Jeremy Clarkson suspended from Top Gear

[bilateralrope]

Top Gear to continue even if Jeremy Clarkson is sacked

The BBC will continue broadcasting Top Gear even if Jeremy Clarkson does not return to the show, insiders have suggested.

While the controversial but popular presenter's fate is yet to be decided, bosses are understood to be working on contingency plans to carry on making the motoring show whatever the outcome.

Clarkson was suspended earlier this week after it emerged that he had been involved in a "fracas" with his producer Oisin Tymon, was sparked when the presenter was told there was no hot food available at his hotel in North Yorkshire following a day of filming.

The Corporation has ordered a disciplinary panel to look into the incident, but the outcome is not expected to be known until at least next week.

Over 800,000 people have now signed a petition to reinstate the presenter, fuelling speculation that Top Gear would be scrapped if Clarkson was sacked.

But insiders have said the BBC - which holds the rights to the format - is quite prepared to continue making the programme even if it means getting a new presenter or presenters.

One source said other popular shows, such as Have I Got News For You? Had survived a change of presenter and there was no reason Top Gear could not do the same.

Other shows, including Strictly Come Dancing, have continued to thrive after star presenters left, and when a string of high profile presenters including Adrian Chiles, Christine Bleakley and Susanna Reid defected from the BBC they failed to replicate their previous success.

The source also pointed out that the BBC remained the best place for an irreverent and fearless motoring consumer programme, because the Corporation was not beholden to advertisers.

The source told the Telegraph: "If the guys wanted to go to another channel to do a different show, would it be better than Top Gear on the BBC with all its commercial freedom?"

"I think it would be bonkers to suggest we would automatically have to shut up shop. People seem to think that no Jeremy Clarkson means no Top Gear, but programmes can be more robust than people might think."

Danny Cohen, the director of television, has also made it clear that no one star is considered bigger than the corporation and Clarkson was recently warned that he was in the "last chance saloon", following a string of controversies.

But many fans of the show, which is sold around the world guaranteeing millions in revenue for the Corporation's commercial arm, BBC Worldwide, believe it will struggle to replicate its current success without Clarkson at the helm.

And Despite his frequent run-ins with broadcasting watchdogs and even international embassies, the Corporation have acknowledged Clarkson's unique broadcasting appeal.

He and his co-presenters, James May and Richard Hammond, are all currently on freelance contracts, which are up for renewal later this month.

Clarkson is expected to meet with the BBC next week for a formal disciplinary hearing, headed by Ken MacQuarrie, the head of BBC Scotland, at which evidence will be heard from all sides involved.

It is understood he reported the incident himself after meeting with Top Gear crew to apologise for the outburst.

A family who witnessed the row at the Simonstone Hall Hotel near Hawes in North Yorkshire said it had occurred at around 9.30pm last Wednesday in the bar.

Bob Ward, 60, from Leeds, told Sky News the star refused to have a selfie taken with him, saying: "No, not with the day I have had."
His wife Sue claimed Clarkson then said it was "ridiculous there was nothing to eat" and she said he thought his colleague had not done his job properly.

"Obviously there were lots of expletives in between all this," she added.

She said Clarkson told his colleague "he would see to it that he would be losing his job".

Clarkson has denied striking his colleague but witnesses claim there was some pushing and shoving.

Leaving his London home he expressed his gratitude to those who had lobbied for him to return to Top Gear saying: "I am very grateful to everybody."

But the interesting parts of this article are:
- The BBC thinks they can do Top Gear without Clarkson. They have lost presenters on popular shows before and the shows remained strong, they can do so again.
- The BBC doesn't answer to advertisers. Giving them a lot more freedom than anyone who tries to copy Top Gear would have.
- Presenters who have left the BBC haven't done as well as they did at the BBC.

Clarkson is gone. Even if the disciplinary hearing doesn't issue any punishment, I can't see him getting his contract renewed. While he might get picked up by someone else, he's unlikely to repeat the success he had with Top Gear.

[Purple]

Said persona should be shed because this is the 21st century and casual racism is a bit more than frowned upon.

And what exactly is your argument for this? Other than the vague notion of it not fitting your taste.

Do you really have to have explained to you how casual racist jokes might be inappropriate and especially how "jokes" about Nazis being "quintessentially German" and "German invasions" might be very offensive to Germans and Poles per se? Especially when the joke is supposed to be one about national stereotypes.

