Jump to content
Andrew Reid

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

Recommended Posts

'Politically correct' is used in a pejorative sense here... it's simply a term used for caring about other people's feelings and minimising unnecessary offence."

Manners and thoughtfulness are sufficient to avoid unnecessarily offending people. Political Correctness is a tool used in the West to control language, and once the language is controlled, so is the framework of discourse. It prevents the free expression of thoughts and ideas, the lifeblood of the artist and the distinguishing characteristic between a free man and a subject. 

The typical cost for politically incorrect speech in the US is the loss of gainful employment. Being politically incorrect in Bolshevik Russia sent you to the Gulag, or worse. Trotsky coined the term to help Russians avoid running afoul the authorities and ending up in the hoosegow, which also effectively kept them in line under decades of brutal totalitarianism.      

 

   

 

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

the raging angry white man

​I'm not white, but thanks for proving me absolutely correct about you and your inability to separate fact from the fictional narrative inside your own head. Unless you can share your source that confirms Clarkeson actually hit someone, and did so in a manner that was "beating the staff when not up to scratch" then I would suggest that this is part of your imagination too.

 

FYI, I married a Romany woman, probably the most reviled ethnic origin in the world, please don't talk to me about my "loved ones not being from a visual minority with long and painful memories of abuse", you know nothing, Jon Snow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Manners and thoughtfulness are sufficient to avoid unnecessarily offending people. Political Correctness is a tool used in the West to control language, and once the language is controlled, so is the framework of discourse. 

The typical cost for politically incorrect speech in the US is the loss of gainful employment. Being politically incorrect in Bolshevik Russia sent you to the Gulag, or worse.

Well, yeah political correctness can be abused and misused by people that don't think.  I think it can be confusing with censorship, hate speech and political dissents here. I'm actually against censorship. I am all for transparency. Jeremy Clarkson has already gotten away with and apologised for saying 'nigger' so it's irrelevant really. I don't think any of us are seriously venting for his blood because of 'special needs Ferrari' comment. He can say whatever he wants. Then we can conclude, with evidence, his persona lacks manners and thoughtfulness. That's the right of free speech. And now in real life with possibly punching someone? Geez...

Anyway the framework of this conversation is that the money winner Jeremy Clarkson's is not above the law. I think K-Robert made a great point, lol a percentage of his income... well people do get fined for assault I guess? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Politically correct' is used in a pejorative sense here... it's simply a term used for caring about other people's feelings and minimising unnecessary offence."

Manners and thoughtfulness are sufficient to avoid unnecessarily offending people. Political Correctness is a tool used in the West to control language, and once the language is controlled, so is the framework of discourse. It prevents the free expression of thoughts and ideas, the lifeblood of the artist and the distinguishing characteristic between a free man and a subject. 

The typical cost for politically incorrect speech in the US is the loss of gainful employment. Being politically incorrect in Bolshevik Russia sent you to the Gulag, or worse. Trotsky coined the term to help Russians avoid running afoul the authorities and ending up in the hoosegow, which also effectively kept them in line under decades of brutal totalitarianism.      

 

   

 

​Yes! Somebody else who gets it! Somebody else whose brain processes haven't been befuddled and constrained by 'PC' speak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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  :)

​It's a storm in a yorkshire teacup!

It goes without saying bullying and fist fighting are unacceptable. You're absolutely right, if the producer had hit Clarkson he would be dead and buried. Career over.

But if the Queen smacks Prince Philip in the mouth if he hasn't cooked he goose properly, you don't throw out the entire royal family.

The producer and Clarkson until last week had had a happy working relationship for a decade.

James May says he can't remember what happened because he was "blind drunk" as a result of that drink in the pub on an empty stomach.

 

In the 70's and 80's we had professional snooker players swigging beer on TV during the world championship. In the modern professional climate, a hellraiser or firebrand is considered someone who pops outside for a cig break occasionally.

The BBC needs its hellraisers like Clarkson. Otherwise blandness will ensue. I'm tempted to say it already has looking at 99% of their presenters.

The BBC are indeed between a rock and a hard place politically on this one, they had to act.

Agree 100% for them to turn a blind eye to bad behaviour now would be political suicide given the current climate.

However you have to give creative license to your hellraisers and some leeway morally, as inevitably they occasionally throw a wobbly or cause a fracas.

