Top Gear on Hold - Clarkson suspended by beeb.

[Top_gun]

Morals are most certainly not immutable. It's never acceptable to kill, except for all the times its the least worse action, even if it's not the right action.

By trying to claim moral authority, with the situation now being for the worse, for both victim and perpetrator alike. It's clearly not the right action. This is the issue I have, it's the second worse option possible.

The BBC is a national institution and it's right for them ensure moral integrity.

I think no amount explanation will ever convince you that the BBC was right to sack. In that case, I won't bother to give another response on this subject.

I wouldn't correlate the two, at all. There is a gulf of difference between making a joke, saying a sat nav 'only goes to poland' or to better yet 'Poland on a single Tank', offensive, but every German or Polish person I know loves top gear and finds that funny. There is a huge difference between that and violence.

I don't find him funny at all and see him as some sort of middle aged embarrassment. Perhaps he can now find the time to shop for some decent clothes.

Be careful with a graph like that, as we know not the data source or range.

My data is from a credible source in the UK and is listed on the chart itself. However, I could not find the source of your data relating to the 350m top gear viewers. Interesting how you'd discredit a valid data while giving credit to a data without a credible source.

And to be honest I don't think Clarkson is worth my time and effort. So don't be too surprise if I don't respond any further on this thread.

[peterb]

Jeremy Clarkson isn't the first person whose contract hasn't been renewed for mis-conduct. Russell Brand and Jonathon Ross both had their contracts terminated for mis-conduct. Both had shows that generated high audience figures, and a potential return on investment for the BBC.

It would be completely iniquitous for the BBC to retain Jeremy Clarkson soley on the basis that he was generating income. That really is one rule for the wealthy/cash generators, another for everyone else! .

I have no doubt that he will appear on the BBC in due course, but given the recently published details of the assault, the BBC real had no choice if it was to retain any credibility as an employer.

[Saracen]

I wonder what next for Top Gear. It seems very possible that May and Hammond won't stay. I struggle to see someone else replacing Clarkson, let alone all three of them, being sucessful if they try to emulate Clarkson, or all three. Which implies at least a facelift, if not a complete format shift. So even if TG survives, it'll likely be a very different show. Ehich us good news for those who didn't like/watch it, but of course, they weren't the ones that made it so hugely popular, worldwide. It was the people that watched it that did that.

So the irony is, what now for Mr Tymon? Working on a pale imitation of the success if TG? Or, moving to something else in the BBC, which almost by definition won't be as big a show as TG.

The irony is, by sacking Clarkson, Tymon probably suffers again.

[csgohan4]

I'm staggered by people who get upset by such things. It was said, off camera, it's a rhyme which, despite been many decades his junior, I knew as that (without realising the implications of the term).

Political correctness

[excalibur2]

No, you can't. You might appear in mitigation if the person is convicted, or you could say that if you were called as a witness. But the decision to prosecute is not yours to make.

Oh well...it does seem wrong to me as my human right is taken away from my decision to prosecute or not and as long as I'm of sound mind, I just can't understand why I am of no importance to the CPS or law.

[peterb]

Oh well...it does seem wrong to me as my human right is taken away from my decision to prosecute or not and as long as I'm of sound mind, I just can't understand why I am of no importance to the CPS or law.

What human right? As far as I am aware, there is nothing in any human rights legislation that gives you the right to decide on whether a law should be upheld or not. On the contrary, the legislation DOES give the protection that legal processes will be followed impartially.

[peterb]

I wonder what next for Top Gear. It seems very possible that May and Hammond won't stay. I struggle to see someone else replacing Clarkson, let alone all three of them, being sucessful if they try to emulate Clarkson, or all three. Which implies at least a facelift, if not a complete format shift. So even if TG survives, it'll likely be a very different show. Ehich us good news for those who didn't like/watch it, but of course, they weren't the ones that made it so hugely popular, worldwide. It was the people that watched it that did that.

So the irony is, what now for Mr Tymon? Working on a pale imitation of the success if TG? Or, moving to something else in the BBC, which almost by definition won't be as big a show as TG.

