i dont see why people are so up in arms about this...i mean you can talk smack but the second you lay your hands on some one its over he got what he deserved...

The victim himself said Clarkson should not have been fired over this, and he should only be sent to anger management. When you ignore the victim's viewpoint of the matter, you're going to fuck up. That's why people are upset - the BBC handled this like morons.

The BBC wasnt looking at the victum they were looking at A) weather his problem would later get them into a REAL law suit B) if he had gone to anger management before C) if he had it wouldnt be worth sending him again D) if said law suit would cost them more then a few million a year


it doesnt matter to big corp. if the victim says he shouldnt have been fired if he has anger problems then its going to get them in more trouble then its worth and sometime some where people with anger problems need to learn they cant get away with it for ever so like i said he got what he deserved

I looked at it as, think of it like any other workplace. If you put your hands on a coworker the way he supposedly did, I can't think of any modern company that doesn't immediately terminate you out of sheer policy. It just sets a very bad precedent if everyone forgives and forgets after it's been reported officially. If both parties were okay with it, then they should've kept it between them (which makes it really odd that Clarkson, as the aggressor, was supposedly the one to report it in the first place).

i totally agree and maybe he wanted to get fired from doing the same thing for so long?

No workplace is going to apply that policy off their own property - that's begging for a lawsuit. This isn't exactly a straightforward case since they were out doing Top Gear filming, but the type of policy you refer to would not apply.

It wasn't going to get them a lawsuit if they didn't fire him because the victim DIDN'T WANT him to be fired. If Clarkson's been to anger management before and it didn't take, it;s unlikely the victim would be recommending it.

how would the victom know if he had been before and i said LATER as in he might do it AGAIN read carfully next time before responding please~

I read the whole thing. Instead of telling people to read better, perhaps you should think things through a bit more.

If Clarkson had been to anger management before, he would've known; That's not something that can generally be kept secret within an organization like the BBC. IF he wasn't officially notified, somebody would have let it slip as soon as he was given the job of working with Clarkson.

And that's ignoring the fact that there is no way the media wouldn't have found out about it. Even if for some reason they missed it when it originally happened(virtually impossible for the past 30 years), they'd have uncovered it during this debacle. If Clarkson had been to anger management before, not only would his PRODUCERS have known, but the PUBLIC would know it by now.

i possibly could be wrong as i dont live in the U.K though where i live its not something that people are required to put on a resume~ and just because your on the BBC doesnt mean you get put through a strainer and again i could be wrong...but he still got what he deserved you cant deny that

If you've been through anger management and don't inform a prospective employer of it, you're probably not getting the job. In most of the modern world, the UK included, background checks are done upon someone being hired and if something like anger management counseling is left off that'll exclude someone from being hired - trying to hide it is far worse than the fact that it occurred. Companies NEED to know this stuff; If they don't, and the anger management didn't take in the long term, they can find themselves open to a lawsuit. For the same reason, they need to tell people the person will work closely with about it. Particularly bosses who will work directly with them.

And yes, I CAN deny that he "got what he deserved." Because the simple fact is that he didn't. Clarkson's not some violent nut who's barely reigned in his fists - his only other violent incident was when he punched Piers Morgan, and even Morgan himself admitted he deserved it. And for the record, Morgan said that while the two were still feuding, it was not a recent statement made after they buried the hatchet.

The vast majority of Clarkson's "scandals" have been overly-PC nutbags whining about a joke he cracked - a joke that the vast majority of people didn't care about because it simply didn't make the implications they'd claim(on the rare occasions he really DID go too far, he apologized before the shit even hit the fan). That doesn't make him deserving of being fired over an altercation that, again, the VICTIM did not feel was serious enough to warrant firing. In point of fact, this is why the BBC let him keep going for so long; They knew it was always a loud but incredibly small minority -often of a social authoritarian mindset- that was complaining, and it did not represent the opinion of the entire group they claimed to represent.

Clarkson's never deserved the crap he's gotten throughout his career. This is no exception. The BBC had three options, and they chose the worst one. Someone in the BBC saw this as an opportunity to get rid of someone who didn't see the world the same way he did, and they flexed some muscle to get rid of him. A genuine but not overly serious issue was turned into somebody's political game.

