Top Gear fans? Clarkson sacked from TG

Clarkson sold his share of the show already.

He may retain some licensing rights, but he's just an employee, just like the producer.

It's not Clarkson's house, it's the BBC's house, and as a license fee payer, it's MY HOUSE.

As the BBC is owned by the people of Great Britain, it is answerable to parliament, ie, my democratically elected representatives.

Infact every year, the BBC has to JUSTIFY its own existence to parliament, making sure that it's fulfilling its duty of being both UNBIASED and RELEVANT.

After the historic paedophillia abuse scandal hit the BBC, I'd imagine as a broadcaster, they are supposed to be on their best behaviour right now and trying to avoid further scandal. Clarkson has been backed up by them several times before, but they are simply running out of ways to make the dinosaur fit into their organisation.

Then he punches a co-worker.

Make no mistake it's the BBCs house.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Dude, really? That's about as naive a view as one can have. It's a business first, last and always. All that other stuff is sophistry. Pure Political Bullshit. It's a moneymaker.

We have the same thing her. It's called Amtrak. The only difference is it's a money pit and a political football. If it was really as you said there wouldn't be advertising.

Do you really think it matters who actually holds the paper? If a show is built around you and your personality, it's your show. If you're not there, it doesn't matter one whit who has the keys to the front door. It was as much about the dynamic between Jezza, Hamster and Captain Slow as it was about the cars. It was a show about shenanigans. That show, and the economic powerhouse that it represented, is no more. Sure, there might be a few people that watch the re-tooled version (if there is one) but there's no way it will have the same popularity. It's just be another 5th Gear. Basically the Go-Bots vs. the Transformers. Deep Impact vs. Armageddon. A cheap knock-off.

That's reality.
 
LOL man did you say you graced us with DVD releases? If you never released another tv show over there to here or a DVD i'd seriously miss 0 from that.

I had a bully in school who was in to karate, and you know how I got him to stop? We met in the bathroom and I smashed his face, after that we were friends, so I guess both ways work eh? And I survived, here talking to you about that nut job slapping his Co-worker, What cracks me up, is you're sticking up for the guy hitting another guy "cuz that is now it's done" as "you're talking about how you would not touch someone that is a jerk/bully but befriend them" Funny angle there imho. Can't have it both ways yet here we are as you try haha.

Firstly, I'll say that I'm not sure you fully comprehended the points in my post.

I'm not sure where you think I'm condoning people slapping their co-workers... I did the opposite.

Secondly, as you say, Top Gear as an export, is a money spinner. I'm sure you boycotting the BBC DVDs leaves you in the minority.

And last of all, So you slapped a kid round in a bathroom? And you seem proud of it. I managed the same without having to lay a finger on the kid.

You have to be smarter in this day an age, or like Clarkson, you'll find it harder to fit into a well adjusted society.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Dude, really? That's about as naive a view as one can have. It's a business first, last and always. All that other stuff is sophistry. Pure Political Bullshit. It's a moneymaker.

We have the same thing her. It's called Amtrak. The only difference is it's a money pit and a political football. If it was really as you said there wouldn't be advertising.

Do you really think it matters who actually holds the paper? If a show is built around you and your personality, it's your show. If you're not there, it doesn't matter one whit who has the keys to the front door. It was as much about the dynamic between Jezza, Hamster and Captain Slow as it was about the cars. It was a show about shenanigans. That show, and the economic powerhouse that it represented, is no more. Sure, there might be a few people that watch the re-tooled version (if there is one) but there's no way it will have the same popularity. It's just be another 5th Gear. Basically the Go-Bots vs. the Transformers. Deep Impact vs. Armageddon. A cheap knock-off.

That's reality.

To counter your first point, I really think you need to look at how the BBC works. As it is publicly funded, it is owned by the public. It is answerable to our parliament. In order to continue its own existence, it has to justify itself to parliament each year.

It's not a about money first in this case. First and foremost it has to fulfil its legal obligations, otherwise the money disappears. Of course, they DO care about the finances which is why he has been allowed so many chances in the past, but there comes a point when it becomes harder to fit his behaviour into the legal requirements that dictates the existence of your organisation.

In a nutshell, the BBC is much bigger than Top Gear. The British Government is bigger than the BBC.

I understand what you say about Top Gear not being Top gear without Jezza, and I agree, which is why I think it's time for the show to cease completely.

I'm sure from a financial point of view, the BBC might try to string out the franchise without him, or Clarkson will take the concept (perhaps with Hammond and May) to another broadcaster.

