Should Top Gears' Jeremy Clarkson be saved or sacked?

Should Top Gears' Jeremy Clarkson by saved or sacked?

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/...n_2025322a.jpg

Jeremy Clarkson as of now has been suspended from the BBC for a as of yet unexplained incident which is rumoured to be a bust up between him and backstage staff. However, the highly successful presenter of the popular show Top Gear is no stranger to controversy and has been warned by the BBC previously for calling the former British Prime Minister a "One-eyed Scottish idiot" as well as making stereotypical jokes about Mexicans. Supporters of Clarkson will say that this is simply comedy and banter, whilst detractors such as those in the executive of the BBC will claim these remarks have been offensive and that Clarkson simply pushes the line too far each time bringing the organisation unwanted attention.

But regardless of the present incident, do you think Clarkson has been pushing his luck or is that what makes him and his show Top Gear so successful in that it does seek to make fun of people, groups and not take itself too seriously? Or do you think his remarks have been offensive in the past and that it is time for the BBC to take action against Clarkson despite his popularity with the public?

Quote:

---

There are plenty of nifty prizes to be won within this forum and within the coming weeks we'll hopefully have some new awards and prizes to be won in this forum and beyond. Focus on putting a good argument forward, try to be controversial and you'll be rewarded!

---

The debate is open to you.

Sack him he is a waste of space

It really depends on what happened. If he actually attacked someone then he should probably be sacked. If it was a verbal argument then probably not.

It seems weird to speculate since the full details are yet to come out.

Didn't he punch someone? Or was that a rumour?

I don't agree with what he did if he punched someone, but without Clarkson, Top Gear ratings will plummet massively, and I'd imagine a Facebook group would be set up telling people to boycott the BBC (lmfao)

Think it's a bit too early to choose at the moment. We probably don't even know a pinch of what actually happened so I do feel it's impossible to say yes or no at the moment!

Here's some comments I agree with from the petition

Quote:

---

I pay my TV license to ensure that irreverent people can express themselves. If you become boarding and politically correct, you may disappear BBC.

---

Quote:

---

A minority of over sensitive people should not ruin one of Britons favourite shows.

---

Quote:

---

I'm signing because the far bigger evil is censorship via political correctness which the BBC have been indulging in for far too long

---

Quote:

---

Because its the only thing left that justifies the license fee.

This is just left wing BBC censoring the only right wing comedy left.

---

Quote:

---

I'm signing because Clarkson is a superb presenter and Top Gear is without doubt one the BBC's better programmes. The viewing figures support this.

---

Quote:

---

Jeremy Clarkson represents the view of the majority of the licence paying public. We are sick of paying our license fee to be spoon fed your political correct left wing crap. Let people speak their mind and exercise their right to offend. At the end of the day, if you are offended by something on TV/radio, turn it off?

---

I really wish Hammond and May would come out and say something like if Clarkson got dropped, they would leave as well so BBC would be panicking. Don't think top gear would be the same without any of the 3 but more so Clarkson.

This is a work dispute, its none of our business really. If he actually punched someone (Without good reason) then I expect he should be sacked, or at the very least severely punished.

Well purely from a selfish point of view I hope he stays, I love the show and think he is a brilliant presenter. The top gear episode with the reliant robin a few years ago especially comes to mind as one of my favourite ever tv moments, the episode was superb.

From the BBC's point of view if he really did punch someone over a cheese platter as is being reported then he should go, really. But then I've heard it'll cost the BBC millions as top gear is shown all over the world, and suspending Clarkson and so dropping the last few episodes of Top Gear for this season is affecting countries world wide who signed contracts etc to show them.

Lets be honest here, if Clarkson leaves the BBC then you can bet anything that other tv corporations will offer him stupid money to go to them. I think I read that Sky said they wouldn't be interested but how can they not be? Top Gear is one of Britain's most watched, most loved shows.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matthew

Top Gear is one of Britain's most watched, most loved shows.

---

It's actually one of the most watched TV shows.. in the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chippiewill

It's actually one of the most watched TV shows.. in the world.

---

yeah I wasn't sure if it was worldwide or not!

