Clarkson

homers_double

Judging by his user name I'm not that far from manc33, shall I just deal with him and put us all out of our missery?

bendertherobot

pinarello001 wrote:

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.

Soft bloody northerners getting offended by four letter words.

capt_slog

Stevo 666 wrote:

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...

Good point. But I always read that as the topics are off the topic of cycling, it would be nice if the thread stayed on the topic of the OP.

pinno

Capt Slog wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Craigus89 wrote:

the playing mantis wrote:

why not...just an idea?

...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...

Good point. But I always read that as the topics are off the topic of cycling, it would be nice if the thread stayed on the topic of the OP.

That's subjective.

homers double wrote:

Judging by his user name I'm not that far from manc33, shall I just deal with him and put us all out of our missery?

No. We would just be inundated with fellow conspiracy theorists. Like they say In Scotland "If you kill one Midge, a thousand come to the funeral".

pblakeney

homers double wrote:

Judging by his user name I'm not that far from manc33, shall I just deal with him and put us all out of our missery?

Misery.
You've gone and made me go all pedantic, dammit!
And OT at that.

jimmythecuckoo

If I want to read about conspiracies I lurk on here...

http://letsrollforums.com/


woah.

RDW

All these people who are complaining about off-topic posts or attempting to divert us to other forums are clearly trying to suppress the TRUTH!!! What are their motives, and who are their shadowy paymasters?

Manc33

You can't deal with me I'm like Mel Gibson in Conspiracy Theory. :twisted:

"A man obsessed with conspiracy theories becomes a target after one of his theories turns out to be true. Unfortunately, in order to save himself, he has to figure out which theory it is."

Isn't that always the way.

pblakeney

I appreciated the full on irony in BBC Breakfast this morning.

Giving air time to people complaining about the story getting air time.

chris_bass

Judging by what he said i think it is curtains for Clarkson, he did compare himself to a dinosaur, I guess it would be fitting if he ended up as fossil fuel

Stevo_666

880,000 signatures and rising. Clearly quite a few people like him. He'll be back, just not at the Beeb who have shot themselves in the foot financially in a massive way if this goes as we think it will.

Manc33

Maybe its more about people voting against the BBC regardless of Clarkson. We could be talking about putting a baboon back on the air and people would probably vote, the BBC is full of pedo's and covers up for people, everyone knows it now.

The best thing the BBC could do is sell it ASAP to some tinpot country, while its still worth anything.

morstar

Stevo 666 wrote:

880,000 signatures and rising. Clearly quite a few people like him. He'll be back, just not at the Beeb who have shot themselves in the foot financially in a massive way if this goes as we think it will.

Kevin Pietersen can still score lots of runs but ultimately England decided they're better off without him. Sometimes you have to make bold decisions where disruptive personalities are concerned. I have no knowledge of the fine details here but I don't agree that in principle the Beeb have made a mistake just because Clarkson is a popular money generator.

Either the Beeb haven't managed him well enough or he genuinely has reached the point where he is more trouble than he's worth.

Manc33

You can't "manage" Clarkson... that's the only reason I like him. Someone that actually says something different for a change and gets people thinking, albeit on rare occasions.

He is probably only "on thin ice" because of all the controversial stuff he has said in the past and I am not talking about being racist or whatever, I don't mean controversy like that, I mean like in 2005 when he tells an audience of millions the Government is taking the mickey out of us with thousands of speed cameras everywhere and tens of thousands more are planned... that is a massive problem for the beeb, because once people start thinking that way, that's it, the Government can only become more and more powerless and they have to get people like this off the telly. It is just taking a long time with Clarkson because, well you can't just boot someone out for "no reason". They can't even tell you the real reason.

Clarkson is a breath of fresh air when you hear him talk on certain issues, that's probably why he is getting nearly 900,000 votes. One guy... he is pretty much the last guy now on TV that speaks his mind. It should be the other way around, boot people off if they don't speak their mind.

Stevo_666

morstar wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

880,000 signatures and rising. Clearly quite a few people like him. He'll be back, just not at the Beeb who have shot themselves in the foot financially in a massive way if this goes as we think it will.

Kevin Pietersen can still score lots of runs but ultimately England decided they're better off without him. Sometimes you have to make bold decisions where disruptive personalities are concerned. I have no knowledge of the fine details here but I don't agree that in principle the Beeb have made a mistake just because Clarkson is a popular money generator.

Either the Beeb haven't managed him well enough or he genuinely has reached the point where he is more trouble than he's worth.

I said they will have made a mistake financially. I don't think anyone here is predicting that BBC revenues from Top Gear will go up if they get shot of him. It's a hell of a lot of trouble that someone has to cause to put at risk the amount of revenue that TG generates globally - one estimate is £150m per year. Then compare what he was alleged to have done to (say) Luis Suarez who has bitten other footballers on three separate occasions...still in a job.

