So 120,000 people have taken the time to sign a petition to get him reinstated (despite him not actually being sacked) without any reported facts being available beyond him getting into a fracas and allegedly punching his colleague. No background or context, no first hand account.
Right there ladies and gents is as clear a case of mass confirmation bias as you get i.e we like Jezzer, don't like the BBC, and therefore think he's the victim of a misjustice despite the absence of any available evidence to support this view.
For the record I enjoy the show myself, have read some of his books and don't really have any problem with him.
Get used to it. Britain 2015. Got a cause? well get online.
Always struck me as ironic when on the news, and I am not being specific to any cause, "And police estimate 100,000 people have marched today in the centre of XXXXX to protest over the XXXXX of XXXXXX by XXXXXXX"...
Oh yeh, so what about the other 60,000,000 people in this country that probably do not give a flying fuck, well as little a fuck anyway to not have bothered to get on the streets and protest?
The fact is if he did hit a colleague then the BBC does have no choice as workplace violence is not a joke. I have neither defended Clarkson or the BBC over this, just found it interesting that this was the straw that broke the camel's back, given his previous stunts were arguably worse. Would it set a precedent though? A lot of actors, performers and entertainers are alleged to physically abuse staff or aides and nothing comes of it. Even politicians have form on this, including at least one sitting Prime Minister.
The other thing is the actual incident apparently took place last week, so why has it only come to light now? The only fact is hardly any of the facts are known at this time so both calls to reinstate Jezza or for him to walk are premature.
Apparently not reported to the BBC until Monday who then made the decision Tuesday morning. My guess (no more than that) is that the production company tried to keep it internal, decided that it couldn't and fessed up.
What's the gossip about Cameron physically abusing a member of his staff? Not heard of that.
The fact is if he did hit a colleague then the BBC does have no choice as workplace violence is not a joke. I have neither defended Clarkson or the BBC over this, just found it interesting that this was the straw that broke the camel's back, given his previous stunts were arguably worse. Would it set a precedent though? A lot of actors, performers and entertainers are alleged to physically abuse staff or aides and nothing comes of it. Even politicians have form on this, including at least one sitting Prime Minister.
The other thing is the actual incident apparently took place last week, so why has it only come to light now? The only fact is hardly any of the facts are known at this time so both calls to reinstate Jezza or for him to walk are premature.
Apparently not reported to the BBC until Monday who then made the decision Tuesday morning. My guess (no more than that) is that the production company tried to keep it internal, decided that it couldn't and fessed up.
What's the gossip about Cameron physically abusing a member of his staff? Not heard of that.
Don't know but he didn't say CURRENT sitting PM.. so maybe a Thatcher handbagging?
The fact is if he did hit a colleague then the BBC does have no choice as workplace violence is not a joke. I have neither defended Clarkson or the BBC over this, just found it interesting that this was the straw that broke the camel's back, given his previous stunts were arguably worse. Would it set a precedent though? A lot of actors, performers and entertainers are alleged to physically abuse staff or aides and nothing comes of it. Even politicians have form on this, including at least one sitting Prime Minister.
The other thing is the actual incident apparently took place last week, so why has it only come to light now? The only fact is hardly any of the facts are known at this time so both calls to reinstate Jezza or for him to walk are premature.
Apparently not reported to the BBC until Monday who then made the decision Tuesday morning. My guess (no more than that) is that the production company tried to keep it internal, decided that it couldn't and fessed up.
What's the gossip about Cameron physically abusing a member of his staff? Not heard of that.
Don't know but he didn't say CURRENT sitting PM.. so maybe a Thatcher handbagging?
So 120,000 people have taken the time to sign a petition to get him reinstated (despite him not actually being sacked) without any reported facts being available beyond him getting into a fracas and allegedly punching his colleague. No background or context, no first hand account.
Right there ladies and gents is as clear a case of mass confirmation bias as you get i.e we like Jezzer, don't like the BBC, and therefore think he's the victim of a misjustice despite the absence of any available evidence to support this view.
For the record I enjoy the show myself, have read some of his books and don't really have any problem with him.
