[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by P 

It sounds like the BBC wants to replace Clarkson

For Top Gear, he's irreplaceable. They can make a brand new show, and likely will, but the golden egg-laying goose is now dead (for them).

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Like I said, ends justify the means.

You seem to believe the only way to punish him is to sack him, I don't.

Their viewership doesn't factor into the right or wrong of the action.

Sucks for the viewership, I guess, at least for the next few months until he ramps up another show and takes the revenue he generates elsewhere.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

He didn't deny anything, he went and reported himself. He wasn't silent either, he made several statements and comments after the fact, he just wasn't out begging forgiveness.

Well, at least the language used did not make clear what has happened, and initial reports were not very specific (perhaps that's the media's fault). Apparently, the term “fracas” (which I hadn't heard before) is a euphemism for “I punched someone in the face”. Either way, I had the impression that also Clarkson was fed up with his job: his newspaper column comparing himself to a dinosaur before an extinction event and the lack of a strong apology point this way.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

As for being "above the law", I didn't say he was, but it's the BBC that will be severely pinched financially, not Clarkson. There are many ways to chastise without cutting off their main source of revenue.

Ultimate, the BBC did the right thing, even if they lose revenue. And I don't think BBC's actions are uncommon even if compared to what other companies have done in similar situations (e. g. the actor of CSI's Warrick Brown lost his job because of his addiction problems). Putting money over everything is stupid and myopic.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

You seem to believe the only way to punish him is to sack him, I don't.

It's not just about punishing him. It doesn't speak well of the BBC if they would keep someone who assault for financial reasons. Does every star get to punch one producer then?

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Sucks for the viewership, I guess,

Yes, its collateral damage.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Ultimate, the BBC did the right thing, even if they lose revenue. And I don't think BBC's actions are uncommon even if compared to what other companies have done in similar situations (e. g. the actor of CSI's Warrick Brown lost his job because of his addiction problems). Putting money over everything is stupid and myopic.

I think what's happened is stupid and myopic, because ultimately they've not punished Clarkson at all with this, just themselves and the public.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

It's not just about punishing him. It doesn't speak well of the BBC if they would keep someone who assault for financial reasons. Does every star get to punch one producer then?

You think an NFL franchise would fire their star QB for hitting a trainer? Hell no, because he'd simply end up on another team within the week. They'd take a huge bite out of his wallet, that's what these big personalities understand. Tag him for 500k pounds and he'd never even think of hitting anyone on the crew again.

[mattyb]

The BBC isn't a NFL franchise. Its a 'taxpayer funded' entity. They have to fire him.

[P]

The BBC made it pretty clear that it wasn't the hitting per se, but the fact that he was on a final warning. They also seem to believe that the concept is salvageable with a replacement host.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

The BBC isn't a NFL franchise. Its a 'taxpayer funded' entity. They have to fire him.

"Have to"? I really don't think that's the case. Also, they don't make nearly enough off taxpayers to fund all their programming, which is why they also rely on lucrative shows like Top Gear to pay the bills. Only now they've killed off their most profitable stream of income. GG BBC.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Also, the Director General of the BBC once bit a reporter, should he be where he is now?

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Please. Maher was sacked for an unpopular opinion, Clarkson lost his job because he punched a co-worker — hardly the same thing.

I'm saying "A is to B as C is to D".

You reply "A is not like C".

Of course they're not. That's not how analogies work.


Edit: duh. You (and everyone else) may not be familiar with the Maher joke.

Maher pointedly noted "I'm the only person who lost their job over 9/11", as in, no one in the government lost their job for failing to protect the U.S.

If they're coming down on Clarkson because of Jimmy Saville, I see it as analogous. The person whose head rolls is insignificant and unrelated to the real problem.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Also, the Director General of the BBC once bit a reporter, should he be where he is now?

I was not aware of this. Makes me more annoyed about how badly the BBC went after Luis Suarez.

[Waragainstsleep]

You would have thought that two grown men could have made amends between themselves and the BBC could have largely kept out of it. If Jonathan Ive punched Tim Cook would Apple sack him? I have my doubts. I think they'd sort things out.

Smart move would have been to give Oisin a small raise and/or promotion and then publicise a story that they made up and agreed their own semi-self-imposed fine that saw Clarkson give a big chunk of change to Comic Relief or something. Everybody wins.

