He's a cunt. I know this because his TV personality is a cunt, and I'm ignoring the fact that he's essentially an actor.

He'll probably become a spokesman for the next acronym-based political party.

>>18885

Yes he's a cunt, but he's an honest and down-to-earth cunt and that's a rarity in the media.

>>18887
I was being sarcastic. Nobody knows if he's a cunt, they just watch Top Gear.

>>18888
More importantly, nobody cares if he's a cunt.

SWITCH 'IM WITH STEW! STEW FOR TOP GEAR!

STEW STEW STEW!
NOW NOW NOW!
CHANT CHANT CHANT!

>>18890
Not cunty or Kippery enough.

Some say he called the cameraman an eskimo.

Some say he was caught by the producer's car, wanking off into the windscreen wiper fluid bottle.

He'll be back. You're only ever fired from the Beeb for touching kids or doing drugs (or more accurately, if you get caught doing either)

>>18894
Even then only if you're really unlucky or really stupid.

>Top Gear will not be broadcast this Sunday," it said.

Can't believe this, have they not filmed it already?

I don't really give a shit about his views but I do wish he's just get a haircut.

>>18896
They'll have the features done, but (SIARPC schedule permitting) the studio segments are done midweek, typically on the Wednesday before transmission.

DAE miss the days when Top Gear was all about the best smack?

It's all so PC now, pretending that heroin chic was never a thing.

I hope Capaldi replaces Clarkson and the show can get back to its roots. Just imagine him going off 'Thick of It' style at the other presenters. Imagine him calling all the cars 'shite'. Brilliant

(A good day to you Sir!)

>>18884
He looks like a hobo.

>>18884
>>18900

I think the magenta on my monitor is a bit off.

>>18893
https://www.youtube.com/v/Q1NyoGRI9Tc

>>18900>>18901

The Beeb employs the finest makeup artists on this side of the Atlantic.

>>18884
While the words "fracas" and "altercation" have been thrown about, it's being said that he punched a producer. Evidently it was pretty serious since they've now canned the rest of the series, effectively killing off what is their biggest export not involving a doctor of some kind.

>>18904

>killing off what is their biggest export not involving a doctor of some kind.

Clarkson has an (honorary) doctorate from some university.

>>18905
That doesn't count as a real doctorate because Oxford Polytechnic isn't a real uni.

>>18904
There is the option that the producer will be fired for thinking he had the right to suspend him.

I have a feeling though that clarkson has been wanting to leave for a few years now, it seems that hes been trying to get fired on purpose

>>18885
>>18887

>but he's an honest and down-to-earth cunt

He's not though. He's neither down-to-earth nor honest. He's a millionare who acts out a carefully crafted cuntish persona which is written by a team of other lesser cunts who have mistaken grandad-tier worldviews for edgy humour.

I wouldn't even mind, but If I were a millionare paying other people to write jokes for me I'd at least spring for the good ones.

Watching Top Gear is like living in a nightmare alternate universe where you've been sitting in double Geography for 50 years waiting for a substitute teacher to arrive listening to the inane 'banter' of the lads in the back row who are fawning over a sticky, crumpled copy of MAX POWER Magazine.

It's really sad that Top Gear is arguably the biggest cultural export from the UK these days. Some mediocre science fiction author once wrote about how art was 'the canary in the mine' of a civilization. If that is the case then we are culturally fucked.

>>18908
Watch those edges, lad.

>>18909

I hope someone stuffs cat shit into your letterbox.

>>18910
Oh dear. Someone call this lad an ambulance, I don't think I can stop the bleeding.

I don't care about the show one bit, as it has essentially been the exact same joke that has been running for at least 7 or so years.
If it turns out he did twat someone, then auntie would be okay to scrap the rest of the series and probably not continue having it commissioned. Isn't the company that makes TG owned by Clarkson anyway? Should be interesting if the case goes to a tribunal.

Whats stopping him from fucking off and moving the show to Channel 4 or something?

>>18912
No, the whole thing is a BBC operation. Clarkson doesn't own anything there. As he's facing a misconduct charge there probably won't be any severance if it's upheld. As for the show ending, the franchise is a massive cash cow for BBCW and losing the flagship show would be a massive dent in that, particularly as none of the export copies have anywhere near the same clout.

>>18913
Same thing that forced Channel 5 to use a different title when they revived it. BBC Worldwide own the name and the current format.

