No - they came out saying the comparison was upsetting and offensive.
That has no bearing on what the BBC meant by drawing it. They're separate issues.
The BBC's point was simply that they can no longer be seen to turn blind eyes to abuse in the productions of its shows, especially by its highest pair stars and biggest revenue earner. Savile 'bought' the right to abuse people at the BBC.
But that doesnt mean he would fit in to a role on a motoring entertainmenr show.
That's the point - He's not going to try to 'fit in' to Clarkson's 'role'. He'll be doing something new, and defining his own role in that format. It may be like a One Show about cars. Or a middle-aged TFI Friday about cars, complete with live studio audience and guests. Who knows, but no one (least of all Evans and his ego) is going to pretend Evans is a Clarkson substitute.
Didn't he have a split lip, blood running down his face and was taken to hospital to be checked over? The hospital bit sounds suspiciously like a tactic by the senior producers to cover their arses, distance themselves from Clarkson's actions and limit liability.
Who knows? There's been all sorts of media speculation about what may have happened. But none of the apparent eye witnesses had a camera and they all resisted the temptation to leak a pic to counter the sympathy Clarkson was getting. Plus the police showed no interest, and could/should have done if it were ABH or battery.
That has no bearing on what the BBC meant by drawing it. They're separate issues.
But the statement was intended to compare Clarkson to Saville using sensationalism to get people to jump to conclusions...
And of course this BBC person apparently gave an Offical Briefing, am Official Briefing in which they werent named and only went to them?
Hmm, sorry while I continue to be sceptical over the credibility of these claims (that it was someone from the BBC, and that it was an Official briefing...).
Chris Evans is listened to by upwards of 9m people a week, if he can convince so much as a third of them to tune into his new version of TG then it'll probably end up rating better than it even did before.
Evans has previously ruled himself out of the running, saying: “I can categorically say I am not and will never be running for office. Please discount my candidacy.”
No, I mean what happened in 2002 when they completely changed the format so that it was no longer recognisable from the previous format. They had to do that because the old show had died. If Clarkson is gone, he's gone - To continue with the current format without him is like continuing the old format with Wilson and Humble - It will just die again. And the franchise is already in decline with the US and Australian versions axed and ratings in China, Russia and other areas down.
That's why the sensible thing is to invent a new format and reboot the entire show. But perhaps keep Hammond and May on for a series to make it a slightly smoother transition and maybe persuade existing viewers to at least try watching the new format and maybe stay with it, rather than storming off in a huff and never watching again.
Trouble is the show has become far BIGGER than the previous one ever was. People did not discuss what was on old Top Gear. Unless they were boring petrolheads worried about fuel econonmy.
They did not wear T shirts saying "Top Gear Rally Report".
To reboot the show now will be very very hard and I cannot see it working no matter what they try.
But the statement was intended to compare Clarkson to Saville using sensationalism to get people to jump to conclusions...
No! That's just how it suits Clarkson fundamentalists to see things because doing do gives them a line of defence for their 'friend'.
If the same parallel had been made between Savile and Ross & Brand, the 50,000 Internet nutters who signed a petition to sack them would have agreed whole heartedly...
Trouble is the show has become far BIGGER than the previous one ever was... To reboot the show now will be very very hard and I cannot see it working no matter what they try.
I agree, but if Clarkson is gone under these circumstances then there's nothing they can do anymore than if he'd died. I think the show is in decline, which means at some point it will stop being such a big money maker. So they can either abandon the whole show and find a new show to fill an hour of airtime (another Dickens adaptation maybe) or accept that it's unlikely they can sustain its global appeal and focus on the domestic audience by creating a new format - which anyone who's a big fan of the current format is never going to like as much, especially if it's presented by Dominic Littlewood. But if they can make it for the right price and get a reasonable audience, it'll probably cover some part of the BBC's remit and ultimately it's a TV show filling airtime. They have to make something, so why not try to build on an established brand.
To reboot the show now will be very very hard and I cannot see it working no matter what they try.
They managed to "reboot" Countryfile FGS. I somehow think Top Gear will be do-able.....
Dara and Ed Byrne just now over on BBC2 titting about in a car through Mexico. Little diff between that and much of Top Gear so why not get them or some other car-fan comics to front it? I think once people let go of their obsessive and bizarre idea that Clarkson and his trained monkeys are the only ones that can/could ever front the show they'll find there's actually many who can take their place.