[subego]

Pretty sure it's in Ive's contract he gets to punch people.

[P]

Again: Straw. Camel. Back. Clarkson had received a written warning about his behavior. I don't understand the reasoning myself, but apparently yes, the BBC almost had to fire him.

[osiris]

Well, that was exciting. We witnessed the death of England's most popular show/money maker with hundreds of millions of fans worldwide.

I hope the three boys continue their adventures on another network or perhaps the internet, don't know what will happen but I hope something comes out of this.

[Waragainstsleep]

Seems like May is saying they will go elsewhere. A bigger budget would be cool but they also need backers who won't restrict them on what they can say. Kinda rules out the US networks I think. Maybe HBO?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

You think an NFL franchise would fire their star QB for hitting a trainer?

lolololololol

The NFL?! Yes, there's who I look to for outstanding moral and ethical guidance!

[osiris]

That would be a lot of fun - seeing these guys unrestrained from the BBC or any other heavily censored network. HBO, Netflix, Amazon, whatever....

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Also, the Director General of the BBC once bit a reporter, should he be where he is now?

No, that's crazy. That wrong is not justification to keep Clarkson on, however.

[osiris]

funny, it's not just because of this one incident but in fact the third strike of a series of incidents that got him canned. Had he punched the producer sooner he may still be employed.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

You would have thought that two grown men could have made amends between themselves and the BBC could have largely kept out of it. If Jonathan Ive punched Tim Cook would Apple sack him? I have my doubts. I think they'd sort things out.

Smart move would have been to give Oisin a small raise and/or promotion and then publicise a story that they made up and agreed their own semi-self-imposed fine that saw Clarkson give a big chunk of change to Comic Relief or something. Everybody wins.

Apparently you should be running the BBC instead. (no sarcasm)

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

lolololololol

The NFL?! Yes, there's who I look to for outstanding moral and ethical guidance!

The BBC isn't around to establish such things, they're supposed to just be making content and reporting news. That's not their job.

[osiris]

That's one of the points that grate me - some say... Clarkson was too politically incorrect for the left leaning BBC, and it was only a matter time for him to leave or be booted out. Apparently it is the job of publicly funded BBC to establish such things... censorship there (BBC) is far worse than in the US.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

The BBC isn't around to establish such things, they're supposed to just be making content and reporting news. That's not their job.

It's not their job to... not renew contracts with presenters they have ethical issues with?

Originally Posted by osiris 

some say... Clarkson was too politically incorrect for the left leaning BBC, and it was only a matter time for him to leave or be booted out.

And from my understanding that matter of time was over a decade? They sure took their sweet ass time about it.

[osiris]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

It's not their job to... not renew contracts with presenters they have ethical issues with?

And from my understanding that matter of time was over a decade? They sure took their sweet ass time about it.

The BBC doesn't screw around. It's pretty well known in this situation.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Apparently you should be running the BBC instead. (no sarcasm)

Why, thank you!

Feel free to put in a word for me if you know the right people. I could make myself available.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by osiris 

The BBC doesn't screw around. It's pretty well known in this situation.

You've lost me.

[osiris]

Sorry for any confusion... Perhaps to you the BBC took their sweet time. But in reality Clarkson's offenses were being marked, cataloged etc... this was the last straw.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by osiris 

Sorry for any confusion... Perhaps to you the BBC took their sweet time. But in reality Clarkson's offenses were being marked, cataloged etc... this was the last straw.

So, it's not reasonable to have a last straw? As far as I can tell, the guy is an asshole.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Obviously his political opinions were too Right-of-center, and non-PC, for the Left-winged BBC, but his political comments and satire should never have been so heavily scrutinized in the first place. He's an entertainer and "shock jock", everyone knows that, that's part of what makes him so popular (or infamous, depending on your perspective), and frankly speaking, he should have never been on whatever "third strike" they were threatening him with in the first place. As a gov't service it isn't their place to make moral judgements based on his protected speech. Frankly, the "ruckus" with the producer should have been the first straw, as it were, not the last.

[The Final Dakar]

So, we've gone from his assaulting a producer didn't justify letting him walk to now its a left-wing conspiracy. Frankly, this is amazing.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

It's not their job to... not renew contracts with presenters they have ethical issues with?

