Clarkson

CHRISNOIR

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Can they not sort these things out between themselves? Why does the organisation need to step in an argument between two individuals?
It's all bollox and childish on both parts...

I bet the BBC would love to be able to step back on this one - they're going to get an absolute hammering whatever they do here.

ugo.santalucia

If anything needs to change in the program is not the PCness... I would urge the BBC to change the content... enough of supercars and the implicit message that speeding is not such a bad thing after all. That needs to change... it only appeals to a small number of wxnkers, while the big audience want to see more helicopters landing on the roof of a Nissan... and old bangers in the desert

markhewitt1978

CHRISNOIR wrote:

I bet the BBC would love to be able to step back on this one - they're going to get an absolute hammering whatever they do here.

That's the problem they have. There are legions out there who have been baying for Clarkson blood for years so would love to see him hung out to dry, so if BBC don't do that they'll get a hammering. On the other hand if they cancel Top Gear there will be an uproar too, as well as the financial cost.

Of course Top Gear has to end some time.

morstar

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Can they not sort these things out between themselves? Why does the organisation need to step in an argument between two individuals?
It's all bollox and childish on both parts...

That's the argument applied to allowing fighting in ice hockey. Let grown men sort it out!
In isolation, this arguably works but then you condone a structure where fighting becomes the norm, not the exceptional incident you turned a blind eye to.

I'm an ice hockey ref and I think it ruins the sport. But my opinion is not widely shared within the sport. I'd hate to have a workplace where it was acceptable.

Blacktemplar

Weekly viewing figures here: http://www.barb.co.uk/whats-new/weekly-top-10?

TG mustered just over 6.1M viewers, which when I last looked was £884M-worth of licence-fee payers..... oh, wait; I have to pay the fee, but don't have any say in what I see....

ugo.santalucia

morstar wrote:

That's the argument applied to allowing fighting in ice hockey. Let grown men sort it out!
In isolation, this arguably works but then you condone a structure where fighting becomes the norm, not the exceptional incident you turned a blind eye to.

Doesn't have to be the norm... the two guys talk and sort out the differences, which is the best outcome... if there are apologies to be made, they are made privately, if there is damage, it will get sorted privately. No need for this to become a national scandal leading to the cancellation of a very popular TV program and fingers to be pointed... WTF!!

mrushton

Shake of hands - an offer of a decent dinner at Le Gavroche for the aggrieved persons family and everyone gets back to work/makes money etc. We don't know what the argument was about - it could have been simmering for months but fisticuffs never stopped The Who etc from going out and doing what they did

BTW - anyone know where Hammond was testing that MX5? Looked like Southern France but a fine road to be cycling on at least

mamba80

morstar wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Can they not sort these things out between themselves? Why does the organisation need to step in an argument between two individuals?
It's all bollox and childish on both parts...

That's the argument applied to allowing fighting in ice hockey. Let grown men sort it out!
In isolation, this arguably works but then you condone a structure where fighting becomes the norm, not the exceptional incident you turned a blind eye to.

I'm an ice hockey ref and I think it ruins the sport. But my opinion is not widely shared within the sport. I'd hate to have a workplace where it was acceptable.

filming should have continued and the argument resolved afterwards, this was a private argument and should be settled that way too, the only losers will be the 6million viewers and the BBC, when the show goes to SKY

another nail in the coffin of the licence fee.

Blacktemplar

Slowmart wrote:

The reinstate Clarkson petition is over 110,000 signatures.

https://www.change.org/p/bbc-reinstate- ... d_donation


I've signed

Entertainingly, the corresponding "Sack JC" petition has garnered a massive 1,800 votes, whilst the "reinstate" campaign is up to nearly 360,000. Go figure, BBC.... maybe you should have another think about who pays your wages?

southdownswolf

Blacktemplar wrote:

Weekly viewing figures here: http://www.barb.co.uk/whats-new/weekly-top-10?

TG mustered just over 6.1M viewers, which when I last looked was £884M-worth of licence-fee payers..... oh, wait; I have to pay the fee, but don't have any say in what I see....

Nobody is forcing you to have a licence, therefore nobody is forcing you to pay the fee.

ai_1

mamba80 wrote:

morstar wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Can they not sort these things out between themselves? Why does the organisation need to step in an argument between two individuals?
It's all bollox and childish on both parts...

That's the argument applied to allowing fighting in ice hockey. Let grown men sort it out!
In isolation, this arguably works but then you condone a structure where fighting becomes the norm, not the exceptional incident you turned a blind eye to.