Wheeler Dealers does help the point I made though, WD itself has changed from its original more serious beginning, where there was more focus on the work carried out, fixing the carnup compared to the newer series that focus more on the actual dramatisation of the purchase and sale of the vehicle more than the fixing it.
I am a massive petrolhead, and watch Top Gear, Fifth Gear, Wheeler Dealers, Chasing Classic Cars and Car SOS, but I know that many people that watch TG will not watch the rest of them because they are more minorty interest motoring programmes rather than TG's Motortainment.
I take your point, even though he's been on TG before he's probably best known for working on cars than driving 'em.
I think the solution is obvious. Bring back Chris Goffey, whose irreverent wit and attractive jumpers made the original Top Gear such compulsive viewing.
That has no bearing on what the BBC meant by drawing it. They're separate issues.
The BBC's point was simply that they can no longer be seen to turn blind eyes to abuse in the productions of its shows, especially by its highest pair stars and biggest revenue earner. Savile 'bought' the right to abuse people at the BBC.
Why haven't the two executives come out and defended what was said?
An over the top investigation that's taken too long to complete.
Nope. When investigating an allegation against a broadcaster/presenter/actor, it usually takes two weeks to conclude. One week at least and three weeks at most. Against anyone in a BBC senior position, though? Up to two years.
I just hope they bothered to try and establish what's going on in his life that's caused him to snap like he did because regardless of the image the media like to give him sometimes.. I doubt he goes around trying to strangle people on a regular basis. But this is the BBC we're talking about. The organisation who sacked Jonathan Ross over a voice mail and couldn't keep hold of Jeremy Paxman. Nothing surprises me with them.
If Clarkson is sacked, he's only sacked from Top Gear itself. He'll probably find work with the BBC on different projects over next few years. I bet he'll find work with another network or broadcaster for a year, but return to the BBC with a new project. I'm almost willing to bet £50 on this. He's a BBC guy. In any case, Clarkson's personal life is not BBC's responsibility.
I think the solution is obvious. Bring back Chris Goffey, whose irreverent wit and attractive jumpers made the original Top Gear such compulsive viewing.
Yeah thats how you keep the viewers, you get back viewers by bringing back the format that drove the viewers away...
Looks to me like the BBC has no choice but to sack Clarkson, if the details are true you just can't have that level of misconduct. It would set a dangerous precedent if they don't.
While it might be the right thing to do its going to cost them big time, I recall reading somewhere that some 350m people worldwide watch Top Gear and it brings in something like £50m per year for the BBC.
The BBC will try and replace Clarkson but it won't work, he is Top Gear. I just can't see how it would work without him especially in the long term. They will probably plod along for a while but eventually they will have to axe the show and that revenue stream will be gone.
Why haven't the two executives come out and defended what was said?
Instead the BBC denied it was ever said.
So it's all right for the Clarkson fundamentalists to deny that anyone was even punched in the first place because no one has tweeted a photo and the police haven't arrested Clarkson, putting it all down to unsubstantiated rumour and a punch in the mouth is nothing to worry about anyway. But the BBC denying anything was ever said about Savile is a cover up of a very serious thing that cannot be dismissed and must be addressed without any wriggling!
If the executives haven't come out to defend the comments, it's probably because they're wise enough not to argue with angry, anonymous people on the Internet. It's like wrestling with a chimney sweep. It's also the same reasons that Benedict Cumberbatch just apologised, grovelled and then ran back into the shadows rather than trying to have an intellectual argument with Twitter about the meaning of his remarks - That TV needs more black actors and crew (implying it's racist), and his miss-use of an obsolete term was an error and not intended as the racism he was speaking against in the first place!
And Sanguinius is spot on. Jimmy Savile was a "dangerous precedent", and they can't set another one with Clarkson. It's all about living in an age where companies can't be seen to allow employees to be abused at work. It's politically incorrect and 'offensive'.
So it's all right for the Clarkson fundamentalists to deny that anyone was even punched in the first place because no one has tweeted a photo and the police haven't arrested Clarkson, putting it all down to unsubstantiated rumour and a punch in the mouth is nothing to worry about anyway. But the BBC denying anything was ever said about Savile is a cover up of a very serious thing that cannot be dismissed and must be addressed without any wriggling!
