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

[GMaximus]

Maybe it's the best way for Clarkson to end this show, go undefeated and do something new. He could even crowdsource something.

[Lammy]

On 12 March SleepyWill said:

​Until we know, let's stop prejudging him and go by what we do know. I know that at work he's a pleasant, hard working chap and I would be surprised if he deserved the suspension. It is perfectly fair to say that if he did assault this producer he absolutely should be suspended, probably sacked. That would be unacceptable​

All of you people who are saying that it was correct to sack him are talking with a particularly nasty corporate mindset.

"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. 

​

Possibly contradicting yourself about the sacking much? Does that mean you used to have a 'corporate scum' mindset just last week, or just the people that aren't you? You're assuming the BBC are not in favour of seeking professional help for alcoholism - which doesn't ring true. I honestly thought you was trolling at first... but now unsure...

PS: congratulations on meeting Jeremy Clarkson and the Dalai Lama!!!1

[noone]

1) I don't think they had any choice, it was not the first time so they are in a no win situation (lose money or lose reputation and show double standards).

2) I expect the three of them to be on a commercial network soon and making an absolute mint

3) Who ever takes him on should make him sign a ten year non compete clause as well as have clear guidelines about what is expected and what breaches will cost him.

4) As soon as they DO start a new show, Top Gear will fold (unless they can come up with a team as good).

 

EDIT.    If he has been given warning after warning, there HAS to be a point at which something is done otherwise, what is the point.    It would seem that point was reached.

[Jay Edgar]

I thought I would check back on this 'discussion' again. It has helped me understand better why this website is so underwhelming to me.

I say that as someone who has used this site for years as (one more) reference for filmmaking.

The rot started to form a while back - before this Clarkson nonsense - when I read a post about the LX100. An amazing little camera I felt. But it got sneered on - initially.

Soon after there was a  'rethink' - suddenly it was a super piece of kit etc etc

 

Later after getting flamed by SleepyWill and some other old timers, I started to mentally list why this website constantly disappoints. By that I mean I spend my valuable time occasionally checking in, see nothing much, so check out again...nothing compelling here (for me) basically.

 

So here are my gripes:

1. The website is named after one proprietary camera system. In business terms, this is silly. Its like the kid who starts TripodsRUs - only to advertise a year later that he will also sell you a Slider, or a Monopod or whatever. It illustrates a lack of vision. A simplistic outlook. Of course it also ostracises Nikon or Sony folks, at least subconsciously, which seems unnecessary if its meant to be about filmmaking (which it isn't)

2. The website talks largely about Consumer Purchasing Decisions. It might be better named CreditCardCameraConsiderations.com or maybe BokkehSupermarket.com or perhaps EndlessUpgrade.com

3. The Clarkson chatter shocked me (and others here too it seems). Its almost fantastical that 'filmmakers' would defend this JC stuff. Apologies to those with me on this, but to those who are gushing forth with the latest skinny on poor JC and his downtrodden crew ...really? Is this news? for a filmmaking site? Regardless of whether people like the crap or not its EXTREMELy telling that by the end of this week it could be the most discussed topic - ever - on this site...

4. There is damn all abstract, challenging, artistic, genuinely creative discussion initiated by Andrew Reid. As editor/writer, I would've thought thats a failing, if others agree. Some do I know, as Ive read their posts of frustration ("What About Storytelling", etc) -

5. The reason JC+Crew gets s much focus, and Machinery From Canon et al gets focus, is perhaps because this is an Industrial News Site. Not A Creative Filmmaking Site. Its for people who are in 'the business', 'the trade' (or want to be) and therefore it seeks to Defend Jobs At All Costs. Well screw that. No filmmaker I know has a real job, whether they're swanning around Cannes or Berlin or not. They are constantly fighting broadcasters, distributors, unions, investors, bosses and banks to get their sh1t made.

Now if this is a site for jobbing SkyNews Cameramen or, thats cool. But why not say so? And lets slot a few more articles in about staff conditions, retirement plans, commuting problems etc. But don't pretend its Cahiers du fricken Cinematograper....