And I will PROUDLY follow Clarkson, Hammond, and May to whatever network hires them to start a Top Gear ripoff.

well im glad you took the time to tell me how the U.K system works~ thank you like seriously~

And im not saying hes a violent nut im just saying that you need more self control and when you hit someone out of -anger- weather they say its fine or not you need to be fired im sorry you dont agree with it and that you think he should get away with it... but im sure if he wasnt famous hed get charged and people would lose there minds over him hitting someone else out of angry and not the fact he was fired. And if the person hit said he deserved it then thats fine but in this one he didnt...


i dont really care that he speaks his mind more people need to do that in my opinion its the fact he hit someone because he got angry not what he says and like i said in my first post you can talk smack all you want there just words people need to get over its when you hit someone out of anger and no cause as far as i've heard and seen the man he punched recently didnt say "oh damn i deserved that' or anything hes just saying its fine thats why im saying what im saying i really could care less what he says or jokes he cracks i mean really there words...


and i bet everyone else would too and its an entertaining show and millions like it~ but again im not sure how many times i've said it in this post alone he hit some one out of -anger- that so far has yet to say he deserves it or he had it coming and thats not right thats what im talking about not his joke the way he talks i dont care about that again there words things to just get over physical violence weather the person says its okay or not is not okay if its over anger its just not so he deserves it JUST FOR HITTING OUT OF ANGER nothing else hes done

Here's the thing; If every time a person hit someone else out of anger, there was serious life-altering consequences, everyone in the world would be a criminal. Sometimes a few punches simply aren't worth making a stink over. Clearly, the victim felt this was the case in this situation. And if you ignore the opinion of the victim, you're doing things just as badly as if you believed him blindly regardless of evidence.

Lemme put it this way: Do you know how many charges -felony or misdemeanor- come from bar brawls? Almost none. Sometimes, a stupid move just doesn't deserve to be treated as anything more than that. And this incident doesn't even qualify as a bar brawl. Hell, it doesn't even qualify as high school bullying.

And you're telling me it's RIGHT for this to cost him his job? If he'd had a history of this, it would have been the right call. If eh victim felt it was extremely serious and demanded he be fired over it, it would have. But neither is the case. I will call BS on the idea that Clarkson deserved this from now until the end of time.

Because the simple fact is he didn't deserve this.

(on that note, I got to head out to work now, so if you have more to say right away don't hang around waiting for a response from me once you post; It's gonna be a while)

But not everyone hits out of anger... a lot like 99% * just guessing* ( which that 1% is still a lot of people) of the planet can control there emotions better then he can and others that hit someone out of anger...

And you cant really use bar brawls as the people in them are usually blind drunk and are not thinking clearly though i do understand what your saying

And yes as someone that used to be hit and things thrown at me because of angry controlling problems i do think its Right for it to cost him his job and remember hes famous its not like this incident has cost him his carer if it did i would agree with you and say that's not right but it hasn't and he's still able to get almost any job he wants just because of his following and the fact besides his anger problem i'm guessing hes a great guy. But just because there small accidents doesn't mean they should be shrugged off as meh it wont happen again or they wont worse i mean just look at it first he hit some one that owned up and said he deserved it to some one that "might" have started it

You also have to remember he him self could have sought out anger management and this could have never happened so he can be held responsible for his actions just like everyone else as this has also happened before

( That's okay have a great day at work be safe i really enjoy our discussion on this i like it as it helps me understand how others think~)

"But not everyone hits out of anger... a lot like 99% * just guessing* ( which that 1% is still a lot of people) of the planet can control there emotions better then he can and others that hit someone out of anger..."

You are correct. And guess what? This is EXACTLY why anger management exists!

"And you cant really use bar brawls as the people in them are usually blind drunk and are not thinking clearly"

Well, here';s a detail you must've missed about the matter.... According to both James May and Richard Hammond, who witnessed the incident, CLARKSON WAS EXTREMELY DRUNK. So... Yeah, chances are he wasn't thinking clearly. This is, in point of fact, the explicit reason I brought up bar brawls - alcohol is involved in bar brawls, and was involved in this particular incident.