Hope he gets kept on because otherwise it'll just give him opportunities elsewhere to pretend he's a spokesperson for free speech instead of just an idiot. Can't stand the guy but it's easy enough to not watch a crap car show, would much prefer to have him there doing very little than create another celeb "politician" as happened with Russell Brand

I think that a lot of the stuff he has been warned for in the past has been pathetic stuff that the majority of people weren't offended by, I don't know what's gone on but from that small video on Lad Bible of James May, there was alcohol involved, which is never a good sign.

Should they sack him? Only if they want to lose millions of viewers, and therefore pounds.

There is no denying that most viewers of the BBC want him to return to Top Gear. We pay our TV license and so should be allowed to watch the programmes we like, as presented by the people we want. Otherwise, people should not have to pay the TV license. BRING JEZZA BACK!

I love Jeremy Clarkson but physically assaulting someone crosses the line. If I went and punched my boss I would get sacked and now we know so has he. It's a shame but obviously he didn't think about the consequences of his actions.

Shouldn't have even been up for discussion once it was established that the attack had definitely taken place - he should be doing jail time not garnering support from petrolheads

If the other person isn't pressing charges then I doubt there'll be even the slightest chance of him doing jail time.

The producer didn't report the incident to either BBC or Police afaik.

We will probably never really know but I would still love to have the full information on what actually happened that evening. I guess there wasn't much else the BBC could do but punching someone is a big no no. I wish he wasn't fired because I love the show and the 3 presenters but what can you do!

Although, Top Gear will not be the same without him and as James May says, the three of them are a package.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xxMATTGxx

We will probably never really know but I would still love to have the full information on what actually happened that evening. I guess there wasn't much else the BBC could do but punching someone is a big no no. I wish he wasn't fired because I love the show and the 3 presenters but what can you do!

Although, Top Gear will not be the same without him and as James May says, the three of them are a package.

---

we pay for that investigation give us the info!!

but yeah I doubt we'll ever see it, or know why it was made out to be such a massive incident over something that's minor and limited to 2 people.

I don't want him to stay after what he's done. Allowing him to stay would only reinforce the idea he had in his tiny little brain that he was untouchable and could do what he likes. I'm sure this has been quite a shock for him, can't imagine he ever thought there'd ever even be the question of him having to leave the BBC.
If I went into work tomorrow and punched one of my coworkers I'd be expecting to be sacked immediately and a fine would probably end up on my shoulders as well. Don't see why it should be any different for a BBC presenter.

Top Gear would not be the same without him but him leaving is the only choice IMO. Just wish he hadn't been such an idiot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bobozia

There is no denying that most viewers of the BBC want him to return to Top Gear. We pay our TV license and so should be allowed to watch the programmes we like, as presented by the people we want. Otherwise, people should not have to pay the TV license. BRING JEZZA BACK!

---

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 - - -

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scottish

we pay for that investigation give us the info!!

---

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

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

---

It's also been long established that it has a right wing slant.

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.

---

The police can get involved even if you don't press charges. If they know a crime was committed they can get involved, especially if it is true that the presenter had to go to hospital - it's a battery (or ABH/GBH, depending on the severity). The way to think about it is this:

Victims cannot dictate when a law has or has not been broken if they do or do not press charges.

The media coverage and the BBC report makes it kind of clear a crime may have been committed, so it's worth investigating.

To be honest he had it coming assaulting someone. It's inexcusable and deserved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GommeInc

The police can get involved even if you don't press charges. If they know a crime was committed they can get involved, especially if it is true that the presenter had to go to hospital - it's a battery (or ABH/GBH, depending on the severity). The way to think about it is this:

Victims cannot dictate when a law has or has not been broken if they do or do not press charges.

The media coverage and the BBC report makes it kind of clear a crime may have been committed, so it's worth investigating.

To be honest he had it coming assaulting someone. It's inexcusable and deserved.

---

Maybe I'm paying too much attention to the American way, but if the police knows it happened it's still down to the victim to state that they wish to press charges against them?

Like in so many domestic abuse situations the woman will not press charges against the man and the police can't do anything, similarly in non domestic abuse situations even if they have CCTV etc it's still down to the victim to state they wish to press charges for the police to be able to hold them or investigate it as a crime.

Like usually if they go to the police, they'd be asked if they wanted to press charges against the attacker do they not?