6. Seek out all the posts on Framing, Composition, Production Design, Editing Technique (not software) - there aint many folks. Why? Andrews busy? No problem, but just don't pretend to yourself that EOSHD is something it isn't. Its less useful than the Reviews Stories on BH's online  shop. Most of the time. I wish it wasn't (and don't screw with me you Clarkson-loving Etype-lusting future retirees out there) - I've paid my dues and used this site for a long time. Hell I probably accounted for 5% of its traffic.

A good example is the 'Pinned' Topic on "Shooting Inspiration and Ideas" - Nice idea to start a discussion. Just a pity A.R. does not mention any inspiration or Ideas. Thats for the plebs i guess. This is the kind of DailyMail hack website/hipster blogger nonsense which peeves me no end. Why is it pinned? You wanna solicit some traffic on that subject? Cool. Why not put up or shut up? Is it just to try to start a conversation on 'fimmaking"? Well, too bad (for all of us) - nobodys biting. Its got 24 replies compared with Clarksons hundreds. Wonder Why...

7. This site has all the architectural and functional finesse of a bad Themeforest Joomla site. I can buy it in India for 30 quid. To me, thats lazy. Theres lots of gifted designers out there, and they'd probably do it for free to contribute to a creative community. If there was a creative community. Sorry Everybody but a community is not just a website where a few hundred people occasionally read and post a reply. 

8. The site's content is taxonomically random in a way that frustrates and does't invite easy reading. Looking for location documentary stories? Nope. (and don't mention TAGS please...)

9. The sites been up for nigh on three years and It has helped build Brand Reid. Good. We all need to sell advertising. Good. Good....BUT...Out of maybe....30,000 posts, Andrew has posted nearly 7,000 it says. Thats also good, and I've read, appreciated many, slept through many more...BUT is this a place that gets my time? IS it trying hard to be a Curated and Edited Place for Filmmaking and Filmmakers - naaaah...it aint.

10. Andrew has been downright out of line to some posters here IMO. Its my opinion, s'all, but it seems I'm not the only one who sees this. Now I know us mere readers can't be 'as equal' as the publisher. I get that. Thats fine. But easy with the entitled, patronising tones please. It seems...to insult your readership.

11. These days everyones an expert on something. Building Your Brand Is Key, they say. I do fear that EOSHD's brand is built on exceedingly weak foundations however. The answer is to shape up and do what it promised. Or else delegate this 'content' work to another. Someone who is a good Editor. Personally I've never met an Editor in Publishing who was also a useful cameraperson or cinematographer. Or vice versa. Andrew's credentials as a cultural commentator are (for me) forever damaged after his passionate pleas that the BBC were acting like cultural fascists (or words to that effect). Really Andrew? You think that TG is "Important Work" huh? I always thought you were somewhat relevant. I was wrong. Way wrong. That doesnt mean you don't know your way around a german or japanese camera, but only a dinosaur would defend JC like you have, bless.

12. Its not ideal to scream at the subtle racism on this site by some very few contribs, but at least it would be good to have some fun with those weirdos using this forum to take the last train to Clarksonville and defend Mr. Camerons drunk racist mate Jeremy?  Could even set up a vintage car club for any EOSHDs distraught TG Fans? The BRollers?

 

Ok...theres my civic duty completed for another year. I trust I haven't offended anyone this time. 

Filmmaking shouldn't be conventional. It should be brave. Different. Visceral. It should also be honest and engage with the world around us.

Top Gear on the other hand is Prince Philip's favourite show.

It has nothing to teach 'Filmmakers'.

Get it Andrew?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[QMedia]

I thought I would check back on this 'discussion' again. It has helped me understand better why this website is so underwhelming to me.

I say that as someone who has used this site for years as (one more) reference for filmmaking.

The rot started to form a while back - before this Clarkson nonsense - when I read a post about the LX100. An amazing little camera I felt. But it got sneered on - initially.

Soon after there was a  'rethink' - suddenly it was a super piece of kit etc etc

 

Later after getting flamed by SleepyWill and some other old timers, I started to mentally list why this website constantly disappoints. By that I mean I spend my valuable time occasionally checking in, see nothing much, so check out again...nothing compelling here (for me) basically.