Do you really have to have explained to how no joke is inherently bad, and how no topic is or should ever be taboo for comedy? Or how people can laugh to things you personally would not find funny? Or the fact that jokes you do not find it funny or worse yet feel offended by either personally or for some odd reason in other peoples names does not mean they are actually objectively wrong?

Fun fact. People are different. For example I routinely laugh at nationalist jokes aimed against my nationality. I even make them. It's all fun and games as long as it is done in good spirit.

[Thanas]

Or the fact that jokes you do not find it funny or worse yet feel offended by either personally or for some odd reason in other peoples names does not mean they are actually objectively wrong?

Oh, you are one of those idiots who want to ignore context and just do things "objectively". Uh huh. No worth talking to you then.

[Flagg]

Or the fact that jokes you do not find it funny or worse yet feel offended by either personally or for some odd reason in other peoples names does not mean they are actually objectively wrong?

Oh, you are one of those idiots who want to ignore context and just do things "objectively". Uh huh. No worth talking to you then.

No, he's saying it's all subjective and there is no objective argument over what is funny or appropriate, so everything is on the table as material no matter how harmful to a person or persons that "joke" may be. He's the type of runny asshole who would go to a sexual assault survivors meeting and start making rape jokes and when they demand he leave and half the group is in tears he'll just say "you need to grow a thicker skin and get a better sense of humor". Or fire off a bunch of racist jokes to his racist buddies until a black guy walks by that could easily beat the ever loving shit out of him and then start right back up once he's out of hearing range.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Said persona should be shed because this is the 21st century and casual racism is a bit more than frowned upon.

And what exactly is your argument for this? Other than the vague notion of it not fitting your taste.

Have you ever been the victim of institutionalized racism? If not, fuck off.

[mr friendly guy]

Fun fact. People are different. For example I routinely laugh at nationalist jokes aimed against my nationality. I even make them. It's all fun and games as long as it is done in good spirit.

In which case how do you know the "jokes" are "done in good spirit?" And if you decide its not done in good spirit, does it become offensive?

[Purple]

Or the fact that jokes you do not find it funny or worse yet feel offended by either personally or for some odd reason in other peoples names does not mean they are actually objectively wrong?

Oh, you are one of those idiots who want to ignore context and just do things "objectively". Uh huh. No worth talking to you then.

If you remove objectivity all you are left with is your tastes. That and how ever overly sensitive you are to just about everything. Something which you have so far proven to be.

No, he's saying it's all subjective and there is no objective argument over what is funny or appropriate, so everything is on the table as material no matter how harmful to a person or persons that "joke" may be. He's the type of runny asshole who would go to a sexual assault survivors meeting and start making rape jokes and when they demand he leave and half the group is in tears he'll just say "you need to grow a thicker skin and get a better sense of humor". Or fire off a bunch of racist jokes to his racist buddies until a black guy walks by that could easily beat the ever loving shit out of him and then start right back up once he's out of hearing range.

I do so love your massively exaggerated words. It would be so easy to tell you just how stupid writing those makes you look or how much you remind me of various pundits screaming doom and hatred at everything you dislike. But I do not think it would have any point to do so at length as this is something you must learn for your self. I will give you this though. Lay off the self righteousness.

In which case how do you know the "jokes" are "done in good spirit?" And if you decide its not done in good spirit, does it become offensive?

Because you know the person making the joke and the audience it is intended at. Which is frankly something a lot of people don't seem to pick up for what ever reason. Comedy acts of any kind, be they friends joking among them self or a professional doing standup are things no one is forced to listen to. In fact, the more professional they get the more you have to make a conscious and physical effort to attend them. So there is always an unspoken agreement between the one making the jokes and the ones listing as to what is expected and permitted and what that target audience (be it my friends or BBC viewers) find funny and not. Whether you are watching a long running TV show, attending a comedy act or having a laugh with your friend you know exactly what to expect. And because of this it is up to you as the listener to inform your self before attending and at the end of the day if you still don't like it change the channel.

Seriously. That is my argument in a nutshell. If you don't like the jokes made on a TV channel don't watch. If you don't like jokes told by your friends don't be their friend. But don't go out of your way to insult, ban or forbid them from making those jokes just because you feel buthurt over them. Learn to separate your personal tastes from how you judge people and their actions.

[Dartzap]

So if he does go, they will need someone who: A)people know, B) know stuff about cars, C) be capable of driving a car at over 12mph D) Be funny.

Rowan Atkinson, anyone? Failing that, Sabine Schmitz!

