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.

41 of 662 comments (clear)

  1. Oblig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    And on that Bomb shell...

    1. Re:Oblig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm confused. can somebody put this in a car analogy?

    2. 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.
    3. Re:Oblig by quenda · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm confused. can somebody put this in a car analogy?

      Clarkson is like the end of your gear-lever. Useful, but a bit of a knob.

    4. 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.
  2. 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 jlv · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't they just always have him regenerate and replace him with another actor?

    3. Re:in further news show tanks by ayjay29 · · Score: 4, Funny

      >>End of show.

      Maybe not. Even if May and Hammond quit, they still have The Stig.

      Alright, he/she is not the most talkative presenter the BBC has, but it might just work...

      "Some say he is a talented mime artist, and can accurately describe the attitude of a BMW driver by simply raising one finger."

      --
      Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated up.
    4. 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
  3. Re:Aww poor baby by afidel · · Score: 5, Informative

    No, because their star with an over-inflated ego physically assaulted a coworker and drew blood. Nobody should have to put up with that. That being said I'll miss him as he was a fairly unique personality in tv.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  4. Re: what will be more interesting by 91degrees · · Score: 5, Informative

    No. It's a non profit, licence funded public organisation. Slightly differnt but the difference matters.

    The licence fee may be considered a "tax", but it goes straight to the BBCthe BBC. It doesn't go into the general tax pool.

    It is explicitly separate from government and while it's impossible to keep them completely isolated from each other, this separation is taken very seriously. The BBC has no qualms about upsetting the government, and any government that tries to exert pressure will be very unpopular.

  5. Re:Boorish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Nobody outside the US likes American vehicles. They would have been state-of-the-art in the rest of the world circa 1975.

  6. Re:Boorish by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually, there are quite a few american cars that he has out and out loved on the show - he refused to get out of the Ford GT when he ran it dry (supposedly) on the track, and then bought one. He drove the Lexus LFA across Nevada and loved it. He drove the Shelby Mustang GT5000 across Europe and loved it. He drove the Ford F-150 SVT Raptor across British Columbia and loved it.

    Those are just a few examples from the most recent few series.

    Clarkson is positive about cars he finds he likes, and he is negative about cars he finds he dislikes. Plenty of both of those in the world - see how much he hates Peugeot if you think its a "hate on America" thing...

  7. 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..."
  8. 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.
    2. Re:The BBC doesn't have much latitude here. by monkeyxpress · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Additionally, one advantage of being a BBC show is that he didn't have any advertisers to offend.

      The most valuable advertisers for a motoring show are always going to be car/automotive companies, and trying to convince them to keep feeding you money is not particularly compatible with slagging off their products, particularly in jest.

      I think he probably took for granted the freedom the BBC actually gave him to speak his mind (about cars). It may turn out that the PC brigade were much more understanding than the world of advertising driven commercial TV. You only have to look at the way the Telegraph shutdown debate about HSBC's (one of their big advertisers) Swiss tax evasion scheme to see what eventually wins out.

  9. Re:what will be more interesting by Racemaniac · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I love it how when a big company for once doesn't choose for the money but actually takes a stance against a star misbehaving, and then everybody is like "sucks being them, they'll lose a lot of money over this".

    Do we want them to be ethical, or just chasing money no matter the consequences? Either of both appear to be the wrong thing to do it seems.

  10. 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.

  11. Re:what will be more interesting by quax · · Score: 4, Funny

    Have you ever watched it? It's like Monty Python with adult sized hot wheels.

  12. Re:too bad.... but... by Captain+Hook · · Score: 4, Informative

    For eg., what was his reason for serving cold food?

    Top Gear had hired most of a small hotel for a filming shoot. The shoot went on longer than expected and when they got back to the hotel they found the kitchen was closed. Not exactly unexpectedly since the kitchen open hours were stated.

    So the idea that this was somehow a conspiracy by the producer to get Clarkson fired seems like a stretch unless you think he deliberately delayed the shoot so they would get back after the kitchen was closed.

    --
    These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
  13. 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.

  14. Re:Boorish by danbert8 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yeah, let's not confuse badges with production and design. A Ford Focus is a European car that they brought to the US in limited models to replace the shit pile they had. The Toyota Tundra is an American car, the Chevy Spark is a Korean Car, and the Toyota Matrix and Pontiac Vibe were the exact same car...

    --
    Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
  15. Let me fix that for you... by Gription · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Jersey is like a Lamborghini Miura from the 70s. Originally awesome even as it breaks down from time to time and slips into decrepit use. It always remained awesome as its lunacy remains. And then one day it (in a prima donna hissyfit?) PUNCHES your plain old Ford Focus of a producer right in the face when he says "You will fill up with this crappy 85 octane out of an old pail even though you are specified to only use 93 octane... And you will like it!". And then everyone came out of the woodwork and starts saying "It wasn't a sensible car" when that was NEVER the point and was why it was wonderful to begin with."


    When they are out on a shoot I would expect a quality hot meal for the camera men and the grips let alone your star presenter!

    1. Re:Let me fix that for you... by Straif · · Score: 5, Informative

      Clarkson was the one to report the assault so if anyone was looking for an excuse out of re-upping a contract it was probably Clarkson. This way he can leave without carrying any of the baggage simply quitting the show would have given him.

