Beex, Yo.
Page 5 of 10 [ 462 posts ]
What I imagine happened:
An argument after a long day, lots of shouting, lots of swearing, both involved pissed off at the time, but neither wanted to take it further.
Clarkson mentioned it in a meeting the following monday, either in passing, or as part of a due disclosure or whatever.
HR got involved as it could be classed as bullying and harassment, because that's what HR do (and should do in cases like this if anyone involved wants them to)
HR have their process to follow, which involves suspending the person involved, because that's what the process says, and the process is the process, "It's the process" explained HR "what can you do?"
Because Clarkson is suspended until HR have done their thing, they can't film any more episodes.
The media get hold of it and away we go.
I'm not so sure that it's something that should be blamed on the person asking - sure, the question was stupid, but I think it should have been handled with words to the effect that it wasn't his place to comment on the incident as he wasn't involved in any investigation.
I think this bothers me, also: 'because he is a talent and he does amuse and entertain so many people, including my children who'll be heartbroken if Top Gear is taken off air - I hope this can be sorted out because it is a great programme and he is a great talent.' is the sticky bit as far as I am concerned. It just seems to suggest that if you are popular/in the media or have some other talent that you should have greater hopes given that it can all blow over.
If it had been a hospital porter hitting a nurse, for example, would the PM say 'All I would say - because he is a talented porter and he does push that trolley around so very well, including for my family who like being pushed around on hospital trolleys for a laugh because remember the NHS lol - I hope this can be sorted out because it is a great job and he is a great hospital porter.'
Anyway, that's silly, but it just doesn't sit well with me, whether I think Clarkson should be suspended or not (which is hard to say, as the reporting on it does seem to be rather conflicting).
Trooper wrote:
What I imagine happened:
An argument after a long day, lots of shouting, lots of swearing, both involved pissed off at the time, but neither wanted to take it further.
Clarkson mentioned it in a meeting the following monday, either in passing, or as part of a due disclosure or whatever.
HR got involved as it could be classed as bullying and harassment, because that's what HR do (and should do in cases like this if anyone involved wants them to)
HR have their process to follow, which involves suspending the person involved, because that's what the process says, and the process is the process, "It's the process" explained HR "what can you do?"
Because Clarkson is suspended until HR have done their thing, they can't film any more episodes.
The media get hold of it and away we go.
This sounds very much plausible.
It now seems that the producer involved has been getting online threats. I really do despair some times.
The one thing that everyone seems to agree on here (including James May and a family who were there at the time, and pretty much Clarkson himself), is that Clarkson got properly irate over the fact he couldn't get a hot meal at the end of the day.
Not that he couldn't eat, there was food available, just not what he wanted.
Out of that came verbal abuse, the threat of physical violence and/or actual physical violence, saying he'd get someone sacked - and so on.
The man is a boorish, bullying, racist oaf (all that Mexican stuff was so funny, oh and truck drivers being murderers LOL) - that nearly A MILLION FUCKING PEOPLE will sign a petition to get him back on the telly so he can be, y'know, a boorish, bullying, racist oaf, is rather depressing.
Hearthly wrote:
The one thing that everyone seems to agree on here (including James May and a family who were there at the time, and pretty much Clarkson himself), is that Clarkson got properly irate over the fact he couldn't get a hot meal at the end of the day.
Not that he couldn't eat, there was food available, just not what he wanted.
Out of that came verbal abuse, the threat of physical violence and/or actual physical violence, saying he'd get someone sacked - and so on.
The man is a boorish, bullying, racist oaf (all that Mexican stuff was so funny, oh and truck drivers being murderers LOL) - that nearly A MILLION FUCKING PEOPLE will sign a petition to get him back on the telly so he can be, y'know, a boorish, bullying, racist oaf, is rather depressing.
Yes but he is funny.
..........................................
They should get Angus Deayton to replace Clarkson.
No, they should get Chris Harris to replace him
Cobracure wrote:
I actually think Top Gear would survive without Clarkson as long as Hammond and May were involved. JC makes Farage look Liberal with his far right opinions and the fact he is a neighbour and a pal of Cameron doesnt exactly make me warm to him. Can you imagine spending an hour in his company - I wouldn't want to. People are campaigning MORE to get the missing 2/3 episodes shown because its one of the most entertaining and funny shows on BBC more than to re-instate him.
