Clarkson

chris_bass

I have heard all about that, child sex cases are horrific. But what is your point? All people in power are paedophiles? Being in power makes them a paedophile? They got in power because they are pedophiles?

There are plenty of people who are pedophiles, if some of them didn't end up in high places that would be strange.

Not everything is a conspiracy, you say you don't believe anything on the news yet this is ok? So only listen to the news when it supports your twisted view of the world? Is that how it works?

the playing mantis

manc if you are so in the know and wont engage on whats lacking in your life that you believe and invest so much time in these dubious theories, or even engage on safer territory of really interesting stuff like forteana and cryptozoology, then rather than preaching on here, why not actually do something about all these shocking things and make a meaningful difference. or wont 'the man' let u?

go and seek justice and retribution seek a wider audience, streak at the couple final with a message on this, get elected to parliament, replace jezza on top gear.

RDW

What are ABCs?

the playing mantis

RDW wrote:

What are ABCs?

why, alien big cats of course...

i seen one...believe

Manc33

Chris Bass wrote:

I have heard all about that, child sex cases are horrific. But what is your point? All people in power are paedophiles? Being in power makes them a paedophile? They got in power because they are pedophiles?

You've heard about it... do you think it is a conspiracy theory then?

So basically anything anyone can't handle, they just say "That's a conspiracy theory" and that's the end of it, whether it is credible or not. That has more to do with what people "expect" than whether it is actually true or not.

All people in power are paedophiles?
Ones that cannot affect anything aren't. I doubt my own local MP is one... but he isn't at the top or in Westminster. You don't need wall to wall pedo's, only the top people need to be. Thats why none of it ever gets investigated. It always goes to the top, they quash it every time - its a distinct repeating pattern and the main reason it is obvious something is being covered up. They are covering it up because they are covering it up.

Being in power makes them a paedophile?
No, but money only does so much, I mean bunging MP's money to sway this way or that way. Even those ones can still say "You know what, here's the two million quid back, I ain't going along with this" but if they are a pedo... much easier to tell them what to do, if they will go to jail for life if they don't. A lot of them are just gay blokes that don't want anyone knowing they are gay.

They got in power because they are pedophiles?
No, it takes far more than to just be a pedophile, you'd need to be an expert liar.

Chris Bass wrote:

There are plenty of people who are pedophiles, if some of them didn't end up in high places that would be strange.

I agree, but what is strange is they get caught out and nothing happens, or dossiers go missing. Rather than people scrambling to bring these people to justice instead we have it never being investigated, or the operation dropped like with Operation Ore.

Chris Bass wrote:

Not everything is a conspiracy, you say you don't believe anything on the news yet this is ok? So only listen to the news when it supports your twisted view of the world? Is that how it works?

There's nothing to say the reports are true, but it is at least being reported on in some capacity, which is better than nothing.

It's simple, you see the news, you're not sure, you check into alternative sources and hear other reports, you can then decide whether what the mainstream news said is true or not, or bias. It isn't a case of everything on the news is bunk or everything on the news is true, or every conspiracy theory is made up, or they all aren't.

Going off all the other stuff like Bill Maloney's video's and adding it all together yes, its pretty much a given to me that there's going to be compromised pedo's in Westminster. That's highlighted by the fact that we only ever get the opposite of what the public wants. In a normal setup without the pedo's holy smoke... the world we would be living in, no one would even be in debt or anything. The bankers would have been told to shove it a long time ago but of course, they are more powerful than the government or the media, since they fund both (and a million other things like both sides of world wars).

Ultimately it isn't about the media, the government or even the pedo's... because behind all of that is the banking families that make all of it possible and make sure we stay in debt, usually with war.

There's a little known story (don't know if its true) that Maggie actually tried to pay off the national debt and would have accomplished it, but Mark Thatcher was kidnapped and Maggie was told if you get rid of the national debt you'll never see your son again. Most people absolutely despise her but you never know, its probably true, it sounds it. Personally I couldn't stand her, she was every bit the "beast" people say she is, but then I have been only been given that attitude by the media anyway - I didn't know her personally so how do I know she was all bitter etc? Its more likely a woman trying to save the country's finances would be treated that way and portrayed as a beast of a woman.

The only way out of it really is go live with an Amish community. I was going to but there aren't any on the mainland, you gotta go to Ireland. Then you are separated from the system and all its statutes etc, all of it. I can't believe Amish people are still allowed to just live freely I mean, people tried that at Waco and look what happened - government tank shoots fire into the building and kills a load of people including women and kids. The driver of the tank probably got promoted, thats really how it works.

