Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: donnyguy61 on March 10, 2015, 04:57:34 pm
-
@SkyNewsBreak 5m5 minutes ago
The BBC has suspended Top Gear presenter Jeremy Clarkson "following a fracas" with a producer
-
Does this mean my licence fee will no longer be feeding the troll?
-
Let's hope Doncaster's finest son gets away with it. Top Gear would be finished without him.
Surely the BBC will see sense and give him another final warning. If not I fear the licence fee will go up due to a drop in revenue from selling the programme worldwide.
-
Top gear will be nothing without him, frankly boring.
The bbc is making a huge mistake. Clarkson is MASSIVELY popular, and will get employment elsewhere
-
A first rate cock - Top Gear is just a rich boys car club.
-
Another typical example of Donny folk hating their own. Deep down I suspect we hate ourselves.
-
Boomstick
I guess the irony goes over your head. Supporting Clarkson on one thread and berating bullying on another...
-
What a class act our Jeremy is. He still has a senses of humour (unlike some others on this forum I could mention). When asked where he was going he replied 'to the Job Centre'. Hilarious.
Let's just hope political correctness doesn't end up with him leaving Top Gear.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/jeremy-clarkson-pictured-leaving-home-5312378
-
Yes Mick political correctness has gone mad, if you cant even punch someone in the face for not bringing you dinner in time, what is the world coming to.
-
The blokes a complete dick who thinks he can do what he wants. I don't give a shite if hes from Donny or not.
-
I can't understand why people don't like him. He just does and says things to wind people up and doesn't give a f**k. He's funny. In my opinion if you don't like him you don't know how to take him.
-
Some recent article got him bang on recently.
He is a clever man whose approach is deliberately aimed at winding up po-faced liberals. I understand that and they are a fair target.
BUT
In the process, he reinforces stupid, idle, prejudices. His humour deliberately aims at either idiotic stereotypes or at belittling and bullying relatively weak sections of society. That "eeny meeny" video is a classic example. Have a snigger at using the word "nigger" then turn the disgust back at the PC brigade (sic). If in doing that, he was ONLY winding up the easily wound up, that would be very clever humour. But that's NOT all he does. Incidentally or deliberately, he normalises attitudes that should be ostracised.
There is also the fact that the Kitson's humour is so f**king unsophisticated that only retards would find it funny, but that's another issue.
-
He's a very successful broadcaster and writer whose opinionated tongue in cheek style doesn't appeal to everyone, but I like him, his writing especially.
-
He's a t**t!
-
Isn't violence in the workplace grounds for instant dismissal due to gross misconduct?
Or is it one law for the ordinary man and another for a petrol head's wet dream?
As far as I can see that is all that matters. If the report of violence is true then he has no right to a place on TV.
The BBC as per usual play it completely wrong by canning the last three episodes. They should have carried on without him. Strange as it probably might seem to him and his fans Top Gear is the sum of more parts than just Mr Clarkeson.
-
Donnys not got much going for it, but by far and away the most embarrassing thing is that this cock is associated with the place.
He appeals to my teenage boys and all the 20-30-40 yr olds that failed to grow up/get a woman/get a life or amy kind of education!!!!
He and his 400000 petition signers' are a perfect example of why vote should be based on a suitable IQ test!
-
That's one of the most pompous posts I've ever read on here.
This is turning into the intellectuals, we're better than you thread.
Do you know what, I like Top Gear, I quite like Clarksons humour. I don't agree with everything he does or says but that certainly doesn't make me a moron who doesn't have a woman, education or a life.
-
......And also offensive to our town, having 'not got much going for it'.
-
I think we should start an online petition (idiots will), that he gets a hard kick in the scrotum.
-
Look. Lets get one thing straight. If he has punched someone then that is not ideal behaviour. If he apologises to the person affected and his apology is accepted then that should be the end of the matter.
Those of you that want him sacked need to think things through a bit. If he is sacked will the punishment fit the crime? I would argue that there would be so many people affected by the demise of Top Gear that the punishment would be totally way over the top.
What about the person who was allegedly punched? He would lose his job. So would many others. The BBC would lose a lot of revenue. I could go on.
One thing that would not be affected is Jeremy's earning power. The other television companies would be lining up to pay him considerably more than the BBC to head a new show.
So having considered the ramifications I think it is obvious Jeremy should keep his job.
Now those of you that don't like him need to get a humour bypass reversal operation sorted. The man is funny. If you don't think he is then there is something seriously wrong with your personality. Just because he is right wing shouldn't mean he is not funny. You lefties need to get a grip and stop judging people purely on their political point of view.
Those of you that do are pathetic in the extreme and need to get a grip.
-
Look. Lets get one thing straight. If he has punched someone then that is not ideal behaviour. If he apologises to the person affected and his apology is accepted then that should be the end of the matter.
Those of you that want him sacked need to think things through a bit. If he is sacked will the punishment fit the crime? I would argue that there would be so many people affected by the demise of Top Gear that the punishment would be totally way over the top.
What about the person who was allegedly punched? He would lose his job. So would many others. The BBC would lose a lot of revenue. I could go on.
One thing that would not be affected is Jeremy's earning power. The other television companies would be lining up to pay him considerably more than the BBC to head a new show.
So having considered the ramifications I think it is obvious Jeremy should keep his job.
Now those of you that don't like him need to get a humour bypass reversal operation sorted. The man is funny. If you don't think he is then there is something seriously wrong with your personality. Just because he is right wing shouldn't mean he is not funny. You lefties need to get a grip and stop judging people purely on their political point of view.
Those of you that do are pathetic in the extreme and need to get a grip.
Sorry pal, I didn't read any of that. Do you want to be second in the queue? You might have to kick him in the throat tho.
-
Could you reach?
-
Look. Lets get one thing straight. If he has punched someone then that is not ideal behaviour. If he apologises to the person affected and his apology is accepted then that should be the end of the matter.
Those of you that want him sacked need to think things through a bit. If he is sacked will the punishment fit the crime? I would argue that there would be so many people affected by the demise of Top Gear that the punishment would be totally way over the top.
What about the person who was allegedly punched? He would lose his job. So would many others. The BBC would lose a lot of revenue. I could go on.
One thing that would not be affected is Jeremy's earning power. The other television companies would be lining up to pay him considerably more than the BBC to head a new show.
So having considered the ramifications I think it is obvious Jeremy should keep his job.
Now those of you that don't like him need to get a humour bypass reversal operation sorted. The man is funny. If you don't think he is then there is something seriously wrong with your personality. Just because he is right wing shouldn't mean he is not funny. You lefties need to get a grip and stop judging people purely on their political point of view.
Those of you that do are pathetic in the extreme and need to get a grip.
Now I find top gear entertaining. I think Clarkson can be funny - sometimes it isn't what he says or does, it is the fact that they are a bit risque that is funny in itself. I take top gear as satirical light entertainment, and not a factual car show. I noticed the un-subtle displays of Chilean flags in this series after the Argentina debacle.
Notwithstanding Clarkson's persona - I have no idea if he is a Kitson away from his job - if I or any of my colleagues punched one another AT WORK the person could be summarily dismissed for gross misconduct. It matters not who the person is or what level of seniority or importance to the company - gross misconduct is gross misconduct.
Why should the BBC be any different to many employers in its disciplinary procedures?
-
Look. Lets get one thing straight. If he has punched someone then that is not ideal behaviour. If he apologises to the person affected and his apology is accepted then that should be the end of the matter.
Those of you that want him sacked need to think things through a bit. If he is sacked will the punishment fit the crime? I would argue that there would be so many people affected by the demise of Top Gear that the punishment would be totally way over the top.
What about the person who was allegedly punched? He would lose his job. So would many others. The BBC would lose a lot of revenue. I could go on.
One thing that would not be affected is Jeremy's earning power. The other television companies would be lining up to pay him considerably more than the BBC to head a new show.
So having considered the ramifications I think it is obvious Jeremy should keep his job.
Now those of you that don't like him need to get a humour bypass reversal operation sorted. The man is funny. If you don't think he is then there is something seriously wrong with your personality. Just because he is right wing shouldn't mean he is not funny. You lefties need to get a grip and stop judging people purely on their political point of view.
Those of you that do are pathetic in the extreme and need to get a grip.
Now I find top gear entertaining. I think Clarkson can be funny - sometimes it isn't what he says or does, it is the fact that they are a bit risque that is funny in itself. I take top gear as satirical light entertainment, and not a factual car show. I noticed the un-subtle displays of Chilean flags in this series after the Argentina debacle.
Notwithstanding Clarkson's persona - I have no idea if he is a Kitson away from his job - if I or any of my colleagues punched one another AT WORK the person could be summarily dismissed for gross misconduct. It matters not who the person is or what level of seniority or importance to the company - gross misconduct is gross misconduct.
Why should the BBC be any different to many employers in its disciplinary procedures?
Because if they do sack him it will not be any kind of penalty to him. They will be cutting off their noses to spite their face. When a 'normal' employee gets sacked it usually results in severe financial hardship and great difficulty in getting another job. This does not apply to Clarkson. I bet the sales of his books and DVD's have gone up quite a lot since this fracas. Do you not think Sky would love to have him on their books presenting a similar show? Do you not think they would pay him a lot more than the BBC? Jeremy is such a top bloke that he has worked for the BBC for a long time now even though he knew he could earn a lot more money elsewhere.
The punishment should fit the crime. Sacking him is not going to punish him. Maybe they could fine him. I'm sure there are much better punishments that are appropriate to this unusual case that will not result in everyone else concerned being 'punished. You have to think of all the other people associated with Top Gear. The show would be finished without Jeremy. It would be the people associated with the show that would lose out including the bloke he allegedly punched. Jeremy would most definitely not lose out.
So let's think with our heads for a moment instead of our hearts. It is mainly lefties that are calling for his head just because they can't stand the way he takes the piss out of them. In fact they can't stand it if anyone takes a different world view to them. They need to grow up and get a sense of humour.
When someone is the main driver (pun intended) behind a show or business then sacking them is incredibly stupid as it is all the others that work for that show or business that suffers. Other punishments have to be find.
Lets hope the BBC sees sense and doesn't bow to all this leftie political correctness nonsense.
-
It is mainly lefties that are calling for his head just because they can't stand the way he takes the piss out of them. In fact they can't stand it if anyone takes a different world view to them. They need to grow up and get a sense of humour.
When someone is the main driver (pun intended) behind a show or business then sacking them is incredibly stupid as it is all the others that work for that show or business that suffers. Other punishments have to be find.
Lets hope the BBC sees sense and doesn't bow to all this leftie political correctness nonsense.
You make some very valid points in your post about how this will affect others on the show.
I am intrigued however as to how you arrived at the bit I quote from you above.
What grounds do you have to support this?
As you ALWAYS answers questions (you say), then since this hit the headlines yesterday and the petition to re-instate Clarkson is around 1/2 million, then what is your source in supporting that over 50% of those asking for his head (in or outside the petition) are lefties?... please be specific.... or was this just your opinion?.
Also.... where has your "fact" come from that "the reason these lefties are calling for his head is that they can't stand the way he takes the p*ss out of them"? Have you actually asked the majority and this was their response or is this just an assumption of yours?
I'm just intrigued as,your post reads these to be factual.
I do agree that some actions taken against Clarkson will impact on others. This does not mean that he should be allowed to get away with gross misconduct.
-
No, I would expect the BBC to apply its disciplinary procedures regardless of who is involved. If that means sacking Clarkson who then goes on to greater fortune elsewhere, so be it. from the BBC's point of view they will have dealt with a miscreant appropriately, and in the same way as any other employee.
It's called Equal Opportunities, and it applies to ALL workplaces. Nothing political or "leftie" about it.
-
Clarkson is not employed by the BBC, so he can't be "sacked", fined or even disciplined. His company could however potentially have its contract terminated.
Presumably the BBC will not just screen a blank screen for an hour every Sunday night, so there will be other shows commissioned to fill the gap therefore there will be other opportunities for the production team to work one.
-
Was there THIS much demand for John Prescott to be sacked following his attack on an demonstrator a few years back?
-
BB.
Was that the one where Prescott flew into a rage because he'd ordered a steak, only got a sarnie and t**tted someone as a result>
-
BST
No, it was the time he gave a demonstrator a knuckle sarnie after he was egged on.
-
BB
Oh that one?
You mean the one where the due process of the law went straight into action, the police investigated the incident and decided that no action should be taken because he was acting in self-defence to an assault?
Is that the one you mean?
Only, I don't see any parallels whatsoever there. Maybe you can point them out to us?
-
Ah! 'due process of the law'. What a pity some of us can only wait for that when it suits, and bugger the investigation!
I would bet my starboard knacker that you would have demanded Prescott's resignation had he been a Tory, and I would have had a double on you claiming this Clarkson incident were now't but a scuffle, done in private anyway, had he been someone you liked!
A typical example of selective judgment.
-
BB
1) I guess you must have been on leave when I gave my opinion about Plebgate.
2) I assume you think that the half million people who have signed petitions asking for Clarkson NOT to be sacked should wait for due process? Funny how you're not complaining about them...
3) have a careful to see what my opinion of what should happen to Clarkson as a result of what he may or may not have done in response to not getting a steak on order. Let me know when you find it. [1]
A classic case of deciding what you think other people think and forming your judgement on that.
[1] For the record, I've always thought the Kitson was a Kitson. What he may have done this week makes no difference to my opinion of him. He's a Kitson.
-
It is mainly lefties that are calling for his head just because they can't stand the way he takes the piss out of them. In fact they can't stand it if anyone takes a different world view to them. They need to grow up and get a sense of humour.
When someone is the main driver (pun intended) behind a show or business then sacking them is incredibly stupid as it is all the others that work for that show or business that suffers. Other punishments have to be find.
Lets hope the BBC sees sense and doesn't bow to all this leftie political correctness nonsense.
You make some very valid points in your post about how this will affect others on the show.
I am intrigued however as to how you arrived at the bit I quote from you above.
What grounds do you have to support this?
As you ALWAYS answers questions (you say), then since this hit the headlines yesterday and the petition to re-instate Clarkson is around 1/2 million, then what is your source in supporting that over 50% of those asking for his head (in or outside the petition) are lefties?... please be specific.... or was this just your opinion?.
Also.... where has your "fact" come from that "the reason these lefties are calling for his head is that they can't stand the way he takes the p*ss out of them"? Have you actually asked the majority and this was their response or is this just an assumption of yours?
I'm just intrigued as,your post reads these to be factual.
I do agree that some actions taken against Clarkson will impact on others. This does not mean that he should be allowed to get away with gross misconduct.
I don't think he should be allowed to get away with gross misconduct either but sacking him is not the answer. We don't even know what he's supposed to have done yet but he has already been judged by the lefties.
Here are a few links to articles that prove that it is the lefties that want him out. This is common knowledge and I'm surprised you aren't aware of the situation.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/guido-fawkes-jeremy-clarkson-top-gear-presenter-legend-left-wing-pinkos-are-out-get-him-1491420
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/03/i-suspected-the-liberal-fascists-would-eventually-get-clarkson/
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/10/clarkson-should-do-the-decent-thing-and-resign
-
Of course it is only 'lefties' who are 'out to get' Clarkson. People of a right wing persuasion believe it is absolutely fine to thump lower class oiks in the face as they have always treated their servants that way...and will again once King Nigel takes over..
-
Anybody thinking that it's ok to throw eggs,paint or flour at people deserve all that they get.
The guy who got thumped by Prescott also decided to take no further action as he was embarrassed if I remember right.
-
BST
People don't want him sacked, because guilty or not they like him, and want to see him continue in his TV role. You appear to want him sacked, because irrespective of his innocence or guilt, he's a kitson, who you can't abide!
Your claim that his 'bullying of relatively weak sections of society', actually reminds me of how you treat some people on this forum, and it's made me wonder if your denial of the similarities force you to hate him!
'The FACT that his humour is so f***ing unsophisticated that only retards find it funny', is an attack on not just Clarkson, but is a direct insult to those on this forum who like his work.
Clarksonesque or what?
-
Jimmy Savile's programmes were very popular too.
Just a thought.
-
BB
*Applause*
You cottoned on to my ironic use of Clarksonesque humour.
See, there's something about bullying humour. It's only funny when some other poor Kitson is on the end of it.
-
As someone who has been on the end of incessant leftie bullying on this forum I find it very ironic that lefties think it is OK to criticise right wingers for it. Talk about double standards.
-
As someone who has been on the end of incessant leftie bullying on this forum I find it very ironic that lefties think it is OK to criticise right wingers for it. Talk about double standards.
Really? When did anyone on here punch you?
-
I don't understand why this is an issue of left or right. I would have thought there is only one issue, that someone with a considerable amount of power in his place of work turned into a little girl and threw a tantrum and allegedly a punch.
Unless we are talking about leftie or rightie hands doing the swinging? :whistle:
-
For a longtime now I've thought the best thing on Top Gear is James May.
Clarkson has a strange love hate relationship with Doncaster. He loves it's industrial heritage, he appears to hate the people who made it possible.
As for the fact that he appears to have smacked an underling in the face for failing to provide him with a steak supper.... Well, that is disgusting, the money has gone to his head and he has become a complete diva.
-
Clarkson's persona of political incorrectness obviously won't appeal to the PC brigade.
-
Clarkson's persona of political incorrectness obviously won't appeal to the PC brigade.
So you believe he's deliberately being obnoxious as a persona?
-
I think political incorrectness makes a very refreshing change from the boring 'look how nice I am' PC brigade, some of whom only support it because they aren't brave enough to speak their minds, so instead take refuse in sitting in the 'aren't I nice', safe seat.
Only a member of the PC brigade would take it serious enough to call it obnoxious.
-
Jimmy Savile's programmes were very popular too.
Just a thought.
