BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.

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 - 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,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: 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: 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,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: GUEST,#
Date: 15 Mar 15 - 08:41 AM

"the celebrity industry"

Interesting turn of phrase.

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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: The Sandman
Date: 15 Mar 15 - 03:47 PM

I dont have a television, thank god.

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: 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: Nigel Parsons
Date: 15 Mar 15 - 07:57 PM

From: Backwoodsman - PM
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.
"Says something about the show's popularity"?
Says a damn sight more about the BBC and their inability to act when one of their Prima Donnas (sorry: "big money spinners") is cited.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Thompson
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 02:58 AM

It's all about money, according to this piece in the Standard, the paper Londoners read on the Tube.
And an account of what (allelgedly) happened in the 'fracas' (good old journalistic word, seldom used other than in newspapers, where it's a nice size for a headline and usefully bland) in the Metro, another Tube paper.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 03:10 AM

The business of business is business.

Meanwhile. I enjoyed the red arrows documentary. But it wasn't my weekly fix of Top Gear.

I am fascinated by the comment by Goatfell. Who are "we" and what will be "better"?

Millions of people will miss their favourite TV programme and The BBC will lose millions and millions in franchise sales.

I signed the petition. You don't buy a petrol lawnmower then not use it because its noisy.
Clarkson's ironic irreverent waffle and loutish behaviour is a feature, so there is no use having a puppy and blaming it for shitting on the carpet.

More analogies to follow. Unless you ask me nicely not to.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 04:24 AM

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

I'm not familiar with astrology magazines, Musket. But as you appear to be, perhaps you could recommend one?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 06:04 AM

Reminds me of a comic recently bemoaning that a Tory MP said The NHS should use astrology to help predict prognosis.

He said, speaking as a consultant addressing a patient;

"let's see now. It says here you are a cancer. There's a coincidence."









"You've got crabs "

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 06:49 AM

Funny that, I had an electric band once, and have been a DJ as well. Bugger, too damned like Mither.

It does bother me a bit that success as a "light entertainer" seems to come mainly to arseholes - Ant and Dec, Moyles, Clarkson, Woth, the Sex Insect, Tony Blackburn, Mike Read, Oprah, Kyle, Juicy Brucie, oh, and who was that twerp who was rude to contestants, then drugged and anally raped a straight guy and drowned him in his swimming pool?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 07:13 AM

I think his name was Richard Bridge

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 07:44 AM

Michael Barrymore?


----
Back to Clarkson. I've noticed that he was the one that's supposed to have reported the incident to the BBC. Could Clarkson quite wilfully have engineered the whole thing, perhaps leaving the BBC with little option but to suspend him?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 10:07 AM

"Could Clarkson quite wilfully have engineered the whole thing, perhaps leaving the BBC with little option but to suspend him?"

See my post of 15-Mar-15 - 12:50 PM, which Musket dismissed with some nonsense about astrology. My post was supposed to be 'tongue-in-cheek' - but the patronising Musket appears to have taken it at face value and can go f**k himself; perhaps too much watching of JC in Top Gear has rubbed off on him?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 10:28 AM

I don't know. I''ve not watched long enough to know if it can have that sort of side effect. Two reasons for this:

1. I've largely lost interest in cars. As a maybe 15 year old, being taken to the Motor Show in Earls Court was a thrill. Seeing the Lambourghinis, getting to look at a Panther (anyone else remember these sort of vintage looking sports cars?) was nice, etc. I used to sort of want to be able to identify every car on the road but, now in my 50's a car is just something that gets you from A to B and without looking at badges, I couldn't tell you what's on the road these days...

2. I've found the bits I've seen of Top Gear irritating and exercise the switch off/change channels/change room options.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Nick
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 11:51 AM

He's a good entertainer whether you like what he does or not and he's at good at it.

But his behaviour is seemingly of someone who sees themselves as being that important that the world revolves round them. If you keep your helicopter waiting for a couple of hours because you want to stay drinking (I always try to be on time for my helicopter because it's rude not to). If you then take it out on someone because they are not gearing everyone else's world round catering for JC (hmmm... where have I seen those initials before?) then - even if it isn't this time - it is just going to be a matter of time until something else occurs.

If you are THAT self important and give so little thought to others then it usually ends in a bad place. And, thankfully, often a bad place for the self important one. Is that what karma is?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 12:04 PM

On balance Shimrod, I suppose I'd rather fuck myself. Unless you are offering of course.

Like those who don't like Top Gear, you could always keep your eyes shut. Although I guarantee I'll make the buggers water.

Tuesday. You'll meet a tall bald stranger. You'll be grateful.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 12:04 PM

..perhaps the only way Clarkson's true believers would be happy to see him exit the show
would be in a ball of flame head on collision
with a National Express coach full of lefty hippy anti car ownership / pro public transport campaigners...???

Makes you wonder how the 1970s movie "Death Race 2000"
has never been optioned as an international syndicated reality show ?

Clarkson would be the perfect host !!!

