RE: And On That Bombshell: Review

[gigglebug]

Mr Sparkle said:

gigglebug said:

Where as your childish initial efforts to belittle me with a vain attempt to gain kudos through "comedy" but without actually adding anything meaningful to a conversation you hadn't bothered to have any part of until it was over is obviously exactly what Pistonheads is there for you hypocrite!! Your second post is merely there to try and justify the fact that your initial efforts were shot down in flames and try to save face as if it was truly what you were trying to convey you would have done it in the first place. Tell me why would I be at all concerned about your opinion on what should be discussed on an open forum, I mean as if you're in the position to decide what should and shouldn't be acceptable!

Are you just self righteous to assume that you speak for everyone?? And you've got the gall to accuse me of trying to be condescending/self congratulatory!!

Edited by gigglebug on Tuesday 29th December 19:11

That's what I though, same miserable, full of exclamations/ranting post as the previous 10.

Is that really all you can come back with now that you've been put in your place twice and when I've shown that your hypocritical opinion holds absolutely no water? Your not even capable of any sort of genuine counter argument to disprove what I've said are you rather your trying to hide behind some sort of self appointed moral high ground? Say's it all really doesn't it, what a waste of a post! At least my so called "rants" can and have been backed up, you brought nothing in the first instance and have added nothing since!

[RoverP6B]

I cannot take seriously the arguments of somebody who cannot differentiate between "your" and "you're".

[gigglebug]

RoverP6B said:

I cannot take seriously the arguments of somebody who cannot differentiate between "your" and "you're".

And if that is the only petty thing you can come up with to try and get one over or as a genuine counter argument to try and disprove what I have said and all of the evidence I have provided to support it then it merely confirms what a small minded, ignorant little person you must be. The real reason you can't take the arguments I have made seriously is more to do with the fact that you clearly don't have the mental capacity or the understanding of the situation to do so, it's as simple as that!

Or are you suddenly going to provide a list of evidence to support your claim that the BBC could have reemployed a member of staff who whilst already on a final written warning assaulted another member of staff in an unprovoked attack? That would be a far better way to show your intelligence don't you think?

Edited by gigglebug on Wednesday 30th December 14:18

[rasto]

Got the book for Christmas and have really enjoyed reading it (unlike the pages of 'look how clever I am' drivel in this thread!)

Porter manages to put over on the page how much he loved working on the show and does give some great insights into what was involved in making it. At the end of the day it was a show made by a group of people who obviously enjoyed doing what they did and got on together very well. There were several hints in the book that they were starting to struggle with ideas so it may be that the show wouldn't have run for much longer and I do wonder how they are going to manage with the new show at Amazon, their various twitter feeds seem to suggest more of the same though.

[Tonsko]

Can you two get a room, take it to pm, whatever. Please just stop stting up the thread.

Kthxbi

[RoverP6B]

It just proves the standard of your thinking... nothing you've said has been subjected to the slightest common sense.

[gigglebug]

RoverP6B said:

It just proves the standard of your thinking... nothing you've said has been subjected to the slightest common sense.

So nothing I've said has been subjected to the slightest common sense even though all you've come up with is a made up course of action that would have absolutely no legal standing what so ever?? Well prove it then if it's that obvious that I don't know what I'm talking about and you do. Supply any evidence you can to counteract the evidence I have provided if your so sure that your notion of the BBC being in a position to carry on employing Clarkson is so clear. Just one bit of factual evidence will be more than you've been able to conjure so far. You just can't do it can you!? Go on, prove your own higher understanding of the situation and firmly put me in my place by providing unequivocal evidence that not only I am wrong but the BBC and the multitude of employment lawyers are as well. If not just except that you clearly have no idea what you are talking about and have no understanding of what is really quite a simple situation to understand.

[rasto]

And on that bombshell, will you two please just accept that you will never be able to agree and leave this thread alone - it's meant to be about a review of a book not about who can have the last word or try to appear to be the most intelligent.

[wolves_wanderer]

Ironic on a thread about Porter that there are a couple of pricks from an internet forum.

[limpsfield]

wolves_wanderer said:

Ironic on a thread about Porter that there are a couple of pricks from an internet forum.

Perfect!