I would have spat a drink out if I had been drinking something during that Ambulance special - total farce but then there never was a replacement for The Goodies was there? 3 people etc etc.
I want Top Gear back, I'm not too bothered about JC. I continued to watch Have I got News For You for 8 years since Angus Deayton was sacked and enjoyed it just as much. If someone important from the BBC is reading this (0.0001% chance) maybe they should take this into account.
BTW Ian Hislop has recounted the Clarkson throwing a pen at him story on Question Time last night. He is not beyond physical violence.
If they fucked off Clarkson I'd probably try watching it again, although I've no great love for Hammond either who the last time I saw the programme with any regularity seemed content to be a Mini-Me Clarkson, which wasn't pleasant.
What I'm interested in is a decent car programme, I'm not too fussed who presents it. (I preferred that cheap Channel 5 knock-off TBH, it was a bit more down to earth and about cars, what was it called, Fifth Gear or something.)
The HIGNFY comparison is pertinent too, it was hard to think of the show without Deaton and yet if anything the rolling guest presenter format actually reinvigorated the programme (before it slowly faded into irrelevance, I occasionally try to watch an episode and find it fairly painful these days).
That's interesting what you said about Hanmind being a mini-me Clarkson. I used to really like Richard Hammond, but when I last watched Top Gear I had exactly the same feeling about him as you did.
However, I felt more as if he was trying to replicate it mirror Clarkson, perhaps this would fall away again if Clarkson were to leave in a fall from grace.
DBSnappa wrote:
No, they should get Chris Harris to replace him
Oh, bloody good shout. He'd be perfect.
Hearthly wrote:
Cobracure wrote:
I actually think Top Gear would survive without Clarkson as long as Hammond and May were involved. JC makes Farage look Liberal with his far right opinions and the fact he is a neighbour and a pal of Cameron doesnt exactly make me warm to him. Can you imagine spending an hour in his company - I wouldn't want to. People are campaigning MORE to get the missing 2/3 episodes shown because its one of the most entertaining and funny shows on BBC more than to re-instate him.
I would have spat a drink out if I had been drinking something during that Ambulance special - total farce but then there never was a replacement for The Goodies was there? 3 people etc etc.
I want Top Gear back, I'm not too bothered about JC. I continued to watch Have I got News For You for 8 years since Angus Deayton was sacked and enjoyed it just as much. If someone important from the BBC is reading this (0.0001% chance) maybe they should take this into account.
BTW Ian Hislop has recounted the Clarkson throwing a pen at him story on Question Time last night. He is not beyond physical violence.
If they fucked off Clarkson I'd probably try watching it again, although I've no great love for Hammond either who the last time I saw the programme with any regularity seemed content to be a Mini-Me Clarkson, which wasn't pleasant.
What I'm interested in is a decent car programme, I'm not too fussed who presents it. (I preferred that cheap Channel 5 knock-off TBH, it was a bit more down to earth and about cars, what was it called, Fifth Gear or something.)
The HIGNFY comparison is pertinent too, it was hard to think of the show without Deaton and yet if anything the rolling guest presenter format actually reinvigorated the programme (before it slowly faded into irrelevance, I occasionally try to watch an episode and find it fairly painful these days).
Top Gear isn't a car show anymore. It's a show about 3 guys dicking around.
Chris Evans or Guy Martin, I reckon.
Trooper wrote:
Top Gear isn't a car show anymore. It's a show about 3 guys dicking around.
Well they should make it a car show again, if I want to watch idiot men be idiots I can just go to the pub on a Saturday night. There'd probably be less casual racism too.
Hearthly wrote:
Trooper wrote:
Top Gear isn't a car show anymore. It's a show about 3 guys dicking around.
Well they should make it a car show again
They should mess about with the format of the show that holds the record for the number of countries it's shown in? The biggest show on BBC2 by some idiotic margin?
They should do a technical spin-off without the silly stuff and see how it does. I'd predict not great, but might retain a sufficient niche audience.
Grim... wrote:
They should mess about with the format of the show that holds the record for the number of countries it's shown in? The biggest show on BBC2 by some idiotic margin?
The top two restaurants in the world are Subway and McDonalds. I'm not convinced that popular is a metric for laudable.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Grim... wrote:
They should mess about with the format of the show that holds the record for the number of countries it's shown in? The biggest show on BBC2 by some idiotic margin?
