Clarkson

Rigga

Debeli wrote:

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./quote]


New series starts tonight on discovery history at 9pm

Manc33

Chris Bass wrote:

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?

So people should just stop investigating what they are doing then?

Right, got it. :roll:

Laughing anytime they are exposed (and claiming it is a theory) isn't going to change anything, but it seems the "go-to answer" for most people.

Its like if some guy held up a shop, most people in the shop would pretend it isn't happening, turn their back or whatever. There would have to be a guy in the shop that gets angry as soon as he sees someone holding the shop up and stops him. These people barely exist anymore in today's screwed up effeminate society. You'd probably have the robber suing the hero.

As far as Clarkson is concerned they could just keep Top Gear on the air and fire Clarkson. Then Clarkson goes to ITV or Sky, gets paid more anyway and you never know, the show might be a proper motoring show like Top Gear was in the 80s and 90s.

The BBC has run Top Gear into the ground, before this. All this stuff with Clarkson is I think probably done on purpose.

It goes something like this:

Boss: "We need to get Clarkson fired, what really annoys him?"
Lackey: "When he is hungry"
Boss: "OK don't order enough food today and make sure Clarkson is tied up while everyone else eats"
Lackey "Hehe, good one"
Boss: "Hopefully he will throw his usual hissy fit and smack someone, then we've got him and don't need to have any excuse whatsoever for axing the show at long last"

orraloon

mr_eddy wrote:

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

Nah. Top Gear doesn't equal Clarkson nor vice versa. BBC Worldwide own the rights to TG. They have other programs running under the TG label such as Top Gear USA, which to my surprise I found rather good.

The guy Tanner Foust who was on the rally car segment of the last programme is one of the TG USA presenters, and is actually a real professional driver.

Maybe what we get is bye bye Clarkson, your time is up, followed by a new face or faces presenting the format.

Oh, and how come 700k+ people can be bothered to sign a petition to 'save' Clarkson's job but would not bother to sign one to save the NHS for instance?

pblakeney

orraloon wrote:

Oh, and how come 700k+ people can be bothered to sign a petition to 'save' Clarkson's job but would not bother to sign one to save the NHS for instance?

Priorities.

slowmart

Manc33 wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

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?

So people should just stop investigating what they are doing then?

Right, got it. :roll:

Laughing anytime they are exposed (and claiming it is a theory) isn't going to change anything, but it seems the "go-to answer" for most people.

Its like if some guy held up a shop, most people in the shop would pretend it isn't happening, turn their back or whatever. There would have to be a guy in the shop that gets angry as soon as he sees someone holding the shop up and stops him. These people barely exist anymore in today's screwed up effeminate society. You'd probably have the robber suing the hero.

As far as Clarkson is concerned they could just keep Top Gear on the air and fire Clarkson. Then Clarkson goes to ITV or Sky, gets paid more anyway and you never know, the show might be a proper motoring show like Top Gear was in the 80s and 90s.

The BBC has run Top Gear into the ground, before this. All this stuff with Clarkson is I think probably done on purpose.

It goes something like this:

Boss: "We need to get Clarkson fired, what really annoys him?"
Lackey: "When he is hungry"
Boss: "OK don't order enough food today and make sure Clarkson is tied up while everyone else eats"
Lackey "Hehe, good one"
Boss: "Hopefully he will throw his usual hissy fit and smack someone, then we've got him and don't need to have any excuse whatsoever for axing the show at long last"

The hole in your point here is the BBC needs revenue and have sold the show to oversea partners. The fabulous three some have sold out shows in Scandinavia and Australia which the BBC have the rights too, sold the tickets and banked the money. I doubt their insurance policy would cover this aspect?

so I cant see anyone at the BBC who has an eye for revenue dancing a jig of joy and on the basis of reducing revenue will mean more restructures and job losses. That's the plain and inescapable truth and we will be paying out for each aspect.

I would suggest a fudge, clarkosn still in place and a move across to a competitior in the summer...

Lookyhere

Ai_1 wrote:

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?

No, i just take a more pragmatic view than you do, the BBC is publicly funded and the way this has been handled means it is the licence fee payer who is going to lose out here, when the bbc have to pay out to the overseas broadcasters and they lose another 6m viewers plus a shed load of credibility, this at a time when the licence fee is under question and the bbc in particular is under fire over its handling of the political debates.
I want to see the BBC prosper and grow and this isnt doing them any favours.
If normal disciplinary procedures had been followed then both parties would have been suspended, until ALL the facts were known and acted on.

How you can say JC is a just a "worker" amazes me, the bbc's sole job is to entertain and offer unbiased news coverage... i dont see what else they have to offer?

the playing mantis

orraloon wrote:

mr_eddy wrote:

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

Nah. Top Gear doesn't equal Clarkson nor vice versa. BBC Worldwide own the rights to TG. They have other programs running under the TG label such as Top Gear USA, which to my surprise I found rather good.

