Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
The Great AntiJen
retired moderator
#26 Old 27th Mar 2015 at 7:03 PM
Frankly, I don't see the Director of TV had a choice - Clarkson assaulted someone at work and we have laws about that kind of thing. That's more or less what he said (Danny Cohen, I mean). There's a police investigation now and people might not like it but that's tough. The law is there for a reason and it applies to everyone.

And I'm not onverstating the value of other programs - there are some very successful programs. BBC Wildlife outperforms TG and has been performing well for a very long time, very considerably longer than TG has been around - and I'm talking about profit, not revenue. If TG is 10% for BBC Worldwide, as I said above, the last financial statement from the BBC said that BBC Worldwide contributes about 1/4 (25%) of the overall budget of the BBC. So Top Gear contributes 10% of that 25%. That's a substantial amount of money, I agree, but it's hardly going to break the BBC.

I no longer come over to MTS very often but if you would like to ask me a question then you can find me on tumblr or my own site tflc. TFLC has an archive of all my CC downloads.
I'm here on tumblr and my site, tflc
Advertisement
Theorist
#27 Old 27th Mar 2015 at 7:27 PM Last edited by Mistermook : 28th Mar 2015 at 1:46 AM.
Quote: Originally posted by maxon
Frankly, I don't see the Director of TV had a choice - Clarkson assaulted someone at work and we have laws about that kind of thing. That's more or less what he said (Danny Cohen, I mean). There's a police investigation now and people might not like it but that's tough. The law is there for a reason and it applies to everyone


I'm suggesting that the choice was in to not properly manage the Top Gear properties properly in the first place. If I know Bill in accounting is a shitty creationist and Candy the receptionist is a militant atheist, I don't not address that, especially once it's been determined it's potentially an issue. And if Bill is my rockstar, if he's literally the engine that keeps the company going, the man who does most of the work and invented our property in the first place no matter what his position is now, then how I address what is "proper" is by telling Candy to shut her fucking mouth about anything but workplace violence, diddling children, and sexual harassment as much as I can without flaunting the law. And as soon as possible, I fire her because she's less important than Bill and replace her with someone who understands giving Bill a platform to be an ass, if that's what he wants, is part of their job. And if Bill does murder someone on the way home from a particularly drunken church meeting, my first, second, and third options (and potentially more) are how I might convince the world of Bill's recalcitrance and redemption after performing suitable absolutions and penalties. I might be excused for shopping around for Bill replacements as vigorously as possible, but when you're punishing everyone by punishing Bill you're not doing your job right. That's about fairness too.

Cohen might be using the law as his excuse, but really it's a reflection of poor performance on his own part that they couldn't manage to ego stroke and manage a single old man for long enough to extract as much money from him as possible.
Top Secret Researcher
#28 Old 27th Mar 2015 at 8:13 PM
Aren't you trying to impose US values onto the UK? I mean, the US is far more aggressive than the UK is - they could have other ways of dealing with the problem than "Let's let this guy get away with assault!" or firing people for having an insufficiently brown nose. The first thing that comes to mind is publicly shaming the person in question for their actions, though this won't work with sociopaths. Or they could threaten his job - cancelling TG won't hurt the station - or bribe him to not act like an asshole. Still, if they have a different way of dealing with wayward stars that doesn't involve hiring human doormats, and it works most of the time and they tried it here, then they're not really at fault for what happened.
The Great AntiJen
retired moderator
#29 Old 27th Mar 2015 at 8:35 PM
Ah I see Mistermook.

I no longer come over to MTS very often but if you would like to ask me a question then you can find me on tumblr or my own site tflc. TFLC has an archive of all my CC downloads.
I'm here on tumblr and my site, tflc
dodgy builder
#30 Old 27th Mar 2015 at 10:55 PM
We have a national broadcaster in Norway as well, and they have a rather difficult job. If they get too big the arguements goes like: "You take jobs from the private companies, we have to lower your budget", if they loose money it's like "This isn't worth it, the private companies can take this job and do it much better", if they earn too much money the national parliament take it away.

Quote: Originally posted by Mistermook
Cohen might be using the law as his excuse, but really it's a reflection of poor performance on his own part that they couldn't manage to ego stroke and manage a single old man for long enough to extract as much money from him as possible.


That may be so, but BBC had a scandal not long ago, I don't even know if it's sorted yet, some well known presenter had been abusing little boys for ages and no one did anything to fix it. Excuse me if you have already mentioned it. It was hot in the news even across the channel. I don't even remember the name of the man, but they may have learned a lesson.
Theorist
#31 Old 27th Mar 2015 at 11:03 PM Last edited by Mistermook : 27th Mar 2015 at 11:28 PM.
Quote: Originally posted by Volvenom
We have a national broadcaster in Norway as well, and they have a rather difficult job. If they get too big the arguements goes like: "You take jobs from the private companies, we have to lower your budget", if they loose money it's like "This isn't worth it, the private companies can take this job and do it much better", if they earn too much money the national parliament take it away.


That's pretty much every government program anywhere. At the close of the budget year all across the US federal agencies all scramble to spend discretionary funds like madmen, because they maintained those funds for emergencies and contingencies, but now they've got to get rid of it all as quickly as possible else someone go "you made a profit? Well obviously you didn't need so much money." And then the next year, with your budget slashed, that's when you have an emergency issue and have to go ask for more money and it goes, "You didn't manage the money we gave you very well, you should have had a budget for emergencies."