The top two restaurants in the world are Subway and McDonalds. I'm not convinced that popular is a metric for laudable.
I'm sure that's right at the front of thier minds when looking at all thier money.
It's not the BBC's job to make money. It's a national broadcaster supported by mandatory licence fee.
But by making money from TG they entertain their U.K. audience and help fund less popular shows.
Dr Zoidberg wrote:
But by making money from TG they entertain their U.K. audience and help fund less popular shows.
So we cancel Top Gear and can no longer afford Eastenders. I'm OK with that.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Dr Zoidberg wrote:
But by making money from TG they entertain their U.K. audience and help fund less popular shows.
So we cancel Top Gear and can no longer afford Eastenders. I'm OK with that.
Everyone's a winner!
TBH I'd pay the licence fee just for Radio 6. I appreciate they have to make popular television shows for idiots due to their public service remit, but hogwash like Top Gear and Eastenders isn't what I'd want to see their money spent on.
A license isn't required for radio. You can listen to that without paying a license fee.
The license fee pays for it though lewie.
Choppers, you're just wrong about hignfy. Its still eminently watchable. It has its ups and downs but still produces quality like Victoria Coren ripping Godfrey bloom a new one, and whenever farage is on they give him enough rope to hang himself.
Yes, a very very small portion of the license fee goes towards funding Radio 6.
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
The license fee pays for it though lewie.
Choppers, you're just wrong about hignfy. Its still eminently watchable. It has its ups and downs but still produces quality like Victoria Coren ripping Godfrey bloom a new one, and whenever farage is on their they give him enough rope to hang himself.
Maybe I've just picked the bad episodes then? The ones I've watched Merton looked tired, Hislop was nice and political but not overly funny, with not entirely impressive guests and/or presenters. Happy to give it another go though, is there a series on currently? I'll catch it on iPlayer.
I remember when it first started in 1990 and seemed genuinely subversive (no internet then!), to the extent me and a mate would actually go to the telly room in the pub to watch it on a Friday (Saturday?) night, rather than chasing fanny.
Re. the licence fee for radio, even if it's not technically required it does indeed help pay for stuff like Radio 6, which is the best radio station ever.
LewieP wrote:
Yes, a very very small portion of the license fee goes towards funding Radio 6.
Well yes, but that wasn't his point. As I'm sure you know.
LewieP wrote:
Yes, a very very small portion of the license fee goes towards funding Radio 6.
Licence.
This isn't America, dammit.
License is the verb, licence is the noun.
Grim... wrote:
They should mess about with the format of the show that holds the record for the number of countries it's shown in? The biggest show on BBC2 by some idiotic margin?
The BBC has income of
about £5bn per year. Of that, £3.6bn comes from the licence fee, and
£1bn from its commercial interests, which include overseas sales of BBC content.
It spends on
many things, of course; including a few that caught my eye (for 2012/13):
S4C - £30m
BBC Parliament - £10.5m
BBC Radio 6 - £11.5m
BBC Radio 1 Xtra - £11.8m
The FT quotes
£20m per year profit from selling Top Gear in a recent article; reading between the lines a bit, a big part of why it's not more profitable is Clarkson's sky-high fees. In 2010, the whole of BBC Worldwide
made a £40m profit, including Doctor Who and all the nature documentaries, which are also big sellers internationally.
So Top Gear makes about twice as much money for the BBC as it costs to run the Parliament Channel. It's less than one half of one percent of the BBC's annual income. Can we please put to rest the myth that Top Gear is a wildly successful profit engine without which the BBC is financially ruined?
I'd happily trade Clarkson for a second Attenborough.
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
LewieP wrote:
Yes, a very very small portion of the license fee goes towards funding Radio 6.
Well yes, but that wasn't his point. As I'm sure you know.
I'd say that buying Radio 6 merchandise would be a cheaper and far more effective way of supporting Radio 6 is that is the intent.
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
License is the verb, licence is the noun.
I know
LewieP wrote:
I'd say that buying Radio 6 merchandise would be a cheaper and far more effective way of supporting Radio 6 is that is the intent.
I'm not entirely sure what we're debating here
But it's not a case of specifically wanting to 'support' Radio 6, just that I consider Radio 6 alone to be worth whatever it is our licence fee costs every year. (Which isn't very much, it comes out monthly by direct debit, about £13 or something, I don't pay much attention to it.)
