I suspect that in his heart of hearts, Clarkson actually wanted out of Top Gear, punching a producer was just his subconscious rising to the surface.
I don't think it was that clearly motivated. I think he was struggling with his personal life.. the recent death of his mother.. his marriage not being there.. his drinking issue.. his health scare in the days prior. And as we saw from the feature in question.. it was a miserable wet day. He didn't look in great form (compare how he looked in the last episode to how he looked in previous series) and I think he just reached the end of his tether and lashed out at the wrong person.
Someone will be along shortly from the PC brigade to tell me he's a thug and deserves no sympathy.. but he's only human.. and a middle aged one at that. He was clearly not having the best of periods in his life at the time this all kicked off. And even after it kicked off it appeared he was struggling with drink.. something he's attempted to address.
So I don't think he did it just to get out of the show.. I think he just lost it due to a combination of factors.. the lack of hot food after a day up to his waist in a river filming a car show for the BBC. Those three blokes loved Top Gear. They'd have never wanted it to end like this... JC in particular.
How exactly could he continue working on the show when he had assaulted a member of the production team? That is grounds for dismissal in any workplace.
Yeah but there were extenuating circumstances if he had severe personal problems including the alleged drinking that someone else suggested he may be suffering from above and these were in some way affecting his mental well being / stability. I'm sure many an employee has been suspended and told to seek help rather than being dismissed under those circumstances.
Yeah but there were extenuating circumstances if he had severe personal problems including the alleged drinking that someone else suggested he may be suffering from above and these were in some way affecting his mental well being / stability. I'm sure many an employee has been suspended and told to seek help rather than being dismissed under those circumstances.
He doesn't seem to have been treated for any such breakdown though. In fact he is busy setting up his next venture. So there were no such extenuating circumstances. He lost control, no excuses.
....I think he just lost it due to a combination of factors.. the lack of hot food after a day up to his waist in a river filming a car show for the BBC....
Do you have a link to an authoritative source which confirms that was the situation?
He doesn't seem to have been treated for any such breakdown though. In fact he is busy setting up his next venture. So there were no such extenuating circumstances. He lost control, no excuses.
In the space of a year his mother had died and his marriage had ended , if those arent extenuating circumstances I am not sure what are
With all due respect, the BBC is a large organisation and not a single opinion. Some people at the BBC had clearly wanted him out for ages (how else was the n-word footage leaked)....
Could you clarify what you mean by people at the BBC, do you mean cleaners, receptionists?
Due to the nature of videoed material there could be 3 camera crews working on the same story, that may include a number of freelancers, so there's no guarantee anyone at the BBC was involved in the leaking of the footage.
At the time it was recorded there could have been camera operators, sound recordists, producers, producers assistants, lighting, special effects, transporters, stunt arrangers, stunt drivers, loggers, car mechanics, runners etc of which one could have taken exception to Clarkson's words or thought they were newsworthy.
At the edit numerous people may have seen the rushes if they were transferred to computer or seen the footage on a switcher during the edit and taken exception to Clarkson's words or seen it as a way to make some money.
Solicitor Lucy Scott Moncrieff said: “It is all about context. If there was a crew member who was distressed by it, then there could well have been a breach of equality legislation.”
In the space of a year his mother had died and his marriage had ended , if those arent extenuating circumstances I am not sure what are
So that's an excuse for an unprovoked physical attack on someone?
Yes it must have been traumatic for him when he was expelled from a public school just a few weeks before taking his A Levels, his mother must been so proud.
The couple's relationship has been under growing strain following reports alleging that the millionaire Top Gear presenter had engaged in extra-marital affairs.
So that's an excuse for an unprovoked physical attack on someone?
Yes it must have been traumatic for him when he was expelled from a public school just a few weeks before taking his A Levels, his mother must been so proud.
You know, you could easily sound less of a sanctimonious prick. Many people in the world do things they shouldn't. Some of the time, it's just because they're horrible people. Some of the rest of the time, it's because they're not horrible people but have been taken to a point where their sense of self control has been eroded.
