Top Gear on Hold - Clarkson suspended by beeb.

[Andy3536]

As his employer the BBC also then have an obligation to suspend him and investigate his conduct in the work place should that turn out to be the case. At that point, especially as his profession gives him a soapbox in front of an international audience, it makes sense to suspend any programming he's involved in at the same time.

If you worked for any subsidiary of Whitbread for instance and I'm using them as an example simply because I was a manager there and know the code of conduct and disciplinary procedures well. Let's say you worked for them and you punched a fellow employee in the face while chatting in the stock room you'd still recieve similar if not harsher treatment even if the incident didn't occur in public view and no charges were pressed by the other party.

At the very least you'd be looking at suspension, probably without pay for the duration of what would be a very short investigation followed by your dismissal given the circumstances. The only difference is it wouldn't make the news because you're Joe Bloggs not Jeremy Clarkson and people will miss Top Gear being on this Sunday.

*edit* appears directhex beat me to the punch (pun intended ) */edit*

With 2 other presenters though, the normal course of action would be to run the show without Clarkson with Hammond and May presenting. Or get a replacement.
The One show didn't stop when Jason Manford was given the elbow....
It's possible that the added problem from this comes from Clarkson holding some of the rights to the show, which could mean the show just can't go on without him.
There are some Top Gear live shows in a few weeks that havn't been cancelled. Which could mean the BBC donesn't own the Top Gear brand, so outside the BBC, the show and brand can still exist.
If the Top gear name can be moved over aswell as the presenters, this has to be of great interest to other TV channels.

[opel80uk]

How is it 'quite clear'. Im sorry but its not, its mumbled, very mumbled but was even taken out of the show deliberately.

Seeing as the clip in question is being taken out of context, I think its only fair that the apology is also presented to bring things back down to earth. The explanation seems utterly reasonable from where i'm sitting.

From the apology you linked: '....it did appear that I'd actually used the word I was trying to obscure'. So I can hear it, he himself admitted he said it, and he can also hear it. What about that is not 'quite clear' to you? I don't need something screamed in my ear hole or displayed on neon lights to be able to say it's clear.

It's baffling that the explanation he gave, of 'doing everything in my power to not use that word', but yet still failing is 'utterly reasonable' to you. If my 6 year old gave me that explanation after doing something wrong I wouldn't be impressed, never mind a grown adult.

I don't really care if people find spoken, written or drawn things offensive. In my opinion the person who is offended is the person with the real problem.

So in Biscuit world, If tell my female boss exactly how nice my wife's breasts are (using more colourful language of course), what I like doing with them and her in general, in the sack, it would be my boss that had the real problem should she take offence, and not me? After all, I'm not actually talking about my Boss, and she could just ignore it if she wanted. And they are only words, after all.

.....As for the other word, new one on me, hope the Armed services know they can no longer slope arms, or slope off early from work. And as for that small slope on my drive to allow rain water to run off, I hang my head in shame.

We all know the context in which he used the term, just in the way that if there was an openly homosexual man on this forum and I ended every discussion with him with 'Poof!', no one would with half a brain cell would believe me if I said I was referring to me leaving suddenly. So I don't think the Army or lazy people at work have anything to fear just yet, because most rational people understand context. As for the editor, I'm pretty sure he/she would've have known he was referring to the man on the bridge, as otherwise you'd have to, IMO, be pretty simple to look at that segment and come away with the opinion that Clarkson was simply, and rather randomly, referring only to the grade of a bridge (which wasn't even sloped as far as I could see).

I don't know what's more impressive, the justification of the casual racism that appears to be the norm amongst many posters on this thread, or the fact that Jeremy Clarkson, of all people, has managed to convince seemingly large sections of the public that he is some kind of martyr for free speech in the battle against illiberalism. A Salman Rushdie for our time.

[Biscuit]

From the apology you linked: '....it did appear that I'd actually used the word I was trying to obscure'. So I can hear it, he himself admitted he said it, and he can also hear it. What about that is not 'quite clear' to you? I don't need something screamed in my ear hole or displayed on neon lights to be able to say it's clear.

"It did appear", is not admission. Once again, his words are taken bent for the purpose of making a point.

If I mspell crtain wdrs in a sntnace, you cn sitll undrst it... Why? because your brain fills in the gaps. Like I said before, I learned the rhyme as "Tigger" when I was a kid, so that's actually what I heard in the mumble.

So in Biscuit world, If tell my female boss exactly how nice my wife's breasts are (using more colourful language of course), what I like doing with them and her in general, in the sack, it would be my boss that had the real problem should she take offence, and not me? After all, I'm not actually talking about my Boss, and she could just ignore it if she wanted. And they are only words, after all.

I mean this is a pretty bizarre example, but... exactly.... think about how wonderful it would be if crude, irritating people were just ignored and everyone just got on with their life around them? Is there anything more embarrassing than being completely ignored?