Has no one else remarked on the fact that he looks like he should be sat outside a Ladbrokes in a stained parka nursing a 2L of Frosty Jack's?

>>18914
Then if there has been a case of Clarkson losing his rag and punching a colleague, that should be grounds for a dismissal on grounds of gross misconduct, unless the guy doesn't push for it and decides to settle for a payout if offered instead.

I take it there are quite a few people at the BBC who really don't want to see the back of the show simply for the reason it rakes in loads of money, despite maybe not really liking it themselves, so they will probably be trying to mediate and settle this the best way they can that keeps the milk on coming.

>>18916
Yes, >>18897 and >>18900 both did that already, albeit with fewer words. Which I prefer.

Broken Britain. People care more about the fate of Clarkson and Top Gear than the fate of the NHS or what's happening to the most vulnerable members of our society.

>>18919

>what's happening to the most vulnerable members of our society.

Do you really think this man >>18884, if we dare even imbue him with the responsibility of such a meagre title, is capable of finding work outside of being a full time Alan Partridge-a-like?

Elsewhere, I've heard words to the effect of "he's not actually a massive bellend, he just plays one on TV". At this stage we're still not sure what happened. His people are apparently denying it, and the three of them are unexpectedly blasé about the whole thing. Bear in mind that when Clarkson was hit in the face with a cream cake, his response was to congratulate the thrower on a good shot. If he has lashed out in anger, someone must have hit a very raw nerve.

If I were a cynical fucker, I'd suggest they were finding an excuse to clear the schedule for something, probably Comic Relief related or possibly this secret interview thing they're thought to be doing with the PM.

>>18920

Very droll.

This whole issue points to the fragility of the BBC's finances. Clarkson no longer owns any rights to the format (having sold his stake to BBC Worldwide), but Top Gear could struggle to survive his departure, leaving a huge hole in the budget at a time the BBC can ill afford. The international rights for Top Gear are worth over £150m, but the merchandise rights could be worth as much again. When you consider that axing BBC Three will only net savings of £60m, the implications for services could be striking.

>>18921

He did once punch Piers Morgan, but that's hardly an indictment.

>>18923
Quite. I'd be wary of any person who when placed in a room with Piers Moron doesn't punch him.

>>18921
I think the Mirror said that the producer had failed to lay on food after a long day's filming. If you're very hungry and expecting someone to have provided food for you then it's understandable to go off on one.

>>18922

BBC Contingency plans regarding Top Gear Post-Clarkson Departure

A: Hire cassetteboy to create new episodes featuring Clarkson by mashing up old ones. Then the only expense would be filming new exteriors of the cars driving about or whatever.

B: Get the old (probably unemployed) Tomorrow's World wonks to steal the Clarkson waxwork from the Blackpool Mme. Tussaud's, reanimate it using the latest in cutting edge animatronic technology and continue filming with Jemmyclarkbot. The only foreseeable problem with this plan is whether or not the waxwork might start to melt under the hot studio lights.

The international audience for Top Gear has already self-selected as being dim, so I reckon that either strategy would allow them to produce Top Gear indefinitely without anyone catching on.

Given the range and diversity of jokes featured on the show, one wonders whether this might not be going on already.

>>18925
Would you punch a co-worker over a ham and cucumber sandwich though?

The petition to reinstate him is at 630,000. In twenty four hours. This is what people will get motivated about. The fuck lads. It makes me want to put a gun to my head.

>>18918
Only one of those did, and "hobo" is a filthy Americanism so that doesn't count either. Get out of my pub.

>>18929
Welcome to the modern world, where all our problems have been solved and people agonise over nothing.

If you attempt to punch someone you work with then you get fired. Where do you go from there, logically speaking, I mean, to convince yourself that this is some kind of BBC hit job?

I'm completely mind freaked by the amount of people who are a-okay with the idea of hitting people you work with because you didn't get your fucking din-dins.

>>18932
I'm completely 'mind freaked' about people who make judgements about vast numbers of people becausehe happened to believe something he read on buzzfeed or facebook or whatever.

>>18932
He's a celebrity, the normal rules don't apply. Especially when you're going to be the future Prime Minister - even Cameron has stepped in to defend Jezza.

>>18933

Everything you just said is incorrect.