Obviously this is isolated to the assault charge (as you can't say you don't want to press charges against someone who's reckless driving, drunk driving, etc :P)


That's the way I've always thought it was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scottish

Maybe I'm paying too much attention to the American way, but if the police knows it happened it's still down to the victim to state that they wish to press charges against them?

Like in so many domestic abuse situations the woman will not press charges against the man and the police can't do anything, similarly in non domestic abuse situations even if they have CCTV etc it's still down to the victim to state they wish to press charges for the police to be able to hold them or investigate it as a crime.

Like usually if they go to the police, they'd be asked if they wanted to press charges against the attacker do they not?

Obviously this is isolated to the assault charge (as you can't say you don't want to press charges against someone who's reckless driving, drunk driving, etc :P)


That's the way I've always thought it was.

---

If they witness the crime or they have evidence a crime has been committed they usually act. Your example is pretty good that women who are abused by their partners do not press charges and police do not act. If a police officer is told of abuse but the main victim says it is not true (or refuses to press charges) they do not have any real evidence to go by. Domestic abuse cases tend to go on behind closed doors so it is the word of a "rumour" measured up against the denial of a victim. If an officer witnesses domestic abuse they can act - it's how child abuse cases go about although in recent years there has been a lot of denial by all forms of authorities (child/social services and the police). It's a broken area.

As this happened in public and there has been an investigation, they have two sources of evidence. If anything, the producer has made himself exempt from gaining compensation as compensation cases require the claimant to make a claim, while in criminal cases the CPS and the police can make a case with or without your consent.

I doubt the producer wanted to gain compensation or even cared in the slightest (if he did he would have reported the incident, instead of it being Jeremy reporting the incident).

Also the incident was in a hotel wasn't it? not in public. The only reason it went public was due to the BBC releasing the information to the public, for something that should have strictly been an internal investigation and had no reason to notify the public (until they cancelled the live shows obviously)

But fair enough, seems a bit silly if the person doesn't want to take action then that should be the final decision, not for others to make on their behalf (probably a bad example but say two brothers were fighting in an alley, would both be charged for assault if a police officer randomly strolled in and seen it?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chippiewill

It's also been long established that it has a right wing slant.

---

If you are Leon Trotsky then maybe...

Oisin Tymon, the Top Gear producer punched by Jeremy Clarkson during a row over food, has told police he does not want to press charges.

Mr Tymon had to drive himself to hospital when he was left with swelling and a split lip after the Top Gear presenter launched an "unprovoked" attack on him at a hotel in North Yorkshire on 4 March.

Mr Tymon's lawyer, Paul Daniels, issued a statement in which he said: "Mr Tymon has informed the police that he doesn't want to press charges.

To be honest, I can envisage Clarkson and the others will all go to another channel or they will ask Clarkson back in the next 6 - 7 months.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scottish

I doubt the producer wanted to gain compensation or even cared in the slightest (if he did he would have reported the incident, instead of it being Jeremy reporting the incident).

Also the incident was in a hotel wasn't it? not in public. The only reason it went public was due to the BBC releasing the information to the public, for something that should have strictly been an internal investigation and had no reason to notify the public (until they cancelled the live shows obviously)

But fair enough, seems a bit silly if the person doesn't want to take action then that should be the final decision, not for others to make on their behalf (probably a bad example but say two brothers were fighting in an alley, would both be charged for assault if a police officer randomly strolled in and seen it?)

---

Depends how serious it was really. From what has been said since it seems the police are not that interested and Clarkson is showing some amount of remorse so they might just let it go.

The police would probably break up the fight, give a few verbal warnings and if they kept going for each other they would probably considering arresting one or both of them. It all depends on how severe it is. I think I remember reading he had to go to hospital as he was pretty beaten up but not so much that it makes Clarkson a risk to society, so you could look at it that way. He was remorseful, didn't cause that much pain and to his advantage reported the incident to his bosses and being sacked is punishment enough.

The police tend to focus on really serious crimes like rape, domestic abuse, torture and child abuse (I say it separately to domestic abuse as it has different meanings). If you say it was fine or have survivors/victims remorse, it's no excuse for what that person did to you.

From everything I've read, he punched him once which burst his lip (hence him going to hospital).

There wasn't some massive fight with 30 punches going back and forward or anything.