[Knoxville]

With 2 other presenters though, the normal course of action would be to run the show without Clarkson with Hammond and May presenting. Or get a replacement.
The One show didn't stop when Jason Manford was given the elbow....
It's possible that the added problem from this comes from Clarkson holding some of the rights to the show, which could mean the show just can't go on without him.
There are some Top Gear live shows in a few weeks that havn't been cancelled. Which could mean the BBC donesn't own the Top Gear brand, so outside the BBC, the show and brand can still exist.
If the Top gear name can be moved over aswell as the presenters, this has to be of great interest to other TV channels.

Indeed, as someone joked earlier in the thread Dave could be about to get really lucky if they're willing to drum up the cash and take some heat in the process IF it came to the BBC completely disowning the show.

I suppose it could be that Clarkson in some way has a controlling interest and that's what has put the brakes on showing the last few episodes. I think the major stumbling block is probably the "live" portion of the show with the star in the reasonably priced car which has yet to be filmed and as he is currently under suspension this means that the beeb can either have Hammond or May conduct the interview, re-edit the show to fill the gap using material they probably need to keep for subsequent episodes or cut it ten to fifteen minutes short. None of which are ideal situations to be in.

It could even be something as daft as there being a clause in his current contract that he is the only presenter that can conduct those interview segments, after all he did go through that stage of fancying himself as a chat show host.

The BBC have also got to know that regardless of the outcome he will put the boot in and make a snide little joke about all of this uproar on their time. Every time he's done or said something controversial he gets a little wink and a nod in for it during the news or interview portion of Top Gear. Until the situation is resolved I'd be inclined to put a stop to that kind of behaviour by suspending him as well.

To be completely honest that's the bit that annoys me the most because he knows what he's doing and he plays up because it generates attention. He's not thoroughly daft, he knows he's walking a fine line and has been for some time. He's a grown man, he understands the implications of what he's saying and "oh it was an outtake" or some such nonsense is really no excuse, if the camera's on the camera's on and you're an employee of a huge broadcasting company that expects certain standards to be upheld.

[opel80uk]

"It did appear", is not admission. Once again, his words are taken bent for the purpose of making a point.

If I mspell crtain wdrs in a sntnace, you cn sitll undrst it... Why? because your brain fills in the gaps. Like I said before, I learned the rhyme as "Tigger" when I was a kid, so that's actually what I heard in the mumble.

'it did appear that I'd actually used the word' is an admission. If your wallet was missing, and I said 'it appears that I've stolen your wallet', how on earth is that not an admission if I'm talking about myself? Your reasoning, along with your insistence that, despite his apology, he never said it, is strange to say the least.

I mean this is a pretty bizarre example, but... exactly.... think about how wonderful it would be if crude, irritating people were just ignored and everyone just got on with their life around them? Is there anything more embarrassing than being completely ignored?

Why is it bizzarre? The premise of what you said is that people should be able to say what they want, and the person who is offended is the one with the problem, in all circumstances, no? I just put that into a scenario. Aside from the fact that it's hard to ignore Clarkson, and even harder to ignore that effectively a public tax pays his wages, there is something more embarrassing than being completely ignored. It's walking past, say for example, a disabled kid being insulted by a grown man simply for being disabled, and then when that kid gets upset, me telling him or her that they are the one with the problem because they've been offended. Now I'd be pretty embarrassed if I did that.

[peterb]

'it did appear that I'd actually used the word' is an admission. If your wallet was missing, and I said 'it appears that I've stolen your wallet', how on earth is that not an admission if I'm talking about myself? Your reasoning, along with your insistence that, despite his apology, he never said it, is strange to say the least.

No it isn't - he is admitting that it appears that the word was used, not that he used it.

As the saying goes - "appearances can be deceptive". There are many instances in law where what appears to be a foregone conclusion in a trial is not because when the evidence is challenged, what appears to be one set of circumstances is actually quite different.

To use your wallet analogy - you drop your wallet as I walk past you and I pick it up. An observer who didn't see me bend down to pick it up may conclude I had picked your pocket and therefore stolen it.

[DanceswithUnix]

I think the major stumbling block is probably the "live" portion of the show with the star in the reasonably priced car which has yet to be filmed and as he is currently under suspension this means that the beeb can either have Hammond or May conduct the interview, re-edit the show to fill the gap using material they probably need to keep for subsequent episodes or cut it ten to fifteen minutes short. None of which are ideal situations to be in.

I suspect they could replace him with a bag of manure without too much overall detriment to the show.

[Andy3536]

I suspect they could replace him with a bag of manure without too much overall detriment to the show.