>>18932
>I'm completely mind freaked by the amount of people who are a-okay with the idea of hitting people you work with because you didn't get your fucking din-dins.
If it's good enough for the wife, it's good enough for someone who's getting paid to do it.

Less facetiously, we still don't know the details of what happened. There's also some validity to the complaints - by suspending him and the programme, the BBC are punishing their audience as well as him, and people are understandably annoyed at that. It also doesn't help that at a time when the BBC's finances are strained they will face compensation claims in the millions from their overseas broadcast partners for failing to furnish the programme on time. I would think it reasonable to assume that the producer himself now has his head on the block, since if you're not at C-level you don't generally lose your employer millions and still get to keep your job, especailly when public money is involved. Bit of a bummer if he was actually a victim, but that's how it goes.

>>18936
I get the feeling you really want to ask "Why the fuck should the BBC lose out because one person acted like a petulant little shit?".
The BBC should have zero tolerance to any kind of abuse, no matter how big or important the star is perceived to be, just look at ARE JIM'LL and consider that the worst case scenario for letting people do questionable things unopposed. In the long run, that is of more damage to the BBC.

>>18937
I feel like this picture really captures his target audience though.

Don't ban me, this exact picture was used a few weeks ago. christ.

>>18938
The image was clearly made by a complete fucking moron, though.

https://www.youtube.com/v/qo85xMi8imY

If James May was there when fracasgate happened and was drunk, it begs the question: "Was Jeremy Clarkson also drunk when he tried to hit that lad?"

How could there be booze but no food?

I guess we shall have to wait until the Crimewatch reconstruction to get a better idea of what happened.

>>18940

Haha. Apparently the producer did lay on food, but it was a 'cold plate'. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

What a diva.

>>18940
> How could there be booze but no food?
Thank god I didn't go into accountancy

I just read Richard Littlejon's piece about this, then I read the comments, and now I'm having a nurse type this for me.

>>18944
Yeah, try not to read Littlejohn. I can only imagine it was something like 'The eskimos are happy that Clarkson is gone, but where were they when Jimmy Savile was abusing kids?'.

>>18939
Whats the matter now nandoslad?

My facebook feed today basically goes "JEREMY CLARKSON IS RACIST AND HOMOPHOBIC, WHY DO PEOPLE CLICK LIKE ON PICTURES ABOUT HIM HIM BUT NOT ON PICTURES OF WORLD HUNGER OR FANNY CUTTING" ad nauseum.

I mean, I understand the sentiment, I really do. But fuck me.

For a start, he's neither a racist nor homophobic, as a person. He's a clown (and clown is the right word- Not a comic, not an actor, a clown. That thing about the "slope on the bridge"? A thoroughly modern version of having a cream pie to the face.) and his entire shtick is to play on exactly that touchy middle class PC-sensibility. He may or may not be to your taste, you can dismiss him as a bufoon or you can praise him as a clever satire, that's your prerogative. Lets put the actual person aside.

Is it really so offensive that people are signing a petition about someone they like? And is it really hard to accept that more people care about Jeremy Clarkson than care about lefty-cause-of-the-week-whatever? I mean I will grant you, it's a pretty damning comment about the human race, but seriously, that's not news. If Clarksongate and his fucking online petition is what finally opened your eyes to how broken most people's priorities are, you are a hopelessly naive twat.

But here's what really boils my piss. Maybe the reason nobody signed your online petition to give African children free wooly hats, is because online petitions are fucking useless in the real world. Name me one online petition that worked, on a relatable, national level. There aren't any. Cameron is still selling the NHS, we're still bombing the desert folk and no amount of signatures is ever going to change it.

Bringing back everyone's favourite TV presenter? Just a fucking bit more achievable.

>>18948
>his entire shtick is to play on exactly that touchy middle class PC-sensibility
Making bigoted comments purely to annoy the sour-faced dykes at the Guardian doesn't somehow stop them being bigoted comments. It's not The Pub Landlord-esque satire he's doing here.

>Is it really so offensive that people are signing a petition about someone they like?
No. It's offensive that they're signing a petition in support of someone who has allegedly committed assault, however.

>>18948
An online petition saved Whitley Bay ice rink. I signed it and everything, dead chuffed.

>>18949

Allegedly is the keyword, I think.

Now, I've witnessed enough fights outside pubs in my time to know that it's probably over something stupid and neither side is entirely in the right. What usually happens is for both sides to sit on the nearest pavement and hug each other and say they didn't mean it, and neither of them will remember any of it in the morning- Except that in this case we're dealing with a celebrity, a producer, and the vast hordes of the Twatterati.

