Jeremy Clarkson

19293959798170

Comments

  • billykubrickbillykubrick Posts: 603
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    There's been more than a few comments on here about how he should be sacked because he's on a final warning. Maybe Hammond should look to sue the beeb as he suffered more than a split lip '- a duty of care works all ways

    It doesn't help if you are on a final warning for using possibly racist language and then you punch someone who then needs hospital treatment (assuming this to be true). Hammond should not sue the BBC because he is well compensated for his job (in my opinion).
  • i4ui4u Posts: 54,809
    Forum Member
    When will some people understand that most of us like myself signed the petition for Clarkson to be reinstated ONLY, I'm dam sick of seeing comments saying things like you support violence just because you did, to whom who think this just do one.

    So what if it says underneath Freedom To Fracas.

    And if it had said, "Freedom to be racist" ?
  • i4ui4u Posts: 54,809
    Forum Member
    Allegedly speaking exclusively to one paper is reporting Clarkson has told them he is on 'silence', which is a contradiction and at odds with other papers claiming he has said this or that. :)

    All this talk of suing over the comparison with Jimmy Savile and his use of fame & fortune to push aside allegations seems a bit a daft when you see a petition which seems to be based on Clarkson's fame and value to a broadcaster.

    His friends consider it a smear against Clarkson yet his sweeping comments aimed at others over the years are not regarded a smear.

    Although Piers Morgan & Clarkson kissed and made up last year, Morgan claims....
    Then, at the British Press Awards a few months later, he punched me three times in the head – causing my blood to flow profusely.

    My right temple still bears the scar, his right little finger is permanently disfigured from where it broke on my skull. If the situation were reversed, I’d have probably done the same to him.

    Morgan states Clarkson wanted to end the feud...
    ‘I’m going through a difficult divorce, my first ex-wife has also came out of the woodwork to give me hell, I’m smoking too much, drinking too much, my back hurts, I’m all over the papers with this N-word scandal, I’m at war with my BBC bosses, and my mother has just died. I simply don’t have the energy for you any more.

    I don't think I've seen a photo of him going out without a **** packet in his hand, don't his jackets have pockets?
  • mossy2103mossy2103 Posts: 84,307
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    i4u wrote: »
    Allegedly speaking exclusively to one paper is reporting Clarkson has told them he is on 'silence', which is a contradiction and at odds with other papers claiming he has said this or that. :)

    All this talk of suing over the comparison with Jimmy Savile and his use of fame & fortune to push aside allegations seems a bit a daft when you see a petition which seems to be based on Clarkson's fame and value to a broadcaster.

    His friends consider it a smear against Clarkson yet his sweeping comments aimed at others over the years are not regarded a smear.
    Let's not forget that the producer was also supposedly saying nothing, but seemed to have been quoted in the papers days later.

    And the BBC was also saying nothing (as per their short statement when Clarkson's suspension was announced), only to apparently speak to the Mail on Sunday officially (or not) in order to make public the Savile comparison.

    No side comes out of that part of the process very well.
  • billykubrickbillykubrick Posts: 603
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    When will some people understand that most of us like myself signed the petition for Clarkson to be reinstated ONLY, I'm dam sick of seeing comments saying things like you support violence just because you did, to whom who think this just do one.

    So what if it says underneath Freedom To Fracas.

    I don't understand the actual wording here.. I guess the poster is saying : "I'm dam(n) sick of seeing things like "you support violence just because you did (sign the petition)" but what does: "to whom who think this just do one" mean? I can't work it out at all!

    I understand the general meaning, which is that just because one signs the petition (because of a general liking of the man and his show) doesn't mean condoning violence which is at this stage only alleged.
  • nathanbrazilnathanbrazil Posts: 8,863
    Forum Member
    I understand the general meaning, which is that just because one signs the petition (because of a general liking of the man and his show) doesn't mean condoning violence which is at this stage only alleged.

    Precisely. I signed the petition, and that in no way supports violence. If Clarkson did wrong, then punish him with a fine that reflects his pay-packet. But don't cast the world's most popular factual program into the dustbin. The wrong-doing of which Clarkson is accused, is a million miles away from the very serious wrong-doing to which the BBC turned multiple blind-eyes over several decades. Not only in regard to J. Saville, but also vile politicians such a C. Smith, who the establishment has now been shown to have conspired to protect.

    At the end of the day Clarkson is just a bloke with strong opinions, but what he has come to represent, is everyone's right to express those (perfectly legal) opinions regardless of who it might upset. That freedom of speech is why I signed, and what I feel obliged to defend. If the PC crowd don't like that, it's their right to object, but what I will not do on whatever level I feel able to resist, is let them stifle freedom of speech in the first place.
  • StrakerStraker Posts: 79,567
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/jeremy-clarkson-sue-bbc-sacked-5379351

    They won't have to sack him, just not renew his (or the other two's) contract or does he think the BBC are obliged to renew it come what May (no pun...)?
  • i4ui4u Posts: 54,809
    Forum Member
    mossy2103 wrote: »
    ....And the BBC was also saying nothing (as per their short statement when Clarkson's suspension was announced), only to apparently speak to the Mail on Sunday officially (or not) in order to make public the Savile comparison.....

