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.

>>18987
Are you still living in your childhood? In adulthood, in this country, you're setting yourself up for losing your job and letting off that you're an unstable neanderthal if your immediate reaction to anything non health threatening is to punch someone.

Maybe this is what life is like in the more deprived bits of this country, but not in a BBC studio full of overpaid middle class types.

>>18988

>unstable Neanderthal if your immediate reaction to anything non health threatening is to punch someone.

You straw-manned him good there, from saying 'you shouldn't be afraid defend yourself from an attack' to 'it is okay to instantly uncontrollably attack someone if they don't agree with you', good job, I don't think anyone noticed.

A quick one; If someone attacked me at work for whatever reason, be it just disliking me - and I don't fight back - do I get into the holy grail of lawsuits against them? Or do they get a mere slap on the wrist?

>>18975
>There is no presumption of anything here
Apart from the obvious "but it's awful they're supporting an alleged X" which implicit assumes that the allegations are true.

>>18990
>straw man

That's fucking rich, since none of this has anything to do with 'defending yourself' anyway.


>A quick one; If someone attacked me at work for whatever reason, be it just disliking me - and I don't fight back - do I get into the holy grail of lawsuits against them?

You get to take them to the cleaners. They've committed an assault. It's infinitely more worthwhile to ruin the attacker's life with a criminal record and mark of Cain than sink to their level with a hissy bitch fight.

>>18991
You get the lawsuit, but you also get the shame of running crying to a court room like some Premier League footballer trying to pull a ref's pants down to fellate him into awarding the other fella a red card. If you want, though, your demonstration of getting erections over taking people to court entitles you for American citizenship with immediate effect, so you can go and live over there and sue the local government when you stub your toe on a kerb.

>>18991
Your employer has a duty of care towards you, so you likely would have a case there, though if you weren't entirely innocent the employer could argue contributory negligence. It may be difficult to work with that person, so potentially if they didn't separate the two of you then you could leave and claim constructive dismissal.

>>18994
Careful, edges, word, etc.

>>18994
Just come out and condemn everyone for being middle class and not shitting themselves on a night bus like a PROPER WERKIN CLASS #LAD already.

>>18994

Honestly? I hate to sound like a tumblrite, but victim blaming is fairly pathetic. If someone assaults me, and given the circumstances where it was unprovoked, and they've had it in for me - then I will certainly use the full extent of the law to wipe out any credibility they might have with a criminal record. Who's fucking business is it with how I decide to proceed with legal issues? This "grow a pair" mentality is boring and tiresome.

>>18998

The whole point of it is to pressure people into not reporting stuff, so it can go on unabated.

That's literally it.

>>18998
He just thinks it silly to sue if they CANT HANDLE DA BANTZ. I'm sure there's a convenient cliff for him to jump off somewhere.

There's been more posts in this thread over the past three days than anything else on .gs, probably the most posts in any thread over a three day period on this site in quite a while.

You lot need to sort yourselves out. I can understand plankton on Facebook and society at large, but not you lot. I thought better of you. Bloody Clarkson wankfest.

>>18999>>19000

Exactly that "can't handle the banter", it's such a convenient way of instilling children not to report bullying, and then later in life they have the fear they'll be mocked or made out to be "poofs" or whatever. I would love to smash my opponents face with a cinderblock, but it just doesn't work that way.
We don't live on a movie set, there will be no "after-school showdown", you won't beat your bully into submission, and neither will your crush appear out of nowhere and stand in awe of you MANLINESS. Such facile, childish fantasies.

>>19001
That'll be because some numpty banned an entire mobile network because some cunt posted a frog. Appears to be at least a /20.

So apparently Clarkson himself told BBC management about the 'fracas'. The plot thickens.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/mar/12/jeremy-clarkson-bbc-bosses-fracas-top-gear-suspension

>>19002

>I would love to smash my opponents face with a cinderblock, but it just doesn't work that way.

