Jump to content
Andrew Reid

Fisticuffs end new "Top Gear" series - how the BBC risked biggest franchise over catering fracas

Recommended Posts

If Clarkson did punch him then it's assault pure and simple.

​I understand that you disclaimered yourself by stating that you were talking about the hypothetical scenario and that you have no knowledge of what really happened, but I still take issue with this statement. Only the courts get to decide what is and is not assault, and in a limited respect, a police officer in terms that he would not be charged with wrongful arrest for pre-empting a courts decision and arresting a person for a crime he has reasonable grounds to suspect they have comitted.

We, the public do not get to shout assault at will, the UK is not a lynch mob state. A person is guilty of assault when and only when they have had a fair and impartial trial.

We don't know the circumstances, we can make assumptions, as we all already have, but it's just noise. A court, with all the facts at their command, may rule that it was not assault because the facts may make it clear that it was not. This will probably never go to court, and while we can make up assumptions as to why the producer chose not to press charges, it can't be denied that one assumption that it is possible to make is that maybe the producer threw the first punch. Maybe he misinterpreted an action as aggression, maybe there was a colossal misunderstanding between colleagues after a long and stressful day. Or maybe the guy made a mistake and some monster child man threw his toys out of his pram and broke the guys jaw over nothing. Until we know, let's stop prejudging him and go by what we do know. I know that at work he's a pleasant, hard working chap and I would be surprised if he deserved the suspension. It is perfectly fair to say that if he did assault this producer he absolutely should be suspended, probably sacked. That would be unacceptable, but if you accept that then you also need to accept that if he didn't do anything that any other reasonable human being would have done and his suspension was as a result of his public standing not his true actions, then it is wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs

 

Until we know, let's stop prejudging him and go by what we do know. I know that at work he's a pleasant, hard working chap and I would be surprised if he deserved the suspension. 

How do you know that? Unless you are on the TopGear crew, surely ​that is prejudging him to, just in a positive light?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you know that? Unless you are on the TopGear crew, surely ​that is prejudging him to, just in a positive light?

​Because as I said in my first post, I have worked with him. When I worked with him, he was pleasant. He was hard working. These are things I know. I also know that the character he plays on top gear is fictional, he is not that person, he is acting, in the same way that Brad Pit is not Tyler Durden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

many popular artists (painters, musicians, filmmakers, actors...) or whanabees behave often like assholes. There come so many examples to my mind that I even won't mention anyone.
Sadly Clarksons "punch" (that guy doesn't look like a serious puncher but that is probably not the point) was the final bombshell to end the show.

Otherwise I totally agree with Andrew!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SlippyWill.... Sorry, I missed that.

re: second point. He has not been suspended for anything he has done as his "persona" and certainly not anything that is stifling creativity. This is why I think the blog post is a nonsense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SlippyWill.... Sorry, I missed that.

re: second point. He has not been suspended for anything he has done as his "persona" and certainly not anything that is stifling creativity. This is why I think the blog post is a nonsense. 

​No worries!

All I'm saying is that we don't know what he's done. We've had limited information released by the BBC and I'm afraid I smell a rat. Why release such a statement but not the full facts, if it was an unprovoked attack, then why did they not say it was an unprovoked attack. If there was a cause, why not tell us the cause. It stinks, and I can only think of one reason for releasing a sensationalist, incomplete version of events, they wanted to justify the suspension and didn't believe the full story would.

 

But if it turns out he did assault the producer, I will about-face so quick, your head will spin. I've done it in the past and I'll do it again. I have no special attachment to him that I would not stick up for the rights of the non "starring" crew. After I heard the Christian Bale abuse to the guy who walked on set during a scene, I lost work I was so outspoken about what a moron he had been.

EDIT: That guy turned out to be shane hurlbut, the things you learn!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all for equality, and parts of this thread strikes to being very disconcerting. Transparency is good, being "politically correct" isn't all that bad either.

Being creative doesn't mean you lose respect towards others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EDIT: That guy turned out to be shane hurlbut, the things you learn!

​Yea, quite a turnaround from Shane. I was surprised when I linked the two together too.

On topic, Perhaps the BBC have to keep some details out of the public as it is may be a legal issue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole issue reminds me of when footballers act out. The club and/or establishment have to tread a fine line between looking like they have control, whilst making sure their prize asset will not just pack up and move away to a rival team/league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got to say I feel uneasy with with Andrew's implication that minorities are to blame, that the BBC are too easy to fall under political correctness. This is dangerous territory here...

I must say some of Jeremy Clarkson's work is entertaining, much like I find Stephen Colbert's right wing character entertaining. And fast cars are always cool to see.

As to the above point - I would say Andrew's post is nothing like Charlie Brooker, because that guy is a champion for the minorities (as comedy should be uphill battle) and because of the good points Jimmy and Philip laid out. If we're talking about some of Clarkson's humour, Brooker (and Steve Coogan) has already picked it apart as mostly bullying rather than comedy; "Haha it's funny because it's racist." - on point wit. 

