Top Gear - Clarkson contract won't be renewed by BBC. Should there be one rule for talent, one rule for "the rest"?

[Lammy]

 

I have to wonder, does all this moral posturing make you feel better?

​Unwinding with discussions does make me feel better, thanks for asking.​

And what have you done to be so defensive about your ethics anyway?

You're the one being defensive, bro. All I said was I disagree with you.​

So it's ok for two stars to punch each other then?

Consensually, yes. I'm sure you understand this nuance. I do like a good sport.​

The problem here is that it should have been sorted out as the small spat it was, behind closed doors. Why get lawyers involved, investigations, pandering to the press and Twitter? To be so dramatic and political about it is bad management.

​Well now we're speculating. Who's to say the witnesses or crew may not have pushed it further? Yes the BBC are covering their ass here, and it was always lose-lose.

 

I am sure they will put a token eco-friendly feminist in charge of restructuring a guy's motoring show and ruin it for everyone even more.

​... calm down, it's only a Motoring show haha. 

 

Nobody thinks what this storm has done to the producer.

​Maybe he could have done more to save Jeremy Clarkson's job? Maybe he didn't want to do anything at all? How does one trust any one after being threatened of their job and getting a beat down? His statement seemed professional and respectful enough to the BBC's decision. Hopefully he'll get to keep his job on the new Top Gear or wherever at the BBC. 

 

They should have severely cut his pay for the next season.  That would have appeased everyone who wanted him punished, probably even better because of the whole jealousy thing.  Clarkson would have accepted out of humility and the fact that he is already rich anyway

​Would be better for all involved if he was just fined a lot [if the Producer was 100% on board and crew protected] and I can agree with that if it was near the beginning of his contract. But this happened at the point of his renewal and I guess the BBC must have faith that there's upcoming replacements available for the show.

Also LOL:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/03/25/man-loses-job-after-punching-colleague-in-face_n_6940474.html?1427303245 

 

[pablogrollan]

I like how the Bale vs Hurlbut conflict has came up repeatedly, when if you research just a little bit, you'll find that many on that set sided with Bale, and had little respect for Hurlbut at the time.

Furthermore Hurlbut was called an inexperienced DP at the time, he was in no way equal in clout to Christian Bale (and still isn't). He also didn't shoot another feature (indy) until 3 years later. People just assume Hurlbut is an amazing DP because they know his name from online tuts.

 

 

 

Meanwhile Bill O'Rielly still has a show over here in the U.S. 

​When you research a little bit, you find out Bale behaved like an ass because he was "in character" at that moment and with an adrenaline rush. He apologised moments after that, and kept working with the crew -Hurlbut included- for several weeks after that with no problem. The incident took place in a closed set -in private- and was made public when "someone" released the tape. Bale's rant was unacceptable though he was right to call Hurlbut's attention -he screwed the take- he was not asking for a late steak.

And I don't know Shane Hurlbut from his "tutorials". He was a established DP already -because novice DP's are not usually in charge of $200M movies- and in a way he was an equal to Bale: sure not as powerful, but the DP is "above the line", probably the 4th in rank on set, has a team of maybe 40 people and is the director's most likely substitute -if he is unavailable for some reason-.

[Damphousse]

​Then it is blown out of all proportion because it becomes a political and ethical problem for his employer..

 

​Umm... it isn't a "political and ethical problem."  It is an employee physically assaulting a subordinate.  The police are investigating.  It is a criminal matter.  I mean it is 100% your choice if you want to take the legal liability of hiring and protecting someone who has a checkered history but you can't honestly dictate that the BBC should take on that kind of legal liability...  at TAXPAYER EXPENSE.  It's not even about Oisin.  When Clarkson has his next blow up or drunkenly grabs the @$$ of some woman at a BBC Christmas party the lawsuit that will follow will reference the fact BBC covered and enabled him even after they knew what kind of man he is.  They will be found culpable.  You keep talking talking about the rest of the crew.  Well what do you think will happen to them when BBC is sued for millions?  The show will be canceled anyway but now the BBC takes a financial and reputation hit.

