Do you have a cite for this? The only statement I’ve seen from his is this:
Has their been another statement, or interview?
I’ve read a lot of speculation on this story up until yesterday.
There was a now-suspended twitter account purporting to be the producer. I’ve seen a few folk online taking the tweets as gospel.
I agree.
But consider this.
You are a producer. Your job is to keep the BBC’s biggest star happy. In your job requirements is to provide meals. You are not a cook but your job is to arrange meals.
You know said star has gone to the pub, and likely will be there for an extended period of time.
You know ( or should have known) the closing time of the kitchen and the pub.
Do you:
A) anticipate your star will want a hot meal and work on alternate plan B, C, D etc to see that he gets a hot meal?
( offer $ to keep the kitchen open, find an all night chip shop etc)
Or
B) sit there with one thumb up your ass, the other in your mouth and every 10 minutes you switch?
Now further consider you are said producer. You picked option B. Your actions (or lack thereof) resulted in the BBC losing its cash cow.
Yes they were right to fire Clarkson, but what about you?
You are the guy that killed the goose that lays the golden eggs.
What are your future prospects?
A raise?
A promotion?
I’d say your inability to handle the mission resulted in you kissing off your future career. Who is going to hire a guy who couldn’t even arrange a hot meal?
Nice job you had there Sparky.
My favourite post here is the one that implied Clarkson should be let off because Top Gear stops people taking drugs :dubious:
…I’m sorry: but was that in his job description? Cite? He was a producer, not an errand boy. If Clarkson wanted to be waited on hand and foot then he can go hire a personal concierge. But this is the BBC we are talking about. The public broadcaster. Funded out of taxpayer money. I’m pretty sure making sure a host of a TV programme gets a hot meal is not part of the Royal Charter.
I’m also pretty sure that Tymon was more than capable of arranging a hot meal. In fact: I’m also pretty sure he has managed to do that many times over, and I’m pretty sure a hot meal was organised this night. Except Clarkson decided to go out drinking. And when I go out drinking I have no problem finding myself a hot meal. And if Clarkson had put a bit of effort into it I’m sure he would have been able to find himself a curry somewhere.
But producers aren’t slaves, and there are limits to what they can pull out of a hat. Providing cold cuts because the kitchen is closed and it is late at night is an entirely reasonable and acceptable thing to do. He isn’t obligated to jump through hoops to get someone a hot meal. That isn’t, as far as I’m aware, his job.
This victim blaming is starting to get real sad now. Clarkson is the only person in this sorry mess who did anything wrong.
No, no, no. *Clarkson’s actions *resulted in the BBC losing its cash cow. There is no one else to blame. Even accepting that Tymon did not, in fact, offer people money to stay, or phone round a takeaway (and really, if Clarkson wanted steak and chips, would he have been any less pissed off at fish ‘n’ chips or a kebab?), none of that requires, let alone justifies, Clarkson assaulting him.
You suggest that Clarkson has no self-control, no agency, no ability to choose his behaviour. He’s not an animal or a robot. He’s an adult man who can take responsibility for his own behaviour. What you’re saying is that it’s all on Tymon to keep Master happy, or Master will beat him - inevitably, as if it were a law of nature. And that will be Tymon’s fault too. Not Master. Master is not responsible for his actions. Poor Master, to be so at the mercy of others.
If Tymon *could *have predicted that Clarkson would rage at him for not providing steak and chips - if Clarkson fucking up his own career in a drunken assault were a foreseeable, predictable, likely result of there not being hot food - then guess what? Clarkson has created a culture of fear and intimidation and needs to be fired.
You are a 54-year-old man. You know you have staff who are going to arrange for dinner at the end of the workday.
Do you:
A) be there reasonably close to the time dinner was arranged for, or
B) act like the sociopath you are by making people sit around and wait for you while you faff of at the pub, then throw a temper tantrum because you got back long after the staff is off the clock. and then start swinging your fists at someone.
maybe it would be better if your “option B” didn’t have such loaded language in it. IF you’re going to make this shitty argument, I’d like a cite that Oisin Tymon was “sitting around alternating which thumb was up his ass and in his mouth.”
what absolute horseshit. Jeremy Clarkson (and no one else) is who killed Top Gear. I’m sorry your most favoritest TV show is going away. Too bad you think it’s more important to be able to sit on your ass and coo at the TV screen than for someone to be safe from being assaulted by a co-worker.
Who goes to hospital with a swollen lip?
Why is that an unreasonable position? Ignoring precedent and all that, which is a related but separable argument, let’s say that Top Gear brings happiness to, say, I don’t know, let’s call it 50 million regular viewers.
To keep it in perspective, the guy was a dick and either shoved or punched a guy, apologized, and the guy who was the victim in all this doesn’t seem to think it was a big deal. We’re not talking about murder or something horrific.