[Zaune]

Isn't it an open secret that Sabine Schmidt (or however the hell you spell it) is the current Stig, Clarkson's bit on the side or quite possibly both?

[Flagg]

No, he's saying it's all subjective and there is no objective argument over what is funny or appropriate, so everything is on the table as material no matter how harmful to a person or persons that "joke" may be. He's the type of runny asshole who would go to a sexual assault survivors meeting and start making rape jokes and when they demand he leave and half the group is in tears he'll just say "you need to grow a thicker skin and get a better sense of humor". Or fire off a bunch of racist jokes to his racist buddies until a black guy walks by that could easily beat the ever loving shit out of him and then start right back up once he's out of hearing range.

I do so love your massively exaggerated words. It would be so easy to tell you just how stupid writing those makes you look or how much you remind me of various pundits screaming doom and hatred at everything you dislike. But I do not think it would have any point to do so at length as this is something you must learn for your self. I will give you this though. Lay off the self righteousness.

If you can't see that it's you being the self righteous asshole with your "I should be able to tell any joke I want anywhere I want without consequences because if you don't like it you can fucking leave" attitude then you are seriously in need of a strong hearty dose of maturity. Because I felt the same way you did. When I was a stupid 16 year old.

[Thanas]

If you remove objectivity all you are left with is your tastes. That and how ever overly sensitive you are to just about everything. Something which you have so far proven to be.

Well, I may be over sensitive, but I am not an insensitive racist twat, so I got that going for me.

If you can't see that it's you being the self righteous asshole with your "I should be able to tell any joke I want anywhere I want without consequences because if you don't like it you can fucking leave" attitude then you are seriously in need of a strong hearty dose of maturity. Because I felt the same way you did. When I was a stupid 16 year old.

Yeah, this is nothing but the old "MUH RIGHTS FUCK EVERYONE ELSE" spiel.

Purple, you cannot remove context from words. For example, an associate and I call each other asshole everytime we see each other (football rivalry). We are good friends. Now me calling everybody else asshole will obviously be an insult. It may very be that you can get away with insults being funny or insensitive jokes. That doesn't make them per se acceptable.

[Baffalo]

Purple, let me give you examples and maybe we can clear this up without you turning everyone against you.

Ok. According to free speech, you have the right to say anything you want to anyone at any time. That's a given under most constitutions around the world and one taken for granted here in the United States, but that's part of freedom. Now, having said that, it means you have the right to say anything you want and no one can censor you for saying it, be it face to face or to billions. However, that does NOT mean you are immune from the consequences of those words. Take, for example, the consequences of screaming "Fire!" in a crowded auditorium would result in. Your actions have resulted in people desperately trying to reach an exit and the risk of someone getting injured as a result go up. Any injuries are thus your fault.

Every action has consequences, and you can always claim "Just because I have free speech doesn't mean people have to listen." That is true. However, consider the audience as a whole, and the message that sends about you. During the 70's through the 90's, Saturday mornings were a delight for children because of cartoons that would come on. The FCC decided that prior to a commercial break, the station had to say, "We'll be back after these messages" so that children would know that the commercials were NOT part of the show itself. To us, that's silly, but for a child it can be difficult to see the difference. So, yes, we have to be careful with our words to ensure we don't cause harm.

But we're adults, and Top Gear is a show meant for adults. Surely we know the difference, right? Well... yes, but also consider what Clarkson represents. He is an adult who is speaking on behalf of an organization that broadcasts to millions of people. His words have some weight, even if less than 1% of the listeners hear it. 1% of a million is still 10,000 people, and that's not insignificant. It's enough that it can have lasting, damning consequences.

"Oh, but I find it funny and I'm not offended!" Good for you, but please keep in mind that not everyone is so lucky. While I'm an American, I can respect the British enough that I don't go around mocking the Queen, or going to a German and asking him about his beer and sausage, let alone something that brings intense national shame like what happened under the Nazi regime. I don't hate Germans because of it, any more than I can hate myself for what people used to do to slaves. Am I ashamed of how the slaves were treated? Yes. But I'm not going to go around making people feel like shit about it.

"But it's funny and it's about Germany!" You know what else is funny? A video of Germans trying to say the word squirrel. It's cute and funny and no one is getting hurt. It shows a particular funny bit about how German pronunciation ruins the word, and I know I'd have a hell of a hard time saying Eichhörnchen. Or what about the joke,

"Jones, have you seen any German spies come through here?"
"Nein."
"Nine?! Good lord."