Having some interest in the root causes of Clarkson's behaviour is not 'making an excuse for violence', it's putting the event in context. Clarkson does not have a long history of violence against his co-workers. He has a long history of saying things that he shouldn't but that's not the same thing at all and people conflating the two are idiots, or have an agenda, or both. Given the details of the assault that have come out, it was actually out of character for Clarkson as a person. Wanting to understand why that happened is not the same as condoning it.
Frankly I'm not sure the 'if he was just a normal employee they'd have got him therapy rather than sacked him' is at all true - there are breaches of conduct which are unacceptable even with mitigating circumstances but the idea someone's circumstances are irrelevant to their behaviour, well.. I could show you entire libraries of science that will tell you that is utter rubbish.
1000s of people up and down this country will receive a punch deserved or not but if you hate Clarkson then it's an event of epic proportions with absolutely no excuses for anything he has done ever.
So it all boils down to disliking Clarkson in the first and so nothing will ever be seen as mitigating as they just don't want anything to be. Their opinion is invalid.
If only they could take a good look at themselves and see what their character is before judging others.
1000s of people up and down this country will receive a punch deserved or not but if you hate Clarkson then it's an event of epic proportions with absolutely no excuses for anything he has done ever.
So it all boils down to disliking Clarkson in the first and so nothing will ever be seen as mitigating as they just don't want anything to be. Their opinion is invalid.
If only they could take a good look at themselves and see what their character is before judging others.
Maybe you should take a look at the BGT threads and your constant attacks on the dog act and then consider your own advice.
What's the point in debating with someone who makes such an idiotic suggestion.
What's wrong did my explanation of how leaks don't have to be the work of an senior executive burst your bubble?
You made a sweeping statement which could cover a whole range of people as I've indicated.
Andy Wilman was the executive producer with overall responsibility for the content of Top Gear he conducted the edits are you saying he leaked the video footage?
Where did I ever say I liked the act? I simply pointed out the rank hypocrisy of your views.
The hypocrisy is only in your mind not mine.
I think that the act should be looked into and indeed so do OFCOM and that is what they are doing. It's not a hate filled dislike of the person but she was fully complicent in the deception.
Sorry if you don't like that, but those are the facts and they won't be changing for you!
So before having a rant, make sure of your facts first,
And as we saw from the feature in question.. it was a miserable wet day. He didn't look in great form (compare how he looked in the last episode to how he looked in previous series) and I think he just reached the end of his tether and lashed out at the wrong person.
Which was the feature in question, the one after the filming of which he lost it?
I don't think it was that clearly motivated. I think he was struggling with his personal life.. the recent death of his mother.. his marriage not being there.. his drinking issue.. his health scare in the days prior. And as we saw from the feature in question.. it was a miserable wet day. He didn't look in great form (compare how he looked in the last episode to how he looked in previous series) and
I think he just reached the end of his tether and lashed out at the wrong person.
Comments
I don't think it was that clearly motivated. I think he was struggling with his personal life.. the recent death of his mother.. his marriage not being there.. his drinking issue.. his health scare in the days prior. And as we saw from the feature in question.. it was a miserable wet day. He didn't look in great form (compare how he looked in the last episode to how he looked in previous series) and I think he just reached the end of his tether and lashed out at the wrong person.
Someone will be along shortly from the PC brigade to tell me he's a thug and deserves no sympathy.. but he's only human.. and a middle aged one at that. He was clearly not having the best of periods in his life at the time this all kicked off. And even after it kicked off it appeared he was struggling with drink.. something he's attempted to address.
So I don't think he did it just to get out of the show.. I think he just lost it due to a combination of factors.. the lack of hot food after a day up to his waist in a river filming a car show for the BBC. Those three blokes loved Top Gear. They'd have never wanted it to end like this... JC in particular.