 

When we were just discussing repeated use of racial slurs and a verbal assault on a subordinate there was some wiggle room.  Now that a physical assault has been confirmed it becomes a black and white legal matter.   The Christian Bale analogy is 100% wrong.  There is a big difference between an outside contractor and an employee.  Clarkson is an employee.  Christian Bale was merely on contract for a movie.  If someone is on a short term contract and has ONE verbal incident that is completely different than a TAX PAYER FUNDED employee having years worth of racial slurs, controversies, and now the physical assault of a subordinate.

 

There are tons of people who jump from job to job.  They are not perfect people but they never get fired.  Clarkson could become one of those people.  He could do a couple of years at various networks.  But to think you can just camp out at a marquee TAX PAYER funded employer like the BBC while your HR file grows bigger and bigger is just insane.

 

If I was him I would have just laid low, eaten my cold sandwich, and then taken my show over to some other network that would tolerate my antics for 3-4 years then rinse wash repeat.  It's not hard... for an adult.

[Orcadia]

For what its worth.

I am also Incredibly dissapointed to read Andrew Reids continued defence of bullying and assault in the workplace.

 

[Lammy]

Well Andrew isn't directly defending assault, that's a little twisted. He is arguing that the BBC should have covered it up from public scrutiny. I argue it can't be covered up and as a public tax tayer that I expect transparency in the system. This is what I want to see: http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/investigation-summary.pdf

Andrew's article argues about how there should be a different law for people up there, but again, I disagree. There may be exceptional circumstances where lives are on the line (like immunity for war criminals/whistleblowers etc.) but respectfully: popular entertainment and Clarkson isn't up there with that power of leverage.

The rest of the article and his subsequent posts about the opinionated few, political correctness, and twisted analogies... are distractions that Andrew himself introduced into the conversation. And we all know how they escalate on da interweb...  

 

[DPC]

He's just been downgraded. This will open up new creative possibilities.

[tpr]

If you like Top Gear, you should be angry at Clarkson for messing it up, not the BBC. What's happened is completely on him. The fact that Clarkson is despised by the left is irrelevant, the "PC police" can't be blamed for him punching the producer, and he should be held accountable for it like anyone else would be.

The same standards have to be applied universally. That means minor crew and it means talent such as Clarkson, David O. Russell, Christian Bale or anyone else. The fact that some talent have gotten away with vaguely similar things is no argument for allowing Clarkson to as well.

And why do people keep saying that punching someone isn't against the law? It is!

[Henry Gentles]

I hate Top Gear precisely because of Clarkson he's such an entitled twat and I'm a complete Car Nut and watch almost every Car Race on the Planet! I'm glad he's gone, the English don't see it because they're raised in that classism bullshit, but here in Australia and NZ ppl like him would get his face pushed in every other night!! my 2c!

[mtheory]

​sorry andrew, but now you`re really loosing it....

NOBODY needs that kind of "talent" on screen or in the industry.

this is clearly a case where fame went to somebody`s head and made him think that he can get away with everything.

now the bbc told him that this is not the case, bravo!

best,

wondo

 

​800,000 signatories on a petition not to fire Clarkson would disagree. The trolls who are calling for Clarkson's blood are a small but over-vocal minority who do not represent the mainstream public. 

[Cinegain]

So: what if you're a big fan of Zlatan Ibrahimović, or lord knows who. And he commits a foul earlier in the game... walks away from that with yellow. Then in the second half he just makes a very disgusting and nasty tackle, elbow, stretches out his legs... something like that. Are you of the opinion he should only receive a 2nd yellow but not the red and get kicked off the field? Just because he's your favorite player and the other guy more or less is a nobody? And then imagine the coach of his own team telling the ref to give him red already, because he's so ashamed of his player's behaviour that it should not be tolerated and needs to be kicked off the field already... I mean. You don't want to do that... so respect to you if you do make that call.

Anyways. In all fairness. I don't really see the point on debating this over multiple topics. I mean. Don't mind me and have at it all you want (I'm just chiming in here once and am then outta here), but... eh... what's the use? Just people working themselves up over something that's not anyone's decision to make accept for those parties involved. It's not like something that you can say will magically go and change the outcome, you know. You might not agree with it, but to me it seems they have every right to do what they did... and I'm not sure how anyone would think this is a dream scenario for them either... there's no winners here.

Talking about Top Gear. Howabout we go talk about top gear around here again... you know, like cameras and how to use them to create awesome things. My two cents.

