Jeremy Clarkson suspended by BBC...

Jeremy Clarkson suspended by BBC...

Author
Discussion

mybrainhurts

90,809 posts

254 months

Saturday 28th March 2015
quotequote all
Strocky said:
mybrainhurts said:
Jimbo0912 said:
Let's not forget that Savile was also very close friends with Margaret Thatcher who gave a knighthood to a pederast in Cyril Smith despite the fact that she was made well aware of his disgusting deviations. What does that say about her?!
I think you've said that before.

Savile very close friend of Margaret Thatcher.

Margaret Thatcher knew what Cyril Smith was doing.

Where did you get that information?
Here's your starter for (number) 10

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2984529/Ca...
Thanks. All that says is she knew of allegations and knew he had not been prosecuted.

Any other information?

DJRC

23,563 posts

235 months

Saturday 28th March 2015
quotequote all
[redacted]

98elise

26,364 posts

160 months

Saturday 28th March 2015
quotequote all
davepoth said:
That BBC executive said it was like Savile, and it was, but not for the reasons he was thinking. It was like Savile because for a considerable period of time there were BBC managers who knew about this event and did nothing about it.

It's frankly disgusting that until Clarkson reported it nobody did anything.
The problem is you don't make comparisons with people who are notorious for serious crimes if thats not the trait you are looking to highlight.

Do you think a world leader would he happy being compared to Hitler? Or a Caretaker being compard to Ian Huntly?

PRTVR

7,072 posts

220 months

Saturday 28th March 2015
quotequote all
Jimbo0912 said:
u're being pedantic for the sake of being pedantic. Their legal team probably know far more about Employment Law than you do.

If there are any irregularities, we'll likely hear about them at some stage but I suspect we won't.

Clarkson was a complete c*ck hence the reason he's no longer on Top Gear.
Isn't one of the reasons for top gears success the fact that Clarkson was a complete c*ck? Expecting him to conform and you will end up with just another presenter, what he did was wrong, but I do think it could have been handled better by the BBC, apologise could have given, hands shook,
I have witnessed fighting from people whom I would have not expected to act that way, all due to alcohol, it happens, people do things under the influence that they would not normally do, but you sort it and move on,
but I suppose as soon as the legal vultures get involved the outcome was inevitably, arse covering for the BBC, forget the cost, money isn't important, all due to the unique way the BBC is funded.

turbobloke

103,734 posts

259 months

Saturday 28th March 2015
quotequote all
[redacted]

turbobloke

103,734 posts

259 months

Saturday 28th March 2015
quotequote all
98elise said:
davepoth said:
That BBC executive said it was like Savile, and it was, but not for the reasons he was thinking. It was like Savile because for a considerable period of time there were BBC managers who knew about this event and did nothing about it.

It's frankly disgusting that until Clarkson reported it nobody did anything.
The problem is you don't make comparisons with people who are notorious for serious crimes if thats not the trait you are looking to highlight.

Do you think a world leader would he happy being compared to Hitler? Or a Caretaker being compard to Ian Huntly?
Yes most unwise to say the least! Nor do you say there's no timetable for the review when clearly there needs to be and probably was all along, nor do you weigh in before the review has concluded and say - as two execs variously did - that you think one of those involved needs rehab or that they should be dealt with in a tough manner. These were clear signs that the affair was being mismanaged whatever the outcome and however inevitable it may have been, with senior beeb people not knowing how to conduct themselves.

Ari

19,328 posts

214 months

Saturday 28th March 2015
quotequote all
NoNeed said:
You are being ignorant for the sake of being ignorant.


The legal team knew nothing, just like you for 6 days.


Why?

Are you that blind to the inadequacies of the BBC that you will comletely ignore their failings?

It was people like you that made it possible for that dirty fkin nonce saville to gain so much pleasure and cause so much pain.
What a spectacularly apt user name. frown

Dr Jekyll

23,820 posts

260 months

Saturday 28th March 2015
quotequote all
NoNeed said:
You dont think the beeb were complicit?


Answer me one question, why was it 6 days before we heard anything?
Perfectly simple, because it was that long until JC reported the matter to Top Gears old enemy cardinal Richelieu Danny Cohen.

robemcdonald

8,715 posts

195 months

Saturday 28th March 2015
quotequote all
[redacted]

Strocky

2,629 posts

112 months

Saturday 28th March 2015
quotequote all
mybrainhurts said:
Strocky said:
mybrainhurts said:
Jimbo0912 said:
Let's not forget that Savile was also very close friends with Margaret Thatcher who gave a knighthood to a pederast in Cyril Smith despite the fact that she was made well aware of his disgusting deviations. What does that say about her?!
I think you've said that before.

Savile very close friend of Margaret Thatcher.

Margaret Thatcher knew what Cyril Smith was doing.

Where did you get that information?
Here's your starter for (number) 10

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2984529/Ca...
Thanks. All that says is she knew of allegations and knew he had not been prosecuted.

Any other information?
Are you wanting interviews from the kids he fked ffs?

He was a nonce and it was well known he's a nonce even back then

If I was in Thatcher's shoes at the very least I wouldn't be knighting a beast and as a parent I would have thought she would have used her powers to investigate why he wasn't facing trial despite the "overwhelming evidence"

NoNeed

15,137 posts

199 months

Saturday 28th March 2015
quotequote all
Jimbo0912 said:
Deary me. You're a pedantic, hysterical winner who can't spell or even write a semi-coherent sentence. I feel sorry for you.

Clarkson's contract wasn't renewed and for good reason. How many times do I have to say this?

