Discussion:
OT - Jeremy Clarkson
(too old to reply)
Greg
2015-03-10 16:56:07 UTC
Permalink
Suspended by BBC

No Top Gear on Sunday.
alister
2015-03-10 20:03:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg
Suspended by BBC
No Top Gear on Sunday.
he has been noticeably silent on twater so I suspect he is taking this
seriously
(clarkson is not the twat he presents as his public persona)
--
<tigah_-> i have 4gb for /tmp
<Knghtbrd> What do you do with 4G /tmp? Compile X?
<tigah_-> yes
Greg
2015-03-10 21:32:55 UTC
Permalink
alister scribbled
Post by alister
Post by Greg
Suspended by BBC
No Top Gear on Sunday.
he has been noticeably silent on twater so I suspect he is taking this
seriously
(clarkson is not the twat he presents as his public persona)
Seems he chinned someone last week.
geoff
2015-03-11 07:43:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg
alister scribbled
Post by alister
Post by Greg
Suspended by BBC
No Top Gear on Sunday.
he has been noticeably silent on twater so I suspect he is taking this
seriously
(clarkson is not the twat he presents as his public persona)
Seems he chinned someone last week.
Because they didn't have the right food on the table at the end of the
shoot. Sounds like confirmation of the twatism that seems from his
other actions. Even if you take away various groups' hyper-sensitivity.

geoff
alister
2015-03-11 08:36:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by geoff
Post by Greg
alister scribbled
Post by alister
Post by Greg
Suspended by BBC
No Top Gear on Sunday.
he has been noticeably silent on twater so I suspect he is taking this
seriously (clarkson is not the twat he presents as his public persona)
Seems he chinned someone last week.
Because they didn't have the right food on the table at the end of the
shoot. Sounds like confirmation of the twatism that seems from his
other actions. Even if you take away various groups' hyper-sensitivity.
geoff
No if true this is a whole different type of twatism.
--
Domain controler not responding
~misfit~
2015-03-12 01:03:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by alister
Post by geoff
Post by Greg
alister scribbled
Post by alister
Post by Greg
Suspended by BBC
No Top Gear on Sunday.
he has been noticeably silent on twater so I suspect he is taking
this seriously (clarkson is not the twat he presents as his public
persona)
Seems he chinned someone last week.
Because they didn't have the right food on the table at the end of
the shoot. Sounds like confirmation of the twatism that seems from
his other actions. Even if you take away various groups'
hyper-sensitivity.
geoff
No if true this is a whole different type of twatism.
Not completely true, a biased account at best.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a
cozy little classification in the DSM."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
~misfit~
2015-03-12 01:02:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by geoff
Post by Greg
alister scribbled
Post by alister
Post by Greg
Suspended by BBC
No Top Gear on Sunday.
he has been noticeably silent on twater so I suspect he is taking
this seriously
(clarkson is not the twat he presents as his public persona)
Seems he chinned someone last week.
Because they didn't have the right food on the table at the end of the
shoot. Sounds like confirmation of the twatism that seems from his
other actions. Even if you take away various groups'
hyper-sensitivity.
geoff
Not 'didn't have right food on the table', it was no hot food at all at the
end of a days shoot.

Please, if you're going to offer information be accurate.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a
cozy little classification in the DSM."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
Bobster
2015-03-12 02:56:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by geoff
Because they didn't have the right food on the table at the end of the
shoot. Sounds like confirmation of the twatism that seems from his
other actions. Even if you take away various groups' hyper-sensitivity.
Reportedly there was some kind of physical assault. In most formal work
situations that would be grounds for dismissal and I don't see how the
BBC cannot do what they're doing - suspend Clarkson (which should mean
that he's paid in the meantime) and hold an enquiry.

There was some crossness in my neck of the woods not so long ago. On
the suburb facebook page people had started calling each other things
like "liar" and "dumbass" and etc. Now this was people who were likely
to bump into each other at the supermarket. There was one particularly
heated incident between a bloke who'd been called a liar and the
bloke who called him that.

"It's just on Facebook. It doesn't matter!"
"Over a 1000 people in this community are signed up for that Facebook
page. You called me a liar in front of the whole suburb."
Or words to those effects.

Clarkson and Co insult whole nations on a show that is syndicated to
over 200 stations world wide. It's not like two blokes sitting at a
pub having a quiet conversation about, say, the work ethic of Mexicans.
They're doing these things on a big international platform. And they
use the national broadcaster to offer these pearls. I'd think that
other folks might get upset.
Brian Lawrence
2015-03-12 11:40:24 UTC
Permalink
Enjoyed today's Matt cartoon:


<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/11243593/Matt-cartoons.html>
--
Brian W Lawrence
Wantage
Oxfordshire
Bobster
2015-03-12 12:05:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by geoff
Post by Greg
alister scribbled
Post by alister
Post by Greg
Suspended by BBC
No Top Gear on Sunday.
he has been noticeably silent on twater so I suspect he is taking this
seriously
(clarkson is not the twat he presents as his public persona)
Seems he chinned someone last week.
Because they didn't have the right food on the table at the end of the
shoot. Sounds like confirmation of the twatism that seems from his other
actions. Even if you take away various groups' hyper-sensitivity.
The "fracas" seems to have been more a matter of aggressive jostling than a
full-scale decking. The producer would have done well to be conciliatory -
I can't see this episode helping his career.
Well, the latest report I read said that really it was Clarkson's fault. The
crew were supposed to be at the hotel by 20:00 but Clarkson wouldn't get out
of the pub. In the meantime the hotel decided that they'd waited long enough
and sent their cooks home. By the time the BBC team did get back to the hotel
the kitchen was closed and cold meat platters were all that was on offer.

Reportedly an inebriated Clarkson then lost his rag, screamed sustain abuse
at the producer and had to be restrained.

If that's all true then I fail to see why the producer should just suck it
up.

We might argue that this incident in isolation is not that serious, but if
it's actually the latest in a series of twatish episodes then it may be
that folks are terminally fed up with Clarkson.
Bigbird
2015-03-12 14:36:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bobster
Post by geoff
Post by Greg
alister scribbled
Post by alister
Post by Greg
Suspended by BBC
No Top Gear on Sunday.
he has been noticeably silent on twater so I suspect he is
taking this >>> seriously
Post by geoff
Post by Greg
Post by alister
(clarkson is not the twat he presents as his public persona)
Seems he chinned someone last week.
Because they didn't have the right food on the table at the end
of the shoot. Sounds like confirmation of the twatism that seems
from his other actions. Even if you take away various groups'
hyper-sensitivity.
The "fracas" seems to have been more a matter of aggressive
jostling than a full-scale decking. The producer would have done
well to be conciliatory - I can't see this episode helping his
career.
Well, the latest report I read said that really it was Clarkson's
fault. The crew were supposed to be at the hotel by 20:00 but
Clarkson wouldn't get out of the pub. In the meantime the hotel
decided that they'd waited long enough and sent their cooks home. By
the time the BBC team did get back to the hotel the kitchen was
closed and cold meat platters were all that was on offer.
Reportedly an inebriated Clarkson then lost his rag, screamed sustain
abuse at the producer and had to be restrained.
If that's all true then I fail to see why the producer should just
suck it up.
We might argue that this incident in isolation is not that serious,
but if it's actually the latest in a series of twatish episodes then
it may be that folks are terminally fed up with Clarkson.
If those people aren't bringing £m's to the table then the sensible
choice is for them to move on... the BBC is big enough to accommodate
plenty of twats... and does.
brafield
2015-03-12 14:57:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bobster
Reportedly an inebriated Clarkson then lost his rag, screamed sustain abuse
at the producer and had to be restrained.
If that's all true then I fail to see why the producer should just suck it
up.
We might argue that this incident in isolation is not that serious, but if
it's actually the latest in a series of twatish episodes then it may be
that folks are terminally fed up with Clarkson.
It has the hallmarks of other long-ignored "gorilla" problem. I fear we will hear more revelations. JC is a clever writer --- if those are his words --- but he reeks of bully and his face and expressions are those of the potential trouble-maker in any bar. Probably hell to work with. Wait till we hear from the junior assistants and secretaries.

In Canada recently we've had a very popular mainstream radio host go down in flames. "Lovely bloke", witty, intelligent, broad minded, etc. Then the rough-sex stories started to come out (he has a childhood teddy bear that he turns to face the wall before he does his things). But once the sex trivia surfaced, the work stories came out: a monster, bully, tyrant, screaming tantrums, his superiors gave in to everything, he was making others write his "material", sky-high demands, privileges. But it had all been covered up. Oh dear, and WE HAD ALL LOVED HIM.