He's not the pope. He's not an Ambassador for Good Manners. Clarkson's responsibility to us is to entertain us, not morally reinforce our values.

He should absolutely 100% apologise to his producer, take him out for a lunch and have a hug in front of the cameras on the next episode as well.

It really should be that simple. Otherwise, he will be off to Sky like half the BBC F1 team. Jobs will go. Extreme Facilities supply Top Gear with GH2 / GH4 drones for example and their contract is with the BBC. Sad to kill such a consistently creative and popular show over a bit of bad behaviour.

If Clarkson is not bigger than the show, as the BBC claim, then pulling the show because of Clarkson implies the opposite.

Also I was really looking forward to the Ferrari vs McLaren vs Audi shootout :)

I'm not even a petrol head. I like the humour. I like the bravado and the journeys. It's a travel adventure and spectacularly filmed in parts.

Of course some of the blog post is speculation, none of us are truly a first party to what went on. We get our info through the papers and the internet. Therefore we have to remember that there's a whole section of the left wing political spectrum out to get Clarkson because he's a buddy of Cameron. Most of the earlier Top Gear controversies were hyped in just the same way, in order to damage Clarkson and Cameron's popularity with the public. In some ways, Clarkson actually doesn't deserve the reputation of oaf. In real life I expect he's a caring dad. He's playing it up for the cameras in the same way an actor would play a character. At this rate we'll be hanging Eastenders characters in the street when they murder someone! Occasionally a flippant remark will be attributed to him rather than to the script. Nobody is going to be pitch perfect over a thousand hours of scripted television especially when it's also improvised on top of that. You are going to have a joke go wrong or cross a line or go creatively wrong and it's simply unreasonable for the BBC to have no tolerance and to pander to every person who might be offended because they claim "Clarkson's a racist dickhead". That isn't a sustainable way to run a broadcaster. They had 150,000 complaints over the way a dog was handled on Crufts! A bloody dog show!! Looking at the numbers, you have to say Crufts is cruel and should be taken off the air. At this rate the BBC will have a lot of empty spaces in their schedules....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

​It's a storm in a yorkshire teacup!

It goes without saying bullying and fist fighting are unacceptable. You're absolutely right, if the producer had hit Clarkson he would be dead and buried. Career over.

But if the Queen smacks Prince Philip in the mouth if he hasn't cooked he goose properly, you don't throw out the entire royal family.

He's not the pope. He's not an Ambassador for Good Manners. Clarkson's responsibility to us is to entertain us, not morally reinforce our values.

He should absolutely 100% apologise to his producer, take him out for a lunch and have a hug in front of the cameras on the next episode as well.

It really should be that simple. Otherwise, he will be off to Sky like half the BBC F1 team. Jobs will go. Extreme Facilities supply Top Gear with GH2 / GH4 drones for example and their contract is with the BBC. Sad to kill such a consistently creative and popular show over a bit of bad behaviour.

If Clarkson is not bigger than the show, as the BBC claim, then pulling the show because of Clarkson implies the opposite.

Also I was really looking forward to the Ferrari vs McLaren vs Audi shootout :)

I'm not even a petrol head. I like the humour. I like the bravado and the journeys. It's a travel adventure and spectacularly filmed in parts.

Of course some of the blog post is speculation, none of us are truly a first party to what went on. We get our info through the papers and the internet. Therefore we have to remember that there's a whole section of the left wing political spectrum out to get Clarkson because he's a buddy of Cameron. Most of the earlier Top Gear controversies were hyped in just the same way, in order to damage Clarkson and Cameron's popularity with the public. In some ways, Clarkson actually doesn't deserve the reputation of oaf. In real life I expect he's a caring dad. He's playing it up for the cameras in the same way an actor would play a character. At this rate we'll be hanging Eastenders characters in the street when they murder someone! Occasionally a flippant remark will be attributed to him rather than to the script. Nobody is going to be pitch perfect over a thousand hours of scripted television especially when it's also improvised on top of that. You are going to have a joke go wrong or cross a line or go creatively wrong and it's simply unreasonable for the BBC to have no tolerance and to pander to every person who might be offended because they claim "Clarkson's a racist dickhead". That isn't a sustainable way to run a broadcaster. They had 150,000 complaints over the way a dog was handled on Crufts! A bloody dog show!! Looking at the numbers, you have to say Crufts is cruel and should be taken off the air. At this rate the BBC will have a lot of empty spaces in their schedules....

