By: AlanR
- 11th March 2015 at 21:34Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well why make such an odious and simplistic comparison because by doing so you weaken your point.
If Clarkson was found to be a sexual abuser and serial paedophile are you seriously implying his job would be safe? Come on Alan!
.
I think you are missing the point I was endeavouring to make Charlie.
If it had been a junior member of the Top Gear production Team who had hit the producer (if that's what actually happened),
they would have no doubt been instantly dismissed. Possibly facing police action for assault.
Clarkson is (for reasons I don't understand) a money making machine for the BBC, so sacking him would be a last resort.
They need him, even though he is a repeat offender.
Savile was for many years an icon at the BBC, and raised a lot of money for charity. Which is one of the reasons the BBC and
others chose to ignore the allegations against him, which had been made for many years. He had power within the organization.
By: charliehunt
- 11th March 2015 at 21:55Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A repeat offender of what? Upsetting a handful of people with a few remarks. The present case is irrelevant because it has not yet been concluded so your remarks are purely hypothetical. And no one would have been instantly dismissed since it seems to have been a few days before it was reported. So it must have been really serious.
And I am just bewildered that anyone can form any linkage or connection between the Clarkson affair and Savile's crimes. You do however reveal a key difference which is that Savile earned no money for the BBC per se whereas Clarkson and the programme are the BBC's largest money spinner. Which seems to devalue your bizarre connection even further.
By: charliehunt
- 12th March 2015 at 06:06Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well that's not how it came across.
Exactly. For what? For verbally offending a handful of people after comments made in private and never broadcast were leaked publicly.
If the alleged assault took place why did it take a few days for the complaint to be lodged, if it was so serious?
Our public broadcaster will have to deal with both the significant loss of revenue from the loss of the show if the team is broken up and go elsewhere as well as claims of compensation for breach of contract from the cancellation of the remaining programmes.
By: Meddle
- 12th March 2015 at 10:52Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'm sure the BBC doesn't give a toss what you, personally, find entertaining...
...but the (worldwide) viewing figures for Top Gear speak for themselves.....don't they. ;)
To quote the late George Carlin, Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
...it would appear you watch the programme so perhaps not all is lost.
I've been trying to stay fitter as of January this year. As such I try and spend around 20 minutes a dayrunning on treadmill in the gym at work. Running on a treadmill is beyond boring, so I watch TV on the built in screen. I usually end up channel hopping, and last week my choices on any given day were Homes Under the Hammer, some dull sporting tournament, Loose Women, Come Dine with Me, some terrible '70s cop film, a re-run of Rising Damp, adverts, adverts, an ancient war film, adverts and Top Gear.
Top Gear won there, thanks to the channel Dave. I don't watch it in my free time! My issue with the BBC, and especially the TV Licence is that it is defended, usually, by people pointing out that 'at least you don't get adverts on the BBC'. I don't think that warrants making it a criminal offence to dodge the licence fee if you happen to watch any TV channel. I would rather have a system whereby I can opt out of receiving BBC services. The best stuff the BBC make is there for free on iPlayer anyway, and I can watch that when it suits me, not when the BBC happen to be broadcasting it. Their system is antiquated and they use the justice system to bully money, via a third party, out of a willing public. I've had unpleasant dealings with the Capita goons they send round to inspect your property, and I've spoken to a good number of people with similar experiences. Furthermore, the BBC is also supposedly neutral yet appears left wing in outlook, generally, and gets more right wing the further up in management you look. I would rather have TV with a few adverts and an obvious political bias than TV with supposed neutrality and no adverts that can land you a criminal record if you watch it without subserviently paying the fee (regardless of the monetary value). The fact that said fee ends up lining the pockets of such sacred cows as Clarkson and Jonathan Ross is the icing on the cake for me.
By: John Green
- 12th March 2015 at 11:09Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It seems to me that the Beeb have painted themselves into a corner, shot themselves in the foot, put the cart before the horse and shut the stable door after the horse has, or will, bolt.
For some, days of mixed fortunes never mind mixed metaphors.
By: snafu352
- 12th March 2015 at 13:35Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Shows how low the nation has sunk that such a non-event as this takes on such prominence.
Defence has been stripped and raped to the point of near death yet the public have no concern.
