Jeremy Clarkson suspended

Mint Aero

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

I think it's you who needs the book,mate.

I think you are inferring that to 'sink money' into a project means that it's wasted,when in fact it's a well known expression for 'investing' in a project.

I think you need to take a look at yourself,mate.

Not for me to say, but you are making a fool of yourself here

You've come across as extremely foolish & blinkered mate time & time again in this thread. The only reason I still post here now, is because it's actually comical watching you make a fool of yourself. Take a good long hard look at yourself and ask why is it you come across as very envious of "middle aged" men on a tv show mate.

Mint Aero

Harry Palmr wrote: »

You appear not to really grasp the appeal of ex-Top Gear. Its not cos its called Top Gear or even because it features infernal combustion engined machines. Its the unholy trio that people tune in to watch. There are translators around the world who's job has been to "be Clarkson" so as to communicate his very essence for the local audience.
.

The guy hasn't a clue what his talking about. He doesn't understand the concept at all. His lack of understanding is on par with making a remake of Fawlty Towers, or recasting the Simpsons :rolleyes: He just doesn't get it.

Brendan Bendar

Harry Palmr wrote: »

You appear not to really grasp the appeal of ex-Top Gear. Its not cos its called Top Gear or even because it features infernal combustion engined machines. Its the unholy trio that people tune in to watch. There are translators around the world who's job has been to "be Clarkson" so as to communicate his very essence for the local audience.

The BBC will try to remake TG (for the guardian readers) and it'll probably be a luke warm meal at best fronted by a trio of house-trained plastic people. Netflix (or whoever) if they have any sense at all will change nothing that falls outside those BBC copyright elements like the Stig.

You are correct again,I certainly wouldn't tune to three middle aged lads trying to be,well, laddish, and try to be a boorish and ignorant as they can get away with.
This is quite correct, and wouldn't appeal to me in the slightest ,but I do accept that there is a certain stratum of society who 'get off' on that concept,mostly
Walter Mitty types I would suggest who constantly dream of driving high performance cars,and wasting rubber and fuel on stupid procedures.
Nothing wrong with that I hasten to add,but I suppose it lifts them from the mundane day to day lives they lead.
I'm old enough to understand it takes all kinds,who would have thunk that a has been country singer would create such a stir last year.

So I guess has beens like Clarkson and crew still have their 'fans'

Brendan Bendar

Mint Aero wrote: »

You've come across as extremely foolish & blinkered mate time & time again in this thread. The only reason I still post here now, is because it's actually comical watching you make a fool of yourself. Take a good long hard look at yourself and ask why is it you come across as very envious of "middle aged" men on a tv show mate.

No point arguing with that, mate.

4zn76tysfajdxp

Mint Aero wrote: »

LOL get an economics book for dummies or something mate.

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

I think it's you who needs the book,mate.

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

I think you need to take a look at yourself,mate.

Mint Aero wrote: »

You've come across as extremely foolish & blinkered mate

Mint Aero wrote: »

Take a good long hard look at yourself and ask why is it you come across as very envious of "middle aged" men on a tv show mate.

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

No point arguing with that, mate.

For such good mates, you two sure do argue a lot.

Cold War Kid

I don't see any problem with the three of them doing another Top Gear.

Objecting to "Jezzer" being a diva and thumping and verbally abusing a member of the production team doesn't mean agreeing that he shouldn't present the show again. It's a good show with a huge following and the fans don't deserve to be punished.

CiDeRmAn

Cold War Kid wrote: »

I don't see any problem with the three of them doing another Top Gear.

Objecting to "Jezzer" being a diva and thumping and verbally abusing a member of the production team doesn't mean agreeing that he shouldn't present the show again. It's a good show with a huge following and the fans don't deserve to be punished.

Careful now, saying that got me called anti clarkson.
But you're not wrong.
Top Gear was fun.
The presenters were fun.
Thumping a crew member for not having a dinner ready is wrong.
I saw his sacking as almost inevitable given in any other branch of the civil or public service, of which he is an employee, striking a fellow worker would mean instant dismissal.
But I would have liked to see the show take a break for a year and return with all the presenters intact.

syklops

Mint Aero wrote: »

The guy hasn't a clue what his talking about. He doesn't understand the concept at all. His lack of understanding is on par with making a remake of Fawlty Towers, or recasting the Simpsons :rolleyes: He just doesn't get it.