People tend to duck these issues by saying HE/SHE IS SO GOOD AT WHAT THEY DO, AND POPULAR, AND THEY BRING IN THE REVENUE, as though that is the only requirement. If the BBC only wants money, then all standards fly out the window.
Bigbird
2015-03-12 16:48:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by brafield
Post by Bobster
Reportedly an inebriated Clarkson then lost his rag, screamed
sustain abuse at the producer and had to be restrained.
If that's all true then I fail to see why the producer should just
suck it up.
We might argue that this incident in isolation is not that serious,
but if it's actually the latest in a series of twatish episodes
then it may be that folks are terminally fed up with Clarkson.
It has the hallmarks of other long-ignored "gorilla" problem. I fear
we will hear more revelations. JC is a clever writer --- if those are
his words --- but he reeks of bully and his face and expressions are
those of the potential trouble-maker in any bar. Probably hell to
work with. Wait till we hear from the junior assistants and
secretaries.
In Canada recently we've had a very popular mainstream radio host go
down in flames. "Lovely bloke", witty, intelligent, broad minded,
etc. Then the rough-sex stories started to come out (he has a
childhood teddy bear that he turns to face the wall before he does
his things). But once the sex trivia surfaced, the work stories came
out: a monster, bully, tyrant, screaming tantrums, his superiors gave
in to everything, he was making others write his "material", sky-high
demands, privileges. But it had all been covered up. Oh dear, and
WE HAD ALL LOVED HIM.
People tend to duck these issues by saying HE/SHE IS SO GOOD AT WHAT
THEY DO, AND POPULAR, AND THEY BRING IN THE REVENUE, as though that
is the only requirement. If the BBC only wants money, then all
standards fly out the window.
Goodness gracious, now then, now then, the BBC would never let that
happen, guys and gals; goodness gracious.
brafield
2015-03-12 17:43:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bigbird
Goodness gracious, now then, now then, the BBC would never let that
happen, guys and gals; goodness gracious.
Hello Jimmy, Jimmy are you there, can you hear this, Jimmy?
Bruce Hoult
2015-03-12 23:10:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by brafield
Post by Bigbird
Goodness gracious, now then, now then, the BBC would never let that
happen, guys and gals; goodness gracious.
Hello Jimmy, Jimmy are you there, can you hear this, Jimmy?
And those involved in exposing Jimmy have now had career setbacks at the BBC

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/08/bbc-whistleblowers-jimmy-savile
~misfit~
2015-03-13 00:15:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bobster
Post by geoff
Post by Greg
alister scribbled
Post by alister
Post by Greg
Suspended by BBC
No Top Gear on Sunday.
he has been noticeably silent on twater so I suspect he is taking
this seriously
(clarkson is not the twat he presents as his public persona)
Seems he chinned someone last week.
Because they didn't have the right food on the table at the end of
the shoot. Sounds like confirmation of the twatism that seems from
his other actions. Even if you take away various groups'
hyper-sensitivity.
The "fracas" seems to have been more a matter of aggressive jostling
than a full-scale decking. The producer would have done well to be
conciliatory - I can't see this episode helping his career.
Well, the latest report I read said that really it was Clarkson's
fault. The crew were supposed to be at the hotel by 20:00 but
Clarkson wouldn't get out of the pub. In the meantime the hotel
decided that they'd waited long enough and sent their cooks home. By
the time the BBC team did get back to the hotel the kitchen was
closed and cold meat platters were all that was on offer.
Rather a rash decision when you consider that the production team had booked
all 18 rooms in the hotel for the full week and paid them nearly 6K squids
to be 'looked after'.
Post by Bobster
Reportedly an inebriated Clarkson then lost his rag, screamed sustain
abuse at the producer and had to be restrained.
He wasn't told that there were only cold platters or heated up tinned soup
until *after* he'd ordered a steak by all reports.
Post by Bobster
If that's all true then I fail to see why the producer should just
suck it up.
Indeed, "if it's true":

"Last night sources at the BBC suggested that its director of TV, Danny
Cohen, has seized on the incident as the reason he needs to oust the
controversial figure. Insiders have said that Mr Cohen, who will help decide
Clarkson's fate, is "out to get" the star."

Also; "The BBC could face a huge bill from the foreign broadcasters it sells
the show to for failing to deliver a full series."

(From;
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=11416587 )
Post by Bobster
We might argue that this incident in isolation is not that serious,
but if it's actually the latest in a series of twatish episodes then
it may be that folks are terminally fed up with Clarkson.
But which 'folks'? The millions who watch his show or the few who are paid
good money to produce it? It's not his co-stars as, although it's being
reported that *Clarkson* stayed on at a pub for hours drinking and so was
late for dinner, when asked May said he doesn't remember much as he was
"blind drunk" at the time. Selective reporting as it's obvious it wasn't
just Clarkson who wanted to stay at the pub having a few drinks after a days
work, before heading off for dinner.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a
cozy little classification in the DSM."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
Bobster
2015-03-13 03:30:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~misfit~
But which 'folks'? The millions who watch his show or the few who are paid
good money to produce it?
Obviously mostly the latter, but I think some of the former as well. Not
everybody approves when Clarkson is, for example, deliberately flattening
trees or making petty racist jokes about Asian people.

And how well are those people being paid and does it matter? We know that
a large chunk of the profits from Top Gear go into Clarkson's pocket. We
know he is one of the highest paid, if not the highest paid, BBC
personality. The production staff aren't earning in his league and aren't
getting a share of the merchandising deals. And I doubt their job
description includes anything like "putting up with repeated twatishness".
Post by ~misfit~
It's not his co-stars as, although it's being
reported that *Clarkson* stayed on at a pub for hours drinking and so was
late for dinner, when asked May said he doesn't remember much as he was
"blind drunk" at the time.
But nobody's saying "the problem is that May and Hammond wouldn't get out
the pub". Maybe it's because they just sat back and had another until
Jezza decided he'd had enough.
Post by ~misfit~
Selective reporting as it's obvious it wasn't
just Clarkson who wanted to stay at the pub having a few drinks after a days
work, before heading off for dinner.
Not necessarily. We know that others were at the pub, including some who
thought it was a good idea to get back to the hotel. Who was keeping them
there is another matter.

Clarkson will, of course, win a popularity contest and there are reportedly
a large number of people who want Top Gear reinstated because it's a good
show and they are well entertained by it. They don't have to work with him.

The incident and the reactions to it, remind me of the sacking of Kevin
Pietersen. There were only two ways really to look at it.

One way was that KP had his quirks, yes, but was a star who had been
stitched up by petty martinets with chips on their shoulders for
something that didn't seem THAT bad.

Another was to conclude that because things had got to this stage and
because we knew about other incidents involving KP that the clearly
serious action was motivated by a long streak of incidents, not all
of which may have got into the newspapers, that KP was, to quote
Andrew Strauss a "complete cunt" and had been so for a long time and
that everybody who'd had to deal with him had had enough no matter
how productive he was on the field of play.

The first option requires us to believe that some people are so
consumed with their own petty agenda that they will put the welfare
and performance and money of a high-profile organisation at risk and
alienate fans and get Piers Morgan tweeting over some convenient but
minor infraction and that said organisation is at least powerless to
stop them and at worst in on the conspiracy. Really?
Post by ~misfit~
--
Shaun.
"Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a
cozy little classification in the DSM."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
brafield
2015-03-13 03:57:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bobster
But nobody's saying "the problem is that May and Hammond wouldn't get out
the pub". Maybe it's because they just sat back and had another until
Jezza decided he'd had enough.
Not necessarily. We know that others were at the pub, including some who
thought it was a good idea to get back to the hotel. Who was keeping them
there is another matter.
Clarkson will, of course, win a popularity contest and there are reportedly
a large number of people who want Top Gear reinstated because it's a good
show and they are well entertained by it. They don't have to work with him.
When I see Clarkson and Hammmond and May, I see the boys' school trio with one blowhard and two faithful but nervous followers who feed off the crumbs.

I have witnessed this "800lb gorilla" metaphor in a workplace and in a cricket club. Every time the big chap ventures a dirty joke or bit of rule-breaking, there are lots of laughs. If you don't laugh you are a sissy wussy mummy's boy. So he does it again, as a way of testing his strength, and is continually shown to be immune.

Before long, everyone laughs all the time, and the further it goes, the less likely, in fact less possible it is for anyone to blow the whistle. At its worst, the president or division manager realizes what he/she has allowed to develop, and from then only hopes to keep it quiet.

Quite apart from the nature of any jokes or pranks, this is a management nightmare. Regardless of the outcome, it may give encouragement to characters who are even worse than Clarkson!

I admire Clarkson's writing, and envy his acute wit, (if it is his own writing), and his delivery. He has the intelligence and eloquence to be a top rate comedian, if he were to grow up a lot. A lot, mind you.