As a gov't entity it's not their place to make judgements against his free speech, like they did in the past. Their moral conflicts (it didn't involve ethics at all, he was never charged with a crime for his statements) with what he's said should be irrelevant.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

So, we've gone from his assaulting a producer didn't justify letting him walk to now its a left-wing conspiracy. Frankly, this is amazing.

I'm saying he should have never been on some bubble, that placed his position in jeopardy, in the first place. I wasn't the one who's been yelling "Third strike! Third strike!".

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

As a gov't entity it's not their place to make judgements against his free speech, like they did in the past.

Punching a producer is not free speech.

[The Final Dakar]

BTW, these guys got burned by the BBC: No. the BBC will pardon him, again. 9 votes (52.94%)

Atheist, BadKosh, imitchellg5, Ω, Jawbone54, osiris, P, SSharon, Waragainstsleep

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Punching a producer is not free speech.

Where did I say it was? The "third strike" position the BBC placed him in was bullshit, that's my contention.

[osiris]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

So, it's not reasonable to have a last straw? As far as I can tell, the guy is an asshole.

I never said anything to the contrary.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by osiris 

I never said anything to the contrary.

Ok, well I apologize if I'm misreading you. Anyway, I'm walking away since we're heading into political conspiracies.

[Stogieman]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

It's not just about punishing him. It doesn't speak well of the BBC if they would keep someone who assault for financial reasons. Does every star get to punch one producer then?
.

If that producer is Tyler Perry... YES!

[osiris]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Punching a producer is not free speech.

You've never worked in show business!

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Stogieman 

If that producer is Tyler Perry... YES!

Well, obviously that's because he's B... FFs with Oprah.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Ok, well I apologize if I'm misreading you. Anyway, I'm walking away since we're heading into political conspiracies.

It's not a conspiracy when the BBC actually states that his speech is the reason for a "strike", you know?

[osiris]

That is true. It is not a conspiracy theory - the BBC has cleaned house the last few years.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Punching a producer is not free speech.

I think the Captain is referring to earlier incidents where his »edgy« language caused commotion. I don't understand that the fans direct their anger towards the BBC, though, they should be angry at Clarkson, he is the one who let the fans down. He has punched someone in anger before (Pierce Morgan), so it does seem as if he has an anger management problem. I'm sure his recent divorce didn't help.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I think the Captain is referring to earlier incidents where his »edgy« language caused commotion. I don't understand that the fans direct their anger towards the BBC, though, they should be angry at Clarkson, he is the one who let the fans down. He has punched someone in anger before (Pierce Morgan), so it does seem as if he has an anger management problem. I'm sure his recent divorce didn't help.

Ironically, even Morgan thinks he shouldn't have been sacked...

PIERS MORGAN: Jeremy Clarkson is like any other 50-something: angst-ridden from damaged relationships, grieving loved ones, irritated by work-related issues, and battling inner demons | Daily Mail Online

[Phileas]

Here's what I've heard:

* C' s behaviour was becoming increasingly erratic in recent years, especially since the breakdown of his marriage. Alcohol consumption is said to be off the rails.
* Ratings were down, complaints up. The program had a horrible year, international licensing deals were not being renewed because of concern about the content.
* the team had been tasked to come up with a major refresh for the format but didn't deliver, mainly due to Clarkson's lack of cooperation.

I am finding it hugely depressing that there are people here arguing that there should be two laws, one for regular schmucks, one for celebrities. Seriously?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

I am finding it hugely depressing that there are people here arguing that there should be two laws, one for regular schmucks, one for celebrities. Seriously?

Morality is a rapier, the law is a club.

There shouldn't be two laws, but there's no question there are people who deserve a punch.

I don't know enough about this situation to say whether it was deserved, but that's a separate question from whether it legally constitutes assault.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

I don't believe that "regular schmucks" should be admonished for their free speech (strikes one and two), the way Clarkson was, either.

Ratings were skyrocketing this season compared to last, simply because it was, well, better. You could tell that the BBC's interference had caused a lot of problems, namely in series 19-21, causing the chemistry to be off. By all accounts it appeared that the boys had gotten beyond that (or stopped giving a shit what the ball-busters at the BBC said) and this series was shaping up to be one of the best yet.

[osiris]

This past season solidified my addiction to the show. It was so out there and fun, the sheer insanity of the situations, however manufactured, made all three cast members shine in their own unique way.