That's funny because it's a play on language. That's what humor can be and it's genuinely funny. Spouting off about something just to be racist and have shock value is fine, SO LONG AS IT'S CLEARLY SHOWN TO BE PARODY. Once it goes into the realm of being impossible to distinguish between how he really feels and what he portrays, you start to worry, "Is Jeremy Clarkson a racist bigot?" And the unfortunate answer is that yes, yes he is. Does it give him a right to throw a punch at a producer because he wasn't fed? No. Does it give him the right to feel bad this happened? No. He messed up, he knows it, and honestly it's entirely appropriate that he be dealt with. Otherwise, he will pull another stunt and he'll feel invincible for not being dealt with sooner.

EDIT: Clarification of a sentence.

[mr friendly guy]

Because you know the person making the joke and the audience it is intended at. Which is frankly something a lot of people don't seem to pick up for what ever reason. Comedy acts of any kind, be they friends joking among them self or a professional doing standup are things no one is forced to listen to. In fact, the more professional they get the more you have to make a conscious and physical effort to attend them. So there is always an unspoken agreement between the one making the jokes and the ones listing as to what is expected and permitted and what that target audience (be it my friends or BBC viewers) find funny and not. Whether you are watching a long running TV show, attending a comedy act or having a laugh with your friend you know exactly what to expect. And because of this it is up to you as the listener to inform your self before attending and at the end of the day if you still don't like it change the channel.

Seriously. That is my argument in a nutshell. If you don't like the jokes made on a TV channel don't watch. If you don't like jokes told by your friends don't be their friend. But don't go out of your way to insult, ban or forbid them from making those jokes just because you feel buthurt over them. Learn to separate your personal tastes from how you judge people and their actions.

So you know all these comedians personally and expect people to know them personally. Because that seems to be the only way to know if its done in "good spirit." That is you know them well.

I would also draw your attention to this line

So there is always an unspoken agreement between the one making the jokes and the ones listing as to what is expected and permitted and what that target audience (be it my friends or BBC viewers) find funny and not.

That doesn't actually explain how you know the joke is done in good spirit. And I ask again, if you decide its not done in good spirit, is it offensive then?

[Borgholio]

Looks like Hammond and May are standing up for Jeremy. They refuse to film the show without him.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/top- ... irror_main

[Mr Bean]

Looks like Hammond and May are standing up for Jeremy. They refuse to film the show without him.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/top- ... irror_main

I wonder how much of that is, well Jeremy is our co-presenter and how much is well without all three of us it's not Top Gear.
You would be surprised what you can get used to just with familiarity.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Looks like Hammond and May are standing up for Jeremy. They refuse to film the show without him.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/top- ... irror_main

I wonder how much of that is, well Jeremy is our co-presenter and how much is well without all three of us it's not Top Gear.
You would be surprised what you can get used to just with familiarity.

Virtually allA lot of the appeal of the show is the chemistry between the obnoxious twelve-year-olds who present it. I said, right from the get-go, that if they can Clarkson, they should can the other two as well and re-boot the show with all-new presenters.

Looks like the BBC is going to get precisely that opportunity.

[Tsyroc]

Earlier this week iTunes refunded part of the cost of my subscription for the current season of Top Gear. So, they must expect that it is done.

From the season previews it looked like they had an episode where the competed against American Top Gear. I wonder if any of that will end up in the American show?

[Alferd Packer]

Earlier this week iTunes refunded part of the cost of my subscription for the current season of Top Gear. So, they must expect that it is done.

From the season previews it looked like they had an episode where the competed against American Top Gear. I wonder if any of that will end up in the American show?

Nah, it was the rallycross bit from their last episode, and it was just Tanner Foust showing Captain Slow how to drive the car, and then competing in the event. It was funny because Tanner's an accomplished racecar driver and a nice guy, whereas James' co-presenters are neither.

[bilateralrope]

Top Gear presenter Jeremy Clarkson to be sacked

Jeremy Clarkson is to be sacked as Top Gear presenter after a BBC investigation concluded he did attack a producer on the programme.

Lord Hall, the Director General of the BBC, is expected to announce his decision on Wednesday after considering the findings of an internal investigation.

Clarkson, 54, will be thanked for his work on the hugely popular motoring show, but will be told such behaviour cannot be tolerated at the Corporation.

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.

The outburst came after Clarkson, who is one of the BBC's best paid stars, was informed he could not have steak and chips after a day's filming because the hotel where they were staying had stop serving hot food.

