Jeremy Clarkson suspended

dr.fuzzenstein · 28-03-2015 10:48AM

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

The three middle aged men are the race-car superstars and the 'lovely girls' are the adoring pit-babes.

The policy of the BBC is equality, so when you do get tickets, there has to be an equal spread of men and women. 4 blokes won't get in, it has to be 2 guys and 2 girls. Otherwise the audience would most likely be 90% guys.
I have to admit that the use of that policy for entirely sexist purposes is brilliant.

Tarzana, I'd I told you where your ovaries where hiding, I'd get a ban.

BBDBB · 28-03-2015 11:32AM

Je suis Jeremy

Ghost Buster · 28-03-2015 11:40AM

We could just cut out all the bull **** about who is a nobody, who is more important than who yadda yadda yadda.
Its quite simple. An assault happened. Thats illegal and a sack able offence.
What more can be said?

El_Duderino 09 · 28-03-2015 11:41AM

BBDBB wrote: »

Je suis Jeremy

Don't joke about that. Clarkson fans won't get the irony and they'll probably complain when they notice a Je suis Charlie banner for the first time.

Renegade Mechanic · 28-03-2015 11:46AM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Don't joke about that. Clarkson fans won't get the irony and they'll probably complain when they notice a Je suis Charlie banner for the first time.

Au contraire, many smart people go to this show to escape the usual shows they watch. To take a break.

El_Duderino 09 · 28-03-2015 12:02PM

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Au contraire, many smart people go to this show to escape the usual shows they watch. To take a break.

Culture vultures like yourself or are you speaking general terms?

Must be great for intellectuals like yourself and Gym Monkey to escape the erudite debate on your building sites (between bouts of abusing each other and belting each other with shovels)

Eugene Norman · 28-03-2015 12:07PM

Tarzana2 wrote: »

They haven't. Once it was established that an assault took place, there was only one way it could go. Some things transcend filthy lucre. I'm amazed such a volume of people don't agree!

And and American network telly? Good luck working your way around all the commercial restraints. I'm not sure Clarkson's schtick would translate anyway.

They might go somewhere on ITV.

Mint Aero · 28-03-2015 12:11PM

The anti-Clarkson brigade have really gone down hill pathetically in the last number of pages. They were bad to start with vis a vis, incapable of debating but now it's actually just descended into infantile babbling.

Eugene Norman · 28-03-2015 12:22PM

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Exactly and had it just been a case of Clarkson straight out lamping Oisin just because he failed to arrange hot food, the crew would have been falling over themselves to report Clarkson before he ever had a chance to. Clarkson also the one who brought the eeny meeny miny moe mumbling to the producers attention, yet there was still that farcically absurd response.

If Clarkson hadn't reported the incident, the whole thing may have just worked itself out given time, but he did report it, and so the hierarchy at the BBC got to do what they were itching to do. This in my opinion is why Clarkson is saying that none of it is Oisin's fault as he knows well that he shouldn't be shouldering the blame for these morons taking advantage of a situation that could and should have been sorted out between the two of them. The only way BBC bosses should have ever reacted this way, is if Clarkson had a history of taking swings at staff, then it would be an understandable response but there is nothing to suggest that he has ever come to blows with a member of the crew before.

Food issues at hotels would have been something that would have been common enough given how often this crew has traveled together over the years. Clarkson, rightly or wrongly, got angry and lashed out for reasons beyond just not having hot food imo. More like the person who's job it was to make sure it that never happened either made a joke of it or treated Clarkson's annoyance as not being of great importance. Be interesting to hear him speak about that night some day, doubt it will be on Piers Morgan's Life Stories anyway, not after Morgan's open letter which he wrote the other day. Fcuking moron.

Oisin wouldn't have reported the incident but I bet Clarkson suspected someone would have. As for wanting to get rid, the DG is a fan of Clarkson. If it was verbal it would have probably blown over. It wasn't.

We should get over the idea that Oisin was some kind of Guardian reader too, he's probably a petrol head. He wasn't a jobbing producer. This was his thing. The main thing on his CV and he's pretty much middle aged.

It strikes me that we can now look at all the specials where the presenters were treated "badly" by the producers as totally fake. Plenty of times they were made cook in awkward circumstances, or cook roadkill or fish, or/and sleep in uncomfortable places. Clearly Jezza was having none of this and when shooting stopped a helicopter swooped in, flew him 200 miles from the Patagonian wilds to a five star hotel, and back again the next day where upon he gets into the hammock in his modified trailer and the cameras roll.

Wibbs · 28-03-2015 12:28PM

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Long post so won't quote

I'd agree with much of that TBH. Though I would say IMH that in this instance it seems he did pull a diva, one he reported himself, so he knew he went too far. As for what the producer said or didn't say to rile him up further, going by what those who witnessed it, the ensuing fracas followed what was written in the report and nobody from either "side" has questioned it. So far anyway and I doubt they will.