[QMedia]

Well Andrew isn't directly defending assault, that's a little twisted. He is arguing that the BBC should have covered it up from public scrutiny. I argue it can't be covered up and as a public tax tayer that I expect transparency in the system. This is what I want to see: http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/investigation-summary.pdf

Andrew's article argues about how there should be a different law for people up there, but again, I disagree. There may be exceptional circumstances where lives are on the line (like immunity for war criminals/whistleblowers etc.) but respectfully: popular entertainment and Clarkson isn't up there with that power of leverage.

The rest of the article and his subsequent posts about the opinionated few, political correctness, and twisted analogies... are distractions that Andrew himself introduced into the conversation. And we all know how they escalate on da interweb...  

 

​What planet do you live on Lammy. Why do you hold Clarkson to a infinitely higher standard than your political leaders that actually shape public policy and control lives. They lie, cheat, steal, send young men out to get killed in useless wars to further their own agenda, perform false flag operations, political assassinations and order drone attacks that kill innocent civilians. Where is the outrage from people that think like you on that reality?? As a "tax payer" where is your outrage??

Get some perspective. Clarkson got involved in a very short altercation. No one went to the hospital, nobody died. You and others act like he went in and shot a bunch of kids in a school. If you saw the scene of Clarkson and the producer in a movie, you would consider it real life, which it is. The audience would probably love it.

Clarkson is a loose canon, but that is Clarkson. That is what makes him perfect for the role he plays so well. That is EXACTLY why 350M watch the show. In a world filled with political correctness and brown nosing, Clarkson plays the opposition. He is the poster child of rebellion against all the nonsense. If you can't see the greatness in that alone, then I feel sorry for you. 

 

[Lammy]

​What planet do you live on Lammy. Why do you hold Clarkson to a infinitely higher standard than your political leaders that actually shape public policy and control lives. They lie, cheat, steal, send young men out to get killed in useless wars to further their own agenda, perform false flag operations, political assassinations and order drone attacks that kill innocent civilians. Where is the outrage from people that think like you on that reality?? As a "tax payer" where is your outrage??

Get some perspective. Clarkson got involved in a very short altercation. No one went to the hospital, nobody died. You and others act like he went in and shot a bunch of kids in a school. If you saw the scene of Clarkson and the producer in a movie, you would consider it real life, which it is. The audience would probably love it.

Clarkson is a loose canon, but that is Clarkson. That is what makes him perfect for the role he plays so well. That is EXACTLY why 350M watch the show. In a world filled with political correctness and brown nosing, Clarkson plays the opposition. He is the poster child of rebellion against all the nonsense. If you can't see the greatness in that alone, then I feel sorry for you. 

 

Wow. And you guys think I'm being defensive? Hahahaha

Yes I am outraged about corrupt politicians and horrible policies and the injustices of the world. I am outraged that guys like Ai Wei Wei and Snowden get locked up. I am outraged of drones killing innocent children. Shall we derail this thread further with your assumptions on my own beliefs? I'd rather message you.

I am not outraged about the decision to not renew Clarkson's contract. Coz, ya know, it's only Top Gear. This is not an assault on free speech and creativity, this is about assaulting a human being and liking Top Gear.

​I would request you re-read what I said and, with the utmost respect, take a deep breathe and drink water. Because I am not above trolling you back 

[jcs]

Andrew- as a successful blog owner you have the option to help or to hurt the world with your voice. Clarkson is an alcoholic, an addict. His behavior is irrational and he can't be reasoned with while he's drunk. Even sober, addicts tend to not behave rationally. This doesn't mean they should be isolated, in fact the best way to help a person suffering from addiction is to immerse them in compassionate fellowship. Do you know any addicts? Have you seen any turn their life around, and help others to heal? If not, perhaps attend an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting (or similar) to witness addicts helping each other heal through fellowship (addicts are always addicts and never 'cured'; always mindful to avoid falling into old patterns). Since moving to LA in 2006 I was surprised how pervasive drug, alcohol, and sex addiction is in the entertainment industry. People doing drugs and drinking on set isn't healthy and is unfortunately very common here (not allowed on my sets- what one does on their own time is their own business). Instead of turning a blind eye to addicts on productions, we should provide daily reminders that there is free fellowship available to help people deal with life (such as AA). Even better, entertainment companies should provide in-house help to encourage people to live healthy, drug-free lives through fellowship. The BBC did the right thing in letting Clarkson go. Clarkson needs change in his life to give him a chance to deal with his addictions, ideally through positive connections to other people through fellowship.