 

So here are my gripes:

1. The website is named after one proprietary camera system. In business terms, this is silly. Its like the kid who starts TripodsRUs - only to advertise a year later that he will also sell you a Slider, or a Monopod or whatever. It illustrates a lack of vision. A simplistic outlook. Of course it also ostracises Nikon or Sony folks, at least subconsciously, which seems unnecessary if its meant to be about filmmaking (which it isn't)

2. The website talks largely about Consumer Purchasing Decisions. It might be better named CreditCardCameraConsiderations.com or maybe BokkehSupermarket.com or perhaps EndlessUpgrade.com

3. The Clarkson chatter shocked me (and others here too it seems). Its almost fantastical that 'filmmakers' would defend this JC stuff. Apologies to those with me on this, but to those who are gushing forth with the latest skinny on poor JC and his downtrodden crew ...really? Is this news? for a filmmaking site? Regardless of whether people like the crap or not its EXTREMELy telling that by the end of this week it could be the most discussed topic - ever - on this site...

4. There is damn all abstract, challenging, artistic, genuinely creative discussion initiated by Andrew Reid. As editor/writer, I would've thought thats a failing, if others agree. Some do I know, as Ive read their posts of frustration ("What About Storytelling", etc) -

5. The reason JC+Crew gets s much focus, and Machinery From Canon et al gets focus, is perhaps because this is an Industrial News Site. Not A Creative Filmmaking Site. Its for people who are in 'the business', 'the trade' (or want to be) and therefore it seeks to Defend Jobs At All Costs. Well screw that. No filmmaker I know has a real job, whether they're swanning around Cannes or Berlin or not. They are constantly fighting broadcasters, distributors, unions, investors, bosses and banks to get their sh1t made.

Now if this is a site for jobbing SkyNews Cameramen or, thats cool. But why not say so? And lets slot a few more articles in about staff conditions, retirement plans, commuting problems etc. But don't pretend its Cahiers du fricken Cinematograper....

6. Seek out all the posts on Framing, Composition, Production Design, Editing Technique (not software) - there aint many folks. Why? Andrews busy? No problem, but just don't pretend to yourself that EOSHD is something it isn't. Its less useful than the Reviews Stories on BH's online  shop. Most of the time. I wish it wasn't (and don't screw with me you Clarkson-loving Etype-lusting future retirees out there) - I've paid my dues and used this site for a long time. Hell I probably accounted for 5% of its traffic.

A good example is the 'Pinned' Topic on "Shooting Inspiration and Ideas" - Nice idea to start a discussion. Just a pity A.R. does not mention any inspiration or Ideas. Thats for the plebs i guess. This is the kind of DailyMail hack website/hipster blogger nonsense which peeves me no end. Why is it pinned? You wanna solicit some traffic on that subject? Cool. Why not put up or shut up? Is it just to try to start a conversation on 'fimmaking"? Well, too bad (for all of us) - nobodys biting. Its got 24 replies compared with Clarksons hundreds. Wonder Why...

7. This site has all the architectural and functional finesse of a bad Themeforest Joomla site. I can buy it in India for 30 quid. To me, thats lazy. Theres lots of gifted designers out there, and they'd probably do it for free to contribute to a creative community. If there was a creative community. Sorry Everybody but a community is not just a website where a few hundred people occasionally read and post a reply. 

8. The site's content is taxonomically random in a way that frustrates and does't invite easy reading. Looking for location documentary stories? Nope. (and don't mention TAGS please...)

9. The sites been up for nigh on three years and It has helped build Brand Reid. Good. We all need to sell advertising. Good. Good....BUT...Out of maybe....30,000 posts, Andrew has posted nearly 7,000 it says. Thats also good, and I've read, appreciated many, slept through many more...BUT is this a place that gets my time? IS it trying hard to be a Curated and Edited Place for Filmmaking and Filmmakers - naaaah...it aint.

10. Andrew has been downright out of line to some posters here IMO. Its my opinion, s'all, but it seems I'm not the only one who sees this. Now I know us mere readers can't be 'as equal' as the publisher. I get that. Thats fine. But easy with the entitled, patronising tones please. It seems...to insult your readership.