Quite a few of his friends and others who know him have suggested, some quite directly that JC has been not quite himself in the last couple of years. He's a different man in some respects. Broken marriage, self admitted increasing intake of drink, self admitted failing health. Add in the pressure of his various media outputs, never mind the main Top Gear show.

Then for the icing on the cake throw in the nonsense from a few of the high up hand wringers in the BBC, who were taking the piss over a few of his so called "scandals". The eeny meeny thing was a bloody farce. he didn't say it, it was a take that didn't even make it to the final cut and he got roasted over it and got a public warning. Utter bullshít. It would be like getting a warning for profanity at the end of a take that went wrong that ended up on the cutting room floor. Oh and any hand wringers reading this still "offended" by the word that wasn't used? If you're over a certain age I can near guarantee you said "catch a nígger by the toe" in that rhyme when you were a kid. Different times with guff like the black and white minstrels and such. We know better now, but maybe dial back the OTT offence feels?

The "slope on the bridge" scandal? Pretty bloody minor FFS. And I'd also guarantee quite a few of the horrified had a bit of a guilty snigger at that one. Oh sorry, snicker, lest the crayon chewers think I wear sheets and a pointy hat.

Was what happened well out of order? Hell yes. he knew it himself and reported it himself. Should he have been fired? I've been vacillating between yep and nope since the official report came out, but with more distance from the event, I'm thinking nope. Censured yes, public apology yes, fined, yes, but I do think they turned a storm in a teacup into something much more and it could have been handled better. For all concerned.

Eugene Norman · 28-03-2015 12:28PM

Mint Aero wrote: »

The anti-Clarkson brigade have really gone down hill pathetically in the last number of pages. They were bad to start with vis a vis, incapable of debating but now it's actually just descended into infantile babbling.

I see it the other way. I was vaguely sympathetic to Clarkson until it was clear it was a punch. Not now.

All that's left of the Clarkson defenders is some variation of a weirdly anti-irish Irishman and the kind of people who would have defended wife beating back in the day because the man needed a hot meal, didn't he? After a hard days work

CiDeRmAn · 28-03-2015 12:33PM

Judging by how, when Jeremy asked for the producer to be left alone and none of it was his fault, he referred to him as "Ois" which suggests that they not only knew each other a long time, over a decade working together, and were on relatively friendly terms.
And it also suggests that the thing that drove it to the point of both return was the public drunken assault, and that has resulted in the inevitable consequences we see now.
I wouldn't consider myself anti Clarkson, like James says, he's a bit of a knob, but I have always enjoyed the show over the years, starting with the original in the 70's.
I do suspect there will be a very public rehabilitation and we may see Clarkson back in the BBC within the year.
If that is to present Top Gear or not is a different story.

Eugene Norman · 28-03-2015 12:34PM

Wibbs wrote: »

I'd agree with much of that TBH. Though I would say IMH that in this instance it seems he did pull a diva, one he reported himself, so he knew he went too far. As for what the producer said or didn't say to rile him up further, going by what those who witnessed it, the ensuing fracas followed what was written in the report and nobody from either "side" has questioned it. So far anyway and I doubt they will.

Quite a few of his friends and others who know him have suggested, some quite directly that JC has been not quite himself in the last couple of years. He's a different man in some respects. Broken marriage, self admitted increasing intake of drink, self admitted failing health. Add in the pressure of his various media outputs, never mind the main Top Gear show.

Then for the icing on the cake throw in the nonsense from a few of the high up hand wringers in the BBC, who were taking the piss over a few of his so called "scandals". The eeny meeny thing was a bloody farce. he didn't say it, it was a take that didn't even make it to the final cut and he got roasted over it and got a public warning. Utter bullshít. It would be like getting a warning for profanity at the end of a take that went wrong that ended up on the cutting room floor. Oh and any hand wringers reading this still "offended" by the word that wasn't used? If you're over a certain age I can near guarantee you said "catch a nígger by the toe" in that rhyme when you were a kid. Different times with guff like the black and white minstrels and such. We know better now, but maybe dial back the OTT offence feels?

The "slope on the bridge" scandal? Pretty bloody minor FFS. And I'd also guarantee quite a few of the horrified had a bit of a guilty snigger at that one. Oh sorry, snicker, lest the crayon chewers think I wear sheets and a pointy hat.

Was what happened well out of order? Hell yes. he knew it himself and reported it himself. Should he have been fired? I've been vacillating between yep and nope since the official report came out, but with more distance from the event, I'm thinking nope. Censured yes, public apology yes, fined, yes, but I do think they turned a storm in a teacup into something much more and it could have been handled better. For all concerned.