The guy Tanner Foust who was on the rally car segment of the last programme is one of the TG USA presenters, and is actually a real professional driver.

Maybe what we get is bye bye Clarkson, your time is up, followed by a new face or faces presenting the format.

Oh, and how come 700k+ people can be bothered to sign a petition to 'save' Clarkson's job but would not bother to sign one to save the NHS for instance?

tg usa is dire, even our cousins across the ocean hate it.

there will be no tg without jezza. it failed as a proper car show and took clarkson to be unreigned and the genuine dynamic with may and hammond to make a success. its was crap when jason daw was on it before may came. take out clarkson and it unravels completely.

he and wilman do still hold rights to it so the bbc are limited in what they do.

the nhs doesnt need saving it simply needs a better management by those in middle management there. people like tg as its one of the last bastions of mild non conformity with the liberal bbc agenda and pc soceity with everyone scared to say anything about anyone. even sir trevor p says he was completley wrong about the pc agenda and its gone way to far.

ddraver

PBlakeney wrote:

orraloon wrote:

Oh, and how come 700k+ people can be bothered to sign a petition to 'save' Clarkson's job but would not bother to sign one to save the NHS for instance?

Priorities.

I haven't signed either but the thought to sign the Clarkson petition crossed my mind because I thought it might do some good

Petitions to "save the NHS" might give people a warm feeling or a rebellious kick but they do sweet FA

jimmythecuckoo

Reading some of the stuff in here, this could be the first thread of mine to get locked.

pblakeney

jimmythecuckoo wrote:

Reading some of the stuff in here, this could be the first thread of mine to get locked.

Not even close.
Yet.

RDW

Its like if some guy held up a shop, most people in the shop would pretend it isn't happening, turn their back or whatever.

No, it's more like some guy held up a shop and, instead of concluding this was the action of a common criminal, we all took it as evidence of a vast sinister plot by MI6 and the minions of Jimmy Savile to make us fear shopping in person, thus driving us to use Illuminati-controlled online retailers using credit cards bearing symbols secretly disguising the Mark of the Beast. And then, as often as not, it would turn out that the only evidence the shop was robbed in the first place was the unsupported statement of a self-proclaimed expert on Youtube who was in fact grotesquely misinterpreting an anecdote about someone 'holding up' a queue at the supermarket while searching for their wallet.

the playing mantis

why not create a conspiracy theory thread then manc can stop running other thread by going off topic so completely...just an idea?

RDW

the playing mantis wrote:

why not create a conspiracy theory thread then manc can stop running other thread by going off topic so completely...just an idea?

We did have one, but The Conspiracy deleted it...

pblakeney

RDW wrote:

the playing mantis wrote:

why not create a conspiracy theory thread then manc can stop running other thread by going off topic so completely...just an idea?

We did have one, but The Conspiracy deleted it...

We still have one. Can't you see it?

the playing mantis

the playing mantis wrote:

why not create a conspiracy theory thread then manc can stop running other thread by going off topic so completely...just an idea?

*not running, ruining...well running perhaps too.

mancs not a proper CT'ist he wont engage on sasquatch, i'm interested to know why the USNPS is covering his existence up and why he is often seen at the same time and vicinity of ufo reports

Manc33

Lookyhere wrote:

...the bbc in particular is under fire over its handling of the political debates.

I didn't even know this, thanks for highlighting it.

Lookyhere wrote:

How you can say JC is a just a "worker" amazes me, the bbc's sole job is to entertain and offer unbiased news coverage... i dont see what else they have to offer?

The news coverage on Israel and Palestine isn't unbiased.

If it was we would get to hear a Palestinian's side of the story from time to time.

The same people that own Israel (see "Balfour Declaration") also own the media including the BBC.

ddraver

RDW wrote:

Its like if some guy held up a shop, most people in the shop would pretend it isn't happening, turn their back or whatever.

No, it's more like some guy held up a shop and, instead of concluding this was the action of a common criminal, we all took it as evidence of a vast sinister plot by MI6 and the minions of Jimmy Savile to make us fear shopping in person, thus driving us to use Illuminati-controlled online retailers using credit cards bearing symbols secretly disguising the Mark of the Beast. And then, as often as not, it would turn out that the only evidence the shop was robbed in the first place was the unsupported statement of a self-proclaimed expert on Youtube who was in fact grotesquely misinterpreting an anecdote about someone 'holding up' a queue at the supermarket while searching for their wallet.

Outstanding sir!

pinno

Manc33 wrote:

Lookyhere wrote:

...the bbc in particular is under fire over its handling of the political debates.