11. These days everyones an expert on something. Building Your Brand Is Key, they say. I do fear that EOSHD's brand is built on exceedingly weak foundations however. The answer is to shape up and do what it promised. Or else delegate this 'content' work to another. Someone who is a good Editor. Personally I've never met an Editor in Publishing who was also a useful cameraperson or cinematographer. Or vice versa. Andrew's credentials as a cultural commentator are (for me) forever damaged after his passionate pleas that the BBC were acting like cultural fascists (or words to that effect). Really Andrew? You think that TG is "Important Work" huh? I always thought you were somewhat relevant. I was wrong. Way wrong. That doesnt mean you don't know your way around a german or japanese camera, but only a dinosaur would defend JC like you have, bless.

12. Its not ideal to scream at the subtle racism on this site by some very few contribs, but at least it would be good to have some fun with those weirdos using this forum to take the last train to Clarksonville and defend Mr. Camerons drunk racist mate Jeremy?  Could even set up a vintage car club for any EOSHDs distraught TG Fans? The BRollers?

 

Ok...theres my civic duty completed for another year. I trust I haven't offended anyone this time. 

Filmmaking shouldn't be conventional. It should be brave. Different. Visceral. It should also be honest and engage with the world around us.

Top Gear on the other hand is Prince Philip's favourite show.

It has nothing to teach 'Filmmakers'.

Get it Andrew?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

​What is your point Jay Edgar? Who asked you for a review of EOSHD? Better yet, who do you think cares what you think? If you don't like the site, go somewhere else. Why take your time to bag on Andrew? What are your accomplishments? Since you think the site is so crappy and so easily outdone, please direct us to yours...So easy to bag on someone else and their accomplishments. So easy to be critical of others.

Seems like you got your shorts in-a-bunch over the Clarkson issue and want to take it out on Andrew Reid because of his position. I commend Reid simply for the fact that he took a position and felt strongly enough about it to vocalize it. You don't have to agree with it, that is alright, but don't shoot the messenger. It is so easy and safe to play in the middle, don't take a stand, don't say anything controversial, and by all means, don't offend anyone. It is also gutless. Clarkson understands this and so does Reid. 

[Orangenz]

A quite ridiculous situation. I agree completely with your analysis Andrew. 

[Flynn]

I can at least sort of understand why Andrew and other fans of the show care- something they've enjoyed for years is being taken from them. But the people condemning Andrew as some sort of homophobe/sexist/racist because of this, it strikes me as being ridiculous. Just because someone disagrees with you is no reason to demonize them. Andrew has come to the defense of the host of a show you don't even watch, so why do you really even give a shit? You'd think this is the great social justice issue of our time the way some of you are carrying on. Remember, we're talking about a tv show about cars. Just because I might disagree with Andrew on this issue doesn't mean I have to disregard everything else he says. This sort of demand for purity, that if someone doesn't 100% agree with you they're a terrible person and nothing they say is worth a shit, it's fucking nuts and a dangerous mindset.

[leeys]

I really really cannot agree with *anything* being stated in that piece. 

[Oscar M.]

I will tell you one thing, I bust someone's lip at my job and I assure you I will be escorted out by the authorities, with possibly some legal troubles ahead. But then again, I live in the U.S.

[SleepyWill]

 

​Possibly contradicting yourself about the sacking much? Does that mean you used to have a 'corporate scum' mindset just last week, or just the people that aren't you? You're assuming the BBC are not in favour of seeking professional help for alcoholism - which doesn't ring true. I honestly thought you was trolling at first... but now unsure...

PS: congratulations on meeting Jeremy Clarkson and the Dalai Lama!!!1

​Possibly, yes. I have always struggled with improving myself, trying to be better. And trust me, I am way more critical of myself than I am of others. I would direct you to my own blog in which I talk quite openly about the struggles I put myself through but I am the target of a sustained and nasty cyberbullying campaign and do not wish to link this profile with the other in case I give them more ammunition to trawl up, bring those people here or give them further details about my personal life, helping them to zone in on who I am in the real world.