The irony is, by sacking Clarkson, Tymon probably suffers again.

Well, if you'll excuse the cliche, it's probably the end of the road for Top Gear in its present format.

But it has morphed from being an informative and fairly serious motoring programme when it was presented by Tif Needell, into more of an entertainment programme where cars are the props (or vehicle ) for the Clarkson/Hammond/May comedy act.

It would be hard to morph it back again, especially while repeats are being shown elsewhere, at least with the same name.

It's a pity, but it is only a TV programme. There probably will be a replacement, but under a different name/format.

As for Mt Tymon, when the media frenzy has ended and moved onto the next celeb shock horror story, he will move to produce another show where he will be subject to the occasional bit of ribbing, but continue to do a good job. Bottom line, whe reads the the programme details and says " must watch that, it's produced by xxxxxx"? It is very rare, and production is a team effort, not a one man band.

[TheAnimus]

I think no amount explanation will ever convince you that the BBC was right to sack. In that case, I won't bother to give another response on this subject.

Because you've not given any, at all. You say it was the morally right thing to do. Morals should be justifiable, at least that's what I remember from my philosophy modules coverage of ethics. When you don't justify, apply them in context, you end up with that almost religious style gay people should be stoned type nonsense.

I don't find him funny at all and see him as some sort of middle aged embarrassment. Perhaps he can now find the time to shop for some decent clothes.

Fair enough, different strokes for different folks. I love sci-fi. Yet I'd rather watch the paint on the wall crack, than watch Dr Who, yet I completely accept it's a very successful show, watched by over 60m people. I don't let my personal peculations get in the way.

My data is from a credible source in the UK and is listed on the chart itself. However, I could not find the source of your data relating to the 350m top gear viewers. Interesting how you'd discredit a valid data while giving credit to a data without a credible source.

No it's not. I'm not discrediting it, I'm saying that it doesn't measure the true situation. Imagine that you said people use telecoms less, because they make fewer PSTN phone calls, you'd be laughed at. The mobile phone, and internet has made useage increase drastically. But, if you sliced to just land line calls, it would appear to be in decline. The other thing is, it's important to remember that you don't cite a source by stating the providers name, you cite the actual data.

And to be honest I don't think Clarkson is worth my time and effort. So don't be too surprise if I don't respond any further on this thread.

Fair enough, but then, why are you concerned in the first place?

[TheAnimus]

Jeremy Clarkson isn't the first person whose contract hasn't been renewed for mis-conduct. Russell Brand and Jonathon Ross both had their contracts terminated for mis-conduct. Both had shows that generated high audience figures, and a potential return on investment for the BBC.

There is also a big difference in how their termination effected the victims of their behaviour. Again, context is key. As I'm almost tired of saying, killing someone is never tolerable, except for when it is. Morals are not some immutable set of rules.

It would be completely iniquitous for the BBC to retain Jeremy Clarkson soley on the basis that he was generating income. That really is one rule for the wealthy/cash generators, another for everyone else! .

Throwing aside the income for the organisation, just looking at it from the victims perspective, this is still the second worst possible outcome for the victim. I mean, it's not what is in his best interest at all, and due to the "omg we must do something" brigade his courier is going to be impacted heavily. If by punishing the perpetrator, you punish the victim more, then it's clearly the wrong course of action. I don't understand how anyone can defend the principle otherwise. Am I some outlier on a Milligram experiment, I feel like everyone around me is saying the experiment must continue, or rather the application of morals must always be rigid.

As to just because the wealthy, shouldn't mean they get better treatment. No, it shouldn't, but it will do, and it does. Have a mental illness, but still add value? The company will bend over backwards to help you, be someone who doesn't, and you're back on the dole. Don't get caught up in that horrific leftist, we must bring about equality by dragging everyone's quality of life down mentality.

I have no doubt that he will appear on the BBC in due course, but given the recently published details of the assault, the BBC real had no choice if it was to retain any credibility as an employer.

Did you read the assault on the news desk? Far worse, they hushed it up, the guy is still there at a senior level. They have no credibility to loose.

