter posts missing.

Presumably The USA has gone from funding the likes of Noraid to shock and awe at the first hint of foreigners showing aggression to each other.

Funny really because the word moderation means a reasoned approach.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 04:56 PM

Probably just as important as Dick Miles and folk music...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: The Sandman
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 04:52 PM

Is any of this important?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 04:03 PM

Yeah, that was me. McMusket was swatting flies earlier in the thread though.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 10:05 AM

I don't watch them either, Muskie! Like at least one of you (probably all three!), I actually have a life! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Howard Jones
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 09:23 AM

There is a lot of speculation about what happened. All that has been said officially is that there was a 'fracas' - an unusual choice of words but presumably one which was used deliberately and carefully. If he was alleged to have actually struck someone, why not say so? Those who dislike Clarkson naturally assume the worst, but I suspect the situation is a lot more complex.

Nevertheless it puts the BBC in a difficult position. Violence in the workplace cannot be tolerated, but the show is chiefly built around the personalities of the presenters and the chemistry between them, and of all of them Clarkson would be the hardest to replace. The BBC must have been well aware of this when they bought out his share in the show only a couple of years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 09:18 AM

I'd read the Coogan bit at the time. Fair comment. He is welcome to my comments too. I haven't met nor been a mate of Clarkson so he has an insight I don't but there again, I don't look for insight, just light entertainment to wash over me.

I enjoy Top Gear, it's a laugh. Most of the pisstaking is at the expense of the presenters by the other presenters and Clarkson in his Top gear magazine articles says how amazed how the more outrageous he gets, the more some people take him at face value.

I have never seen Strictly Come Dancing, Knobenders, Emmerdale Farm, Big Brother, any of the talent shows of recent years, the Voice etc etc, and whilst I admit to keeping quiet and tacitly watching Corrie years ago, the main characters were Albert Tatlock and Ena Sharples the last time I saw it.

Yet amazingly, I don't scream that these shows are a waste of money and that Simon Cowell should be put in a wicker man and burned.

I ain't that selfish for one thing, and let's face it, if everybody had my wisdom, talent, common sense and love of arts, I'd have no peasants to look down on.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 08:53 AM

I didn't say it wasn't still relevant, did I! As a matter of fact, I agree with a lot of it. Not all of it, but a lot of it.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 08:40 AM

4 years old - so what..

That Coogan link is still a very good relevant read..

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 08:16 AM

"Says something about the show's popularity that it's still going strong a full four years after that article, though! ;-)"

LOL! Can't dispute that, Steve! Didn't see that it was an old article until it was too late - f***ing internet!! 😃

But the fact that it's grown whiskers doesn't detract from its truth AFAIC.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 08:04 AM

wellllll.... as I'm sure Clarkson's fervent fanboys might agree..

it's all about the unacceptable limits of transgressive non PC humour.. innit.. ?????

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 07:56 AM

Comparing light entertainment to raping children and vulnerable adults?

Losing the plot PFR?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 07:40 AM

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

Sound very much like the obnoxious clowns on Fux "News"[sic] or Limbaugh & Beck over here across the pond. And thousands of USAsians love THOSE assholes, too.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 07:04 AM

"Makes one wonder just how much the Beeb makes from Top Gear....

... His product makes millions and millions that then subsidises the programmes they make nothing out of.
Or at least according to successive annual reports of The BBC Trust and its predecessor."

If I was the kind of person prone to hysterical overstatement I could say something along the lines of....

"Clarkson has become such a powerful and untouchable money magnet cash cow
that he's now to the Beeb
what Saville was to Children's hospitals...???"

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 06:16 AM

Says something about the show's popularity that it's still going strong a full four years after that article, though! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 02:35 AM

This says everything that needs to be said, AFAIC.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: melodeonboy
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 02:07 AM

Accepted, Steve! Thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 02:07 AM

I confess to watching repeats of Top Gear on the 'Dave' channel. I must have seen some episodes at least twice ... pathetic, I know ... but what else is there to do on a winters evening when you're retired? The only episodes that I actively disapprove of are those featuring that intensely annoying little speccy twerp, Chris Evans! I have no interest in cars, by the way - I don't even drive these days.

Top Gear appears to be in a peculiar position; it has an extremely successful formula which is quite a long way past its 'sell-by-date'. Perhaps this latest Clarkson scandal is part of an elaborate ploy to revamp it (?)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Gurney
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 12:44 AM

There are now several petitions that Mr. J. Clarkson be sacked. Their joint totals stand at less than 8000.
The one petition to reinstate him stands at 642000. And is much more fun to watch. Votes coming in from Bangladesh, Iran, and Iraq....

Makes one wonder just how much the Beeb makes from Top Gear.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 09:19 PM

Sorry, Melodeonboy, for being a bit heavy there !   :-(

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stanron
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 09:15 PM

Bearing in mind that it is now viewed in 170 countries, and that the BBC is concerned with the loss of revenue that may now occur, the idea that we, the licence fee payers, pay Clarkson's salary is looking a bit silly. It's more likely that the absence of Top Gear and the worldwide income it generates would mean an increase in the TV licence.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: vectis
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 08:58 PM

Top Gear in its present format is a world wide hit because of (not despite) the three presenters and the different characters they have created. It is not real life just three petrolheads having fun and being entertaining. Graham Norton and Alan Carr are merely annoying little ticks, I them turn off.

Top Gear used to be about cars people could afford and sensible tests of them were made. When Tiff Nidell (not sure about the surname)set up his own show on Channel 4 which continued to cover motorsport and affordable cars it sunk quite quickly. People got bored with it in a few seasons. People don't get bored with Top Gear. It is sold all over the World. The American version is not anywhere near as funny (we get both in New Zealand)or as entertaining.
The Beeb will have to stop the show completely - and maybe it has had its day now - or reinstate Clarkson if he just got uppity but didn't actually hit someone. If he did bash a producer the Police should have been called at the time. End of.