In either case, I still think he deserved to be sacked from the BBC and I can always choose not to watch any future Top Gear or any variations on the theme. To be honest I already stopped watching years ago. I'm less bothered by the show ending than I would be of he wasn't sacked for gross misconduct at the BBC.


Edit: Sorry to hear about Amtrak. However it doesn't mean that all publicly owned institutions are doomed to be expensive or not fit for purpose. That's a naive point of view.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
It's not a about money first in this case.

Everything is always about money at the root of the conversation. Everything. It is the driver behind virtually every aspect of human existence. As much as I ever wanted to think otherwise, it always turns out to be about money. There is no escaping it. Government is about the collection and expenditure of money. BBC is about the collection of advertiser dollars. Shows like Top Gear are the reason that advert time gets sold. You keep bringing up legal obligations, but that's just the parameters by which the money moves from one place to another.

The reason it took so long to fire Clarkson is they needed to explore every possible financial aspect of the inevitable loss of that one show. Otherwise they would have dine it right away. That's how these things are done. I can tell you this because I've worked for major multinationals and that's how these things go.

If it weren't about money he would have been fired that day. If I had two pilots get into a fistfight, standing orders were that they would both be termed on the spot and shown to the gate by security, no questions asked. But in the case of major money as in this case, they had to "investigate", which is otherwise ludicrous given the circumstances of the Clarkson-Tymon altercation.
 
Last edited:
Everything is always about money at the root of the conversation. Everything. It is the driver behind virtually every aspect of human existence. As much as I ever wanted to think otherwise, it always turns out to be about money. There is no escaping it. Government is about the collection and expenditure of money. BBC is about the collection of advertiser dollars. Shows like Top Gear are the reason that advert time gets sold. You keep bringing up legal obligations, but that's just the parameters by which the money moves from one place to another.

The reason it took so long to fire Clarkson is they needed to explore every possible financial aspect of the inevitable loss of that one show. That's how these things are done. I can tell you this because I've worked for major multinationals and that's how these things go.

I urge you to DO SOME RESEARCH INTO THE BBC if you are going to comment.

There are no advertisers on any BBC broadcast channels. It's part of the deal of them being unbiased. They are t allowed to advertise third parties.

Yes. Most of the world is about money and only money. That in itself is a problem.

However, there exists a few institutions where money comes second. This is one of them. That isn't to say money comes last- it's still the biggest deal once they've satisfied the criteria for their continued existence every year. This isn't to say the BBC is perfect, far from it, but it's better than the alternative.

Edit: And I work with the BBC around six or seven times a year in a live broadcast scheme which LOSES a bit of money by the end, but is largely seen as a successful and culturally worthwhile endeavour. Yes, they deem the impact the particular broadcast has to be worth the cost. So I know how it works.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Please. I'll comment if I like, as often as I please. For the record, I really couldn't give a rat's ass if you're right on some pissant technicality, like the finer points of the organization if the friggin' BBC. I simply don't care enough to do "research" about a TV network in some other country. It matters not.
 
Last edited:
Please. I'll comment if I like, as often as I please. For the record, I really couldn't give a rat's ass if you're right on some pissant technicality, like the finer points of the organization if the friggin' BBC. I simply don't care enough to do "research" about a TV network in some other country. It matters not.

This isn't a war, you know.
 
Please. I'll comment if I like, as often as I please. For the record, I really couldn't give a rat's ass if you're right on some pissant technicality, like the finer points of the organization if the friggin' BBC. I simply don't care enough to do "research" about a TV network in some other country. It matters not.

Well ultimately I reckon if you start swinging punches at the people you work with, you shouldn't be surprised if you lose your job. Everything else here is technicalities.
 
Please. I'll comment if I like, as often as I please. For the record, I really couldn't give a rat's ass if you're right on some pissant technicality, like the finer points of the organization if the friggin' BBC. I simply don't care enough to do "research" about a TV network in some other country. It matters not.

You care enough to comment on the thread about a BBC show though. If you DO comment (and you seem to with some sort of assumed authority) at least you should have the courtesy to get your facts straight.

I did politely, and then more explicitly (caps lock) urge people who may not be familiar of how the BBC works to check it out.

If you insist on talking about this from your (at this point) rather shaky position, please don't let me stop you. It seems the longer you talk the more you invalidate your entire argument, proving my point.

It's a bit like assuming the earth is flat or the moon is made of cheese because you never bothered to check it out to make sure, but you insist on having an 'opinion' about it that I suppose you'd want me to respect.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Well ultimately I reckon if you start swinging punches at the people you work with, you shouldn't be surprised if you lose your job. Everything else here is technicalities.

I think some of us here are talking about the TG incident, and some of us are speaking in a general sense... I'm speaking generally, because, frankly, I don't care what happens to Top Gear. I'm not a fan. I haven't even watched the vid in the OP, and I probably won't.