I wish there were more cars on Top Gear. It was supposed to be a car programme.
Sir Tim
2015-03-13 11:43:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by brafield
When I see Clarkson and Hammmond and May, I see the boys' school trio with one blowhard and two faithful but nervous followers who feed off the crumbs.
Yes, well put. I think most of us can identify with that scenario
Post by brafield
I admire Clarkson's writing, and envy his acute wit, (if it is his own writing), and his delivery. He has the intelligence and eloquence to be a top rate comedian, if he were to grow up a lot. A lot, mind you.
Surely the whole point about Clarkson is that he has never lost his
thoroughgoing, schoolboy enthusiasms.
--
Sir Henry Birkin, Bt.
keithr
2015-03-14 05:18:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sir Tim
Post by brafield
When I see Clarkson and Hammmond and May, I see the boys' school trio
with one blowhard and two faithful but nervous followers who feed off
the crumbs.
Yes, well put. I think most of us can identify with that scenario
Post by brafield
I admire Clarkson's writing, and envy his acute wit, (if it is his own
writing), and his delivery. He has the intelligence and eloquence to
be a top rate comedian, if he were to grow up a lot. A lot, mind you.
Surely the whole point about Clarkson is that he has never lost his
thoroughgoing, schoolboy enthusiasms.
He needs man up and apologise to the producer and to the fans for being
responsible for TG not going to air.
Bigbird
2015-03-13 10:35:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bobster
Post by ~misfit~
But which 'folks'? The millions who watch his show or the few who
are paid good money to produce it?
Obviously mostly the latter, but I think some of the former as well.
Not everybody approves when Clarkson is, for example, deliberately
flattening trees or making petty racist jokes about Asian people.
And how well are those people being paid and does it matter? We know
that a large chunk of the profits from Top Gear go into Clarkson's
pocket. We know he is one of the highest paid, if not the highest
paid, BBC personality. The production staff aren't earning in his
league and aren't getting a share of the merchandising deals. And I
doubt their job description includes anything like "putting up with
repeated twatishness".
Post by ~misfit~
It's not his co-stars as, although it's being
reported that Clarkson stayed on at a pub for hours drinking and so
was late for dinner, when asked May said he doesn't remember much
as he was "blind drunk" at the time.
But nobody's saying "the problem is that May and Hammond wouldn't get
out the pub". Maybe it's because they just sat back and had another
until Jezza decided he'd had enough.
Post by ~misfit~
Selective reporting as it's obvious it wasn't
just Clarkson who wanted to stay at the pub having a few drinks
after a days work, before heading off for dinner.
Not necessarily. We know that others were at the pub, including some
who thought it was a good idea to get back to the hotel. Who was
keeping them there is another matter.
Clarkson will, of course, win a popularity contest and there are
reportedly a large number of people who want Top Gear reinstated
because it's a good show and they are well entertained by it. They
don't have to work with him.
There is a much bigger picture than such small minded people and
comments can do justice. Part of that picture that has gone unreported
is that if Clarkeson and Top Gear go many many other jobs go with him.
The money has had a mention but what that means in real terms to staff
at the BBC and in many other organisations who feed off the success of
TG here and abroad seems to have been unrealised by most.

There are ways to bring people to brook other than firing them and
cutting off many noses.

The ego feeding of those who jump on the bandwagon going in either
direction is unhelpful but for the most part unimportant.
Sir Tim
2015-03-13 11:57:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bobster
The incident and the reactions to it, remind me of the sacking of Kevin
Pietersen. There were only two ways really to look at it.
One way was that KP had his quirks, yes, but was a star who had been
stitched up by petty martinets with chips on their shoulders for
something that didn't seem THAT bad.
Another was to conclude that because things had got to this stage and
because we knew about other incidents involving KP that the clearly
serious action was motivated by a long streak of incidents, not all
of which may have got into the newspapers, that KP was, to quote
Andrew Strauss a "complete cunt" and had been so for a long time and
that everybody who'd had to deal with him had had enough no matter
how productive he was on the field of play.
Lord Grade (who, of course, knows the BBC inside out) made the same
comparison:

"Well he's really the Kevin Pietersen of broadcasting isn't he? You
can't live with him and you can't live without him. None of us knows the
facts."
--
Sir Henry Birkin, Bt.
~misfit~
2015-03-13 23:32:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bobster
Post by ~misfit~
But which 'folks'? The millions who watch his show or the few who
are paid good money to produce it?
Obviously mostly the latter, but I think some of the former as well.
Not everybody approves when Clarkson is, for example, deliberately
flattening trees or making petty racist jokes about Asian people.
I'm pleased that you bought up the latter point. In the episode where they
built a bridge over a river there was a scene where he was looking at the
bridge (and there was an Asian man walking over it) and he said it's a good
bridge but it has a slope on it (or words to that effect). Next thing he's
lambasted about it and abused. However....

Who makes the show? Both the producer and director were obviously fine with
that scene and the editor also left it in the finished product. Any one of
them - or all of them on concert - could have removed that bit - or CGI'ed
the man out of the shot but they didn't. They *wanted* that shot in the
show. However none of them took heat for it.

It reminds me of people who encourage their dogs to be aggressive (because
it suits their purposes). However when the dog bites *them* they blame the
dog rather than themselves for the way it's been trained.
Post by Bobster
And how well are those people being paid and does it matter? We know
that a large chunk of the profits from Top Gear go into Clarkson's
pocket. We know he is one of the highest paid, if not the highest
paid, BBC personality. The production staff aren't earning in his
league and aren't getting a share of the merchandising deals. And I
doubt their job description includes anything like "putting up with
repeated twatishness".
If that's the case then it's very short-sighted. See my dog analogy above.
Post by Bobster
Post by ~misfit~
It's not his co-stars as, although it's being
reported that *Clarkson* stayed on at a pub for hours drinking and
so was late for dinner, when asked May said he doesn't remember much
as he was "blind drunk" at the time.
But nobody's saying "the problem is that May and Hammond wouldn't get
out the pub". Maybe it's because they just sat back and had another
until Jezza decided he'd had enough.
In a post a few nights ago you claimed that you don't speculate as to
'maybes' and motives.
Post by Bobster
Post by ~misfit~
Selective reporting as it's obvious it wasn't
just Clarkson who wanted to stay at the pub having a few drinks
after a days work, before heading off for dinner.
Not necessarily. We know that others were at the pub, including some
who thought it was a good idea to get back to the hotel. Who was
keeping them there is another matter.
Yet more thumb-suck. The hypocrisy is palpable!
Post by Bobster
Clarkson will, of course, win a popularity contest and there are
reportedly a large number of people who want Top Gear reinstated
because it's a good show and they are well entertained by it. They
don't have to work with him.
Nobody *has* to work with him. Putin doesn't run the BBC.
Post by Bobster
The incident and the reactions to it, remind me of the sacking of
Kevin Pietersen. There were only two ways really to look at it.
I have no idea who he is but going by previous form I'd guess a cricketer? A
goodly portion of your posts to RASF1 are about cricket.
Post by Bobster
One way was that KP had his quirks, yes, but was a star who had been
stitched up by petty martinets with chips on their shoulders for
something that didn't seem THAT bad.
Another was to conclude that because things had got to this stage and
because we knew about other incidents involving KP that the clearly
serious action was motivated by a long streak of incidents, not all
of which may have got into the newspapers, that KP was, to quote
Andrew Strauss a "complete cunt" and had been so for a long time and
that everybody who'd had to deal with him had had enough no matter
how productive he was on the field of play.
The first option requires us to believe that some people are so
consumed with their own petty agenda that they will put the welfare
and performance and money of a high-profile organisation at risk and
alienate fans and get Piers Morgan tweeting over some convenient but
minor infraction and that said organisation is at least powerless to
stop them and at worst in on the conspiracy. Really?
So essentially you're saying it's not cricket then? Never thought I'd see
the day!
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a
cozy little classification in the DSM."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
Bobster
2015-03-14 05:26:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Bobster
Post by ~misfit~
But which 'folks'? The millions who watch his show or the few who
are paid good money to produce it?
Obviously mostly the latter, but I think some of the former as well.
Not everybody approves when Clarkson is, for example, deliberately
flattening trees or making petty racist jokes about Asian people.
I'm pleased that you bought up the latter point. In the episode where they
built a bridge over a river there was a scene where he was looking at the
bridge (and there was an Asian man walking over it) and he said it's a good
bridge but it has a slope on it (or words to that effect). Next thing he's
lambasted about it and abused. However....
Who makes the show? Both the producer and director were obviously fine with
that scene and the editor also left it in the finished product. Any one of
them - or all of them on concert - could have removed that bit - or CGI'ed
the man out of the shot but they didn't. They *wanted* that shot in the
show. However none of them took heat for it.
Well yes, we don't know who makes the decisions, who has veto over the
script and so on. What we don't see are tweets by Clarkson about how
he was asked to tell a little racist joke but he wasn't bought up like
that and so he refused. I don't know if the scripting is all his or if
some of it is just extemporised, but he doesn't seen to be an unwilling
participant. You'd think that given his star power he could veto things
that he found unpleasant.