But let’s say that the guy getting punched is 100 times worse than people whose lives are made a little worse by never seeing an episode of top gear again because the show crashes and burns after the presenters leave. This is quite generous - most likely there are people who will be more saddened by the loss of Top Gear than another guy is because he got shoved or punched once.
Then the degrade happiness of those 50,000,000 people is 500,000 times the Happiness Units lost compared to the guy who got punched.
Now I admit you can’t use this utilitarian logic in a vacuum, there are other factors (a toxic/unsafe work environment would be some degree of lost happiness too), and there are obviously ways to pervert it, however, it is rather smug and dismissive and elitist to act as though watching a TV show is such a worthless act that no amount of it could possibly equal the happiness utility of one guy not getting punched.
Edit: To be clear in this case I’m not saying the BBC is wrong to fire him or that Clarkson isn’t the source of this problem. I’m just trying to fight the condescending attitude of “awww poor you, you’ll miss your TV show, people’s safety is at stake! that’s far more important!” - in reality deprivement of things that we want and that give us happiness are real consequences and shouldn’t be dismissed as worthless.
Just as a datapoint: the hotel in question is the Simonstone Hall Hotel, which is in a remote part of the Yorkshire Dales National Park. The eating options at 10pm are somewhat limited, to say the least.
Rick really, really wants it to be true. That is his cite.
I was kind of hoping that someone would allegedly punch him on that episode. I get that the rural American South is not exactly a conference of Oxford dons, but FFS.
And, yes, parts of Miami are scary.
In other news, water is wet.
Agreed. I don’t hold with firing people for the idiotic things that come out of their mouths if you’ve kept them on in part because people like to watch them say idiotic things*. But a fully-grown adult man *punching *another? Shoving or pushing you could possibly have an explanation for (he wouldn’t let you leave the room, he was walking toward the edge of a cliff and you pushed him away from it). Punching? I don’t think so.
Doesn’t matter. Oisin Tymon should have personally cooked a steak dinner for Jezza.
/s
He wasn’t admitted, he just went to A&E which would have been the only thing open. And to answer your question, my guess is: someone who needs or thinks they may need a stitch in their lip.
It’s a valid argument but it would be a whole lot better if the people complaining were blaming the correct source of their loss of enjoyment. If people were saying “damn you Clarkson for being a fool and depriving me of my favourite show!” I don’t think too many people would be displaying the condescending attitude in response.
“Baby, why do you make me hit you?”
…who gives a shit?
To keep it in perspective, from the report:
“He has suffered significant personal distress as a result of this incident, through no fault of his own.”
Where are you getting this “the victim doesn’t think it was a big deal” from?
It wasn’t murder: but it was an assault. And an assault at the workplace is not only a very rare event, its a pretty big deal.
So now the firing of Clarkson is elitist? What excuse are you guys going to trot out next?
Awwww, poor you, you’ll miss your TV show.
I mean seriously: you expect someone to give a shit? We live in a society, and actions have consequences. Clarkson did something stupid and the response has been proportional. If not having Top Gear on TV makes you sad: that isn’t my fault. Take it out on Clarkson.
Depends how bad it is and how much it’s bleeding.
I’m a big fan of Top Gear and I generally manage not to get my knickers in a twist whenever Clarkson comes out with one of his occasional offensive utterances (and even less so when the actual utterances are mischaracterized by the media and blogosphere).
That said: he punched a guy for no good reason whatsoever. That’s assault. I don’t care if the guy he punched was responsible for dancing around in a funny hat to make Clarkson laugh and providing occasional blowjobs; you don’t punch people.
And I’m particularly irked by the assertion that the fact that Top Gear is an extremely popular and lucrative show means that the BBC should ignore the event and the victim should just suck it up for the greater good. Because in VERY RECENT history we’ve had multiple examples of [popular BBC television personality] doing [something very bad and also illegal] and the BBC hushing it up because [popular television personality] was popular and brought in a lot of viewers and the victims were nobodies with zero credibility and so why rock the boat? And now we’ve got Operation Yewtree.
Note that I am not comparing Clarkson to Savile. I am saying that if you say that it’s okay to excuse illegal behavior in the name of celebrity and profits, it gets very hard indeed to draw a line between what’s acceptable and what’s unacceptable.
Meh. Clarkson was not the show. There are plenty of other car nuts around who can be telegenic too, and would be happy to audition.
Cite he was sitting around with his thumb up his ass?
Easy.
There was no hot meal available when Clarkson was ready to eat.
That was his job and it didn’t get done.
<Insert you had one job meme here>
In not doing it he just fucked his future career.
Picture this, BBC is planning a new production. They need a producer. The discussion goes like this:
We need a producer
Who is available?
Well Oisin Tymon is available
Isn’t that the guy that couldn’t produce a hot meal for Clarkson?
Well, yes.
No thanks.