Discussion addiction on a filmmaking blog is totally appropriate. If the film industry can help heal its players, then it can help create messages and positive influence to help millions of people suffering in our world.

[SleepyWill]

I really can't believe all the faeces being slung in this thread, can we be clear on one point here, what Andrew is talking about is not "one rule for one, and one rule for another", that is very clearly not correct. (Unless, you are working on a cure for cancer according to horshack, then it is one rule for you, apparently, because that's how moral crusaders roll). Neither was he saying that assault or abuse is on any way ok. I mean he literally, directly stated that.

I believe he is saying the following, and I agree with all points:

1) The BBC were wrong to drag this into a public forum before they began their investigation.

2) People make mistakes, we are all human and everyone is different and thus will make different mistakes.

3) When people make mistakes, deal with it appropriately.

How can I justify supporting these statements in the context of work place assault?

1) Come on. There was a clear ulterior motive to the BBC going public with this in the way they did and with the wording they used. They deliberately presented a very one sided point of view at a time when they had not even started investigating. The investigation was clearly a scam, a con, a public display of fairness when in reality the die was set from the moment they decided to go public.

2 & 3) Clarkson made a mistake. It is clear that he felt remorse because he reported it himself. Personally I don't believe in punitive punishment, this idea that you've broken the law therefore you will be punished to discourage you from breaking the law is a failure. At times in history when the punishments were harsh and severe, including death for even petty crimes, people still committed crime. Punitive action does not work, fact. Rehabilitation works. I do not believe Clarkson should be punished, he should be rehabilitated. Plenty on "lawyers" on here have been talking about the law in absolute terms in this thread, well how about this little nugget of British legislation: The employer has a duty of care towards their employees. Clarkson and Oisin were both employees, and the BBC have absolutely failed in their duty of care towards them both. They failed to help Clarkson with his problems, which they had a duty to do, and in failing to do so, they failed Oisin by putting him in direct contact with a man who had the problems and placed them both under stress by working them hard all day. What did they expect to happen? They could have stepped in at any moment, got Clarkson the help he quite clearly needs and never have had this happen. When a human being is suffering the problems that Clarkson is, the cowardly thing to do is to turn your back on them, get rid of them, cast them out of your group. The brave thing to do is to help them, to accept that "there but for the grace of God go I". In this case, Clarkson is even making the BBC so much money that paying for the help he needs would be a drop in the ocean - but that is a particularly cynical view, that a group of humans should only help another human if they are worth it.

All of you people who are saying that it was correct to sack him are talking with a particularly nasty corporate mindset. A corporation is a human construct, one designed to gather and horde money. It is the ultimate expression of capitalism. Any human being who turns their back on another human in need of help to protect this capitalist machine is in my eyes, scum. They are stating loud and clearly "This machine created and designed to gather money is more important to me than the health and well being of any person, even one who has given their talent to help that machine gather money." Any person who has said, it doesn't matter, the BBC has plenty of talent who can do the job are saying "People are replaceable, we don't need to look after them properly. When we break one, we will put another in their place". And you're doing this under the banner of being a caring human being, you care about Oisin, so this monster who bashed him must be cast out. But you are brainwashed by the corporate culture we live in. Dystopia is here already, money, and the ability to gather it chooses our politicians and our laws which it happily ignores, it dictates what you eat, drink and how you will be treated if you are ill. Every single part of our lives is dictated to by faceless entities, using friendly names, reaching into your wallet to take your money from you. I once attended a conference on how to price your product - attended by someone I was making a documentary on. In the audience was a man who represented a baby food company. I watched as he cheered and hollered to the devious ways the presenter was showing them to raise the price of your product and I thought of my sister who had to choose at the time whether to buy food for her baby or for herself. I thought of this man cheering and hollering as he took so much money from my sister that she couldn't eat properly. That is capitalism. That is what you defend when you tell me that the BBC was correct to fire Clarkson.