But I do get upset with this sort of thing from time to time and not just
on the BBC. There was an incident here where a columnist in a Sunday
Paper decided to write a column full of long disproven racist
generalisations. The paper claimed they'd had no sight of the column, and
I found that a bit much. Somebody had to do some sort of editing to get
it in there. They'd have had to check it for spelling and grammar. So
NOBODY knew that column was going to run? Give me a break. Especially
when the same paper had previously not run another column, a smear piece
which ended up at another news paper, because they'd checked it out and
it didn't meet their standards.

So, yes, sometimes somebody else should be on the pyre. And by now you'd
think that the BBC would have some sort of idea of what's likely to pop
up on Top Gear.

And here's something interesting
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/8597628/The-secret-life-of-Top-Gear.html

Seems that Clarkson has input into the scripts and the scripts are
vetted by the BBC but there can also be on site tweaking of the
script.

If the Beeb OKed, for example, the "slope" remark then they should man
up to it and say they let their viewers down and it won't happen again.

But equally we haven't had Clarkson defending himself by saying "well
we weren't sure about it, but BBC OKed it and so it stayed in."
Post by ~misfit~
It reminds me of people who encourage their dogs to be aggressive (because
it suits their purposes). However when the dog bites *them* they blame the
dog rather than themselves for the way it's been trained.
Post by Bobster
And how well are those people being paid and does it matter? We know
that a large chunk of the profits from Top Gear go into Clarkson's
pocket. We know he is one of the highest paid, if not the highest
paid, BBC personality. The production staff aren't earning in his
league and aren't getting a share of the merchandising deals. And I
doubt their job description includes anything like "putting up with
repeated twatishness".
If that's the case then it's very short-sighted. See my dog analogy above.
Why? They're not encouraging Clarkson to go in to the pub and get pissed.
I think the problem here is the word "producer". In this case I doubt the
"producer" concerned had any executive power or wrote scripts.

From that Telegraph article
'Each film is looked after by a producer or an assistant producer. They
have to handle the logistics, pulling things together if you need experts, and keeping the storylines solid and honest. In amphibious cars [in series
eight], for example, the cars had to be able to drive on the road and go
straight in the water, so they've got to be road legal. That's the task,
not how silly or inventive we can be. Once you do that, it grounds the
story."

I read that as the producers being hired hands who don't have input into
the creative process.
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Bobster
Post by ~misfit~
It's not his co-stars as, although it's being
reported that *Clarkson* stayed on at a pub for hours drinking and
so was late for dinner, when asked May said he doesn't remember much
as he was "blind drunk" at the time.
But nobody's saying "the problem is that May and Hammond wouldn't get
out the pub". Maybe it's because they just sat back and had another
until Jezza decided he'd had enough.
In a post a few nights ago you claimed that you don't speculate as to
'maybes' and motives.
I'm offering an alternative explanation. And I'm looking at all the
defences that could have been mounted but weren't.

The speculation over motives I steer clear from - if I'm thinking of the
same post - is as to WHY somebodyon RASF1 might post a certain thing or
even if it matters. A good example is Build who gets lambasted from
certain quarters as a drunk every time he posts something they don't
like. To me it doesn't matter if somebody is pissed or not pissed when
they post here or has smoked a massive joint or fasted for 40 hours or
whatever. It's what they post that counts. If Build posts something that
is true then it is true - irrespective of what he ingested. If somebody
posts something that is bollocks then I don't say "hang on, maybe he
took too much valium". I can't know that stuff and frankly it makes
no difference. I'd have thought I made that clear, but here's the
context again.
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Bobster
Post by ~misfit~
Selective reporting as it's obvious it wasn't
just Clarkson who wanted to stay at the pub having a few drinks
after a days work, before heading off for dinner.
Not necessarily. We know that others were at the pub, including some
who thought it was a good idea to get back to the hotel. Who was
keeping them there is another matter.
Yet more thumb-suck. The hypocrisy is palpable!
~misfit~ my advice to you is to not start fights. You've done it in the
past and you always end up complaining about what a shit house the other
party is. You don't need to agree with anything anybody says, but you
can keep the personal attacks out of it.

Besides, how is it thumbsuck? You introduced the matter of who was at
that pub, but it's clear that not everybody there wanted to stick around
(the fact that somebody told Clarkson it was time to go and he declined to
says that somebody was there who wanted to go). What we don't know - and
I've allowed this - is who was holding everybody up. We can assume that
it wasn't some minor functionary because Clarkson would then have reminded
them who is in charge and told them to sod odd back to the hotel.
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Bobster
Clarkson will, of course, win a popularity contest and there are
reportedly a large number of people who want Top Gear reinstated
because it's a good show and they are well entertained by it. They
don't have to work with him.
Nobody *has* to work with him. Putin doesn't run the BBC.
My point is that the people who want Clarkson on the screen don't have
to deal with any tantrums he may throw. They're not thinking about whether
or not it's OK to abuse and manhandle somebody lower down the pecking order,
especially when you're drunk and didn't get back to the hotel at the time
it was agreed you'd be there. They're not thinking about that, they just
want their weekly dose of Clarkson and they don't care what anybody involved
in the shooting has to put up with in order that they get it.

The bloke who was on the receiving end, and Clarkson says there was some
pushing and shoving, has a rather different perspective.
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Bobster
The incident and the reactions to it, remind me of the sacking of
Kevin Pietersen. There were only two ways really to look at it.
I have no idea who he is but going by previous form I'd guess a cricketer? A
goodly portion of your posts to RASF1 are about cricket.
Do some googling.
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Bobster
One way was that KP had his quirks, yes, but was a star who had been
stitched up by petty martinets with chips on their shoulders for
something that didn't seem THAT bad.
Another was to conclude that because things had got to this stage and
because we knew about other incidents involving KP that the clearly
serious action was motivated by a long streak of incidents, not all
of which may have got into the newspapers, that KP was, to quote
Andrew Strauss a "complete cunt" and had been so for a long time and
that everybody who'd had to deal with him had had enough no matter
how productive he was on the field of play.
The first option requires us to believe that some people are so
consumed with their own petty agenda that they will put the welfare
and performance and money of a high-profile organisation at risk and
alienate fans and get Piers Morgan tweeting over some convenient but
minor infraction and that said organisation is at least powerless to
stop them and at worst in on the conspiracy. Really?
So essentially you're saying it's not cricket then?
No. And I have no idea what you're on about.

Never thought I'd see
Post by ~misfit~
the day!
--
Shaun.
"Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a
cozy little classification in the DSM."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
~misfit~
2015-03-14 09:58:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bobster
~misfit~ my advice to you is to not start fights. You've done it in the
past and you always end up complaining about what a shit house the other
party is. You don't need to agree with anything anybody says, but you
can keep the personal attacks out of it.
Bobster this is a bit rich coming from someone who wrote a post which was
largely a personal attack on me not so very long ago - a post which prompted
build to suggest that you save such posts overnight before hitting 'send'. I
chose not to reply at the time as it was obviously written to provoke.
However as you've bought up the subject of personal attacks I'll address
something you said then;
Post by Bobster
However personally I killfiled Edmund over a year ago
You replied to him very recently. Odd if you've had him KFed for over
a year.
If you look at that reply carefully you'll see
rather too many indents (you know, like this >> ) in front of the quoted
text. Also the threading is wrong. Because I saw him addressing me directly
in somepone else's post I edited the other person out (as I wasn't replying
to him). However I couldn't be arsed removing the extra ">" symbols.