Anyway, agree with Manc :shock: that it is a breath of fresh air having someone on the box who speaks his mind, there's far too much sanitsied blandness on it these days.

morstar

Stevo, maybe this is semantics but accepting there may be a financial penalty to a decision does not necessarily make that decision a mistake. It's only a mistake if you make the decision in blissful ignorance of that financial penalty.

Also agree that TV is bland but unlike Manc, I think politicians are just as bland and are equally as entrapped as TV personalities. Everybodies too scared to make contentious arguments.

Stevo_666

morstar wrote:

Stevo, maybe this is semantics but accepting there may be a financial penalty to a decision does not necessarily make that decision a mistake. It's only a mistake if you make the decision in blissful ignorance of that financial penalty.

Also agree that TV is bland but unlike Manc, I think politicians are just as bland and are equally as entrapped as TV personalities. Everybodies too scared to make contentious arguments.

The Beeb hasn't decided yet - and I'm sure the financial consequences will be part of that decision. Although if they had to earn their revenues like any other TV channel then I'd bet they definitely wouldn't bin him.

As the BBC is funded the way it is, if he goes then we will indirectly pay for that.

slowmart

Mistakes are subjective.


If your a Guardian reader with no skin regarding the outcome or a journo, single parent, mortgage who will lose their job as the loss of revenue means a restructure......

No doubt HR are looking at the worse case income projections and what that means for areas already under financial pressure within the BBC.

I agree with disruptive personalities though and eventually the disruption will outweigh whatever ego,performance and financial argument has been used previously to excuse unacceptable behaviour but that is where strong and intelligent management should be in place.

DeVlaeminck

morstar wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

880,000 signatures and rising. Clearly quite a few people like him. He'll be back, just not at the Beeb who have shot themselves in the foot financially in a massive way if this goes as we think it will.

Kevin Pietersen can still score lots of runs but ultimately England decided they're better off without him. Sometimes you have to make bold decisions where disruptive personalities are concerned.

Yes that one has worked out so well

Given what he has got away with in the past I find it odd that they would sack him (if they do) over a missed punch. I'm not really a fan of his - I used to enjoy his style but I think he's become a bit of a parody of himself in recent years - but as Stevo says he obviously has a fan base and makes a big contribution to a show that brings in viewers and money - you don't dump that just because he got grumpy and threw a punch.

chris_bass

Slowmart wrote:

Mistakes are subjective.


If your a.......

*you're


(sorry couldn't resist)

chris_bass

Was listening to Johnny Vaughan this morning who said he was 6 to 1 to take over from jezza, not sure if that'd be good thing or not.

metronome

pinno

Just because Clarkson and TG is a revenue maker does not make it right that (if) he assaulted someone and was given leniency. That's a double standard. If some lowly bod in the basement punched a colleague, he'd be out on his ear instantly.

chris_bass

While I agree, what if they punched them after work? James may has said he was very drunk at the time, should he also be suspended? If that guy in the basement was drunk he would also be fired

Stevo_666

pinarello001 wrote:

Just because Clarkson and TG is a revenue maker does not make it right that (if) he assaulted someone and was given leniency. That's a double standard. If some lowly bod in the basement punched a colleague, he'd be out on his ear instantly.

But in the real world that isn't how it works. The Suarez example I gave is a good example. If I bit someone at work I'd be straight out but Suarez got away with it 3 times because of how valuable he is. Money talks. C'est la vie.

pblakeney

There is an argument for how things should be.
However, that argument always loses out to how things actually are.

JackPozzi

Chris Bass wrote:

While I agree, what if they punched them after work? James may has said he was very drunk at the time, should he also be suspended? If that guy in the basement was drunk he would also be fired

I've always understood that an incident outside the actual workplace could lead to a disciplinary, especially if it's been organised by the company for example a punch up at a work xmas do or at a hotel after a work event.

RDW

It's now being reported that the producer had blood running down his face, was dizzy from the punch, and had to be treated in A&E. If this is correct, then it would suggest that a BBC tribunal is the last thing Clarkson has to worry about - the possibility of prosecution for assault would be a bit more serious.

pinno

RDW wrote:

It's now being reported that the producer had blood running down his face, was dizzy from the punch, and had to be treated in A&E. If this is correct, then it would suggest that a BBC tribunal is the last thing Clarkson has to worry about - the possibility of prosecution for assault would be a bit more serious.

I hope that will be televised. Sort of compensation for the loss? It would bring in a packet.

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

pinarello001 wrote:

Just because Clarkson and TG is a revenue maker does not make it right that (if) he assaulted someone and was given leniency. That's a double standard. If some lowly bod in the basement punched a colleague, he'd be out on his ear instantly.

But in the real world that isn't how it works. The Suarez example I gave is a good example. If I bit someone at work I'd be straight out but Suarez got away with it 3 times because of how valuable he is. Money talks. C'est la vie.

Think you over-estimate how money orientated those at the BBC are....