    The Mail group isn't exactly supportive of the BBC and am surprised it hasn't taken the opportunity of putting the boot in by naming the alleged executive who had provided an alleged official briefing, think of the disruption it would have caused at the BBC.

    As the BBC would know who gave an official briefing I don't see how the Mail on Sunday is protecting that person unless they want speculation & rumour to abound.

    I understand when one of the reporters was asked about the 'briefing' he very abruptly curtailed the conversation.
  • i4ui4u Posts: 54,809
    Forum Member
    Straker wrote: »
    http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/jeremy-clarkson-sue-bbc-sacked-5379351

    They won't have to sack him, just not renew his (or the other two's) contract or does he think the BBC are obliged to renew it come what May (no pun...)?

    I don't want to Hammond the point but if Clarkson chose to be on a short term contract then the BBC are not obliged to re-new it the same as he presumably isn't obliged to agree a contract.

    I'm not sure how he could sue for being sacked from a job he didn't have, maybe he's been taking legal advice from John McCririck?
  • TassiumTassium Posts: 31,639
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Was there ever really a senior BBC executive who compared the Clarkson situation to the Savile situation?

    Or was it a Mail fiction?
  • i4ui4u Posts: 54,809
    Forum Member
    Precisely. I signed the petition, and that in no way supports violence. ..... <snip garbage>

    At the end of the day Clarkson is just a bloke with strong opinions, but what he has come to represent, is everyone's right to express those (perfectly legal) opinions regardless of who it might upset. .....

    But if it turns out Clarkson has a strong right hand and insulted a work colleague along racist lines that's ok because sacking him will curtail his freedom of speech?
  • Sick BulletSick Bullet Posts: 20,770
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    i4u wrote: »
    And if it had said, "Freedom to be racist" ?

    Petitioning Top Gear The BBC
    BBC: BRING BACK CLARKSON

    I said ages ago unless he rapes kills someone or animals, the haters have just got to move on do you even watch Top Gear?
  • lundavralundavra Posts: 31,790
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Nilrem wrote: »
    Since when did Fracas come to only mean a fight?

    IIRC the definition covers everything from an argument to a fight, which is a pretty wide range of possibilities, as it can be a disagreement with raised voices, and not just "punching colleagues and putting them in hospital".

    It's quite a nice word to use to describe something without giving any real details, yet some people seem to fixate on the extreme end of the range it covers.

    The definitions that I saw, were more of an argument and I don't think mentioned a fight. The word was probably carefully chosen.
  • lundavralundavra Posts: 31,790
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Ash_M1 wrote: »
    ...and given that Guido is a right-wing outlet explains very clearly what their agenda is!

    Those supporting Clarkson is actually a really bad reflection on them. It actually says, inappropriate behavior is acceptable if I err like said person allegedly involved. Not something anyone should be signing up to.

    I suspect the petition was a reaction to all the Left wing Luvvies (who hate Clarkson) jumping at the chance to get him sacked.
  • Ethel_FredEthel_Fred Posts: 34,127
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    lundavra wrote: »
    I suspect the petition was a reaction to all the Left wing Luvvies (who hate Clarkson) jumping at the chance to get him sacked.
    More likely the right wing using any excuse to attack the BBC.
  • nathanbrazilnathanbrazil Posts: 8,863
    Forum Member
    i4u wrote: »
    But if it turns out Clarkson has a strong right hand and insulted a work colleague along racist lines that's ok because sacking him will curtail his freedom of speech?

    At no point has anyone suggested that Clarkson hurled racial insults. But, for argument's sake, if he did then what should happen is that he should formally apologise, pay a fine and shake hands with the bloke.

    Like Clarkson, I come from an age where men, in particular, occasionally lost their tempers and insulted each other without anyone later claiming it had scarred their life or other BS. People sometimes lose their temper, and say things they don't mean. It's not the end of the world.
  • mossy2103mossy2103 Posts: 84,307
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Tassium wrote: »
    Was there ever really a senior BBC executive who compared the Clarkson situation to the Savile situation?

    Or was it a Mail fiction?
    Seeing as it was promoted as a major story in the Mail, and that it was one that was repeated elsewhere, I am surprised that the BBC did not issue a denial or correction.

    Which could indicate that it was indeed sourced from the BBC.

    More worryingly, it could also indicate that it was an "unofficial briefing" that was officially sanctioned.
  • 446.09375446.09375 Posts: 961
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Like Clarkson, I come from an age where men, in particular, occasionally lost their tempers and insulted each other without anyone later claiming it had scarred their life or other BS. People sometimes lose their temper, and say things they don't mean. It's not the end of the world.