So now I say to you that it might pay to heed your own advice. The above is
an obvious insinuation that I'm a liar and if that isn't a personal attack
then I don't know what is.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a
cozy little classification in the DSM."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
Bobster
2015-03-14 10:26:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Bobster
~misfit~ my advice to you is to not start fights. You've done it in the
past and you always end up complaining about what a shit house the other
party is. You don't need to agree with anything anybody says, but you
can keep the personal attacks out of it.
Bobster this is a bit rich coming from someone who wrote a post which was
largely a personal attack on me not so very long ago - a post which prompted
build to suggest that you save such posts overnight before hitting 'send'. I
chose not to reply at the time as it was obviously written to provoke.
Not really. It was meant to point out the huge flaws in your moralising.
Like your preaching about people who take strong medication and how we
should respond to that.
Post by ~misfit~
However as you've bought up the subject of personal attacks I'll address
something you said then;
Post by Bobster
However personally I killfiled Edmund over a year ago
You replied to him very recently. Odd if you've had him KFed for over
a year.
If you look at that reply carefully you'll see
rather too many indents (you know, like this >> ) in front of the quoted
text. Also the threading is wrong. Because I saw him addressing me directly
in somepone else's post
Here's a link to the original.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/rec.autos.sport.f1/YZd9fsb6OU8/19KutwCw2jQJ

You are quite clearly replying tro a post by Edmund.
I edited the other person out (as I wasn't replying
Post by ~misfit~
to him). However I couldn't be arsed removing the extra ">" symbols.
So now I say to you that it might pay to heed your own advice. The above is
an obvious insinuation that I'm a liar and if that isn't a personal attack
then I don't know what is.
You say you have a killfile and you know how to use it. So that will
sort your problems out.
Post by ~misfit~
Shaun.
"Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a
cozy little classification in the DSM."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
~misfit~
2015-03-15 00:23:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bobster
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Bobster
~misfit~ my advice to you is to not start fights. You've done it in the
past and you always end up complaining about what a shit house the other
party is. You don't need to agree with anything anybody says, but
you can keep the personal attacks out of it.
Bobster this is a bit rich coming from someone who wrote a post
which was largely a personal attack on me not so very long ago - a
post which prompted build to suggest that you save such posts
overnight before hitting 'send'. I chose not to reply at the time as
it was obviously written to provoke.
Not really. It was meant to point out the huge flaws in your
moralising. Like your preaching about people who take strong
medication and how we should respond to that.
Well then you really missed your mark - *really* missed it. My "moralising"?
Please feel free to explain this in more detail as I don't understand. I
don't recall commenting on posters morals.

I do remember making a solitary comment on *my* (unfortunately inescapable)
use of narcotic painkillers and some inevitable sideffects thereof.
Post by Bobster
Post by ~misfit~
However as you've bought up the subject of personal attacks I'll
address something you said then;
Post by Bobster
However personally I killfiled Edmund over a year ago
You replied to him very recently. Odd if you've had him KFed for
over a year.
If you look at that reply carefully you'll see
rather too many indents (you know, like this >> ) in front of the
quoted text. Also the threading is wrong. Because I saw him
addressing me directly in somepone else's post
Here's a link to the original.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/rec.autos.sport.f1/YZd9fsb6OU8/19KutwCw2jQJ
That isn't the original. That's Googlegroups HTML rendition of a usenet
post. I don't use googlegroups, I prefer usenet as it was meant to be.
Post by Bobster
You are quite clearly replying tro a post by Edmund.
Actually even in that bastardised form of usenet it quite clearly shows that
I'm not replying *directly* to him as you are insinuating (and insinuating
that I'm lying about a killfile for some odd reason). I read someone else's
post who *was* replying to him, saw that Edmund was talking to me and so,
yes, replied to him. However I do have him killfiled and don't see his posts
unless they're quoted.

I'll make it easy for you to tell the difference (again!) In this post I'm
replying directly to a post by you. The text by you is prefaced by '> '
meaning there's one level of separation between me and you - a direct reply.
However in that googlegropes page you kindly supplied you'll see that the
text that Edmund wrote is prefaced by '>> '. That indicates that there are
*two* levels of separation between post and reply. I simply removed all
reference to the intermediary poster so as not to involve them in something
that had nothing to do with them.

Does google offer a threaded view of the group? If it does then it will be
(even more) obvious that I didn't reply to Edmund directly. Honestly I
thought this level of understanding of how it functions was ubiquitous
amongst people who've spent any time on usenet.
Post by Bobster
Post by ~misfit~
I edited the other person out (as I wasn't replying
to him). However I couldn't be arsed removing the extra ">" symbols.
So now I say to you that it might pay to heed your own advice. The
above is an obvious insinuation that I'm a liar and if that isn't a
personal attack then I don't know what is.
You say you have a killfile and you know how to use it. So that will
sort your problems out.
Ahh but there's the rub. By far most of what you post is well worth reading.
However it seems that a couple of times a year you get a bee in your bonnet
about me and start moralising (!) for a week or so. Then, when it's out of
your system you go back to being the reasonable person that you seem to
expect others should be. I'd rather not miss some of the quality posts that
you bring to this group (a problem I don't have with Edmund).
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a
cozy little classification in the DSM."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
Bob Dubery
2015-03-15 03:53:00 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Bobster
Here's a link to the original.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/rec.autos.sport.f1/YZd9fsb6OU8/19KutwCw2jQJ
That isn't the original. That's Googlegroups HTML rendition of a usenet
post. I don't use googlegroups, I prefer usenet as it was meant to be.
Well hooray for you.

Take a good look at THIS post. It was made using Thunderbird and via
news.aioe.org. That is using a usenet client offering threaded views and
via an NNTP server.
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Bobster
You are quite clearly replying tro a post by Edmund.
Actually even in that bastardised form of usenet it quite clearly shows that
I'm not replying *directly* to him as you are insinuating (and insinuating
that I'm lying about a killfile for some odd reason). I read someone else's
post who *was* replying to him, saw that Edmund was talking to me and so,
yes, replied to him. However I do have him killfiled and don't see his posts
unless they're quoted.
I'll make it easy for you to tell the difference (again!)pt
<snip patronising and evasion>
And what thunderbird, pulling posts from news.aioe..org clearly shows is
that you responded directly to Edmund.

So I now have two independent sources showing me that's what happened.
So I don't accept your version of events.

That's all.
~misfit~
2015-03-16 00:30:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Dubery
<snip>
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Bobster
Here's a link to the original.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/rec.autos.sport.f1/YZd9fsb6OU8/19KutwCw2jQJ
That isn't the original. That's Googlegroups HTML rendition of a
usenet post. I don't use googlegroups, I prefer usenet as it was
meant to be.
Well hooray for you.
Take a good look at THIS post. It was made using Thunderbird and via
news.aioe.org. That is using a usenet client offering threaded views
and via an NNTP server.
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Bobster
You are quite clearly replying tro a post by Edmund.
Actually even in that bastardised form of usenet it quite clearly
shows that I'm not replying *directly* to him as you are insinuating
(and insinuating that I'm lying about a killfile for some odd
reason). I read someone else's post who *was* replying to him, saw
that Edmund was talking to me and so, yes, replied to him. However I
do have him killfiled and don't see his posts unless they're quoted.
I'll make it easy for you to tell the difference (again!)pt
<snip patronising and evasion>
And what thunderbird, pulling posts from news.aioe..org clearly shows
is that you responded directly to Edmund.
What, and I went to the trouble of putting in a whole bunch of extra ">"
symbols because I'm psychic and *knew* that you'd get all wankerish about
this? That's a stretch, even for you.
Post by Bob Dubery
So I now have two independent sources showing me that's what happened.
So I don't accept your version of events.
Well you're wrong, not that I'm surprised at all that you won't admit it.

For future reference I don't lie.
Post by Bob Dubery
That's all.
LOL! Stamp your little foot all you like, you're still wrong. Shame you
won't man up.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a
cozy little classification in the DSM."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
build
2015-03-16 08:38:49 UTC
Permalink
G'day Misfit,
I haven't read all the posts, i stopped at:
"Yet more thumb-suck. The hypocrisy is palpable!"

That may or may not be true but in my opinion it was out of line.

Also Bob has been very careful to be not personal and has not used abuse. The last time he did, he apologised immediately.

And I'll add that the group as a whole has been much easier to read without abuse so I was disappointed that I got out of line recently. I hope I was excused.

beers,
Bigbird
2015-03-16 11:27:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by build
G'day Misfit,
"Yet more thumb-suck. The hypocrisy is palpable!"
That may or may not be true but in my opinion it was out of line.
Also Bob has been very careful to be not personal and has not used
abuse. The last time he did, he apologised immediately.
And I'll add that the group as a whole has been much easier to read
without abuse so I was disappointed that I got out of line recently.
I hope I was excused.
I guess it get's easy to lose your temper with people who go out of
their way to lie... er make mistakes that appear deliberate.
Bigbird
2015-03-16 11:31:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bobster
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Bobster
~misfit~ my advice to you is to not start fights. You've done it in the
past and you always end up complaining about what a shit house the other
party is. You don't need to agree with anything anybody says, but
you can keep the personal attacks out of it.
Bobster this is a bit rich coming from someone who wrote a post
which was largely a personal attack on me not so very long ago - a
post which prompted build to suggest that you save such posts
overnight before hitting 'send'. I chose not to reply at the time
as it was obviously written to provoke.
Not really. It was meant to point out the huge flaws in your
moralising. Like your preaching about people who take strong
medication and how we should respond to that.
Post by ~misfit~
However as you've bought up the subject of personal attacks I'll
address something you said then;
Post by Bobster
However personally I killfiled Edmund over a year ago
You replied to him very recently. Odd if you've had him KFed for
over a year.
If you look at that reply carefully you'll see
rather too many indents (you know, like this >> ) in front of the
quoted text. Also the threading is wrong. Because I saw him
addressing me directly in somepone else's post
Here's a link to the original.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/rec.autos.sport.f1/YZd9fsb6OU8/19KutwCw2jQJ
Post by Bobster
You are quite clearly replying tro a post by Edmund.
Clearly not. That post references
<0bfa2089-80c7-4532-b289-***@googlegroups.com> which is a post
by build, in reply to Edmund.