​Truth is .... in spite of our view of Clarkson's behavior it is a bit of a concern...

BBC should have sent him to Betty Ford's Clinic rather than suspend him...

Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison, John Belushi, Heath Ledger ... it is a long list of celebrities who cross the line of use to abuse.

Rather than see this as a PC issue it may be one that would best be handled by those who know and love him and who can intervene if they deem it necessary.

Escalating issues like this do not bode well ... 

Talent and exposure are heady things ... like a loaded gun. Best not pointed at ourselves or those around us.

Boorish bad behavior is just that ... acting the "LAD" at 30 40 50 is just poor acting.

Nuff said ... life is short and when we see an accident in process it may be time to lend a hand, heart, or bit of our time.

This said after a couple glasses of Lodi Field Blend.....

Regards,

Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love WATCHING him/the show but I would hate to have to work with him (and even more so if he was my boss).

The BBC is caught in a no win situation as they have laws to comply with and a duty of care to others working there.

They are not going to win either way.      Lose a heap of money or allow him t do as he pleases!

Maybe there are too many things PC these days but is it the BBCs fault?

Maybe the best thing would be to have someone there to punch him out if he does to someone else and otherwise fine him a lot of money (enough for it to matter) for other things and payouts to anyone "injured".      He could pay the insurance premiums personally too.

That way we get to see a great show and any consequences fall back on him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

​I'm not white, but thanks for proving me absolutely correct about you and your inability to separate fact from the fictional narrative inside your own head. Unless you can share your source that confirms Clarkeson actually hit someone, and did so in a manner that was "beating the staff when not up to scratch" then I would suggest that this is part of your imagination too.

 

FYI, I married a Romany woman, probably the most reviled ethnic origin in the world, please don't talk to me about my "loved ones not being from a visual minority with long and painful memories of abuse", you know nothing, Jon Snow.

I'm reading your words and they sound like the sort of things people probably said about their favourite BBC DJs at some point. ​I neither know nor care about whatever ethnicity you want to present here by way of making a case for keeping your favourite violent racist on TV. Racism is a form of violence and so is the threat of violence so I stand by my use of the word 'violent'. Btw Nigel Farrage is married to a German woman but it doesn't stop him from telling the world that he assumes a person on a bus speaking a foreign language doesn't speak english (and he doesn't like that). 

The bottom line you seem to be missing is; the guy is toxic. He's not funny, edgy, clever, talented or right. He's just a big mouth, with a big ego on a big show and he's toxic. His toxicity has been part of the show's concept, it (the concept and delivery) has been funny (like a real life Basil Fawlty) but it has long gone to his head (Basiill!!) and it's played out now, time to go. It is truly ridiculous when people make out he speaks for the 'ordinary man'. He's not an anti-establishment figure fighting the middle managers and bureaucrats. He's part of the establishment (like Farrage) and had access to some of the best education in the world, gets seen with powerful people, been one of the highest paid people on British TV, working for a worldwide brand and a public institution of the highest regard, yet he's been un-able to contain his anachronistic on-screen character and there is reason for that and it makes him a liability. I'm sure within some of the rhetoric of free speech there is room in the world for him to be on TV. Maybe he, Farrage and the others who still want to give the impression they believe in a benign colonial past could have their own TV channel - a containment strategy. As it would be something of a museum piece maybe it would be something for the History Channel people. Although it would be more ironic if were a conspicuously foreign broadcaster like Canal+, Rai or Tata Sky (with their Fox connections).

3 more thoughts:

£500k per episode not including presenter fees. £14m a season plus the stars, a lot of other things could be made with the money, you never know people might buy some of this too.

The BBC already exploit the brand in other territories with TV shows not starring our beloved presenters, no reason not to expand this operation just cos the pressure got to Clarkson. Perhaps we can watch these shows instead - maybe the 'banter' will include snide remarks about brits instead of the usual.

Clarkson will be on a reality TV show within 18 months, have fun imagining which 1.

atb.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't you think you're overreacting just a bit Dan.

It goes back to my point about moralising about entertainers.

They are not here to uphold our values for us or cure society's ills. We are.

Clarkson's just making a comedic motoring show. That's his remit. Leave him to it. If you consider one of his jokes racist, you better check with the producers first to see who actually wrote it. It might not have even come from Clarkson himself. You can't beat up a character on a TV show because he's playing a certain part that you don't like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's up to the filmmaker what moral position he takes in his work. It isn't up to us to force one on him.