DeVlaeminck

Whatever the truth of the paedophiles in power stuff (I doubt we'll ever get to hear it) there can't be any doubt there has been a massive cover up going right to the top involving politicians and royalty.

Manc33

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Whatever the truth of the paedophiles in power stuff (I doubt we'll ever get to hear it) there can't be any doubt there has been a massive cover up going right to the top involving politicians and royalty.

Next you'll be saying Elvis is alive and living in Argentina... I'm only messing about. :roll:

The difference with me is I say it isn't an isolated "historical allegation" and almost assume if we're ending up illegally invading places like Iraq, or being asked to have ID cards seventeen times (actual number!) and us saying no sixteen times before they take no for an answer... then the MP's voting to do that have an agenda, or are being blackmailed. Even a child wouldn't ask again a second or third time, but seventeen times? :shock: Do they have some sort of hearing problem? No they are just a bunch of Ben Linus types is all! They would probably still be smirking and lying if they were ruddy skydiving.

I have said numerous times even though some guy might be a pedo in government, even he probably wouldn't want to vote to go bomb the crap out of somewhere for no reason if it came down to it.

Every news outlet seems to want you to think this pedo stuff is 1. "Historical" and 2. "Allegations" and it cannot possibly be happening today. All media outlets parrot the same watered down version.

Even my mum said (when Stuart Hall was in the spotlight) "These guys are all from the same era" and I thought wow, that's how it works, people just come away from it thinking only one main thing, it was in the past... I don't think so somehow. Little do people know this is the way the government actually operates, when it comes to policies no one agrees with except a select few bankers anyway.

Its a bit different in the US, you can always point out who is the real President. When Bush was President it was Cheney. For decades under all the Presidents before that it was Henry Kissinger. Now with Obama its good old Zbigniew Brzezinski, America's answer to Arsene Wenger. In the UK its a bit harder to know, probably because we have had centuries more government than the US has, it is a fledgling thing even today really.

Try telling an American we let them win the war of independence, thats a good one... because we couldn't physically control that many people, so we said "oh bloody hell we lost, what can you do"... meanwhile the financial system there is run by the same bankers that always ran the economies of Europe for hundreds of years prior. It was rubber stamped in 1910 when they first met up on Jekyll Island to draft what would later become the "Federal Reserve Act 1912". Funny because the Federal Reserve has no reserves and isn't federal but let's not let a small detail like that spoil the fantasy. "The American dream - because you've gotta be asleep to believe it" - George Carlin.

ddraver

wow....

vimfuego

They come at night. Mostly.

mrushton

Anyway back on topic!

SKY must be dreaming about this opportunity. Double the salaries, give them a taste of DVD royalties and keep the format and it's money in the bank for everyone. Given the BBC lost millions on Lonely Planet (travel guides), the BBC need everything they can. Altho' they don't have to cover Golf so that's a saving (and a blessing)

markhewitt1978

Clarkson and Co can't just go and make 'Sky Gear' or whatever because BBC Worldwide own the format rights. Sure you could make something similar, but not the same.

A commerical broadcaster - especially ITV - would turn it to crap, it's because it's BBC that it works.

ballysmate

markhewitt1978 wrote:

Clarkson and Co can't just go and make 'Sky Gear' or whatever because BBC Worldwide own the format rights. Sure you could make something similar, but not the same.

A commerical broadcaster - especially ITV - would turn it to crap, it's because it's BBC that it works.

It was successful in spite of the BBC. The show was the work of Clarkson and his mate Wilman who sold the rights to the BBC.

chris_bass

From what they were saying this morning this happened after recording and quite late on in the evening, so does that count as in the work place? if i had a fight with a colleague off site and after work i probably wouldn't expect to be fired for it, hmmmmm, now i don't know what to make of it.

if they do end up on sky though, it'd be quite good for them to have some kind of top gear style race against team sky.

mrushton

As above. The BBC discarded TG and Clarkson and colleague bought the rights, developed it and then sold it back to the BBC retaining a share which they later sold. It's a motoring programme - just put the 3 guys in a studio or in a track situation and that's it - they aren't infringing copyright. If they use names eg Top gear/Stig then that's infringement but anything else? - it's not going to affect them altho' some lawyers may argue differently

chris_bass

Manc33 wrote:

waffle waffle waffle waffle
The only way out of it really is go live with an Amish community. I was going to but there aren't any on the mainland, you gotta go to Ireland.