Yeah but there were extenuating circumstances if he had severe personal problems including the alleged drinking that someone else suggested he may be suffering from above and these were in some way affecting his mental well being / stability. I'm sure many an employee has been suspended and told to seek help rather than being dismissed under those circumstances.
Do you have a link to an authoritative source which confirms that was the situation?
In the space of a year his mother had died and his marriage had ended , if those arent extenuating circumstances I am not sure what are
Could you clarify what you mean by people at the BBC, do you mean cleaners, receptionists?
Due to the nature of videoed material there could be 3 camera crews working on the same story, that may include a number of freelancers, so there's no guarantee anyone at the BBC was involved in the leaking of the footage.
At the time it was recorded there could have been camera operators, sound recordists, producers, producers assistants, lighting, special effects, transporters, stunt arrangers, stunt drivers, loggers, car mechanics, runners etc of which one could have taken exception to Clarkson's words or thought they were newsworthy.
At the edit numerous people may have seen the rushes if they were transferred to computer or seen the footage on a switcher during the edit and taken exception to Clarkson's words or seen it as a way to make some money.
The elephant in the room is Clarkson, who likes to blow his own trumpet....
So that's an excuse for an unprovoked physical attack on someone?
Yes it must have been traumatic for him when he was expelled from a public school just a few weeks before taking his A Levels, his mother must been so proud.
As for his marriage they'd been living apart for 3 years, and....
Clarkson a victim of circumstance.
Having some interest in the root causes of Clarkson's behaviour is not 'making an excuse for violence', it's putting the event in context. Clarkson does not have a long history of violence against his co-workers. He has a long history of saying things that he shouldn't but that's not the same thing at all and people conflating the two are idiots, or have an agenda, or both. Given the details of the assault that have come out, it was actually out of character for Clarkson as a person. Wanting to understand why that happened is not the same as condoning it.
Frankly I'm not sure the 'if he was just a normal employee they'd have got him therapy rather than sacked him' is at all true - there are breaches of conduct which are unacceptable even with mitigating circumstances but the idea someone's circumstances are irrelevant to their behaviour, well.. I could show you entire libraries of science that will tell you that is utter rubbish.
1000s of people up and down this country will receive a punch deserved or not but if you hate Clarkson then it's an event of epic proportions with absolutely no excuses for anything he has done ever.
So it all boils down to disliking Clarkson in the first and so nothing will ever be seen as mitigating as they just don't want anything to be. Their opinion is invalid.
If only they could take a good look at themselves and see what their character is before judging others.
Maybe you should take a look at the BGT threads and your constant attacks on the dog act and then consider your own advice.
What's wrong did my explanation of how leaks don't have to be the work of an senior executive burst your bubble?
You made a sweeping statement which could cover a whole range of people as I've indicated.
Andy Wilman was the executive producer with overall responsibility for the content of Top Gear he conducted the edits are you saying he leaked the video footage?
Wow! An actual post that relates to Top Gear rather than childish arguments!
Anyway, I belive the station was Quainton Road
I don't need to as OFCOM is doing an OFFICAL investigation into it as there have been complaints.
But no, everyone else is wrong and you are right because you like a doggy act.
[rolleyes]
Where did I ever say I liked the act? I simply pointed out the rank hypocrisy of your views.
The hypocrisy is only in your mind not mine.
I think that the act should be looked into and indeed so do OFCOM and that is what they are doing. It's not a hate filled dislike of the person but she was fully complicent in the deception.
Sorry if you don't like that, but those are the facts and they won't be changing for you!
So before having a rant, make sure of your facts first,
They just can't get enough of it can they?
And well said jonbwfc.
Which was the feature in question, the one after the filming of which he lost it?
Top Gear: Best of Series 22"
The BBC just can't enough of this threesome can they?!
Clever BBC! By not banning him, they can still rake in the money from his talent.
Oh, anyone less big and 'powerful' than himself?
They let the credits play through in silence this time.