Clearly Clarkson in the mould of a 'filmmaker' (well actually it's very much a team effort) has clearly taken his position.

He's going to pack in the jokes and boys-own adventures, playing a certain type of character almost like an inflated version of himself.

Editorially, he's taken the position that the motoring content should be presented in vivid not vague turns of phrase and sometimes that gets him into trouble.

Jeremy's an artist. It would be wrong to force YOUR tone on another artist. If you don't like the tone, don't watch it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrew, it sounds like you have unconditional love for Jeremy Clarkson ;)  

"If you don't like the tone, don't watch it" wont cut it in this argument.

As I said earlier I find Clarkson, entertaining in small doses, though he does say a lot of dumb things. I can see Steve Coogan (haha or Frankie Boyle) taking over and I'd watch that. If Mark Kermode decided to branch into cars instead of films, defo on my watch list too! Top Gear has always had rough patches with the show since it began in 1977. It can re-invent itself. I disagree with you that Clarkson is better than 99% of presenters.

I'd rather my £145 license fee per year go to more shows that I actually love though. Do you still pay TV License there in Berlin, Andrew? :P

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

overreacting? 

The least reactive response to that is maybe he is a genius. He identified a fault line within our society (power, ethnicity, otherness, immigration, race, class, stereotypes, cultural values etc) and has created a character who explores these issues through the lens of a SE England upper middle class buffoon. He is so committed to this satirical pantomime villain he is in character across all his bookings and on his time off. Larry David eat your heart out! If this is true, would the point not be then to be the catalyst and conduit for debate and argument? Perhaps you're overreacting when you suggest i'm beating up his character, or maybe missing the point when you advise against moralising about such entertainers. In this satirical realm the show is energised by audience response; good (500k signatures?) and bad (people like me who think he's not good value), it's all very theatrical no? If he's half as edgy as you and he think's he is then this is what it's all about.

The problem is his material is so worn out it's now just another drop in the ocean of noise created by certain other SE England upper middle class artists/buffoons/politicians/banksters/scaremongerours/'journalists'/etc and this is all a distraction from culturally and economically much bigger issues. Maybe the fracas is just another stunt to grab some attention because they've so little else to say, but whatever this one is there are many more talented people out there to front this BBC flagship with much less risk of making the BBC look like it has a new untouchable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm reading your words and they sound like the sort of things people probably said about their favourite BBC DJs at some point. ​I neither know nor care about whatever ethnicity you want to present here by way of making a case for keeping your favourite violent racist on TV. Racism is a form of violence and so is the threat of violence so I stand by my use of the word 'violent'. Btw Nigel Farrage is married to a German woman but it doesn't stop him from telling the world that he assumes a person on a bus speaking a foreign language doesn't speak english (and he doesn't like that). 

The bottom line you seem to be missing is; the guy is toxic. He's not funny, edgy, clever, talented or right. He's just a big mouth, with a big ego on a big show and he's toxic. His toxicity has been part of the show's concept, it (the concept and delivery) has been funny (like a real life Basil Fawlty) but it has long gone to his head (Basiill!!) and it's played out now, time to go. It is truly ridiculous when people make out he speaks for the 'ordinary man'. He's not an anti-establishment figure fighting the middle managers and bureaucrats. He's part of the establishment (like Farrage) and had access to some of the best education in the world, gets seen with powerful people, been one of the highest paid people on British TV, working for a worldwide brand and a public institution of the highest regard, yet he's been un-able to contain his anachronistic on-screen character and there is reason for that and it makes him a liability. I'm sure within some of the rhetoric of free speech there is room in the world for him to be on TV. Maybe he, Farrage and the others who still want to give the impression they believe in a benign colonial past could have their own TV channel - a containment strategy. As it would be something of a museum piece maybe it would be something for the History Channel people. Although it would be more ironic if were a conspicuously foreign broadcaster like Canal+, Rai or Tata Sky (with their Fox connections).

3 more thoughts:

£500k per episode not including presenter fees. £14m a season plus the stars, a lot of other things could be made with the money, you never know people might buy some of this too.

The BBC already exploit the brand in other territories with TV shows not starring our beloved presenters, no reason not to expand this operation just cos the pressure got to Clarkson. Perhaps we can watch these shows instead - maybe the 'banter' will include snide remarks about brits instead of the usual.