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

When I first saw this story I assumed, naively, that it was a professional disagreement and I think violent reaction in a situation where one feels passionate is not difficult to understand. It now transpires that Clarkson punched someone in the mouth for failing to ensure there was a hot meal ready for him as soon as he arrived (two hours late). That is the behaviour of a lout. It is sad that some people's response is to effectively say, 'Yeah, he may have been out of order but he entertains me and so should be allowed to carry on'.
Standards fall when they are subject to equivocation. Clarkson treated another human being as no more than a thing which he could abuse at will. I can see no reason not to make him pay heavily for that.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 03:33 PM

'oafish caricature of a boorish, smug, upper middle class arsehole' i enjoyed this description. nice one - pfr

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 05:01 PM

Pay heavily? My licence fee pays for Songs Of Praise, Thought For The Day, Beyond Belief, Choral Evensong and God knows what at Christmas and Easter. I pay heavily for all that. And it's all propagated by Christian bigots. Give me Clarkson any day. He's a million times more harmless.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 05:34 PM

Pay heavily for what? Did I miss a court case?

No wonder reactionary newspapers make money.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,bigot
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 05:35 PM

I like this defintion of bigot.

"a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices;"

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Thompson
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 05:37 PM

There was a case a few years ago in a Dublin court where a man was brought in for punching his wife because his hot dinner wasn't on the table in time.
"If I see you back here again," the judge said, "I'll send you to a place where your dinner will be on the table in time every day."

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 06:21 PM

"a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices;"

Obstinacy and opinionated do not apply to bigotry. Intolerance would apply only if applied in opposition to reasonable, measured views. Prejudices, fine. If I were you I'd pay far more careful attention as to where you get your definitions.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,bigot
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 06:31 PM

And I wish people would look in the mirror before using my name.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 07:07 PM

We don't know your name, pillock. At least you know mine, don't you? Anyway, would you care to modify your rickety definition of bigotry? Or, at the very least, tell us where you got the definition you like so much?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Thompson
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 07:13 PM

If people are starting to call each other pillocks, I'm getting out of here.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 07:18 PM

Heheh. You haven't been around long, have you, Thompson? Stick around. I apologise. I have been trying harder lately, but I'm a human being and I find some people even more trying.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Thompson
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 08:07 PM

Oh, I've been around a while, Steve. Don't worry; learning the essential human skill of taking a deep breath, stepping back and waiting till your heartbeat slows takes time and dedication.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 08:33 PM

Great. So stick round, pillock!

Only joking, tha knows...!   ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 17 Mar 15 - 02:43 AM

I obstinately cling to my view that everybody has an equal stake and there should be no barriers to opportunity that others enjoy, given access to the same education and chances society offers.

Presumably then my dim view of bigotry makes me a bigot?

I'll accept it makes me a pillock, if beauty is in the eye of the beholder...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 17 Mar 15 - 04:15 AM

Yes, pillock sounds about right.

I don't watch Top Gear as a matter of requirement, but if it is on, carry on watching it. It is good banter, occasionally witty and allows us to laugh at, not with absurdity.

I still chuckle at Clarkson's comments when reviewing the first Audi with the "fairy lights LED set around the headlights. He said it was like a council house at Christmas. Or listening to the engine of one particular supercar, said it sounded like Tom Jones experiencing man love for the first time.

If we lose it, where else are we to rage against the machine?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Howard Jones
Date: 17 Mar 15 - 05:33 AM

In reply to Guest, nothing has 'transpired'. There have been plenty of leaks and rumours, which those who don't like Clarkson are more than happy to believe, and the BBC seems to be briefing against him, albeit on an unattributed basis. The two protagonists have remained silent. We won't know the truth until the enquiry.

What we do know is that something happened resulting in a 'fracas' and that it was sufficiently serious for Clarkson to report it himself.

As for the outcome, who knows? It is not a court of law and may be less interested in abstract justice than in finding a solution which protects the careers of both individuals, not to mention the future of the BBC's biggest cash cow.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Mar 15 - 04:17 PM

poor steve !...his license fee spent on stuff he don't want. I wonder if he is representative of the rest of us that pay. we all have dislikes.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 17 Mar 15 - 04:26 PM

Yeah pete. I like the programmes about the origins of the universe and science. I also like the programmes that take the piss out of loonies who would have children believe creationist claptrap.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Mar 15 - 06:43 PM

I don't like it and I pay heavily for it but I don't watch it and I don't particularly object to the fact it's on. There is a lack of balance, however, in that the trueness of religion is arrogantly assumed to be the default position. Religion is false, therefore should have to struggle for its status, not bathe in the luxury of protected privilege. But don't worry, pete. My licence fee pays for loads of other stuff I don't want, such as tennis, rugby, soap operas and mindless quiz programmes, reality TV and game shows. But I can't possibly "want" everything my licence fee pays for in any case and I'm more than happy that stuff is on that isn't to my taste. I love paying my fee and regard it as exceptional value.