In my opinion though, actions speak louder than words. We know that the BBC will say that they are in favour of seeking professional help for their stars who have problems, but they don't actually seem to seek professional help for their stars who have problems (which is almost certainly a high percentage of them, increasingly so for the ones who lead a higher profile life). Neither do they sack them straight away. They keep using them and using them until they make a mistake which puts them in the firing line for some criticism, then they get rid of them. If they happen to rehabilitate themselves, maybe they come back. Yes I may contradict what I said last week, but that was last week, when the events were fresh and I hadn't given the subject much thought. This week I have had thousands of percent more time to think the subject through, it's only natural that my mindset will evolve and improve over time, I am constantly challenging my own assumptions. And if Clarkson was a new employee who had done this, I stand by my earlier comment. However, having the long history he has with the BBC, I would be shocked if his problems were not caused by his work and therefore, in a right world, are the responsibility of his work. 

No congrats necessary for Clarkson, that was work, though if you are impressed by celebs, I could spin your mind with a list of names. I will accept it for the Dali Lama though, that was a personal epiphany, getting to talk with him. He really is a beautiful person and regardless of belief, I highly recommend seeking him out.

[hmcindie]

I'm gonna defend Clarkson here a bit.

People think that Talent is just something everyone has and you can replace anyone nilly-willy. Well you can't. Sorry but Talent IS important. You can't just sack them because they "almost" said something bad when cameras were rolling or because their joke was not conservative enough. Clarkson is CLEARLY a pretty good guy, behind the scenes too, otherwise the other presenters would not stick for him this much. You can't be a complete asshole and make something this entertaining and keep getting guests on.

Yes, Clarkson did have a ragequit that day, that went overboard. He unfortunately touched a producer and that's usually crossing the line. But that thing could've been solved quite well. There are many shows where rages happen all the fucking time especially if there's pressure and they are usually solved. If your doing a shitty show where no one cares, obviously there would be no pressure. And pressure combined with alcohol and low blood sugar can cause all kinds of shit. They could've easily solved this in-house as apparently anything like hadn't happened before during over ten years of work.

p.s Clarkson isn't a physically imposing man. I am constantly amazed how badly people can manage "violence".

[filmvoltage]

The BBC said they weren't going to cover for Clarkson in the same way they did for Jimmy Saville for over 40 years.  Except Saville in reality was quite literally the devil incarnate, and the BBC's role in that coverup, especially after Saville's death was abhorrent.  Clarkson is a T.V. presenter who got angry at a producer over a steak after a bad day apparently for everyone. Here in America they'd just send Clarkson to anger management, probably "rehab," then cut the producer a check for a million dollars to shut him up, and then continue on, business as usual.  There is no way that any network would dump a show with 350 million viewers world wide because one of the hosts got into a fight with a producer.  Yes, of course Clarkson shouldn't be allowed to punch staff on the show, but that's why there's money to fix such problems.

[Lammy]

We know that the BBC will say that they are in favour of seeking professional help for their stars who have problems, but they don't actually seem to seek professional help for their stars who have problems (which is almost certainly a high percentage of them, increasingly so for the ones who lead a higher profile life). Neither do they sack them straight away. They keep using them and using them until they make a mistake which puts them in the firing line for some criticism, then they get rid of them. If they happen to rehabilitate themselves, maybe they come back. 

If the BBC was a school and Clarkson was a child... I can agree that exclusion isn't good. In that instance, the child should be referred to an specialist that's equipped for the task rather than jump from school to school.

But Clarkson is an adult that has to make his own decisions, and if he is not able to, then his next of kin. Yes, Top Gear may have contributed to his stress, but there will be procedures which they'd have to go through and it is unfair to suggest the BBC's at fault for that. Maybe they already did know of warning signs and referred behind closed doors? 

Clarkson could have played the PR game and actually sought professional help, gone to rehab, and publically apologised and pleaded for his job back or whatever. Instead he's chosen to gloat on twitter and in the news and ranting about how BBC are bastards. This doesn't exactly show a sense of remorse or a mental health problem- more like a lad showing his true colours when his inhibitions are low. 

Also flicking through Facebook and Twitter there's been an awful lot of  Oisin shaming... wow... fans huh...

 

 

[Andrew Reid]

Hopefully this puts an end to these articles at least.

