Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Banned
Original Poster
#1 Old 10th Mar 2015 at 10:32 PM Last edited by Aaron4Ever : 29th Mar 2015 at 12:07 PM.
Default Jeremy Clarkson Sacked by BBC
Top Gear have landed themselves in hot water again, and now Clarkson himself has been suspended over racist slurs. A source (the BBC) quotes rather self-depreciationly,
Quote:
Top Gear host Jeremy Clarkson has been suspended by the BBC "following a fracas" with a producer.

The corporation said the 54-year-old presenter had been suspended "pending an investigation".

"No one else has been suspended. Top Gear will not be broadcast this Sunday," it said.

Clarkson was given what he called his "final warning" last May after claims he used a racist word while filming the popular BBC motoring show.

At the time, he said the BBC had told him he would be sacked if he made "one more offensive remark, anywhere, at any time".

The BBC gave no further details on the current incident involving Clarkson, and said it would not be making any further statements at this time.

Call me a loyalist, you may, but if Clarkson goes, so do the good ratings. Without him, Top Gear would fail because there would be quite a lack of humour, and people would stop watching it.

But some people, including the Tierra Del Fuego residents are glad to see this happen. So should Jeremy Clarkson be fired because he punched someone over a lack of food?
Advertisement
Top Secret Researcher
#2 Old 11th Mar 2015 at 2:00 AM
I have no opinion of Clarkson pro or con, so I would not be properly called "Anti-Clarkson". However I'm anti- racial slurs, and especially on the air.

I also support the right of employers to set and enforce reasonable standards as to how their employees represent the company in public. That is, I support it provided that they also respect the worker's rights in the matter -- such as by providing notice of their expectations, which in this case they appear to have done.
Theorist
#3 Old 11th Mar 2015 at 10:37 AM
He's trying to pull hipster racist but it's not as loud as his hair receding into a patchy owl mohawk.

He has snooki entertainment value, that doesn't mean they can't find someone better if they wanted to.
Test Subject
#4 Old 11th Mar 2015 at 11:22 AM
The story says he had an argument with a producer about having no food laid on after a long day of filming. The truth of what actually happens usually comes out a month or so after the tabloids have hyped it all up.

I actually enjoy watching top gear but wouldn't miss it that much,I find the fact that over the years its less about the cars and more about three old gits having fun means its more appealing to me.(myself on my way to being an old git as well)
Née whiterider
retired moderator
#5 Old 11th Mar 2015 at 2:41 PM
He was actually suspended for punching a producer, the "eenie meenie miney mo, catch a n***** by the toe" thing was a previous offense.

But hey, he's funny right?!?!

(As it happens, no he's not)

What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact.
Instructor
#6 Old 11th Mar 2015 at 6:01 PM
I don't watch Top Gear, but I've seen him on other stuff and in interviews, etc. and he's always rubbed me the wrong way. Vulgar for the sake of being vulgar, brutish, and arrogant. So I'm not at all surprised by all these stories about how much of a bully he is off-camera. BBC made the right call.
Theorist
#7 Old 12th Mar 2015 at 5:06 AM
This is so important and interesting. How will this impact the negotiations with Iran over their nuclear armament program? Let's take a moment out of celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Selma civil rights march to pay attention to this very thingish thing. Has Clarkson decided how this will impact his campaign to become the American President? What does this mean for my testicles? Will they always be hairy, or will I be forced by circumstances to shave? These are the things people want to know about these days. Has someone asked Paris Hilton for her opinion yet?
The Great AntiJen
retired moderator
#8 Old 12th Mar 2015 at 1:01 PM
That man's an arse.

I no longer come over to MTS very often but if you would like to ask me a question then you can find me on tumblr or my own site tflc. TFLC has an archive of all my CC downloads.
I'm here on tumblr and my site, tflc
Banned
Original Poster
#9 Old 12th Mar 2015 at 4:18 PM
I'm split currently. I like watching the show, and don't want to lose it over a racist incident again, but if Clarkson goes, it'll get all boring and be cancelled. So for now, Red Arrows documentary. Again.
Top Secret Researcher
#10 Old 12th Mar 2015 at 8:16 PM
How terrible that a violent man's discrimination against minorities is impacting your life negatively by getting a show cancelled.
Theorist
#11 Old 12th Mar 2015 at 9:53 PM
Quote: Originally posted by hugbug993
How terrible that a violent man's discrimination against minorities is impacting your life negatively by getting a show cancelled.

How terrible that a rumor is enough to smugly condescend to your fellow men and women in this world. You must be so very proud of yourself. In these matters of importance, you alone may say "I piled upon the vitriol, based on my lack of real insight into this matter I have no real knowledge of. When it comes to something other people may cherish, I relish in destroying these things."

Now, perhaps we might (again) turn the Debate Room over to things that really matter, where calling people asses actually means something, instead of an endless expression of "I do not get the jokes of the jester, hang him."
Top Secret Researcher
#12 Old 12th Mar 2015 at 10:44 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Mistermook
You must be so very proud of yourself.


As proud as you must be for your post. For clearly, you alone decide how people may act. Hail Mistermook's behavior rules, where a random snark on the internet is attacked, but publishing how-to guides on raping children is perfectly fine!