there is literally no way i am going to read all that, i skipped to the end.

there are plenty of places you can break away from the 'system' until recently there was a traveler site near where i live until they got moved on. but you might want to be careful they are as bad as the rest of us, reports of them keeping slaves, exploiting the vulnerable and everything you seem to oppose.

you know what, maybe it is just human nature? some people are just inherently bad, some of them get into power (be it on a large scale in government or just the head of a small commune), maybe to further their ability to be evil and get what they want?

mamba80

Ballysmate wrote:

markhewitt1978 wrote:

Clarkson and Co can't just go and make 'Sky Gear' or whatever because BBC Worldwide own the format rights. Sure you could make something similar, but not the same.

A commerical broadcaster - especially ITV - would turn it to crap, it's because it's BBC that it works.

It was successful in spite of the BBC. The show was the work of Clarkson and his mate Wilman who sold the rights to the BBC.

yes see what happens when successful broadcasters go off to breakie time ITV or become football pundits.

the losers in this will be the BBC and the TG fans, imho the only ones who should be suspended and then fired are the stupid directors who made this decision, they should have finished the current series, citing commercial obligations (to overseas broadcasters, who they will now have to compensate) and then had their kangaroo court.

Wunnunda

The BBC really can't win. It is the ultimate whipping boy. Every time I see a politician criticise it (A Tory "cos is it's full of lefties". A Leftie "cos it's the establishment". The Royals "cos it hates us and it's the meeja innit". The anti-Royals "cos they always brown nose the Royals and cover up for them". Pro-Clarkson "cos the BBC needs an 'alternative view' and he's a breath of fresh air". Anti-Clarkson "cos he's a racist, sexist, earth ravaging monster who's only tolerated because he lives near Cameron" (cont P.94) ) I believe even more strongly that it's a national treasure that should be fought for.

BTW - for those that think the BBC had nothing to do with Top Gear's success (and FWIW I think Clarkson is probably guilty of thinking this as well) : do you REALLY think the show, and Clarkson, would be allowed to say some of the things they do about certain cars on a channel that took large scale car advertising for those same cars?

mrushton

yes see what happens when successful broadcasters go off to breakie time ITV or become football pundits.

the losers in this will be the BBC and the TG fans, imho the only ones who should be suspended and then fired are the stupid directors who made this decision, they should have finished the current series, citing commercial obligations (to overseas broadcasters, who they will now have to compensate) and then had their kangaroo court.

easy solution? Finish the last 3 episodes, shake hands and don't renew the contract(s). If Clarkson goes elsewhere and takes the others that's the business but honour is satisfied (the bean-counters won't like it)

Stevo_666

Petition now past 700,000 signatures - not bad going.

Bit of a no-win situation for the Beeb IMO.

crescent

markhewitt1978 wrote:

A commerical broadcaster - especially ITV - would turn it to crap, it's because it's BBC that it works.

TG has gone downhill but ITV would indeed ruin it beyond belief.

ai_1

Manc33 wrote:

....The only way out of it really is go live with an Amish community. I was going to but there aren't any on the mainland, you gotta go to Ireland. Then you are separated from the system and all its statutes etc, all of it. I can't believe Amish people are still allowed to just live freely I mean, people tried that at Waco and look what happened - government tank shoots fire into the building and kills a load of people including women and kids. The driver of the tank probably got promoted, thats really how it works.

Huh?
What's this about?
Is there an Amish community in Ireland?
What's it got to do with this conversation? I don't understand the link.

pblakeney

Wunnunda wrote:

The BBC really can't win. It is the ultimate whipping boy. Every time I see a politician criticise it (A Tory "cos is it's full of lefties". A Leftie "cos it's the establishment". The Royals "cos it hates us and it's the meeja innit". The anti-Royals "cos they always brown nose the Royals and cover up for them". Pro-Clarkson "cos the BBC needs an 'alternative view' and he's a breath of fresh air". Anti-Clarkson "cos he's a racist, sexist, earth ravaging monster who's only tolerated because he lives near Cameron" (cont P.94) ) I believe even more strongly that it's a national treasure that should be fought for.