So what should have happened? Simple, Clarkson should have been cared for by the BBC. They have a legal duty of care towards him. He is a human being and you are arrogant if you assume that you could never behave like that, all that means is that you have never been put under the kind of stress that would make you behave that way. You know that fame is not pleasant or enjoyable right? Today, I sat behind a camera as two people in front of it agreed that they hated the red carpet experience. This was not an isolated view, I am yet to meet any person for whom fame has been a positive to their mental health. Yes Clarkson makes a lot of money, but all the money in the world does not matter if you are under so much strain and pressure that you have serious problems. Time is the only currency with any meaning, as we have a limited amount of it. I don't care how many nice cars he buys, he has lost time to this stress and pressure that he will never get back. The BBC have chewed him up and spat him out when they felt they didn't want the bad publicity anymore. And what suffers? As has been rightly pointed out, not Top Gear, they will slot in a new cog, and start grinding them down with ridiculous hours and stress. Not the BBC, he's gone. Done and dusted. Not their responsibility any more. Not even Clarkson, this may actually be very good for him. It is the art of what we do and create that suffers. Like it or hate it, Clarksons Top Gear was. And art existing is important, even if you don't like it, even if you refuse to accept that it is art. Diversity in art is what makes it so important. I can't stand Tracy Emin, but if she stopped shitting in tents, the art I do like would be poorer because of her demise. For art, TV, cinema, literature, music et al to be healthy, it needs diversity. Without diversity and with corporate interference, you end up with bland, homogenized art/TV/cinema/literature/music made for the widest audience, in the safest way without risk. And this won't affect us, we grew up in a world where Clarkson entered out lives, gave us an opinion on the man, whatever that opinion was, it helped shape us. The problem will be in 10 years time when the kids today grow up in a world with one less Clarkson, one less strong figure to be opinionated over, one more element of bland BBC security in the world.

Today was a bad day for the industry.

As for Oisin, he is the product of a millennia of genetic refinement, his ancestors have survived fire and ice, starvation and poor nutrition to pass his genes on. They hunted, gathered, became warriors to fight for their freedom. He'll get over a little split lip. He'll be absolutely fine.

And since when did we stop being annoyed at people who clog up hospitals with cuts and scrapes that can't be healed any quicker by having a doctor or nurse look at it?

[Lammy]

I could agree with most of what you said SleepyWill -with the exception of the BBC having an ulterior motive to make public and what is art at the end. It's a little bizarre the implication that the BBC did it to look good while destroy a man and 'appease a vocal minority' no? I already suggested another way it would have gone down, which is a simple quiet bowing out with unofficial rumours of why. There's a subtle difference with not renewing contracts and the BBC have been very tactful about wishing Clarkson the best.

And yes, people make mistakes all the time but that goes without saying. And for sure rehab is the best way. The BBC and family and friends ought to be taking care of Clarkson for that. There already is grounds to not be in a heavy stress work situation where it may or may not blow up again and therefore I have to agree with the non renewing contract. I fucking love Robert Downey Jr, Russell Brand, and Mel Gibson and me be sad if teh be banished from da life or burnt out and died at 27 liyk mah otha sistaz and bruddas! 

Also Russell Brand got fired from the BBC, and he came back on the BBC for some one off documentaries. Maybe there's still hope for Clarkson fans for future Top Gear guest appearances 

 

[Damphousse]

 

1) The BBC were wrong to drag this into a public forum before they began their investigation.

​Clarkson verbally abused and physically assaulted a subordinate with high volume in a public place.  Clarkson went "public"... not BBC.  I am not as famous or recognizable as Clarkson but because I've worked for various marquee names in various industries since I was 22 I always watch what I say and what I do in public because you never know who is taping you.

Clarkson made a mistake. It is clear that he felt remorse because he reported it himself.

​No.  It is clear he has a decent PR rep.  Any PR rep will tell you, get ahead of the story.

 

Personally I don't believe in punitive punishment, this idea that you've broken the law therefore you will be punished to discourage you from breaking the law is a failure. At times in history when the punishments were harsh and severe, including death for even petty crimes, people still committed crime. Punitive action does not work, fact. Rehabilitation works. I do not believe Clarkson should be punished, he should be rehabilitated.

​That's all fine and well but Clarkson has become a liability to the organization.  I don't know what you or anyone else who's posting on this forum do for a living but there is no employer that I have ever worked for that would risk multi million dollar/pound lawsuits to "rehabilitate" one employee.  We need to live in the real world.  You start beating subordinates at work you get canned.  Capisci?  Nothing personal.