I disagree. I agree that the non-use of the n** word was manufactured outrage ( although I'm still unsure how it even got out). The slope joke was puerile. But not sackable. The Argentinian issue looks like the Agentinans are just crazy nationalists.

But he hit someone. Pretend it was someone on tv you didn't like. Like Noel Edmonds. Noel hits a producer because something was amiss. That's generally a sackable offence.

Renegade Mechanic · 28-03-2015 12:40PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Culture vultures like yourself or are you speaking general terms?

Must be great for intellectuals like yourself and Gym Monkey to escape the erudite debate on your building sites (between bouts of abusing each other and belting each other with shovels)

Getting less and less worth the effort here, truth be told.

Eugene Norman wrote: »

I see it the other way. I was vaguely sympathetic to Clarkson until it was clear it was a punch. Not now.

All that's left of the Clarkson defenders is some variation of a weirdly anti-irish Irishman and the kind of people who would have defended wife beating back in the day because the man needed a hot meal, didn't he? After a hard days work

What a moronic thing to post.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer · 28-03-2015 12:43PM

It's amazing how little the early pages of this thread had to do with the matter at hand. It was all a debate about political correctness, rather then anything to do with the drunken assault.

Eugene Norman · 28-03-2015 12:47PM

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

It's amazing how little the early pages of this thread had to do with the matter at hand. It was all a debate about political correctness, rather then anything to do with the drunken assault.

Yes. There were people who wanted his blood even if the fracas was a polite few words of being upset. Back then we didn't know

It's hard to defend an assault though.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer · 28-03-2015 01:07PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh and any hand wringers reading this still "offended" by the word that wasn't used? If you're over a certain age I can near guarantee you said "catch a nígger by the toe" in that rhyme when you were a kid. Different times with guff like the black and white minstrels and such. We know better now, but maybe dial back the OTT offence feels?

It's not even that long ago. I'm 23 and I often said it as child.

Wibbs · 28-03-2015 01:22PM

Eugene Norman wrote: »

But he hit someone. Pretend it was someone on tv you didn't like. Like Noel Edmonds. Noel hits a producer because something was amiss. That's generally a sackable offence.

Generally I'd agree with you. An after hours drunken row between two guys who knew each other for the best part of a decade that escalated, where the assaulter realises the major screw up and fesses up, the assaulted has apparently forgiven him, where a sacking costs millions and loses many people their jobs? As I said censure yes, even fines, end the current run of the programme early, insist he attends alcoholic awareness/a shrink, fine, but in the wider picture I think the sacking was a mistake. And yes I would say the same thing if Edmonds was in the dock for it. Though he's so short Oisin would have presented with a knee injury…

It did get a bit ridic, even on this thread, where he has been compared to Jimmy bloody Saville, a kiddie fiddler and defiler of corpses of many decades. Mind you I have oft found your perennially outraged on behalf of others are not too great at measuring degrees of outrage. Nuance comes hard to them. Nature of any mob I suppose.

Bench Press · 28-03-2015 01:44PM

listening to a range of radio stations this morning from BBC radio 4 to Talksport and thankfully the overriding general mood is one of support and sympathy for Jezza, I have no doubt he will be back sooner rather than later.

Sofiztikated · 28-03-2015 01:48PM

Bench Press wrote: »

listening to a range of radio stations this morning from BBC radio 4 to Talksport and thankfully the overriding general mood is one of support and sympathy for Jezza, I have no doubt he will be back sooner rather than later.

I think you should try a bigger spoon.

Should be easier to stir the pot with.

mikom · 28-03-2015 01:53PM

Bench Press wrote: »

listening to a range of radio stations this morning from BBC radio 4 to Talksport

Its cool that you can listen to those stations in the uk.
Now if only I cold listen to them free to air on satellite here in Ireland.........

Tarzana2 · 28-03-2015 01:58PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah who ever heard of America TV being bland and middle of the road. Have you ever compared Graham Norton to Conan/Jay Leno? You don't go to America to 'tell it like it is '. You go to America to be rigidly shackled to the script written by the sponsors (that even applies to the news for Christ's sake)

Don't say anything bad about my Conie.

Tarzana2 · 28-03-2015 01:59PM

Boosroles wrote: »

The pot kettle quote is quite stupid really. It's been my experience that the pots are usually different in colour to the kettle in most people'say houses.

Yes, they come in a wide range of colours. :pac: What a time to be alive. I'd say when that phrase was coined they were probably more monotone.

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Tarzana, I'd I told you where your ovaries where hiding, I'd get a ban.

LOL! :pac::D

Tarzana2 · 28-03-2015 02:00PM

Ghost Buster wrote: »

We could just cut out all the bull **** about who is a nobody, who is more important than who yadda yadda yadda.
Its quite simple. An assault happened. Thats illegal and a sack able offence.
What more can be said?