So what's your point? That confirmation bias exists? And that you're not guilty of it? Pretty sure I remember a recent episode where you disagreed with me not on the basis of my post itself but because I made a tongue-in-cheek comment on the laziness of a binman and therefore I must be wrong and he must be the victim of my irrational hatred of the public sector, "despite the absence of any available evidence to support this view." So if anything you're just as bad as these people signing the petition in respect of choosing a side in an argument before you've fully informed yourself of the facts.
I'll also go ahead and admit that I am, from time to time, prone to confirmation bias. Everyone is. 120,000 people backing Jezza isn't a sign of anything other than his popularity.
Someone better tell Rob to update the argument brewing thread.........nah on second thoughts don't bother, the chances of having a proper discussion with you on the subject of the effect of ones preconceptions and bias is remote to say the least. Go back to concocting your right wing conspiracy theory and fantasy scenarios as to why Clarkson's a victim of an overly politically correct organisation and I'll wait to see what happens when the facts come out.
So 120,000 people have taken the time to sign a petition to get him reinstated (despite him not actually being sacked) without any reported facts being available beyond him getting into a fracas and allegedly punching his colleague. No background or context, no first hand account.
Right there ladies and gents is as clear a case of mass confirmation bias as you get i.e we like Jezzer, don't like the BBC, and therefore think he's the victim of a misjustice despite the absence of any available evidence to support this view.
For the record I enjoy the show myself, have read some of his books and don't really have any problem with him.
So what's your point? That confirmation bias exists? And that you're not guilty of it? Pretty sure I remember a recent episode where you disagreed with me not on the basis of my post itself but because I made a tongue-in-cheek comment on the laziness of a binman and therefore I must be wrong and he must be the victim of my irrational hatred of the public sector, "despite the absence of any available evidence to support this view." So if anything you're just as bad as these people signing the petition in respect of choosing a side in an argument before you've fully informed yourself of the facts.
I'll also go ahead and admit that I am, from time to time, prone to confirmation bias. Everyone is. 120,000 people backing Jezza isn't a sign of anything other than his popularity.
Someone better tell Rob to update the argument brewing thread.........nah on second thoughts don't bother, the chances of having a proper discussion with you on the subject of the effect of ones preconceptions and bias is remote to say the least. Go back to concocting your right wing conspiracy theory and fantasy scenarios as to why Clarkson's a victim of a overly politically correct organisation and I'll wait to see what happens when the facts come out.
My previous post regarding a leftist conspiracy was so tongue-in-cheek that I didn't feel it needed a disclaimer but it clearly went over your head. I just found it funny that you of all people start accusing others of bias or making assumptions based on anything other than facts. Of course you've probably ignored my other posts saying if true, Clarkson should walk, but then that wouldn't fit in with your preconception that I hate the BBC. At least if James May leaves Top Gear you're a shoe-in for the new Captain Slow.
Whatever you think of Clarkson, he is the 'talent' on the show whilst producers are ten a penny (and doubtless he well knows it).
Disagree. The show's popularity is partly based on the presenters and partly on the stunts and races across foreign lands. And the way it's shot. All that's down to the 'ten a penny' producers.
All the ideas, stunts, races come from Hammond. He was a motorcycle journo before cars and the bike mags were doing this stuff 20 years ago. Top Gear just copied the bike stuff on a bigger scale using the licence fee and the TG marque to pay for it.
The original Stig was on Breakfast Tv and said look if it was an agreement that got out of hand and Clarkson smacked the fella then it was just a bit of a punch up between colleagues, nothing much wrong with that. That said Clarkson usually beats people with words and not his hands. I kind of agree. I think they should stop all this namby pamby stuff and we should all man the fuck up and start hitting people at work who piss us off......the world would be a much better place.......
I don't mind Clarkson and occasionally watch Top Gear but I can't think of any organisation in which it is acceptable to punch one of your colleagues in the face.
The fact is if he did hit a colleague then the BBC does have no choice as workplace violence is not a joke. I have neither defended Clarkson or the BBC over this, just found it interesting that this was the straw that broke the camel's back, given his previous stunts were arguably worse. Would it set a precedent though? A lot of actors, performers and entertainers are alleged to physically abuse staff or aides and nothing comes of it. Even politicians have form on this, including at least one sitting Prime Minister.
The other thing is the actual incident apparently took place last week, so why has it only come to light now? The only fact is hardly any of the facts are known at this time so both calls to reinstate Jezza or for him to walk are premature.