But let's not get confused here... this isn't to do political correctness. This is to do with Clarkson possibly being unpleasant, overstepping the line and possibly punching someone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mostly agree with you there. I don't think we could have a Klaus Kinski these days...

 

However HSBC? There is nothing about that bank that needs to be saved. There were plenty of investigations into that bank that pretty much ended up with showing it was Satan itself, that it supports drug cartels, terrorist groups and other enemies of the US, and the only reason why it was allowed to go on was because it's too big to fail. It has a ton of blood on its hand. The bank needs to go away, and it's staff need to be investigated and put into prison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to the above point - I would say Andrew's post is nothing like Charlie Brooker, because that guy is a champion for the minorities (as comedy should be uphill battle)

​It is obviously inspired by Brooker, but completely misses the target.

Shame Brooker isn't on every week... Would love to see his take on the Clarkson situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got to say I feel uneasy with with Andrew's implication that minorities are to blame, that the BBC are too easy to fall under political correctness. This is dangerous territory here...

I must say some of Jeremy Clarkson's work is entertaining, much like I find Stephen Colbert's right wing character entertaining. And fast cars are always cool to see.

As to the above point - I would say Andrew's post is nothing like Charlie Brooker, because that guy is a champion for the minorities (as comedy should be uphill battle) and because of the good points Jimmy and Philip laid out. If we're talking about some of Clarkson's humour, Brooker (and Steve Coogan) has already picked it apart as mostly bullying rather than comedy; "Haha it's funny because it's racist." - on point wit. 

But let's not get confused here... this isn't to do political correctness. This is to do with Clarkson possibly being unpleasant, overstepping the line and possibly punching someone.

​By minorities Andrew isn't meaning racial minorities, he's talking about minority opinions - at least that's the way I took it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also feel whilst Andrew's point admirable in a way, using this incident as an example is very way off mark. 

Its also so important when citing real life incidents that they are accurate or the words alleged are use. 

The way you described the incident is rather different to what has come out as being the actually backstory, allegedly. 

Also please remember producers aren't rich hollywood type execs on this show. They are there to make sure things happen on location. It's an incredibly demending job. You are first to be shouted out and last to be thanked. 

So allegedly this is what happened which is somewhat different in tone and feel to what you wrote. Nobody is going to say Clarkson is a quiet, polite mouse of a man but when you are allowed to get away with certain behaviour it's unlikely to make you behave better! 

Nonr of this has been verified and therefore should be treated as hearsay until proven, I am sharing it as a different version to the story Andrew recounted is his post  

They had been filming. They had finished around 8ish. They had dinner books at their posh hotel but Clarkson and co decided to drink at the pub for two hours whilst their helicopter waited to take them back. The hotel after waiting two hours past their dinner booking and past kitchen hours sent home chef and staff so when they finally arrived very late back Clarkson was unable to have what he wanted. A steak. So he went berserk. The cold plate of food he was offered was unacceptable. Who gets the abuse? 

irregardless of whether this is exactly what happened or yet its never acceptable to bully a colleague and it's never acceptable to punch someone!! Not that I am saying anyone did. Just it  :)

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

​I understand that you disclaimered yourself by stating that you were talking about the hypothetical scenario and that you have no knowledge of what really happened, but I still take issue with this statement. Only the courts get to decide what is and is not assault, and in a limited respect, a police officer in terms that he would not be charged with wrongful arrest for pre-empting a courts decision and arresting a person for a crime he has reasonable grounds to suspect they have comitted.

We, the public do not get to shout assault at will, the UK is not a lynch mob state. A person is guilty of assault when and only when they have had a fair and impartial trial.

We don't know the circumstances, we can make assumptions, as we all already have, but it's just noise. A court, with all the facts at their command, may rule that it was not assault because the facts may make it clear that it was not. This will probably never go to court, and while we can make up assumptions as to why the producer chose not to press charges, it can't be denied that one assumption that it is possible to make is that maybe the producer threw the first punch. Maybe he misinterpreted an action as aggression, maybe there was a colossal misunderstanding between colleagues after a long and stressful day. Or maybe the guy made a mistake and some monster child man threw his toys out of his pram and broke the guys jaw over nothing. Until we know, let's stop prejudging him and go by what we do know. I know that at work he's a pleasant, hard working chap and I would be surprised if he deserved the suspension. It is perfectly fair to say that if he did assault this producer he absolutely should be suspended, probably sacked. That would be unacceptable, but if you accept that then you also need to accept that if he didn't do anything that any other reasonable human being would have done and his suspension was as a result of his public standing not his true actions, then it is wrong. 

I pretty much covered myself fine there. Both legally and ethically. I am discussing acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. i didnt say he punched him or that he committed assault. You need to re-read what I wrote. 