He doesnt want to remake Fawlty towers. My understanding is he wants all the characters and indeed actors in a new TV show of a different name.

Junkyard Tom

Clarkson sacrificed the pig that laid the golden goose.

davwain

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

Careful now, saying that got me called anti clarkson.
But you're not wrong.
Top Gear was fun.
The presenters were fun.
Thumping a crew member for not having a dinner ready is wrong.
I saw his sacking as almost inevitable given in any other branch of the civil or public service, of which he is an employee, striking a fellow worker would mean instant dismissal.
But I would have liked to see the show take a break for a year and return with all the presenters intact.

Yet although Jian Ghomeshi, a host of a hit radio show put on by the BBC's Canadian counterpart, had a reputation for treating other people around him badly, his implosion only came when he showed, to his then-bosses at the public broadcaster he worked for, photos, on a phone issued to him by his then-employer, he thought had been of a consensual act. As Patrick McGuire put it in the online newsmagazine Vice, the abrupt end, to Ghomeshi's broadcasting career (at least with the BBC's Canadian equivalent), had been "overdue".

I agree with Leah McLaren, a columnist for The Globe and Mail, that, whilst the BBC's Canadian counterpart fumbled the ball badly on how it dealt with the Ghomeshi scandal, the BBC showed it knew, once again, how to deal with badly behaving employees (by dumping Clarkson).

Cats fur sale

Harry Palmr wrote: »

because it features infernal combustion engined machines.

Good post Harry. The piece above though should internal not infernal. Just so you know.

BMMachine

I say we go back to the old host of Top Gear.


Noel Edmunds

Brendan Bendar

Nah, new blood is the way to go, now is the time.

Clarkson is history now, won't be touched by another station.

chupacabra

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Nah, new blood is the way to go, now is the time.

Clarkson is history now, won't be touched by another station.

You're kidding right? Networks will be lined up around the corner to sign the 3 Top Gear lads. I can see Netflix signing them for a show tbh

There is a version of Top Gear in the US, called Top Gear and fronted by three US guys. Its pathetic! When you watch it you realise how important the current presenters are to the show.

Also much of the appeal of Clarksons version is that it was not strictly 'politically correct'. People crave honesty and common sense these days not PC.

Sure its possible to remake it but the new version would be a flop.

Brendan Bendar

Deleted User wrote: »

There is a version of Top Gear in the US, called Top Gear and fronted by three US guys. Its pathetic! When you watch it you realise how important the current presenters are to the show.

Also much of the appeal of Clarksons version is that it was not strictly 'politically incorrect'. People crave honesty and common sense these days not PC.

Sure its possible to remake it but the new version would be a flop.

Honesty and common sense!!!

How can you associate any of those values to Clarkson?

He was lucky to get out of Argentina alive, not much common sense there.

The people who admire that kind of behaviour and tacitly condone the other behaviour to me should take a good look at themselves.

Not acceptable in this day and age.
Past its sell by date, well past.

Time to move away from that era.

Brendan Bendar

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

.

Not acceptable in this day and age.
Past its sell by date, well past.

Time to move away from that era.

Yes, Give the audiences what you think they should get, not what they want to watch... and do it with tax/licence fee money.

Brendan Bendar

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, Give the audiences what you think they should get, not what they want to watch... and do it with tax/licence fee money.

Exactly, that's my point,there is a propensity from that particular stratum to watch stuff that,frankly, is not acceptable today.

There are certain terms, phrases, activity and behaviour which were acceptable back in the day but would be out of order now.

Clarkson and his team were to a certain extent throwbacks from that dark era and despite warnings persisted u til the inevitable happened.

Let's move on.

_Kaiser_

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Exactly, that's my point,there is a propensity from that particular stratum to watch stuff that,frankly, is not acceptable today.