 

Clarkson will be fine.  He will find work elsewhere.  The only thing we can pray is he learned from this experience.

 

2) People make mistakes, we are all human and everyone is different and thus will make different mistakes.

​My friends and I are a fraction of Clarkson's age and we have been in high pressure life and death situations and somehow managed to not make these "mistakes."  Eventually everyone has to grow up.

[Orcadia]

 

SleepyWill said:  "The problem will be in 10 years time when the kids today grow up in a world with one less Clarkson"

this thread and this blog have become to dumb to tolerate, im out

[Aldrik_]

what Andrew is talking about is not "one rule for one, and one rule for another", that is very clearly not correct.

You seem to have missed his previous post.

[k-robert]

I don't know Mr. Clarkson.
I don"t love him, I don't hate him, I don't care, neither for the BBC.
I do know that if you don't behave, you will deal with the consequences.
But this is normal, business as usual, although in some "underdeveloped", corrupt countries some people have more rights than others....
Yes, in some countries ,it is "normal" that bosses beat up subordinates.

What really would interest me, how is the Samsung NX500???

P.S.
"If Clarkson had a problem with alcohol, the BBC should have done something about it." 
Are you serious? Would you really blame BBC for this? 
Basically they have said, one more problem and you are out!

[SleepyWill]

​Clarkson verbally abused and physically assaulted a subordinate with high volume in a public place.  Clarkson went "public"... not BBC. 

​If that was the case, why didn't we hear about this on the morning of the 5th of March? Why did we only hear about it on the 10th of March, the morning after he reported it himself? I'm sure you have enough of a working knowledge of the news to know that 5 days is an eternity, to be 5 days late with a story is commercial suicide.

I am not as famous or recognizable as Clarkson but because I've worked for various marquee names in various industries since I was 22 I always watch what I say and what I do in public because you never know who is taping you.

​Well, fortunately for you, you are not as famous and recognisable as Clarkson, so no matter who you work for, no-one is going to tape you in public. You would have to do something extraordinary indeed to warrant someone caring. I'm not being derogatory, I'm setting up a point for later:

​No.  It is clear he has a decent PR rep.  Any PR rep will tell you, get ahead of the story.

​Again, 4 days later is not "ahead of the story" and if your PR agent thinks it is, he is not decent. Besides which, doesn't Jeremy Clarkson use BBC PR? I can't find a single statement or quote from any PR agency for or about him that isn't demonstrably working for someone else. Maybe you could link your evidence that he is using his own?

That's all fine and well but Clarkson has become a liability to the organization.  I don't know what you or anyone else who's posting on this forum do for a living but there is no employer that I have ever worked for that would risk multi million dollar/pound lawsuits to "rehabilitate" one employee. 

As I said in my post, it is vile and scummy that anyone would have the attitude "Let's not make sure we care properly for our employees mental health and well being, because money. Let's instead work him to the point of substance abuse and stress related disorders and then can him" So you, in my eyes are corporate scum, the bane of society, defying human decency and ethics for your paymasters. The "marquee" that you bear on your lanyard impresses me not at all.

Clarkson will be fine.  He will find work elsewhere.  

​I said exactly that myself, but it's hardly the point is it? The point is a giant corporation has acted like shit and no-one, except Andrew has called them out on it. If they had acted as responsibly as they want you to believe they had, Clarkson would not be an alcoholic nor would he have hit a man.

​My friends and I are a fraction of Clarkson's age and we have been in high pressure life and death situations and somehow managed to not make these "mistakes."  Eventually everyone has to grow up.

​Here we get to the point I set up earlier. This is codswallop, absolute bullshit. Everyone who has ever existed has done something shameful. I had the honour of speaking to the Dali Lama on an occasion, I asked him how he maintained such a pure (translation is difficult, but close enough) lifestyle, he laughed at the question and told me that he was not to be held in the esteem I had, he was as normal as anyone else.

Just because you haven't been caught on film doing something the internet would digest and pick over for weeks, doesn't mean that I believe that you haven't done it. As shameful as punching a man whilst drunk, certainly. If you genuinely don't believe that you have, then you need to take a long hard look at your self perception, it is skewed because you are claiming to be more pure than the Dali Lama, who, for what it's worth, according to Barber Gates claims he has hit someone, in anger and described it as "not so bad"