Jeremy Clarkson Suspended Over Fracas

Status
Not open for further replies.
That was my reaction.
 
Am I just being too literal? He said he doesn't think "you're" going to find anything out today, not "we're". Wonder if he already knows and has been told to keep quiet? Would it be possible for Jeremy to keep something like that quiet?
 
jackbauer24 said:
Am I just being too literal? He said he doesn't think "you're" going to find anything out today, not "we're". Wonder if he already knows and has been told to keep quiet? Would it be possible for Jeremy to keep something like that quiet?
Click to expand...

No. A news story like this requires a press conference at BBC HQ.
 
Here's an article from The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-r...n-who-can-replace-jeremy-clarkson-on-top-gear

And my rebuttal:

It's articles like this that explain why Jeremy hates The Guardian and its readers so much.
Let's see what reasoning the author has for proposing Sabine:

1) She knows how to drive very fast.
2) She is knowledgeable and boisterous.
3) She is a woman.
4) She is German.
5) The 2 preceding points will cause Top Gear fans to abandon the show immediately.
6) This would be a good thing.

Let's de-construct Mr. Heritage's points logically. We can do this as adults, in a point-by-point manner:

1) Ms. Schmitz's driving skills are not in doubt. She is a tremendously talented driver, and I am in awe of her abilities. However there are 2 shortcomings with this line of reasoning:

a) The existing presenters are not fast drivers. They are self-confessed average drivers in terms of speed or bravery.
b) The Russian, US, and Australian productions of Top Gear have all used racing drivers in their cast, but have yet to see a fraction of the original show's success.

2) Indeed, in her guest spots on the show, in which she has been a racing instructor, an award recipient, and an adversary in a competition, she has been excellent. I have always enjoyed her segments on the show. However, there is a difference between being a guest confident in one's abilities, and being the leading writer and primary focus of one of the largest TV shows in the world.

3) Her gender is irrelevant to her qualifications for presenting a television program. That said, I will acknowledge that a significant portion of the 'Top Gear Chemistry?' is derived from the traditionally-masculine banter and camaraderie between the hosts. I don't know if anyone could replace Jeremy at all and keep the Chemistry?, and I don't know if it's possible with a 2 male, 1 female demographic. It isn't sexist or derogatory to admit that.

4) Indeed she is. A nationalist may raise a fuss over the BBC being the British Broadcasting Corporation, but I think greater issues would be that Ms. Schmitz may not wish to live and work in the UK full time; she may not wish to host in English all the time; she may not want to commit to a heavy schedule; so on and so forth.

5) Oh boy.
Let's actually look at the quote: "...a combination of traits so alien to the majority of Top Gear viewers that the whole show would probably self-destruct within an hour of her taking the job." Mr. Heritage believes that of the (I've heard one estimate of) 750 million viewers of the show, a majority have never met a german person nor a woman. Is he being xenophoboic regarding Top Gear's international audience? Or is his intellectual capacity so limited that he is suggesting that one of the world's most popular television shows is watched primarily by racists and sexists? Not to mention the nonsensicalness of that statement when Ms. Schmitz has been on the show numerous times, as a German woman each time.

"the wave of weird-looking middle-aged men historically contained within the safe confines of its studio audience would be set loose on the public, which would be similarly unthinkable." is the quote Heritage uses near the beginning of his piece. Now, I will concede that the staff have admitted to moving attractive females to the front of the audience (when was the last time you saw Quazimodo in the Tonight Show audience?) and some suggest that tickets are given out on a 50/50 gender split, but the waitlist for tickets is suggested at 18 years, with a greater number of people than the population of Canada. Are they, including the women, all "weird-looking middle-aged men" and what do you do during the 157777 hours / 18 years that they're not in the studio audience?

6) Finally, the article closes with a firm statement that a collapse of the show would be the best outcome for everyone. Except, of course, for the staff on the show who become unemployed, possibly including the alleged victim of this incident; the BBC losing its top show, especially when its relevance and funding are more frequently being called into doubt; the millions (possibly billions, if you include unlicensed video sources) of fans who watch each series; and potential workplace assault victims, who will see a TV empire crumble over the fallout of a workplace issue.
In fact, the only people I can see a collapse of Top Gear benefitting are tabloid-sized toilet paper producers, whose sleazy authoring causes more and more sales in the same way this author probably imagines Top Gear increases viewership with endangered species jokes and fossil fuel sacrifice; and moral superioritists, who strive for a more free and just world, until someone has an opinion that doesn't fit within their bubble of acceptance. This author appears to fit into both camps, and that clearly impedes Mr. Heritage's judgement quite significantly.