Clarkson will be on a reality TV show within 18 months, have fun imagining which 1.

atb.

 

​But dan, you made an assumption as to my skin colour earlier today, and used that assumption to stereotype me.... that's racism. You were racist to me. So that makes you, by your mind, a violent man. So by your own judgement, you are toxic, you are not clever or talented. You are just a big mouth, a big ego. Your toxicity may be funny to some observers of this thread, but it has long gone to your head, you are like a basil fawlty clutzing around the internet, and despite your superior education, you are spouting pseudo-intelligent rhetoric. You are a hangover from the heydays of anonymous trolling on the internet. A dinosaur if you will, a museum piece. By your very own words... Let me guess, you're going to deny your racism towards me, you're going to justify prejudging me based on my (wrong) ethnicity and stating things as fact that you gleaned from the skin colour you imagined I had.

3 more thoughts:

Signing each post you make atb. makes you look pretentious. Or attention seeking, in the most passive way.

Your grasp of English, for someone who identified themselves as a British national - given away by describing Clarkson as "our" beloved presenter - is pretty bad. This tells me you are immature or an idiot.

You've wasted a lot of energy making me laugh.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the easiest thing would be to have a rotation of guest presenters like HIGNFY and NMTB, people would love that.

Coogan would be great, Charlie Brooker, Reginal P Hunter, Dame Edna, Jo Brand, Jack Dee, Jimmy and Alan Car (haha). And maybe after he's rehabilitated himself through a particularly gruelling reality show and winning the vote for president of the Universe, Clarkson could do a xmas special as a guest presenter :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

​But dan, you made an assumption as to my skin colour earlier today, and used that assumption to stereotype me.... that's racism. You were racist to me. So that makes you, by your mind, a violent man. So by your own judgement, you are toxic, you are not clever or talented. You are just a big mouth, a big ego. Your toxicity may be funny to some observers of this thread, but it has long gone to your head, you are like a basil fawlty clutzing around the internet, and despite your superior education, you are spouting pseudo-intelligent rhetoric. You are a hangover from the heydays of anonymous trolling on the internet. A dinosaur if you will, a museum piece. By your very own words... Let me guess, you're going to deny your racism towards me, you're going to justify prejudging me based on my (wrong) ethnicity and stating things as fact that you gleaned from the skin colour you imagined I had.

3 more thoughts:

Signing each post you make atb. makes you look pretentious. Or attention seeking, in the most passive way.

Your grasp of English, for someone who identified themselves as a British national - given away by describing Clarkson as "our" beloved presenter - is pretty bad. This tells me you are immature or an idiot.

You've wasted a lot of energy making me laugh.

 

​Rest assured you did not waste your time in making me laugh. You need to read the "angry white man" sentence again but i don't mind if you want to identity yourself as the person who wants to speak for me, even if you don't. Had I (mis)identified you as white (which i did not) its hardly racist is it? To imagine from the style of someones online rhetoric that they self identify with as a particular race/ethnicity? Its not like i casually used a word associated with the oppression, exploitation and abuse of 1 group by another (and then give a disgracefully insincere apology claiming to have done my best not to say the word, whoops). 

I'll leave the name calling of forum members to you, more your style or have you just run out of material.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wont inhibit the raging angry white man that thinks he can speak for me.

 

Here we establish you making an assumption as to my colour 

Perhaps in your world its acceptable to beat the staff when not up to scratch

​Here you use that assumption that I am white to stereotype me as someone who has staff and beats them

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.

​Further stereotyping - You think I'm white, therefore you think I can never have experienced abuse or mistreatment.

 it hasn't impacted you so what can be wrong

​Here you assume something no-one is talking about hasn't affected me. Why would you assume that - is it cos you fink I is white?

 

Yeah, If I was white, you were pretty vile towards me, you are racist. What's really sad is that your type of racism is so much more insidious than anything Clarkson said. Your type of institutional stereotyping actually causes more harm than a tv show ever did, and it's pure out and out tribalism. You look different to me, therefore I will stereotype you. Vile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I do, Lammy.

So your moral high-ground attempt won't work with me I'm afraid!

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.

 

​Pfft.... don't google Tony Ferrino, unless you don't mind seeing your shining beacon of anti racism blacked up and playing a slow and sleezy foreigner!

​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!

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...