Ex-BBC boss admits firing Clarkson was a dumb mistake.

In even more news : the BBC is run by PC obsessed, pennypushing burocrats whithout a clue.

I hope TGT becomes the biggest hit ever.
 
Where does he say it's a mistake? That's Jalopnik being idiots.

Not to get into all of this again but he punched a co-worker. You do that, you get fired. The quote was just saying BBC couldn't really afford to lose him, but they had no choice.
 
Unsurprisingly (since this guy jumped from one lefty sinking ship in the form of the BBC to another in the form of the New York Times) this guy once again misses the forest for the trees. Firing Clarkson had to happen after he punched Tyson - that wasn't the problem. You punch a co-worker without prior consent, I'm sorry, you're fired.

No, the problem was the drawn-out, stupid, rancor-filled, SJW-bullshit process they went through before firing Clarkson and the aftermath thereof. An even bigger problem was the BBC's deletion of catering/food services from their most profitable (by far!) production so that they wouldn't have to cut shows nobody wanted to watch that caused the situation in the first place!
 
Spectre said:
No, the problem was the drawn-out, stupid, rancor-filled, SJW-bullshit process they went through before firing Clarkson and the aftermath thereof.
Click to expand...
I'm sure just side-lining him (and they could call it 'firing' if it appeases more) till the end of that series, taking TGUK off-air for a year or so, then signing him back on would have been a better option for the BBC. But being overly-PC and with 'friends' like Danny Cohen in power at the time, the BBC tossed out the bath, the water, the baby and the goose that was laying golden eggs.
 
Was it a mistake? In the sense of having ethics and taking responsibility for employee's actions, no. Losing your most profitable employee sucks. Move on. Don't look at it from the money perspective. that's stupid.
 
I predicted heads would roll over it, and even I was surprised by how many it turned out to be.

Is there anybody left at the bbc that was involved from that time?

But Clarkson and company are presumed to have come out still on top. We will soon know one way or the other.
 
I don't think there was any way BBC was gong to come out of this one without looking bad. Keeping Clarkson on would have looked like they supported bullying in the workplace, firing him meant losing one of their most profitable shows. To me it looks like they chose the lesser of two evils.

As for other issues, who knows what goes on behind the scenes at the BBC
 
Their mistake was thinking they could just replace the trio and carry on like normal.

I'm not sure if that was stupidity or pure arrogance. I lean toward the latter.
 
Ex-BBC boss admits firing Clarkson was a dumb mistake.

ladyblue said:
I don't think there was any way BBC was gong to come out of this one without looking bad. Keeping Clarkson on would have looked like they supported bullying in the workplace, firing him meant losing one of their most profitable shows. To me it looks like they chose the lesser of two evils.
Click to expand...

The way they did it meant that they got *both* evils. Done correctly, they could have finished out the series/season. They should have instantly terminated him as a presenter (which most people would have understood), finished out the series with him off-set as a writer then ended that association and spent the offseason trying to figure out what to do next with most of the pressure off. Instead they made a huge hash of it, dragged it out for literally months, pissed off a lot of people in ways that won't be easily forgotten and then their desperation made them reach for the serial sexual offender Chris Evans as a 'replacement' host to get something out the door ahead of the original crew that had now defected to Amazon.
 
Last edited:
While I agree Chris Evans was a bad choice, lets be careful about what labels we apply to him.

Effectively Clarkson was terminated as a presenter the moment it happened. They did finish off the season with him offset albeit with one extra long episode. I'm not sure what the issue was, if they needed to go to through all the rough footage before it was released or what.

Could things have been handled better? Sure, the things that happened should not have been made public.

I still stand by what I said, there was no way the BBC could come out of this looking good. Even if it had been handled differently, they would still have pissed off a lot of people simply by firing Clarkson.

Personally, I think it would have been better to let the current version of TG die and leave it to a new team to reinvent it. It was a mistake to try and cast a new Clarkson, Hammond and May to replace the originals...
 
You do realize that Chris Evans has publicly admitted to repeatedly exposing his genitals to all and sundry in office meetings, right? He's *admitted* doing this and others have confirmed it.
 
Yes, I am aware of him admitting that he has exposed himself. But, until a court of law labels him a sex offender and he is put on the sex offenders register or whatever they have in the UK I think it is wrong to call him a sex offender.
 
ladyblue said:
Yes, I am aware of him admitting that he has exposed himself. But, until a court of law labels him a sex offender and he is put on the sex offenders register or whatever they have in the UK I think it is wrong to call him a sex offender.
Click to expand...

Was it also wrong to call Jimmy Savile a sex offender then?
 
ladyblue said:
Yes, I am aware of him admitting that he has exposed himself. But, until a court of law labels him a sex offender and he is put on the sex offenders register or whatever they have in the UK I think it is wrong to call him a sex offender.
Click to expand...

Call him a pervert then.
 
There is a huge difference between What Jimmy Savile did and what Chris Evans did. Jimmy Savile actually did abuse children, were he alive he'd be in prison just like Rolf Harris is now. Chris Evans simply pulled out his genitals for all to see during meetings.

Unless I'm mistaken, a sex offender is someone who has actually assaulted someone sexually.

From what I understand, Chris Evans was investigated and there was insufficient evidence to suggest he sexually assaulted someone. He is merely a scumbag.

To be honest, my issue with calling him a serial sex offender is that it is a label that has a real meaning.

Can we perhaps agree to disagree on this?
 
ladyblue said:
Unless I'm mistaken, a sex offender is someone who has actually assaulted someone sexually.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily, what he did (admitted doing so) is enough to get to court - at least in my country; and I don't think UK or US would show more tolerance to that. If he wasn't treated for a sexual offense, it'd be hooliganism/rioting/troublemaking or whatever it is called, I can't find a suitable translation to have a quite close meaning (this is more common for people exposing themselves publically if they don't attack, either physically or verbally, others).
 
Let's be real here what Chris Harris is known for is basically several levels underneath a naked man running on the field during a football match except that the Football match is more annoying because that guy is interrupting a sporting event. Smearing the BBC as a pedophile protection group isn't going to bring Jeremy Clarkson back to Top Gear. The BBC isn't a hive mind it's a barely coherent bureaucracy that occasionally produces great television. Andy Wilman has said it repeatedly, some people at the BBC were great and others were a pain in the ass but everyone at Top Gear loved the BBC and they didn't like leaving which is probably why James May and the other 2 will continue to appear on the BBC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top