dan

Poll for Clarkson's Dismissal 59% right decision, 29% wrong decision, 12% don't know. 
I've been keeping an eye on the elections lately but it's really interesting looking at the overall demographic of voters for topics like the Clarkson debate. Like the usual difference in ideologies etc.
 
 
 

Its really sad that one of the greatest TV shows will never be the same. Jeremy Clarkson was the backbone of the show but he also bears the responsibility for its (probable) demise. He seems to have a problem with understanding that actions have consequences - you see it in pretty much every episode and it really makes for great TV. He behaves as if he is invincible and entertains the hell out of us in the process. Unfortunately this behaviour leaks out into the "real" world and he's got himself into trouble many many times. 
You can argue that he should be given a break but its not an isolated incident. He's really f**ked up a lot and got away with it with a slap on the wrist. The BBC has defended him where it may not have defended others and they have already given him the "star" treatment several times over. He's one of the biggest starts of the corporation and given his serial bad behaviour, which has put the show at risk on a few occasions before, I'm positive that his superiors would have done everything they could have to protect the show. He's put the BBC in a terrible position with his latest actions and he alone is responsible for this.
I spent 4 years working at the BBC and its a very "by the book" organization. Its pretty clear right from the beginning whats acceptable and whats not. Tens of thousands of other employees seem to get the rules. He's worked there for decades, understands the organization and the responsibilities it has to license fee payers and he still screws up like this after many warnings. How many warnings and slaps on the wrist should he be allowed exactly? 
I understand the argument that its a bigger picture; that one of the most popular TV shows on the planet is at risk and that sometimes you need to be flexible with your rules to benefit the greater good. This is fine on short-term productions (like film) or with independent companies that only answer to shareholders, but the BBC cannot afford to be that flexible - its a publicly owned company with a charter, answerable to the people and absolutely cannot be seen to be supporting criminal behaviour. As I said, Clarkson knew this. He knew he was on thin ice and he knew that another f**k up probably signal the end of his employment. He might have been under a lot of stress and fuelled by booze but he still made a conscious decision to do what he did. I'd bet you anything he woke up the next morning and thought to himself "oh dear......."
Its just a sad sad situation. Like many stars, he's the master of his own downfall. His unpredictable and risk-taking character which has helped to take Top Gear to the heights of success is also the cause of its demise.  
Maybe he can take a break on Clarkson island:
 

Not sure if its been said already (but despite many things i don't like about the institution) the bbc they have handled this clarkson melt down quite well in the circumstances: 
~ Conducted a thorough and professional investigation into the incident.
~ Let tank driving clarkson fan boys blow themselves out with their misplaced rhetoric while keeping mostly schtum.
~ Then drop the facts and make the correct action.
TV shows change and finish, people will move on. The sky wont fall in, the bbc will keep going.
For those who think he is a troubled anti-establishment comic genius and/or offers some kind of satirical critique of our 'PC' times or whatever, we could argue forever about how sadly confused i think you are but there is no need - he's gone, it's over. The people charged with disposing of large sums of public money for on-screen talent have correctly decided even money making fictional cult figures need to keep their fists to themselves to stay on the payroll. This isn't crazy "PC world gone mad" kind of stuff - it's called the modern 1st world where people with money, power and connections still quite often 'get away with it' but in any given time and place there are some limits and the limits (and principles) in this case are widely understood and accepted. The outcomes were inevitable the moment clarkson acted out in the way he did. Why he or anyone else would think there could be another outcome is a mystery to me and maybe represents some kind of wider cultural dissonance but probably not and its all just been a wonderful opportunity to learn a bit more about each other :-)
Andrew, I can see these threads have been popular, thank you and well done for hosting them.

If you like Top Gear, you should be angry at Clarkson for messing it up, not the BBC. What's happened is completely on him. The fact that Clarkson is despised by the left is irrelevant, the "PC police" can't be blamed for him punching the producer, and he should be held accountable for it like anyone else would be.
The same standards have to be applied universally. That means minor crew and it means talent such as Clarkson, David O. Russell, Christian Bale or anyone else. The fact that some talent have gotten away with vaguely similar things is no argument for allowing Clarkson to as well.
And why do people keep saying that punching someone isn't against the law? It is!

I'd probably think most of the "internet camera nerds" don't bother using lighting, or very little. Whether this comes down to shooting style/hobby/lack of interest... Don't know.
I can be a camera nerd who surfs the net on a daily basis to feed my latest craving. But I also see cameras/footage being critised where proper, good lighting was NOT utilised. How many actually realise that a camera produces superior images with a good set of lights, or a knowledge in how to mould natural light? 
A lot of the "skin tone" footage on the net with the A7s sucks because the operator raised the ISO to 20,000 in locations with weird colours/no colours, and didn't bother to consider light at all. 
Lighting is far more important than cameras. You start to realise that your tool has much better colour, dynamic range, resolution and motion than you thought. Even if you use a flat piece of foil to reflect the light on your subject, every little helps. 
My order of importance for every shoot: 
1. Idea 
2. Subject (actor, location etc)
3. Lighting
4. Lenses
5. Camera
So onto your subject, whatever camera you use, start with lighting first. You will get much much further with your filmmaking and produce much better images this way  
My honest opinion is - those who are serious but don't consider lighting, you might as well not bother! 