Time for another apology Bobster.

brafield
2015-03-14 14:51:36 UTC
Permalink
On Friday, March 13, 2015 at 10:26:22 PM UTC-7, Bobster wrote:

Bobster, thanks for those thoughtful comments.

The passion that has surfaced everywhere on this issue comes from everyone's personal "choice" of humour and defence of that choice. Nothing is as personal and revealing as what we each laugh at.

It is basic human psychology that we curl up and guffaw at precisely those jokes that release anxiety, and cross permissible boundaries to do that.

A few people don't find constructed jokes and stories funny, but will laugh at ironies and wit and so on. Some laugh at Irish jokes, though I know many in North America who just don't "get" them. So years ago I experimented and re-told some Irish jokes as Swedish or Polish jokes, and people rolled on the floor at their clever funniness.

We also have a grey area of jokes we kind of like but are embarrassed that we do like them; every now and then I find myself starting to grin and then my conscience says "Wait, not funny."

Clarkson's humour is classic clever schoolboy humour that pushes naughty boundaries. Some love it; some, like Billy Connolly's audiences, cringe and laugh at the same time; and some roll their eyes patiently and wait for it to stop.

We furiously defend our taste in humour. We HATE TO BE TOLD that our favourite joke is unacceptable. "Whaddaya mean? It's hilarious." There is no possibility of resolving people's pro and anti-Clarkson sympathies.

Billy Connolly once finished his act --- to a fairly old-aged audience who'd been falling out of their seats --- by saying "You're covering your faces, but it's okay to laugh; you're just happy, it's me who's going to hell!" And at that, the audience roared with relief and stood up and applauded.

Clarkson too dances on the edge of hell, and many people vicariously enjoy his naughtiness. Me, no. You, maybe. "De gustibus non est disputandum."
Bobster
2015-03-15 04:21:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by brafield
The passion that has surfaced everywhere on this issue comes from everyone's personal "choice" of humour and defence of that choice. Nothing is as personal and revealing as what we each laugh at.
It is basic human psychology that we curl up and guffaw at precisely those jokes that release anxiety, and cross permissible boundaries to do that.
A few people don't find constructed jokes and stories funny, but will laugh at ironies and wit and so on. Some laugh at Irish jokes, though I know many in North America who just don't "get" them. So years ago I experimented and re-told some Irish jokes as Swedish or Polish jokes, and people rolled on the floor at their clever funniness.
We also have a grey area of jokes we kind of like but are embarrassed that we do like them; every now and then I find myself starting to grin and then my conscience says "Wait, not funny."
Clarkson's humour is classic clever schoolboy humour that pushes naughty boundaries. Some love it; some, like Billy Connolly's audiences, cringe and laugh at the same time; and some roll their eyes patiently and wait for it to stop.
We furiously defend our taste in humour. We HATE TO BE TOLD that our favourite joke is unacceptable. "Whaddaya mean? It's hilarious." There is no possibility of resolving people's pro and anti-Clarkson sympathies.
Billy Connolly once finished his act --- to a fairly old-aged audience who'd been falling out of their seats --- by saying "You're covering your faces, but it's okay to laugh; you're just happy, it's me who's going to hell!" And at that, the audience roared with relief and stood up and applauded.
Clarkson too dances on the edge of hell, and many people vicariously enjoy his naughtiness. Me, no. You, maybe. "De gustibus non est disputandum."
Yes, but we need to remember that often there is a butt to the joke and
they may not find things so funny. But there is something different about
what Clarkson is doing because we don't see the same uproar about other
comedians. Clarkson, I think, pushes things a bit too far and I wonder if
he doesn't do it deliberately - you'd think by now he's got some idea of
where the line is drawn.

I'll digress a little to say that I don't think he was courting trouble
in Argentina. I thought by his standards he was pretty well behaved and
amazingly he was ambushed by some bunch of bigots who seemed to have
systematically tracked him down in a big country. I don't often feel
sorry for Clarkson, but in that incident I did.

But the humour is really the tangential issue here. What is the issue
is that he reportedly assaulted and publicly humiliated a member of the
production team. People are losing sight of that. Are we to excuse this
- and I note recent fresh eyewitness reports about the incident - on the
grounds that he makes us laugh? If this is what he's done then surely he
should be bought to book for it? Maybe in a way that allows the show to
go on whilst acknowledging that he was wrong and whilst he shows remorse.

He might be famous, people might like him (or his show, which isn't really
the same thing) but does that entitle him to engage in public belittling
and assault (which is there to some degree, even in Clarkson's version
of events)? And, again, if I were the guy on the receiving end I'd take
a rather different view of things.
Jimbo
2015-03-15 16:36:56 UTC
Permalink
On Friday, March 13, 2015 at 7:32:55 PM UTC-4, ~misfit~ wrote:

(snip to)
Post by ~misfit~
I'm pleased that you bought up the latter point. In the episode where they
built a bridge over a river there was a scene where he was looking at the
bridge (and there was an Asian man walking over it) and he said it's a good
bridge but it has a slope on it (or words to that effect). Next thing he's
lambasted about it and abused. However....
Who makes the show? Both the producer and director were obviously fine with
that scene and the editor also left it in the finished product. Any one of
them - or all of them on concert - could have removed that bit - or CGI'ed
the man out of the shot but they didn't. They *wanted* that shot in the
show. However none of them took heat for it.
I believe he is intimately involved in decision making on the final product.
~misfit~
2015-03-11 00:17:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by alister
Post by Greg
Suspended by BBC
No Top Gear on Sunday.
he has been noticeably silent on twater so I suspect he is taking this
seriously
(clarkson is not the twat he presents as his public persona)
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=11415281

There are a couple Clarkson tweets there.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a
cozy little classification in the DSM."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
brafield
2015-03-11 03:53:26 UTC
Permalink
On Tuesday, March 10, 2015 at 5:18:03 PM UTC-7, ~misfit~ wrote:

I would like to watch TV car programmes, but unfortunately they make me feel as though I were back in the third form. In the past there have been one or two serious, professional and thoughtful car progs, but over the last 10-15 years the number-crunchers and market-survey zealots have bullied insecure TV producers into going for the 15-30 year old male "demographic", as though the our national broadcaster[s] were a private radio station in Leicester (sorry, Leicester). You know what I mean.

Then there is the odd but unquestioned rule that ALL TV shows appear to need three presenters minimum, and they must represent three slightly differing stereotypes. I forget: who are the young men who have to untie the laces of their too-large basketball boots before they come onto the set?

Trouble with all this: the style misses a huge swath of the population, and of course irritates boring old dull killjoy farts like myself. But if demographics nerds would just look up from their desks for a moment, they would see that "boring old killjoy farts" constitute a significant swath of the people who surround us. Sermon over. Return your prayer books quietly to the back as you leave.
Bruce Hoult
2015-03-11 04:30:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by brafield
I would like to watch TV car programmes, but unfortunately they make me feel as though I were back in the third form. In the past there have been one or two serious, professional and thoughtful car progs, but over the last 10-15 years the number-crunchers and market-survey zealots have bullied insecure TV producers into going for the 15-30 year old male "demographic", as though the our national broadcaster[s] were a private radio station in Leicester (sorry, Leicester). You know what I mean.
Then there is the odd but unquestioned rule that ALL TV shows appear to need three presenters minimum, and they must represent three slightly differing stereotypes. I forget: who are the young men who have to untie the laces of their too-large basketball boots before they come onto the set?
Trouble with all this: the style misses a huge swath of the population, and of course irritates boring old dull killjoy farts like myself. But if demographics nerds would just look up from their desks for a moment, they would see that "boring old killjoy farts" constitute a significant swath of the people who surround us. Sermon over. Return your prayer books quietly to the back as you leave.
Top Gear is remarkably popular with a very broad segment of the female population. Allow me to quote one young lady:

http://twitter.com/SaylemTweety/status/575410936095371266

JEZZA BETTER NOT GET SACKED. what the fuck am I going to wank over????
build
2015-03-11 06:46:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bruce Hoult
Post by brafield
I would like to watch TV car programmes, but unfortunately they make me feel as though I were back in the third form. In the past there have been one or two serious, professional and thoughtful car progs, but over the last 10-15 years the number-crunchers and market-survey zealots have bullied insecure TV producers into going for the 15-30 year old male "demographic", as though the our national broadcaster[s] were a private radio station in Leicester (sorry, Leicester). You know what I mean.
Then there is the odd but unquestioned rule that ALL TV shows appear to need three presenters minimum, and they must represent three slightly differing stereotypes. I forget: who are the young men who have to untie the laces of their too-large basketball boots before they come onto the set?
Trouble with all this: the style misses a huge swath of the population, and of course irritates boring old dull killjoy farts like myself. But if demographics nerds would just look up from their desks for a moment, they would see that "boring old killjoy farts" constitute a significant swath of the people who surround us. Sermon over. Return your prayer books quietly to the back as you leave.
http://twitter.com/SaylemTweety/status/575410936095371266
JEZZA BETTER NOT GET SACKED. what the fuck am I going to wank over????
G'day Bruce,
I'm must be getting old because I do not find churned repetitive humour funny. I only watch when there are guests I'm interested in but I'm often disappointed.