I'm an ice hockey ref and I think it ruins the sport. But my opinion is not widely shared within the sport. I'd hate to have a workplace where it was acceptable.

filming should have continued and the argument resolved afterwards, this was a private argument and should be settled that way too, the only losers will be the 6million viewers and the BBC, when the show goes to SKY

another nail in the coffin of the licence fee.

If this was an assault in the workplace, I fail to see the justification for claiming it's just between the two individuals involved. I'd have no issue with it being dealt with privately by BBC (who are presumably the employer here?) but that doesn't mean there should be no consequences. Would anyone here NOT be fired for punching their colleague (assuming that's what actually happened)? The consequences for the BBC viewership really isn't the point.

P.S.
Saying they could sort it out between themselves is absurdly irresponsible.
That approach by employers would be a license for bullying and intimidation in the workplace.

lakesluddite

Pross wrote:

You're all missing the point, this is clearly BikeRadar Power. One forumite complained a week ago and now Top Gear is finished. We have more power than the Argentine government and will one day be a match for Mumsnet in our influence. Obviously the BBC can't admit that this is a result of cyclists as it will upset all those brainwashed motorists who have been forced into believing we should be exterminated by being knocked down by driverless cars and so have invented a BS story about a 'fracas' (not quite sure how Manc33 missed this obvious conspiracy).

OK who do we get fired next?

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/t ... rks-23188/

This cnut. Even if it's for his 'Professional Yorkshireman' cobblers that gets trotted out every single time his punchable face appears on the box. I'm a Yorkshireman, and I find it nauseating.

thegreatdivide

Clarkson does not look like a man who would be handy in a fight. A swift knee in the nads would have him crumpled.

tangled_metal

I think one of the last times JC was in serious trouble with hacks baying for blood there was a petition on the number 10 website (under labour). There was one to keep JC and another calling for his sack. The ratio of signatures was 1000 to save JC each signature to sack him (IIRC it was about 68,000 for and 65 against). That was only in the first day of those petitions being set up.

That I find is the way with Jezza, he has a strong fan base. If he goes he will find another outlet if he wants it. Of course he could just take a good step back and retire. He has the money and can still keep his other activities going such as newspaper columns, DVDs, books, etc. Public appearances would be good. How many sportsman dinners would pay for JC to speak??? Then again he could properly retire and enjoy his wealth, perhaps by shooting ramblers on his IoM or Southern England estates or whatever it is he's into when not driving. BTW isn't his wife a better driver (as in faster)?? Certainly she has more speeding tickets than he has (even from places she has never been too!!! ') ) Allegedly - I think that was the effect of one of his throw away remarks one show.

chris_bass

Blacktemplar wrote:

Weekly viewing figures here: http://www.barb.co.uk/whats-new/weekly-top-10?

TG mustered just over 6.1M viewers, which when I last looked was £884M-worth of licence-fee payers..... oh, wait; I have to pay the fee, but don't have any say in what I see....

Top Gear makes more money than it costs to make and pay everyone so if it goes the licence fee will probably go up or the other shows will get even worse through less funding.

Pross

Ai_1 wrote:

It was an assault in the workplace. I fail to see the justification for claiming it's just between the two individuals involved. I'd have no issue with it being dealt with privately by BBC (who are presumably the employer here?) but that doesn't mean there should be no consequences. Would anyone here NOT be fired for punching their colleague? The consequences for the BBC viewership really isn't the point.

P.S.
Saying they could sort it out between themselves is absurdly irresponsible.
That approach by employers would be a license for bullying and intimidation in the workplace.

Was it though? All I've heard reported is that there was a 'scuffle' about food and I haven't heard anything stating who started it. It already appears that people are taking the little information and putting their own spin on it. No doubt by the end it will be claim it was attempted murder or a racially aggrevated assault. It may well have been a bit of mutual pushing and shoving for all we know.

tangled_metal

Wasn't it something to do with them finishing a long, hard days filming up Newcastle way and Clarksons asked if there was any catering to be told no. I believe I read on some online newspaper or heard on some radio news show that they normally provided catering for the long shoots, especially if it was a long day or late on. It came across as if the people running the shoot just forgot to organise something and Jezza flipped a bit.

Of course it will never come out exactly what happened, unless filmed secretly on a phone.

ai_1

Pross wrote:

Ai_1 wrote:

It was an assault in the workplace. I fail to see the justification for claiming it's just between the two individuals involved. I'd have no issue with it being dealt with privately by BBC (who are presumably the employer here?) but that doesn't mean there should be no consequences. Would anyone here NOT be fired for punching their colleague? The consequences for the BBC viewership really isn't the point.