And they still would be had Savile been guilty of no more than what Clarkson is accused of.
-
"PC"
Or, as we used to call it, "not being a Kitson".
-
"PC"
Or, as we used to call it, "not being a Kitson".
Who's WE?
-
BB
It's a simple issue to me.
Either you find someone making offensive "jokes" where the joke itself is not actually funny, but the deliberate choice of offensive terms is what actually makes people laugh, or you don't. That's what splits opinions on him.
Using derogatory racial terms AS the joke, not in part of a genuinely funny joke is clearly hilarious to some people. And not to others. You choose which side you are on.
I'll help you decide. If you had a cripplingly disabled child, would you find it amusing if a highly paid TV personality who is feted by millions of people got a cheap laugh by using the word "spasticker"?
Think about it. There's a principle at stake.
-
Only a member of the PC brigade would take it serious enough to call it obnoxious.
Congratulations! You've managed to surpass previous levels of silliness in this thread.
-
Steve Coogan's piece on it is very good. This is a man who not only knows what proper comedy is but has also had several characters who have straddled the PC line and is also a massive fan of Top Gear.
http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2011/feb/05/top-gear-offensive-steve-coogan
-
Rios
Excellent article. That sums up PRECISELY what I about the Top Gear lads' humour
-
BST
I've never said Clarkson was perfect, and I don't recall anybody else saying he was either. Neither has he himself as far as I'm aware. The only person trying to stake a claim of perfection in this debate (as usual) is you, along with one or two of your disciples. Perhaps it is they who you referred to as 'WE' in your previous post, considering that you've left me guessing because of yet another unanswered question.
Like I pointed out in a previous post, You want him sacking because you don't like him, irrespective of the result of an enquiry into this weeks incident. If it was someone you liked, your reaction would have been different.
It's a simple issue to me.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7CnMQ4L9Pc
stick with it
-
I've never said Clarkson was perfect, and I don't recall anybody else saying he was either. Neither has he himself as far as I'm aware. The only person trying to stake a claim of perfection in this debate (as usual) is you, along with one or two of your disciples
:saywhat:
oh dear, now we can't agree with BST because otherwise we'll obviously be a disciple of his...
-
Oh you can, you can!
As long as you don't call me a retard because I like what you dislike.
-
BB.
Yes. Of course I shouldn't have called you a retard just because of some trait of yours. Because that is unpleasant and bullying humour. And not very funny.
Point?
Because if that has established a principle, then by extension, Clarkson and his acolytes shouldn't be cracking jokes (sic) about indolent Mexicans, about "slopes" or about "niggers".
But they do, don't they? And people love them for it, because they are so edgy.
Point?
-
If he has assaulted someone at the workplace that is grounds for dismissal. End of
-
If he has assaulted someone at the workplace that is grounds for dismissal. End of
It's not that simple. If he is sacked then Top Gear ceases to exists. This will cause hardship to all the people associated with the show. People will lose their jobs. The BBC will lose millions and have to pay out millions to other countries as they won't have fulfilled their contract to sell them a complete series.
The one person who won't suffer is Jeremy. He'll be snapped up by a rival broadcaster and paid much more than he currently is.
That's what will happen if anyone listens to lefie PC claptrap. How about this for a solution. Jeremy apologises to the person concerned and pays him £100,000 as compensation. If the person accepts his very generous offer everyone is happy. The BBC could even offer the affected person a job on another programme if this is what he wants. Jeremy could offer an abject apology to the world at the star of the next programme and offer to have his hands chopped off if he is ever involved in any more fisticuffs.
Sorted.
-
I must say my piss gets hotter with every condescending post I read from silly Billy. It's not just boiling it's positively steaming. Well done to BB for standing up to the arrogant, pompous oaf and his acolytes who can't think for themselves. Baa baa.
-
If he has assaulted someone at the workplace that is grounds for dismissal. End of
It's not that simple. If he is sacked then Top Gear ceases to exists. This will cause hardship to all the people associated with the show. People will lose their jobs. The BBC will lose millions and have to pay out millions to other countries as they won't have fulfilled their contract to sell them a complete series.
The one person who won't suffer is Jeremy. He'll be snapped up by a rival broadcaster and paid much more than he currently is.
That's what will happen if anyone listens to lefie PC claptrap. How about this for a solution. Jeremy apologises to the person concerned and pays him £100,000 as compensation. If the person accepts his very generous offer everyone is happy. The BBC could even offer the affected person a job on another programme if this is what he wants. Jeremy could offer an abject apology to the world at the star of the next programme an
d offer to have his hands chopped off if he is ever involved in any more fisticuffs.
Sorted.
Its not pc claptrap. If you assault a workmate yu lose your job. It's that black and white.
-
Clarkson is an overpaid idiot, who somehow with such little talent has managed to land a plum job, from what he says about Donny he is ashamed of coming from here.
Have you noticed how stars who supposedly love their home town, never live in it, as soon as the cash roles in it's straight to London?, there's more to life and this country than London.
-
Clarkson is an overpaid idiot, who somehow with such little talent has managed to land a plum job, from what he says about Donny he is ashamed of coming from here.
Have you noticed how stars who supposedly love their home town, never live in it, as soon as the cash roles in it's straight to London?, there's more to life and this country than London.
Bit of a contradiction there don't you think. First you say he is ashamed of Doncaster then in the next breath say he loves his home town. Make your mind up.
Look. I've been to London. There is no doubt it is a much better place to live than Doncaster. I'm proud of my home town but when you walk around the town centre it fills you with despair. I'm a great people watcher and there are a lot of sad cases frequenting the town centre.
What the hell has the Labour council been doing to improve the place? As each year goes by the place just seems to be going further downhill.
I've been to Brighton. That is also a much better place to live. I wouldn't criticise someone for living down South. If you are a big media personality it is the obvious place to live. That's where the work is.
So get a grip you lefties and come into the real world.
-
Clarkson is an overpaid idiot, who somehow with such little talent has managed to land a plum job, from what he says about Donny he is ashamed of coming from here.
Have you noticed how stars who supposedly love their home town, never live in it, as soon as the cash roles in it's straight to London?, there's more to life and this country than London.
Bit of a contradiction there don't you think. First you say he is ashamed of Doncaster then in the next breath say he loves his home town. Make your mind up.
Look. I've been to London. There is no doubt it is a much better place to live than Doncaster. I'm proud of my home town but when you walk around the town centre it fills you with despair. I'm a great people watcher and there are a lot of sad cases frequenting the town centre.
What the hell has the Labour council been doing to improve the place? As each year goes by the place just seems to be going further downhill.
I've been to Brighton. That is also a much better place to live. I wouldn't criticise someone for living down South. If you are a big media personality it is the obvious place to live. That's where the work is.
So get a grip you lefties and come into the real world.
Well done for intrducing political spin into yet another thread, you're getting extremley tiresome and boring!
-
If he has assaulted someone at the workplace that is grounds for dismissal. End of
It's not that simple. If he is sacked then Top Gear ceases to exists. This will cause hardship to all the people associated with the show. People will lose their jobs. The BBC will lose millions and have to pay out millions to other countries as they won't have fulfilled their contract to sell them a complete series.
The one person who won't suffer is Jeremy. He'll be snapped up by a rival broadcaster and paid much more than he currently is.
That's what will happen if anyone listens to lefie PC claptrap. How about this for a solution. Jeremy apologises to the person concerned and pays him £100,000 as compensation. If the person accepts his very generous offer everyone is happy. The BBC could even offer the affected person a job on another programme if this is what he wants. Jeremy could offer an abject apology to the world at the star of the next programme and offer to have his hands chopped off if he is ever involved in any more fisticuffs.
Sorted.
Are you suggesting that the Beeb shouldn't sack him because he's too valuable? Really? That's insane, and it's pretty much why the Beeb has found itself in hot water because of Jimmy Savile. Every employee should have the right to work in a fair and reasonable environment, free from threats of violence and insults without any exception. The problem, as I see it, is that people like Clarkson are treated like royalty and expect that their every whims are attended to. I read an article the other day that said that the stars of Friends always drove themselves to work, whereas the 'talent' at the Beeb are chauffeured in (one 'star' refused to be driven in to work in a people carrier, apparently) - that's just madness. It would seem that Clarkson is nothing but a cretinous winker, paid beyond his wildest dreams and pampered to such an extent that he feels it's okay to speak to people in such a despicable manner (that much we do know; the fisticuffs are speculation). If any of us did that in the workplace environment (especially after getting a final warning for racism) then we'd almost certainly be sacked. The same should - and almost certainly - must apply to Clarkson IF he did anything like what has been reported.
-
If he has assaulted someone at the workplace that is grounds for dismissal. End of
It's not that simple. If he is sacked then Top Gear ceases to exists. This will cause hardship to all the people associated with the show. People will lose their jobs. The BBC will lose millions and have to pay out millions to other countries as they won't have fulfilled their contract to sell them a complete series.
The one person who won't suffer is Jeremy. He'll be snapped up by a rival broadcaster and paid much more than he currently is.
That's what will happen if anyone listens to lefie PC claptrap. How about this for a solution. Jeremy apologises to the person concerned and pays him £100,000 as compensation. If the person accepts his very generous offer everyone is happy. The BBC could even offer the affected person a job on another programme if this is what he wants. Jeremy could offer an abject apology to the world at the star of the next programme and offer to have his hands chopped off if he is ever involved in any more fisticuffs.
Sorted.
Are you suggesting that the Beeb shouldn't sack him because he's too valuable? Really? That's insane, and it's pretty much why the Beeb has found itself in hot water because of Jimmy Savile. Every employee should have the right to work in a fair and reasonable environment, free from threats of violence and insults without any exception. The problem, as I see it, is that people like Clarkson are treated like royalty and expect that their every whims are attended to. I read an article the other day that said that the stars of Friends always drove themselves to work, whereas the 'talent' at the Beeb are chauffeured in (one 'star' refused to be driven in to work in a people carrier, apparently) - that's just madness. It would seem that Clarkson is nothing but a cretinous winker, paid beyond his wildest dreams and pampered to such an extent that he feels it's okay to speak to people in such a despicable manner (that much we do know; the fisticuffs are speculation). If any of us did that in the workplace environment (especially after getting a final warning for racism) then we'd almost certainly be sacked. The same should - and almost certainly - must apply to Clarkson IF he did anything like what has been reported.
Listen. I would bet you a lot of money that most people would accept £100,000 for a punch on the nose at work. They'd be queuing up to get punched.
You have to look at the big picture. Jeremy is not going to suffer by being sacked. He will benefit. He is already benefiting. I guarantee the sales of his books and DVDs are up more than usual since he became headline news. It is the others associated with the show that would suffer in particular the one that allegedly got punched and millions of viewers.
It's far too simplistic to say he should just be sacked. Not everything is black and white you know.
-
Yes it is. He's been racist on a number of occasions and now it would seem that he's threatened an employee (verbally and perhaps physically). If the Beeb doesn't stamp on this hard it's tantamount to them saying that its 'stars' can do and act as they please. It doesn't matter a jot that Clarkson might go on and prosper, but it matters a great deal that the BBC is seen to treat all of its employees equally.
-
Might I point out to the Hon. Gentleman that Brighton has a Green Party council.
And by the way I carry no torch for the Greens .
-
I'm struggling to see any grey areas in this case. The only "muddying of the water, " so to speak, is that his supporters seem to think that the only people who want him to be fired, are doing so only because they hate him.
Like him or hate him, if the rumours are true, he should be fired.
It reminds me of the whole Martha Stewart BS. Being a popular celebrity and/or rich shouldn't exempt you from the law, no matter how much you can afford to pay the individual or the state in recompense.
Mick, if a Royal had done something similar to what has been alleged, you'd be calling for their head, preaching about how they shouldn't be protected by privilege etc. I've little doubt that had they subsequently walked away after paying off the victim with a hundred grand, your piss would be boiling right about now.
-
I'm struggling to see any grey areas in this case. The only "muddying of the water, " so to speak, is that his supporters seem to think that the only people who want him to be fired, are doing so only because they hate him.
Like him or hate him, if the rumours are true, he should be fired.
It reminds me of the whole Martha Stewart BS. Being a popular celebrity and/or rich shouldn't exempt you from the law, no matter how much you can afford to pay the individual or the state in recompense.
Mick, if a Royal had done something similar to what has been alleged, you'd be calling for their head, preaching about how they shouldn't be protected by privilege etc. I've little doubt that had they subsequently walked away after paying off the victim with a hundred grand, your piss would be boiling right about now.
Look. It patently isn't black and white. The only punishment the anti Jeremy brigade can come up with is for him to be sacked. This is not a punishment. In fact it is the opposite.
If he's done what is being alleged then he should be punished. He shouldn't benefit from the fracas. I can't believe all you Jeremy haters don't want him to be punished. Well I can actually.
You want the people who like Jeremy to be punished. That is the top and bottom of it. The tenor of silly Billy's posts and his followers is that they hate Jeremy so anyone that likes Jeremy must be hated and ridiculed too.
Get a grip ffs. Learn to think outside the box. Fining him £100,000 will be far more of a punishment than sacking him. If he wants to come and punch me he is welcome to (as long as he gives me £100,000).
As for the royals. If they punched a producer of a documentary on one of them they would not be sacked. How can you sack one of them? An appropriate punishment would have to be found. If it was up to me they would have the offending fist chopped off. I'd be quite happy to administer such a punishment.
Prince Andrew has been embroiled in a case where he is alleged to have had sex with an under age girl. A similar punishment should be administered where he would have his todger chopped off. That would stop him doing it again the dirty bas**rd.
-
You are a very silly man (I assume you are male, though I'm not sure anyone of the male persuasion would suggest that chap removal was a reasonable punishment for any crime). Anyways, you have now suggested that Clarkson should be fined, which - if you thought inside or outside of any box - is tantamount to saying that anyone can do anything as long as they can afford to pay (in cash) for the consequences. Wonderful logic and reasoning, that.
As has been said, it's not actually about liking or disliking the old dinosaur; it's about the fact that if he's guilty of the allegations then he should be punished in the exact same way that anyone who works at or for the Beeb would be. It's a very simple train of thought/logic.
If he does get the boot, would Sky, ITV or Ch4 really want to take him on? Sure, all three of the Top Gear guffers' contracts are up for renewal in a few days' time (which makes me wonder if this is just another calculated stunt of JC's to get himself and his mates a new gig), but you have to wonder IF other channels would have him and pay him the money whilst supporting financially a programme of Top Gear's ilk. Sure, TG makes a lot of money overseas, but it costs arms and legs and sells well because it's a BBC programme as well as being fronted by JC. Again, think it through if you can...
-
You are a very silly man (I assume you are male, though I'm not sure anyone of the male persuasion would suggest that chap removal was a reasonable punishment for any crime). Anyways, you have now suggested that Clarkson should be fined, which - if you thought inside or outside of any box - is tantamount to saying that anyone can do anything as long as they can afford to pay (in cash) for the consequences. Wonderful logic and reasoning, that.
As has been said, it's not actually about liking or disliking the old dinosaur; it's about the fact that if he's guilty of the allegations then he should be punished in the exact same way that anyone who works at or for the Beeb would be. It's a very simple train of thought/logic.
If he does get the boot, would Sky, ITV or Ch4 really want to take him on? Sure, all three of the Top Gear guffers' contracts are up for renewal in a few days' time (which makes me wonder if this is just another calculated stunt of JC's to get himself and his mates a new gig), but you have to wonder IF other channels would have him and pay him the money whilst supporting financially a programme of Top Gear's ilk. Sure, TG makes a lot of money overseas, but it costs arms and legs and sells well because it's a BBC programme as well as being fronted by JC. Again, think it through if you can...
Look. We'll just have to disagree. You want him to benefit from the fracas. I don't. You want the producer to lose his job. I don't. You begrudge the producer getting £100,000. I don't. You want everyone associated with the programme to lose their jobs. I don't. You want hundreds of millions of people to be disappointed that Top Gear is no longer available to them. I don't. You want the BBC to lose millions. I don't. I could go on.
Hopefully by now you have started to realise just how ridiculous your black and white world view is
As far as todger removal goes, I think it would be a very effective deterrent to paedophiles. I'm not suggesting they shouldn't have anaesthetic before removal. They don't deserve it but I wouldn't go that far. Do you think we'd have had so many Asian grooming scandals if they knew what the punishment would be? I can tell you. There wouldn't be any. Todger removal is a small price to pay for the protection of our girls.
-
That's an awful lot of presumptions there. I actually don't want anything. All I think is that all people who work for a company - regardless of what they are paid/or what revenue they generate - should be treated equally. Your thinking suggests that rich folk should be able to get away with whatever they want. I totally disagree with you because that kind of logic makes no sense to me whatsoever.
-
That's an awful lot of presumptions there. I actually don't want anything. All I think is that all people who work for a company - regardless of what they are paid/or what revenue they generate - should be treated equally. Your thinking suggests that rich folk should be able to get away with whatever they want. I totally disagree with you because that kind of logic makes no sense to me whatsoever.
Excuse me. Show me one presumption. You are being simplistic in the extreme. Having one law for everyone is not workable. The law and life are unfair.
Let me give you an example. If I break the speed limit I get fined say £60. Say I'm on £80,000 a year. Where is the fairness when a billionaire gets exactly the same £60 fine? See. Life isn't as simple as you make out.
Jeremy is fabulously wealthy. Losing his job will make him even more wealthy. It will make everyone else associated with the show poorer. You call that justice? Give me a break.
Look. It's very simple. Take off those rose tinted glasses and come into the real world like the rest of us (certain lefties excluded). If he's done what is suggested he should be punished. Hitting him in the wallet is the best punishment.
You obviously don't know that it was Jeremy that confessed to the incident to a bigwig at the BBC. The producer hadn't complained. Purely for this act of contrition and bravery Jeremy is to be commended. What a top bloke. He makes me proud to be a Doncastrian.
