If the Radio Times story is to be believed, and Clarkson threw a punch at a male producer, then that would be considered gross misconduct by most employers, and probably grounds for immediate dismissal.
If the Radio Times story is to be believed, and Clarkson threw a punch at a male producer, then that would be considered gross misconduct by most employers, and probably grounds for immediate dismissal.
But then the BBC would lose their cash cow and very much doubt they'll let that happen.
But then the BBC would lose their cash cow and very much doubt they'll let that happen.
That should be irrelevant.
Otherwise you are saying some people are so important they can get away with anything.
And what happens if some 20 year old junior at the BBC throws a punch at a manager- is sacked- then wins an appeal by saying 'Clarkson was already on a final warning- and he wasn't sacked'
You can't change the rules just because you like a particular presenter, or programme.
Losing Clarkson might just be what the show needs, I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens, but I don't think TG need be consigned to the bin, it would just be allowed to finally find a new level, whatever level that might be.
Losing Clarkson might just be what the show needs, I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens, but I don't think TG need be consigned to the bin, it would just be allowed to finally find a new level, whatever level that might be.
The other two would be mad to stay if he leaves. The show would be a sinking ship and would later be axed.
The three presenters have returned to Twitter to joke about what the BBC should show this weekend. James votes for 633 Squadron, Jeremy suggests one of his war documentaries.
Losing Clarkson might just be what the show needs, I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens, but I don't think TG need be consigned to the bin, it would just be allowed to finally find a new level, whatever level that might be.
Don't think so after all the original show was losing viewers by the bucketload so was cancelled.
Fifth Gear was cancelled though has been brought back on one of those "nothing" Sky channels that no-one watches.
It would not survive with PC presenters and TOWIE/IACGMOOF guests. As thay would be all it would attract. Or to be like The One Show with cars.
The three presenters have returned to Twitter to joke about what the BBC should show this weekend. James votes for 633 Squadron, Jeremy suggests one of his war documentaries.
Richard would prefer a test card.
Bit of a strange thing to make jokes about
(yes, I know who we are talking about, but perhaps silence would have been the better option here)
Otherwise you are saying some people are so important they can get away with anything.
And what happens if some 20 year old junior at the BBC throws a punch at a manager- is sacked- then wins an appeal by saying 'Clarkson was already on a final warning- and he wasn't sacked'
You can't change the rules just because you like a particular presenter, or programme.
But it isn't irrelevant. In any business those who make the most cash are given the most leeway.
Do you think if some jr at the BBC had done a fraction of what Clarkson has done in the past or caused even the slightest bit of controversy than they'd still have a job?
No.
But Clarkson got away with it because Top Gear makes the BBC so much cash.
It's yet to be seen wether this is where they draw the line but let's not be under some misguided impression that the same rules that apply to most BBC workers apply to Clarkson because they don't. They should, but the past has shown they don't.
James May should jump ship and do more of the things he does on his own: Toy Stories and Man Lab. They were good TV as fair as I was concerned.
Hammond is a jobbing presenter away so he should go off and do his own thing as well.
And Clarkson won't be out of a job any time soon either.
So all the BBC have successfully done is axe Top Gear and lost their cash cow and their stars. Epic fail!
So you think that punching a producer is acceptable? Obviously we don't know the facts, but on the face of things... do you think the BBC had a choice if this is true? It's not about 'epic fail', it's about acceptable behaviour.
So you think that punching a producer is acceptable? Obviously we don't know the facts, but on the face of things... do you think the BBC had a choice if this is true? It's not about 'epic fail', it's about acceptable behaviour.
Comments
But then the BBC would lose their cash cow and very much doubt they'll let that happen.
That should be irrelevant.
Otherwise you are saying some people are so important they can get away with anything.
And what happens if some 20 year old junior at the BBC throws a punch at a manager- is sacked- then wins an appeal by saying 'Clarkson was already on a final warning- and he wasn't sacked'
You can't change the rules just because you like a particular presenter, or programme.
if JC had to leave, it would let BBC move TG to BBC1
K
I doubt that.
Unless you mean the ones with different presenters?
I'm almost inclined to believe that, because of the mammoth of merchandise already available at this point.
The other two would be mad to stay if he leaves. The show would be a sinking ship and would later be axed.
Richard would prefer a test card.
Don't think so after all the original show was losing viewers by the bucketload so was cancelled.
Fifth Gear was cancelled though has been brought back on one of those "nothing" Sky channels that no-one watches.
It would not survive with PC presenters and TOWIE/IACGMOOF guests. As thay would be all it would attract. Or to be like The One Show with cars.
Where did I ask for it to go back to the original format, where did I say what sort of show I'd like to see? I simply said a refresh.
Unfortunatly a refresh in thre BBC's eyes would be for PC presenters. As they would not take the risk on new presenters being controversial.
As Clarkson and the others would be shouting from the rooftops of them being Hypocrites.
I'm pretty sure a lot of the revenue comes from showing the actual Uk show overseas. Eg it makes up about 10% of the schedule of BBC America
Sky News noticed.
Seems likely that May and Hammond have refused to carry on without Clarkson.
Shame, as this series has been a marked improvement over recent series.
Bit of a strange thing to make jokes about
(yes, I know who we are talking about, but perhaps silence would have been the better option here)
But it isn't irrelevant. In any business those who make the most cash are given the most leeway.
Do you think if some jr at the BBC had done a fraction of what Clarkson has done in the past or caused even the slightest bit of controversy than they'd still have a job?
No.
But Clarkson got away with it because Top Gear makes the BBC so much cash.
It's yet to be seen wether this is where they draw the line but let's not be under some misguided impression that the same rules that apply to most BBC workers apply to Clarkson because they don't. They should, but the past has shown they don't.
James May should jump ship and do more of the things he does on his own: Toy Stories and Man Lab. They were good TV as fair as I was concerned.
Hammond is a jobbing presenter away so he should go off and do his own thing as well.
And Clarkson won't be out of a job any time soon either.
So all the BBC have successfully done is axe Top Gear and lost their cash cow and their stars. Epic fail!
So you think that punching a producer is acceptable? Obviously we don't know the facts, but on the face of things... do you think the BBC had a choice if this is true? It's not about 'epic fail', it's about acceptable behaviour.
Quite!