Vocal Voices

.....and probably taking (a version of) Top Gear with him, but what is interesting is that he has not been sacked, he is simply not having his contract renewed. Now why might that be?

Could it be that by sacking him Clarkson would have taken the BBC to court and let the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth come out, because it has not - so far?

The statement by Tony Hall, BBC's DG, mentions very little of the actual incident. In fact, far from making it clear, Quote regarding his inquiry findings: "I am only making them public so people can better understand the background." he has only muddied the waters even more.

I look forward to hearing Clarkson's uncensored and free from the BBC straightjacket views on the matter.

Is it perhaps as he is/was not a BBC employee? He was a freelancer I believe.....

he deserves the sack and so do alot more of these so called stars
its my liscense money there spending
i would sack the lot of the top management as well
with no bonuses either

shot their selves in the foot

saundra wrote:he deserves the sack and so do alot more of these so called stars
its my liscense money there spending
i would sack the lot of the top management as well
with no bonuses either

Ans so would I Saundra.xxx

If, as alleged, he did rant at that guy for a sustained 20 minutes, and then subject him to a one-sided 30 second assault which had to be stopped by a witness and left the victim needing treatment at the local A&E, then quite honestly his contract should be terminated, and I hope the North Yorkshire Police (who have asked for a report) duly follow it up.

If Hammond and May have got any sense, they should consider ending their association with Clarkson as well. It'll be interesting to see how this aspect develops .....l.

Saundra, they were not spending one penny of your license fee by employing Clarkson. In fact the opposite, Top Gear was a fully self funding franchise which brought in large sums of money to the BBC. By not renewing Clarkson, they may have to put your license fee up sooner to cover the tens of millions of £ they are losing by making this decision.

The Guardian are bumping their gums about Clarkson maybe being charged. Well at least if they do then all the evidence will come out. But don't hold your breath. But we might want to all consider that if he is not charged then there has to be some serious questions asked as to why not.

My petrol head Belgian colleague sums up the attitude outside the UK. 'King idiots what did they do that for says he. Then he says, "So do you have commercial TV". Of course I say. OK he says, I'll wait till he gets a show on another channel and then I'll follow him.

Top gear just died. The only question is when is the funeral. I remember watching Top Gear before Clarkson. In fact I remember watching the series in 1977 when it was broadcast from Pebble Mill and only available in the Midlands... It hardly set the world on fire. In the old format it had as high as 6m viewers. Since it was relaunched as a studio show with Clarkson as the main presenter, it has reached hundreds of millions.

I must admit I wonder how this would have been handled if it was not public. The public tend to fall into three categories with Clarkson. Love/Hate/Laugh at, not with. I assume there were quite a lot of the Hate factor in the hotel that night.

He is an interesting presenter who is really off the wall. Remember when Ford failed to get the cougar to him for his Coupe test? He replaced it with a tub of lard towed by a Golf if I remember. Then he marked it as if the tub of lard was the car. It is that kind of off the wall ridiculous stuff which draws the crowds.

What is interesting to me is that Clarkson is a very HOT property and the BBC just let him go. There is only likely to be one loser in this case and it won't be Clarkson. In fact he may just make twice the money out of moving than he made out of the BBC. Imagine what price commercial channels will charge for adverts when his show is on....

For the BBC the value of Top Gear was rated at £50m. For a commercial channel that could be 10 or 20 times the value. A few more decisions like that and the BBC will be the most principled Non Broadcaster in the world....

I wondered about the North Yorks Police involvement. If no complaint has been made, do they actually have any authority to act?

We still do not know when the producer presented himself to A&E or what with.

I couldn't care less about Clarkson, but if TG is to continue on the BBC I would go for Guy Martin as a replacement for Clarkson, or possibly Al Murray, or both, and get rid of Hammond.

I also have to say, as an ex-serviceman, that if the Armed Forces took the BBC line about colleagues fighting, we would have very few servicemen, and women, employed.

ETA: The actions of the BBC, in many areas, make it very hard to justify the licence in its present form.

TheOstrich wrote:If Hammond and May have got any sense, they should consider ending their association with Clarkson as well. It'll be interesting to see how this aspect develops .....l.

One of the pieces of information which leaked out today was that Hammond and May were asked to continue to produce and broadcast without Clarkson. Notably they both refused and then also refused to have any discussions about renewing their contracts whilst Clarkson was on suspension pending being fired.

They both know which side their bread is buttered on and it is not on the BBC tied into a 3 year contract to a dead series which doesn't make the money it costs to produce.

I have been clear from the start. If Clarkson assaulted someone then it is a Police matter, not a BBC internal investigation matter. Had the BBC reported it to the Police and then taken action after the Police had done what they should do, then it would have been both fair and correct. In fact what has happened is both unfair and incorrect for both parties.

May says "Don't ask me, I don't remember I was out of my head with drink". And we are expected to believe that Clarkson drank less than May? And why so drunk? Empty stomach on eating nothing all day perhaps?

This whole debate has broken down into those who hate Clarkson and want him brought down at any cost and those who don't believe a word the BBC says.

It would have been far better if the BBC producer had gone straight to the police and asked them to deal with it. That would have been the best thing to do. That would have been the honourable thing to do...

Guess which camp I am in.

Suff wrote:It would have been far better if the BBC producer had gone straight to the police and asked them to deal with it. That would have been the best thing to do. That would have been the honourable thing to do...

And that remains why I am suspicious that this was a put-up job.

It also partly explains why Clarkson was not 'sacked' but 'let go' at the end of his contract in six days' time.

As I said in my OP, it will be interesting to hear what he has to say once the cuffs are off.