Should Top Gears' Jeremy Clarkson be saved or sacked?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chippiewill

Here's the thing:

a) The BBC is not designed to just produce whatever people want, or what gets a lot of viewers (Although that certainly is a consideration). Its kinda the point of being publicly funded.
b) We live in a representative democracy, we don't decide everything by what the majority want. Why? Because the majority is ******ed 99% of the time and tend to make rash decisions like allowing people to keep their jobs after physically assaulting a subordinate unprovoked.
c) Clarkson physically assaulted someone, I'm frankly surprised there wasn't a criminal investigation.

- - - Updated - - -


Whilst I too would like to know all the details, I suspect it would just make the producer even more of a target.

---

It does seem the Police are looking into it as they have asked to see the report the BBC have made.

Quote:

---

North Yorkshire police have asked to see the BBC's internal report, saying it will be "assessed appropriately and action will be taken... where necessary".

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xxMATTGxx

It does seem the Police are looking into it as they have asked to see the report the BBC have made.

---

Good to hear they're at least investigating it. I doubt much will come of it though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chippiewill

Good to hear they're at least investigating it. I doubt much will come of it though.

---

They wouldn't do anything without the producer pressing charges anyway would they?

Like if I punch you, it's not an issue regarding police until you press charges for assault.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scottish

They wouldn't do anything without the producer pressing charges anyway would they?

Like if I punch you, it's not an issue regarding police until you press charges for assault.

---

That's what I would have thought anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scottish

They wouldn't do anything without the producer pressing charges anyway would they?

Like if I punch you, it's not an issue regarding police until you press charges for assault.

---

Yup, and between Oisin not caring enough to report the incident himself and Clarkson having legitimately apologised in person I don't see it happening.

The only concern is that a court could take the opinion that Oisin wouldn't press charges out of fear of being further targeted by the general public.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chippiewill

b) We live in a representative democracy, we don't decide everything by what the majority want. Why? Because the majority is ******ed 99% of the time and tend to make rash decisions like allowing people to keep their jobs after physically assaulting a subordinate unprovoked.
c) Clarkson physically assaulted someone, I'm frankly surprised there wasn't a criminal investigation.

---

b) We live in a system where 'first past the post' is the dominating theory right now. Thusforth, the majority do decide. And even so, since when has it been a necessity to run TV channels on a political basis?
c) There more than likely will be one. Read up on the news.

Quote:

---

b) We live in a system where 'first past the post' is the dominating theory right now. Thusforth, the majority do decide. And even so, since when has it been a necessity to run TV channels on a political basis?

---

You're thinking of a direct democracy. In our current system we elect people to vote for us.

BORIS JOHNSON FOR TOP GEAR if only, but nah the whole show will most likely move to Netflix instead and the BBC will replace it with reruns of Parkinson or something

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/...r_2310325b.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bobozia

b) We live in a system where 'first past the post' is the dominating theory right now. Thusforth, the majority do decide. And even so, since when has it been a necessity to run TV channels on a political basis?

---

BBC is run on a political basis anyway, its been long established that it has a left wing slant.

The sooner it is privatised the better. A publically funded broadcaster in 2015 is absurd when you compare it to other now-privatised industries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

BBC is run on a political basis anyway, its been long established that it has a left wing slant.

The sooner it is privatised the better. A publicly funded broadcaster in 2015 is absurd when you compare it to other now-privatised industries.

---

I am not saying it isn't run on a political basis, I was replying to the earlier comment which suggested the way the programmes are decided should not be based on majority ruling; even though they are a TV channel which aims to get as many viewing as possible. Thus forth making it a redundant point.

Secondly, I completely agree that it should be privatised, however, this is not a debate on the privatisation of state industries.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chippiewill

You're thinking of a direct democracy. In our current system we elect people to vote for us.

---

I am referring to how we choose our MPs, which is done on a first past the post system. As we were using the political analogy, if an MP is a TV programme, who ever gets the most votes gets in, as such, if a programme gets the most 'votes' then it should be aired. The BBC are a TV channel, and TV channels should be trying to continually IMPROVE viewing figures - not scrapping the worlds most popular factual television programme. I can only assume the BBC feel they dont want all those viewers, not the £50 million that Top Gear earn them each year through BBC Worldwide.