A tv presenter, who's not known for his best work (a couple of decent documentaries on world war two), is causing more angst and consternation in the UK than Russia invading a neighbour.
By: charliehunt
- 12th March 2015 at 14:21Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Quite so, and I am a supporter. But the phenomenum of celebrity of any status from A to Z status making headline news is nothing new, surely. Most of the media, lead inevitably by the tabloids, revel in it and the "public" lap it up, so who are we to criticise? The significance of celebrity status has evolved with the evolution of social media but the scandals, excitements, marriages, divorces, punch-ups and the rest, of figures in the public eye have always been manna from heaven for the media.
I don't think the nation has just sunk. The more serious matters of deep concern seldom create big waves. And rarely have.
By: David Burke
- 12th March 2015 at 22:25Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Charlie- the BBC own the rights to Top Gear . Jeremy Clarkson's three year contract to the BBC expires very shortly. Therefore it's perfectly possible for the BBC to let his contract expire . There is no compensation to pay for not showing the next few episodes as the BBC owns them .
By: Bob
- 12th March 2015 at 23:01Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There is no compensation to pay for not showing the next few episodes as the BBC owns them .
But for one point, other networks have paid for for 10 episodes - if the BBC decides to scrap the remaining three (even though the films are "in the can" and just need the 'live' studio links) then they could find them being forced to refund networks for the unshown episodes.
Posts: 4,996
By: AlanR - 11th March 2015 at 21:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think you are missing the point I was endeavouring to make Charlie.
If it had been a junior member of the Top Gear production Team who had hit the producer (if that's what actually happened),
they would have no doubt been instantly dismissed. Possibly facing police action for assault.
Clarkson is (for reasons I don't understand) a money making machine for the BBC, so sacking him would be a last resort.
They need him, even though he is a repeat offender.
Savile was for many years an icon at the BBC, and raised a lot of money for charity. Which is one of the reasons the BBC and
others chose to ignore the allegations against him, which had been made for many years. He had power within the organization.
Posts: 11,141
By: charliehunt - 11th March 2015 at 21:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A repeat offender of what? Upsetting a handful of people with a few remarks. The present case is irrelevant because it has not yet been concluded so your remarks are purely hypothetical. And no one would have been instantly dismissed since it seems to have been a few days before it was reported. So it must have been really serious.
And I am just bewildered that anyone can form any linkage or connection between the Clarkson affair and Savile's crimes. You do however reveal a key difference which is that Savile earned no money for the BBC per se whereas Clarkson and the programme are the BBC's largest money spinner. Which seems to devalue your bizarre connection even further.
Posts: 4,996
By: AlanR - 11th March 2015 at 22:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Which is why I wasn't.
He is also guilty of more than making a few remarks. On the last occasion he was given a final warning.
Posts: 11,141
By: charliehunt - 12th March 2015 at 06:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well that's not how it came across.
Exactly. For what? For verbally offending a handful of people after comments made in private and never broadcast were leaked publicly.
If the alleged assault took place why did it take a few days for the complaint to be lodged, if it was so serious?
Our public broadcaster will have to deal with both the significant loss of revenue from the loss of the show if the team is broken up and go elsewhere as well as claims of compensation for breach of contract from the cancellation of the remaining programmes.
Posts: 1,613
By: Meddle - 12th March 2015 at 10:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
To quote the late George Carlin, Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
I've been trying to stay fitter as of January this year. As such I try and spend around 20 minutes a dayrunning on treadmill in the gym at work. Running on a treadmill is beyond boring, so I watch TV on the built in screen. I usually end up channel hopping, and last week my choices on any given day were Homes Under the Hammer, some dull sporting tournament, Loose Women, Come Dine with Me, some terrible '70s cop film, a re-run of Rising Damp, adverts, adverts, an ancient war film, adverts and Top Gear.