-
Presumptions:
"You want him to benefit from the fracas. I don't. You want the producer to lose his job. I don't. You begrudge the producer getting £100,000. I don't. You want everyone associated with the programme to lose their jobs. I don't. You want hundreds of millions of people to be disappointed that Top Gear is no longer available to them. I don't. You want the BBC to lose millions. I don't. I could go on."
Also this: "You obviously don't know that it was Jeremy that confessed to the incident to a bigwig at the BBC. The producer hadn't complained."
I knew this. I read the news and things.
Anyroad, your trolling and boneheadedness tire me. I think I shall go and talk to some adults.
-
Why do people respond to an idiot and a WUM?
-
Why do people respond to an idiot and a WUM?
I'll respond to Lipsy if I want to thank you very much.
-
Firstly, I have not offered my opinion on Clarkson. I have little opinion of the show, beyond the fact that I don't recall ever having watched it, nor feeling inclined to ever do so.
Secondly, ... You're just being silly now.
-
Firstly, I have not offered my opinion on Clarkson. I have little opinion of the show, beyond the fact that I don't recall ever having watched it, nor feeling inclined to ever do so.
Secondly, ... You're just being silly now.
Look. Stop ganging up on Lipsy. If you want to have a go at someone have a go at me instead.
-
I see Mick hasn't got the wit to come up with an original routine. It must be harder to Google for one than I thought.
-
You obviously don't know that it was Jeremy that confessed to the incident to a bigwig at the BBC. The producer hadn't complained. Purely for this act of contrition and bravery Jeremy is to be commended. What a top bloke. He makes me proud to be a Doncastrian.
first class trolling. bravo.
-
You obviously don't know that it was Jeremy that confessed to the incident to a bigwig at the BBC. The producer hadn't complained. Purely for this act of contrition and bravery Jeremy is to be commended. What a top bloke. He makes me proud to be a Doncastrian.
first class trolling. bravo.
Look. I'll have one more go at trying to convince you Jeremy haters that he shouldn't be sacked. Stop for one moment and think about the guy who was allegedly punched. He should be your prime concern. Do you think he wants Jeremy sacked? No he doesn't. Does this count for anything? Probably not with you Jeremy haters but it should. You don't seem to care what the fallout is as long as Jeremy gets his marching orders. How simplistic and silly.
The producer now fears losing his career. He is now the most hated man in Britain. He is persona non gratis. He is now living his life under unbearable pressure. I wouldn't be surprised if he commits suicide. Is that what you Jeremy haters want? Get a grip ffs.
The producer was mortified when the story went public. He had no intention of making a fuss over the incident. He was quite happy to make it up with Jeremy and carry on making Top Gear. Now due to the furore you Jeremy haters have caused his life is in tatters.
Stop and think for a minute. Rugby players quite regularly punch each other, gouge eyes, etc. What happens after the end of the match? They shake hands and move on.
That's what should happen with this case. Jeremy and the producer should make up (they probably already have) and we should all move on.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2995591/Producer-centre-Jeremy-Clarkson-fracas-fears-row-cost-career-emerges-Gear-host-personally-apologised-BBC-boss.htm
-
You obviously don't know that it was Jeremy that confessed to the incident to a bigwig at the BBC. The producer hadn't complained. Purely for this act of contrition and bravery Jeremy is to be commended. What a top bloke. He makes me proud to be a Doncastrian.
first class trolling. bravo.
Look. I'll have one more go at trying to convince you Jeremy haters that he shouldn't be sacked. Stop for one moment and think about the guy who was allegedly punched. He should be your prime concern. Do you think he wants Jeremy sacked? No he doesn't. Does this count for anything? Probably not with you Jeremy haters but it should. You don't seem to care what the fallout is as long as Jeremy gets his marching orders. How simplistic and silly.
The producer now fears losing his career. He is now the most hated man in Britain. He is persona non gratis. He is now living his life under unbearable pressure. I wouldn't be surprised if he commits suicide. Is that what you Jeremy haters want? Get a grip ffs.
The producer was mortified when the story went public. He had no intention of making a fuss over the incident. He was quite happy to make it up with Jeremy and carry on making Top Gear. Now due to the furore you Jeremy haters have caused his life is in tatters.
Stop and think for a minute. Rugby players quite regularly punch each other, gouge eyes, etc. What happens after the end of the match? They shake hands and move on.
That's what should happen with this case. Jeremy and the producer should make up (they probably already have) and we should all move on.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2995591/Producer-centre-Jeremy-Clarkson-fracas-fears-row-cost-career-emerges-Gear-host-personally-apologised-BBC-boss.htm
If he had no intention of reporting it why did Clarkson report it?
I'll tell you why, it was a pre emptive strike, he was getting his story in first to cover his back
-
He reported it because he is an honourable man. He knew he'd done wrong (allegedly) and he wanted to fess up and apologise at the earliest opportunity.
I think you'll find he has not covered his back by taking this honourable action. Just the opposite in fact.
-
Whether he is an honorable man, a racist, a bigot or a Chelsea fan IS NOT the issue. Whether we like him or not is also NOT the issue.
The issue is that he has abused a work colleague verbally and (possibly) physically. Pretty much everyone - regardless of their feelings towards the guy - agrees that the event should be investigated and actions should be taken according to findings.
That's it. Nothing else.
-
Hah. Honourable man my arse. honourable men don't go round lashing out.
-
Whether he is an honorable man, a racist, a bigot or a Chelsea fan IS NOT the issue. Whether we like him or not is also NOT the issue.
The issue is that he has abused a work colleague verbally and (possibly) physically. Pretty much everyone - regardless of their feelings towards the guy - agrees that the event should be investigated and actions should be taken according to findings.
That's it. Nothing else.
An insider has told me that there was a full on row for 40 minutes. Heated words were exchanged on both sides. Jeremy punched the producer and split his lip. Now I don't condone what Jeremy did but it would seem there was a bit of provocation from the producer. After a long hard tiring day and a cold meal on offer, Jeremy lost it. He wanted a hot meal. Perfectly understandable. He was very hangry.
After the fracas they both apologised to each other and parted on good terms. Jeremy being the honourable man that he is, fessed up because it was the right thing to do. He expected to be punished. He didn't want the producer and all those associated with the programme to lose their jobs so he hoped the incident would not become public knowledge. The producer also wanted the incident kept quiet.
Unfortunately a left winger at the BBC got wind of what had happened and made it public knowledge and since then all hell has broken loose.
Now at least you are coming around to my point of view. You are not now demanding he should be sacked. I totally agree with you. He should be punished, but the punishment should fit the crime. Sacking him is not an appropriate response because of the ramifications it would have for millions of people worldwide, not least the producer.
-
I haven't changed my mind or come around to anyone's thinking. This is what I said, and this still remains:
If any of us did that in the workplace environment (especially after getting a final warning for racism) then we'd almost certainly be sacked. The same should - and almost certainly - must apply to Clarkson IF he did anything like what has been reported.
If his last final warning is current and his recent actions are deemed to have been an act of gross misconduct then JC will have to be sacked. Sadly, that's the way it is, but none of us know the full facts as they have yet to be determined.
-
Mick, just to put your mind at rest:
Speaking in response to Oisin’s fears for his career, a BBC source said: “We would hope he will continue to be employed by the BBC after this matter is resolved – we make many different shows which need producers.”
http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/jeremy-clarkson-top-gear-producer-5336934
Seems like your inside source needs to get more up-to-date....or read more newspapers.
-
My insider says micks insider is talking crap, as they were both talking to Al Pacino and Russell Crowe in LA about a sequel at the time...
-
Just said his contract will not be renewed at the end of his current contract which runs out in about 4 weeks I think the guy is a kn0b but he makes top gear fun and fun to watch I don't even like cars and don't have a clue about them I just get in mine a drive don't care about what it looks like of the colour but he makes me won't to watch the program and without him that special something he brings to it will be lost , some will not agree with me I know but he does have a talent
-
Talent or no, loved or loathed, the plank hit someone he works with so he's been the architect of his own downfall. I have no sympathy for him whatsoever, but I see the BBC has taken the chicken route and stopped short of sacking him out-right. Bottlers.
-
Perhaps it's best that Clarkson's leaving the BBC. On reflection of this thread there should just be people on TV who we all like. Then at least we wouldn't get folk who hate someone calling folk that don't 'retards', and the like.
Perhaps TV should be full of squeaky clean, nice people, who just tell us what we all want to hear.
Now then, how do we compromise......
-
Freedom to express your opinions is one thing; abusing your perceived authority by way of verbal and physical assault is quite another.
-
BBC bottled it by not sacking. Read the findings to what he actually did and then say he doesn't deserve to be punished.
-
BBC bottled it by not sacking. Read the findings to what he actually did and then say he doesn't deserve to be punished.
You talking to me?
-
Give it 12 months and Sky will have a brand new motoring show with a team of 'well known' presenters
-
Sky has already said: "[We] can confirm he is not coming to work at Sky in any capacity." So you're probably right.
-
I've been speaking to my man in the know and can confirm the following. Jeremy, James and Richard will be fronting a new similar type programme on Sky or Netflix. They will all get big pay rises and will be allowed to be as politically incorrect as they want to be. There is no way James or Richard will carry on with Top Gear.
Jeremy is particularly saddened that the BBC was unable to find a solution other than sacking him. He was hoping that his many years of loyalty to Top Gear earning far less than he would have done if he had gone to Sky as Rupert Murdoch had always wanted, hasn't been repaid.
He was quite happy to be punished as what he did was wrong, but hoped that getting the sack would not be the way it was done.
He feels it is the leftie brigade that has done for him with the BBC. He says they will rue the day. I tend to agree.
-
Mental note to self don't invest in Netflix. The bloke is a 'Shirt front'
Even david Cameron likes him!
-
I've been speaking to my man in the know....
Your "man in the know" has already stated that it was a "40 minute row," and that he may sign up with Sky. Both massively wide of the mark. I suggest you find a different source, if he ever existed.
Assaulting somebody because he chose to stay out late in the pub, and consequently missed his dinner? It sounds more like domestic violence fuelled by alcohol, than professional behaviour from somebody old enough to know better.
Who the hell does he think he is? It sounds like the big baby has gotten what he deserved.
Politics and "talent" doesn't come into it; the man is clearly violent and unprofessional towards his colleagues. How could they possibly justify not sacking him?
-
...fuelled by Alcohol ?
My sources reckon he was drinking Rose Wine - Blush Wine White Zin in Orlando. How many bottles of that would it take to become even merry ?
For me 6 or 7 and I am not boasting !
All the rest of your points were well made. I suspect he engineered it all anyway to move on elsewhere but hey that is just my guess ... now where's my 3rd bottle of Blush gone ?
-
I've been speaking to my man in the know....
Your "man in the know" has already stated that it was a "40 minute row," and that he may sign up with Sky. Both massively wide of the mark. I suggest you find a different source, if he ever existed.
Assaulting somebody because he chose to stay out late in the pub, and consequently missed his dinner? It sounds more like domestic violence fuelled by alcohol, than professional behaviour from somebody old enough to know better.
Who the hell does he think he is? It sounds like the big baby has gotten what he deserved.
Politics and "talent" doesn't come into it; the man is clearly violent and unprofessional towards his colleagues. How could they possibly justify not sacking him?
How has he gotten what he deserved? He'll be getting a big pay rise. The sales of his books and DVDs have increased dramatically since the fracas. He will benefit immensely.
That is not a punishment for him. The only people that will be punished are the ones that lose their Top Gear jobs. The hundreds of millions world wide that are fans of the show have been punished. The BBC through loss of revenue have been punished. I could go on.
He should have been punished but he hasn't been. You lefties need to get a grip.
-
...fuelled by Alcohol ?
My sources reckon he was drinking Rose Wine - Blush Wine White Zin in Orlando. How many bottles of that would it take to become even merry ?
For me 6 or 7 and I am not boasting !
All the rest of your points were well made. I suspect he engineered it all anyway to move on elsewhere but hey that is just my guess ... now where's my 3rd bottle of Blush gone ?
Reread my post. You might better comprehend at the 2nd attempt.
I suggested that the reported behaviour was more akin to a drunken domestic disturbance than the level of professional conduct expected by somebody employed by the BBC.
-
Whatever happens after his "sacking," is irrelevant, and yes, that includes whether or not he subsequently benefits financially. Should the CPS decide to prosecute, or the producer to sue, the possibility of any upturn in income for Clarkson as a result of the publicity, should not be a factor for consideration.
If you behave in the manner that has been reported, you should face the consequences, end of story. In a place of work, that means termination on the grounds of gross misconduct. Moral implications aside, as an employer, the BBC has an obligation to protect their employees. Continuing to employ an individual who has (allegedly?) criminally assaulted a colleague, is unacceptable.
How has he been punished? Well, he has been publicly and professionally embarrassed for a start. Some deluded fans will forgive their idols of almost anything, and make excuses for them - nothing new there, but to those whom are not his groupies, he has been exposed as an unprofessional and thoroughly unpleasant man.
Nobody likes being fired, especially somebody with an ego. What ego? An ego so big that they'd assault a colleague because they chose to stay late in a pub and consequently missed dinner.
I refuse to believe that somebody with such an ego isn't stung by being told their behaviour is unacceptable like a naughty schoolboy. It's probably the first time he has been truly humbled in a very long time. I don't doubt that he thought he'd get another warning. After all, surely they couldn't/wouldn't fire him?
The fans of the show are an irrelevance. If they are "harmed" by the consequences of Clarkson's actions, then perhaps instead of offering moral support, excusing his behaviour, and condoning his petulance by buying his latest book or CD, maybe they should let him know how badly he has let them all down.
I have no opinion regarding anyone who enjoyed the show or his brand of humour, but those fans who are making excuses for him are sad, blinkered fanboys.
I'm not sure how political ideals are relevant to the issue at hand, i.e an employee assaulting another, but good try Mick! :laugh:
Donnywolf, why on earth would he feel the need to engineer a move, when his contract is up next month? Surely a Top Gear contract on the table would increase his bargaining power with a potential new employer? :blink:
-
Whatever happens after his "sacking," is irrelevant, and yes, that includes whether or not he subsequently benefits financially. Should the CPS decide to prosecute, or the producer to sue, the possibility of any upturn in income for Clarkson as a result of the publicity, should not be a factor for consideration.
If you behave in the manner that has been reported, you should face the consequences, end of story. In a place of work, that means termination on the grounds of gross misconduct. Moral implications aside, as an employer, the BBC has an obligation to protect their employees. Continuing to employ an individual who has (allegedly?) criminally assaulted a colleague, is unacceptable.
How has he been punished? Well, he has been publicly and professionally embarrassed for a start. Some deluded fans will forgive their idols of almost anything, and make excuses for them - nothing new there, but to those whom are not his groupies, he has been exposed as an unprofessional and thoroughly unpleasant man.
Nobody likes being fired, especially somebody with an ego. What ego? An ego so big that they'd assault a colleague because they chose to stay late in a pub and consequently missed dinner.
I refuse to believe that somebody with such an ego isn't stung by being told their behaviour is unacceptable like a naughty schoolboy. It's probably the first time he has been truly humbled in a very long time. I don't doubt that he thought he'd get another warning. After all, surely they couldn't/wouldn't fire him?
The fans of the show are an irrelevance. If they are "harmed" by the consequences of Clarkson's actions, then perhaps instead of offering moral support, excusing his behaviour, and condoning his petulance by buying his latest book or CD, maybe they should let him know how badly he has let them all down.
I have no opinion regarding anyone who enjoyed the show or his brand of humour, but those fans who are making excuses for him are sad, blinkered fanboys.
I'm not sure how political ideals are relevant to the issue at hand, i.e an employee assaulting another, but good try Mick! :laugh:
Donnywolf, why on earth would he feel the need to engineer a move, when his contract is up next month? Surely a Top Gear contract on the table would increase his bargaining power with a potential new employer? :blink:
Look. It's very simple. He should have been punished. What he did is totally unacceptable. I don't think anyone disagrees with that, even his most loyal fans. Where I take issue with you lefties is that he hasn't been punished. The people that have been punished are the employees associated with the show, the BBC and the worldwide audience. It is obvious to any right minded person that the punishment most definitely does not fit the crime.
Surely it was not beyond the wit of the BBC bosses to find an appropriate punishment.
Ask yourself the question what would happen to a rugby player if he was involved in a verbal dispute with another player that ended up in fisticuffs. According to you leftie lot he should be sacked. I can guarantee you that would not happen. What about footballers? During the Liverpool v Man Utd game there were some totally disgraceful challenges that could have been far more serious than a punch on the lip from a middle aged man. No doubt there is verbal warfare going on during the game as well. According to you leftie lot the players concerned should be sacked. This will not and does not happen. These types of challenges and verbal abuse go on all the time in front of millions of viewers and the worst that happens is a fine or short ban. What footballers get up to is far worse than what Jeremy did. An appropriate punishment is found.
Unfortunately for Jeremy, you leftie lot have too much influence on what should happen to people who are politically incorrect. Well I hope you're all happy with yourselves. You are a disgrace to right minded people. Seeing the world in black and white terms is unbelievably simplistic. But then again that's why you're a leftie in the first place.
-
(http://media.giphy.com/media/up6E8UgDdlU3u/giphy.gif)
-
...fuelled by Alcohol ?
My sources reckon he was drinking Rose Wine - Blush Wine White Zin in Orlando. How many bottles of that would it take to become even merry ?
For me 6 or 7 and I am not boasting !
All the rest of your points were well made. I suspect he engineered it all anyway to move on elsewhere but hey that is just my guess ... now where's my 3rd bottle of Blush gone ?