      Jeremy will be fine. He knows that every other channel has been trying for years to poach him away from the BBC and once he sold his interest in the show to the BBC a year or so ago his income was no longer tied to how well Top Gear itself did.

      --
      Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
    2. Re:Let me fix that for you... by CodeArtisan · · Score: 5, Informative

      He may be up on charges - it's currently under investigation. Oh, and he was on about his 3rd warning after being disciplined for his racist comments.

    3. 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.

    4. 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
  16. 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."

  17. 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.

  18. Re:Why should we care about those assholes? by Twinbee · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'm probably a bigger fan of Tesla than you are, but watch this if you think he's against EVs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    --
    Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
  19. Re:Elon Musk has the last laugh. by Twinbee · · Score: 4, Funny

    Actually Elon liked Jeremy's humour in Top Gear.

    --
    Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
  20. Bullying by Andy+Smith · · Score: 5, Informative

    Anyone who has been bullied at work must be sickened by the public support for Jeremy Clarkson. Even in sacking him for the physical assault on Top Gear producer Oisin Tymon, BBC director general Tony Hall seemed almost apologetic, taking the opportunity to thank Clarkson for his work on Top Gear and wishing him the best for the future.

    But if you've experienced bullying first hand then you know what a destructive force the Clarksons of the world are. Your workplace becomes a place of dread and fear. The stress becomes not just a part of your daily life, but a part of who you are as a person. It changes you.

    My own experience of being bullied began when I took a job with a company that had just promoted a long-standing employee in to a management position. He had no experience of managing people, he received no training, and he openly said that he didn't want the job. He was visibly stressed almost constantly, and resented that he was still expected to work and not just manage other people's work.

    Very early in the job I was shouted at in the middle of a busy office for completing a task that should have been cancelled. It was a foul-mouthed and very personal tirade of abuse, accusing me of being untrustworthy, and came totally out of the blue. Then my manager realised that he had forgotten to mark the task as cancelled, and quietly in a private room away from other staff, he apologised and promised never to speak to me like that in front of people again.

    The details of bullying incidents are generally repetitive and boring, so suffice to say, this was just the beginning of what became regular abuse: Shouted at in the middle of the office for things I had allegedly done wrong, and then apologised to in private.

    I put up with the abuse for way too long. I'd spoken to my union rep and kept a bullying diary as advised, but I never started a grievance procedure. Colleagues said I should, and one day I ended up talking to the company secretary about it, but I backed off, determined to resolve the issue myself. Ultimately, I told myself, this is a case of two grown men having a clash of personalities, and I should be able to resolve it. But of course I couldn't.

    After about a year I had to take time off work for an unconnected health reason, which seemed to go on a lot longer than one might expect. After a week back at work, I was off again with flu, which seemed to go on forever. My doctor was puzzled and I was sent to the hospital for tests. But in conversation with my doctor one time I mentioned about how it was actually quite nice to be off work because it was an escape from the bullying, and it was as if I'd said the magic word. My doctor was certain that the stress of being bullied was the root cause of my poor health. It explained everything. It turns out that a year of sleepless nights and constant anxiety isn't very good for you.

    The BBC has done the right thing in sacking Clarkson. When I finally had to take formal action against my manager, the company was combative, and handled it on the basis that I was making it all up. I opted for the least "official" form of grievance, third-party arbitration, and my manager held his hands up to what he'd been doing and promised to change. Whether he could or not, I don't know, as I've not been well enough to return to work yet.

    I've watched every episode of Top Gear since Clarkson joined the programme. I like him as a presenter. But I see him now for what he really is: A person who knows how to present himself to the people who control his career -- his bosses and the viewers -- but feels he can abuse the people below him. No doubt he will now be snapped up by another TV channel, or Netflix, and he'll continue to make great programmes that entertain millions. But we know now what he's like behind the scenes, and even a bully that knows he's a bully will still be a bully.

  21. Re:what will be more interesting by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Punching people is not protected speech in the US.

  22. Re:Aww poor baby by jareth-0205 · · Score: 5, Informative

    No I am pretty sure they make more money off Top Gear being a worldwide success then they do off the British TV tax.

    You're "pretty sure" are you? You know these sort of mindless random thoughts stated as fact is pretty fucking harmful.

    Top Gear worth per year, about £50million
    Licence fee collected last year, £3726million

    Get a grip.

  23. 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.

  24. Re:what will be more interesting by eepok · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They were more of audacious humor being taken as rude and thus made the BBC look bad. See this highly informative post I made that was quickly down-modded (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=7156205&cid=49345691).

    1. Drove a truck in the Arctic circle while having a gin and tonic. (No roads, international waters)
    2. Called truck drivers porn-loving prostitute murderers.
    3. Called the Prime Minister a one-eyes idiot.
    4. Said the BBC was obsessed with hiring Black Muslim lesbians (commentary on the focus on diversity).
    5. Told a story about a woman wearing a burka falling over and exposing a g-string and stockings.
    6. Called a Ferrari "special needs".

    And on and on. Within the context of the character he plays, this is all to be expected. It's all the joke of him being an ignorant buffoon. He plays this character on TV everywhere he goes, but his more intelligent normal self pops out from time to time such as on QI or on some of his specials.

  25. Some say... by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 4, Funny

    Some say he punched an innocent person in the mouth-

    others say he's the cash cow of the BBC-

    But we just know him as... unemployed.

    --

    -WolfWithoutAClause

    "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
  26. 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.
  27. 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.'"