​http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mzungu

The only person who has jeopardised the show and these jobs is Clarkson. Stop blaming others for calling his unacceptable behaviour unacceptable. He's had a few warnings, has any of them prompted him to consider his responsibilities and what is at stake in this regard? If this well educated and remunerated person did, the outcome is clear, he doesn't give a fuck. He prefers to take the money and present himself at odds with the job requirements. 

I may not like that you punch an editor, but I will defend to the death your right to punch an editor, because you are a megastar and missing a steak will ruin your creativity.

People in the wrong often deny things. People who might not feel they are in the wrong, but are, can deny things. People who are in the right can deny things, if their memory is blurred from booze and fatigue.
Anyway, i'm bowing out of this.. At least until the picture is clearer.
The crux of this blog was not really about his innocence or guilt, but about the idea that he shouldn't even have to answer for his actions because he is a creative and a star... Which I strongly disagree with. Even if he is found completely innocent, these things have to be looked into otherwise we run the risk of another Saville.... Overlooking a potential problem, just because it is the number 1 star.

The irony is Clarkson told the producer he was going to have him fired.
He can make offensive class, gender, sexuality and race based jokes and statements (in and out of character), verbally abuse a co-worker, psychologically threaten a co-worker but it's ok because some people think he is funny. But if someone can't supply the dinner he wants they should get there matching orders. No wonder he looks so sheepish about this given all the second chances he's had. The BBC probably spend a fortune trying to keep him out of trouble and scooping up when he does make a mess.
I don't think anyone is abusing the site owner or JC, it's not like anyone has made the 'joke' of having you or him shot in front of your family, or suggested your sexuality is questionable, or your place of birth makes you inferior, etc etc etc. This is run of the mill material for this hero of free speech and authenticity.

Agreed, this article and its comments have been a bit of a revelation.

"It's justified because Clarkson makes a lot of money. He was drunk and stressed, who hasn't messed up? BBC owe me my beloved Top Gear!  PS: Political correctness fault, just a laugh guys eh lolool! " 
I like Andrew's camera reviews. Saved me lots of money, I'm grateful thanks. Just gonna disagree with the article and the ethics here though. 

I can't understand how anyone can justify what Clarkson did. Assaulting a co-worker and calling them a "lazy Irish cunt" should not be tolerated. As an Irish person who works below the line I'm pleased to see how the BBC have responded. Film and TV crews work long hard hours, there's no way they should be subjected to abuse.

Is that a yes to your unconditional love for Jeremy Clarkson? He really shouldn't be let off because he makes a lot of money and is an 'artist'. I think transparency is good. The BBC should not shut up, and neither should the vocal critics. Also not a fan of the commercially driven cynical attitude as Philip Bloom pointed out.  Surprised you are to be honest...
I bet you if indeed Oisin was assaulted (verbal or physical) , and we polled the public, it wouldn't just be the 'minority' that would agree with the BBC's suspension of Clarkson!
Or do you mean yes you do pay TV License? Because you should get a refund dude as you don't need to pay it. You still get to eat the cake and enjoy Jeremy Clarkson! Me, I'm a little bitter as only Netflix is worth my cash these days IMO.
 
​We can actually defend that. We can also defend Ricky Gervais' skits with yellowfacing on SNL's Office Japanese. And we can defend Sasha Baron Cohen's stuff too. Edgy humour but there's no hypocrisy going on here. They genuinely do have the moral high ground as artists because their humour is defensible. 
Jeremy Clarkson's level of artistry is closer to Katie Hopkins than the above mentioned!

​This Dan's of this world did no such thing, but i'm sure that small detail wont inhibit the raging angry white man that thinks he can speak for me.
Perhaps in your world its acceptable to beat the staff when not up to scratch but in a modern civil society you'll get a criminal record, hopefully.
You seem to forget just how long this guy's record is and imagine some senior manager at BBC HQ flippantly allowing this story to escalate into the red top headlines, despite the show grossing c. £150 million? Dah! I've worked in production for c. 20 years and my experience tells me if this went public then something definitely happened and the BBC didn't want to get caught out with others reporting on this before they did.
So Will, reading between your lines, maybe you'd like to keep him on, perhaps you identify with him a bit and think case not proven and racism is no where near as bad as the sexual assault of minors (while on BBC property) for example. But then that's a distinction more easily made if you or your loved ones are not from a visible minority with long painful experiences of being racially abused and mistreated. And you probably don't make a correlation between the casually expressed racism of establishment figures (like Clarkson) and things like the experience of the Parisienne violently stopped from boarding his train home by racist chelsea fans. If indeed it even showed on your radar, it hasn't impacted you so what can be wrong?
Time for people to have some imagination, the world will keep spinning without jeeza and his mates, formats don't last forever, and despite a few retro racists floating around in the media currently their time is done and if you can't get your head round that then may be yours is too.
 
atb.