I wonder if the show would be better without Clarkson? Probably.
Bruce Hoult
2015-03-11 09:50:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by build
Post by Bruce Hoult
Post by brafield
I would like to watch TV car programmes, but unfortunately they make me feel as though I were back in the third form. In the past there have been one or two serious, professional and thoughtful car progs, but over the last 10-15 years the number-crunchers and market-survey zealots have bullied insecure TV producers into going for the 15-30 year old male "demographic", as though the our national broadcaster[s] were a private radio station in Leicester (sorry, Leicester). You know what I mean.
Then there is the odd but unquestioned rule that ALL TV shows appear to need three presenters minimum, and they must represent three slightly differing stereotypes. I forget: who are the young men who have to untie the laces of their too-large basketball boots before they come onto the set?
Trouble with all this: the style misses a huge swath of the population, and of course irritates boring old dull killjoy farts like myself. But if demographics nerds would just look up from their desks for a moment, they would see that "boring old killjoy farts" constitute a significant swath of the people who surround us. Sermon over. Return your prayer books quietly to the back as you leave.
http://twitter.com/SaylemTweety/status/575410936095371266
JEZZA BETTER NOT GET SACKED. what the fuck am I going to wank over????
G'day Bruce,
I'm must be getting old because I do not find churned repetitive humour funny. I only watch when there are guests I'm interested in but I'm often disappointed.
I wonder if the show would be better without Clarkson? Probably.
I don't care about the reviews of yet another $100k - $1m+ car, but their adventures are amusing.

If you didn't enjoy the Hovervan then you may be dead.

The recent trip to Aussie was quite good too.
Sir Tim
2015-03-11 12:05:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by build
Post by Bruce Hoult
Post by brafield
I would like to watch TV car programmes, but unfortunately they make me feel as though I were back in the third form. In the past there have been one or two serious, professional and thoughtful car progs, but over the last 10-15 years the number-crunchers and market-survey zealots have bullied insecure TV producers into going for the 15-30 year old male "demographic", as though the our national broadcaster[s] were a private radio station in Leicester (sorry, Leicester). You know what I mean.
Then there is the odd but unquestioned rule that ALL TV shows appear to need three presenters minimum, and they must represent three slightly differing stereotypes. I forget: who are the young men who have to untie the laces of their too-large basketball boots before they come onto the set?
Trouble with all this: the style misses a huge swath of the population, and of course irritates boring old dull killjoy farts like myself. But if demographics nerds would just look up from their desks for a moment, they would see that "boring old killjoy farts" constitute a significant swath of the people who surround us. Sermon over. Return your prayer books quietly to the back as you leave.
http://twitter.com/SaylemTweety/status/575410936095371266
JEZZA BETTER NOT GET SACKED. what the fuck am I going to wank over????
G'day Bruce,
I'm must be getting old because I do not find churned repetitive humour funny. I only watch when there are guests I'm interested in but I'm often disappointed.
Point taken, but I can't help wondering what type of humour you *do*
find funny?
Post by build
I wonder if the show would be better without Clarkson? Probably.
I think that Clarkson is the whole point of the show isn't he? Not that
I often watch it.
--
The Oldest Member
Greg
2015-03-11 15:05:05 UTC
Permalink
Sir Tim scribbled
Post by Sir Tim
Post by build
G'day Bruce,
I'm must be getting old because I do not find churned repetitive humour funny. I only watch when there are guests I'm interested in but I'm often disappointed.
Point taken, but I can't help wondering what type of humour you *do*
find funny?
Anything that starts - A man went into a pub...
Bobster
2015-03-11 12:25:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by build
G'day Bruce,
I'm must be getting old because I do not find churned repetitive humour funny. I only watch when there are guests I'm interested in but I'm often disappointed.
I wonder if the show would be better without Clarkson? Probably.
Yeah... I find the show pretty repetitive now. I enjoy the segments where they
have something technologically novel (and the presenters are trying to
understand it) but other than that every new episode I see seems a bit too
familiar.
alister
2015-03-11 08:38:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~misfit~
Post by alister
Post by Greg
Suspended by BBC
No Top Gear on Sunday.
he has been noticeably silent on twater so I suspect he is taking this
seriously (clarkson is not the twat he presents as his public persona)
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?
c_id=1501119&objectid=11415281
Post by ~misfit~
There are a couple Clarkson tweets there.
yes I spoke too soon, they seem to be taking the p**s a bit now. probably
would have been better if he kept quiet (perhaps with a comment that he
would not be tweeting until it had been resolved)
--
"Good health" is merely the slowest rate at which one can die.
Mark
2015-03-11 10:16:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~misfit~
Post by ~misfit~
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?
c_id=1501119&objectid=11415281
Post by ~misfit~
There are a couple Clarkson tweets there.
yes I spoke too soon, they seem to be taking the p**s a bit now. probably
would have been better if he kept quiet (perhaps with a comment that he
would not be tweeting until it had been resolved)
Oh dear - he's in trouble now...

Katie Hopkins is supporting him, so he'll definitely be sacked!
~misfit~
2015-03-12 00:59:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by alister
Post by ~misfit~
Post by alister
Post by Greg
Suspended by BBC
No Top Gear on Sunday.
he has been noticeably silent on twater so I suspect he is taking
this seriously (clarkson is not the twat he presents as his public
persona)
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?
c_id=1501119&objectid=11415281
There are a couple Clarkson tweets there.
yes I spoke too soon, they seem to be taking the p**s a bit now.
probably would have been better if he kept quiet (perhaps with a
comment that he would not be tweeting until it had been resolved)
I read that the BBC are trying to resolve the issue before the weekend as he
has a column in the Sunday Times in which he's previously talked about
on-going issues with the BBC.

Apparently he was pissed that there wasn't hot food available at the end of
a days shoot and got angry with the producer, who started shouting back at
him. Clarkson says it was more 'handbags and pushing' than throwing a punch.
However I think that producers don't like being challenged (a bit like
senior officers) and so 'bought him up on charges'.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a
cozy little classification in the DSM."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
Bruce Hoult
2015-03-10 23:55:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg
Suspended by BBC
No Top Gear on Sunday.
If they fire Jezza they might as well shut down the show anyway.

And I must get around to watching this week's episode.
~misfit~
2015-03-12 00:52:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bruce Hoult
Post by Greg
Suspended by BBC
No Top Gear on Sunday.
If they fire Jezza they might as well shut down the show anyway.
And I must get around to watching this week's episode.
I was really impressed with Gillian Anderson. I've thought she's gorgeous
since early X Files (I have a thing for redheads) but hadn't had the
pleasure of seeing her in anything unscripted before. It seems she's fun,
funny and clever as well.....
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a
cozy little classification in the DSM."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
Bruce Hoult
2015-03-12 01:27:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Bruce Hoult
Post by Greg
Suspended by BBC
No Top Gear on Sunday.
If they fire Jezza they might as well shut down the show anyway.
And I must get around to watching this week's episode.
I was really impressed with Gillian Anderson. I've thought she's gorgeous
since early X Files (I have a thing for redheads) but hadn't had the
pleasure of seeing her in anything unscripted before. It seems she's fun,
funny and clever as well.....
Last week, yes. This week was Nicholas Hoult (probably a relative, that spelling is very rare as a google search will show).