It can and does work that way though mate, you were just one of the kids who took the advice of "come and tell a teacher straight away" when you were younger. Clarkson was evidently one of the kids who's mum asked him "Why didn't you hit him back."

Looking at it from an ethical standpoint both of these responses are valid in their own relative moral frameworks. There is also truth to the class argument; I often get the feeling this place is heavily skewed towards middle class educated liberal views so I feel myself having to at least play devil's advocate on the part of the more "common" Briton's views. Whereas you see it as thuggish and immature to resort to violence, the other side would argue that taking a person to court and "cleaning up" as one person put it represents a slimy, scheming type of personality.

I recall an incident from when I worked in a shop, and I had this manager who was an utter tosser towards customers. I might have told the story before. Everything he said was in the most smug and arrogant tone, to anybody, and we always said it'd be a matter of time 'til someone lost their temper ans assaulted him. Eventually, he refused a refund to the wrong chap, who barged round the counter and laid into him. Now, we got the police in and everything, we had CCTV showing it, so if he wanted he could have pressed charges and everything. But the fact of the matter is this- He WAS asking for it. I don't mean that as a justification of the customer's actions, because they weren't- I mean that the manager really should have learned sooner in life, that not everybody tolerates being talked to like a cunt.

Let me put it to you, anti-Clarksons of this thread, how much of a cunt would someone have to be to you before you hit them? If you wouldn't consider violence as a course of action, then ask yourself this- Would you use other means to enact some form of retaliation/reprisal? I highly doubt that most of you are daoist masters of wu-wei, so I'm sure you would take some course of action- It's just not as blunt and direct as a fist connecting with his face. Maybe you'd start interfering with their lunch in the canteen fridge, or spread some form of rumour about them. Fundamentally, you character is not different, it is just that your upbringing has conditioned you to take a more subtle role in resolving conflict. You see that as an advantage, whereas the other side sees the more direct confrontation as beneficial. There is room and, indeed, requirement for both personality types in order for our society to function effectively.

>>19004
I've lost count of the number of Graun articles on this. They're having a field day.

There's another one by a family staying at the hotel who witnessed it. They said there was lots of swearing and Clarkson threatening to have the producer sacked but no mention of any punches.

>>19005
>Let me put it to you, anti-Clarksons of this thread, how much of a cunt would someone have to be to you before you hit them?
I've not been posting in this thread but I guess I'm "anti-Clarkson" in that I think that if he's punched someone on the job he should be sacked. To answer your question, I've never hit anyone in anger in my adult life. I don't have much of a temper, and when I've been attacked I don't hit back - I've pushed them away and walked off or otherwise avoided the confrontation. This doesn't feel like a choice on my part, I just don't want anything to do with violence and will avoid it if I can. Someone being a mouthy cunt is never sufficient to provoke me to physical violence.

That said, if anyone ever attacked a member of my family I know I'd jump in without a second thought, so I don't consider myself a pacifist.

>>19007
Also, no, if someone was being a cunt to me I wouldn't mess with their food or spread gossip, fuck's sake. I may be a "coward" or whatever but I'm not a petty one.

>>19005
>Let me put it to you, anti-Clarksons of this thread, how much of a cunt would someone have to be to you before you hit them?

I see, and yes - I fully agree with much of what you're saying. Sometimes there is nothing sweeter than physical justice being dished out on a deserving cunt. I don't do it for 2 reasons;

1) I'm not physically intimidating, I'm a bespectacled 6'2'', slim lad with no obvious bulging muscles or whatever. So the mere act of aggression towards some meathead would result in a proper beating.
2) I don't want to get on the wrong side of the law. Contrary to what might have happened, the situation can swing against your favour and you may risk the same, if not worse, repercussions. No mouthy cunt, not matter how bad is going to let me do that.

I have had the chance of fucking with people's work, food, etc. But I don't. I can't let myself stoop to that level, as if I do slip and let it happen - then it's only fair game for that to happen to me.

>>19007

As a weedy intellectual, I'm always amazed at how rarely people get punched in the face.

