should the BBC have fired Jeremy Clarkson?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Princhester

I’m really not sure this is right. From what I’ve read the three respect each others’ role and are colleagues and have a certain camaraderie but I thought I’d heard May quoted as saying they weren’t really friends and don’t see each other outside filming.
G

Hmm. Looks like you’re right. Though I have the sense he’s being a bit facetious.

[Machine_Elf]

@drewder

No because the other employees aren’t making everybody rich.

OK, imagine an alternate universe in which Clarkson didn’t get fired. A little while later, some low-rent employee punches someone because he figures if Clarkson can get away with it, so can he. He’s wrong; he’s not as profitable as Clarkson, so he gets fired. His comatose victim recovers, but has some permanent brain damage, and sues BBC for maintaining a work environment that fosters physical violence. Evidence? There was a previous incident in which an employee (Clarkson) punched someone and didn’t get fired.

Do you think the court wouldn’t award massive damages to the victim of the low-rent employee in such a case?

[Northern_Piper]

@Princhester

“In a Koenigsegg”

[epbrown01]

@Mk_VII

Number One Rule is ‘look after the talent. If it wants steak and chips at two in the morning you make sure it gets steak and chips at two in the morning’.

And if the talent wants an underage boy and/or girl to sleep with? A snuff film to watch? **You ** in his room in a French maid outfit with a riding crop? You can’t say you draw the line at illegal activities since assault is illegal and hey, you’re okay with that…

[Atomic_Alex]

@Sage_Rat

No idea. It sounds like he was reasonably drunk when the fight took place, so it could be that he has an issue there. I feel like this may also have been around the same time that Clarkson was duking it out with his wife, due to his infidelity, so it’s plausible that he was in a poor temper generally, around that time. (Not that getting caught cheating on your wife is a reasonable excuse for punching someone.)

Yes that’s true, there may be a lot of background to the incident we aren’t aware of.

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Yes. His persona on the show isn’t an act. It’s basically who he is. There’s a reason James May called Clarkson a knob in public after the punching incident. And May is one of his best friends.

I don’t know, I think he got more extreme over the years, and actually as I mentioned above when he ‘plays it straight’ he can can interesting to listen to even though you may not necessarily be in agreement with him. Its a pity we don’t see a little more of that side of him, though I suppose he feels he has an image he has to live up to.

I do think that quote by May about him being a knob is tongue-in-cheek, the article linked to be ‘Really Not All That Bright’ certainly is.

[Princhester]

@epbrown01

And if the talent wants an underage boy and/or girl to sleep with? A snuff film to watch? **You ** in his room in a French maid outfit with a riding crop? You can’t say you draw the line at illegal activities since assault is illegal and hey, you’re okay with that…

Game, set and match to Mr epbrown01.

[Northern_Piper]

@Mk_VII

They should have had the kitchen on permanent standby, and he wouldn’t have had to punch out anyone.

@epbrown01

And if the talent wants an underage boy and/or girl to sleep with? A snuff film to watch? **You ** in his room in a French maid outfit with a riding crop? You can’t say you draw the line at illegal activities since assault is illegal and hey, you’re okay with that…

@Princhester

Game, set and match to Mr epbrown01.

How is paying to keep the kitchen open to keep Mr Clarkson happy advocating illegal activities?

[Gyrate]

It’s not. Suggesting that it’s the BBC’s fault for not catering [sic] to his every whim and therefore somehow driving him to commit assault, however, is. As is suggesting that the BBC should have ignored the assault afterwards.

The BBC provided the contractually agreed meal facilities, and offered whatever alternative was available after Clarkson chose to piss off to the pub instead. Clarkson is a grown man who is responsible for his own actions. This “they should have done whatever he asked for, whatever the cost, because he is an Important Person” thing is bullshit.

[jz78817]

@Gyrate

It’s not. Suggesting that it’s the BBC’s fault for not catering [sic] to his every whim and therefore somehow driving him to commit assault, however, is. As is suggesting that the BBC should have ignored the assault afterwards.

The BBC provided the contractually agreed meal facilities, and offered whatever alternative was available after Clarkson chose to piss off to the pub instead. Clarkson is a grown man who is responsible for his own actions. This “they should have done whatever he asked for, whatever the cost, because he is an Important Person” thing is bullshit.

Rules for thee, but not for me.