BTW - for those that think the BBC had nothing to do with Top Gear's success (and FWIW I think Clarkson is probably guilty of thinking this as well) : do you REALLY think the show, and Clarkson, would be allowed to say some of the things they do about certain cars on a channel that took large scale car advertising for those same cars?

Clarkson wrote quite a few scathing car reviews for a newspaper that ran car ads.
Any different?

Wunnunda

PBlakeney wrote:

Clarkson wrote quite a few scathing car reviews for a newspaper that ran car ads.
Any different?

I agree and it's a valid point. However there is difference between the number of people who read paper reviews (a smallish %age of a circulation in the 100 thousands) and the potential audience for Top Gear on the telly (4-5 million). Anyway, I'm not sure he writes that much in the way of newspaper reviews these days. He's mostly ranting about everything else !

Pross

Chris Bass wrote:

From what they were saying this morning this happened after recording and quite late on in the evening, so does that count as in the work place? if i had a fight with a colleague off site and after work i probably wouldn't expect to be fired for it, hmmmmm, now i don't know what to make of it.

if they do end up on sky though, it'd be quite good for them to have some kind of top gear style race against team sky.

Not to mention the fact that the apparently wronged party didn't make a complaint which makes you wonder how all this has come about. Looks like it is a real mountain out of a molehill!

Wunnunda

Just a bunch of alpha males banging heads together, isn't it?

debeli

Manc33 wrote:

sungod wrote:

what irks is the massive double standards of the current bbc leadership where people involved in uncovering the despicable long term abuse by savile et al. have been punished, banished or purged, and the managers who led this protected, promoted and found nice little earners

Someone once said about the BBC "There's always at least one pedo on each programme".

I can believe it.

After all wouldn't that be the best way of controlling what people say and do? This is a known thing by now, if you whittle away all the stupid distractions and get down to brass tacks.

No one gets in trouble because it is so rife at the BBC (and in government) and the whole thing would be blown wide open. If you don't believe that just read up on "Operation Ore" where they did start prosecuting pedo's but had to stop the whole operation because it was getting embarrassing - the pedo's being prosecuted were not dirty old men in their basement... it was doctors, policemen, lawyers, teachers... even the head of Hull council was part of the list... in other words all the people in society that influence anything. So they just dropped the whole thing because it was more to do with high class people than the usual conception of a pedo.

Are you catching on yet?

Ever wonder why we go to war with places like Iraq?

We wouldn't be doing if the government wasn't bursting at the seams with blackmailed pedophiles voting the wrong way, even against their own wishes - despite being a sicko. That's the part that gets me, even sodding pedophiles wouldn't vote to go kill millions of innocent people, but they have to.

Jimmy Savile was rubbing shoulders with the Royal Family and they never get one single mention whenever Savile is being discussed, how would that be? Let's have some more info on just why this guy was allowed to come and go at Buckingham Palace as he pleased, while everyone else except Prince Phillip and Prince Charles were security checked. That puts Savile at a far "higher" level than anyone in the know ever dares to let on.

Clarkson on the other hand is a straight up guy and you can tell he is, which is why the BBC don't like him.

They don't take well to individuality and people that have an opinion. Especially when they are influencing millions of people. Ya can't do that! You either get your character assassinated or you get physically assassinated, or like with David Shayler - told to become a messiah. I doubt that guy would still be alive had he not done that. This only makes his info all the more interesting, we all know the guy has enough integrity to not become the messiah and yet... he did? Yeah right, tell another one.

Please don't send me a warning by PM for going "off topic", I have only discussed stuff here in response to someone already discussing it (despicable long term abuse by savile et al, managers protected, promoted and found nice little earners).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20237564
"some were found to be innocent"

Impossible since all of it was tracked via the pedophile's credit cards and the website they were purchasing images from was owned by the authorities. So they absolutely do have a record of every single name with 100% proof tying them to their address and them to their credit card. "Some were found innocent" just tells you everything you need to know. Generally the more money they earned the more likely they were to be let off.

Sir (or madam),

Are you putting something slightly illegal in your ice-cream or smoking something other than shag in your pipe?

Either you have a unique sense of humour so advanced that it is beyond the wit of mortals, or....

Well, I don't really want to say what the 'or' is. But I think you know what I mean.

And I think we both know it's the 'or'.

mr_eddy

I echo some other view here - If he did punch someone effectively in the workplace then in my opinion he should be fired. Anyone else punch's their co-worker and they would be fired instantly.