Clever people have an ability that should really be viewed as a kind of sinister magic. Just by uttering the right words, we can convince other people to do what we want them to do; What's more, we can convince them that it was their idea in the first place. Eloquent people can persuade and cajole and connive, they can deceive and dissemble. Think about what an extraordinary change that was in our evolution - the leaders of our tribes are not the biggest and strongest, but the most cunning. Somewhere in our distant past, some palaeolithic man said "Don't kill me and take my meat, or the animal spirits will curse your hunting and the water spirits will sicken you.". With that, the power balance within our species was irrevocably changed.

The Sarah Palins and Richard Littlejohns of the world are in a sense absolutely correct - intellectuals should be disregarded and shunned, because our powers of manipulation are so subtly dangerous. Trying to engage in a reasoned debate against someone with a classical education is like getting in the ring with a prizefighter. You're going onto their territory and playing by their rules, and it's not going to end well for you. Why the hell should you? Slander me, shun me, kick my fucking teeth in, you'd be a fool not to.

>>19010

I know you're probably not being totally serious, but to respond to this anyway:

Going on what I know about anthropology and human evolution, our faculties came about in large part as a result of co-operative living, following herd animals and eventually establishing agriculture. Language is a relatively recent and remarkably sudden development, and I've not read any literature that suggests there were more gifted members of paleolithic man who would use it to deceive others.

When more sophisticated forms of mythology, folklore and other cultures were developing, their primary purpose was to explain natural phenomena, and I'd argue any power shift that occurred was incidental. Power structures rose much later due to environmental advantage and deliberate oppression rather than any one type of individual having a natural aptitude for manipulation. While plenty of ancient societies had political intrigue and complex social orders, a lot of history doesn't fit very well into that model of an intellectual elite ruling over others; take the fact that nomadic raiding continued well into the Middle Ages, or the various systems of power based on hereditary rule. Most would probably peg the start of modern political cuntery and manipulation more around the time of Machiavelli and the development of the city-state, but again I'd stress that this was more due to the way complex societies have to develop than any innate power struggle between two types of temperament.

I also don't think there's as sharp a gap between intellectuals and non-intellectuals as you suggest. Cognitively, we are all far more alike than we are distinct, and I believe that the differences between Richard Littlejohn and Noam Chomsky are mainly cultural. Most statistical studies I've seen indicate that violent behaviour is more about background, socioeconomic status and education/participation in society than it is about any meaningful, measurable difference in intelligence.

As for why educated people don't get punched more by non-educated people, I think it is because non-educated people are aware that this difference is mainly based in what I've described above, and belonging to a different section of society doesn't mean people see their views as invalid, and so they will argue rather than lash out. One final observation I'd like to add is that even educated people are susceptible to manipulation, and developing an independent mind is not necessarily the same thing as fitting into educational institutions.

>>19011
I think you'll find that the Viking hordes raped and pillaged our shores thanks to their enhanced skills at bamboozling rather than their big pointy swords and battleaxes.

>>19012

Violence is also a big part of our heritage, but emphasising that too much also risks leading us to a 'might makes right' view of history, or worse, some warped form of evolutionary theory applied to human culture, which I also disagree with outright.

>>18955
Wagner died in 1883, way before the Nazis were a thing. Hitler liked Wagner's operas, which is where the Wagner-Nazi association came from.

>>19003
I am froglad, and I apologise to you on the numpty's behalf. They seemed to have missed this when they unbanned me. I was trying to reply to this thread on my mobile this morning too, very frustrating.

>>19014

Wagner was virulently anti-Semitic, and strongly suspected of being an Aryanist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Das_Judenthum_in_der_Musik

>>19013
But might does make right.

AND ON THAT BOMBSHELL........

>>19018

What can't speak can't lie.

>>19019

>>19018

Did he die now or something?

>>19020

LOL LEARNING DIFFICULTIES RIGHT!!!

>>19021

Spaz.

>>19018

I really thought that was Farage when I first saw it. I hadn't even noticed a resemblance before.

