Slashdot Mirror


Jeremy Clarkson Dismissed From Top Gear

An anonymous reader writes According to BBC News, Jeremy Clarkson, longstanding main host for the automobile television show Top Gear, will not have his contract renewed. This decision came about two weeks after he was suspended due to an altercation with a Top Gear producer involving catering during filming for the show. Admittedly not the nerdiest news of the day, but it can be said that his thirteen-year run on the new format of Top Gear has interested many Slashdot users who love their cars and the entertainment that the show has brought to them.

18 of 662 comments (clear)

  1. in further news show tanks by waldozer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    End of show.

    1. Re:in further news show tanks by Holi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Considering he was talent who relaunched it in 2002 and was the primary driver of it's popularity, then yeah it's done. Look at what happened in 2001 when Jeremy left the show the first time . Viewership dropped by half and it was cancelled.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    2. Re:in further news show tanks by flappinbooger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Look at Final Gear; it's actually a more informative show than Top Gear, but almost nobody knows about it.

      Sorry to see Jezza go, but the BBC did the right thing.

      I think you mean fifth gear, not final gear.

      Final gear is a fan website that posted links to the torrents of all top gear/ fifth gear episodes and after several years of providing links got a nasty C+D letter from BBC or a BBC surrogate organization.

      Otherwise, you are 100% right, copies of TGUK that try to be TGUK fail, because what TGUK is (WAS) wasn't the result of them trying to be that way, that's just the way they were.

      If we go back and watch the show starting at season 2 up to the current season we see that the show evolved into what it is known for, and it took years to get there. For several seasons it wasn't just about 3 middle aged blokes falling down and cocking about.

      My personal take is that the BBC had no choice but to sack Clarkson, it truly is his fault. The only question is whether he (to some extent, or subconsciously) wanted to be forced to stop doing the show because otherwise there was no way he could bring himself to stop.

      I foresee the three to do some work together on their own or under some other organization.

      --
      Flappinbooger isn't my real name
  2. Re:what will be more interesting by Rei · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Are people really going to miss yet another totally fake show pretending to be reality? Is it just because this one combined cars and Daily Mail-style politics?

    Sorry, but I have no sympathy for a primadonna for whom curses at an employee for 20 minutes and then physically assaults him up for half a minute (without any resistance from his victim) before someone pulled him off, all because the Clarkson's food wasn't warm. And this is hardly the first time Clarkson has behaved like this, he was already on "final warning" after a string of other incidents. What befalls him is his own bloody fault. And all of the abuse that the victim got over this whole thing... my favorite tweet on the subject was:

    "Man assaults another man and victim receives abuse because people can’t watch a TV show about cars. Bravo society. "

    --
    "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
  3. The BBC doesn't have much latitude here. by Dzimas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The BBC is a public broadcaster, funded and owned by mandatory license fees in the UK.Clarkson was on contract to the BBC. Once the organization confirmed that unprovoked verbal and physical abuse had occurred, they had to take action or leave the corporation open to an indefensible lawsuit from the victim. They can't exactly say, "Yeah, get stuffed. We have extensive policies promoting equality and prohibiting harassment and violence in the workplace, but we're ignoring them because the presenter is popular and profitable."

    No doubt Clarkson and pals will make a profitable jump to Netflix or Sky to make a similar motoring comedy show. Meanwhile, the BBC has a chance to reinvent Top Gear with younger presenters and a reinvigorated format (there are only so many new Lamborghinis, Ferraris and Aston Martins that can be driven around a track in a cloud of smoke every week and only so many routes for contrived road trips through war zones in ancient sports cars).

    1. Re:The BBC doesn't have much latitude here. by _xeno_ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Meanwhile, the BBC has a chance to reinvent Top Gear with younger presenters and a reinvigorated format (there are only so many new Lamborghinis, Ferraris and Aston Martins that can be driven around a track in a cloud of smoke every week and only so many routes for contrived road trips through war zones in ancient sports cars).

      Have you ever watched any of the spin-off Top Gears, like Top Gear US or Top Gear Australia? They've already tried to "reinvent" the show, multiple times. It's yet to work.

      The simple fact of the matter is that Jeremy Clarkson is the reason people watch Top Gear. Without Clarkson, there's no reason to watch.

      And I agree, the BBC really has no choice, and the blame should be placed on Clarkson for being an idiot. But that doesn't change the fact that losing Clarkson will kill Top Gear. He made the show what it is.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
  4. Re:too bad.... but... by gmack · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Even if the guy intentionally put his food in the refrigerator, it would not justify flipping out and yelling for 20 minutes, let alone punching the producer in the face.