On top of this he had to admit publically recently that he is 'on his final warning' so basically as bad financially as it maybe for the BBC they really have to show the world 2 things:

1. No-one is above their contract of employment regardless of who they are
2. That they keep their word, they said it was his last warning so he has to go.

My guess is either the whole show will move to C4 or they will just finish it.

I am big Top Gear fan but if this turns out to be true all respect for him and to some extent the show will be gone.

If the Beeb keep him on if all what the papers say is true then frankly I will have also lost all respect for the BBC too.

Lookyhere

mr_eddy wrote:

I echo some other view here - If he did punch someone effectively in the workplace then in my opinion he should be fired. Anyone else punch's their co-worker and they would be fired instantly.

On top of this he had to admit publically recently that he is 'on his final warning' so basically as bad financially as it maybe for the BBC they really have to show the world 2 things:

1. No-one is above their contract of employment regardless of who they are
2. That they keep their word, they said it was his last warning so he has to go.

My guess is either the whole show will move to C4 or they will just finish it.

I am big Top Gear fan but if this turns out to be true all respect for him and to some extent the show will be gone.

If the Beeb keep him on if all what the papers say is true then frankly I will have also lost all respect for the BBC too.

JC isnt a "worker" as you discribe him, so yes he should be treated differently, the bbc is publically funded and it is the public who should be considered first, not some jumped up TV executive.

the vast majority of people would get annoyed if after a "hard days work" they came back to the hotel to find no restaurant, we dont know what happened here but to only suspend JC pending an enquiry is highly suspect, if this is the route the bbc want, then both parties should have been suspended, they ve effectively said JC is guilty.
Most people do not take such a high and mighty atitude to 2 men behaving like children.

There are precious few decent shows on TV and to lose TG to subscription or commercial tv would be a crying shame.

ai_1

Lookyhere wrote:

mr_eddy wrote:

I echo some other view here - If he did punch someone effectively in the workplace then in my opinion he should be fired. Anyone else punch's their co-worker and they would be fired instantly.

On top of this he had to admit publically recently that he is 'on his final warning' so basically as bad financially as it maybe for the BBC they really have to show the world 2 things:

1. No-one is above their contract of employment regardless of who they are
2. That they keep their word, they said it was his last warning so he has to go.

My guess is either the whole show will move to C4 or they will just finish it.

I am big Top Gear fan but if this turns out to be true all respect for him and to some extent the show will be gone.

If the Beeb keep him on if all what the papers say is true then frankly I will have also lost all respect for the BBC too.

JC isnt a "worker" as you discribe him, so yes he should be treated differently, the bbc is publically funded and it is the public who should be considered first, not some jumped up TV executive.

Why isn't he a "worker"? Is he not on a salary? Perhaps he's a contractor? I doubt he's a volunteer!
So he's working for, or providing a service to, the BBC and under all normal circumstances you'd expect a serious reprimand at the very least and probably termination of any contract following physical violence on, or associated with, the job.

If "it is the public who should be considered first" then normal disciplinary procedures should be followed. Considering the public is not just about entertaining them. I think it would disrespect the british public more to keep him on (if the reported behaviour is accurate) than to get rid of him. Pandering to a jumped up TV executive, on behalf of the public, hardly shows much respect to the public....Oops, I should check: Clarkson was the "jumped up TV executive" you referred to I presume?

debeli

I find JC repellent, but he does have something in the eyes of many viewers.

The mob he first co=presented with on Top Gear went (in bits and bobs) to a second-rate show on Channel 4 or 5 and it just wasn't the same. It was clearly a rip-off of Top Gear, but it was a poor one. A double-barreled woman who smiled a lot, Tiff Needell; others I can't remember. It is no longer on the telly. There was also a spiv wannabe called Wilson, but he seems to have retired, not before time.

James May has a background in motoring journalism and can carry a show - on that theme or others.

Richard Hammond seems (to my eyes) to have nothing beyond the doting grandparent or pre-teen demographic. I may be wrong. I once saw Stuart Lee doing a Mickey-take of Top Gear and his Hammond was both spot-on and cringeworthy in its egregious accuracy.

As to whether it was just a 'fracas', 'dust-up' or similar, is that not the sort of euphemistic language once used about the misdeeds of certain recent targets of Yewtree and its like? If a chap was threatened and swung at, it is assault or attempted assault. It is not a playground, it a place of work (if on location, this continues out of normal hours - particularly if the aggression shown was within a work context).