I suspect no one wanted to report what had happened because they didn't want to upset the apple cart (it's obviously a very successful show) or incur the wrath of a rich, powerful man in Clarkson.

The current situation has nothing to do with Jimmy Savile and you're a brain dead retard for even suggesting it. It may have escaped your attention but Savile's crimes were not just a failing of the BBC but of numerous Governments regardless of political persuasion, the intelligence services (particularly MI5), innumerable police forces and practically everyone in the entertainment business. The guy used to take 12 year old girls to lunch and feel them up/kiss them at the table. How much more brazen can you be?!

Let's not forget that Savile was also very close friends with Margaret Thatcher who gave a knighthood to a pederast in Cyril Smith despite the fact that she was made well aware of his disgusting deviations. What does that say about her?!

To be brutally honest though, I've neither the time nor the inclination to respond to any of your idiotic posts in future. Thanks.


Edited by Jimbo0912 on Saturday 28th March 00:28
Deary deary me, it's a well know PH fact that those which chose to attack the poster probably have no argument and you have proven that to be correct again. Your post is littered with insults and if you had not responded to one of my idiotic posts we would not even be having this exchange of words, however I will apologise if my dyslexia has upset you, my spell check can only do so much and most of that is American.

Hysterical? really? I couldn't care what happens to Clarkson, it will not have any real affect on my life at all.

Like I said though we have not been talking about Clarkson it is you that keeps bringing him into it, it is the fact that for 6 days it went unreported, for 6 days Clarkson went unsuspended and for 6 days you knew nothing and all that was because of a culture within the BBC of covering up and protecting it's people. You say it is nothing to do with Saville but it is that attitude that allowed him to continue. You mention Thatcher as though she has something to do with it for ignoring the Cyril Smith allegations and I would agree that that was indeed wrong, but if ignoring one assault is wrong sure the BBC ignoring an assault is also wrong.


You call me a brain dead retard for pointing out the obvious in that a culture within the BBC protects the rich and famous no matter how heinous their crimes.You also seem to think that it is OK and that the BBC should carry on covering up assaults.

Dr Jekyll

23,820 posts

260 months

Saturday 28th March 2015
quotequote all
NoNeed said:
Like I said though we have not been talking about Clarkson it is you that keeps bringing him into it, it is the fact that for 6 days it went unreported, for 6 days Clarkson went unsuspended and for 6 days you knew nothing and all that was because of a culture within the BBC of covering up and protecting it's people.
No, it was because the incident hadn't been reported to the BBC. They can't cover up something they don't know about.

This comment from the former chair of the BBC trust confirms that far from protecting Clarkson the BBC were looking to get rid of him even before this incident.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/mar/26/bbc-j...

turbobloke

103,734 posts

259 months

Saturday 28th March 2015
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
He made one bad decision too many, that's for sure, and it looks to have cost him £12m which is the reported value of the new contract he didn't get to sign.

At least it looks like a bad decision in all respects, from outside.

confused_buyer

6,610 posts

180 months

Saturday 28th March 2015
quotequote all
The BBC doesn't make "profit". The shows are paid for by the Licence Fee so, in those terms, any £ of revenue is profit as their base costs are zero as they'd be spending the money on some sort of programming anyway.

BBC2 is given an annual budget and told "go spend it". It always gets spent. If some of what they spend it on brings in some actual cash as well that is a bonus.

NicD

3,281 posts

256 months

Saturday 28th March 2015
quotequote all
I imagine he has a lot stashed away, so if I were him, I would be more interested in quality of life/work and perhaps prestige than just the huge contract value.
As a performer, he will miss the comfy slot, likely to be downhill from here in terms of public popularity, but you never know.

Be interesting to see how he looks back on this.

Btw, I like him and enjoy parts of the show and unlikely to be watching any kind of hashed up remake. I find the slimeball QW/Jodie giggler 'classics' show is completely unwatchable junk, but I think that about most TV.

Dr Jekyll

23,820 posts

260 months

Saturday 28th March 2015
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Unfortunately BBC management think they are bigger than 350 million viewers.

anonymous-user

53 months

Saturday 28th March 2015
quotequote all
Dr Jekyll said:
Unfortunately BBC management think they are bigger than 350 million viewers.
That doesn't really make sense. hehe

Scuffers

20,887 posts

273 months

Saturday 28th March 2015
quotequote all
confused_buyer said:
The BBC doesn't make "profit". The shows are paid for by the Licence Fee so, in those terms, any £ of revenue is profit as their base costs are zero as they'd be spending the money on some sort of programming anyway.

BBC2 is given an annual budget and told "go spend it". It always gets spent. If some of what they spend it on brings in some actual cash as well that is a bonus.
BBC worldwide does make a profit.

what you then term to call that in the bigger context of all of the BBC is up to you.

allergictocheese

1,290 posts

112 months

Saturday 28th March 2015
quotequote all
Clarkson put the BBC in an impossible position as an employer. Advocating letting him off as a means to an end, on the basis Clarkson is revenue positive for them, is misconceived on the principle. Letting people commit criminal acts without sanction in the course of their employment on the basis they otherwise do a good for their employers is morally wrong.

turbobloke

103,734 posts

259 months

Saturday 28th March 2015
quotequote all
NicD said:
I imagine he has a lot stashed away, so if I were him, I would be more interested in quality of life/work and perhaps prestige than just the huge contract value.
Yes possibly so, his wealth is estimated to be £50m, but with a divorce ongoing apparently.

It was nevertheless a chance to increase his stash significantly.