I think what's getting my back up is how self-righteous that lot are acting, as if they've never lost their temper at someone before. It happens, especially when alcohol is involved, as we can presume it was.

What one has to understand is that when it comes to low-brow media, the audience don't particularly care what an entertainer does outside of that particular source of entertainment. Part of this is undeniably a patronising elitism over the perceived sort of building, plumbing, van driving peasants who enjoy Top Gear. But here's the thing. Clarkson could be the reincarnation of Josef fucking Mengele, and the majority of his audience wouldn't give a shit. They just want to watch their car program, that one hour of television that brings them happiness on a weekly basis, in an otherwise miserable existence.

I don't know why I'm even taking sides in this debate, because I really don't particularly care either way. I think I just hate the social media faux-liberal smug cunts more than anything.

>>18951
>They just want to watch their car program

I don't think people watch Top Gear because they actually care about cars. I know plenty of people, twats admittedly, who enjoy it and have never expressed an interest in cars outside of the show. It'd be like saying people enjoy watching X Factor because they enjoy music rather than wanting to watch this year's batch of the mentally ill making fools of themselves for prime time telly.

>>18951
I think you're more patronising about the audience of Top Gear than the people you set out to decry.

>>18949
Until the allegations are proved either way, that's all they are.

>>18951

>What one has to understand is that when it comes to low-brow media, the audience don't particularly care what an entertainer does outside of that particular source of entertainment.

The "low-brow" qualifier is unnecessary, and arguably makes the statement less accurate. Plenty of people love the works of Wagner, in spite of their abhorrence at his Nazi ideology. The careers of Woody Allen and Roman Polanski have been relatively unharmed by their blatant noncery. IMO the "cultural elite" are far more ready to separate the merit of creative works from the morality of their creators.

>>18955

So the middle classes are the only pretentious twats who do care about it?

That suits my worldview even better, cheers.

>>18949
>No. It's offensive that they're signing a petition in support of someone who has allegedly committed assault, however.

So nobody should have supported Julian Assange because he allegedly raped someone right?

How is this even happening?

If he's punched/attempted to punch someone he works with he ought to be fired. If not, carry on as usual.

Christ, you people are either simple or profoundly mentally ill, either way you're twice as annoying as a hemorrhagic fever.

>>18958
That's what the suspension and investigation are for, you dense nonce.

>>18959

>That's what the suspension and investigation are for, you dense nonce.

What does that have to do with anything I just said?

>>18960
>If he's punched/attempted to punch someone he works with he ought to be fired.

>>18961

And now the rest...

The viewpoint I offered was only disagreeable to a very specific kind of idiot, that doesn't mean you, yet.

>>18940
He looks more red-faced than Jezza, I'm expecting Hammond to have turned into a radish...

>>18963

What do you mean "turned into"?

>>18954
What's your point?

>>18965

>>18965
Not him, but you appear to be presuming he's guilty:
>It's offensive that they're signing a petition in support of someone who has allegedly committed assault

>>18884

He really does look like a Yorkshire lad, does ARE Jezza.

>>18967
Not him but he pretty fucking clearly is. Nobody on a decent wage fibs about getting punched in front of witnesses. He sounds like a bullying cunt.

>>18969
>Not him but he pretty fucking clearly is.
We bow down to your superior intimate knowledge of the events in the hotel last week.

>>18970
That's not an appropriate use of the word 'intimate', you tiresome fanboy twat.

>>18971
ARE SUSIE's less well-paid colleagues in Oxford would seem to think it is.

>>18969

Nobody who gets punched in the face in front of witnesses ever says what they did to provoke said punching, either. Not saying he was asking for it, which he fucking clearly was, but he sounds like a slimy little toad.

(to save on giving you a thorough WHOOSHing later, this post was made in facetiousness to demonstrate the immaturity of your argument)

>>18967
No I'm not. The ink was still wet from Clarkson's suspension pending investigation when the signatories to the petition began to flood in and didn't stop. There is no presumption of anything here: these people apparently think whether or not he really did assault someone is irrelevant with regards to his presence on television, and that's disgusting. It's indicative of the kind of fan Clarkson has, and that there are hundreds of thousands of these bully-enablers is chilling.