>>19023
I think I make this expression about twice a year, yet I see pictures of politicians doing it all the time. Is it because I'm not middle aged or something?

>>19024

They do it when they've been up to something naughty.

>>19025
No no that's the Not-A-Smile. That's what Farage is performing on the left. I'm specifically referring to Clarkson's Frown. It's different because it's not a natural expression, you have to actively pull the corners of your mouth down. Which is why I'm baffled I see it so much. They must know they'll be photographed and then that will be the picture used whenever they're involved in a negative story.

>>19026

I think it's the middle-aged equivalent of "whatevs m8".

>>19028
Riveting tale, bruv.

>>19015o
19015
I don't care who he punched or why. I'd be surprised if most bbc employees haven't punched someone.

I just don't care, just give me my fucking telly.

https://www.change.org/p/bbc-hire-alan-partridge-for-top-gear

>>19031

I wonder if Coogan would actually do Top Gear. Not as Partridge, obviously. But he's a car bloke, isn't he?

>>19032
Coogan got really fucked off when they started taking the piss out of Mexicans, so if they would just expect him to pick up where Clarkson left off, I doubt it.

>>19032
>>19033
For anyone interested, here's his rant about why he's funny and Clarkson isn't. http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2011/feb/05/top-gear-offensive-steve-coogan

>>19034
And remember lads, because he ended his article with a reference to Clarkson et al. being role models, you can safely disregard the rest of what he has to say, because only idiots and fools think celebrities are role models!

>>19033

I'm sure if the beeb do get rid of ARE CLARKO, they'll be happy to replace him with someone who's far more likely to write a Guardian column than start a race row.

Steve Coogan's a fucking twat. That's all I have to say about that.

>>19036
Doesn't that basically leave us with Islamic hate preachers, twats and feminists?

>>19034
>The Beeb's hand-wringing suggested tolerance of casual racism, arguably the most sinister kind. It's easy to spot the ones with the burning crosses. Besides, there is not a shred of truth in Top Gear's "comic" stereotype. I can tell you from my own experience, living in the US, Mexicans work themselves to the bone doing all the dirty thankless jobs that the white middle-class natives won't do.

EMIGRANT WORKERS PURSUE EMPLOYMENT SHOCKER.

>>19038

I'd pay a great deal of money to watch Hammond, May, and Abu Hamza navigate Kuwait to Iraq on Highway 80 in three old 4x4s with knobs drawn on them.

Everybody is making this about Jeremy Clarkson punching another person, but actually it's about ethics in vehicular journalism.

>>19041
Geargate?

>The BBC Trust has rejected a complaint about the use of the term "pikey" in an episode of Top Gear.

>Travellers' groups complained the term was racist, but the BBC said that, in this instance, it merely meant "cheap".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-31922773

This is all part of the plan to appease Clarkson supporters. Before the end of the week they'll allow wog, half-caste, spazz, chingaling and Paki bastard to be said on screen.

>>19042
I read that as Queergate. I think I need glasses and bumming.

>>19041
Any time now someone will probably defend their role in the affair by pointing out that technically they're not journalists and never really claimed to be.

If only the producer had provided a cheeky Nandos for everyone.

>>19043

My ears are burning.

>>19041
Technically, they're not journalists and never really claimed to be. Stop having a teary and let us watch our show.

Jesus christ, it's one thing to be the kind of tapas-eating bellend who cringes and gets uncomfortable when you hear someone use a word like paki, because fair play, people who say paki are probably racist.

But having your delicate middle class sensitivities tickled by calling pikeys fucking pikeys is just too far. Frankly if you're the sort of person who actively stands up for gypo scum then I would like to see you executed by ISIS.

>>19050
They tend to be the professionally offended rent-a-mob twats.

>>19050
How ironic to hear a pikey demand the freedom to call people pikeys.

>>19052
Lad. Everyone knows the correct terminology is "gypo".

>>19050 >>19052 >>19055
We actually have a caravan dweller pikeylad of our own here on .gs. He posted proof a few years back.