Top Gear won there, thanks to the channel Dave. I don't watch it in my free time! My issue with the BBC, and especially the TV Licence is that it is defended, usually, by people pointing out that 'at least you don't get adverts on the BBC'. I don't think that warrants making it a criminal offence to dodge the licence fee if you happen to watch any TV channel. I would rather have a system whereby I can opt out of receiving BBC services. The best stuff the BBC make is there for free on iPlayer anyway, and I can watch that when it suits me, not when the BBC happen to be broadcasting it. Their system is antiquated and they use the justice system to bully money, via a third party, out of a willing public. I've had unpleasant dealings with the Capita goons they send round to inspect your property, and I've spoken to a good number of people with similar experiences. Furthermore, the BBC is also supposedly neutral yet appears left wing in outlook, generally, and gets more right wing the further up in management you look. I would rather have TV with a few adverts and an obvious political bias than TV with supposed neutrality and no adverts that can land you a criminal record if you watch it without subserviently paying the fee (regardless of the monetary value). The fact that said fee ends up lining the pockets of such sacred cows as Clarkson and Jonathan Ross is the icing on the cake for me.
Posts: 3,566
By: Bob - 12th March 2015 at 11:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Phew, I thought you were going to admit to watching Jeremy Kyle...
Enjoy the free iPlayer while you can - the Beeb are after including that in the TV Licence...
Jonathon Woss is now on ITV in case you hadn't noticed...
Bring Back Clarkson petition now at 697,898 supporters...
Posts: 6,535
By: John Green - 12th March 2015 at 11:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It seems to me that the Beeb have painted themselves into a corner, shot themselves in the foot, put the cart before the horse and shut the stable door after the horse has, or will, bolt.
For some, days of mixed fortunes never mind mixed metaphors.
Posts: 1,613
By: Meddle - 12th March 2015 at 12:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I hadn't noticed.
Posts: 4,996
By: AlanR - 12th March 2015 at 13:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Where's the petition to get shot of him ?
Posts: 2,248
By: snafu352 - 12th March 2015 at 13:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Shows how low the nation has sunk that such a non-event as this takes on such prominence.
Defence has been stripped and raped to the point of near death yet the public have no concern.
A tv presenter, who's not known for his best work (a couple of decent documentaries on world war two), is causing more angst and consternation in the UK than Russia invading a neighbour.
There are many things wrong in this world.
Posts: 11,141
By: charliehunt - 12th March 2015 at 14:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Quite so, and I am a supporter. But the phenomenum of celebrity of any status from A to Z status making headline news is nothing new, surely. Most of the media, lead inevitably by the tabloids, revel in it and the "public" lap it up, so who are we to criticise? The significance of celebrity status has evolved with the evolution of social media but the scandals, excitements, marriages, divorces, punch-ups and the rest, of figures in the public eye have always been manna from heaven for the media.
I don't think the nation has just sunk. The more serious matters of deep concern seldom create big waves. And rarely have.
Posts: 2,248
By: snafu352 - 12th March 2015 at 14:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
On reflection you are probably correct Charlie. Still sad.
Posts: 11,141
By: charliehunt - 12th March 2015 at 14:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
With your last two words I cannot disagree.
Posts: 3,566
By: Bob - 12th March 2015 at 14:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Nothing stopping you creating it ;)
Posts: 8,980
By: TonyT - 12th March 2015 at 21:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There is one, it has 5000 signatures, nothing compared to the 750000 Clarkson has though...
Stop press
Clarkson rushed to hospital suffering RSI
http://newsthump.com/2015/03/12/jeremy-clarksons-wife-hospitalised-with-rsi-after-signing-petition-650000-times/
Posts: 8,847
By: Newforest - 12th March 2015 at 21:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Stupendous, go to the top of the class!!
Posts: 3,566
By: Bob - 12th March 2015 at 21:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Get it right....
"the wife of Jeremy Clarkson has been rushed to hospital"
:D
Posts: 11,141
By: charliehunt - 12th March 2015 at 21:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That would be quite funny but for the fact that they are separated and getting divorced........
Posts: 9,780
By: David Burke - 12th March 2015 at 22:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Charlie- the BBC own the rights to Top Gear . Jeremy Clarkson's three year contract to the BBC expires very shortly. Therefore it's perfectly possible for the BBC to let his contract expire . There is no compensation to pay for not showing the next few episodes as the BBC owns them .
Posts: 3,566
By: Bob - 12th March 2015 at 23:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
But for one point, other networks have paid for for 10 episodes - if the BBC decides to scrap the remaining three (even though the films are "in the can" and just need the 'live' studio links) then they could find them being forced to refund networks for the unshown episodes.