You think you have power over my editorial, do you, by being sanctimonious on a forum?

Of the 5000 people who read it, there's a vocal minority of 5 or 6 people in the comments. Hardly unusual for the internet is it!?

If you don't agree it doesn't matter. No need to get so upset about it.

If I thought for one second Clarkson endorsed bullying and abuse in offices I wouldn't be defending him. If he had bullied his producer on numerous occasions in an office, like the shit that goes down in offices all the time around the world, he'd have no sympathy from me.

He's guilty of ONE isolated incident outside of the office, outside of work hours, during a dinner after a shoot.

And the BBC feel the need to shoot one of their most popular programs down as a result, a gross over-reaction.

People have completely lost perspective and the ability to forgive isolated incidents and misdemeanours. It's laughable the people calling him a dangerous alcoholic, when they don't even know him.

The BBC were forced to sack him because they can't be seen to defend someone who threw a punch. The reason he is gone is because you can't defend someone any more without people accusing you of endorsing 'physical abuse' or 'racism' or all sorts of other serious crimes.

This thread is the ultimate proof. It disgusts me.

It should be possible to defend Clarkson whilst not being seen to be endorsing his behaviour.

But idiots just don't get it do they....

And hence he is gone.

[SleepyWill]

If the BBC was a school and Clarkson was a child... I can agree that exclusion isn't good. In that instance, the child should be referred to an specialist that's equipped for the task rather than jump from school to school.

But Clarkson is an adult that has to make his own decisions, and if he is not able to, then his next of kin. Yes, Top Gear may have contributed to his stress, but there will be procedures which they'd have to go through and it is unfair to suggest the BBC's at fault for that. Maybe they already did know of warning signs and referred behind closed doors? 

Clarkson could have played the PR game and actually sought professional help, gone to rehab, and publically apologised and pleaded for his job back or whatever. Instead he's chosen to gloat on twitter and in the news and ranting about how BBC are bastards. This doesn't exactly show a sense of remorse or a mental health problem- more like a lad showing his true colours when his inhibitions are low. 

Also flicking through Facebook and Twitter there's been an awful lot of  Oisin shaming... wow... fans huh...

 

​I disagree, and so does UK law, at least in the letter of it - in two respects - the work being responsible for the health and safety of it's employees is one, the other is the idea that if you by your action or inaction cause harm to a human, you are liable to undo the harm you allowed to happen. I will never agree with the principal that you can abuse your employees by overworking them, burning people out with stress and causing serious mental and physical illnesses and not take responsibility for that. We are not talking about schools excluding naughty children, children are, by definition immature and not able to act appropriately. When an adult does not act appropriately, it is perfectly reasonable to ask "Why has he not acted appropriately" and if there is the suggestion that he was under a large amount of stress and pressure, it is perfectly reasonable to ask "Who continued putting him under stress and pressure, despite there being large warning signs that he needed help". At that point, serious questions need to be asked of the people who did that, how they did that, why they did that. In this case we know who - the BBC, we know why - money. The BBC burned a man out, and when he was all done, threw him away, because they wanted money.

You are correct in that he could have played the PR game, which I read as lying to people about his state of mind in order to further his career and public status, however, I have more respect for him that he doesn't play games and is just straight forward. We need to celebrate people who are themselves, not a carefully managed image, we need more people who can be joke and be happy after losing jobs, more people for whom the glass is half full.

Finally, the people abusing Oisin are disgusting, the absolute worst side of humanity. I have nothing to say beyond I hope the police investigate each and every last one of them.

[Lammy]

Is this really about overwork and mental health issues? Just Clarkson acting like a child, making a mistake and getting violently drunk is what we've been led to believe. If we ask the question of "warning signs and who continued putting him under" - well, the simple answer may just be that Hammond and May and Clarkson really enjoyed the beverages at that pub... ?

If the BBC were truly set on money - then surely they would keep Clarkson and play the PR game? If it really is just about money. The BBC are just saving their reputation, and something about no no to assault in the workplace.