>>19056

he's probably moved on by now.

My coat, please.

>>19056

I knew an interesting fellow a couple of years back who was a pikey by blood, but had been trying to "go straight" by getting a house, a normal job, and even paying tax. Apparently this had earned him considerable ire from "the community", and he'd pretty much had to surrender his children over to the family when they came of age in exchange for peaceful existence.

It was dead interesting hearing him talk about all their frankly bizarre traditions and lifestyle. I can honestly see why he wanted to give it up though, it's not what you'd call 21st century living. It barely edges into the 20th.

>Top Gear could have continued while Jeremy Clarkson was suspended – but James May and Richard Hammond refused to do the show without him.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/top-gears-richard-hammond-james-5360997

It's over.

>>19068
So, in effect, it couldn't have continued.

>>19068
They work best as a set, it's like Last of the Summer Wine with cars.

>>19074
I bet May and Hammond are those types of mates who are fine in a group but you can't leave the two alone because they have nothing to talk about.

>>19075

https://www.youtube.com/v/kwguaSc5Uyg

>>19068
On the BBC, maybe. Other channels won't turn their nose up at the potential earner. Though how damaging changing the name and tweaking the format will be I can't speculate.

>>19077
Channel 5, if they can scrape the money together, would make it a cracking show. Scrap the Fifth Gear nonsense, get the Top Gear boys in, do away with the BBC political correctness and everyone'll have a good laugh except Comment Is Free writers.

Once upon a time Five just said 'fuck it' and started blaring porn everywhere. That's the telly I want.

>>19079
Too right. It's BBC political correctness gone mad. You can't even write racial abuse in excrement on someone's car any more without the politically correct brigade jumping down your throat.

>>19080
I didn't say it'd gone mad, I'd just rather it didn't exist at all. I don't give a fig if some cunt gets offended, I don't give a fig if I get offended.

>>19081
You'd rather not attempt to build a more inclusive society through being more sensitive in our use of language? I wonder if that's because society has already included you.

>>19082
>I wonder if that's because society has already included you.
It has. No need to be a cunt.

>You'd rather not attempt to build a more inclusive society through being more sensitive in our use of language?
No, I'd rather build an inclusive society where people aren't afraid to say something due to social pressure. You don't have to be a social authoritarian you know.

>>19079
Not sure if you're aware, but Fifth Gear exists as a continuation of Top Gear when it was cancelled by the BBC in 2001.

>>19084
Isn't that more or less Tiff Needell and Quentin Wilson sat in a dingy garage while having a cry wank?

>>19083
>No need to be a cunt.
Mate, you're the only one being a cunt. Well, that's not true, Clarkson is a cunt too.

The reason I wondered if you're already one of society's top dogs is because that's the only way you could think 'social pressure' is keeping you from having the right to call people pakis. If you don't understand why anyone should be offended by divisive terms like this, then you are a 'social authoritarian' - telling oppressed groups that they should shut up and take their verbal medicine. Political correctness is an attempt to redress an already existing imbalance of power.

>>19085
Quentin Wilson, they should forgive him of his past and re-hire him for Topgear, he's more sophisticated than all 3 current presenters put together.

>>19086
I didn't say they shouldn't be offended mate.

>telling oppressed groups that they should shut up and take their verbal medicine. Political correctness is an attempt to redress an already existing imbalance of power.
I'll go check my privilege.

>>19086

Go to bed Stuart.

Political correctness is a pathetic attempt by those in privilege to pay lip service to the idea of equality without actually having to do anything.

Sensible people of any colour or creed know that words are just words, hence the old adage- Sticks and stones may break my bones, but middle class poofs telling me what I should and shouldn't say aren't helping fucking anyone.

>>19082
>You'd rather not attempt to build a more inclusive society through being more sensitive in our use of language?
Is this Sapir-Whorf bollocks again? Because it reads an awful lot like Sapir-Whorf bollocks. FWIW that particular idea has been discredited by mainstream science since pretty much any and all research into it has found that we're not quite as constrained by language as we previously believed.