Seriously, OP, you hear a guy hit a producer and your first concern is that your show will get boring if the guy leaves? What is this debate even about? Whether a guy should be excused for violence and racism because a show might get cancelled over it?
Theorist
#13 Old 12th Mar 2015 at 11:15 PM
Quote: Originally posted by hugbug993
As proud as you must be for your post. For clearly, you alone decide how people may act. Hail Mistermook's behavior rules, where a random snark on the internet is attacked, but publishing how-to guides on raping children is perfectly fine!


Sorry, your feelings being hurt isn't censorship. Try again.
Née whiterider
retired moderator
#14 Old 12th Mar 2015 at 11:20 PM
Calm the fuck down you two, hyperbole is fun but unhelpful.

What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact.
Field Researcher
#15 Old 13th Mar 2015 at 7:06 AM
He's a racist d*ckhead but I agree, you get rid of Jezza = your ratings are gunna drop, he is quite entertaining.
Banned
Original Poster
#16 Old 13th Mar 2015 at 9:13 AM
Right, let's actually stop a war breaking out.
QUESTION: Should Clarkson be fired or not?
Theorist
#17 Old 13th Mar 2015 at 4:25 PM
I've never seen the show myself, just a few Youtube clips from it, but on the automotive forum I'm on, the guys there love him and and aren't too happy about it.

As for whether he should be fired, if he really punched a producer due to lack of food, then he rightfully deserves to be fired.
If the network is more interested in making money off of ratings than doing what is right, then they probably shouldn't fire him.

Resident wet blanket.
Top Secret Researcher
#18 Old 13th Mar 2015 at 11:03 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Aaron4Ever
QUESTION: Should Clarkson be fired or not?

I'd say yes, on either of these two grounds, if their factual bases are correct:
  1. He committed an act of workplace violence, and there's a company policy or a law that allows firing for that; or
  2. He was on some kind of probation or performance plan (e.g. the warning he got in May) and he violated its terms.
If the reason for firing is one of those, and the factual basis is correct, then factoring his ratings into the decision would be inappropriate. That is, they oughtn't to run, and may not even be allowed to run, a workplace in which highly productive workers are allowed to hit other workers, while medium-productive workers who hit other workers are fired for it. In my jurisdiction at least, you have to fire for at least one entirely-valid reason, not for a mix of partial reasons.
Inventor
#19 Old 26th Mar 2015 at 2:53 PM
They say that little girls grow up to be women and little boys grow up to be big little boys. I am certainly a case in point - serious grown-ups don't play video games, they scoff at the people who do - but even I grew tired of Top Gear. I loved it for quite a while but then it kept repeating itself: super cars and more super cars and almost nothing else. As for the man himself: he (still) loves Maggie Thatcher so it's only natural that he hates and/or despises everybody except his fellow thatcherites.

BTW, he was sacked. He won't have to beg on the streets but Top Gear is in trouble. If you want to make (or lose) some money you should go to your friendly bookie and bet on who his successor will be.
Banned
Original Poster
#20 Old 26th Mar 2015 at 10:11 PM
Well tis be a dark time. The BBC will start losing money, Clarkson will be subject to a pinball machine-like bidding war, and of course, Argentina will be very happy. Where do we go now? I don't know if I'll ever like Top Gear again.
dodgy builder
#21 Old 26th Mar 2015 at 11:59 PM
As it's been said TopGear is in trouble, but an employer shouldn't take everything an employee throughs at them. The limit has to be somewhere. Perhaps Clarkson needs a break? In his place I would take a break and perhaps be back later. It might just be too late though, considering they have actually fired him.

He's entertaining in my eyes, I like his sense of humour, but then I don't really take it that seriously. He probably just likes to provoke people, and that can be good entertainment. Top Gear might end up being ditched, but BBC should probably just use the time to come up with a different consept, we all need some change from time to time.
The Great AntiJen
retired moderator
#22 Old 27th Mar 2015 at 1:30 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Aaron4Ever
The BBC will start losing money.

The BBC can't loose money because it's not a business. It's a public service.

I no longer come over to MTS very often but if you would like to ask me a question then you can find me on tumblr or my own site tflc. TFLC has an archive of all my CC downloads.
I'm here on tumblr and my site, tflc
Theorist
#23 Old 27th Mar 2015 at 3:23 AM Last edited by Mistermook : 27th Mar 2015 at 4:10 AM.
Quote: Originally posted by maxon
The BBC can't loose money because it's not a business. It's a public service.


The BBC might be a nationalized service, but it's still run as a business. Any government is actually a business even as much as it plays by distinctly different rules regarding economics than other businesses and holds non-economic powers distinct from businesses. There is a reason that nations have budgets and within those budgets programs, like the BBC, have allocations within those budgets.