[gigglebug]

wolves_wanderer said:

Ironic on a thread about Porter that there are a couple of pricks from an internet forum.

And I couldn't care less about your opinion. It's easy to call someone a prick from the safety of a keyboard

[Tonsko]

wolves_wanderer said:

Ironic on a thread about Porter that there are a couple of pricks from an internet forum.

Ha.

[wolves_wanderer]

gigglebug said:

wolves_wanderer said:

Ironic on a thread about Porter that there are a couple of pricks from an internet forum.

And I couldn't care less about your opinion. It's easy to call someone a prick from the safety of a keyboard

How is the Type S?

[gigglebug]

wolves_wanderer said:

gigglebug said:

wolves_wanderer said:

Ironic on a thread about Porter that there are a couple of pricks from an internet forum.

And I couldn't care less about your opinion. It's easy to call someone a prick from the safety of a keyboard

How is the Type S?

Random!

[jbudgie]

gigglebug said:

wolves_wanderer said:

Ironic on a thread about Porter that there are a couple of pricks from an internet forum.

And I couldn't care less about your opinion. It's easy to call someone a prick from the safety of a keyboard

It's also easy to be one.

[RoverP6B]

gigglebug said:

So nothing I've said has been subjected to the slightest common sense even though all you've come up with is a made up course of action that would have absolutely no legal standing what so ever?? Well prove it then if it's that obvious that I don't know what I'm talking about and you do. Supply any evidence you can to counteract the evidence I have provided if your so sure that your notion of the BBC being in a position to carry on employing Clarkson is so clear. Just one bit of factual evidence will be more than you've been able to conjure so far. You just can't do it can you!? Go on, prove your own higher understanding of the situation and firmly put me in my place by providing unequivocal evidence that not only I am wrong but the BBC and the multitude of employment lawyers are as well. If not just except that you clearly have no idea what you are talking about and have no understanding of what is really quite a simple situation to understand.

You claimed that statute law forces the BBC's hand then linked to statutes which said absolutely nothing of the sort. The BBC took a course of action which has cost the Corporation over 300 million quid a year's income from TG while leaving Clarkson unpunished. Nothing of what you said was either remotely sensible or factually accurate. Had they taken the correct, sensible course of action, everybody (perhaps excluding Chris Evans) would have been better off, and no lawyers would have been involved.

[gigglebug]

RoverP6B said:

You claimed that statute law forces the BBC's hand then linked to statutes which said absolutely nothing of the sort. The BBC took a course of action which has cost the Corporation over 300 million quid a year's income from TG while leaving Clarkson unpunished. Nothing of what you said was either remotely sensible or factually accurate. Had they taken the correct, sensible course of action, everybody (perhaps excluding Chris Evans) would have been better off, and no lawyers would have been involved.

And where's your evidence? Absolutely nothing provided again to back up your so called correct sensible course of action other than it being your own opinion of what could have happened. I however have already provided and will show you again what is factually accurate;

http://www.morganmckinley.co.uk/article/gross-misc...

And this;

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news...

And this;

http://www.harrison-drury.com/employment-law/six-e...

And this;

http://realbusiness.co.uk/article/29552-the-legal-...

And this;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/statements/jeremy...

And this;

http://www.hillyermckeown.co.uk/blog/general-news/...

And this;

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/foi/classes/policies_pr... Just the first page will do!

And this;

http://hrinspire.co.uk/?p=2971

And I could go on and on and where you have provided absolutely nothing. So where is your evidence?? Show us anything that supports your notion that the BBC could have carried on Jeremy Clarkson's employment. Just one bit. Anything. Just one link to absolutely anything that can support what you are saying.

[spikey78]

Jesus Christ

[rasto]

spikey78 said:

Jesus Christ

+1

So, having finished the book I'm left wondering how many of the back room team will be involved with either of the new shows. Porter makes it clear that the success of the show was down to the great team spirit together with the chemistry of the presenters. For either of the new shows to be a success I guess they will have to reproduce these factors.

[Aquadrome]

Goodness, you could cut the sexual tension with a cricket stump.

Thanks for the kinds words about my book. It took a while to spot them, but made it all worthwhile when I did.

All the best,

Richard