On the Radio today they were talking about it being the most popular TV show 'ever'. I don't know just how accurate that is, but it's sold to 214 countries and is a great cash cow for the BBC.
Much of that is down to Clarksons personality.
You may hate the chap, but he is the show, he is why people watch.

If Top Gear carried on without him, and he went and did another show where he had free reign to do what he wanted. Top gear would disapear into obscurity while his show would be the popular one.
That's what makes this a big problem for the BBC, at a time when thier funds are tightening, and there's a threat long term to the license. They are now faced with a decision as to whether or not to carry on with their biggest selling show.

[DanceswithUnix]

You may hate the chap, but he is the show, he is why people watch.

I don't hate him, I just think that for at least one show he could be replaced with a bag of manure to great comic effect for any live show sections, possibly with a voice over from anyone handy. Pre-recorded test drives might be more of a problem if they want to remove him.

This is not a serious documentary show we are talking about here, it is low brow entertainment.

[Biscuit]

'it did appear that I'd actually used the word' is an admission. If your wallet was missing, and I said 'it appears that I've stolen your wallet', how on earth is that not an admission if I'm talking about myself? Your reasoning, along with your insistence that, despite his apology, he never said it, is strange to say the least.

Lets look at later in the apology:
“In fact I have here the note I sent at the time to the production office and it says: ‘I didn’t use the n-word here but I’ve just listened through my headphones and it sounds like I did. Is there another take that we could use?’
Which is what he meant when he says, "it did appear that I'd actually used the word". As in, it seemed that way. Remember he also qualified this with:
"if you listen very carefully with the sound turned right up"

Why is it bizzarre? The premise of what you said is that people should be able to say what they want, and the person who is offended is the one with the problem, in all circumstances, no? I just put that into a scenario.

But the scenario assumes that given no rules or restrictions the general moral code by which you uphold yourself would be thrown out of the window... it wouldn't. I'm sure you are a decent bloke, if you entered this hypothetical world tomorrow, would you immediately go around saying unnecessarily 'offensive' things? I doubt it
My point is more towards the idea of people being thicker skinned and not giving idiots the attention they really want, rather than playing their game and escalating the situation.
Im not saying problems go away if you ignore them, but in many cases where no-one is actually harmed, I believe many of these problems would

Aside from the fact that it's hard to ignore Clarkson, and even harder to ignore that effectively a public tax pays his wages, there is something more embarrassing than being completely ignored.

License fee is not a tax, effectively or otherwise.

It's walking past, say for example, a disabled kid being insulted by a grown man simply for being disabled, and then when that kid gets upset, me telling him or her that they are the one with the problem because they've been offended. Now I'd be pretty embarrassed if I did that.

But wouldn't a direct approach towards someone really cross the line into harassment rather than just being generally 'offensive'? Harassment is a different situation to making a none direct statement that some people find offensive for little other reason than it gives them a chance to exercise their social justice muscles.

The thing about this is that i'm not a huge Jezzer fan or follower. I enjoy TG and I think he's funny, but I have no loyalty too him. My problem is with this ridiculous abuse of social media and the press. I mean someone took the time to dig out an out take from years ago that didn't make it onto the TV with no intention other than to cause outrage and we all continue to fall for it.

[Andy3536]

I don't hate him, I just think that for at least one show he could be replaced with a bag of manure to great comic effect for any live show sections, possibly with a voice over from anyone handy. Pre-recorded test drives might be more of a problem if they want to remove him.

This is not a serious documentary show we are talking about here, it is low brow entertainment.

For one show that would work i suppose. Mabee even a cardboard cutout of an orangutan.

But it's very much his show, low brow entertainment it may be, but just like popular comedians and actors. It's not talent that draws people in, it's personality.
It's Clarksons personality that makes the show a big hit, you have him the shows a hit. You don't, not so much.

[Biscuit]

'it did appear that I'd actually used the word' is an admission. If your wallet was missing, and I said 'it appears that I've stolen your wallet', how on earth is that not an admission if I'm talking about myself? Your reasoning, along with your insistence that, despite his apology, he never said it, is strange to say the least.

Lets look at later in the apology:
“In fact I have here the note I sent at the time to the production office and it says: ‘I didn’t use the n-word here but I’ve just listened through my headphones and it sounds like I did. Is there another take that we could use?’
Which is what he meant when he says, "it did appear that I'd actually used the word". As in, it seemed that way. Remember he also qualified this with:
"if you listen very carefully with the sound turned right up"

The question is, "Do you believe that he actually said the word or intended to say the word?"
For me, its a no, perhaps for you its a yes... but its certainly not clear cut otherwise we wouldn't be debating it all.

Why is it bizzarre? The premise of what you said is that people should be able to say what they want, and the person who is offended is the one with the problem, in all circumstances, no? I just put that into a scenario.