>>19087
They need that Cockney one who looks like Alan Titchmarsh and is on one of those channels that nobody watches restoring cars from the 80s and that.

>>19095

I love Wheeler Dealers.

>>19096
Actually, he looks like a cross between Titchmarsh and the man who plays The Slammer in The Slammer.

>>19097
Leave ARE TED out of this. Do you remember that episode of the Slammer that had some contortionist with an extreme case of camel toe?

>>19096
Me too.

Getting my news from Facebook, but Richard Hammond has posted that the new host will be announced at 3pm.

I'm guessing it's Clarkson again.

>>19100

I should be Jezza in a fake moustache and glasses. With a name like Clarky Jemerson.

>>19100
If it's Coogan, I'd consider breaking 5 years of not watching it.

>>19100
Before the report into the incident is made public? That seems extremely unlikely.

>>19100
Clarkson was apparently heard to announce fairly unambiguously at an event last night that he'd been sacked. Of course, this could just be Clarkson being Clarkson.

Fair play to him for moving so quickly with the petition I suppose, but it's a bit unseemly how Guido Fawkes is using this incident for self-promotion.

>>19104
If you actually watch his speech rather than the way journalists are trying to spin it, then he's clearly speaking in jest and it should be taken with a pinch of salt for now.

Hungry Hungry Clarksons

>>19106
I guess that would be "Clarkson being Clarkson".

>>19105

Guido is now pretty much owned entirely by the Sun in all but name. This whole mess is making a great story for the Sun as much as anything else.

>>19109
... And you'll never guess who writes for the Murdoch press!

>>19109>>19113

Are you saying all of this BBC bashing might have a political slant? And that perhaps a Tory PM might have a vested interest in joining in on that? You cynical little blighters.

Also it's an SPG, not a tank! They're different. Autism checked.

Most of the reports this morning are saying he will be sacked today.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/11493270/Jeremy-Clarkson-to-be-sacked-by-the-BBC.html

And he is gone.

This gives me respect for the BBC shows they have a spine.

>>19154
But no pragmatism.

>>19155
I don't think there is room for that when a gross misdemeanour has taken place and the perpetrator has been on a final warning for a few years for incidents that might get anybody else the sack if their boss found out.

>>19156
There's plenty of room for it, the simple fact is he's more valuable to the corporation (and public finances) than any other individual at the BBC. You can hold your values oh so high in the air but multiple people will end up sacked as a result of this, even ignoring Clarkson.

It was a smack in the face. It's not really the end of the BBC as we know it. No he shouldn't get an infinitely long leash, but his value to the BBC as a presenter is worth a lot more than the congruity of Oisin Thomas' face.

>>19157
>No he shouldn't get an infinitely long leash, but his value to the BBC as a presenter is worth a lot more than the congruity of Oisin Thomas' face.

But you seem to be saying that he should have his leash extended almost indefinitely just because he's a cash cow? Alright then, let me put it another way, what kind of incident *should* get him the sack? Where is your bottom line?

>>19155

Mate, pragmatism is a terrible justification, it is the refuge of the unprincipled and spineless. I hate to go all righteous teen lad but the only message you would be sending is that Clarkson is above reproach. Which is exactly why he thought he could get away with this shit in the first place.

I suspect there was a bit of politicking going on here. Under normal circumstances, if it's going to cost me millions to sack someone, I'm not going to do it lightly. In this instance, I'd have looked at dismissal at the end of the series, to ensure that the public get value for money (which includes not spending millions in taxpayers' money on commercial penalties for failing to deliver previously-agreed product which remains feasible to deliver). However, these are not normal circumstances. The BBC is damaged, still suffering from the fallout of the Savile affair. It certainly wouldn't look good for them to be supporting someone who has abused a work colleague physically or racially, since that would upset the campaigners. "See? They still haven't learned!" they'd cry. Common sense tells you that you don't kill a product worth around a quarter of your turnover (estimates put the commercial value of Top Gear to BBC Worldwide at £150-300m, against a turnover of a billion flat). You just don't do it. At least, not if you expect to keep your job. I can foresee a couple of senior managers going, along with some of the show's producers, because with all the consequences to work out between them they've just cost the Great British public a cool billion over one man.

