Jump to content
Andrew Reid

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

Recommended Posts

​Even Jeremy Clarkson is still around despite final warnings way after with Argentina and his twitter posts. I bet he'll come out of this suspension alright especially as I doubt Oisin would press charges for verbal abuse.

You are clueless about ​Argentina aren't you?

Nationalist president whipping up her population with all kinds of hatred towards the British.

Stones thrown at the crew.

Some of them risked death.

Whether the number plate on the car was a coincidence or not, it was a JOKE.

You should be able to joke about national conflicts after 30 years.

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

I find that people who complain about politcal correctness are usually the ones who want free reign to be racist, sexist or derogatory with no repercussions. Whenever I see someone bemoaning our PC world on Facebook, it's usually right after they've been called out for saying something along the lines of 'let's bomb the whole middle east.' 

If you need to put down others for the sake of 'comedy,' you're probably not a very inventive comedian. You can be still be edgy and controversial without being an asshole. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Louis CK is one of the most popular, famous, US comedians of all time. These are some of his lines:

* on Sarah Palin:  “fucking jackoff cunt-face jazzy wondergirl” who “has a family of Chinese poor people living in her cunt hole.”

* on people who design fountains: "all fountain-sculptors are pedophiles"

* on homosexuals, if every time he mowed the lawn two men were blowing each other on it: "Aww—come on, I gotta cut around you faggots every Sunday." 

* on the 'the N-word': "that's just white people getting away with saying nigger. Don't hide behind the first letter like a faggot."

He's also made fun of rape, and has discussed shitting on people's faces.

He has a show on a mainstream television network in the USA.

Clarkson didn't hit anybody, he just yelled and said bad words.

All those who insinuated he committed "assault", prior to any evidence, be ashamed of yourself. 

You PC cunts are the problem with this world.

Andrew is 100% right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clarkson didn't hit anybody, he just yelled and said bad words.​

Said by a couple... in another room... Reported in one of the worst newspapers in Britain... Without any evidence they were anywhere near the incident.

I'd say people who believe such interviews from non confirmed on lookers, in dreadful newspapers should be ashamed, and are a problem with this world too. In fact, I bet you didn't even read the article, you are taking Andrew's spin on it... so it is 4th hand info.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You should be able to joke about national conflicts after 30 years.

​You live in Berlin right?  Why don't you put on a Hitler costume and stand in a public square and do a comedy routine about concentration camps.  Let us know how that goes over.

 

I find that people who complain about politcal correctness are usually the ones who want free reign to be racist, sexist or derogatory with no repercussions. Whenever I see someone bemoaning our PC world on Facebook, it's usually right after they've been called out for saying something along the lines of 'let's bomb the whole middle east.' 

If you need to put down others for the sake of 'comedy,' you're probably not a very inventive comedian. You can be still be edgy and controversial without being an asshole. 

 

​Agreed.  It's always the usual suspects defending the same aberrant behavior.

 

This "freedom of speech" stuff on the internet never involves anything positive or worthwhile.  It's never anyone protesting that they weren't allowed to voice their scientific opinion after proving their hypothesis in multiple experiments that were published in prestigious peer reviewed journals.  Let's just say standards have really slid since the days of Galileo Galilei.  Now any Joe blow who is asked to have a modicum of decency can hop into the victim line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you need to put down others for the sake of 'comedy,' you're probably not a very inventive comedian. You can be still be edgy and controversial without being an asshole.

​You still have a very problematic relationship with fiction and reality don't you.

Being an asshole in character, is different to be an asshole in real life.

And being an asshole during some kind of nervous breakdown after filming a very long and tiring TV series is perfectly justified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are clueless about ​Argentina aren't you?

Nationalist president whipping up her population with all kinds of hatred towards the British.

Stones thrown at the crew.

Some of them risked death.

​No, Andrew, I'm not clueless. Of course the way the Argentinians reacted by throwing stones at them and threatening their lives were wrong. I don't believe in disproportionate and violent retaliation so please don't assume otherwise. It's just unwise to do that. And if, like the above example, he went to Brixton and said 'Nigger' for 'a joke' and was killed... I'd be upset too. And I'd wonder if he liked Die Hard 3 too much or was coerced.

If you are trying to put Clarkson on the same pedestel as Je Suis Charlie and the Persecution of Scientists from Galileo to Turing... just no.

Louis CK is one of the most popular, famous, US comedians of all time. ​

Yeah I bloody love Louis CK and all of his lines are all pretty hilarious in context. The routine of 'Faggot, Cunt, Nigger' watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NAUgCm-3Tc and it's edgy and holds a sense of culpability. 

Don't get me wrong - I don't think darker Louis CK or Chris Morris' brand of comedy is BBC2 prime time style... (we'll leave that for Charlie Brooker and Armando Iannuchi). Clarkson just messes up every odd year. Be nicer for you if he stayed with the Beeb but if you want him totally uncut and "creatively free" with no restrictions (actually there's an argument that restrictions help creativity...),... he may have to go elsewhere.