This is it, plain and simple.

P. Breathnach · 28-03-2015 02:02PM

Wibbs wrote: »

... An after hours drunken row between two guys who knew each other for the best part of a decade that escalated

You are recasting the story. It was not a row "between" two guys as that phrase would generally be interpreted - that they were both more-or-less equal participants. All the reports cast Clarkson as the aggressor in both the verbal and physical phases of the event, and there is no report than Tymon was anything other than the victim. Twenty minutes of very loud verbal abuse and thirty seconds of physical assault is a lot.

... where the assaulter realises the major screw up and fesses up, the assaulted has apparently forgiven him...

There is no evidence that Tymon has forgiven Clarkson. It is widely reported that he was not willing to accept Clarkson's apologies.

There remains the question of why Clarkson reported the incident. The suggestion that I find most plausible is that it was intended as damage control. If that is what it was about, obviously it failed.

tomwaterford · 28-03-2015 02:03PM

Tarzana2 wrote: »

Yes, they come in a wide range of colours. :pac: What a time to be alive. I'd say when that phrase was coined they were probably more monotone::D

I think that phrase refers to a time before electricity...and everything was cooked/boiled on the fire and ends used get burnt black???

tomwaterford · 28-03-2015 02:07PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Generally I'd agree with you. An after hours drunken row between two guys who knew each other for the best part of a decade that escalated, where the assaulter realises the major screw up and fesses up, the assaulted has apparently forgiven him, where a sacking costs millions and loses many people their jobs? As I said censure yes, even fines, end the current run of the programme early, insist he attends alcoholic awareness/a shrink, fine, but in the wider picture I think the sacking was a mistake. And yes I would say the same thing if Edmonds was in the dock for it. Though he's so short Oisin would have presented with a knee injury…

It did get a bit ridic, even on this thread, where he has been compared to Jimmy bloody Saville, a kiddie fiddler and defiler of corpses of many decades. Mind you I have oft found your perennially outraged on behalf of others are not too great at measuring degrees of outrage. Nuance comes hard to them. Nature of any mob I suppose.

In this day and age....no one anywhere should have to put with a 20min of a verbal assault....by anyone.....to try and suggest this is acceptable is beyond belief....
Simple question....would like to see your son/daughter or brother/sister being fcuked out of it for 20mins over anything....no mind someone who had a cold dinner as they were hours late turning up???
And being followed up by getting hit on the face....I sure as fcuk wouldn't want to be associated with someone who deos that....no mind try defending it

Eugene Norman · 28-03-2015 02:07PM

Tarzana2 wrote: »

Yes, they come in a wide range of colours. :pac: What a time to be alive. I'd say when that phrase was coined they were probably more monotone.

LOL! :pac::D

It meant burnt. Both pot and kettle would be on the stove and burnt at the bottom at least. They werent painted black.

Mesrine65 · 28-03-2015 02:10PM

tomwaterford wrote: »

In this day and age....no one anywhere should have to put with a 20min of a verbal assault....by anyone.....to try and suggest this is acceptable is beyond belief....

You need to talk to my OH on my behalf, when I turn up pissed to her parents home for dinner

Eugene Norman · 28-03-2015 02:21PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Generally I'd agree with you. An after hours drunken row between two guys who knew each other for the best part of a decade that escalated, where the assaulter realises the major screw up and fesses up, the assaulted has apparently forgiven him, where a sacking costs millions and loses many people their jobs? As I said censure yes, even fines, end the current run of the programme early, insist he attends alcoholic awareness/a shrink, fine, but in the wider picture I think the sacking was a mistake. And yes I would say the same thing if Edmonds was in the dock for it. Though he's so short Oisin would have presented with a knee injury…

It did get a bit ridic, even on this thread, where he has been compared to Jimmy bloody Saville, a kiddie fiddler and defiler of corpses of many decades. Mind you I have oft found your perennially outraged on behalf of others are not too great at measuring degrees of outrage. Nuance comes hard to them. Nature of any mob I suppose.

You are playing with words here.

The term "two people who knew each other for decades involved in a drunken row" is incredibly disengenous. They weren't friends ( although they may have been friendly enough coworkers) only one was drunk, only one was "the talent" which is a major power imbalance, only one ( by all accounts) gave the abuse, and only one ( by all accounts ) hit the other.

There is, by the way, no workplace where you wouldnt have been fired for this. Unless you own the company. Even then you can be sued. Even a CEO like Steve Jobs wouldn't have survived hitting someone.

This isn't two best mates having a row in a pub. This is work. Oisin was on the clock as a producer and was belittled and hit by a coworker.

The Saville comparisons are about how the "talent"'s peculiararites were in a different era ignored by the BBC.

Jeremy Clarkson suspended

Comments