Reread my post. You might better comprehend at the 2nd attempt.
I suggested that the reported behaviour was more akin to a drunken domestic disturbance than the level of professional conduct expected by somebody employed by the BBC.
No need to reread. I agreed with your every word !
I was just jesting re the "fuelled by Alcohol" comment as JC is / was supposed to be drinking Rose Wine ! My point was how did he manage to get fuelled up on that ?
-
...fuelled by Alcohol ?
My sources reckon he was drinking Rose Wine - Blush Wine White Zin in Orlando. How many bottles of that would it take to become even merry ?
For me 6 or 7 and I am not boasting !
All the rest of your points were well made. I suspect he engineered it all anyway to move on elsewhere but hey that is just my guess ... now where's my 3rd bottle of Blush gone ?
Reread my post. You might better comprehend at the 2nd attempt.
I suggested that the reported behaviour was more akin to a drunken domestic disturbance than the level of professional conduct expected by somebody employed by the BBC.
No need to reread. I agreed with your every word !
I was just jesting re the "fuelled by Alcohol" comment as JC is / was supposed to be drinking Rose Wine ! My point was how did he manage to get fuelled up on that ?
I wasn't suggesting he was drunk at all, just that in slapping his producer around for not having his dinner ready, his behaviour was like that of a drunken spouse.... Forget it! :suicide:
:lol:
-
Inevitable, really.....
https://youtu.be/UZ_lFplMKTI
-
So.... As one of his most ardent sycophants, what are you complaining about? That he wasn't punished strongly enough? If so, I'd agree with you on that; bullies are unpleasant creatures, and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law at every opportunity.
Just what would've been an appropriate punishment by the BBC? As far as I'm concerned, an appropriate punishment for assault is to be arrested and charged for the crime. If it occurs in the workplace, then termination on the grounds of gross misconduct is appropriate.
Your comparisons are apples and oranges, but I expected that. A lot goes on in professional sport that is deemed to be "banter," or part of the "culture," such as homophobia, but that doesn't make it right either. You might suggest that a rugby player may be used to being roughed up a bit; it is a tough games after all. Usually teammates get over their squabbles quickly in private, shake hands, and that's that. I'm not sure how that equates to an egotistical TV presenter assaulting a producer, after throwing a tantrum because his dinner isn't on the table when he got back late from the pub. Do you see the inherent difference there? If not don't even bother to reply.
Players do, on occasion, face the legal repercussions of their actions. It is usually civil, as opposed to criminal. What happens on a pitch would constitute assault elsewhere.
You are one of the most closed minded person I have ever encountered, and a prime example of someone who sees the world in black and white, until it suits them to do otherwise. To accuse others of not being "right minded" like you, is a sincere compliment.
I get it; Jeremy Clarkson is your hero and you won't get to see him on your favourite TV show anymore. Here's not the place to find solace though. Try drowning your sorrows with the One Direction fans, they're going through a similar thing right now.
-
...fuelled by Alcohol ?
My sources reckon he was drinking Rose Wine - Blush Wine White Zin in Orlando. How many bottles of that would it take to become even merry ?
For me 6 or 7 and I am not boasting !
All the rest of your points were well made. I suspect he engineered it all anyway to move on elsewhere but hey that is just my guess ... now where's my 3rd bottle of Blush gone ?
Reread my post. You might better comprehend at the 2nd attempt.
I suggested that the reported behaviour was more akin to a drunken domestic disturbance than the level of professional conduct expected by somebody employed by the BBC.
No need to reread. I agreed with your every word !
I was just jesting re the "fuelled by Alcohol" comment as JC is / was supposed to be drinking Rose Wine ! My point was how did he manage to get fuelled up on that ?
I wasn't suggesting he was drunk at all, just that in slapping his producer around for not having his dinner ready, his behaviour was like that of a drunken spouse.... Forget it! :suicide:
:lol:
I agree I agree I agree I agree
All I was saying is Rose Wine is like Gnat piss (that was the thrust of my joke - or attempted joke !)
-
So.... As one of his most ardent sycophants, what are you complaining about? That he wasn't punished strongly enough? If so, I'd agree with you on that; bullies are unpleasant creatures, and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law at every opportunity.
Just what would've been an appropriate punishment by the BBC? As far as I'm concerned, an appropriate punishment for assault is to be arrested and charged for the crime. If it occurs in the workplace, then termination on the grounds of gross misconduct is appropriate.
Your comparisons are apples and oranges, but I expected that. A lot goes on in professional sport that is deemed to be "banter," or part of the "culture," such as homophobia, but that doesn't make it right either. You might suggest that a rugby player may be used to being roughed up a bit; it is a tough games after all. Usually teammates get over their squabbles quickly in private, shake hands, and that's that. I'm not sure how that equates to an egotistical TV presenter assaulting a producer, after throwing a tantrum because his dinner isn't on the table when he got back late from the pub. Do you see the inherent difference there? If not don't even bother to reply.
Players do, on occasion, face the legal repercussions of their actions. It is usually civil, as opposed to criminal. What happens on a pitch would constitute assault elsewhere.
You are one of the most closed minded person I have ever encountered, and a prime example of someone who sees the world in black and white, until it suits them to do otherwise. To accuse others of not being "right minded" like you, is a sincere compliment.
I get it; Jeremy Clarkson is your hero and you won't get to see him on your favourite TV show anymore. Here's not the place to find solace though. Try drowning your sorrows with the One Direction fans, they're going through a similar thing right now.
Excuse me. I hardly ever watch Top Gear. I won't be affected much by it's demise. He'll soon be doing a similar programme again on another network anyway. What I wanted was for Jeremy to be punished. He hasn't been. He has become wealthier since the incident and will become wealthier still when Sky or Netflix acquire his services. I don't call that a punishment.
You lefties are totally ridiculous. You all wanted him sacked no matter what the consequences. The producer didn't even report the incident. He is now persona non gratis the poor man.
In leftie land it's OK for footballers to regularly make potentially career ending challenges without losing their jobs but when Jeremy steps out of line once and connects with one punch you all want him sacked! You really do make my piss boil at your double standards.
Well, Jeremy has had the last laugh, all the way to the bank.
-
(http://media.giphy.com/media/up6E8UgDdlU3u/giphy.gif)
-
...fuelled by Alcohol ?
My sources reckon he was drinking Rose Wine - Blush Wine White Zin in Orlando. How many bottles of that would it take to become even merry ?
For me 6 or 7 and I am not boasting !
All the rest of your points were well made. I suspect he engineered it all anyway to move on elsewhere but hey that is just my guess ... now where's my 3rd bottle of Blush gone ?
Reread my post. You might better comprehend at the 2nd attempt.
I suggested that the reported behaviour was more akin to a drunken domestic disturbance than the level of professional conduct expected by somebody employed by the BBC.
No need to reread. I agreed with your every word !
I was just jesting re the "fuelled by Alcohol" comment as JC is / was supposed to be drinking Rose Wine ! My point was how did he manage to get fuelled up on that ?
I wasn't suggesting he was drunk at all, just that in slapping his producer around for not having his dinner ready, his behaviour was like that of a drunken spouse.... Forget it! :suicide:
:lol:
I agree I agree I agree I agree
All I was saying is Rose Wine is like Gnat piss (that was the thrust of my joke - or attempted joke !)
:lol:
I apologise. I was in the middle of responding to Mick, and I responded to you in the same tone, and nobody deserves that.
When you converse with Mick, you get used to having to explain simple things several times over, not to mention often having what you say taken out of context.
Please accept my most humble, abject apology. :)
-
I hardly ever watch Top Gear. I won't be affected much by it's demise. He'll soon be doing a similar programme again on another network anyway. What I wanted was for Jeremy to be punished. He hasn't been. He has become wealthier since the incident and will become wealthier still when Sky or Netflix acquire his services. I don't call that a punishment.
You lefties are totally ridiculous. You all wanted him sacked no matter what the consequences. The producer didn't even report the incident. He is now persona non gratis the poor man.
In leftie land it's OK for footballers to regularly make potentially career ending challenges without losing their jobs but when Jeremy steps out of line once and connects with one punch you all want him sacked! You really do make my piss boil at your double standards.
Well, Jeremy has had the last laugh, all the way to the bank.
"Steps out of line once," really?? :lol:
Read your own posts. You've rushed to Clarkson's defence in every instance. Your position has only changed because your "insider" has been proven to be full of s***.
If you're not a fan, and won't be bothered by his absence, why all the drama and empathy for his loyal followers? I've rarely witnessed you display anything approaching empathy, for anything outside of the animal kingdom.
As for punishment, he has been humbled, humiliated, and his bargaining power has been diminished. Besides, you can't refrain from punishing somebody according to accepted common practice and/or law, simply because they may benefit from it in the long run. Using your analogy of footballers, should you not sack/release a player with disciplinary problems because he happens to be a good player, and will likely get a good signing on bonus if he is subsequently picked up as a free agent?
Of course not.
The producer didn't report the incident because he feared for his job, silly. He had just been berated and bitch-slapped by the "star" of the show, and expected that (as I'm assuming Clarkson did), that his bosses would not want to upset "the talent." Had it remained under wraps, that may be exactly what would've happened. He is hardly the first person not to report an issue at work, for fear of it making matters worse.
Left, right, somewhere in the middle... What has politics got to do with thinking a bloke who punched a co-worker should get fired for it? Is the uncomfortable concept of everybody living by the same rules too close to communism for you Mick?
If a footballer intentionally goes after another player during a match with the intention to injure him, I'd want him arrested, never mind thrown out of the sport. Does that make me a righty?
-
Yes. He has only stepped out of line once in terms of a physical assault. There are professional footballers that step out of line in most games and get away with it week in week out.
What about boxers? They regularly hit on the break and below the belt. They regularly head but and use their elbows. They don't get sacked.
What is it with you lefties that feel sacking Jeremy is the only option? It's the worst 'punishment' he could have faced.
He hasn't been punished thanks to you lefties. You really don't get it do you.
-
Anyway my man on the inside has given me some more inside information. He says the producer is absolutely gutted at what's happened. He has no intention of pressing charges. He feels he was culpable to some extent as he did provoke Jeremy.
He is embarrassed that a man nearly twice his age managed to stick one on him and would rather people hadn't found out. He wanted to patch things up with Jeremy and carry on his lucrative career doing what he loved as before.
He is now thinking of emigrating and changing his name. He is considering plastic surgery as there are many Jeremy fans that are now out to get him.
He feels he's the one who has been punished.
-
What's wrong about this whole thread is that it's not all about people's disgust at what Clarkson has done. On the contrary certain posters are dead chuffed about the whole episode, because of their dislike of him. It seems that some are even claiming bragging rights because it's confirmed their dislike of him has been validated.
To them it's final justice to a bloke from the likes of Donny who's had the audacity to move away and do well for himself.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/paIP5lp.gif)
-
BB
You don't get it do you?
1) It's nothing to do with him being from Donny (apart from the fact that he has regularly played the Uncle Tom role in sending the place up for other people's amusement).
2) It's nothing to do with him "doing well for himself". There are plenty of people (myself included) who have "done well for ourselves" and whom I don't dislike.
3) For me, it's not even anything specifically to do with him thumping a colleague.
It's very simple. I don't like him because he is a painfully unfunny Kitson who serves up obvious humour that relies on stupid, idle generalisations and reinforces the prejudices of people who are too thick to think it through.
I've said before time many that I've got a personal stake in this. Clarkson encourages a laddish, "f*** you, I'm having fun" attitude to driving. I see it EVERY morning when I walk my kids to school as people come belting through a 20mph zone at 40-50 mph. THEY are the Clarkson people.
If it was just me getting hot under the collar about these drivers, I'd probably just be one of those do-gooding liberal tossers that he delights in ribbing. But I've got more of an interest than that. Because 17 years ago, my wife's handsome, intelligent, tall, sporty 13 year old nephew was mown down on the way to school by driver doing 50 in a 30 zone who lost control and hit him on the pavement. Left him permanently brain damaged. Unable to use his right arm. Unable to speak properly because the doctor who saved his life had to perform an emergency tracheotomy. Left him as a 30 year old now who hasn't got a job, a girlfriend, a future. Who is looked after by his parents and suffers from severe depression. All because some Kitson thought he could handle a car.
So I've not got a right lot of f***ing sympathy for people like Clarkson who sell the concept of cars as fun and the concept of thinking about other people as being something to ridicule. In fact I'd love for him to spend a week shadowing my wife's nephew. And to make a TV programme about it.
If he was really funny, I might be a bit more inclined to like him. But he hasn't even got that going for him.
And please, don't EVER tell me why you think you know why I hate the Kitson.
-
Yes. He has only stepped out of line once in terms of a physical assault. There are professional footballers that step out of line in most games and get away with it week in week out.
What about boxers? They regularly hit on the break and below the belt. They regularly head but and use their elbows. They don't get sacked.
What is it with you lefties that feel sacking Jeremy is the only option? It's the worst 'punishment' he could have faced.
He hasn't been punished thanks to you lefties. You really don't get it do you.
Yes, in terms of physical assault... Does that mean that his other misdemeanors are inconsequential? Of course not. He was already on a (final?) warning for some of his previous actions.
If you can't tell the difference between a miss-timed tackle, a boxer's errant punch, and an assault in a hotel, then everybody on this forum is wasting their time in acknowledging your existence. Footballers are there to play football, and injury is part of the risk they accept. A boxer will take the occasional low blow; it comes with the territory. Getting punched by a presenter is not accepted as being part and parcel of being a TV producer.
Give over, there is no man on the inside. Either you're full of it, or your "source" is.
So the producer is going into witness protection? Give me a break.
BB, others may feel differently, but for me it has nothing to do with Clarkson per se. If there is any satisfaction to be had by anyone, it's the fundamental fact that most people like to see that the rules they live by, apply to everyone.
I moved from Donny and have done alright for myself, as have many, many others. Were that the whole story, why would anyone begrudge him that? It probably has more to do with the degree of contempt that he displays to the people of Doncaster, as he looks down his nose at them. Just a shot in the dark there.
-
I continue to be staggered by some of the pillocks on here.
1. He only hit someone once... Once is too many times, ferchrisakes.
2. You want him punished because he's a a Donny lad done good. Seriously? Jealously? That's somewhat presumptuous, weak and way off the mark. Where he comes from has nothing to do with it.
3. Footballers and boxers hit people on the playing field... Because that's the same as what happened and is a completely appropriate comparison.
4. Lefties wanted him punished and those on the right didn't. Frankly, it had f-all to do with political views but, if it did, it would kind of suggest that right-wing folks are uncaring wazzocks who believe that those who have power, money and influence should be able to do whatever they want to to those that don't. Oh wait...
5. The BBC will lose shedloads of money sacking Clarkson. Apart from the fact that that isn't a reason to not sack someone, it might surprise you to learn that Top Gear - at least in terms of viewing figures in the UK - was more popular BEFORE Clarkson and Wilman took over (though the show was on its arse when it was taken off the air prior to Top Thump resurrecting it). Sure, it's become a global beast since then, but there's nothing to say that it won't continue to be so without Clarkson and co. (see 7).
6. People will lose their job. Yes, because no other TV programmes will be made now that Clarkson's no longer a presenter on Top Gear.
7. Clarkson hasn't been punished. It's actually not about punishment as such. It's about ensuring that all employees have an appropriate working environment. If you have handled a disciplinary (and I have done plenty), you would know that they are NOTHING to do with punishment. If an employee has transgressed beyond an acceptable point (gross misconduct) then they will almost certainly lose their job (especially if you're on a current final warning). Also, if it were about punishment, name me one big TV 'star' who has been sacked or left the BBC under a cloud and thrived? How's it working out for Jonathan Ross? Notsomuch, not really. Oh, and his radio show and chat show replacement - Graham Norton - has gained better audience figures than JR ever achieved at the BBC (which is a pattern that has been repeated over and over when hosts or stars have left, and it suggests that Top Gear could well be reinvented and be even more successful). And, really, whether JC moves on to bigger and better things is NOT relevant to this situation. Oh, and SKY have already said no to him on the grounds that thumpers are apparently not hitting the 'family-friendly' demographic they so want to reach...So, Clarkson's done no harm to his reputation, then...
I'm sorry that some people's Sunday nights have been spoilt, but those of you that think that the BBC or 'lefties' are at fault need to aim their frustration and anger at one person, and one person alone: Jeremy Clarkson.
-
Anyway my man on the inside has given me some more inside information. He says the producer is absolutely gutted at what's happened. He has no intention of pressing charges. He feels he was culpable to some extent as he did provoke Jeremy.
He is embarrassed that a man nearly twice his age managed to stick one on him and would rather people hadn't found out. He wanted to patch things up with Jeremy and carry on his lucrative career doing what he loved as before.
He is now thinking of emigrating and changing his name. He is considering plastic surgery as there are many Jeremy fans that are now out to get him.
He feels he's the one who has been punished.
If I stepped out of line by committing 30 min of physical assault I'd expect a jail term. I am amazed at those Clarkson loversclaiming he should be treated differently because he's a celeb and that there'll be no more Top Gear.
It is black and white, he did commit a crime and he should feel the full letter of the law.
-
Well, he didn't physically assault anyone for 30 mins (the verbal abuse lasted 30 mins and physical was 30 seconds because he was pulled away from dishing out some more), but I agree with you that it's quite staggering just how much people are prepared to forgive the 'talent'.
-
Well, he didn't physically assault anyone for 30 mins (the verbal abuse lasted 30 mins and physical was 30 seconds because he was pulled away from dishing out some more), but I agree with you that it's quite staggering just how much people are prepared to forgive the 'talent'.
I've read some leftie drivel in my time but this lot on this thread takes some beating.
No one is saying he should be forgiven. He should be punished. Sacking him has not punished him. Sacking him has made him more famous and richer. I don't call that a punishment.