  5. Re:what will be more interesting by ibpooks · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, people do realize what a "pompous asshat" Jeremy Clarkson is, and they either don't care given how good he is at what he does, or they admire those traits. Large segments of society are not on board with the PC, wimpy, constantly-whining-about-bullying-and-____ism that is pervasive in media, especially an institution like BBC. Clarkson is a figure who pushes back at that trend, and many see him as a hero (now perhaps a martyr) for it.

  6. Millionaire Celebrity Thug and Bigot Dismissed by mtrachtenberg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The correct headline would be "Millionaire Celebrity Thug and Bigot Finally Dismissed by BBC."

    The correct subhead would be "Assault on staff last straw, after insults to Mexico and use of n-word insufficient to force BBC executives to punish their cash cow."

  7. Re:what will be more interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If I show up to work drunk and beat on someone, I would expect to get fired.

  8. Re: Oblig by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, yes, he'd have still got sacked, if that's what you're saying about it not making any difference.

    But are you implying that verbally and physically assaulting a colleague aren't grounds enough for dismissal?

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  9. Re:what will be more interesting by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Punching people is not protected speech in the US.

  10. Re:what will be more interesting by Racemaniac · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What planet do you come from, and how do i get there?
    On this planet greed is one of the main things people are more than willing to shove their ethics aside for. Most companies if they can choose between the ethical thing (throwing JC out), or keep profiting from him since he's one of the main stars, will choose the latter. Greed and ethics often conflict, and it's nice to see a big company go for the ethical option.

  11. Re:Let me fix that for you... by nanoflower · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comments that, according to what I heard, may not have happened because it wasn't exactly clear what he said. Also they never went on air with the comments. Lastly the racist remark was in completing a certain nursery rhyme in a way that I'm everyone reading this has done at least once in your mind if not verbally. It's something that can't be avoided when the N word is being mentioned all the time either as something not to be said or as something that comes up all the time in rap and common conversations involving black people (yes, I know it's not supposed to be the same word but it sure sounds the same.)

    I'm not suggesting that racist comments are something that anyone should indulge in whether in public or private, but given the context and Clarkson's tendency to try and be funny on camera I can see him saying it as part of the rhyme knowing that it won't make it on air. At worst someone should have said don't do that, but that he got a warning from the BBC seems overkill to me. It would be entirely different if he did that in front of an audience and not just while recording some set piece that they were probably working on all day long. From what I read they had already filmed the same segment three times so he was probably a bit bored.

  12. Re: Oblig by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's obvious, but it still doesn't clarify whatever point it was you were trying to make.

    He punched a colleague. He got sacked. Seems pretty reasonable. But it's also pretty much the ultimate sanction the BBC can impose on him, so I'm really not sure what you're trying to say by comparing it with a much worse hypothetical assault which would still have resulted in him getting sacked, albeit with perhaps a little more alacrity.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  13. Re:what will be more interesting by LWATCDR · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is your entertainment more important than someone being assaulted?

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  14. Re:Let me fix that for you... by mikaere · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Even if so, there's very probably enough provocation on the failing there by the Producer alone.

    Bollocks. Instead of turning up at 8pm for dinner at the hotel, Clarkson stayed at the pub drinking. Then he turned up at 10pm, probably pissed, and demanded a hot meal. The cook had already gone home, so Clarkson abused the producer for 20 minutes then assaulted him.

    What an entitled prick who deserves not only sacking, but criminal prosecution.

    --
    It's good luck to be superstitious
  15. Re:what will be more interesting by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's the same as how the US went through a phase of people suing for the most ridiculous reasons before it mostly calmed down to a sensible level. Of course most of those lawsuits were thrown out at the early stages, or if not turned out to have merit (like the infamous McDonald's "hot coffee" incident).

    Uh, what? The McDonald's "hot coffee" incident was decided in favor of the customer. That's the opposite of not having merit. McDonald's served coffee at a temperature above their own published standards, which were set in part because they knew that the cups become inadequate at doing their job when used at those temperatures. The coffee was hot enough to cause substantial burns to the woman's flesh, which is not the case if they follow their own guidelines. The case might have been decided the way you imagine absent those guidelines, but it proved that McDonald's was aware that there was a legitimate danger.

    Care to try again?

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"