The news coverage on Israel and Palestine isn't unbiased.

If it was we would get to hear a Palestinian's side of the story from time to time[1].

The same people that own Israel (see "Balfour Declaration") also own the media including the BBC.[2]

[1] Absolute bollox
[2] Even more bollox

The very fact that what you babble is quite odd and lacks any real foundation, to the extent I feel a little sorry for you, means that I can dismiss your anti Jewish tendency but others might not.

ai_1

pinarello001 wrote:

Manc33 wrote:

Lookyhere wrote:

...the bbc in particular is under fire over its handling of the political debates.

The news coverage on Israel and Palestine isn't unbiased.

If it was we would get to hear a Palestinian's side of the story from time to time[1].

The same people that own Israel (see "Balfour Declaration") also own the media including the BBC.[2]

[1] Absolute bollox
[2] Even more bollox

The very fact that what you babble is quite odd and lacks any real foundation, to the extent I feel a little sorry for you, means that I can dismiss your anti Jewish tendency but others might not.

As much as I dislike siding with Manc, saying there isn't balance of coverage between the Israeli and Palestinian factions is not anti Israeli.

pinno

Ai_1 wrote:

pinarello001 wrote:

Manc33 wrote:

Lookyhere wrote:

...the bbc in particular is under fire over its handling of the political debates.

The news coverage on Israel and Palestine isn't unbiased.

If it was we would get to hear a Palestinian's side of the story from time to time[1].

The same people that own Israel (see "Balfour Declaration") also own the media including the BBC.[2]

[1] Absolute bollox
[2] Even more bollox

The very fact that what you babble is quite odd and lacks any real foundation, to the extent I feel a little sorry for you, means that I can dismiss your anti Jewish tendency but others might not.

As much as I dislike siding with Manc, saying there isn't balance of coverage between the Israeli and Palestinian factions is not anti Israeli.

My comment wasn't based solely about his comment on just this thread.

I take your point but this is the wrong time and place for an argument about the Israeli conflict. I don't think JC is important enough to warrant a parallel debate about that.

slowmart

Is JC, Jesus Christ?


He is quite important you know.

pinno

Not influential enough for certain Catholic priests. :roll:



Duck.

Manc33

Clarkson could host a new food programme.

Then get fired from it for driving his car into the producer's car.

graham.

It was an incident in the workplace and should be treated as such. Why is it even in the public domain?
If a couple of directors (or anyone else) had a "fracas" in any other company,
would they immediately cease trading while they decided whether or not to shut down altogether?
No need to cancel the remaining shows at great expense, and if it came to it, Top Gear could function perfectly well, possibly better, without JC.

craigus89

the playing mantis wrote:

why not create a conspiracy theory thread then manc can stop running other thread by going off topic so completely...just an idea?

Or maybe the mods could pull their fingers out their a*ses and ban him. I don't know any other forum that would put up with the amount of off-topic crap that goes on.

pinno

Graham. wrote:

It was an incident in the workplace and should be treated as such. Why is it even in the public domain?
If a couple of directors (or anyone else) had a "fracas" in any other company,
would they immediately cease trading while they decided whether or not to shut down altogether?
No need to cancel the remaining shows at great expense, and if it came to it, Top Gear could function perfectly well, possibly better, without JC.

Not as 'workplace' as it has been made out

I think SKY is lapping this up.

RDW

Craigus89 wrote:

Or maybe the mods could pull their fingers out their a*ses and ban him. I don't know any other forum that would put up with the amount of off-topic crap that goes on.

I only read this forum for the conspiracy theories.

ai_1

Craigus89 wrote:

the playing mantis wrote:

why not create a conspiracy theory thread then manc can stop running other thread by going off topic so completely...just an idea?

Or maybe the mods could pull their fingers out their a*ses and ban him. I don't know any other forum that would put up with the amount of off-topic crap that goes on.

Nah, to be fair there is entertainment to be had!

pinno

Craigus89 wrote:

the playing mantis wrote:

why not create a conspiracy theory thread then manc can stop running other thread by going off topic so completely...just an idea?

Or maybe the mods could pull their fingers out their a*ses and ban him. I don't know any other forum that would put up with the amount of off-topic crap that goes on.

There wouldn't be an awful lot left.

Stevo_666

Craigus89 wrote:

the playing mantis wrote:

why not create a conspiracy theory thread then manc can stop running other thread by going off topic so completely...just an idea?

Or maybe the mods could pull their fingers out their a*ses and ban him. I don't know any other forum that would put up with the amount of off-topic crap that goes on.

This is what is says before you click to go into Cake Stop:
"The place for more serious off topic questions, light hearted banter and friendly chat."
Relevant bit in Italics...