It's you leftie lot that don't want him punished. Sacking him has had the opposite effect to what you want. Because you've got your way it is the producer that has been the most punished. For the rest of his life he will be known for one thing. There will be a lot of people now 'out to get him'. His life will never be the same again. He will now forever more be known as the man that got Jeremy the sack even though this is not what he wanted. He wanted to carry on doing the job he'd done for the last 10 years that he loved. You leftie lot couldn't care less about what he wanted. All you're bothered about is Jeremy getting the sack. How utterly simplistic. Just like your political views.
He didn't report the incident. He wanted to kiss and make up. Jeremy thought a quiet word with the bosses would mean the incident could be dealt with without the producer getting 'punished'. Unfortunately a leftie at the BBC made the incident public.
Shame on all you lefties that have made political correctness one of the biggest scandals of our time. You're a disgrace.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/IY91Vgm.gif)
-
The producer does not wish to press charges. What a surprise. No doubt you lefties will be very disappointed with him.
Watch the video. Jeremy is more concerned about the producer than he is with being arrested. What a man. He is truly one of Doncaster's finest sons and continues to act with honour.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-32083181
-
BB
You don't get it do you?
1) It's nothing to do with him being from Donny (apart from the fact that he has regularly played the Uncle Tom role in sending the place up for other people's amusement).
2) It's nothing to do with him "doing well for himself". There are plenty of people (myself included) who have "done well for ourselves" and whom I don't dislike.
3) For me, it's not even anything specifically to do with him thumping a colleague.
It's very simple. I don't like him because he is a painfully unfunny Kitson who serves up obvious humour that relies on stupid, idle generalisations and reinforces the prejudices of people who are too thick to think it through.
I've said before time many that I've got a personal stake in this. Clarkson encourages a laddish, "f*** you, I'm having fun" attitude to driving. I see it EVERY morning when I walk my kids to school as people come belting through a 20mph zone at 40-50 mph. THEY are the Clarkson people.
If it was just me getting hot under the collar about these drivers, I'd probably just be one of those do-gooding liberal tossers that he delights in ribbing. But I've got more of an interest than that. Because 17 years ago, my wife's handsome, intelligent, tall, sporty 13 year old nephew was mown down on the way to school by driver doing 50 in a 30 zone who lost control and hit him on the pavement. Left him permanently brain damaged. Unable to use his right arm. Unable to speak properly because the doctor who saved his life had to perform an emergency tracheotomy. Left him as a 30 year old now who hasn't got a job, a girlfriend, a future. Who is looked after by his parents and suffers from severe depression. All because some Kitson thought he could handle a car.
So I've not got a right lot of f***ing sympathy for people like Clarkson who sell the concept of cars as fun and the concept of thinking about other people as being something to ridicule. In fact I'd love for him to spend a week shadowing my wife's nephew. And to make a TV programme about it.
If he was really funny, I might be a bit more inclined to like him. But he hasn't even got that going for him.
And please, don't EVER tell me why you think you know why I hate the Kitson.
BST
If you don't consider yourself to be one of the posters who I described in my last post, why do you deem it necessary to defend yourself?
-
BB
I'm not defending myself. I'm explaining to you that some of us have REALLY personal reasons for hating every aspect of the culture that Clarkson personifies. Not because of some abstract idea about what is right and wrong. Because the culture that he has made a career out of bigging up leaves real victims in its wake.
Big f**king laugh when you think about that aspect isn't it?
-
BST,
No doubt some people do have personal reasons to dislike Clarkson, I can relate to that. I have a personal dislike of hearing people being described as retards because they don't share the same dislikes as someone.
-
The producer does not wish to press charges. What a surprise. No doubt you lefties will be very disappointed with him.
Watch the video. Jeremy is more concerned about the producer than he is with being arrested. What a man. He is truly one of Doncaster's finest sons and continues to act with honour.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-32083181
(http://i.imgur.com/VxAZKZU.gif)
-
BB
I'm not defending myself. I'm explaining to you that some of us have REALLY personal reasons for hating every aspect of the culture that Clarkson personifies. Not because of some abstract idea about what is right and wrong. Because the culture that he has made a career out of bigging up leaves real victims in its wake.
Big f***ing laugh when you think about that aspect isn't it?
Whilst I have a great deal of sympathy for your wife's nephew I'm afraid it's far too simplistic to blame Jeremy for drivers going too fast. In fact its plain ludicrous. Research has shown that only 5% of accidents occur due to driving too fast. I seem to remember you yourself admitting to driving too fast when you were young. Are you blaming that on Jeremy as well? Next you'll be wanting Formula One banning and other motor sports.
I wouldn't be surprised if people driving too slowly is actually a bigger problem than people driving too fast. We've all been stuck behind grandad doing 10 miles an hour with the drivers behind recklessly overtaking to get past the doddery old fool.
So in an effort as the voice of reason to bring some balance to the debate I suggest you read the following article.
Sorted.
http://www.topgear.com/uk/jeremy-clarkson/clarkson-on-speeding-2006-12-01
-
Jesus wept - does your trolling know no f**king bounds? Whilst I don't necessarily see much in the way of a connection between something that happened 17 years ago (long before Top Gear turned into its current 'GO FAST AND LOUD' incarnation) and Jeremy Clarkson, a person's feelings on certain matters don't have to be justified or rationalised - and they certainly don't need re-educating by faceless tits such as you and I on a forum.
Seriously, go read some more shite on Jeremy Clarkson (or any other of your favoured trolling topics) so you can update us with more hours and days old 'information' from your fictitious 'man in the know'.
-
Jesus wept - does your trolling know no f***ing bounds? Whilst I don't necessarily see much in the way of a connection between something that happened 17 years ago (long before Top Gear turned into it's current 'GO FAST AND LOUD' incarnation) and Jeremy Clarkson, a person's feelings on certain matters don't have to be justified or rationalised - and they certainly don't need re-educating by faceless tits such as you and I on a forum.
Seriously, go read some more shite on Jeremy Clarkson (or any other of your favoured trolling topics) so you can update us with more hours and days old 'information' from your fictitious 'man in the know'.
Look. You need to take a chill pill. It is my job to bring balance to a debate. The left wing media would have us all believe that Top Gear is the reason people drive too fast. I'm merely pointing out that this is not the case.
As the voice of reason it is my duty to go where others fear to tread. I stick two fingers up to political correctness and will not be silenced. I look at the hard facts before coming to a decision instead of relying on left wing claptrap.
Where I find distorted views on life I will expose them. Just be glad there are people around like me that haven't been silenced by political correctness. Too many people have been by being scared into silence by totally over the top posts like your last one.
Well you and your kind won't silence me.
-
On a separate but related issue, I can't seem to be able to get the ban user thing working. Anyone know how to silence this utter drivel?
-
Yes, stop posting.
-
(https://31.media.tumblr.com/a2b389305fa78544cd039e3e3cc650a3/tumblr_inline_nl6xc8iIgF1sqf2ij.gif)
Can't say I didn't ask for that. But - in the spirit of childish retorts - I will if you will. And yes, my dad *is* bigger than yours.
-
He should be, mine's dead.
-
Hurrah for the Beeb.
Once Cameron & his cronies are booted into touch we might not even have to suffer his effing face on the news anymore. He can line up with all the other 'Yesterday's Men'.....although I use the description 'men' in the most general of terms when it comes to Clarkson....yak, spit.
Memo to the 'boys' in the far end of West Stand, "HE'S NOT ONE OF OUR OWN"!!!!!!
-
BB
You didn't get THAT one either did you?
I explained at the time that I was deliberately using Clarkson-esque humour to make a point.
You were offended by it. Which was PRECISELY the point. Bullying humour is only funny when it's some bugger else who is the but of the joke. When it's aimed at oneself, it's suddenly offensive.
-
If that's true, and not just an after thought to get you off the hook, why is it OK for you to use Clarksonesque humour to make a point, but it is not OK for Clarkson himself to use to make a point?
-
You're saying Clarkson is making a point about the fact that bullying humour is nasty and lazy when he spends his entire career using nasty and lazy bullying humour?
-
You're saying Clarkson is making a point about the fact that bullying humour is nasty and lazy when he spends his entire career using nasty and lazy bullying humour?
No, You're saying that!
What I'm saying is that if you deem that Clarkson is a bully, then that's up to you. What isn't up to you though is how other people perceive him.
A high profile person like Clarkson is hardly ever out of the spotlight. He's bound by human nature to slip up and say or do things that result in hitting the headlines, things that you or me would get away with to a much lesser extent. Even in the pub at night he's classed as 'still in the work place', for God's sake.
If that's not bad enough then there's a chance that he could be crucified for a comment being misconstrued by one of his critics......Just like you're claiming has happened to you following your 'Clarksonesque retard' comment.
Do you get my point now?
-
A misconstrued comment?
Like the "nigger" one? That was misconstrued?
Or the hilarious one about idle Mexicans?
Or the "slope" one?
You saying that he meant something other than to be gratuitously offensive and sensitive souls "misconstrued" what he really meant?
By the way. You didn't misconstrue my "retard" comment. You were offended by it. I meant it to be offensive. So you took it exactly as it was intended.
-
No not like those comments. They weren't misconstrued, and he was wrong to say them. Like I said earlier he is not perfect and as far as I know has never claimed to be. It is part of his make-up to have occasional behavioural issues. But to single out 3 regretful things he's said out of thousands of comments in total is somewhat selective in your agenda to spread your hate for him to the more gullible amongst us.
YOU, BST should know better.
-
BB
If you bothered to read what I post, you'd have spotted that the reason I hate Clarkson is not for his predictable, lazy humour. I'd just ignore the Kitson if that's all there was to him.
The reason I hate him is that he embodies and glorifies in a culture that destroyed the life of a kid whom I care very deeply about. As I said last night, Clarkson's entire approach is, "We're having fun! f**k you." That attitude is very appealing. But it has consequences. My wife's family live with them every day.
It's an attitude that underpins everything Clarkson does. It's precisely why he makes his quips about niggers and slopes. Those aren't slips of the tongue. They are a natural part of his "You get offended? f**k you! We're having fun" approach.
-
No not like those comments. They weren't misconstrued, and he was wrong to say them. Like I said earlier he is not perfect and as far as I know has never claimed to be. It is part of his make-up to have occasional behavioural issues. But to single out 3 regretful things he's said out of thousands of comments in total is somewhat selective in your agenda to spread your hate for him to the more gullible amongst us.
YOU, BST should know better.
You are a totally humourless dinosaur (dare I say retard?), and I claim my fiver.
-
BB
I'm not defending myself. I'm explaining to you that some of us have REALLY personal reasons for hating every aspect of the culture that Clarkson personifies. Not because of some abstract idea about what is right and wrong. Because the culture that he has made a career out of bigging up leaves real victims in its wake.
Big f***ing laugh when you think about that aspect isn't it?
Whilst I have a great deal of sympathy for your wife's nephew I'm afraid it's far too simplistic to blame Jeremy for drivers going too fast. In fact its plain ludicrous. Research has shown that only 5% of accidents occur due to driving too fast. I seem to remember you yourself admitting to driving too fast when you were young. Are you blaming that on Jeremy as well? Next you'll be wanting Formula One banning and other motor sports.
I wouldn't be surprised if people driving too slowly is actually a bigger problem than people driving too fast. We've all been stuck behind grandad doing 10 miles an hour with the drivers behind recklessly overtaking to get past the doddery old fool.
So in an effort as the voice of reason to bring some balance to the debate I suggest you read the following article.
Sorted.
http://www.topgear.com/uk/jeremy-clarkson/clarkson-on-speeding-2006-12-01
Subtle edit, btw.
-
BST you're deep routed hatred of him is beyond anything I imagined, and seems, to put it mildly, unhealthy. Therefore there's nothing I wish to say to continue this argument because it has now become irrational.
-
What now for our Jeremy? Well the person who caused this reaction:
I sat and watched TG with my daughter as it is one of our favourite programmes. However after the initial laughter at the cycling piece we were both shocked and sickened by the content. Sorry guys, this was not good TV for a family whose cyclist husband and father was killed by a lorry. This missed so many opportunities and I am quite saddened by what went on air, had I realised I would not have watched.
http://road.cc/content/news/112817-cyclist%E2%80%99s-widow-tells-top-gear%E2%80%99s-jeremy-clarkson-look-me-eye
is being tipped to front a cycling show!!!!
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/chain-reaction-cycles-makes-early-april-fools-by-inviting-jeremy-clarkson-to-host-online-cycling-show-164024
It's a funny old world.
-
Thanks Lipsy.
I've got the d**khead on Ignore but now I've had to read more of his pig ignorant witterings.
-
I can only apologise, BST. I seem to recall that the original text omitted the "sympathetic" intro, hence my response... I may have been mistaken, but I think not.
Either way (and this is to anyone else), is the 'ignore user' function exclusive to VSC members? If so, I will happily pay double to silence two morons (who are possible one and the same).
Thanks.
-
I can only apologise, BST. I seem to recall that the original text omitted the "sympathetic" intro, hence my response... I may have been mistaken, but I think not.
Either way (and this is to anyone else), is the 'ignore user' function exclusive to VSC members? If so, I will happily pay double to silence two morons (who are possible one and the same).
Thanks.
The ignore user function should work for every registered user
-
BB
I'm not defending myself. I'm explaining to you that some of us have REALLY personal reasons for hating every aspect of the culture that Clarkson personifies. Not because of some abstract idea about what is right and wrong. Because the culture that he has made a career out of bigging up leaves real victims in its wake.
Big f***ing laugh when you think about that aspect isn't it?
Whilst I have a great deal of sympathy for your wife's nephew I'm afraid it's far too simplistic to blame Jeremy for drivers going too fast. In fact its plain ludicrous. Research has shown that only 5% of accidents occur due to driving too fast. I seem to remember you yourself admitting to driving too fast when you were young. Are you blaming that on Jeremy as well? Next you'll be wanting Formula One banning and other motor sports.
I wouldn't be surprised if people driving too slowly is actually a bigger problem than people driving too fast. We've all been stuck behind grandad doing 10 miles an hour with the drivers behind recklessly overtaking to get past the doddery old fool.
So in an effort as the voice of reason to bring some balance to the debate I suggest you read the following article.
Sorted.
http://www.topgear.com/uk/jeremy-clarkson/clarkson-on-speeding-2006-12-01
Looks like you've never read Licensed To Skill, have you Mick? Perhaps you ought to before claiming only 5% of accidents are caused by driving too fast. Tut tut.
-
BB
I'm not defending myself. I'm explaining to you that some of us have REALLY personal reasons for hating every aspect of the culture that Clarkson personifies. Not because of some abstract idea about what is right and wrong. Because the culture that he has made a career out of bigging up leaves real victims in its wake.
Big f***ing laugh when you think about that aspect isn't it?
Whilst I have a great deal of sympathy for your wife's nephew I'm afraid it's far too simplistic to blame Jeremy for drivers going too fast. In fact its plain ludicrous. Research has shown that only 5% of accidents occur due to driving too fast. I seem to remember you yourself admitting to driving too fast when you were young. Are you blaming that on Jeremy as well? Next you'll be wanting Formula One banning and other motor sports.
I wouldn't be surprised if people driving too slowly is actually a bigger problem than people driving too fast. We've all been stuck behind grandad doing 10 miles an hour with the drivers behind recklessly overtaking to get past the doddery old fool.
So in an effort as the voice of reason to bring some balance to the debate I suggest you read the following article.
Sorted.
http://www.topgear.com/uk/jeremy-clarkson/clarkson-on-speeding-2006-12-01
Looks like you've never read Licensed To Skill, have you Mick? Perhaps you ought to before claiming only 5% of accidents are caused by driving too fast. Tut tut.
Jeremy's word is good enough for me.
Instead of blaming Top Gear for road deaths you'd be better spending your time ignoring leftie claptrap and campaigning for the driving age to be raised to 21. Young lads are the main problem not Top Gear. There's plenty more that could be done as well like making sure old people are re-tested regularly and the keys taken off them when appropriate.
I know of a case where an old person had virtually lost all his lung function and was so weak he could hardly walk. He still thought it was OK to drive as did his doctor etc. Well I wasn't about to let that happen so sold his car for him and banned him from ever driving again. How many more people are there out there that are 'getting away' with it? Unfortunately most people aren't as direct and honest in these situations like what I am and allow people to drive knowing they are putting other people's lives at risk.
Shame on them. No doubt some of you will be reading this and feeling a twinge of guilt. All I would say to you is grow a pair ffs.
-
Jeremy's word is good enough for me.
Yeah, because Jeremy (and therefore you) is so much better informed than a report compiled by the Institute of Advanced Motorists based upon police data of over 700,000 accidents over a four year period.
Sums you up completely.
-
Jeremy's word is good enough for me.
Yeah, because Jeremy (and therefore you) is so much better informed than a report compiled by the Institute of Advanced Motorists based upon police data of over 700,000 accidents over a four year period.
Sums you up completely.
Look. I'll let you into a secret. The IoAM have a hidden agenda. The more people that they sign up to their courses the more money they will make. This would lead me to believe they may have distorted the statistics to their best commercial advantage. What a surprise!
They rely on people like you falling for their guff. Well they'll need to be far cleverer with their marketing before I fall for their nonsense.
-
But you're perfectly happy to fall for Jeremy's guff! lol
-
Slightly off topic here but Glynn Wigley, do you ever post on comments that aren't wind ups by IC1967 or ever comment on football any more? This isn't intended as a dig, it just seems that whenever I are your name it is always as a response to something he has written in off topic, seems a bit peculiar.
-
Slightly off topic here but Glynn Wigley, do you ever post on comments that aren't wind ups by IC1967 or ever comment on football any more? This isn't intended as a dig, it just seems that whenever I are your name it is always as a response to something he has written in off topic, seems a bit peculiar.
