• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

New Top Gear

Adam Hills posted this on facebook earlier this morning.

So, the Jeremy Clarkson affair.
I made a point on twitter, that people have taken umbrage with, so I want to use more words to make that point.
Apparently Jeremy Clarkson has been involved in a “fracas” with a producer on Top Gear, so the BBC have suspended him, and the show.
Some people are defending him, with the ‪#‎BringBackClarkson‬ campaign.
Clearly, none of us know what happened. All I’m trying to say is – let’s not assume his guilt, but by the same token, let’s also not assume he is innocent.
His employers have taken action, probably for good reason, since Top Gear is one of their flagship shows, and it hurts them not to have it on air (although you also couldn’t buy the publicity it has created).
Demanding Clarkson’s return assumes he is being treated unfairly. But there is a possibility he threw a punch at a producer.
So, what to do?
Well, it makes a good story, so I’m guessing the press will have a great old time with it. One headline suggested I slammed Clarkson on twitter.
I didn’t really. I just wanted to say that demanding the return of someone who has been stood down for disciplinary reasons, suggests that celebrity is more important than good behaviour.
And as we have learned in the past, in so many different ways, that is never a good thing.
 
I defy anyone to go punch a co-worker and still expect to be employed tomorrow.

There could have been provocation, it could have been self defence (though in that case it's interesting to note that the producer hasn't been suspended) but in the final analysis it's an assault, or an attempted assault on a work colleague and I'll be amazed if he keeps his job, especially given the supposed fact that he's on his last warning anyway.

If the BBC keep him they're going to have to come up with a pretty cast iron reason for doing so.
 
Adam Hills posted this on facebook earlier this morning.

So, the Jeremy Clarkson affair.
I made a point on twitter, that people have taken umbrage with, so I want to use more words to make that point.
Apparently Jeremy Clarkson has been involved in a “fracas” with a producer on Top Gear, so the BBC have suspended him, and the show.
Some people are defending him, with the ‪#‎BringBackClarkson‬ campaign.
Clearly, none of us know what happened. All I’m trying to say is – let’s not assume his guilt, but by the same token, let’s also not assume he is innocent.
His employers have taken action, probably for good reason, since Top Gear is one of their flagship shows, and it hurts them not to have it on air (although you also couldn’t buy the publicity it has created).
Demanding Clarkson’s return assumes he is being treated unfairly. But there is a possibility he threw a punch at a producer.
So, what to do?
Well, it makes a good story, so I’m guessing the press will have a great old time with it. One headline suggested I slammed Clarkson on twitter.
I didn’t really. I just wanted to say that demanding the return of someone who has been stood down for disciplinary reasons, suggests that celebrity is more important than good behaviour.
And as we have learned in the past, in so many different ways, that is never a good thing.

He is right we shouldn't prejudge Clarkson, many companies suspend employee's whilst they conduct an investigation into an incident.
 
Adam Hills posted this on facebook earlier this morning.

So, the Jeremy Clarkson affair.
I made a point on twitter, that people have taken umbrage with, so I want to use more words to make that point.
Apparently Jeremy Clarkson has been involved in a “fracas” with a producer on Top Gear, so the BBC have suspended him, and the show.
Some people are defending him, with the ‪#‎BringBackClarkson‬ campaign.
Clearly, none of us know what happened. All I’m trying to say is – let’s not assume his guilt, but by the same token, let’s also not assume he is innocent.
His employers have taken action, probably for good reason, since Top Gear is one of their flagship shows, and it hurts them not to have it on air (although you also couldn’t buy the publicity it has created).
Demanding Clarkson’s return assumes he is being treated unfairly. But there is a possibility he threw a punch at a producer.
So, what to do?
Well, it makes a good story, so I’m guessing the press will have a great old time with it. One headline suggested I slammed Clarkson on twitter.
I didn’t really. I just wanted to say that demanding the return of someone who has been stood down for disciplinary reasons, suggests that celebrity is more important than good behaviour.
And as we have learned in the past, in so many different ways, that is never a good thing.

He is right we shouldn't prejudge Clarkson, many companies suspend employee's whilst they conduct an investigation into an incident.