There are certain terms, phrases, activity and behaviour which were acceptable back in the day but would be out of order now.

Clarkson and his team were to a certain extent throwbacks from that dark era and despite warnings persisted u til the inevitable happened.

Let's move on.

350 million people disagree with you.

Whatever about Clarkson's personal conduct, there's no denying that there's still a big demand out there for the format and content that Top Gear with the 3 lads offers.

That might not sit well with the PC, liberal, looking to take offence at every opportunity type but there's a simple answer there... don't watch the show!

Personally I look forward to the three lads coming back on Sky or Netflix or wherever. The fact that the producer has quit as well means that this is more likely IMO. I'd imagine most of the production staff will follow if/when they do get a new show.

ohnonotgmail

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

350 million people disagree with you.

Whatever about Clarkson's personal conduct, there's no denying that there's still a big demand out there for the format and content that Top Gear with the 3 lads offers.

That might not sit well with the PC, liberal, looking to take offence at every opportunity type but there's a simple answer there... don't watch the show!

Personally I look forward to the three lads coming back on Sky or Netflix or wherever. The fact that the producer has quit as well means that this is more likely IMO. I'd imagine most of the production staff will follow if/when they do get a new show.

the fact that the show exists at all is enough to upset some people. People should only watch what their betters think is appropriate.

Mint Aero

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Honesty and common sense!!!

How can you associate any of those values to Clarkson?

He was lucky to get out of Argentina alive, not much common sense there.

The people who admire that kind of behaviour and tacitly condone the other behaviour to me should take a good look at themselves.

Not acceptable in this day and age.
Past its sell by date, well past.

Time to move away from that era.

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Exactly, that's my point,there is a propensity from that particular stratum to watch stuff that,frankly, is not acceptable today.

There are certain terms, phrases, activity and behaviour which were acceptable back in the day but would be out of order now.

Clarkson and his team were to a certain extent throwbacks from that dark era and despite warnings persisted u til the inevitable happened.

Let's move on.

There there it's ok *pats head*

Just close your eyes, loosen your dickie bow & listen to this

ohnonotgmail

Mint Aero wrote: »

There there it's ok *pats head*

Just close your eyes, loosen your dickie bow & listen to this

do you have the music from the Hovis ad as well? The one with the little boy pushing a bike uphill?

Mint Aero

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

do you have the music from the Hovis ad as well? The one with the little boy pushing a bike uphill?

I can picture ol' Brendan standing to attention and saluting his Windows 95 PC as we speak. After he removes his knee warmer and breakfast tray from his lap of course

SeanW

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

New fresh faces are needed here,in my opinion,not that I will ever watch a scene,but it would appear to be a good time to ditch Clarkson and his crew and make a fresh start and erase the whiff middle aged mean trying to act like boys.

This appears to be your problem. You don't watch the show, don't care about it, never will, but feel qualified to lay out a plan for its future.

Between this and the fact that the trio's main weakness was their lack of political correctness and as such lack of favour with the Establishment, makes me wonder why you comment so freely on something you know nothing about and profess to have no interest in. Normally that would raise a number of questions, but I suspect there is only one pertinent one - how often do you read the Guardian?

ScumLord

Deleted User wrote: »

There is a version of Top Gear in the US, called Top Gear and fronted by three US guys. Its pathetic! When you watch it you realise how important the current presenters are to the show.

I wouldn't call it pathetic. It's not in the same league as the UK show, they just don't have the personalities. They went for a specials only show and it's an ok car show. It's had some good moments and I was a bit surprised it didn't essentially ignore everything that happens outside of the US car industry.

It does show it's very hard to do a car show. It's very hard to make everyone happy.

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

and despite warnings persisted u til the inevitable happened.

Here we go with these warnings again. What warnings was he given? Most of his controversies happened on top gear and would have been scripted and signed off on by producers and writers of the show. He could not have gotten warnings for anything that appeared on the show.

