• ℹ️ Heads up...

    This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.

Top gear

BigT said:
Why should you be sacked for punching someone in a hotel unless you work there?
It's not a place of work even if you are work colleagues once you get back to your lodgings you are no longer at work.
.
Click to expand...

isnt that the same as seeing your boss while shopping in the local poundland and giving him a good kicking.
turning up for work on monday morning and then wondering why you have been sacked?:sweat:
 
BigT said:
Sam have you ever even stopped in a hotel let alone for work?
Click to expand...

Err... I've stayed in hotels literally hundreds of times, including a few times for work. I've never physically assaulted anyone over food because I'm not an awful human being.

BigT said:
His job was to organise the food, he didn't, a hungry man is an angry man.
Click to expand...

Listen up, battered housewives of Britain! Those marks on your cheek? It's your own fault, really, you should have got that sandwich ready on time little miss! Us men can't be expected to react with any shred of humanity if we're hungry...
 
A facebook acquaintance of mine was posting comments in support of Jeremy Clarkson saying 'well haven't you ever had to deal with someone who deserves a punch?' as a justification.

The irony is that he is the first person to repost examples (often Daily Mail articles) of benefit claimants, immigrants, and other dis-empowered people committing violent crimes so that he can take the opportunity to scream about them being 'yobos' and 'thugs'

I feel this sort of sums up the attitude of a lot of Clarkson's defenders. Judging crimes unequally and essentially acting as morality cherry pickers.

Clarkson committed common assault against another person, and his reason was catering. There is no way this cannot be interpreted as an act of thuggery which needs all round condemnation and a justified sacking, which thankfully has transpired.
 
I really enjoy top gear. however, Clarkson cross the line big style with this. I have seen some report in the media that the 30 mins of verbal abuse was during the time the producer was trying to find a way of satisfying Clarksons want of a hot meal.

If Clarksons wants to be a massive diva, and get to the point of physically assaulting a colleague. He should be sacked, The thing is other broadcasters will be lining up at his agents door trying to sign him up to them.

I hope it go to court and he up doing community service in a G-Wiz or Toyota Prius. maybe cleaning fatburgs out of london's sewers

Sam said:
..........Us men can't be expected to react with any shred of humanity if we're hungry...
Click to expand...
That sounds like a line out of a well know chocolate bar advert :D
 
lets face it he's not been sacked. Go to a different broadcaster get paid a boat load and still be Jeremy Clarkson. The producer has lost his job anyway so he did indeed git the sack. The BBC will get Clarkson back. The producer will get a job on homes under the hammer with Dion Dublin.

physical violence is never ok. Verbal abuse is not either. But we have to say we are not in the full knowledge of the facts. 30mins of abuse is a long time for one man to shout at another.
 
I hate to break it to some people, but their lines are scripted and their actions staged.

The current format began to wear very thin in recent years and there have been literally two or three funny moments per series. If you think the three of them are still worth watching then don't worry as they'll appear on Sky or Netflix soon enough. However note that unless the people that script their lines and stage their actions, the three of them might be exposed as the past-its they are.

Top Gear and the BBC will certainly survive, also.
 
I don't think you're breaking anything Tom, those facts have been well known for years. A clever yet obvious ploy by the BBC to keep people entertained and watching, and it undoubtedly worked. Like any scripted TV show, you're drawn in by the characters. It's by no fault of the three of them that the subject of the show is not that appealing to a particular audience, hence why the scripts and scenarios were devised to entice that audience in.

Without that formula and line up, the show is certainly going to flop as the audience seeking those personalities will have gone elsewhere.

I have complete faith that the BBC will draw up a new format and reboot it, but the success of it remains to be seen.

As for Clarkson going to Sky, both themselves and Channel 4 have stated they have no intentions whatsoever on hiring him.
 
What I was getting at is that it's the staff behind the scenes that create the programme. Yes the three presenters are huge icons to people but other high-profile people could be brought it and it would be relatively successful still.

If however the people behind the scenes all jump ship as well then it could be a very different story.
 
Andy Wilman and Clarkson are the brains behind the scripts and are best friends.
They will go to ITV as Netflix doesn't have a big enough audience for their ego's.

Top Gear is dead as a nuns knickers.
 
top gear just needs to get back to how it was 10 years ago when, bizarrely, it was a car programme. With guest and some stunts that were not over scripted. Keep it basic. Don't have false arguments, remember those days fondly. After hammonds accident they had a peak. Africa trip, Vietnam trip. Both good not over done.
 
I think it's sad the current Top Gear had to end this way. I've grown up watching it with my Dad and looking forward to the Christmas/series specials for ages.
I've heard different reports from the media of what Clarkson did surrounding the incident but yeah, it was not good or justified at all. I personally still like Clarkson and would follow him and the others to future projects, probably because of my happy memories watching them throughout the years although I don't condone what happened at all.
 
BigT said:
What I DO find interesting though is the BBC rushed out this announcement with such speed after Cameron wrong footed Miliband and announced a freeze on VAT at PMQ that they didn't even have the VT ready.
BBC=Labours communication wing, no wonder the Tories are going to scrap it after they win the election.
Click to expand...

Humorous article by Mark Steel, demolishing the rather ridiculous notion that the BBC is 'Labour's communication wing', given how many top Tories work there.

That you, someone who thinks that the Tories will abolish the BBC in the next parliament and that being hungry gives you the right to assault someone, have the same number of votes as anyone else in this thread is an illustration of what is wrong with democracy.
 
:weary:
Sam said:
That you, someone who thinks that the Tories will abolish the BBC in the next parliament and that being hungry gives you the right to assault someone, have the same number of votes as anyone else in this thread is an illustration of what is wrong with democracy.
Click to expand...

What?:weary::weary::weary:

I see it as my right to vote to protect us higher tax band payers from your ridiculous Marx socialist ideology that tries to steal all of our money.

Back on subject I see the director general of the BBC has had death threats now.
I enjoy Clarkson as much as the next person but I think that's going a bit far.
Just abolishing the license fee tax will be sufficient.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top