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Grim... wrote:
They should mess about with the format of the show that holds the record for the number of countries it's shown in? The biggest show on BBC2 by some idiotic margin?
LIt's less than one half of one percent of the BBC's annual income. Can we please put to rest the myth that Top Gear is a wildly successful profit engine without which the BBC is financially ruined?
No-one suggested that, though.
And, unless I'm mistaken, 0.5% of 5bn is a fucking huge amount of money.
Grim... wrote:
No-one suggested that, though.
And, unless I'm mistaken, 0.5% of 5bn is a fucking huge amount of money.
Every debate I've heard about this there's some numbskull mouthing off like Top Gear is the engine room of the BBC's finances and without it the taxpayer would need to spend five hundred trillion pounds per year more to prop it up, or nonsense like that.
That utter shit-for-brains Katie Hopkins in particular played that card on the Jeremy Vine show.
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
I'd happily trade Clarkson for a second Attenborough.
Nature finds a way
Grim... wrote:
And, unless I'm mistaken, 0.5% of 5bn is a fucking huge amount of money.
Hey, I wonder where we could look to see how much money it is, perhaps expressed in the context of the BBC's overall finances?
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
The FT quotes
£20m per year profit from selling Top Gear in a recent article; reading between the lines a bit, a big part of why it's not more profitable is Clarkson's sky-high fees. In 2010, the whole of BBC Worldwide
made a £40m profit, including Doctor Who and all the nature documentaries, which are also big sellers internationally.
So Top Gear makes about twice as much money for the BBC as it costs to run the Parliament Channel. It's less than one half of one percent of the BBC's annual income. Can we please put to rest the myth that Top Gear is a wildly successful profit engine without which the BBC is financially ruined?
Also I said "less than one half of one percent" which is not "0.5%."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/top ... Irish.htmlQuote:
Jeremy Clarkson punched his Top Gear producer Oisin Tymon in the face following a 40-minute rant in which he swore at him and referred to him as a “lazy Irish”, eyewitnesses have claimed.
The presenter of Top Gear, who has been suspended pending an internal BBC investigation into his conduct at a hotel in Yorkshire during filming of the show, is said to have threatened to have Tymon sacked during the heated row over food.
A guest at the hotel where the BBC team were staying said Clarkson was furious to find that there was no hot meal available when he and his co-presenters James May and Richard Hammond returned from a drinking session at a nearby pub.
In one of the first independent accounts to emerge of the fracas Sue Ward, from Leeds, claimed the presenter complained it was “ridiculous there was noting to eat” and that the producer had not done his job properly.
Mrs Ward, who was staying at the Simonstone Hall hotel, near Hawes, told Sky News: “Obviously there were a lot of expletives in between all this. Clarkson told his colleague he would see to it that he would be losing his job."
A relative of Mrs Ward, called Denise, 51, said: “It was the shock of how can someone be so rude? It was the swearing and the length of time and this poor guy he ripped into.”
Another source said that Clarkson called Tymon, 36, a “lazy Irish c***” before splitting his lip with a punch that left him with blood running down his face. Tymon is understood to have received treatment at the A&E department at Friarage Hospital, in Northallerton, and is said to have also suffered dizziness.
The producer, who has received abuse on social media following Clarkson’s suspension, including violent threats, has consulted lawyers over the incident. Slater and Gordon solicitors said: “We are assisting Oisin Tymon in relation to incidents occurring during his employment at the BBC.”
If he did go to A&E, there'll be some hard evidence to remove some of the he-said she-said back-and-forth.
Pretty damning witness testimony. I can't see how he can remain employed by the BBC if this is all accurate.
I wonder what those asterisks are.
LewieP wrote:
Pretty damning witness testimony. I can't see how he can remain employed by the BBC if this is all accurate.
I wonder what those asterisks are.
Cunt
Chap.
Yes, that must be it.
If that account is accurate he deserves to be charged with assault as well as getting the sack.
Well it could have been "cock", right?
LewieP wrote:
Well it could have been "cock", right?
they tend to print that on full.
Surely that depends how big it is?
Mimi wrote:
Why, thanks. No complaints so far
Page 5 of 10 [ 462 posts ]