Brendan Bendar

ScumLord wrote: »

I wouldn't call it pathetic. It's not in the same league as the UK show, they just don't have the personalities. They went for a specials only show and it's an ok car show. It's had some good moments and I was a bit surprised it didn't essentially ignore everything that happens outside of the US car industry.

It does show it's very hard to do a car show. It's very hard to make everyone happy.

Here we go with these warnings again. What warnings was he given? Most of his controversies happened on top gear and would have been scripted and signed off on by producers and writers of the show. He could not have gotten warnings for anything that appeared on the show.

here

ScumLord

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

here

So he was warned for the BBC releasing a peice of scrap B-roll film into the public domain. How is that his fault?


Everything in that article is stuff that happened on the show and only made it into the public domain because the makers of top gear and the people in charge at the BBC allowed it to go into the public domain. How can any reasonable person point the finger at Clarkson and say the BBC are not responsible?

Brendan Bendar

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

here

QED

He almost said a word thats part of a nursery rhyme that we all learned at school.

For that he is supposedly a racist.

Racism is about much more than whether you dare to speak a word that is in common use in the black community in the US, but the gurus of political correctness can't or won't see this.

The public is much more nuanced than the politically correct ayatollahs and this is just one reason why the show has been so popular.

Brendan Bendar

ScumLord wrote: »

So he was warned for the BBC releasing a peice of scrap B-roll film into the public domain. How is that his fault?


Everything in that article is stuff that happened on the show and only made it into the public domain because the makers of top gear and the people in charge at the BBC allowed it to go into the public domain. How can any reasonable person point the finger at Clarkson and say the BBC are not responsible?

You queried his warnings, I provided proof, from the horses mouth.

You now admit he did get a warning, and you are still arguing?

Cmon lad.

Brendan Bendar

Excerpt from BBC entertainment news

"It is not the first time the Top Gear presenter has been accused of racism.
The BBC apologised in 2011, after an episode in which co-presenter Richard Hammond called Mexicans "feckless [and] flatulent" and Clarkson joked they would not receive complaints because the Mexican ambassador would be asleep.
Apologies were also made for an episode broadcast in March, in which Clarkson used the word "slope" as an Asian man crossed a newly built bridge over the River Kwai in Thailand.
The use of the word - which is a derogatory term for people of Asian descent - led to complaints."

Keep digging lads

ScumLord

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

You queried his warnings, I provided proof, from the horses mouth.

You now admit he did get a warning, and you are still arguing?

Cmon lad.

What I'm saying is the warnings are a load of nonsense. The BBC are warning Clarkson for things they made happen and signed off on. As everyone keeps pointing out top gear is a scripted show. So the BBC have no place blaming Clarkson for saying what they wanted him to say.

If they want to stop Clarkson offending the public then all they have to do is stop publishing the offensive things he says. Of course they wouldn't ever do that because they use Clarkson to promote top gear, it was par for the course that coming up to a new season of top gear Clarkson would get highlighted in the media for some reason that would drive the public wild and we'd be naive to assume the shows PR department had nothing to do with those incidents.

Also, on that article the only person that says Clarkson got a warning was Clarkson himself. There's no official warning from the BBC and I wouldn't be surprised if this was more of top gear and BBC's way of promoting the show.

Brendan Bendar

ScumLord wrote: »

What I'm saying is the warnings are a load of nonsense. The BBC are warning Clarkson for things they made happen and signed off on. As everyone keeps pointing out top gear is a scripted show. So the BBC have no place blaming Clarkson for saying what they wanted him to say.

If they want to stop Clarkson offending the public then all they have to do is stop publishing the offensive things he says. Of course they wouldn't ever do that because they use Clarkson to promote top gear, it was par for the course that coming up to a new season of top gear Clarkson would get highlighted in the media for some reason that would drive the public wild and we'd be naive to assume the shows PR department had nothing to do with those incidents.

Also, on that article the only person that says Clarkson got a warning was Clarkson himself. There's no official warning from the BBC and I wouldn't be surprised if this was more of top gear and BBC's way of promoting the show.

They have taken him off the air,that's all they could do.