"just look at it first he hit some one that owned up and said he deserved it to some one that "might" have started it"

First of all, NO legitimate source is saying that the victim might have started this. Only a small sect of blind victim-blamers are trying to pull that load of crap. Secondly, you can't even use the previous incident to establish a pattern because of the differing circumstances - You can't compare being deliberately provoked to an angry drunken swing. On top of that...

"You also have to remember he him self could have sought out anger management and this could have never happened so he can be held responsible for his actions just like everyone else as this has also happened before"

I strongly doubt you know Clarkson well enough to declare that he could have needed anger management counseling before this. If this is an isolated incident, Clarkson would have never had any reason to get himself anger management help. People don't seek out help you don't need; It's a waste of time.

Going back to the time he punched Piers Morgan, even THAT cannot be used as an example of a consistent problem due to the aforementioned provocation, and the fact that the incident took place ELEVEN YEARS ago. A consistent problem that would indication a serious need for him to seek help would have to be causing much more frequent trouble than that.

No matter how you look at this incident, firing Clarkson over this was a bad idea. Nothing in his past justifies this course of action, nor do any of the details of the incident itself. It's unfair to him, it's unfair to the fans, and most importantly, it's unfair to the victim, who's feeling and opinions were COMPLETELY IGNORED when it came down to it.

People need to be allowed to resolve their own problems from time to time and come to their own agreements/ settlements. Hitting someone out of anger is not a professional thing to do nor is it polite, but it's not like he viciously attacked and harmed the guy. Sometimes real people get into disagreements that escalate a little too far and it turns to blows, not uncommon at all. That is generally unacceptable in the workplace and the fact that they were filming work related things technically classifies it as that, so the option should be there- if the victim wanted clarkson fired he should have every right to request that outcome.

But if it really doesn't bother the victim, then it shouldn't just be an automatic systematic termination due to some corporate policy, it was just between the two of them after all. If you start a fight with someone in the parking lot of a bar and the other guy calls the cops on you, chances are you will get in some legal trouble. But if the two of you fight and and resolve your issue like men and talk it out afterwards or however you choose to handle it, that's where it ends. No cops magically swoop down from the heavens to dispense justice. Hell, as long as you're not creating a public disturbance when it happens, even if a cop were to witness the assault, if the victim chooses not to press charges then it would be dropped right there.

The fact that the victim doesn't care, then the BBC should be a little more reasonable in punishment. He's not a dangerous man, just got a little too angry. That's a perfect case of where anger management and a formal apology would have been just fine. Now the BBC is out one of their biggest players and killed a show that the whole world loved just because some corporate policy said it was the correct thing to do. All of this strict PC bullshit nowadays is making this world a sad place to try to live real life where one must watch what they say everything they do at every moment of every day just to avoid breaking any of the fragile rules that cater to whimps.

why does everyone use bar fight or brawls to justify something that could have been handled way better and buy professional people who can think drunk people cant think as they're drunk think before using a bar fight as an excuse...

I did not see the other response as it was posted while I was typing mine.

I personally mentioned it because it's a pretty common example of another situation where someone might lose their temper and hit someone, and it displays how it's really not that big of a deal.



That's not the first time I've seen you tell someone to think before they do something. Okay mommy I'll be sure to tink about my actions. How about you think before assuming your opinion is better than everyone else's and trying to tell people what to do (I bet that makes you feel important getting to act like a grown-up and scold people on the internet huh?). I'm not going to respond to you again as you're clearly pretty upset over this for some reason and are not thinking about it in a realistic adult manner.


PS. your responses don't really make sense the way you type them, try using some grammar and punctuation and meaningful reasoning. You're probably very young or just not all that bright. Give it a rest, you're not proving any point here.

Well at least i didnt resort to name calling~ ^w^ and watching you yes i makes me happy to see that you got so worked up about it and i don't think my opinion is more important then everyone else's its not wrong nor is it right its Called and OPINION for a reason just like your point of view and the other person i'm talking to. I'm just trying to get people to see the other side instead of just blindly following some one they like and saying its wrong he got fired over something that could have clearly been avoided. And i'm sorry if you don't understand the way i type~

"I'm just trying to get people to see the other side instead of just blindly following some one they like"

Thing you're not quite comprehending here is that most of us aren't blindly following someone we like. Most of us have thought this thing through, considered all of the available information -which you seem to have been quite short on when forming your own viewpoint- then formed an opinion on it.