Unfortunately due to circumstances I'm not able to get to the matches as much as when I was a season ticket holder so I don't feel in a position to comment on Rovers as much as before so I don't.
-
Sweet f**king Jesus.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-32103665
-
Sweet f***ing Jesus.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-32103665
You seem surprised. Given the number of people that didn't want our Jeremy sacked it seems perfectly reasonable to me that there would be some of them that have a screw loose and will try to take matters to a ridiculous level.
It is only you lefties that live in a black and white world where the only punishment was for him to be sacked. I've pointed out how in this situation that was not the best way for him to be punished. I pointed out that it would be other people rather than Jeremy that would be 'punished' but you wouldn't listen. According to you lot sacking him was the only option. No it wasn't. This is another example of why leftie thinking is so ridiculous. There will be further unintended consequences of his sacking. I hope you're all happy with yourselves.
If only you leftie lot could have seen reason for once in your lives this matter could have been dealt with in a far more intelligent way. If only I was the Director General of the BBC. I could have sorted this mess out quite easily. I'd have totally ignored the hard left's view and come to a rational decision.
Shame on you lefties for ruining so many lives.
-
I'm sure we'll see his pathetic mug crop up again somewhere.....'I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here' would suit, I'm reliably informed.
-
I'm sure we'll see his pathetic mug crop up again somewhere.....'I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here' would suit, I'm reliably informed.
Surely he's just done this on Top Gear. 😜
-
Sweet f***ing Jesus.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-32103665
You seem surprised. Given the number of people that didn't want our Jeremy sacked it seems perfectly reasonable to me that there would be some of them that have a screw loose and will try to take matters to a ridiculous level.
It is only you lefties that live in a black and white world where the only punishment was for him to be sacked. I've pointed out how in this situation that was not the best way for him to be punished. I pointed out that it would be other people rather than Jeremy that would be 'punished' but you wouldn't listen. According to you lot sacking him was the only option. No it wasn't. This is another example of why leftie thinking is so ridiculous. There will be further unintended consequences of his sacking. I hope you're all happy with yourselves.
If only you leftie lot could have seen reason for once in your lives this matter could have been dealt with in a far more intelligent way. If only I was the Director General of the BBC. I could have sorted this mess out quite easily. I'd have totally ignored the hard left's view and come to a rational decision.
Shame on you lefties for ruining so many lives.
STFU.
-
Sweet f***ing Jesus.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-32103665
You seem surprised. Given the number of people that didn't want our Jeremy sacked it seems perfectly reasonable to me that there would be some of them that have a screw loose and will try to take matters to a ridiculous level.
It is only you lefties that live in a black and white world where the only punishment was for him to be sacked. I've pointed out how in this situation that was not the best way for him to be punished. I pointed out that it would be other people rather than Jeremy that would be 'punished' but you wouldn't listen. According to you lot sacking him was the only option. No it wasn't. This is another example of why leftie thinking is so ridiculous. There will be further unintended consequences of his sacking. I hope you're all happy with yourselves.
If only you leftie lot could have seen reason for once in your lives this matter could have been dealt with in a far more intelligent way. If only I was the Director General of the BBC. I could have sorted this mess out quite easily. I'd have totally ignored the hard left's view and come to a rational decision.
Shame on you lefties for ruining so many lives.
STFU.
Thank you for your considered opinion. I take it you are unable to contribute further to the debate as the paucity of your thinking has been exposed and you don't like it?
-
No, I don't like sad fools with a God complex lording it over everyone else all over the forum. Who the f**k do you think you are?
If you've lived your life like you live it on here, you've been smacked more than once. Or is it some kind of adult online response to being bullied and beaten up at school? Either way it's pathetic and exceedingly tiresome.
No doubt you'll have some more painful, arrogant bullshit in reserve ready to reply. I can't wait.
-
No, I don't like sad fools with a God complex lording it over everyone else all over the forum. Who the f**k do you think you are?
If you've lived your life like you live it on here, you've been smacked more than once. Or is it some kind of adult online response to being bullied and beaten up at school? Either way it's pathetic and exceedingly tiresome.
No doubt you'll have some more painful, arrogant bullshit in reserve ready to reply. I can't wait.
Look. I'd appreciate it if you could refrain from using such foul language in future. It does you no favours.
For your information I don't believe in God so fail to see how I could have such a complex. I forgive you for making such a silly statement.
Bullying? Are you suggesting that there is a type of person that gets bullied and that I fit this profile? Shame on you. No one, no matter what their personality, deserves to be bullied. It is Neanderthal views like the ones you have expressed that is still part of the problem regarding bullying.
You should see some of the things certain posters on the forum have said about me and the abuse that has been heaped on me. That is another form of bullying that I hold no truck with it. You won't find me bullying people. I am a saint compared to a lot of posters on this forum.
You seem to have anger management issues. Try taking a chill pill and try to contribute to a debate rather than posting just to vent your irrational anger.
You'll feel so much better.
-
Just realised I missed an important word out. Silly me - Condescending God complex.
I have no anger management issues. Only arrogant, condescending arseholes like you (and Jeremy Clarkson) seem to bring out of me anything other than sweetness and light. What a shame we can't sack you.
-
Just realised I missed an important word out. Silly me - Condescending God complex.
I have no anger management issues. Only arrogant, condescending arseholes like you (and Jeremy Clarkson) seem to bring out of me anything other than sweetness and light. What a shame we can't sack you.
Look. You need to calm down. Have you read my previous post? Your language is still disgraceful. You are now adding further insults in bold! You seem to be getting angrier!
In terms of sacking me, I recently did the honourable thing and instigated a poll to see if I should stay or go. I can't be fairer than that. The overwhelming view of the forum was that I should stay. You are also obviously a bad loser.
Look, I genuinely fear for your state of mind. If reading my posts winds you up so much then just block me. Others that have been battered senseless in debates by me have taken this option. I'm sure they all feel better now. Take a leaf out of their book.
You know it makes sense.
-
BB
I'm not defending myself. I'm explaining to you that some of us have REALLY personal reasons for hating every aspect of the culture that Clarkson personifies. Not because of some abstract idea about what is right and wrong. Because the culture that he has made a career out of bigging up leaves real victims in its wake.
Big f***ing laugh when you think about that aspect isn't it?
Whilst I have a great deal of sympathy for your wife's nephew I'm afraid it's far too simplistic to blame Jeremy for drivers going too fast. In fact its plain ludicrous. Research has shown that only 5% of accidents occur due to driving too fast. I seem to remember you yourself admitting to driving too fast when you were young. Are you blaming that on Jeremy as well? Next you'll be wanting Formula One banning and other motor sports.
I wouldn't be surprised if people driving too slowly is actually a bigger problem than people driving too fast. We've all been stuck behind grandad doing 10 miles an hour with the drivers behind recklessly overtaking to get past the doddery old fool.
So in an effort as the voice of reason to bring some balance to the debate I suggest you read the following article.
Sorted.
http://www.topgear.com/uk/jeremy-clarkson/clarkson-on-speeding-2006-12-01
Looks like you've never read Licensed To Skill, have you Mick? Perhaps you ought to before claiming only 5% of accidents are caused by driving too fast. Tut tut.
Jeremy's word is good enough for me.
Instead of blaming Top Gear for road deaths you'd be better spending your time ignoring leftie claptrap and campaigning for the driving age to be raised to 21. Young lads are the main problem not Top Gear. There's plenty more that could be done as well like making sure old people are re-tested regularly and the keys taken off them when appropriate.
I know of a case where an old person had virtually lost all his lung function and was so weak he could hardly walk. He still thought it was OK to drive as did his doctor etc. Well I wasn't about to let that happen so sold his car for him and banned him from ever driving again. How many more people are there out there that are 'getting away' with it? Unfortunately most people aren't as direct and honest in these situations like what I am and allow people to drive knowing they are putting other people's lives at risk.
Shame on them. No doubt some of you will be reading this and feeling a twinge of guilt. All I would say to you is grow a pair ffs.
I'd go further ICI. How come disabled people are able to get a car through Motability? If you're disabled you're disabled & shouldn't be driving, simple as.
Ban all foreign drivers from using our roads. If you can't speak English how the hell can you understand Matrix information notices!
Moving on, (but still using the excellent arguments you have articulated so well) what about people (like the geezer Jezza allegedly chinned) who don't want to press charges? If they don't then clearly there's no argument & the police should butt out. Same with alleged rape victims, paedophile victims & so called racially abused people, if they're not prepared to take the alleged offender to court then it's a 'non starter'. Furthermore, I'd actually bring a prosecution against them for wasting police time & people's like you & me taxes!
But oh no, mustn't be seen to 'not being fair', mustn't upset 'Liberal' thinking folk, must be seen to tow the PC line. The Third Reich wouldn't have stood for such nonsence, well they didn't did they mate.
I know 'they say' "The pen is mightier than the sword" but grrr I tell you, if I had a gun pal. We'd soon weed 'them out' then my friend.
As that beautifully rousing anthem goes, "Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand, til we have built Jerusalem, on England's green & pleasant land". Hold your sword in your hand now ICI, grasp it firmly, doesn't that feel good dear friend.
-
BB
I'm not defending myself. I'm explaining to you that some of us have REALLY personal reasons for hating every aspect of the culture that Clarkson personifies. Not because of some abstract idea about what is right and wrong. Because the culture that he has made a career out of bigging up leaves real victims in its wake.
Big f***ing laugh when you think about that aspect isn't it?
Whilst I have a great deal of sympathy for your wife's nephew I'm afraid it's far too simplistic to blame Jeremy for drivers going too fast. In fact its plain ludicrous. Research has shown that only 5% of accidents occur due to driving too fast. I seem to remember you yourself admitting to driving too fast when you were young. Are you blaming that on Jeremy as well? Next you'll be wanting Formula One banning and other motor sports.
I wouldn't be surprised if people driving too slowly is actually a bigger problem than people driving too fast. We've all been stuck behind grandad doing 10 miles an hour with the drivers behind recklessly overtaking to get past the doddery old fool.
So in an effort as the voice of reason to bring some balance to the debate I suggest you read the following article.
Sorted.
http://www.topgear.com/uk/jeremy-clarkson/clarkson-on-speeding-2006-12-01
Looks like you've never read Licensed To Skill, have you Mick? Perhaps you ought to before claiming only 5% of accidents are caused by driving too fast. Tut tut.
Jeremy's word is good enough for me.
Instead of blaming Top Gear for road deaths you'd be better spending your time ignoring leftie claptrap and campaigning for the driving age to be raised to 21. Young lads are the main problem not Top Gear. There's plenty more that could be done as well like making sure old people are re-tested regularly and the keys taken off them when appropriate.
I know of a case where an old person had virtually lost all his lung function and was so weak he could hardly walk. He still thought it was OK to drive as did his doctor etc. Well I wasn't about to let that happen so sold his car for him and banned him from ever driving again. How many more people are there out there that are 'getting away' with it? Unfortunately most people aren't as direct and honest in these situations like what I am and allow people to drive knowing they are putting other people's lives at risk.
Shame on them. No doubt some of you will be reading this and feeling a twinge of guilt. All I would say to you is grow a pair ffs.
I'd go further ICI. How come disabled people are able to get a car through Motability? If you're disabled you're disabled & shouldn't be driving, simple as.
Ban all foreign drivers from using our roads. If you can't speak English how the hell can you understand Matrix information notices!
Moving on, (but still using the excellent arguments you have articulated so well) what about people (like the geezer Jezza allegedly chinned) who don't want to press charges? If they don't then clearly there's no argument & the police should butt out. Same with alleged rape victims, paedophile victims & so called racially abused people, if they're not prepared to take the alleged offender to court then it's a 'non starter'. Furthermore, I'd actually bring a prosecution against them for wasting police time & people's like you & me taxes!
But oh no, mustn't be seen to 'not being fair', mustn't upset 'Liberal' thinking folk, must be seen to tow the PC line. The Third Reich wouldn't have stood for such nonsence, well they didn't did they mate.
I know 'they say' "The pen is mightier than the sword" but grrr I tell you, if I had a gun pal. We'd soon weed 'them out' then my friend.
As that beautifully rousing anthem goes, "Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand, til we have built Jerusalem, on England's green & pleasant land". Hold your sword in your hand now ICI, grasp it firmly, doesn't that feel good dear friend.
Not a bad attempt at sarcasm. If I was a teacher marking this as homework I'd write 'Colin shows potential but still has a lot of leftie baggage to get rid of. He needs to tone it down a bit but he is definitely starting to think for himself instead of just blindly voting for Labour just because his parents did.' 1/10
-
As a owner and Director of 35 employee's I find the majority of this thread drivel in truth..The bottom line is that most organisations have a disciplinary code that is applied to all staff..If anybody commits physical violence against anybody it's gross misconduct and termination of employment and that is pretty much standard in any company..Wether you like him or not is irrelevant...
They had no choice,if they had fined him or punished him in any other way the BBC would have been inundated with everybody they have let go for similar reasons over the last ten years claiming discrimination and they would have won without a fight...Letting him go at the end of his contract (only a few weeks) takes away all the threat of legal action from anybody...
Anybody who claims that there was any other action available is ignorant in the workings of business and the courts of the land....Personally I loved the guy and found him very refreshing (sorry Billy) but there was only ever 1 choice open...
-
As a owner and Director of 35 employee's I find the majority of this thread drivel in truth..The bottom line is that most organisations have a disciplinary code that is applied to all staff..If anybody commits physical violence against anybody it's gross misconduct and termination of employment and that is pretty much standard in any company..Wether you like him or not is irrelevant...
They had no choice,if they had fined him or punished him in any other way the BBC would have been inundated with everybody they have let go for similar reasons over the last ten years claiming discrimination and they would have won without a fight...Letting him go at the end of his contract (only a few weeks) takes away all the threat of legal action from anybody...
Anybody who claims that there was any other action available is ignorant in the workings of business and the courts of the land....Personally I loved the guy and found him very refreshing (sorry Billy) but there was only ever 1 choice open...
You don't want to make it 36 employees do you? :-)
-
As a owner and Director of 35 employee's I find the majority of this thread drivel in truth..The bottom line is that most organisations have a disciplinary code that is applied to all staff..If anybody commits physical violence against anybody it's gross misconduct and termination of employment and that is pretty much standard in any company..Wether you like him or not is irrelevant...
They had no choice,if they had fined him or punished him in any other way the BBC would have been inundated with everybody they have let go for similar reasons over the last ten years claiming discrimination and they would have won without a fight...Letting him go at the end of his contract (only a few weeks) takes away all the threat of legal action from anybody...
Anybody who claims that there was any other action available is ignorant in the workings of business and the courts of the land....Personally I loved the guy and found him very refreshing (sorry Billy) but there was only ever 1 choice open...
So what would happen if you punched an employee? Do you get 'sacked'? Do you cease to have any involvement with your own business and it therefore folds causing all your employees to lose their jobs? How is the closure of the business handled if you've been instantly dismissed and no longer have anymore involvement? I could go on.
Summary dismissal is not the only option. Does anyone remember Cantona assaulting a fan? He didn't get sacked did he? I could go on.
-
So are you saying that the Top Gear producer made racist comments about Clarkson? Or is there another similarity between a totally innocent party and the instigator of an incident who was fined and banned for life that I am missing?
What happened to Karl Colley when he did the same thing?
-
So are you saying that the Top Gear producer made racist comments about Clarkson? Or is there another similarity between a totally innocent party and the instigator of an incident who was fined and banned for life that I am missing?
What happened to Karl Colley when he did the same thing?
I haven't got a clue why you think I'm saying the Top Gear producer made racist comments about Clarkson. Your second sentence is also gobbledygook.
Karl Colley got sacked.
-
Because you are attempting to compare the Clarkson incident to the Cantona one and I have proved how silly you look by doing that.
The Karl Colley incident was far more comparable and what happened to him....
Game, set, match!
-
Because you are attempting to compare the Clarkson incident to the Cantona one and I have proved how silly you look by doing that.
The Karl Colley incident was far more comparable and what happened to him....
Game, set, match!
You've lost me. I've proved that by referring to the Cantona incident, people don't always get sacked for physical assault. Other punishments can be found. You lefties think instant dismissal is the only way matters can be resolved.
If wing commander attacks an employee do you think he should be instantly dismissed? What happens to the business and employees?
What was that racism cobblers you were on about? You are very incoherent in your statements. Please try and be easily understood like what I am.
-
Mick, if I need to explain the Cantona incident to you- then you probably shouldn't use it a an example.
-
I suppose the Mick alternative really is to ignore the silly chuff. His megalomania is burgeoning (you better look that up Mick btw) and his complex is likwise. This thread shows just how far he's gone in pushing his fantasy into ever greater depths. The guy really needs help. And we need to get back to a sensible forum. So, either we, collectively, decide to ignore the arsehole, or, those with the power find his personal details and emply the gagging power of the law that he so witters on about. Me? I'd have a right good go at finding something I could prosecute the bugger for. Well, that or firebomb him!
Cue affronted squeals!
BobG
-
Mick, if I need to explain the Cantona incident to you- then you probably shouldn't use it a an example.
Please explain and answer my other questions instead of your usual trick of ignoring them. Why can't you be like me and answer everything that is thrown at you?
-
I suppose the Mick alternative really is to ignore the silly chuff. His megalomania is burgeoning (you better look that up Mick btw) and his complex is likwise. This thread shows just how far he's gone in pushing his fantasy into ever greater depths. The guy really needs help. And we need to get back to a sensible forum. So, either we, collectively, decide to ignore the arsehole, or, those with the power find his personal details and emply the gagging power of the law that he so witters on about. Me? I'd have a right good go at finding something I could prosecute the bugger for. Well, that or firebomb him!