Eutow

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Excerpt from BBC entertainment news

"It is not the first time the Top Gear presenter has been accused of racism.
The BBC apologised in 2011, after an episode in which co-presenter Richard Hammond called Mexicans "feckless [and] flatulent" and Clarkson joked they would not receive complaints because the Mexican ambassador would be asleep.
Apologies were also made for an episode broadcast in March, in which Clarkson used the word "slope" as an Asian man crossed a newly built bridge over the River Kwai in Thailand.
The use of the word - which is a derogatory term for people of Asian descent - led to complaints."

Keep digging lads

No, you keep digging. You have made it quite clear you hate the program. Fair enough, not everyone will like the program, but you are the only one that keeps digging.

I hate the X-Factor, and all those so called reality programs, but I don't go onto social media sites, and threads on this forum to complain about them.

The BBC allowed the slope comment and the Mexican comment to go out on air. So, if I was to use your logic the BBC should also give themselves a final warning because they signed off on it. They allowed it to go on air. Why should Clarkson get all the blame for it?

You also have to ask yourself why the eenie meenie miney mo thing was released years after the thing took place. On the youtube clip showing this cut scene, you can't even say for certain Clarkson said that word.

Brendan Bendar

Eutow wrote: »

No, you keep digging. You have made it quite clear you hate the program. Fair enough, not everyone will like the program, but you are the only one that keeps digging.

I hate the X-Factor, and all those so called reality programs, but I don't go onto social media sites, and threads on this forum to complain about them.

The BBC allowed the slope comment and the Mexican comment to go out on air. So, if I was to use your logic the BBC should also sack themselves because they signed off on it. They allowed it to go on air. Why should Clarkson get all the blame for it? You also have to ask yourself why the eenie meenie miney mo thing was released years after the thing took place. On the youtube clip showing this cut scene, you can't even say for certain Clarkson said that word.

I don't watch the programme, I don't hate it, however surely I have the right to take part in a discussion on such programmes as they are in the public domain.

I didn't start a thread complaining about Top Gear, mate, I contributed to a discussion if that's ok with you?

ScumLord

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

They have taken him off the air,that's all they could do.

They took him off the air because he hit a producer.

Everything before that they were at least as responsible as Clarkson because they created the script and then published the show.

You could give the producers the benefit of the doubt the first time trouble erupted because of something Clarkson said on the show, but when they keep putting controversy into the show and script it in a way they know will cause controversy then they're clearly at much at fault as Clarkson.

SeanW

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

I don't watch the programme, I don't hate it, however surely I have the right to take part in a discussion on such programmes as they are in the public domain.

I didn't start a thread complaining about Top Gear, mate, I contributed to a discussion if that's ok with you?

You have no interest whatsoever in Top Gear, yet you felt qualified to lay down an entirely new vision for it? That makes you dangerously like the "we want an Eco-Feminist Top Gear" comments in the Guardian not long ago.

Brendan Bendar

SeanW wrote: »

You have no interest whatsoever in Top Gear, yet you felt qualified to lay down an entirely new vision for it? That makes you dangerously like the "we want an Eco-Feminist Top Gear" comments in the Guardian not long ago.

"Felt qualified to lay don an entirely new vision":eek:

"We want an Eco-Feminist Top Gear":eek:

I think you have taken hyperbole to new heights Sean.

I'm only giving my views like everyone else.

Eutow

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

I don't watch the programme, I don't hate it, however surely I have the right to take part in a discussion on such programmes as they are in the public domain.

I didn't start a thread complaining about Top Gear, mate, I contributed to a discussion if that's ok with you?

Well, for somebody who doesn't watch it, you seem to have a big interest in this discussion.

There are people out there that just want to give out about Clarkson, no matter how small, just because they don't like him. The BBC signed off on those comments so why don't you criticise the BBC for airing it?

ScumLord

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

I'm only giving my views like everyone else.

Your views based on media hype of a show you don't watch. That's like me deciding to review a film based on the second hand account of someone that watched the trailer.

Brendan Bendar

ScumLord wrote: »

Your views based on media hype of a show you don't watch. That's like me deciding to review a film based on the second hand account of someone that watched the trailer.