[peterb]

In what way is Mr Tynon being "punished"? As I posted earlier,the media storm will blow over or move on to the next 'oh my gosh, a celeb shock horror story' and Mr Tynon will get on with his job as a TV programme producer, having been briefly in the limelight.

If Jeremy Clarkson hadn't assaulted him, he would probably have run Top Gear until he decided to move on.

If the BBC hadn't done anything, do you think Mr Tynon's position would have been tenable? Perhaps with an apology it might have been.

But Mr Tynon still has a job, and I doubt Jeremy Clarkson will be knocking on the door of his local Job Centre.

[TheAnimus]

In what way is Mr Tynon being "punished"?

He has lost his job. Work that he was doing has now been canned. He is coming out of this worse off, than if no action had been taken in many ways.

As I posted earlier,the media storm will blow over or move on to the next 'oh my gosh, a celeb shock horror story' and Mr Tynon will get on with his job as a TV programme producer, having been briefly in the limelight.

Meanwhile, I expect he will have to leave his home whilst the media-storm continues.

If Jeremy Clarkson hadn't assaulted him, he would probably have run Top Gear until he decided to move on.

Indeed. This is my point, an action by Clarkson has been turned into something that negatively impacts him more than it should have.

if the BBC hadn't done anything, do you think Mr Tynon's position would have been tenable? Perhaps with an apology it might have been.

Absolutely would have been if handled properly, as I said, I speak from 'first hand' experience here.

But Mr Tynon still has a job, and I doubt Jeremy Clarkson will be knocking on the door of his local Job Centre.

Except he doesn't at the moment. And the reaction around it right now suggests that the BBC will probably have to pay for him to live elsewhere for a little while, he has become the target of some nutters. As I said before, this kind of thing is entirely predictable, and sadly, businesses have an organisation to protect their staff from actions the organisation takes, making them targets for nutters. I recall some of the security issues we had, after some low life occupy protesters started making threats against a firm I was working for. It's not morally right we have to do that, but it's the least worst option.

[Top_gun]

Because you've not given any, at all. You say it was the morally right thing to do. Morals should be justifiable, at least that's what I remember from my philosophy modules coverage of ethics. When you don't justify, apply them in context, you end up with that almost religious style gay people should be stoned type nonsense.

I think most people knows the difference between right and wrong. With a universal agreement that physically hitting someone is wrong. The notion not to sack Clarkson because he is a celebrity amongst a minority part of this country's population or a money earner for the BBC is disturbing. Sorry, I don't need to justify morals when someone has done something clearly wrong.

No it's not. I'm not discrediting it, I'm saying that it doesn't measure the true situation. Imagine that you said people use telecoms less, because they make fewer PSTN phone calls, you'd be laughed at. The mobile phone, and internet has made useage increase drastically. But, if you sliced to just land line calls, it would appear to be in decline. The other thing is, it's important to remember that you don't cite a source by stating the providers name, you cite the actual data.

Your argument initially makes sense except when you consider the same data source had indicated even lower audience numbers in 2012 & 2013. Surely if more people are watching top gear on iplayer then one would expect a downward trend.

Fair enough, but then, why are you concerned in the first place?

Because a minority of people is defending the indefensible. The fact that a victim of an hideous crime is treated as though he was the blame. What's next, a rape victim should not report a crime because the consequences of a court case is much worse? That money justifies criminal acts.

[peterb]

I can't see any reports that Mr Tynon has lost his job at the BBC. He may not produce Top Gun, but as a BBC employee, he may go on to produce other shows.

[sammyc]

If the BBC hadn't done anything, do you think Mr Tynon's position would have been tenable? Perhaps with an apology it might have been.

Absolutely would have been if handled properly, as I said, I speak from 'first hand' experience here.

I would strongly suggest that only Mr Tymon knows whether his position in a continuing working environment with JC would be tenable or not. Your own first hand experience is exactly that, and because you were party to every minute of your prior history/relationship with the person in question, you know whether you can work around the situation or not.

None of us are privy to more than the minimum of knowledge required to make a judgment on whether third party A can work with third party B or not, and would only be guessing at their prior working atmosphere, even if an educated guess says 'not the easiest'.