I flicked through some of Mr. Heritage's other postings on The Guardian website, well-prepared to return seething. Seething with the rage caused only by the website of a ideologically-centred newspaper. But instead I found a variety of uninteresting articles, such as one in which he contemplates buying a low-end Nokia smartphone because he likes his iPhone too much and vinyl records are a thing again now ($5 says he still has the iPhone). Another says that he's concerned about how muscular his biceps will look when he's with his baby son. The last one I read included a (poor) joke about fistfighting anyone who disagrees with his list of favourite Marvel movies. Stuart Heritage is a man in the media business who is writing dispariging things about another man in the media business over minor differences in their politics, viewpoints, or life situations. And that's terrible.

tl;dr: Stuart Heritage is a fuckwit.
 
Jeremy Clarkson to be sacked by the BBC

Jeremy Clarkson is to be sacked as Top Gear presenter after a BBC investigation found he did assault a producer in a row over steak and chips

It is understood a report into the so-called ?fracas? at a North Yorkshire hotel, concluded that presenter spent 20 minutes verbally abusing producer Oisin Tymon, before launching a 30 second physical assault on him.
Click to expand...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/11493270/Jeremy-Clarkson-to-be-sacked-by-the-BBC.html
 
Last edited:
I think I speak for all of us when I say 'well, now what?'
 
I will be waiting for the official announcement before I stay crying. I am still holding out hope even though I know it to be slim.
 
The Telegraph is just the Waily Fail for those who use words of more than two syllables, right wing press which is both anti-Clarkson and anti-BBC. I wouldn't read anything into this.

They are just looking for clicks ahead of all the rest of the press. It's purely conjecture until there is an official statement from the BBC itself. If the DT is proven wrong then that will get buried in all the coverage of the real outcome.
 
MWF said:
The Telegraph is just the Waily Fail for those who use words of more than two syllables, right wing press which is both anti-Clarkson and anti-BBC. I wouldn't read anything into this.

They are just looking for clicks ahead of all the rest of the press. It's purely conjecture until there is an official statement from the BBC itself. If the DT is proven wrong then that will get buried in all the coverage of the real outcome.
Click to expand...

I can't remember the last time I ever hoped someone was right more than this now.
 
I'm not gonna accept anyone else to lead the show than Jeremy. No way. I really hope that James and Richard hand in their resignations aswell if Jeremy gets sacked so the trio can make Top Gear on a different channel.
 
My big hope is that all three guys and the bulk of the crew (filming, producing, etc.) all follow in unison to a competing network that will shower them with money and offer even freer reign to do whatever they please. The post-Top Gear show probably won't be as watched globally under a new network considering the behemoth of a global institution that is the BBC, but ITV/Netflix/Sky or whichever party that offers the trio a contract could still license the show to networks around the world.

But I'm quite saddened by all this. I've watched every episode and special since the current format debuted in 2002. It's truly an end of an era, quite possibly the greatest TV program ever, and likely never to be duplicated or exceeded again.
 
Sorry, but no. The press has already talked with the medical people who treated the producer, and apparently the report has verified this. There's no longer any choice in the matter: Clarkson has to be terminated from BBC employment ...

... at least for the present.

The only real question is what happens to Top Gear. I suspect the only real reason why Hammond and May refused to work without Clarkson was because of the indeterminate nature of the suspension, while the investigation was going on. Since Clarkson will in all likelihood want the consequences to be confined to himself, and himself alone, the following outcomes are possible:

1. With his fate finally known, Clarkson will urge Hammond, May and Wilman to negotiate to finish the current series of TG as well as continue with the non-cancelled TG Live events for 2015.

2. A Series 24 (sans Clarkson) may be unlikely, but if the BBC want to keep the brand alive they'll want to keep going with the same production company, or (failing that) to contract with another production unit. The point is the BBC knows that (a) Top Gear is a valuable commodity, (b) the other co-presenters haven't gotten into as much trouble and could be retained for the sake of continuity, and (c) they may be willing to take the gamble that Clarkson's input into TG may not be as mandatory as everyone seems to think.

3. A lawsuit from Clarkson against the BBC is also a distinct possibility. The report, in all likelihood, will not raise the question of whether Cohen overstepped his bounds with the suspension of the entire series as opposed to Clarkson alone; a lawsuit from Clarkson's production company will highlight this, if the BBC isn't inclined to settle first.

4. After a year or so, should the BBC find that their replacement programming (whether a JC-less TG or something else) is not competitive enough on Sunday nights, there will be pressure to bring back Clarkson. What works for this is the fact that (apart from Piers Morgan) there is no record of JC being abusive with other members of his production staff or non-provoking members of the public. There will certainly be people within the BBC (as well as other companies such as Hat Trick who value JC as a panelist) who will lobby to bring JC back on a friendly basis, and he still has his Times / Sun columns for a platform.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top