But the scenario assumes that given no rules or restrictions the general moral code by which you uphold yourself would be thrown out of the window... it wouldn't. I'm sure you are a decent bloke, if you entered this hypothetical world tomorrow, would you immediately go around saying unnecessarily 'offensive' things? I doubt it
My point is more towards the idea of people being thicker skinned and not giving idiots the attention they really want, rather than playing their game and escalating the situation.
I'm not saying all problems go away if you ignore them, but in many cases, where no-one is actually harmed these kind of problems probably would.

Aside from the fact that it's hard to ignore Clarkson, and even harder to ignore that effectively a public tax pays his wages, there is something more embarrassing than being completely ignored.

License fee is not a tax, effectively or otherwise.

It's walking past, say for example, a disabled kid being insulted by a grown man simply for being disabled, and then when that kid gets upset, me telling him or her that they are the one with the problem because they've been offended. Now I'd be pretty embarrassed if I did that.

But wouldn't a direct approach towards someone really cross the line into harassment rather than just being generally 'offensive'? Harassment is a different situation to making a none direct statement that some people find offensive for little other reason than it gives them a chance to exercise their social outrage muscles.

The thing about this is that i'm not a huge Jezzer fan or follower. I enjoy TG and I think he's funny, but I have no loyalty too him. My problem is with this ridiculous abuse of social media and the press. I mean someone took the time to dig up an out take from years ago that didn't make it onto the TV with no intention other than to cause outrage, and we all continue to fall for it.

[opel80uk]

No it isn't - he is admitting that it appears that the word was used, not that he used it.

As the saying goes - "appearances can be deceptive". There are many instances in law where what appears to be a foregone conclusion in a trial is not because when the evidence is challenged, what appears to be one set of circumstances is actually quite different.

To use your wallet analogy - you drop your wallet as I walk past you and I pick it up. An observer who didn't see me bend down to pick it up may conclude I had picked your pocket and therefore stolen it.

Exactly - if an observer had said it it would mean nothing, but he said it himself, about himself. He even then said he had tried to not use the word, but had failed in his attempt. If he's not admitting using it, what did he fail in? Not appearing to use the word? If so, are you saying he wasn't trying to not use the word, but merely not appear to use the word? What would that even mean? The only possibility of that making any sense whatsoever is if he was talking about himself solely from the view point of an observer, with no sense of his own actions, and who talks like that?

If you tripped over as you were walking in front of me, and I said to you, 'it appears I've tripped you over with my foot, although I did try to avoid tripping you over' and I then apologised for the incident, you are seriously telling me that you wouldn't accept that as an admission by me, irrelative whether it was deliberate or not, that it was my foot that tripped you up?

[TheAnimus]

opel80uk, what is it you feel that is so oppressive about that term, the problem is it comes from a time when the British empire did treat many natives like animals. The fact is, it wasn't said clearly, it was being used as part of a rhyme, myself and others, used to say as a child. It was a mistake, and it was removed in edit. However, these actions are genuinely part of our history, our heritage, the arts. No one complains about the V&A exhibitions (well actually some twonks do) because the context is key. Same with that case.

Now the slope on the bridge thing, that one was just poor humour, but no different to what a lot of comedians would do. Or the whole 'chink in amour' gag.

Stop being such a professional victim.

[Biscuit]

Exactly - if an observer had said it it would mean nothing, but he said it himself, about himself. He even then said he had tried to not use the word, but had failed in his attempt. If he's not admitting using it, what did he fail in? Not appearing to use the word? If so, are you saying he wasn't trying to not use the word, but merely not appear to use the word? What would that even mean? The only possibility of that making any sense whatsoever is if he was talking about himself solely from the view point of an observer, with no sense of his own actions, and who talks like that?

People being forced to make an apology for something they didn't do.

[peterb]

Exactly - if an observer had said it it would mean nothing, but he said it himself, about himself. He even then said he had tried to not use the word, but had failed in his attempt. If he's not admitting using it, what did he fail in? Not appearing to use the word? If so, are you saying he wasn't trying to not use the word, but merely not appear to use the word? What would that even mean? The only possibility of that making any sense whatsoever is if he was talking about himself solely from the view point of an observer, with no sense of his own actions, and who talks like that?

If you tripped over as you were walking in front of me, and I said to you, 'it appears I've tripped you over with my foot, although I did try to avoid tripping you over' and I then apologised for the incident, you are seriously telling me that you wouldn't accept that as an admission by me, irrelative whether it was deliberate or not, that it was my foot that tripped you up?

It might be that you thought you had tripped me up, when in fact I had tripped over an uneven paving stone and happened to have touch you, giving you the impression you had tripped me up, when the reality was different. You might apologise for doing so, even though you didn't. Your apology for something you didn't do doesn't suddenly change the reality.

Just as Clarkson admits that it appears the word was used, but that that he did actually use it.