[Northern_Piper]

It may be bullshit, but I don’t see how it’s criminal, which is what epbrown01 was suggesting in reply to Mark VII putting the idea of an open kitchen in the discussion.

[epbrown01]

@Northern_Piper

It may be bullshit, but I don’t see how it’s criminal, which is what epbrown01 was suggesting in reply to Mark VII putting the idea of an open kitchen in the discussion.

The idea I was discussing was the above poster’s “anything for the talent” mandate, that being why I quoted it in my post, and in which he did not qualify anything with the word legal. And given the thread starter’s argument that Clarkson should not have been fired for one illegal act(assault), it’s consistent to include others.

I don’t know about you, but I got the strong impression that, had the drunken Clarkson demanded the producer give him a blowjob, several posters in this thread think the producer should have obliged, and indeed would find it fiscally irresponsible to not do so on behalf of the BBC and for the glory of England.

[Terry_Kennedy]

A number of points, some which have already been raised and some which I don’t think I’ve seen in this thread yet:

• Clarkson’s contract was not renewed. He wasn’t fired. Possibly a nitpick as this was close to the end of the season anyway (almost all of the field segments had been taped already, leaving only 3 “week of transmission” studio segments).

• Clarkson is the one who reported the incident to the BBC after apologizing to the Top Gear crew. The person he assaulted may have reported it earlier, but if so, it wasn’t known to upper management at the time they heard from Clarkson.

• A lot of what went on in Top Gear was scripted. That meant that it was gone over by the 3 presenters, Andy Wilman, and whoever else was involved in writing / producing the segment. Therefore, most of the offensive stuff was approved at the show management (not BBC management) level. That doesn’t excuse it, just provides some context. The day the episode with the comments about the Mexican Ambassador aired, I compared it to the scene in “V for Vendetta” where Gordon says he’ll just get a talking to and maybe a few days off air for the skit parodying Chancellor Sutler, and instead he vanishes into one of “Creedy’s black bags”.

• Not all of the complaints to the BBC or Ofcom (sort of like the US FCC) were upheld. Some of the antics were described as obviously satire or parody.

• There was a long history of bad blood between Clarkson and Danny Cohen (Director of BBC Television at the time). 6 months after Clarkson was gone, Cohen was too (to “pursue new challenges”).

• Despite various members of the trio saying they’re not friends off the set, it says something that Hammond, May, Wilman and a sizable number of other behind-the-scenes people left after Clarkson’s contract was not renewed. This was before the Amazon deal - they could have stayed at the BBC and been paid reasonably large sums of money to do something - or nothing. Instead, they left as well.

• Clarkson may or may not be the character he portrays on Top Gear / The Grand Tour. Watch The Victoria Cross: For Valour or any of his other non-car programs.

• Looking at this in hindsight, the BBC could have suspended him for 2 years and given Top Gear a rest, bringing the show back after time had passed, Clarkson apologized and settled the lawsuit and performed whatever sincere acts of contrition were felt to be necessary. Instead the BBC “rushed” (inasmuch as anything they do takes forever) to get a new series with new hosts on air, while trying to instantly re-create the interplay between Clarkson, Hammond, and May with an entirely new cast. That cast, by the way, being what the BBC apparently envisioned as “balanced”.

• By moving to Amazon, the trio are apparently trying to cram in everything they could never get away with on the BBC into their first season. I know Amazon said the show would have complete autonomy, but “the boys” seem to need at least some rules or they just become offensive parodies of themselves.

• Having said all that, Top Gear was in its declining years. As Wilman said, “we were a lot closer to the end than the beginning”. The fact that it was scripted was becoming too obvious to everyone, gags were being re-used, etc. It’s too bad that the move to Amazon apparently hasn’t re-invigorated them. Instead we’re getting “more of the same” with just enough changed to keep the lawyers happy (“The News” -> “Conversation Street”, “The Stig” -> “The American”, etc.) and coarser humor.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Clarkson

Slightly off-topic, but the one thing they didn’t revive for TGT is (IMHO, of course) the best part of the show by far: the crap used car challenges. Clarkson powersliding things around the track and complaining about how hard it is to turn off the traction control is all well and good, of course, but watching James May break down is one of life’s great pleasures.

Last week’s “build a Land Rover out of dirt/animals/plants” was about as close as they’ve come.