But despite finally deciding to axe the show's star presenter, the BBC is planning to continue broadcasting Top Gear on BBC2.

According to well-placed sources, senior executives at the Corporation have been wooing Radio 2 Breakfast Show host and self- confessed 'petrol-head', Chris Evans in the hope he will agree to take over.

Evans, 48, who has one of the most prestigious car collections in Britain, including a £12 million 1963 Ferrari 250GTO, had previously ruled himself out of the running, but bosses are keen to persuade him to sign up.

It is not clear whether Clarkson's co presenters James May and Richard Hammond will remain with the programme or will join Clarkson on any new ventures.

It is thought Clarkson may sign for American network Netflix, which is becoming increasingly popular with global TV audiences.

Despite feeling he has been left with no alternative but to sack Clarkson, Lord Hall is expected to thank him for helping to build Top Gear into one of the Corporation's crown jewels and praise him as a "brilliant broadcaster".

Sold to more than 170 countries around the world, the programme, which was re-launched in its current format in 2002, generates an estimated £50 million a year for the BBC.

It is understood Lord Hall will defend Clarkson's controversial and politically incorrect style of broadcasting and say there is a place at the Corporation for that style of presenting.

And while he made the decision with a heavy heart, sources said he felt he had been left with no choice after an internal investigation concluded Clarkson had attacked a junior member of staff.

According to a report compiled by BBC Scotland boss Ken MacQuarrie and submitted at the weekend, Clarkson verbally abused Mr Tymon for 20 minutes, before physically attacking for at least 30 seconds .

The 'fracas' as it was initially described by the BBC took place at the Simonstone Hall hotel near Hawes in North Yorkshire when Clarkson was informed that there was no hot food available after a day's filming.

Clarkson, who has a seven figure contract with the BBC, was suspended on March 10 after reporting himself to his bosses over the incident.

His suspension led to a huge wave of support from the show's fans with more than a million people signing an online petition to reinstate him.

Even the Prime Minister, who is a neighbour of Clarkson, weighed into the row when he described him as being a "huge talent".

But a series of controversial incidents, including allegations of racism, forced BBC bosses to issue Clarkson with a final warning last year.

With Evans already a popular and established broadcaster, who has appeared on Top Gear on a number of occasions, his appointment would be seen as a safe bet.

But the decision to continue with the programme will still be regarded as something of a risk for the BBC.

For many Top Gear fans it was Clarkson's irreverent and near the knuckle brand of humour that helped make the show so popular.

But his frequent controversies created a headache for bosses at the publicly funded broadcaster, who were regularly forced to defend embarrassing situations or comments.

In 2012 he sparked complaints by the Indian High Commission after making a series of derogatory remarks about the country during a road trip there.

During a show filmed in Burma last year he use the word slope, in a manner that critics claimed had been deliberately racist and was also forced to apologise after appearing to use the N-word during a segment that was never broadcast.

Last October he also caused chaos in Argentina after driving a car with a number plate H982 FKL, which local Falklands War veterans claimed was an act of deliberate provocation.

I wonder how many people who signed that petition did so before learning about the violence and how many are shitheads who think the attack isn't reason to fire him.

[Jub]

I'm not surprised he got fired based on the fact that the investigation concluded that he did indeed assault his producer, but honestly it doesn't change the fact that I like him as a television host. Just like with some actors who are complete assholes behind the scenes I can like a performance without liking the performer.

[DaveJB]

I wonder how many people who signed that petition did so before learning about the violence and how many are shitheads who think the attack isn't reason to fire him.

You can count Boris Johnson among that number - he just flat-out said on the radio that Clarkson deserves to be given to leave to act however the hell he feels like, otherwise it proves that the BBC are persecuting him for his right-wing political beliefs.

[Borgholio]

Whelp...time to see if Hammond and May keep their word and quit too.

[Zaune]

If they replace Clarkson with Chris Evans then they will, and probably sue for constructive dismissal as well.

[Borgholio]

How could they sue if they voluntarily quit because their co-host committed violent assault against a crewmember and was fired for it?

[Mr Bean]

How could they sue if they voluntarily quit because their co-host committed violent assault against a crewmember and was fired for it?

I'm not sure what's wrong with Captain America joining Top Gear but there could be a basis for suing if they deliberately try and tank the show rather than simply fire them. But it's very hard to prove something like that. Like.... why bother because unless you get BBC exec mwhahah on tape no jury is going to buy it.