I have a few guys the work for me that I'd love nothing more than to knock the stupid out of, but I don't because it isn't worth the trouble. I'm sure that's something we can all relate to.

At the same time, there ARE situations - significantly more serious than annoying colleagues - that require violence of action, and if you're incapable of delivering, then you will become the victim you ultimately deserve to be.
*and I say "you" casually, not YOU, Rook.*

You can say that's a "knuckle-dragging" philosophy. That's fine, because your opinion matters as little as mine does. Let the detectives investigate your murder scene one day. We'll see who's philosophy holds true then.
 
Last edited:
I think it's pretty funny that there are people in this thread that are saying the BBC isn't about money first, but then they go on to talk about "relevancy" and "justification" being their highest priorities, like those things don't have anything to do with profitability.

I bet the moment the BBC stopped being profitable that parliament would suddenly decide that the BBC was no longer relevant, and/or justified, and would start making some changes.

Sure, they probably have a few shows that are knowingly short on profit, that sever some greater good, but I can 100% promise you they also have quite a few shows that more than make up the loss that are less "culturally worthwhile".

On top of that, I highly doubt Top Gear was a loss during Clarkson's tenure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The BBC commercial subsidiary, BBC Worldwide, makes around £150 million profit. The cost to run the BBC is £5 billion a year. Yes, billion.
 
Thanks eggzoomin,

I've tried... Several times.

I suppose the majority of folks here are from the US, they don't understand the concept of SPENDING taxpayers money on something that benefits the masses. Everything has to generate a profit for the shareholders. The corporotocracy.

It's really sad actually.

The moon is made of cheese! The earth is flat!

I can't believe people in this thread think they are not!




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
At the same time, there ARE situations - significantly more serious than annoying colleagues - that require violence of action, and if you're incapable of delivering, then you will become the victim you ultimately deserve to be.
*and I say "you" casually, not YOU, Rook.*

You can say that's a "knuckle-dragging" philosophy. That's fine, because your opinion matters as little as mine does. Let the detectives investigate your murder scene one day. We'll see who's philosophy holds true then.

Judo translates literally as 'the gentle way'.

There are no strikes at all, only throws and holds. It's based on the relationship between body mechanics and gravity. I think that's the best way to fundamentally describe it.

In practise it's about the most efficient way to restrain someone without hurting them or causing any damage to them.

Street variations allow for incorporation of defence against striking assailants with and without weapons, but still, there isn't a single legal strike that exists within Judo.

The amazing thing about Judo, is that ALL the force is from the opponent, which is why you often see a little guy throwing around a guy twice his size.

The big guy attacks, the little guy adjusts the position of his body in relation to the direction of the attack and the assailant's centre of gravity. This hijacks the force exerted by the big guy to essentially throw himself around. The little guy is just the fulcrum.

This principle is important, because it means that it's really difficult to actually initiate an attack yourself. Generally you have to feign an attack so your opponent attempts to react with a defensive throw which you can in turn hijack.

It's genius.

I feel capable that 99% of the time I could walk away from a physical altercation without being seriously hurt or hurting anyone.

The amount of time I've had to use these skills in real life in 17 years?

0.

I think it's more important to create a society where you don't need fighting skills to be honest.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Thanks eggzoomin,

I've tried... Several times.

I suppose the majority of folks here are from the US, they don't understand the concept of SPENDING taxpayers money on something that benefits the masses. Everything has to generate a profit for the shareholders. The corporotocracy.

It's really sad actually.

The moon is made of cheese! The earth is flat!

I can't believe people in this thread think they are not!




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Dude... ten years ago - maybe 15 - I would have been all over this thread. Today, I could barely muster a factual response. Don't get into arguments on the internet, it's just a waste of time that would be better spent doing just about anything else. It's not like anyone in here from either the left or the right is going to change their mind. That's ideology - and to an extent, confirmation bias - for you.

Edit: I've thought for a while that we have an interesting demographic split here - somewhere between RigTalk and sevenstring.org. Wherever middle aged conservatives pitch up against young liberals, you're going to have arguments.
 
Last edited:
Dude... ten years ago - maybe 15 - I would have been all over this thread. Today, I could barely muster a factual response. Don't get into arguments on the internet, it's just a waste of time that would be better spent doing just about anything else. It's not like anyone in here from either the left or the right is going to change their mind. That's ideology - and to an extent, confirmation bias - for you.

Edit: I've thought for a while that we have an interesting demographic split here - somewhere between RigTalk and sevenstring.org. Wherever middle aged conservatives pitch up against young liberals, you're going to have arguments.