Cue affronted squeals!
BobG
Look. I think it's you that needs help. Some of your ramblings are bordering on insane. Prosecute or firebomb? You really have lost the plot.
I've already put myself up for eviction and the overwhelming view was that I should stay. Given that this forum is predominantly hardcore leftwing that is a considerable achievement.
Get over it.
IC1967
-
I suppose the Mick alternative really is to ignore the silly chuff. His megalomania is burgeoning (you better look that up Mick btw) and his complex is likwise. This thread shows just how far he's gone in pushing his fantasy into ever greater depths. The guy really needs help. And we need to get back to a sensible forum. So, either we, collectively, decide to ignore the arsehole, or, those with the power find his personal details and emply the gagging power of the law that he so witters on about. Me? I'd have a right good go at finding something I could prosecute the bugger for. Well, that or firebomb him!
Cue affronted squeals!
BobG
Look. I think it's you that needs help. Some of your ramblings are bordering on insane. Prosecute or firebomb? You really have lost the plot.
I've already put myself up for eviction and the overwhelming view was that I should stay. Given that this forum is predominantly hardcore leftwing that is a considerable achievement.
Get over it.
IC1967
Mick, there was a time when it seemed that you were merely taking up the devil's advocate role on the forum, in order to provide an alternative view and spark debate. So what if you were a little 'out there' at times, and often seemed to argue for arguement's sake; every village needs an idiot and all that, and your persona was amusing in a pantomime fashion.
However, for quite some time now, you've become increasingly irrational and illogical, to the point where your persona (for your sake I hope that's what it is), appears to exist purely to spout nonsense in order to get a reaction. You're barely even debating points anymore; you say something inflammatory, retreat and wait for the fireworks. You ignore any reasoned debate that is offered in response, and your counter-points have less and less relevance to the topic as every thread goes on.
I'm sure your army of alt usernames will leap to your defence, but I honestly think that you're losing it.
-
As a owner and Director of 35 employee's I find the majority of this thread drivel in truth..The bottom line is that most organisations have a disciplinary code that is applied to all staff..If anybody commits physical violence against anybody it's gross misconduct and termination of employment and that is pretty much standard in any company..Wether you like him or not is irrelevant...
They had no choice,if they had fined him or punished him in any other way the BBC would have been inundated with everybody they have let go for similar reasons over the last ten years claiming discrimination and they would have won without a fight...Letting him go at the end of his contract (only a few weeks) takes away all the threat of legal action from anybody...
Anybody who claims that there was any other action available is ignorant in the workings of business and the courts of the land....Personally I loved the guy and found him very refreshing (sorry Billy) but there was only ever 1 choice open...
So what would happen if you punched an employee? Do you get 'sacked'? Do you cease to have any involvement with your own business and it therefore folds causing all your employees to lose their jobs? How is the closure of the business handled if you've been instantly dismissed and no longer have anymore involvement? I could go on.
Summary dismissal is not the only option. Does anyone remember Cantona assaulting a fan? He didn't get sacked did he? I could go on.
No I don't get sacked but then Clarkson doesn't own the BBC does he,so I'm not sure what your point is ??? I would no doubt find myself in the employment courts losing a lot of money of constructive dismissal and a host of other things..However I would like to think I'm professional enough never do that...Your right you could go on but lets face it your starting to talk drivel...The bbc would be swamped with court claims...If you honestly expected any other outcome for a man on his final warning then you are not living in the real world...
-
You don't know what my point is? You've just made it for me! It is possible to find another alternative to sacking someone if they are vital to the success of a business. Top Gear is a business that won't survive without Jeremy. The BBC are going to lose millions. Customers are going to be disappointed.
Just because he doesn't own the BBC is irrelevant. Just because you own the business you are treated differently. Because Jeremy is Top Gear he should be treated differently. I don't see why you should be so special and Jeremy not be just because you own the company.
I doubt if you punched an employee they'd take you to court. They'd probably let you off as they'd want to keep their job.
So it is possible to find a solution to an incident like Jeremy was involved in other than sacking him.
Thank you for proving my point even though it has always been blindingly obvious to anyone that doesn't see everything in a simplistic black or white way.
-
I suppose the Mick alternative really is to ignore the silly chuff. His megalomania is burgeoning (you better look that up Mick btw) and his complex is likwise. This thread shows just how far he's gone in pushing his fantasy into ever greater depths. The guy really needs help. And we need to get back to a sensible forum. So, either we, collectively, decide to ignore the arsehole, or, those with the power find his personal details and emply the gagging power of the law that he so witters on about. Me? I'd have a right good go at finding something I could prosecute the bugger for. Well, that or firebomb him!
Cue affronted squeals!
BobG
Look. I think it's you that needs help. Some of your ramblings are bordering on insane. Prosecute or firebomb? You really have lost the plot.
I've already put myself up for eviction and the overwhelming view was that I should stay. Given that this forum is predominantly hardcore leftwing that is a considerable achievement.
Get over it.
IC1967
Mick, there was a time when it seemed that you were merely taking up the devil's advocate role on the forum, in order to provide an alternative view and spark debate. So what if you were a little 'out there' at times, and often seemed to argue for arguement's sake; every village needs an idiot and all that, and your persona was amusing in a pantomime fashion.
However, for quite some time now, you've become increasingly irrational and illogical, to the point where your persona (for your sake I hope that's what it is), appears to exist purely to spout nonsense in order to get a reaction. You're barely even debating points anymore; you say something inflammatory, retreat and wait for the fireworks. You ignore any reasoned debate that is offered in response, and your counter-points have less and less relevance to the topic as every thread goes on.
I'm sure your army of alt usernames will leap to your defence, but I honestly think that you're losing it.
I'm irrational and illogical! Have you read BobG's recent posts? He's the one that fit's that bill. His comments have become increasingly absurd. You won't say that though will you? You lefties are a breed apart.
May I refer you to the recent should I stay or go thread where I had overwhelming support to stay. Every forum needs a voice of reason and I am it.
Just what has been wrong with arguing that there should be an alternative to sacking him? Perfectly reasonable unless you are a leftie living in a simplistic world.
-
And there you go again Mick.... It's always anybody but you isn't it?
BobG
-
And there you go again Mick.... It's always anybody but you isn't it?
BobG
Look. You're the one making crazy statements. I'll let the readers of the forum decide who is the nutter. I know one thing. If I'd said 10% of the abusive stuff you've said I'd have been banned in an instant as you should have been.
IC1967
-
Mick, if I need to explain the Cantona incident to you- then you probably shouldn't use it a an example.
Please explain and answer my other questions instead of your usual trick of ignoring them. Why can't you be like me and answer everything that is thrown at you?
I refer the honourable gentleman to the answers I gave earlier.
-
Mick, if I need to explain the Cantona incident to you- then you probably shouldn't use it a an example.
Please explain and answer my other questions instead of your usual trick of ignoring them. Why can't you be like me and answer everything that is thrown at you?
I refer the honourable gentleman to the answers I gave earlier.
Why am I not surprised. Not only do you not answer my questions you've got the nerve to pretend you already have! Why is it I answer everything and you lefties hardly answer anything? I've got it. It's be because you always lose the debate.
-
So he hasn't been sacked after all. The BBC justified their decision so as not to disappoint fans. What about the fans that won't see him on the telly any more? Won't they also be disappointed? Talk about double standards.
If he's sacked he's sacked. Their original decision was daft but this one is even dafter. You couldn't make it up.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-32137424
-
This is your intervention; don't change the subject.
There you go again with your 'leftie' jibe. Anyone who disagrees is a leftie in your world.
Your attention/validation seeking poll had more alts in it than World of Warcraft. That's a videogame btw; I know you're a little out of touch.
There's nothing wrong with offering a different perspective, but you're not offering anything to discuss. You're ignoring every valid counterpoint because your arguments are so weak, and you're grasping at straws with increasing desperation. A classic case of trolling, pure and simple, born out of your stubborn refusal to back down, even when you've nothing more to offer. Most kids grow out of that need to always have the last word.
Sometimes things are simple and straightforward.
And stop peddling that BS about always answering questions; it's not true and you're just embarrassing yourself. You accuse others of failing to answer questions, but if you'd pay closer attention, people usually do, but often don't provide you with the answer you want or were expectng.
-
This is your intervention; don't change the subject.
There you go again with your 'leftie' jibe. Anyone who disagrees is a leftie in your world.
Your attention/validation seeking poll had more alts in it than World of Warcraft. That's a videogame btw; I know you're a little out of touch.
There's nothing wrong with offering a different perspective, but you're not offering anything to discuss. You're ignoring every valid counterpoint because your arguments are so weak, and you're grasping at straws with increasing desperation. A classic case of trolling, pure and simple, born out of your stubborn refusal to back down, even when you've nothing more to offer. Most kids grow out of that need to always have the last word.
Sometimes things are simple and straightforward.
And stop peddling that BS about always answering questions; it's not true and you're just embarrassing yourself. You accuse others of failing to answer questions, but if you'd pay closer attention, people usually do, but often don't provide you with the answer you want or were expectng.
My poll proves what you're saying is cobblers. Deal with it. Not offering a different perspective or anything to discuss! What are you on about? You lefties wanted him sacked. I didn't. I put the alternative argument. You lefties don't like it so attack me instead of debating the issue properly. I've destroyed every 'valid' counterpoint because they are not valid. Simply saying he should be sacked is not a valid argument. I gave lots of examples of how this could be sorted. You lefties gave one way - he should be sacked. Typical simplistic leftie guff.
I do answer every question (unless it is silly). I've done the calculations and you lefties have only answered 9.834% of my questions. Get over it and address the issue instead of doing what all you lefties always do when you've lost the debate - you attack the man instead.
Luckily I can take it and it just makes you all look pathetic.
Deal with it.
-
Well I've read the thread from start to finish and can honestly say I no longer know what it's about! How does a clarkson in trouble again thread evolve into a political argument and then into a trading insults thread? All very strange! Haha!
-
You don't know what my point is? You've just made it for me! It is possible to find another alternative to sacking someone if they are vital to the success of a business. Top Gear is a business that won't survive without Jeremy. The BBC are going to lose millions. Customers are going to be disappointed.
Just because he doesn't own the BBC is irrelevant. Just because you own the business you are treated differently. Because Jeremy is Top Gear he should be treated differently. I don't see why you should be so special and Jeremy not be just because you own the company.
I doubt if you punched an employee they'd take you to court. They'd probably let you off as they'd want to keep their job.
So it is possible to find a solution to an incident like Jeremy was involved in other than sacking him.
Thank you for proving my point even though it has always been blindingly obvious to anyone that doesn't see everything in a simplistic black or white way.
You really do talk out your arse Mick...You cant just discriminate when you have a disciplinary procedure for anyone...I wouldn't hit any of my employee's so its irrelevant because it's not what people do at work..Yes it will cost them millions short term but it would have cost them millions too,because in my experience Judges don't seem to accept the argument that he was popular as a reason why joe blogs in scenery should be sacked for hitting someone and he shouldn't..Of course you are right and the bbc with there analysts and anyone with a ounce of realistic intelligence is wrong...
The fact that you actually think you have won the debate,really just proves how deluded to facts you really are and proves how pointless it is debating with you in truth..
-
So he hasn't been sacked after all. The BBC justified their decision so as not to disappoint fans. What about the fans that won't see him on the telly any more? Won't they also be disappointed? Talk about double standards.
If he's sacked he's sacked. Their original decision was daft but this one is even dafter. You couldn't make it up.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-32137424
Which decision is even dafter?
-
I suppose the Mick alternative really is to ignore the silly chuff. His megalomania is burgeoning (you better look that up Mick btw) and his complex is likwise. This thread shows just how far he's gone in pushing his fantasy into ever greater depths. The guy really needs help. And we need to get back to a sensible forum. So, either we, collectively, decide to ignore the arsehole, or, those with the power find his personal details and emply the gagging power of the law that he so witters on about. Me? I'd have a right good go at finding something I could prosecute the bugger for. Well, that or firebomb him!
Cue affronted squeals!
BobG
Look. I think it's you that needs help. Some of your ramblings are bordering on insane. Prosecute or firebomb? You really have lost the plot.
I've already put myself up for eviction and the overwhelming view was that I should stay. Given that this forum is predominantly hardcore leftwing that is a considerable achievement.
Get over it.
IC1967
Check out Robin Hood Airport ICI.
Colin C No.3
-
Well I've read the thread from start to finish and can honestly say I no longer know what it's about! How does a clarkson in trouble again thread evolve into a political argument and then into a trading insults thread? All very strange! Haha!
It's very simple. Jeremy is a well known right winger. He takes the piss out of lefties. They don't like it. The lefties (for that read politically correct brigade) have wanted him sacking for a long time. That's where the politics has come from on this thread.
You'll notice that the lefties have only ever come up with one solution to the problem. Sack him. Simple as that. Unfortunately things in life aren't so simple as I've ably demonstrated. The lefties don't like that so they heap abuse on me. It is a credit to myself that I take it with good grace.
-
You remind me of a saying "when you are dead,you don't know that you are dead.It is only difficult for others...It's the same when you are stupid"
-
You remind me of a saying "when you are dead,you don't know that you are dead.It is only difficult for others...It's the same when you are stupid"
Right. Its time to summarise this thread. There are 2 schools of thought. One is that he should be sacked no matter what the consequences. The second is that a more appropriate punishment should be found that punishes Jeremy and doesn't instead let him off the hook and punish hundreds of millions of people worldwide instead.
I think it's pretty clear that I have by far the strongest case.
Time to wrap this thread up and chalk it up as another battering dished out to the hard left.
-
You remind me of a saying "when you are dead,you don't know that you are dead.It is only difficult for others...It's the same when you are stupid"
Right. Its time to summarise this thread. There are 2 schools of thought. One is that he should be sacked no matter what the consequences. The second is that a more appropriate punishment should be found that punishes Jeremy and doesn't instead let him off the hook and punish hundreds of millions of people worldwide instead.
I think it's pretty clear that I have by far the strongest case.
Time to wrap this thread up and chalk it up as another battering dished out to the hard left.
How about explaining this 'appropriate punishment' you're talking about? I know you've been dying for someone to ask, so now's your chance.
-
Mick, if I need to explain the Cantona incident to you- then you probably shouldn't use it a an example.
Please explain and answer my other questions instead of your usual trick of ignoring them. Why can't you be like me and answer everything that is thrown at you?
I refer the honourable gentleman to the answers I gave earlier.
Why am I not surprised. Not only do you not answer my questions you've got the nerve to pretend you already have! Why is it I answer everything and you lefties hardly answer anything? I've got it. It's be because you always lose the debate.
As above. I refer the honourable gentleman to the answers I gave earlier - you will find all the answers to your questions there, just like wot wen you answer.
Lost again Mick, game, set, match - give up, you are to easy.
-
Mick, if I need to explain the Cantona incident to you- then you probably shouldn't use it a an example.
Please explain and answer my other questions instead of your usual trick of ignoring them. Why can't you be like me and answer everything that is thrown at you?
I refer the honourable gentleman to the answers I gave earlier.
Why am I not surprised. Not only do you not answer my questions you've got the nerve to pretend you already have! Why is it I answer everything and you lefties hardly answer anything? I've got it. It's be because you always lose the debate.
As above. I refer the honourable gentleman to the answers I gave earlier - you will find all the answers to your questions there, just like wot wen you answer.
Lost again Mick, game, set, match - give up, you are to easy.
Ok, I'll have one more go. Here's what I said earlier:
You've lost me. I've proved that by referring to the Cantona incident, people don't always get sacked for physical assault. Other punishments can be found. You lefties think instant dismissal is the only way matters can be resolved.
If wing commander attacks an employee do you think he should be instantly dismissed? What happens to the business and employees?
What was that racism cobblers you were on about? You are very incoherent in your statements. Please try and be easily understood like what I am.
So please feel free to explain the Cantona example. What about the wing commander questions? What about your racist cobblers?
Please answer instead of your usual trick of saying you've answered when you haven't. I've checked your answering ratio for my questions. It's way down at 8.435%. You really must try harder.
-
Mick, I have provided a comprehensive answer to why the Clarkson and Cantona incidents bear no comparison to one another and thus disporved your point entirely. Go back and read it, I have no need to do it again and make you look even sillier than you already do. Everyone else has got it.
Too easy.
-
Sorry, I haven't got it. Are you saying that you should be sacked for a physical attack in the work place, or even in the pub with a work colleague at night, UNLESS it's retaliation over a racist remark, in which case it shouldn't be a sackable offence?
Referring to Cantona, what about his previous misdemeanours? Should he, for instance have been sacked for throwing a pair of football boots in the face of a TEAM MATE, while at Montpellier?
-
Mick, I have provided a comprehensive answer to why the Clarkson and Cantona incidents bear no comparison to one another and thus disporved your point entirely. Go back and read it, I have no need to do it again and make you look even sillier than you already do. Everyone else has got it.
Too easy.
No you haven't and you haven't answered the wing commander questions.
-
No Bentley, if you look back Mick attempted to justify his position by saying that Clarkson should not be sacked because Cantona wasnt. I said the circumstance behind the two incidents were very different, hence the punishments were different. The producer that Clarkson hit, made no provocation whatsover, it was a totally unprovoked attack (by someone who was already on a warning) against a totally innocent man. There were mitigating circumstances for Cantona - hence the different punishment.
The Clarkson case has more in common with Karl Colley than Cantona, and as Mick agrees, Karl Colley was sacked.
To be honest, I care even less about Eric Cantona than I do Jeremy Clarkson, its up to the club.
-
Mick
Ask wing commander, I dont care, ooh look he's already answered.
-
You don't know what my point is? You've just made it for me! It is possible to find another alternative to sacking someone if they are vital to the success of a business. Top Gear is a business that won't survive without Jeremy. The BBC are going to lose millions. Customers are going to be disappointed.