What we can presume is that the favoured situation for person A is not to have to work in a difficult atmosphere in the first place, and failing that, not be required to grin & bear it to suit anyone else involved, be that an individual, corporation, public at large, & the general nutterdom. The point that this situation has been 'turned' into something it need not have been is to fudge the responsibility lying with JC, to behave decently to his production team.

I fail to see that anyone here is advocating the application of an unbending moral stance as you suggest, merely that people are happy with their moral standpoint in this instance. Any amount of different instances would result in different judgments, cuttings of slack, compromises and trying to get best outcome for all - first and foremost the injured party, and all round - and with financial consideration in its proper place.

Undoubtedly, regrettable things are done in the workplace in the interests of keeping someone valuable in place. The instance you have cited of the news desk assault is highly regrettable but works only as an example of something that should have been handled differently; the fact that it wasn't doesn't really impact on this case. If you were to punch your co-worker as previously suggested and strings would be pulled to keep you on, I find that equally regrettable; and across the board where any individual (especially where in a weaker position than you were) feels under pressure not to speak out. At a life/death war/peace level, deals may well have to be cut to keep a crucial person in a crucial position, again regrettably. None of these instances are of that import, and where finance is the driving factor, it's even more distasteful.

The difference is that you find this state of affairs regrettable but unavoidable in the 'real world' (if I read you correctly), and that therefore there is almost no point aiming for better. I would disagree, and if that makes me a woolly idealist in your book, then so be it.

Anyway, on a lighter note, the situation has ticked off Cameron's 'heartbroken' children ('hunger strikes' and all, cue roguish parental 'it lasted all of 5 minutes' asides & so forth), and few things gladden the heart more than a thwarted 11 year old.

[opel80uk]

I would strongly suggest that only Mr Tymon knows whether his position in a continuing working environment with JC would be tenable or not. Your own first hand experience is exactly that, and because you were party to every minute of your prior history/relationship with the person in question, you know whether you can work around the situation or not.

None of us are privy to more than the minimum of knowledge required to make a judgment on whether third party A can work with third party B or not, and would only be guessing at their prior working atmosphere, even if an educated guess says 'not the easiest'.

What we can presume is that the favoured situation for person A is not to have to work in a difficult atmosphere in the first place, and failing that, not be required to grin & bear it to suit anyone else involved, be that an individual, corporation, public at large, & the general nutterdom. The point that this situation has been 'turned' into something it need not have been is to fudge the responsibility lying with JC, to behave decently to his production team.

I fail to see that anyone here is advocating the application of an unbending moral stance as you suggest, merely that people are happy with their moral standpoint in this instance. Any amount of different instances would result in different judgments, cuttings of slack, compromises and trying to get best outcome for all - first and foremost the injured party, and all round - and with financial consideration in its proper place.

Undoubtedly, regrettable things are done in the workplace in the interests of keeping someone valuable in place. The instance you have cited of the news desk assault is highly regrettable but works only as an example of something that should have been handled differently; the fact that it wasn't doesn't really impact on this case. If you were to punch your co-worker as previously suggested and strings would be pulled to keep you on, I find that equally regrettable; and across the board where any individual (especially where in a weaker position than you were) feels under pressure not to speak out. At a life/death war/peace level, deals may well have to be cut to keep a crucial person in a crucial position, again regrettably. None of these instances are of that import, and where finance is the driving factor, it's even more distasteful.

The difference is that you find this state of affairs regrettable but unavoidable in the 'real world' (if I read you correctly), and that therefore there is almost no point aiming for better. I would disagree, and if that makes me a woolly idealist in your book, then so be it.

Anyway, on a lighter note, the situation has ticked off Cameron's 'heartbroken' children ('hunger strikes' and all, cue roguish parental 'it lasted all of 5 minutes' asides & so forth), and few things gladden the heart more than a thwarted 11 year old.

Hear, hear. Excellent post.

[mikerr]

http://www.theguardian.com/media/201...bbc-macquarrie

If you want the full report it's downloadable as a PDF here:
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/mediacent...on-summary.pdf