Apparently not reported to the BBC until Monday who then made the decision Tuesday morning. My guess (no more than that) is that the production company tried to keep it internal, decided that it couldn't and fessed up.
What's the gossip about Cameron physically abusing a member of his staff? Not heard of that.
Don't know but he didn't say CURRENT sitting PM.. so maybe a Thatcher handbagging?
"Sitting" means "current", I thought...
cafcfan is correct, I said 'a sitting' as in the person in question held the office of Prime Minister at the time of the alleged offence. I of course refer to the dishonourable member for Kirkcaldy who had infamous strops at the expense of his staff's physical wellbeing.
I don't mind Clarkson and occasionally watch Top Gear but I can't think of any organisation in which it is acceptable to punch one of your colleagues in the face.
I don't mind Clarkson and occasionally watch Top Gear but I can't think of any organisation in which it is acceptable to punch one of your colleagues in the face.
What always makes me laugh in a Clarkson discussion is that his staunch defenders seem to get more irate in accusing the anti Clarkson brigade about being irate.
What always makes me laugh in a Clarkson discussion is that his staunch defenders seem to get more irate in accusing the anti Clarkson brigade about being irate.
Same as any argument for or against anything then.
I love Top Gear but just because he's in a decent position doesn't give him the authority to go around lamping people over catering issues.
What always makes me laugh in a Clarkson discussion is that his staunch defenders seem to get more irate in accusing the anti Clarkson brigade about being irate.
Same as any argument for or against anything then.
Disagree. The anti Clarkson crowd don't seem to be making much noise over this, I think the controversy is so regular with him now that it's just kind of expected.
I do wonder though if there is something sinister going on. All these things coming out does seem a bit similar to the Keys and Gray goings on. Maybe someone at the beeb wants him out or maybe he is trying to get taken off the BBC in order for a Sky or ITV payday?
I think 'Top Gear' as a title, was a programme on the BBC before Jeremy Clarkson joined it, presented by somebody else (name escapes me). So if Jeremy Clarkson moves to another channel it may not be possible to call the show 'Top Gear'. Obviously I don't know the ins and outs of the title rights, and the title may belong to Jeremy Clarkson, or some company or other, but I am pretty sure there was a show called Top Gear on the BBC before Jeremy Clarkson became involved.
Say for arguments sake ben hamer had said to Chris Powell "Lose the cap and sell me to Millwall you lairy- dressing mug" then waved his john thomas* in his boat race prompting Powell to land one on him would the boo boys be calling for his sacking?
It has become a very staged show, so for that reason the format could be repeated with different presenters. In some ways it could even be freshened up in this way. But the personalities have to be developed so getting the right mix would be a risk and a challenge. I think James May would be the hardest to replace, but Clarkson could be replaced with somebody like Robbie Savage quite easily. Or you could go with Lee Mack and Tim Vine replacing both Clarrkson and Hammond.
Comments
Always struck me as ironic when on the news, and I am not being specific to any cause, "And police estimate 100,000 people have marched today in the centre of XXXXX to protest over the XXXXX of XXXXXX by XXXXXXX"...
Oh yeh, so what about the other 60,000,000 people in this country that probably do not give a flying fuck, well as little a fuck anyway to not have bothered to get on the streets and protest?
I can't say that I would definitely want that person to be sacked, especially dependant on their financial situation etc.
No such worries for (the idiot) Clarkson, but if I was the producer I would think about the effect of sacking him on my employers.
Who knows - he may have but the rules may state Clarkson must go?
What's the gossip about Cameron physically abusing a member of his staff? Not heard of that.
http://youtu.be/IZ6frX7w0tE
A BBC source said: “Clarkson has been suspended for not being enough of a prick.
“He was the biggest tool in an industry that is rife with them, but he threw it all away.”
I kind of agree. I think they should stop all this namby pamby stuff and we should all man the fuck up and start hitting people at work who piss us off......the world would be a much better place.......
Im off to see my boss about a pay rise......
I love Top Gear but just because he's in a decent position doesn't give him the authority to go around lamping people over catering issues.
I do wonder though if there is something sinister going on. All these things coming out does seem a bit similar to the Keys and Gray goings on. Maybe someone at the beeb wants him out or maybe he is trying to get taken off the BBC in order for a Sky or ITV payday?
Tinfoil hat time for me I think.
*This may not have happened