[SleepyWill]

Is this really about overwork and mental health issues? Just Clarkson acting like a child

When adults behave like that there is a reason. We are bags of chemicals, and we react in very predictable ways. While there are some minor differences, we do know the effects of long term stress and pressure, and we know he was under stress and pressure. Go to the website of the British Mirror and search for Jeremy Clarkson, tell me that you wouldn't be under stress and pressure if you were being subject to that barrage of tabloidism. That's just one singular source, now multiply that by 100. Without the pressure of his work, we can say for certain that he was being placed under pressure, he was stressed, because who wouldn't be. Now we can also say with some certainty that the BBC were aware of this stress and pressure, and I can't imagine he hid his drinking while on those extended shoots, thus the crew absolutely would have known. Which meant that the BBC absolutely would have known. So what was going on in their minds that they didn't pull him from work when all this started, give him the help he needed and bring him back on when he was ready, better equipped to deal with the ghouls - the same aspect of humanity that is now bullying and abusing Oisin. I'll tell you what - £££££££££. If we give him help, not only do we have to pay for it, but we will lose viewers who tune in specifically for him.

The BBC are absolutely shirking their responsibilities here and that is a dangerous thing to defend, because tomorrow it will happen to someone who we don't ever hear about. And the day after and the day after. I'm not justifying what he did, I'm just suggesting that if we were to walk a mile in his shoes, we may actually find he is not so different from the rest of us after all.

[Andrew Reid]

SleepyWill is spot on.

Clarkson has been in a fragile state for some time.

Last year his mother had just died, his marriage had broken down, he had various health issues and was smoking & drinking too much. Add to that the pressure of keeping up such a high level of TV for over a decade almost non-stop and the tabloid pressure and the vicious public shaming match in the press that follows many of his jokes.... and you have a very fragile mental state.

[Lammy]

I still do not think the BBC were disproportionately punishing Clarkson here. As with many high pressure jobs, it's difficult to be fully prepared for any blow out until it's too late. It's happened now so at least there is a precedent and can only work to improve on that. Now that Jeremy Clarkson's contract is not being renewed, he can work to improve himself and relax from the stress until his next contract. He should definitely employ an Assistant and Producer that can take care of his needs in on the next show at least. 

 

[Damphousse]

​Charlie Sheen is a much bigger star than Clarkson and he's made far more money for himself and his employers than Clarkson ever will and he was fired before he even had the opportunity to punch a subordinate.  Let's just stop with the beatification of Clarkson.  Why do people keep editing the historical record to fit their desired conclusion?

I am not happy about what has happened to Clarkson.  I hoped that when the facts came out this would have merely been Clarkson raising his voice (which is bad enough).  But now that it has gone into the violent criminal realm there really should be no doubt BBC did what they had to do.  It should not be that hard for a 54 year old employee at a tax payer funded entity to avoid punching subordinates in the face.  How low as a society have we gone if asking a 54 year old well educated wealthy man to refrain from fisticuffs at work is considered "political correctness."  When I was a kid that was considered common sense... or an unspoken rule.

 

And by the way let's see what London justice looks like if you aren't a rich white privileged male who hangs out with a Tory prime minister on the weekend...

The man accused of stealing an empty box

Denzel Zivangwe, 20, from Enfield, was accused of stealing an empty jewellery box from a looted jeweller in Enfield on Saturday night. He had allegedly met with friends at nearby Waltham Cross but was forced off a bus in Enfield after trouble in the street caused the bus to abandon its route. His defence council told the court, "He acted in a moment of foolishness and stole an empty jewellery box. He reached in through the broken window to take the box but didn't cause any damage."

 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/on-the-rap-sheet-looter-who-pocketed-1631-and-a-suspect-caught-with-an-empty-box-2336861.html

 

The 22-year-old was also caught with 10 packets of chewing gum that she allegedly stole from a Kwik Stop convenience store. She was arrested when police raided the Argos building. She admitted theft and was jailed for six months.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/on-the-rap-sheet-looter-who-pocketed-1631-and-a-suspect-caught-with-an-empty-box-2336861.html

 

I know we are supposed to get worked up into a lather over Clarkson's "mistreatment" but there are far worse things going on in London.  Six months jail for stealing some gum?!  Maybe people should focus on fixing the UK from the bottom up.