​There is freedom of speech...  just not freedom from the consequences of speech.  Clarkson can call people "nigger" all day long and still live a life a million times better than my wretched middle class existence.  He just can't do it on BBC.  Clarkson's bigotry doesn't supersede the BBC's freedom of speech.  BBC has the right to say they don't like the word "nigger."  And Clarkson has the right to start his own network and say "nigger" all day long.  He can call it the N-word Network if he so chooses.  Clarkson N-word Network... CNN  for short.

​Perfectly said. I would kind of watch that channel late night actually... much more than Babestation. They should let us call in and interact with Clarkson.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

​You still have a very problematic relationship with fiction and reality don't you.

Being an asshole in character, is different to be an asshole in real life.

And being an asshole during some kind of nervous breakdown after filming a very long and tiring TV series is perfectly justified.

​Throwing a drunk temper tantrum is not an industry standard nor is it justified. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

​no I have never done anything even close to that reprehensible at work...

​Yes, you have - to some people in this world, not using derogatory terms for black people absolutely is "that reprehensible". But to move away from extremes, how do you drive on your way to work? Yesterday I mortally offended a group of cyclists because I dared pull over to use my phone, causing them to have to go in single file past me. He screamed through my window that the "fucking road is empty, why couldn't I take my call while driving like every one else". But when I see people on mobiles while driving, I get angry. So which do you do? Answer your mobile while driving, or pull over safely to answer it? Either way, you're going to piss someone off, to the point of screaming abuse at you through your car window. And yes, I did scream abuse at someone through their car window once as they were on a mobile driving. They had clipped me with their wing mirror. 

We're all different, what makes you such a special little flower that your sensibilities are the ones we have to adhere to? You're trying to be objective about subjective stuff, and while I admire that on a shallow level, you believe you are trying to make the world a better place, what you are really doing is trying to make the world a better place for you, fuck everyone else. Trust me, your own parents have said and done things you would find disgusting. I promise it's true, and you know what? It's OK. 

Some people find the idea that white people can say the word "nigger" a problem, some people do not. This is a matter of personal opinion and while you've made yours perfectly clear, you really do seem to be trying desperately to tell others who believe differently that their opinion is wrong. People who tell other people that the opinion their brain has formed based on chemistry and the release of hormones that a person is unable to control or influence in any way what so ever are trying to censor freedom of expression. You're asking them to say things that they do not believe to satisfy your own hormones, which is why this behaviour is so ridiculous. The brain chemistry will not change unless that person changes the nodal link pattern in their neural net. One way that can happen is through saying words that prompt an "epiphany" in a person. (If the epiphany is caused by a fundamentalist who convinced someone that murder is a good thing, we don't call it an ephiphany, we call it brainwashing.) If your words are not doing that, then that is not the targets deficiency, it's your inadequacy. Maybe you can explain what harm a white middle aged man saying the word in a private context, that is not meant to be seen by anyone but his cronies and deleted promptly actually does. Me, I'm saying the person who actually caused the harm was the person who published that white man saying the word to a global audience. You publish it, you take the responsibility, simple as that in my world. Us of all people know how you can edit the same data to tell two wildly different stories. I can never watch any video of anyone and assume that I know anything about that person. I can make judgements as to what the person who published the video wanted me to think, however, which tends to make me ask questions like "Why do you want me to think Clarkson is racist". When people try to control what you think, it's usually down to them trying to use you to get more power, money or make themselves more attractive to a potential partner.

By the way, why do Clarksons detractors constantly bring up his personal wealth and reference their own in a negative way, this isn't all rooted in jealousy, is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The world would be a better place

 Nope, as I have said, everyone does something that everyone doesn't like. So there would be literally zero communication, because if all tv was gone what next? Get rid of all the people who have once in private said something I don't like from acting in movies. Bang, no movies because we have no actors. Then what, stop them from writing. Bang, no writing ever again. Then ban them from speaking in public and singing. Bang, no-one can use their voice in front of anyone, because literally every human who has ever existed, in their brief, fleeting time on this earth, including your own past self, have said things and done things that you at this instant in time don't like. I think you exist in this "Mr Tumble" type space where everyone is either Lawful Good or Chaotic Evil, with no nuance, no reasons, no expatiation and no grey areas. It must be nice to have such a simplistic, ignorant view of the world, but I wouldn't want to go back to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clarkson is someone who realised quite early on that you could talk about cars (or maybe cameras, or lenses) for a thousand years and not get the same coverage as the odd 'non PC' remark and so has built a career on this. The downside of this strategy is obvious. Most of us learn in the playground that if you wind people up all the time to get a reaction you get hit eventually.

I don't watch Top Gear because it isn't really a car show, the way Masterchef isn't really a food programme or X-factor isn't really a search for new original talent. They are TV shows, edited and stage managed to buggery.

I visit EOSHD because it is a proper camera/video and gear site with useful real world opinions about gear I might actually own and use. 