>>19162
I suspect you'll never preside over such valuable employees. Not when you don't know how the BBC is funded and struggle to discern revenue from profit, subsidiary from parent. You tried to add supporting detail but only succeeded in flaunting your ignorance.

>>19164
Does a serious breach of contractually obliged discipline mean little to you? I principally don't want the license fee being handed over lock, stock to a liability like him, I jut think he's lucky the chap he beat up isn't pressing criminal charges.
The BBC can sort out its revenue if they extended the license fee to those who only use it digitally or bother to iplayer a few things a week because most of the stuff is antiques and buy to let wankery.

He's officially gone lads.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-32052736

>>19166
Good riddance.

I hope the other two go too, and Top Gear gets a proper lease of life. It's been a painfully repetitive self-parody ever since the mighty North Pole episode.

He should've diddled some kids and renamed himself King Jezza or been in their senior management, then he'd have been untouchable.

>>19166
Finally, he can put some time into his political career.

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/investigation-summary.pdf

There is the Beeb summary of the investigation, I see no defence for Clarkson apart from the fact he tried to apologise and reported it himself. Pasted in non-greentext below:

Investigation findings – Ken MacQuarrie

On 9 March 2015, Jeremy Clarkson reported to BBC management that he had been involved in a
physical and verbal incident with Oisin Tymon, the producer of Top Gear, at the Simonstone Hall
Hotel, North Yorkshire, whilst working on location. The incident had occurred on 4 March 2015
and Jeremy Clarkson was suspended on 10 March, pending investigation.
I was asked to undertake an investigation to establish the facts of what occurred. In conducting my
investigation, in line with the BBC’s usual practice, I interviewed a number of witnesses and others
connected with the incident. Accounts were agreed, based on my interviews, with each participant.
Having conducted these interviews and considered the evidence presented, I conclude the
following: on 4 March 2015 Oisin Tymon was subject to an unprovoked physical and verbal attack
by Jeremy Clarkson. During the physical attack Oisin Tymon was struck, resulting in swelling and
bleeding to his lip. The verbal abuse was sustained over a longer period, both at the time of the
physical attack and subsequently.
Specific facts I have found as part of my investigation are as follows:
- earlier on 4 March, studio recording of Top Gear had taken place in Surrey and the presenters
had travelled that same evening to the location shoot in North Yorkshire;
- the incident occurred on a patio area of the Simonstone Hall Hotel, where Oisin Tymon was
working on location for Top Gear;
- the physical attack lasted around 30 seconds and was halted by the intervention of a witness;
- it is the case that Oisin Tymon offered no retaliation;
- the verbal abuse was directed at Oisin Tymon on more than one occasion – both during the
attack and subsequently inside the hotel – and contained the strongest expletives and threats to
sack him. The abuse was at such volume as to be heard in the dining room, and the shouting
was audible in a hotel bedroom;
- derogatory and abusive language, relating to Oisin Tymon and other members of the Top Gear
team, continued to be used by Jeremy Clarkson inside the hotel, in the presence of others, for a
sustained period of time;
- it is clear that Oisin Tymon was shocked and distressed by the incident, and believed that he
had lost his job;
- following the attack, I understand that Oisin Tymon drove to a nearby A&E department for
examination;
- over the subsequent days, Jeremy Clarkson made a number of attempts to apologise to Oisin
Tymon by way of text, email and in person; and
- it is the case that Jeremy Clarkson reported the incident to BBC management.
It was not disputed by Jeremy Clarkson or any witness that Oisin Tymon was the victim of an
unprovoked physical and verbal attack. It is also clear to me that Oisin Tymon is an important
creative member of the Top Gear team who is well-valued and respected. He has suffered significant
personal distress as a result of this incident, through no fault of his own.