P.S.
Saying they could sort it out between themselves is absurdly irresponsible.
That approach by employers would be a license for bullying and intimidation in the workplace.

Was it though? All I've heard reported is that there was a 'scuffle' about food and I haven't heard anything stating who started it. It already appears that people are taking the little information and putting their own spin on it. No doubt by the end it will be claim it was attempted murder or a racially aggrevated assault. It may well have been a bit of mutual pushing and shoving for all we know.

Fair point. I shall go back and insert an "if"!

homers_double

Four pages and nobdy has questioned what food they were arguing over?

Shame on you internet, shame on you.

MisterMuncher

I found myself in front of a disciplinary panel many moons ago for striking a colleague, but in context he was holding a third member of the workforce against the wall with a broken bottle against the other lad's throat. It still had to go the full nine yards of suspension, investigation and talk of legal consequences. This was despite CCTV, witnesses etc. At the time I resented the process, feeling I hadn't done anything wrong, as was the official conclusion. With hindsight, it was only sensible. Point being, Clarkson might be wildly popular and whatever else, but if you get physical with a workmate, you'll have to accept that there will be an aftermath, and suspension is the very least you can expect.

veronese68

Pross wrote:

Was it though? All I've heard reported is that there was a 'scuffle' about food and I haven't heard anything stating who started it. It already appears that people are taking the little information and putting their own spin on it. No doubt by the end it will be claim it was attempted murder or a racially aggrevated assault. It may well have been a bit of mutual pushing and shoving for all we know.

Exactly, we don't actually know what happened. We don't know the environment they work in. Friends of mine are often amazed at what goes on in this place, the level of misbehaviour, name calling, abuse and play fighting would never be tolerated in most places. But it is normal here, although some things have been toned down. I worked in a large main dealer with over 30 mechanics plus others, and again that sort of thing was common. If they work in a similar environment it would not be unusual to throw a punch, although it would never have much weight behind it. When somebody new comes into such an environment they may be shocked at first, but they are soon joining in with the general tomfoolery. It could be that what is considered normal in their little world was taken as being an assault by someone or was witnessed by a third person that is not used to such behaviour and was taken out of context. There's a world of difference between trying to hurt someone and messing about but looked at from the outside it may not look that way.
I still think JC is a c0ck, or at least his screen persona is.

MisterMuncher

The point of workplace culture is a good one, yes. I've worked in kitchens for nigh on 20 years and seen behaviour that would result in instant dismissal from most other jobs.

The thing is, even in context, there's a bit of an invisible line that can be crossed. As an example, I worked with one profoundly irritating little goit with a great fondness for messing about. One fella just refused to take him on at all, ignoring his japery until the point when the idiot literally set his trousers on fire, at which point he was removed from the building by a man on each limb.

capt_slog

homers double wrote:

Four pages and nobdy has questioned what food they were arguing over?

Shame on you internet, shame on you.

It was eggs, and which end you should open them.

slowmart

Anonymous

southdownswolf wrote:

Blacktemplar wrote:

Weekly viewing figures here: http://www.barb.co.uk/whats-new/weekly-top-10?

TG mustered just over 6.1M viewers, which when I last looked was £884M-worth of licence-fee payers..... oh, wait; I have to pay the fee, but don't have any say in what I see....

Nobody is forcing you to have a licence, therefore nobody is forcing you to pay the fee.

Last time I checked you still have to have a TV licence even if you de tune all BBC content.
I see that as being forced to have a licence, and thereby forced to pay for Top Gear, Eastenders etc.

I think the TV licence fee is way out of date. It was ok when there were 2 or 3 channels, but not now.
As much as I like some BBC stuff I get annoyed that I am forced to pay for something I may not watch.

You have no real option.
A famous Radio 1 DJ made comment that he thought it was funny that loads of Sky customers left when you had to pay a subscription (yes, it used to be subscription free).
Made my blood boil as the number would have been dwarfed by the amount of people that would not pay for the BBC if the licence were optional and only applied to their output!

mrushton

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/m ... n-top-gear

Interesting stuff about contracts and penalty payments.

markhewitt1978

Let's not have another licence fee debate they are always soooo interesting

slowmart

Will be BBC fall on the sword of principle or find a work around to ensure the concerned parties are happy?

Is that even a question.

chris_bass

Slowmart wrote:

Will be BBC fall on the sword of principle or find a work around to ensure the concerned parties are happy?

Is that even a question.

i think your last sentence was a question.

slowmart

Mr Bass, in the BBC's inclusive and celebratory aspect to diversity, equality and religion in all it's forms the meaning of my last sentence is whatever you would like it to be.