Losing Top Gear means approximately a £50-100 million shortfall, depending on the expected revenue. That's essentially paying for whole swaths of non-television BBC things, like its orchestra subsidies. Now, it's true that Britain could "merely" raise its television license fee to recover the lost revenue, but I suspect that's not as easy as saying "let's raise this tax higher." I mean, it's a ~2£ increase for every man, woman, and child in the whole country... because someone couldn't be arsed to make sure there was food available after a shoot, or someone couldn't figure out how to calm down a single grumpy old man. They're already cutting budgets on expensive shows like Dr Who, so I suspect there's just more cuts all around in the future for everything because the "not a business" still has to pay salaries, production costs, rents, consumables, and everything else just like you and I do when we decide to drive around supercars and make asses of ourselves on television.

Or are you suggesting that since they're the government they just enslave their production crews by fiat and force labor? Seriously, finances work more or less the same when you're in the government sector as they do in the private. You just get paid a shitload less to manage the government's money than you do some fatcat corporation's tax shelters.

PS I hate the planet for making me do even nominal research into all of this. This should not be a thing.
The Great AntiJen
retired moderator
#24 Old 27th Mar 2015 at 1:07 PM Last edited by maxon : 27th Mar 2015 at 1:43 PM.
That's not what I was really saying - I was pointing out that it was not there to make a profit. You're right about it's overseas (and DVD) sales but that's not my point.

But a bit more info to put it into perspective. According to the BBC Annual Financial Report for last year, BBC Worldwide (to which TG contributes its profit - remember it makes no commercial profit from showing at home) brings in around 1/4 of the total BBC income. TG is only one of the assets which contributes to that income (and it's not the largest).

As for the loss of revenue, assuming the programme is stopped (no indication that is going to happen btw), yes, it's a serious loss of revenue (also remember revenue is not profit though TG is also very profitable) but you need to remember that Top Gear is only one of several VERY successful BBC brands which draw in similar amounts (and more in one case) of money - been watching David Attenborough or BBC Wildlife or Sherlock Holmes (with Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman) or Dr Who lately? It's not like the BBC is a one trick pony. TG is without doubt currently very popular but there are signs at home of audience fatigue with the format and eventually it's going to run it's natural course.

I no longer come over to MTS very often but if you would like to ask me a question then you can find me on tumblr or my own site tflc. TFLC has an archive of all my CC downloads.
I'm here on tumblr and my site, tflc
Theorist
#25 Old 27th Mar 2015 at 6:47 PM
Quote: Originally posted by maxon
That's not what I was really saying - I was pointing out that it was not there to make a profit. You're right about it's overseas (and DVD) sales but that's not my point.


I think you're vastly overstating the value of other programs versus Top Gear. Top Gear accounted for something like 10% of all profit revenue for the BBC Worldwide as recently as a few years ago, and probably a lot more of the profit than other programs considering it's more or less a talk show with three hosts instead of a scripted television program with a full cast. When you've got show leaders for Dr Who already having to publicly defend their budgets, and the UK as a whole isn't doing particularly well thanks to the albatross of lackluster enlightenment that is the ECB its attached to, killing it off is a big deal. The BBC won't go anywhere, but an awful lot of its programming and programs have suddenly gotten a lot more chancy. To put in terms of personal finance, the BBC has been living off of a regular 10% surplus over its normal budget for nearly a decade. Suddenly cashing that out doesn't mean "the BBC doesn't have enough to live on" but it will mean the BBC won't have as much money for "nice things." Risky shows with higher budgets and low potential overseas sales? No, you can't do that anymore, anymore than it's time to start new grants for music education programs that aren't sustained by some outside grant. Some other shows with less profit potential riding on the Top Gear money might be cancelled, because they were always luxury programs. It's not catastrophic for the BBC in the way that suddenly being forced to cancel something like "height of popularity American Idol" might be for an American network's schedule, but it's still an enormous demonstration of bad management.

That's not because Clarkson isn't bad, or because I'm apologizing for him. It's just financial reality - BBC had a golden goose and they've suddenly slaughtered it because of Food Service rules requirements, for instance. Basically management had a unique item that they've treated like a mundane one, rather than acknowledging uniqueness and taking steps to protect their investment in the first place. Half of the "Clarkson gaffes" I've read about in the last week or so seem like they're clearly less about Clarkson being a dick and entirely more about Clarkson being a dick and management not doing everything within their power to manage Clarkson's public persona properly. You might not have been able to do anything about him having altercations on airplanes, for instance, but you surely could have vetted scripts, allocated post production to blur licence plates, edited editorializing racial slurs, etc. Handling issues "in house" and generous application of the magic wand of fines, rehab centers and charity causes? Half the people on American television are probably little more than cocaine addicts and drunks, but with proper management they're less asshole and more "OMG! Robert Downey Jr is inspirational because he overcomes his terrible personality!!!"

And Clarkson's older... Once Top Gear was dropping off the charts and not making money any longer, you could have tossed him out without a pension and no one'd be the wiser because no one would be watching. Or his personal habits could drop him dead next month and you could replace him with it being a "national tragedy" and suitables, no problems. But this? I think they've taken an expensive brand and shit on it for personality conflicts that should have never been an issue in the first place with better handling. It's just...weird. I think I'd think very hard if I were managing the BBC about a lot more firings than just Clarkson over this, Clarkson's no gem but other people were clearly not doing their jobs around him properly that it all came to this.
 
Page 1 of 2
Back to top