Considering Andrew's post was chock full of assumptions without covering his arse that you are  taking issue with what I wrote when I said "if" and stated the hypothetical nature of what i wrote then I am most perplexed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've had a recent scandal at the CBC here in Canada that can serve as a cautionary tale about protecting vital on-air assets. To make a long story short Canada's biggest radio star was recently fired after assault allegations finally became public. Most of the alleged bad behaviour was outside of the office, but assault and harassment also (allegedly) happened in the office and CBC execs (allegedly) covered up the behaviour because the host in question was CBC radio's biggest asset. CBC was not initially to blame, but from the sound of things he should have been fired a loooooong time ago. All employers have a duty to protect their employees, and particularly at publicly funded institutions that must be transparent, that must be publicly accountable for all that they do. Just google Jian Ghomeshi if you want the whole sordid story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all for equality, and parts of this thread strikes to being very disconcerting. Transparency is good, being "politically correct" isn't all that bad either.

Being creative doesn't mean you lose respect towards others.

‘Political correctness’ can be very bad especially if it flies in the face of common sense. 

 

To give you an example, I live in New Zealand which like many western nations is suffering from ‘nanny state’ malaise. I recently read an article about a Northland school that decided to ignore the ‘politically correct’ compliance laws regarding child playground safety because they simply couldn’t afford it anymore. This became an interesting social experiment. The children were allowed to play in the type of school playground that used to exist when I was at school, without extreme safety padding and measures, and without constant adult supervision. They were allowed to explore and make mistakes, challenge one another and sort out their own social hierarchy. Sure it produced a few more scraped knees and bruises but what was interesting was that bullying became almost nonexistent (before they had a very high incidence of bullying). What is more, vandalism at the school dramatically dropped, students became far more engaged and academic achievement skyrocketed! 

 

Having said all this, I’ve been amazed by many of the children in Indonesia while on film shoots there. They are like 'mini-me' adults. They do chores, wield knives, hunt, haggle, take responsibility and enter conversations with adults much like an equal (many of the things we wouldn’t allow our children to do in the west because we’d consider them incapable and some of the tasks too dangerous). They do all this because it’s expected of them since they could walk. No wrapping in cotton wool like many of our children, yet they grow up to be socially well adjusted adults.

 

Also in the name of political correctness my country will be spending billions to change our flag (removing the Union Jack so as not to acknowledge our colonial past) and changing all the mapping so that the North and South Islands are named by both their English and their Maori names - the North Island being ‘Te Ika-a-Māui’ and the South Island being ‘Te Waipounamu’. This is at a time when the aforementioned school has between 60-70% of primary kids being sent to school without breakfast and the school having to provide food for hungry children. This is what I mean by political correctness flying in the face of common sense. In the case of the renaming, while they are lovely names, they are expected to be in common use and used interchangeably with the English. What a source of confusion! How many of you overseas people would understand if you asked me where I was from and I told you “I’m from Te Waipounamu, in Aoteoroa”? Imagine the potential confusion in the postal service, especially with letters or parcels from the US! We’ve already had Americans arrive in Auckland from LA thinking they were on a domestic flight to Oakland! “Goddamn, I never realised it was such a long flight to Oakland! And haven’t our domestic airlines really gone to the dogs, employing so many illegal immigrants with such goddamn strange accents!”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The paradox here is the Andrew mentions Jimmy Saville, the epitome of a company (a whole nation, almost) covering up someone's misdoings to protect the star of the show, yet fails to see the two incidents as being similar.

Obviously what Saville did is far more serious than punching someone... But the crux of the matter is that celebs and big earners should not be above the law or above punishment. Hiding that notion behind some kind of anti liberal, anti PC crusade makes it no easier to stomach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

​By minorities Andrew isn't meaning racial minorities, he's talking about minority opinions - at least that's the way I took it.

I was specifically for what constitutes as comedy and bullying and political correctness. The "It's funny because it's racist" thing is what was said on Charlie Brooker's Weekly Wipe on Jeremy Clarkson. In the article Andrew misses the mark about the "special needs" and the critics of the show of Top Gear... actually some do watch the show and it's not to do with political correctness censoring the creativity of the show... it's about calling him out for being a terrible human being. [as I said Brooker and Coogan do brilliantly]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all speaking to the broader topic, and not to this specific incident. There's a fine line we have to walk here. Creative freedom doesn't mean you need to have fun at the expense of others. Good art and good comedy don't require you to alienate minorities. ''PC culture' isn't about your freedom of speech. It's about our right to be offended.'  We should be allowed to call someone out for being insensitive and derogatory- Andrew did it with his article about 'The Interview.'

We don't need to make sure there are 50% women on camera in every single production, but we absolutely do have to acknowledge that women are given far far fewer opportunities in the industry than men. We need to take steps to correct that, and we can do so without going to the extremes that some people think women's rights advocates are suggesting. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...