Maybe, but I would consider myself intelligent enough to be able to see through the cant and the spin.

That's what people do you know, read reportage and other visual content of events and use their intelligence to evaluate the veracity of the events reported.

I wasn't around for the Second World War but that doesn't preclude me from commenting on the reportage and opinion pieces and other media presentations of the event and forming an opinion?

ScumLord

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Maybe, but I would consider myself intelligent enough to be able to see through the cant and the spin.

That's what people do you know, read reportage and other visual content of events and use their intelligence to evaluate the veracity of the events reported.

I wasn't around for the Second World War but that doesn't preclude me from commenting on the reportage and opinion pieces and other media presentations of the event and forming an opinion?

Could you get a good idea of WW2 from an article with a few hundred words? You have to rely on second hand accounts because the war is long over. Top gear is a recorded show you can watch any time to form your own opinions.

This seems to be a clear case of you don't like Clarkson, you don't like the idea of the show. That's fair enough. But you're belittling something based on limited knowledge and attacking anyone who disagrees with you.

Brendan Bendar

ScumLord wrote: »

Could you get a good idea of WW2 from an article with a few hundred words? You have to rely on second hand accounts because the war is long over. Top gear is a recorded show you can watch any time to form your own opinions.

This seems to be a clear case of you don't like Clarkson, you don't like the idea of the show. That's fair enough. But you're belittling something based on limited knowledge and attacking anyone who disagrees with you.

Attacking!

Please Scummer, you need to retract that.

ohnonotgmail

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Attacking!

Please Scummer, you need to retract that.

seems like fair comment to me.

ScumLord

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Attacking!

Please Scummer, you need to retract that.

No, you came into this thread dropping underhanded insults against people that simply watch top gear. Then we find you don't even watch the show so are in no position to judge those that do.

Brendan Bendar

ScumLord wrote: »

No, you came into this thread dropping underhanded insults against people that simply watch top gear. Then we find you don't even watch the show so are in no position to judge those that do.

Sorry mate, not correct, put my point forward but "attacking" someone,no way.

I see you are a Mod on this forum so either produce evidence where I "attacked" anyone or please retract that accusation.

Sorry mate, need to get resolution on this one.

ScumLord

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Sorry mate, not correct, put my point forward but "attacking" someone,no way.

You didn't attack someone you attacked everyone that watches top gear. It's not that far back, go and have a read of your posts.

Brendan Bendar

ScumLord wrote: »

You didn't attack someone you attacked everyone that watches top gear. It's not that far back, go and have a read of your posts.

Sorry man, that doesn't cut it.

I disagreed with probably the majority here, but I didn't "attack " anyone.

Now you are a Mod on these Boards, either produce the evidence or retract that post.

Asking nicely.

ohnonotgmail

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Sorry man, that doesn't cut it.

I disagreed with probably the majority here, but I didn't "attack " anyone.

Now you are a Mod on these Boards, either produce the evidence or retract that post.

Asking nicely.

i think you managed to insult every Top Gear viewer here

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

You are correct again,I certainly wouldn't tune to three middle aged lads trying to be,well, laddish, and try to be a boorish and ignorant as they can get away with.
This is quite correct, and wouldn't appeal to me in the slightest ,but I do accept that there is a certain stratum of society who 'get off' on that concept,mostly
Walter Mitty types I would suggest who constantly dream of driving high performance cars,and wasting rubber and fuel on stupid procedures.
Nothing wrong with that I hasten to add,but I suppose it lifts them from the mundane day to day lives they lead.
I'm old enough to understand it takes all kinds,who would have thunk that a has been country singer would create such a stir last year.

So I guess has beens like Clarkson and crew still have their 'fans'

Brendan Bendar

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

i think you managed to insult every Top Gear viewer here

Where did I "attack" anyone?

Is one not entitled to a contrary view on this forum?

ohnonotgmail

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Where did I "attack" anyone?

Is one not entitled to a contrary view on this forum?

if that contrary view involves insulting a shows viewers then you must expect to be challenged. especially when it is written in a snobby guardianista fashion.