BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.

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: 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: 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 - 02:55 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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.

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: 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: 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: 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: melodeonboy
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 02:07 AM

Accepted, Steve! Thanks.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 08:40 AM

4 years old - so what..

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

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

Is any of this important?

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: 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: 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 - 03:36 AM

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

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: MGM·Lion
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 05:57 AM

LoL Musket ;-)

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: 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: 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 - 06:44 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: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 06:45 AM

Not not harsh, harsh. :-(

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.)