Just because he doesn't own the BBC is irrelevant. Just because you own the business you are treated differently. Because Jeremy is Top Gear he should be treated differently. I don't see why you should be so special and Jeremy not be just because you own the company.
I doubt if you punched an employee they'd take you to court. They'd probably let you off as they'd want to keep their job.
So it is possible to find a solution to an incident like Jeremy was involved in other than sacking him.
Thank you for proving my point even though it has always been blindingly obvious to anyone that doesn't see everything in a simplistic black or white way.
You really do talk out your arse Mick...You cant just discriminate when you have a disciplinary procedure for anyone...I wouldn't hit any of my employee's so its irrelevant because it's not what people do at work..Yes it will cost them millions short term but it would have cost them millions too,because in my experience Judges don't seem to accept the argument that he was popular as a reason why joe blogs in scenery should be sacked for hitting someone and he shouldn't..Of course you are right and the bbc with there analysts and anyone with a ounce of realistic intelligence is wrong...
The fact that you actually think you have won the debate,really just proves how deluded to facts you really are and proves how pointless it is debating with you in truth..
You say you can't discriminate for anyone when you have a disciplinary procedure. Well why have you said you would be treated differently if you punched an employee?
You say you can't have different rules for different people. You then put your foot in it by saying yes you can as long as you're the owner. You couldn't make it up!
-
Mick
Ask wing commander, I dont care, ooh look he's already answered.
So you agree with him! Glad you cleared that up because he is brilliant at contradicting himself just like you are. Come on clear up the Cantona issue. You seem to be saying he was justified in his actions because the fan was racist. I'd be grateful if you could confirm this.
-
Wilts,
As I understand it, all IC1967 is saying is that there was an alternative route to take other than sacking Clarkson. He could have been fined, suspended, made to apologise or all three as an alternative.
I don't think he's saying that would have been the moral route to take, I think he's saying it's the direction often taken in situations where the consequences of sacking someone is outweighed by the effect it would have on others as a result.
What I'M saying is I don't think Clarkson should be judged by the mob who wanted him sacked anyway, simply because they don't like him.
What's the problem with that?
-
Wilts,
As I understand it, all IC1967 is saying is that there was an alternative route to take other than sacking Clarkson. He could have been fined, suspended, made to apologise or all three as an alternative.
I don't think he's saying that would have been the moral route to take, I think he's saying it's the direction often taken in situations where the consequences of sacking someone is outweighed by the effect it would have on others as a result.
What I'M saying is I don't think Clarkson should be judged by the mob who wanted him sacked anyway, simply because they don't like him.
What's the problem with that?
The problem is that Clarkson wasn't a BBC employee, he's a freelance performer. So the BBC would have had a tough time fining him, suspending him, compelling him to apologise or whatever crackpot alternative Mick hasn't come up with yet despite being asked. It's also why the continued use of the word 'sacked' is completely wrong.
-
If the BBC have the power to not renew his contract (Sack him), they surely have (had) the power to suspend a new contract?
-
If the BBC have the power to not renew his contract (Sack him), they surely have (had) the power to suspend a new contract?
All very well if the current contract fortuitously happens to end at the same time. Do you think they'd have been able to do any of what you suggest if there had still been a year to run on the contract? All they'd done in the past was suspend the broadcast of programmes he'd already recorded till the dust had settled - which punished Clarkson not one jot.
And not renewing a contract is not the same as sacking. A sacking is termination of employment due to disciplinary reasons. Clarkson wasn't employed by the BBC.
-
But that wasn't the case, was it? The timing was perfect for a fine, suspension or/and an apology.
Clarkson's employment was terminated due to disciplinary reasons. He was paid by the BBC, so he was obviously employed by them.
-
But that wasn't the case, was it? The timing was perfect for a fine, suspension or/and an apology.
Clarkson's employment was terminated due to disciplinary reasons. He was paid by the BBC, so he was obviously employed by them.
Clarkson's employment was not terminated at all, his contract ended and was not renewed. Completely different. He was not a BBC employee any more than a plumber unblocking your toilet is your employee. As Clarkson was a contracted freelance and not a BBC employee he was not subject to whatever disciplinary procedures the BBC has for those directly employed by them so the BBC was not in any position to impose a fine, a suspension, or direct to apologise.
The BBC could have terminated his contract by deeming that his behaviour broke the terms of that contract, but they didn't and they wimped out of that as they could have been subject to Clarkson suing them in return if he (or his legal people) thought they could argue that the contract didn't cover the circumstances.
-
BB
My company does work for a number of different big organisations.
If, in a meeting, I t**tted one of their employees (and believe me, I've felt like it several times), how exactly could they impose a fine on me?
What they could and undoubtedly WOULD do is to cancel any contracts with my company.
-
You don't know what my point is? You've just made it for me! It is possible to find another alternative to sacking someone if they are vital to the success of a business. Top Gear is a business that won't survive without Jeremy. The BBC are going to lose millions. Customers are going to be disappointed.
Just because he doesn't own the BBC is irrelevant. Just because you own the business you are treated differently. Because Jeremy is Top Gear he should be treated differently. I don't see why you should be so special and Jeremy not be just because you own the company.
I doubt if you punched an employee they'd take you to court. They'd probably let you off as they'd want to keep their job.
So it is possible to find a solution to an incident like Jeremy was involved in other than sacking him.
Thank you for proving my point even though it has always been blindingly obvious to anyone that doesn't see everything in a simplistic black or white way.
You really do talk out your arse Mick...You cant just discriminate when you have a disciplinary procedure for anyone...I wouldn't hit any of my employee's so its irrelevant because it's not what people do at work..Yes it will cost them millions short term but it would have cost them millions too,because in my experience Judges don't seem to accept the argument that he was popular as a reason why joe blogs in scenery should be sacked for hitting someone and he shouldn't..Of course you are right and the bbc with there analysts and anyone with a ounce of realistic intelligence is wrong...
The fact that you actually think you have won the debate,really just proves how deluded to facts you really are and proves how pointless it is debating with you in truth..
You say you can't discriminate for anyone when you have a disciplinary procedure. Well why have you said you would be treated differently if you punched an employee?
You say you can't have different rules for different people. You then put your foot in it by saying yes you can as long as you're the owner. You couldn't make it up!
Do you actually read what people put??? Of course I couldn't be sacked..I pay all the bills,sign all the cheques,without me the company couldn't function..What I would be is hauled in front of the industrial tribunial and fined heavily as would my company and no doubt face personal litigation for Assault,my insurance costs would rocket and my credit limits with suppliers cut....I haven't seen the bbc disciplinary charter but I bet there is something in there about gross misconduct..and bbc employees will have been dismissed under that charter...Clarkson was on a final written warning due to his past behaviour..So really what did you expect them to do????? He had to be dismissed anybody with any knowledge of business and employment knew that,Clarkson knew that,his Lawyers knew that...Sadly you don't seem to grasp how business works within legal parameters....
-
But that wasn't the case, was it? The timing was perfect for a fine, suspension or/and an apology.
Clarkson's employment was terminated due to disciplinary reasons. He was paid by the BBC, so he was obviously employed by them.
Clarkson's employment was not terminated at all, his contract ended and was not renewed. Completely different. He was not a BBC employee any more than a plumber unblocking your toilet is your employee. As Clarkson was a contracted freelance and not a BBC employee he was not subject to whatever disciplinary procedures the BBC has for those directly employed by them so the BBC was not in any position to impose a fine, a suspension, or direct to apologise.
The BBC could have terminated his contract by deeming that his behaviour broke the terms of that contract, but they didn't and they wimped out of that as they could have been subject to Clarkson suing them in return if he (or his legal people) thought they could argue that the contract didn't cover the circumstances.
Clarkson was hired by the BBC. To hire someone means that you employ them. Clarkson's contract was terminated with immediate effect in respect of the last two episodes of the series being postponed.
An alternative to sacking him could have been found. He for instance could have been offered the opportunity to pay his victim compensation, thus indirectly imposing a fine. He could have been offered the chance to publicly apologise also.
-
When I was at Rockware a lad who had been there years threw punches and grappled with a lad for little or no reason. He was sent home and later offered the choice or resign and get a decent reference because of his service or be sacked. He resigned admitting he'd been stupid.
-
You don't know what my point is? You've just made it for me! It is possible to find another alternative to sacking someone if they are vital to the success of a business. Top Gear is a business that won't survive without Jeremy. The BBC are going to lose millions. Customers are going to be disappointed.
Just because he doesn't own the BBC is irrelevant. Just because you own the business you are treated differently. Because Jeremy is Top Gear he should be treated differently. I don't see why you should be so special and Jeremy not be just because you own the company.
I doubt if you punched an employee they'd take you to court. They'd probably let you off as they'd want to keep their job.
So it is possible to find a solution to an incident like Jeremy was involved in other than sacking him.
Thank you for proving my point even though it has always been blindingly obvious to anyone that doesn't see everything in a simplistic black or white way.
You really do talk out your arse Mick...You cant just discriminate when you have a disciplinary procedure for anyone...I wouldn't hit any of my employee's so its irrelevant because it's not what people do at work..Yes it will cost them millions short term but it would have cost them millions too,because in my experience Judges don't seem to accept the argument that he was popular as a reason why joe blogs in scenery should be sacked for hitting someone and he shouldn't..Of course you are right and the bbc with there analysts and anyone with a ounce of realistic intelligence is wrong...
The fact that you actually think you have won the debate,really just proves how deluded to facts you really are and proves how pointless it is debating with you in truth..
You say you can't discriminate for anyone when you have a disciplinary procedure. Well why have you said you would be treated differently if you punched an employee?
You say you can't have different rules for different people. You then put your foot in it by saying yes you can as long as you're the owner. You couldn't make it up!
Do you actually read what people put??? Of course I couldn't be sacked..I pay all the bills,sign all the cheques,without me the company couldn't function..What I would be is hauled in front of the industrial tribunial and fined heavily as would my company and no doubt face personal litigation for Assault,my insurance costs would rocket and my credit limits with suppliers cut....I haven't seen the bbc disciplinary charter but I bet there is something in there about gross misconduct..and bbc employees will have been dismissed under that charter...Clarkson was on a final written warning due to his past behaviour..So really what did you expect them to do????? He had to be dismissed anybody with any knowledge of business and employment knew that,Clarkson knew that,his Lawyers knew that...Sadly you don't seem to grasp how business works within legal parameters....
Jeremy was not a direct employee of the BBC so whatever their disciplinary procedures are for employees is irrelevant. So even if I accepted your argument (which I don't) that he should be treated the same as all BBC employees the BBC had plenty of wriggle room to come up with an alternative to 'sacking' him.
You really don't get it do you? You are crucial to the success of your business so are treated differently to other people involved with the business even if you commit the same crime say punch another worker. My point (which should be especially easy to understand by someone like you) is that if you are that crucial to a business you shouldn't be 'sacked' if another punishment can possibly be found. You've listed what would happen to you. Why on earth couldn't an appropriate punishment be found for Jeremy?
Like you he is crucial to the business. Without him Top Gear ceases to exist.
So why you still think he should have been sacked is a complete mystery to me given that you more than anyone that has posted on this thread should know it's not that simple.
Unbelievable!
-
Mick
Ask wing commander, I dont care, ooh look he's already answered.
So you agree with him! Glad you cleared that up because he is brilliant at contradicting himself just like you are. Come on clear up the Cantona issue. You seem to be saying he was justified in his actions because the fan was racist. I'd be grateful if you could confirm this.
No I dont, I say the incidents were different therfore the punishments were different therefore you are wrong. Please highlight for me anywhere where I say Cantona was justified? I make no comment whatsoever on the punishment for Cantona - in my opinion he should have been banned from football (which is not being sacked by the way).
Please also highlight for me where I say I agree with wing commander. I say he has already answered your question. You are wrong again.
I notice he has had to reply to you again. What he hasn't put - and I didnt wish to write this earlier as it would only embarass you - is the question is foolish. Anyone with even the smallest knowledge of economics and employment law )or even the English language) would know that in a capitalist society it is impossible to sack the owner of the capital. There is no one to sack him. The question is foolish. Other penalties could be taken against him, but only a contracted employee can be sacked.
Give up Mick, the more you write the more foolish you look.
-
Mick
Ask wing commander, I dont care, ooh look he's already answered.
So you agree with him! Glad you cleared that up because he is brilliant at contradicting himself just like you are. Come on clear up the Cantona issue. You seem to be saying he was justified in his actions because the fan was racist. I'd be grateful if you could confirm this.
No I dont, I say the incidents were different therfore the punishments were different therefore you are wrong. Please highlight for me anywhere where I say Cantona was justified? I make no comment whatsoever on the punishment for Cantona - in my opinion he should have been banned from football (which is not being sacked by the way).
Please also highlight for me where I say I agree with wing commander. I say he has already answered your question. You are wrong again.
I notice he has had to reply to you again. What he hasn't put - and I didnt wish to write this earlier as it would only embarass you - is the question is foolish. Anyone with even the smallest knowledge of economics and employment law )or even the English language) would know that in a capitalist society it is impossible to sack the owner of the capital. There is no one to sack him. The question is foolish. Other penalties could be taken against him, but only a contracted employee can be sacked.
Give up Mick, the more you write the more foolish you look.
You don't answer questions, you pretend to. So when we try to make sense of your incoherent ramblings you start to wriggle. Then you still don't answer the questions. Unbelievable!
I'll leave it up to the readers of the forum to decide who is foolish. To say sacking him was the only option is simplistic cobblers. That this option should then benefit Jeremy financially and affect hundreds of millions worldwide makes it even more ludicrous that you and your mates think sacking was the only option.
You and your friends look incredibly stupid by refusing to countenance that there are other punishments that could have been considered and implemented.
-
I could have thought about forgiveness if he'd punched Jonathon Ross or Russell Brand, plus a long list of others. 😜
-
Hi BB. I may be wrong, but my understanding is that Clarkson was not hired by the BBC. A company that he worked (works?) for was hired - under the terms of a contract. Clarkson was employed by, and paid by, that company. It is exactly how I have worked this last few years. I have a company of which I am the sole director. It wins contracts. It pays me to work to deliver the contract for the company of which I am the owner and director. So whoever I am doing the work for cannot sack me no matter what I do. As Billy explained very lucidly above, they can terminate the contract if I have caused the company that employs me to breach its terms, or more likely, they could sue. There's absolutely no other option for the BBC. It's how an enormous amount of work is done these days. It's called 'contracting' for shorthand. In Jeremy's case, it protects him, gives him huge scope for tax mitigation and ensures the BBC has sod all sanction. They did about the best they could - unless there was a clause about behaving himself in the contract with the company that employed Clarkson. if there was, then they could have terminated that contract (but not Clarkson per se) for breach of contract. And sued for costs and losses. If there wasn't, then not renewing is all they could do. And in any legal and practical sense that is most definitely not 'the sack' for Clarkers.
Bob
-
Have I got news for you 24th April will be worth watching. Doncasters finest hosting it
-
Talk about double standards. Has he been sacked or hasn't he?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-32214799
-
Talk about double standards. Has he been sacked or hasn't he?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-32214799
He hasn't been sacked. You should read other people.
-
Talk about double standards. Has he been sacked or hasn't he?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-32214799
What, you dont even know what you have been arguing about - unbelievable!!!!
-
Well the general consensus is.... http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/566390/Sacked-Jeremy-Clarkson-blasts-critics-Top-Gear-magazine
And here; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3030028/Jeremy-Clarkson-appear-BBC-just-one-month-sacked-Gear-punching-producer.html
And here; http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/jeremy-clarkson-stages-bbc-comeback-5476152
And here; http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/article9778420.ece/alternates/w620/v3-11-Clarkson-BBC.jpg
-
Have you not thought that copyeriters, and headline writers, look for short, easily understandable headldines that the more moronic people amongst will be able to comprehend and so be more likely to buy these papers?
He wasn't sacked. It is legally, contractually and physically impossible for him to have been sacked. He was not employed by them.
BobG
-
Look. It's very simple he was sacked. Only pedants would say he hadn't been.
-
Bob,
Most people who posted on this thread wanted Clarkson sacking. Then suddenly it was revealed that in fact he can't be sacked, for one technicality or another. I used the word sacked as a means of saying he was not going to be employed for Top Gear any more, and because the remaining two programmes were shelved. If that's not technically sacked then so be it. Perhaps you can tell me the correct term I should have used?
At the end of the day the use of the word 'sacked' has changed the direction of the whole argument, and it has been picked up on as nothing more than a weak and trivial way of 'changing the subject' from the point I was originally making.
-
Ok. Fair enough. Shorthand is a fair way to use the word. It's pillocks like Mick who get hung up about him actually 'being sacked' rather than his contract not being renewed. He's gone. That's the crucial point!
Cheers!
Bob
-
I hope you Jeremy haters are happy with yourselves as yet another one of my excellent predictions comes true. If it wasn't for you lot, he'd still be at the BBC happy earning a lot less than he will now.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/top-gears-richard-hammond-james-5836424
-
Well I shall watch Chris Evans' reincarnation but, love them or hate them, it just won't be the same :(
-
I commented on this way back, and i have to admit after watching a few shows i see why he is popular, all three of the presenters together are very entertaining, separate them and you wouldn't get the same effect.
I prefer when they go to other countries rather than in the studio, he does give me the impression he likes the sauce, and he has lost his rag and done something you can't do in the workplace, but that's me speculating.
The Top gear show without those three won't be the same, i give it a couple of episodes until they realise Chris Evans is an annoying c..t, and they ask the lot of them back, however it's been worded, he was sacked.
-
No! He wasn't Sammy.
BobG
-
No! He wasn't Sammy.
BobG
Are you sure? :lol:
:chair: