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

[QMedia]

What amazes me here is the lack of tolerance for those who hold a viewpoint other than the politically correct (main-stream) opinion. Andrew has an opinion on this topic that is not PC and I respect him for having the guts to make it public. It is OK for others not to agree with that opinion, but then leave it alone. Quit trying to convince him or anybody else that he is wrong for having that opinion. He has his free agency, period. Why are all of you trying so hard to show him the "error of his thinking"? Has it ever occurred to you that maybe YOUR OWN thinking is flawed? Is narcissism really that prevalent that we can't agree to disagree and move on? We have people coming on Andrews own site and bagging on him left and right for his point of view. May I suggest instead to go to some pro BBC site and preach to the choir, you will have more fun. Now I see Lammy posting popular opinion poll numbers. Who Cares? Think for yourself.  If we have learned anything from history, it is that the masses are often wrong.  

[Lammy]

Yes, calling each other racist, scum, and stupid really is daft as fuck and doesn't help. The pitfalls of speaking politics and different ideologies in the wrong place...

And QMedia, I care. Just last week the popular opinion of a million Top Gear fans wanting petition for Clarkson to stay on. That's pretty good fandom, mind you. Most Conservatives were on the fence, until the report came out, where they then changed their tune to agree with the Left with the inevitable BBC sacking. It's funny how popular opinions can change given information and context.

While we can all now agree (as Andrew now with mphillips and damp posted above) that Jeremy Clarkson is at fault... and we can agree that assault is terrible... I can also see the thinking that the BBC really should have had better talent management and avoided this. Well, from a preventative measure at least, still not sure they could have done anything different after the incident. This guy has been on thin ice for over a year, and what they did was extend this season of Top Gear by 4 episodes? Interesting... 

Oh and I'm also questioning the BBC's reporting on the NHS and Elections too so yez, thanks, think for ourselves indeed.

 

 

[hmcindie]

In the meantime, we see that the moral high-stand will quickly disappear if it threatens business interests of countries.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9481542/swedens-feminist-foreign-minister-has-dared-to-tell-the-truth-about-saudi-arabia-what-happens-now-concerns-us-all/

How does this concern Clarkson? It doesn't. I just find it funny that important human rights issues like this are swept under the rug because they are too difficult. Twitter storms wont affect anything real.

[Cas1]

I think the BBC could have handled, and can still handle the matter very differently. The idea of having no options is often a very convenient excuse to execute an unpopular policy.

 

It's a BBC failure if they noticed a problem a long time ago, and the only 'solution' was to give a person a thread, applying more pressure /stress, instead of looking into the work situation the BBC created and presumably allowed to go on.

I assume that Clarkson does not erupts into acts of aggression in a normal social situations. So it would be interesting to me to hear what the previous situation was, and what problems the BBC recognised, and what they did to remedy the situation apart from dealing Clarkson a final warning.

[moebius22]

Like it or not, entertainment doesn't work like the real world. Millions ride on the creative talents of often deeply flawed individuals.

Ultimately, it's the BBC 's call, but they likely knew what this guy was about and looked the other way because he was making them millions.

This kind of reminds me of the whole "Duck Dynasty" dust up here in the States, that ended with Phil Robertson keeping his job after A&E pretended they had principles. Don't get me wrong, the BBC has no principles, or they wouldn't have let it get this far. They just wanted to stick their heads in the sand and make money. They just don't want to come clean that all they care about is money, like A&E eventually did.

 

[Kirill Kripak]

What I'm finding truly amazing about this entire thread is how those now attacking Andrew are COMPLETELY disregarding some pretty important points he made ridiculously clear (ie, what Clarkson did IS wrong), and more so simply speaking as if they have never made a mistake.

I don't care for the show, nor Clarkson, and I don't fully support Andrew's opinion, but this is quite clearly a case where someone made a mistake, should be reprimanded, and should have been done behind closed doors. Andrew is 100% right that this should not be a huge public deal. Have your opinions. Great. Hate the guy. Great. But how the BBC handled it is definitely doing more harm than good for everyone involved. Sure, they'll get more work. But this is shit that happens on the playground folks. How many people do you know we're EXPELLED for a stupid fight? Probably zero.

Just because this is in the public eye doesn't mean it needs to be blown way out of proportion. Give the guy a fine. Give him community service. Make him take some anger management classes. So many more options that should have happened. 

And then, problem solved. Move on. There are more important things to worry about. 

[horshack]

Yes Henry he obviously believes that whilst drunk, hungry and mad.

But what is he like 99.999% of the rest of the time at work?

He's put in countless years at the BBC without any of these kinds of moments of madness.

​Serial Killers spend 99.999% of their time living normal lives. But the .001% of the time they spend murdering people is rather significant.

[SleepyWill]

​Serial Killers spend 99.999% of their time living normal lives.

​Er... no. This statement is entirely untrue. You plan to kill someone, you are by definition not leading a normal life.

[horshack]

​Er... no. This statement is entirely untrue. You plan to kill someone, you are by definition not leading a normal life.

​How could we know that if we don't know interact with them on a regular basis? The same as how we can't know how normal Clarkson is for the 99.999% of the time he's not pummeling his producer.

[SleepyWill]

​How could we know that if we don't know interact with them on a regular basis? The same as how we can't know how normal Clarkson is for the 99.999% of the time he's not pummeling his producer.

​Occams Razor - Has he spent the last decade planning, meticulously plotting how he can conceive to bloody the lip of one unassuming man OR did he get drunk after a long day and over react to not having hot food. For what it's worth, there are books written of the physiological and mental differences between normal people and serial killers. But if you really want to conflate planned mass murder for deviant gratification with anger, I won't stop you. I'll think very poorly of your intelligence, but I won't stop you.

[horshack]

​Occams Razor - Has he spent the last decade planning, meticulously plotting how he can conceive to bloody the lip of one unassuming man OR did he get drunk after a long day and over react to not having hot food. For what it's worth, there are books written of the physiological and mental differences between normal people and serial killers. But if you really want to conflate planned mass murder for deviant gratification with anger, I won't stop you. I'll think very poorly of your intelligence, but I won't stop you.

Has every serial killer spent a decade planning and exhibiting bad behavior and every common assault perpetrator only a few seconds exhibiting his? It could be argued that Clarkson's years of progressively worsening behavior toward others that ultimately escalated to violence is an imputed form of planning. Certainly Clarkson was aware that his behavior toward others was unacceptable yet he failed to stop its progression. That means he's either guilty of consciously planning his bad behavior or guilty of consciously not planning to correct it.

As for my intelligence, I would kindly ask we limit the debate to the topic at hand and not try to color the discussion with personal insults.

[SleepyWill]

Has every serial killer spent a decade planning and exhibiting bad behavior and every common assault perpetrator only a few seconds exhibiting his? It could be argued that Clarkson's years of progressively worsening behavior toward others that ultimately escalated to violence is an imputed form of planning. Certainly Clarkson was aware that his behavior toward others was unacceptable yet he failed to stop its progression. That means he's either guilty of consciously planning his bad behavior or guilty of consciously not planning to correct it.

As for my intelligence, I would kindly ask we limit the debate to the topic at hand and not try to color the discussion with personal insults.

​I am not discussing with you the differences in the psychology and measurable differences in physiology of serial killers and no, I will not restrain from telling you that I think your theory is too stupid to discuss with you. This way you know full well why I am ignoring you. I would rather talk to the man outside my building who has conversations with the cheese in the supermarket. Although I will say, you have either never made a mistake in your life, or are guilty of the same offence you accuse Clarkson of - not properly planning as to how not to make a mistake. Which is disturbingly what you are accusing serial killers of as well. Which I why I think you are an idiot and is why I am not going to respond to you, ever again.

[Damphousse]

What amazes me here is the lack of tolerance for those who hold a viewpoint other than the politically correct (main-stream) opinion. 

​This is a very creative retelling of history.  What you are witnessing on this forum is the Barbara Streisand effect.  I look things up on other camera specific forums and I haven't seen a single thread about Clarkson on any of them.  On EOSHD we have three.  Why do you think that is?  Most of us would never have written a word about Clarkson ever if it wasn't for the first blog post.  I think it is 100% wrong for people to call Andrew racist.  But I also think it is wrong to open a discussion such as this by labeling everyone who disagrees with your opinion as "politically correct."  This technique of labeling your opponent so you invalidate their opinion isn't going to lay the ground for a fruitful discussion.

And by the way you just contradicted one of the main pillars of Andrew's argument.  He quite clearly told us the only people who had a problem with Clarkson were a "vocal MINORITY."  This was repeated multiple times.  So when the thesis was we are in the majority therefor we are right everything was fine.  When someone posts independent poll numbers showing the majority of people across the political spectrum, except UKIP for obvious reasons, thinks Clarkson should go now all of a sudden the threatened minority card is getting played.  We aren't stupid and you can't have it both ways.  To me this smacks of picking the desired conclusion and then creating a supporting back story.  When one part of the story is debunked you simply forget it was every written and conjure up a new story.  I loved the people that were completely silent when the "vocal minority" quote was posted over and over and then when the objective third party poll numbers showed it wasn't a "vocal minority" those people flooded into the tread asking "who cares about polls" and saying "think for yourselves."  Amazingly selective outrage.  Where were you when the first blog post was pushing the thesis the proClarkson camp is the majority?

[Andrew Reid]

I wish I had never started this discussion!