This particular instance sounds different and more like workplace bullying - there was no food available because the presenters had stayed in the pub for two hours and the hotel chef had gone home by the time they got back - but then I don't really know the facts and neither do you. All I know is that Clarkson has got where he is (for good and bad) by himself and doesn't really merit or need your support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think "behave yourself" is a British mantra, this constant obsession about shooting down those who do not conform to a very rigid form of behavior. Isn't this why Britain had a strong punk movement and so many great rock bands in response, - most people hate being put in a straight jacket. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here in the Netherlands, we do admire British humor very much. If the n-word is being used in a Monthy Python sketch, its use is being ridiculed within its setting. Within the top gear environment its use has a totally different meaning. 

It is interesting to note the feeling among english people that their history of politeness and straight jackets nowadays feels like a burden from the past. On a visit to Bradford I was struck by the display of deliberate vulgarity in society. It seems as if the former middle-class has decided to join the ranks of lower society, just to escape any resemblance to the ever dwindling upper-class that has been for centuries the model for traditional British values, but nowadays is regarded as stiffening, reactionary, boring, corrupted relics from the past... Is there any middle class left in the UK, I asked myself?

I think a guy like Jeremy is a strange combination of all the bad elements of both. He has the rough edges of lower class behaviour, while living the life of the rich and spoiled Englishman that could get away with everything because of his standing in society. This makes for a highly unpleasant and proposterous character, that however seems to strike a chord with present day British society. Its vulgariy seems to be understood as humour and it apparently serves people for getting rid of the straight jacket, just like getting tattoos shows others that you have left behind these typically English manners?

Clarkson's behaviour is very much in line with the content of the program itself. Is is predominantly a show that wants to appeal to an audience that is for some reason fed up with values from the past. The good old England with people cueing politely, using polite words, accepting social discrepancies without complaint, is being by seen as an welcome relic from the past, hindering the individual and its creativity.

I guess that Andrews irritation is partly due to the BBC standing up  for those old values. Maybe this is more of a conflict between these competing worlds, and the divisions it has left in British society. Correctness is apparently seen as a burden, and a false argument associated with the old boys from Cambridge and Oxford...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here in the Netherlands, we do admire British humor very much. If the n-word is being used in a Monthy Python sketch, its use is being ridiculed within its setting. Within the top gear environment its use has a totally different meaning. 

It is interesting to note the feeling among english people that their history of politeness and straight jackets nowadays feels like a burden from the past. On a visit to Bradford I was struck by the display of deliberate vulgarity in society. It seems as if the former middle-class has decided to join the ranks of lower society, just to escape any resemblance to the ever dwindling upper-class that has been for centuries the model for traditional British values, but nowadays is regarded as stiffening, reactionary, boring, corrupted relics from the past... Is there any middle class left in the UK, I asked myself?

I think a guy like Jeremy is a strange combination of all the bad elements of both. He has the rough edges of lower class behaviour, while living the life of the rich and spoiled Englishman that could get away with everything because of his standing in society. This makes for a highly unpleasant and proposterous character, that however seems to strike a chord with present day British society. Its vulgariy seems to be understood as humour and it apparently serves people for getting rid of the straight jacket, just like getting tattoos shows others that you have left behind these typically English manners?

Clarkson's behaviour is very much in line with the content of the program itself. Is is predominantly a show that wants to appeal to an audience that is for some reason fed up with values from the past. The good old England with people cueing politely, using polite words, accepting social discrepancies without complaint, is being by seen as an welcome relic from the past, hindering the individual and its creativity.

I guess that Andrews irritation is partly due to the BBC standing up  for those old values. Maybe this is more of a conflict between these competing worlds, and the divisions it has left in British society. Correctness is apparently seen as a burden, and a false argument associated with the old boys from Cambridge and Oxford...

​Two things:

1) Your assertion that the upper classes are superior to the lower classes is some quite open classism and eliteism.

2) Those lovely polite old English gentlemen who upheld these Oxbridge ideals traded in slaves and colonised a third of the world causing repercussions from their rampant and destructive racism that echos today in organisations like ISIS, the IRA and Al Qaeda. I'm going to make a bold statement: That they queued politely at the post office does not make up for the atrocities they committed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

​Two things:

1) Your assertion that the upper classes are superior to the lower classes is some quite open classism and eliteism.

2) Those lovely polite old English gentlemen who upheld these Oxbridge ideals traded in slaves and colonised a third of the world causing repercussions from their rampant and destructive racism that echos today in organisations like ISIS, the IRA and Al Qaeda. I'm going to make a bold statement: That they queued politely at the post office does not make up for the atrocities they committed.

 

Interesting! While we share the history of slave trade and colonization, in our society it is not so consciously associated to the upper class. Maybe the social divisions within England were a bit more outspoken. 

Elitism seems to be a dreaded notion, nowadays, but there were times when also the idealists among socialist movements strived for education, enlightment and good behaviour. 

I guess your remark on the oxbridge society has some truth, but does it validate the strive for vulgarity and bad taste so evidentl in display in programs like Top Smear?

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...