If the executives haven't come out to defend the comments, it's probably because they're wise enough not to argue with angry, anonymous people on the Internet. It's like wrestling with a chimney sweep. It's also the same reasons that Benedict Cumberbatch just apologised, grovelled and then ran back into the shadows rather than trying to have an intellectual argument with Twitter about the meaning of his remarks - That TV needs more black actors and crew (implying it's racist), and his miss-use of an obsolete term was an error and not intended as the racism he was speaking against in the first place!
And Sanguinius is spot on.
The BBC must be held accountable for their actions just as Clarkson is being held accountable for theirs, simple as.
Since Jonathan Ross left the BBC, Top Gear has also become one of its prime chat/interview shows, with big Hollywood stars coming on to promote their latest movies on the pretext of driving a car around a track. This is yet another reason why it's not impossible to build a new audience for a new format with Chris Evans, who basically does his One Show thing with the same guests but with token car references and no constant interruptions by Gyles Brandreth telling us all about the man who invented cuff links and some very pretty and patronising unknown blonde woman telling viewers what their cats meows mean.
By definition, if Top Gear is an entertainment show, you don't need car experts to attract viewers. They may not be Clarkson's old Top Gear viewers, but any show can attract some kind of audience if the format works, it's entertaining and its presented by the right people.
Even if you changed the format of Top Gear, it will still be very hard to replace the trio. Top Gear might be an entertainment show, but fundamentally it's a car show. To be a successful Top Gear presenter, you have to be someone completely obsessed with cars and also values them as the most important things in your life. That is or was one of Clarkson's biggest strengths, he had an unflinching devotion to cars. He realised the emotion of cars, but he also was objectionable about them. This was also true of old Top Gear. The best presenters, outside of Jeremy, were people like Tiff Nedell, Vicky Butler Henderson who were racers and people with a love of motor cars. They meant everything to them. Other presenters like Kate Humble or Julia Bradbury just didn't cut the mustard but cars weren't everything to them. It was just another job.
Chris Evans might be obsessed with cars but the thing is, are they the most important things in his life. Do they control him. He might go some way towards replacing Clarkson, but I fear he will fall just short of being great. Even if Evans takes the job, you still have another two slots to fill. Hamster and Captain Slow, were like Jeremy obsessed with cars.
Finding two or even three people with a devotion to cars like the current trio, wit and charisma and TV experience is going to be pretty difficult. Perhaps a relative unknown could get a position, but they will have to walk a pretty tight rope.
Comments
That has no bearing on what the BBC meant by drawing it. They're separate issues.
The BBC's point was simply that they can no longer be seen to turn blind eyes to abuse in the productions of its shows, especially by its highest pair stars and biggest revenue earner. Savile 'bought' the right to abuse people at the BBC.
That's the point - He's not going to try to 'fit in' to Clarkson's 'role'. He'll be doing something new, and defining his own role in that format. It may be like a One Show about cars. Or a middle-aged TFI Friday about cars, complete with live studio audience and guests. Who knows, but no one (least of all Evans and his ego) is going to pretend Evans is a Clarkson substitute.
Who knows? There's been all sorts of media speculation about what may have happened. But none of the apparent eye witnesses had a camera and they all resisted the temptation to leak a pic to counter the sympathy Clarkson was getting. Plus the police showed no interest, and could/should have done if it were ABH or battery.
Perhaps they mean that, in a sense until an official announcement is made as to the result of the inquiry then legally no decision will have been made
But the statement was intended to compare Clarkson to Saville using sensationalism to get people to jump to conclusions...
And of course this BBC person apparently gave an Offical Briefing, am Official Briefing in which they werent named and only went to them?
Hmm, sorry while I continue to be sceptical over the credibility of these claims (that it was someone from the BBC, and that it was an Official briefing...).
Evans has previously ruled himself out of the running, saying: “I can categorically say I am not and will never be running for office. Please discount my candidacy.”
Trouble is the show has become far BIGGER than the previous one ever was. People did not discuss what was on old Top Gear. Unless they were boring petrolheads worried about fuel econonmy.
They did not wear T shirts saying "Top Gear Rally Report".
To reboot the show now will be very very hard and I cannot see it working no matter what they try.
No! That's just how it suits Clarkson fundamentalists to see things because doing do gives them a line of defence for their 'friend'.