>>18884
I'm going to miss the show and Clarkson's antics. I don't know why everyone is so easily offended by him.

To all the upper-middle-class cunts having a teary, what's so "out of this world" about hitting someone?

Sometimes I wish I were brought up in a bubble. To keep my childish innocence for all these years... I would have loved it.

>>18975
> bully-enablers

Have a fucking word with yourself lad.

>>18978
Nope. I searched my vocabulary for the right term, typed that out, re-read it, wondered if it sounded ridiculous, and then posted it anyway. Because that is exactly what this is. Ignoring, condoning, enabling bullying.

And there is no doubt about it that Clarkson is a bully. His entire chequered history is based on the personality type of a bully. His arrogance is monumental. He continuously tries to get away with shocking and outrageous acts. He doesn't know how to be contrite.He couldn't even apologise properly for saying nigger out loud, he just made a load of excuses. This is not a man who should be one of the most popular in Britain.

>>18979

Erm, no lad, he hit someone. That's not the same as bullying.

I distinctly remember a defining moment in my early childhood when a friend I had made that day whilst playing out introduced me to another of his friends. This other friend's first reaction upon meeting me was a swift punch to the stomach. Shocked and traumatised, I ran home in tears. Upon hearing the story of this lad hitting me for no reason, my mum and grandmother both replied, nearly in unison, "Well why didn't you hit him back?"

Now, I'm by no means a violent person, and I can count on one hand the number of times that I've genuinely had to defend myself. But it seems to me the people who are most outraged by this (and indeed the producer himself) are people so sheltered as to never have experienced a moment like that themselves, and so never came to the conclusion that it encourages.

... Either that, or he knew he had it coming. Clarkson is a simpleton and a bit of a dickhead I am sure, but I'm sure he knows that more bad press is the last thing he needs. Thus I am fairly confident he was provoked in some way.

Naturally, this is why there will be an enquiry, and until then this entire thread is just hot air.

>>18975
>these people apparently think whether or not he really did assault someone is irrelevant with regards to his presence on television

Well it is. It has no bearing on the output of the quality of Top Gear what he gets up to off screen.

Grimes is one or my favourite musicians, from what I've read she's up her own arse and a bit of a twat, but that doesn't mean I'm going to stop listening to her because I don't give a fuck about what she gets up to in her personal life. Likewise if Dr Lucy Worsley spent her spare time tripping up pensioners when no one else was looking I'd still watch her shows on BBC4 because they're interesting.

You sound like one of those sad saps who genuinely believes footballers are role models and kids are going to go around biting each other because Suarez did it, beating up DJs because Gerrard did it or shagging their brother's wife because Giggsy did it. You need to stop buying in to the cult of celebrity and thinking you need to know what is going on in their personal lives just because they're in the spotlight. It's incredibly tiresome.

>>18973
>But Miss, he started it!

Pathetic.

>>18980
Sounds like you need to talk to someone, lad, clearly you've been traumatised into thinking punching people is OK because you got punched as a youngun. What the fuck dude.

>>18980

Similar experience happened to me when I went to college, in the first week a guy I never met before came up to me and on introduction twisted my nipple hard, I instantly grabbed him by the throat pushing him backwards over a knee high wall he tumbled to the floor as I pinned him there by his neck.

He the had the nerve to cry and complain like it was a somehow uncalled for reaction. Cunt needed to learn that his actions have consequences.

>>18983

no he isn't you have to understand that despite the bullshit you were probably taught violence can be an appropriate reaction (frequently to inappropriate violence). it is no good standing around when shit kicks off letting the worst scenario happen, I've got myself in hairy situations plenty of times before (restraining people for bouncers or getting in-between 2 groups of strangers who are about to kick off) because it was the right thing to do. Saying violence is always wrong is a convenient justification for cowardice.

>>18984
Workplace violence because you're upset with the sandwiches is always wrong. This wasn't a fucking life or death situation, just a bullying rich twat making someone else feel small,

>>18985

I agree that is probably an inapproriate time, though hypothetically if someone kept (for banter, or out of malice) putting peanut butter in them and I had a nut allergy I would see the logic in it.

I wasn't disputing that that is inapporiate behaviour. I was disputing the 'violance is never justified' style point that >>18983 made.

>>18983
Sticking up for yourself and fighting back against those trying to bully you and push you around is the mark of a true scoundrel.