And yes, I agree about Ms Anderson. She has aged very well, and as you say funny and smart. And much more petite than I expected. And fast.
~misfit~
2015-03-12 10:26:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bruce Hoult
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Bruce Hoult
Post by Greg
Suspended by BBC
No Top Gear on Sunday.
If they fire Jezza they might as well shut down the show anyway.
And I must get around to watching this week's episode.
I was really impressed with Gillian Anderson. I've thought she's
gorgeous since early X Files (I have a thing for redheads) but
hadn't had the pleasure of seeing her in anything unscripted before.
It seems she's fun, funny and clever as well.....
Last week, yes. This week was Nicholas Hoult (probably a relative,
that spelling is very rare as a google search will show).
I wasn't sure if you were watching it on NZ TV or otherwise....
Post by Bruce Hoult
And yes, I agree about Ms Anderson. She has aged very well, and as
you say funny and smart. And much more petite than I expected. And
fast.
Yes - to all of the above. Almost the perfect woman for me. ;)
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a
cozy little classification in the DSM."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
Bigbird
2015-03-11 10:43:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg
Suspended by BBC
No Top Gear on Sunday.
250,000 fuckwits and counting

https://www.change.org/p/bbc-reinstate-jeremy-clarkson
Bruce Hoult
2015-03-11 13:02:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bigbird
Post by Greg
Suspended by BBC
No Top Gear on Sunday.
250,000 fuckwits and counting
https://www.change.org/p/bbc-reinstate-jeremy-clarkson
348,629 right now.
Jimbo
2015-03-12 04:56:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg
Suspended by BBC
No Top Gear on Sunday.
If he behaved like a twat, then the BBC management have no choice but to dump him. They are a national/international institution and no personality should ever be allowed to behave like they are bigger than the institution for which they work. Dump him quickly and get on with the show!
Sir Tim
2015-03-12 10:14:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jimbo
Post by Greg
Suspended by BBC
No Top Gear on Sunday.
If he behaved like a twat, then the BBC management have no choice but to
dump him. They are a national/international institution and no
personality should ever be allowed to behave like they are bigger than
the institution for which they work. Dump him quickly and get on with the show!
Clarkson *is* the show.
The Beeb would do well to drop it completely but I expect that, as usual,
they will continue to flog the horse until it is quite dead.
--
Sir Henry Birkin, Bt.
larkim
2015-03-12 10:29:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sir Tim
Post by Jimbo
Post by Greg
Suspended by BBC
No Top Gear on Sunday.
If he behaved like a twat, then the BBC management have no choice but to
dump him. They are a national/international institution and no
personality should ever be allowed to behave like they are bigger than
the institution for which they work. Dump him quickly and get on with the show!
Clarkson *is* the show.
The Beeb would do well to drop it completely but I expect that, as usual,
they will continue to flog the horse until it is quite dead.
--
Sir Henry Birkin, Bt.
I know May and Hammond have carved out careers for themselves, but I reckon
they have the most to lose from Clarkson disappearing from the screens as
they hang off his coat-tails.
~misfit~
2015-03-12 10:39:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sir Tim
Post by Jimbo
Post by Greg
Suspended by BBC
No Top Gear on Sunday.
If he behaved like a twat, then the BBC management have no choice but to
dump him. They are a national/international institution and no
personality should ever be allowed to behave like they are bigger than
the institution for which they work. Dump him quickly and get on with the show!
Clarkson *is* the show.
The Beeb would do well to drop it completely but I expect that, as
usual, they will continue to flog the horse until it is quite dead.
And why wouldn't they? It likely earns them as much as all their other shows
put together. Don't forget that the BBC is what amounts to a non-profit and
the money from Top Gear goes into other productions and/or subsidises your
TV licence. In fact the show's so popular world-wide that without the money
it brings in you'd probably have to pay double for your TV licence *and*
miss out on most of the better dramas and docos. Wasn't it the most
successful TV show in the world pre-Game of Thrones? (Also it likely has
about 1.5% of GoTs production budget.)

The petition to reinstate him just hit half a million signatures.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a
cozy little classification in the DSM."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
Brian Lawrence
2015-03-12 11:32:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Sir Tim
Post by Jimbo
Post by Greg
Suspended by BBC
No Top Gear on Sunday.
If he behaved like a twat, then the BBC management have no choice but to
dump him. They are a national/international institution and no
personality should ever be allowed to behave like they are bigger than
the institution for which they work. Dump him quickly and get on with the show!
Clarkson *is* the show.
The Beeb would do well to drop it completely but I expect that, as
usual, they will continue to flog the horse until it is quite dead.
And why wouldn't they? It likely earns them as much as all their other shows
put together.
Someone said somewhere, that it earns more than any other non-fiction tv
show in the world.
Post by ~misfit~
Don't forget that the BBC is what amounts to a non-profit and
the money from Top Gear goes into other productions and/or subsidises your
TV licence. In fact the show's so popular world-wide that without the money
it brings in you'd probably have to pay double for your TV licence *and*
miss out on most of the better dramas and docos. Wasn't it the most
successful TV show in the world pre-Game of Thrones? (Also it likely has
about 1.5% of GoTs production budget.)
The petition to reinstate him just hit half a million signatures.
--
Brian W Lawrence
Wantage
Oxfordshire
Sir Tim
2015-03-13 14:01:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Sir Tim
Clarkson *is* the show.
The Beeb would do well to drop it completely but I expect that, as
usual, they will continue to flog the horse until it is quite dead.
And why wouldn't they? It likely earns them as much as all their other shows
put together. Don't forget that the BBC is what amounts to a non-profit and
the money from Top Gear goes into other productions and/or subsidises your
TV licence. In fact the show's so popular world-wide that without the money
it brings in you'd probably have to pay double for your TV licence *and*
miss out on most of the better dramas and docos. Wasn't it the most
successful TV show in the world pre-Game of Thrones? (Also it likely has
about 1.5% of GoTs production budget.)
I had no idea the show was so popular worldwide (and don't really
understand why) but in that case it was even more stupid of the producer
not to indulge its star performer, however obnoxious his behaviour.
--
Sir Henry Birkin, Bt.
.
2015-03-13 14:30:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sir Tim
I had no idea the show was so popular worldwide (and don't really
understand why) but in that case it was even more stupid of the producer
not to indulge its star performer, however obnoxious his behaviour.
I guess I can understand such a sentiment, coming as it does
from someone who deservedly has no self-respect or dignity.
~misfit~
2015-03-13 23:33:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sir Tim
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Sir Tim
Clarkson *is* the show.
The Beeb would do well to drop it completely but I expect that, as
usual, they will continue to flog the horse until it is quite dead.
And why wouldn't they? It likely earns them as much as all their
other shows put together. Don't forget that the BBC is what amounts
to a non-profit and the money from Top Gear goes into other
productions and/or subsidises your TV licence. In fact the show's so
popular world-wide that without the money it brings in you'd
probably have to pay double for your TV licence *and* miss out on
most of the better dramas and docos. Wasn't it the most successful
TV show in the world pre-Game of Thrones? (Also it likely has about
1.5% of GoTs production budget.)
I had no idea the show was so popular worldwide (and don't really
understand why) but in that case it was even more stupid of the
producer not to indulge its star performer, however obnoxious his
behaviour.
Exactly. The producer's raison d'etre was to produce the show. Clarkson's
foibles are well-known. If he didn't want to do the job he shouldn't have
signed up for it.

That said though it seems that Clarkson's fed up with constantly being on
probation for doing exactly what gets hundreds of millions of people
watching his show and may be pushing the boundaries deliberately.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a
cozy little classification in the DSM."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
Alan LeHun
2015-03-14 01:48:40 UTC
Permalink
In article <mdvs26$80e$***@dont-email.me>, ***@gmail.com
says...
Post by ~misfit~
Exactly. The producer's raison d'etre was to produce the show. Clarkson's
foibles are well-known. If he didn't want to do the job he shouldn't have
signed up for it.
That said though it seems that Clarkson's fed up with constantly being on
probation for doing exactly what gets hundreds of millions of people
watching his show and may be pushing the boundaries deliberately.
He sold his share of Top Gear rights 3 years ago, presumably with much
contractual obligations attached. Over the past 2 years he has gradually
gotten himself into ever more trouble with Auntie. We still don't know
who leaked the einny-meenie tape although the cynical may hazard to take
a guess and it was Clarkson who turned himself in over this lastest
fracus. Most of these moments have come either from the program episodes
themselves or just prior or during a series.

Sky and ITV will be rubbing their hands at the prospect of signing him
up and Clarkson knows he will get a far bigger slice of the pie from
them than he gets currently. His Top Gear contract is up for renewal
soon and he is probably obligated to 'come to an agreement' but that is
something that can't be renewed if he is sacked first.

I don't think the prospect of being fired is something that worries him.
Quite the opposite.
--
Alan LeHun
Reply-to is valid. Add "BPSF" to subject: to bypass spam filters.
Jimbo
2015-03-15 16:18:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sir Tim
Post by Jimbo
Post by Greg
Suspended by BBC
No Top Gear on Sunday.
If he behaved like a twat, then the BBC management have no choice but to
dump him. They are a national/international institution and no
personality should ever be allowed to behave like they are bigger than
the institution for which they work. Dump him quickly and get on with the show!
Clarkson *is* the show.
The Beeb would do well to drop it completely but I expect that, as usual,
they will continue to flog the horse until it is quite dead.
--
Sir Henry Birkin, Bt.
I don't believe he is and I find myself enjoying the segments and contributions of the others moreso that Jeremy. I fully accept that he is due full credit for making the show what it is but he cannot be bigger than the show itself.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...