If the same parallel had been made between Savile and Ross & Brand, the 50,000 Internet nutters who signed a petition to sack them would have agreed whole heartedly...
I agree, but if Clarkson is gone under these circumstances then there's nothing they can do anymore than if he'd died. I think the show is in decline, which means at some point it will stop being such a big money maker. So they can either abandon the whole show and find a new show to fill an hour of airtime (another Dickens adaptation maybe) or accept that it's unlikely they can sustain its global appeal and focus on the domestic audience by creating a new format - which anyone who's a big fan of the current format is never going to like as much, especially if it's presented by Dominic Littlewood. But if they can make it for the right price and get a reasonable audience, it'll probably cover some part of the BBC's remit and ultimately it's a TV show filling airtime. They have to make something, so why not try to build on an established brand.
They managed to "reboot" Countryfile FGS. I somehow think Top Gear will be do-able.....
Dara and Ed Byrne just now over on BBC2 titting about in a car through Mexico. Little diff between that and much of Top Gear so why not get them or some other car-fan comics to front it? I think once people let go of their obsessive and bizarre idea that Clarkson and his trained monkeys are the only ones that can/could ever front the show they'll find there's actually many who can take their place.
It's political correctness gone mad, isn't it?
Instead the BBC denied it was ever said.
Nope. When investigating an allegation against a broadcaster/presenter/actor, it usually takes two weeks to conclude. One week at least and three weeks at most. Against anyone in a BBC senior position, though? Up to two years.
If Clarkson is sacked, he's only sacked from Top Gear itself. He'll probably find work with the BBC on different projects over next few years. I bet he'll find work with another network or broadcaster for a year, but return to the BBC with a new project. I'm almost willing to bet £50 on this. He's a BBC guy. In any case, Clarkson's personal life is not BBC's responsibility.
Yeah thats how you keep the viewers, you get back viewers by bringing back the format that drove the viewers away...
While it might be the right thing to do its going to cost them big time, I recall reading somewhere that some 350m people worldwide watch Top Gear and it brings in something like £50m per year for the BBC.
The BBC will try and replace Clarkson but it won't work, he is Top Gear. I just can't see how it would work without him especially in the long term. They will probably plod along for a while but eventually they will have to axe the show and that revenue stream will be gone.
So sad... so sad... it's a sad, sad situation...
One way or another.
So it's all right for the Clarkson fundamentalists to deny that anyone was even punched in the first place because no one has tweeted a photo and the police haven't arrested Clarkson, putting it all down to unsubstantiated rumour and a punch in the mouth is nothing to worry about anyway. But the BBC denying anything was ever said about Savile is a cover up of a very serious thing that cannot be dismissed and must be addressed without any wriggling!
If the executives haven't come out to defend the comments, it's probably because they're wise enough not to argue with angry, anonymous people on the Internet. It's like wrestling with a chimney sweep. It's also the same reasons that Benedict Cumberbatch just apologised, grovelled and then ran back into the shadows rather than trying to have an intellectual argument with Twitter about the meaning of his remarks - That TV needs more black actors and crew (implying it's racist), and his miss-use of an obsolete term was an error and not intended as the racism he was speaking against in the first place!
And Sanguinius is spot on. Jimmy Savile was a "dangerous precedent", and they can't set another one with Clarkson. It's all about living in an age where companies can't be seen to allow employees to be abused at work. It's politically incorrect and 'offensive'.
They would probably be crying like a bitch, but yet on the internet, about someone else...
This would be better.
"And then Mr. Lewis. Isn't it time that he was out on his own"
I wouldn't be bothered because there's no such thing as "rumouss".
It is obvious that I meant rumours...
There is it's Jeremy's favourite album.
By definition, if Top Gear is an entertainment show, you don't need car experts to attract viewers. They may not be Clarkson's old Top Gear viewers, but any show can attract some kind of audience if the format works, it's entertaining and its presented by the right people.
Chris Evans might be obsessed with cars but the thing is, are they the most important things in his life. Do they control him. He might go some way towards replacing Clarkson, but I fear he will fall just short of being great. Even if Evans takes the job, you still have another two slots to fill. Hamster and Captain Slow, were like Jeremy obsessed with cars.
Finding two or even three people with a devotion to cars like the current trio, wit and charisma and TV experience is going to be pretty difficult. Perhaps a relative unknown could get a position, but they will have to walk a pretty tight rope.