    EXACTLY! If that's the world JC grew up in, it's all very well saying "we shouldn't do this, we shouldn't do that" but people do, it's a fact of life. Kids hit each other all the time, and so do adults when pressure builds to a point where their inner child momentarily takes over and behaving like an adult becomes too much to ask in the circumstances. We all have our breaking point, I believe, and those who say they don't have just been fortunate not to have been pushed that far. The question is, is what should the repercussions be? Is it worth losing a job over a one-off if things can be settled some other way?

    But anyhow, JC does seem to realise the world has changed, and he has become a dinosaur and it's time to go. I'd be very surprised indeed to see him on a new TG.
  • nathanbrazilnathanbrazil Posts: 8,863
    Forum Member
    446.09375 wrote: »
    The question is, is what should the repercussions be? Is it worth losing a job over a one-off if things can be settled some other way?.

    It seems obvious to me that the repercussions should be a formal apology and perhaps a fine. Clarkson is not a dedicated racist or an habitually violent man. Gazza, for example, has done much worse! But, respectfully, the real question is whether PC is more important to the BBC than freedom of speech.
    446.09375 wrote: »
    But anyhow, JC does seem to realise the world has changed, and he has become a dinosaur and it's time to go. I'd be very surprised indeed to see him on a new TG.

    Has the world changed, under the veneer? I don't believe that to be the case. At least, in as much as how people occasionally fly off the handle and fall prey to their inner child, as you put it. People are still people, no matter how often they are told they should behave, and it will take many generations for that to change. Also, I think it's very clear that many millions of people - good ordinary, decent, non-racist, non-violent people - are sick to the back teeth of being told what they should say or think or feel. In particular when this is imposed by some authority. For example here on DS, I have recently encountered auto censorship that prevented me using the diminutive of Pakistani, in the context of discussion. It is precisely the same kind of well meaning but ultimately futile control freakery that, at one time if not today, prevent people from posting on the BBC website that they liked Terry Wogan, due to the first three letters of his surname!
  • 446.09375446.09375 Posts: 961
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The world has changed - i.e. the *attitudes* about what's acceptable and what isn't.
    The human animal remains the same :)

    Maybe things have gone a bit far in the wrong direction in some areas, an overshoot. After a settling down period I hope we'll arrive at a more reasonable position.
  • human naturehuman nature Posts: 13,180
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    But, respectfully, the real question is whether PC is more important to the BBC than freedom of speech.
    Opinions about 'political correctness' will not be part of the equation. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with punching someone.

    The BBC bosses have a duty of care to their employees and they cannot be seen to let one employee use violence against another and get away with it. This goes far beyond a discussion on a messageboard - the unions will be watching this very carefully and if the BBC aren't seen to react properly there could be trouble further down the line.
  • NilremNilrem Posts: 6,938
    Forum Member
    lundavra wrote: »
    The definitions that I saw, were more of an argument and I don't think mentioned a fight. The word was probably carefully chosen.

    Aye, I looked at a few* and most seemed to be manly about an argument or disturbance (the definition that seemed in every dictionary I looked at), but a fight was a less common possibility mentioned in some.

    As you say the word was probably very carefully chosen, and I suspect a lot of people are taking it to mean one very specific thing.

    It is going to be a lot of egg on some faces if it turns out it was just an argument.


    *I wanted to check to see how common it was used for fight as well and in one dictionary it's apparently "a riotous brawl", so I'm surprised it hasn't been alleged that Clarkson, Hammond and May were trashing the hotel and setting fire to the local stores.
  • nathanbrazilnathanbrazil Posts: 8,863
    Forum Member
    446.09375 wrote: »
    Maybe things have gone a bit far in the wrong direction in some areas, an overshoot. After a settling down period I hope we'll arrive at a more reasonable position.

    On that we are in complete agreement.
  • bar of soapbar of soap Posts: 128
    Forum Member
    It's been stated that the producer had to go to hospital.

    imo it's high time this arrogant, egotistical, crude and vulgar individual was brought to book.
  • nathanbrazilnathanbrazil Posts: 8,863
    Forum Member
    Opinions about 'political correctness' will not be part of the equation. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with punching someone.

    I agree with your second sentence, but disagree with the first. The BBC upper management hate Clarkson because of his outspokenness and lack of PC. I believe it is this hatred that informs their choice.
    The BBC bosses have a duty of care to their employees and they cannot be seen to let one employee use violence against another and get away with it.

    Yet, at various times, the BBC (and for that matter ITV) have employed several 'personalities' usually from the world of football who have been involved in violent or extremely unsavory episodes. Why is it one rule for them and another for Jeremy Clarkson? Possibly, because over a million people feel motivated to support him and what he stands for.
Sign In or Register to comment.