Indeed, it happened a few years ago at the Supermarket I was at, a Team Leader got into a fight with a Department Manager occured behind the scenes and both were suspended. The Manager resigned and the Team Leader got demoted.

Arguably, both Clarkson and this un-named Producer should have been suspended.
 
An investigation could prove there was provocation, but Jezza is the one who hit the guy, so he'd naturally be suspended.

If the investigation finds the other guy provoked him, he'll probably also be suspended.
 
Don't know how much truth there is but the papers are suggesting Clarkson lost it after no food was laid on at the end of a long day's filming.
 
Interesting to see that the person who reported Clarkson's "fracas" was... Jezza himself. Oisin Tymon hasn't made any complaint. Which makes it even more suspicious to me that this happens at contract-signing time for future seasons.
 
^I can't see how this would help at contract signing time, surely the aim would be to get a better contract this incident wouldn't exactly help. After all he was under no obligation to sign a new contract when the existing one expires.
 
^I can't see how this would help at contract signing time, surely the aim would be to get a better contract this incident wouldn't exactly help. After all he was under no obligation to sign a new contract when the existing one expires.

Well, let's imagine you're a presenter of a certain type of show, and you're getting tired of the network you're on, and would love to take your expertise in this field to a create a new show for another network.

But, damn, your contract says if you voluntarily leave the network - even by simply choosing to not renew - you can't do the same type of show elsewhere for x nomber of years, in order to prevent you just walking off with the cash cow.

But, if you leave *involuntarily*, say by getting fired or by the network refusing to sign your new contract extension, then the clause doesn't apply, and you're free and clear to go and take that cash cow to any other market you like...

In which case the best punishment your network can give you is to *not* fire you- at least until they get that clause changed!
 
^I can't see how this would help at contract signing time, surely the aim would be to get a better contract this incident wouldn't exactly help. After all he was under no obligation to sign a new contract when the existing one expires.

Well, let's imagine you're a presenter of a certain type of show, and you're getting tired of the network you're on, and would love to take your expertise in this field to a create a new show for another network.

But, damn, your contract says if you voluntarily leave the network - even by simply choosing to not renew - you can't do the same type of show elsewhere for x nomber of years, in order to prevent you just walking off with the cash cow.

But, if you leave *involuntarily*, say by getting fired or by the network refusing to sign your new contract extension, then the clause doesn't apply, and you're free and clear to go and take that cash cow to any other market you like...

In which case the best punishment your network can give you is to *not* fire you- at least until they get that clause changed!


What you say might be true, however I believe BBC/BBC Worldwide own the rights to the show, so even if he did leave to do another show it would have to be different from Top Gear, otherwise it could breach copyright(s)
 
What I'm saying is I hear talk of a clause that would prevent him doing any show about cars in any way shape or form for several years.
 
I have some doubts that a non-compete clause would be conditional in that fashion. Otherwise, Clarkson would essentially be encouraged by his Beeb contract to get fired so he could cash in with a new contract and show elsewhere.
 
I suspect that even if there is a non-compete clause. If he was fired for Gross Mis-Conduct, It would still hold.
 
In case the news hasn't got round, Clarkson is out - not technically speaking sacked, as his contract was up for renewal, but it's not being renewed.
James May is also describing himself as an ex-Top Gear presenter on Facebook, implying that he won't be staying either.
 
I don't see how the BBC could do anything else really. You just can't get away with that kind of thing.

Hopefully David Cameron' daughter can be persuaded not to go on hunger strike...
 
Well shit anyway.

Of course now the truth is out. He did hit a producer and was in a scuffle with him for 30 seconds followed by 20 minutes of verbal abuse. It's not acceptable in any job of course but Top Gear wasn't just any job and Clarkson wasn't just any staff member. It will be a massive loss for the BBC.
May and Hammond won't stay on and whatever Top Gear comes back next year won't be one i'll be watching. Sounds like sour grapes I know but i've been watching the show since the 80s with Clarkson. I loved the current Top Gear and spent many a night with a beer or two laughing my head off which I sometimes sorely needed to do.
 
Last edited:
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top