"something that could have clearly been avoided."

You don't know that. Do not make declarative statements about things you cannot possibly know. It does not encourage people to take you seriously.

i can see what you are saying in and i want to apologize for speaking before i actually knew what i was talking about i want to thank you for enlightening me to the facts~. Im sorry for causing so much commotion

Thank you for considering the information once it was brought to your attention. Far too many people out there just up and ignore it.

Was gonna happen sooner or later.

I say the three look elsewhere and put together a new show.

I knew it. I FUCKING KNEW IT. Welp, there goes one of the best car shows I've ever watched. I mean that, too. It's not going to survive without Clarkson on the team. I'll admit, it was pretty rash of him to lay out that coworker, but over FUCKING FOOD? Now that's just moronic. I guess we should all enjoy Top Gear while it lasts, because once it's gone, it's gone. Fuck you, Jeremy, you imbecillic cock. Maybe you should have thought twice before doing something as fucking retarded as what you did. You just dug a grave for your show that millions watched, and you're gonna fucking regret it, you old sack of shit.

Hahaha when i first saw the news i thought "Gee is it April Fools day ? "
Top Gear has an imdb rating of 9,5 out of 10 ..Good luck keeping that without Clarkson..
b t w : i wonder if their facebook page will undergo a "like" drop ...

I am very saddened by the news as I loved that show, HOWEVER, I know that it was the right thing to do. To let Clarkson stay would be the same as giving him a free pass to do whatever he wants. When celebrities think that they are above everyone else only more problems can arise, and because of that the time has come to end the show.

R.I.P. Top Gear

Bring back Jason Dawe?

Thankyou!

Much like when people rage quite here, he'll be back. All of them have joked about how many times they've been fired and then hired back, and considering how much the BBC has to lose, I can't imagine Clarkson will stay gone for long.

Unlike FA ragequits, this wasn't Clarkson's choice. The BBC is currently led by overly-sensitive extreme-PC politically-minded folks who don't care for anything but getting rid of dissent. Clarkson is rather conservative(by British standards - he's almost in the middle by American standards), and it doesn't line up with what current BBC management wants. He'll be gone until the management changes.

I'm not surprised. They'll need a new foil for May and Hammond, but it's doable.

So long as it doesn't become anything like the American show, I'll live with it.

I am a Top Gear fan, but Clarkson brought this upon himself. I dare say if anyone else went on a tirade for 20 minutes and then sucker punched someone at their workplace you'd most likely be fired on the spot. There is no excuse for that type of behavior especially in public.

A blind man in Monroe saw this one coming. He's caused too much trouble for them and there's been far too much bad press in the last few years. Unlike the typical reality trope, controversy doesn't really bode well for a news/review format like Top Gear. I'd love to see the show reinvented with even parts of the past and present: retain the tomfoolery but inject an equivalent amount of actual, legitimate product reviews and not just of upper-tier stuff. As a yank, i'm always fascinated by what the small car market overseas is doing but its hard to get a good look sometimes without a lot of time spent online researching it.

This is a shame. I loved Clarkson on the show. All down the drown for one little incident. I only heard some of the story. I only found that he attacked the producer at a hotel...

I bet they will find some way to return together with our without nanny state bbc network permission.

What I think is amazing is how much money the BBC will lose over this from viewership decline to loss of major sponsors across the world. I'm more surprised this isn't all some publicity stunt.

I say they all move to the USA and replace the terrible no talent hacks on the American version of Top Gear. Tanner Foust can be the American stig.

Or there is always youtube.

Two bits says Clarkson and Co show up on ITV or Thames next season.

Considering Clarkson's track record I think this was just a case of "long time coming". He's had issues with racism, and anger management over and over. The fact he hosts one of the most popular car shows on TV is likely the only reason that he's been put up with as long as he has.

That said, I'm honestly surprised with how much griping May and Hammond do about him that they said they won't do another season without him. I guess despite the issues they still feel they're better with him than without him.

Official word is that the BBC wants to try and continue the series, it's going to be interesting to see what they do for hosts in the next season, and if they pull it off how the show will change.

So whos placing bets to when the BBC goes broke?