Of course you are right.

Amongst reasonable people, arguing on the Internet is seen as a messy pointless endeavour, however if the arguments are well formed and based on evidence, I don't see it as any different as a discussion in real life. I think discussion is important- it's how we figure out how to collectively move forward.

It's unlikely that you can achieve this in the off topic section of a guitar forum, so yes, I concede that you could call it a complete waste of time.

Usually I leave these things well alone- but sometimes something someone says triggers an inspiration to call them out on their bullshit. In real life, bullshit propagation in lieu of fact or logic is dangerous and stunts progress.

The thing is I'm MORE than happy to change my mind on any of my views if there is a strong enough argument that opposes them. That's how I've managed to hold the views I have today. I'll wager that I've had my ass handed to me more times than our marine buddy back there.

With every ass-handing I receive I look at the evidence and consider where my argument falls down and I adjust my views. It's does however require to leave your ego at the door. If you don't, you suffer cognitive dissonance and your ego prevents you from becoming a better human being.

I'm 30 now. I've seen a lot of the world, I've worked and lived with people from all walks of life. I've been on equal terms with multi-millionaires and I've sat in the gutter with vagrants. I've argued with politicians, scientists, economists, soldiers and artists.

And I've changed my mind.

If you are to change my mind, you have to provide an argument which you can back up with something a bit more than anecdotal or hypothetical evidence. It has to follow a logic or reason.

So far I haven't seen any of that from the pro violence brigade this thread- so even though views may not be changed in either of the opposing camps, I think it's a handy get out for them to just see it as an agree to disagree situation.

It's more an open mind vs closed mind situation.

But anyway. If anyone here wants to change my mind, I'm happy to do so, but you have to convince me first. The stakes aren't so high as this is a guitar forum and as eggzoomin quite rightly pointed out- it's unlikely that it will change the world! So relax people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Thanks eggzoomin,

I've tried... Several times.

I suppose the majority of folks here are from the US, they don't understand the concept of SPENDING taxpayers money on something that benefits the masses. Everything has to generate a profit for the shareholders. The corporotocracy.

It's really sad actually.

The moon is made of cheese! The earth is flat!

I can't believe people in this thread think they are not!




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Polite or not…this is an amazingly self-righteous comment. So anyone who disagrees with your world view lacks the ability to grasp what you deem as proper thinking? I see your point but your augment is weakened by painting everyone in the US with the same brush.
 
Polite or not…this is an amazingly self-righteous comment. So anyone who disagrees with your world view lacks the ability to grasp what you deem as proper thinking? I see your point but your augment is weakened by painting everyone in the US with the same brush.

No, I'm talking about the fact that as the USA doesn't have the same model of public state spending that some of us are used to in Europe, that may be why folk from the USA may jump to false conclusions about profit, shareholders and everything being about money, without considering that there may be an alternative.

That's not painting people with brushes.

I'm saying you get used to the model by which your government allocates state spending.

For example, if you are from the UK, you are more likely to take free healthcare for granted and if you are from the USA, you may see the same concept as an unobtainable pipe dream.

Providing reasoning for your argument is a necessary part of how an argument works.

If it turns out that the basis of your argument is wrong, it should surely surely spur you to do a bit more research and rethink your stance. That's what I do anyway.

It's nothing to do with what I deem a worthy world view. It's based on the facts of the evidence and sound logical reasoning. If you want to specify further into my argument I'm happy to do so. But don't expect me to take your word as gospel if you have nothing to back it up with.

How is that self righteous comment?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
No, I'm talking about the fact that as the USA doesn't have the same model of public state spending that some of us are used to in Europe, that may be why folk from the USA may jump to false conclusions about profit, shareholders and everything being about money, without considering that there may be an alternative.

That's not painting people with brushes.

I'm saying you get used to the model by which your government allocates state spending.

For example, if you are from the UK, you are more likely to take free healthcare for granted and if you are from the USA, you may see the same concept as an unobtainable pipe dream.

Providing reasoning for your argument is a necessary part of how an argument works.

If it turns out that the basis of your argument is wrong, it should surely surely spur you to do a bit more research and rethink your stance. That's what I do anyway.

It's nothing to do with what I deem a worthy world view. It's based on the facts of the evidence and sound logical reasoning. If you want to specify further into my argument I'm happy to do so. But don't expect me to take your word as gospel if you have nothing to back it up with.

How is that self righteous comment?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree that one shouldn’t always accept another opinion without facts to back it up. I believed I read your post carefully before responding but nonetheless, misinterpreted your intentions. Please accept my apologies.
 
Back
Top Bottom