I suspect it's the case everywhere, as a basic fact of bureaucracies.
dodgy builder
#32 Old 30th Mar 2015 at 3:52 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Mistermook
That's pretty much every government program anywhere. At the close of the budget year all across the US federal agencies all scramble to spend discretionary funds like madmen, because they maintained those funds for emergencies and contingencies, but now they've got to get rid of it all as quickly as possible else someone go "you made a profit? Well obviously you didn't need so much money." And then the next year, with your budget slashed, that's when you have an emergency issue and have to go ask for more money and it goes, "You didn't manage the money we gave you very well, you should have had a budget for emergencies."

I suspect it's the case everywhere, as a basic fact of bureaucracies.


Where I live it's politics and the difference between different governments. Not really bureaucracy, it's not like officials doing it, it's politicians needing more money for their other projects. Our national broadcaster in addition isn't really a service the state has to deal with, it's not like the police or firebrigade. It's an addition we have because it was the government that funded the TV in the beginning. We don't usually go and ask a private party to fund something, we usually call for the government or municipality to do it. In the us I imagine you very rearly go ask the government or parliament to do anything, you go find yourself some private company to do it.

It's the balance that is the key here I think. We have less private funding and more government. So the question is more like how will it be if the NRK had to close down. In my eyes it's a major distributor of information, culture and entertainment to everyone. Because it's funded by the government, they want their companies to care for a wider audience, like niches and interests that are less likely to be funded by private broadcasting companies. In that way they balance things in the market. The less commertial interests are served by the national broadcaster. Then our new government has some spokesmen saying "NRK has to only make programs no one wants to watch", and that is about what they say, meaning something like decimating NRK to about nothing. I mean why should we even watch a broadcaster that only serves minor groups, they might have interesting things to show, but 95 percent of the time it's nothing but rubbish.

I was in the US a couple of weeks visiting relatives, and I have never seen so much rubbish on TV in my life. A national broadcaster in both Norway and England stands for quality, it's something for the private companies to stretch for, that is something they don't like of course considering they have to finance it
Banned
Original Poster
#33 Old 31st Mar 2015 at 8:33 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Mistermook
PS I hate the planet for making me do even nominal research into all of this. This should not be a thing.

My sympathy. If Jeremy Clarkson wasn't so rude and violent, this never would have happened.

Clarkson is gone, BBC is under fire and losing money and viewers, death threats have been sent, Argentina-Falklands relations have been dented because of TG (not neccesarily) in the past few months, its safe to say Top Gear is degrading.
The Great AntiJen
retired moderator
#34 Old 7th Apr 2015 at 2:51 PM
Well, the police have now decided not to pursue Clarkson for assault and so I guess that's that. I wonder what will happen with the programme since the Beeb seem to be set on gonig ahead with a new series.

I no longer come over to MTS very often but if you would like to ask me a question then you can find me on tumblr or my own site tflc. TFLC has an archive of all my CC downloads.
I'm here on tumblr and my site, tflc
Mad Poster
#35 Old 8th Apr 2015 at 4:09 PM
I had read somewhere that he didn't get the steak he was expecting and that's why he ended up punching the producer. So I imagined they were filming in the Gobi desert or similar where the catering was a challenge. But then I looked it up and they were filming in the Yorkshire Dales. So that was interesting - that you can't get a steak at 10pm there. But how hard would it have been to arrange to have someone make the steak? - maybe he's a dick but he was still the star of the show. He really wasn't asking for much. Instead they gave him a sandwich after a presumably long day. So I could see being angry.
I wonder if now he wishes he'd just verbally abused the guy and then eaten the sandwich.
The Great AntiJen
retired moderator
#36 Old 8th Apr 2015 at 6:16 PM
Well, there's angry and then there's assaulting someone. Some people see that as a big difference.

I no longer come over to MTS very often but if you would like to ask me a question then you can find me on tumblr or my own site tflc. TFLC has an archive of all my CC downloads.
I'm here on tumblr and my site, tflc
Mad Poster
#37 Old 8th Apr 2015 at 6:39 PM
Oh, I agree - violence isn't the answer.
Theorist
#38 Old 8th Apr 2015 at 8:02 PM
Well then, hearing his side of it totally puts things in perspective. Getting a sandwich when you requested steak totally warrants punching someone. I mean, put yourself in his shoes. You're expecting a big juicy steak. Your mouth is watering just thinking about it. Then this lackey nobody brings you... a sandwich. Some nasty old thing he probably slapped together in the break room, made with processed lunch meat and expired mayonnaise. What a jerk!

No, not serious.

Resident wet blanket.
Mad Poster
#39 Old 8th Apr 2015 at 8:47 PM
I think it was a very nice sandwich, but he was expecting hot food lol. I assume he's rich - if that was me I'd make a mental note to hire a PA who could cook to look after my food needs and the others could go to hell.
And that was just my take on what happened - I think he apologized the next day, knowing he'd gone way beyond the pale.
The Great AntiJen
retired moderator
#40 Old 8th Apr 2015 at 10:04 PM
The guy he punched was not a PA but a producer on the programme.

I no longer come over to MTS very often but if you would like to ask me a question then you can find me on tumblr or my own site tflc. TFLC has an archive of all my CC downloads.
I'm here on tumblr and my site, tflc
Mad Poster
#41 Old 9th Apr 2015 at 12:15 AM Last edited by RoseCity : 9th Apr 2015 at 12:26 AM.
I meant that I would hire a PA to handle my meals rather than rely on the BBC to do it for me since it seems to be too challenging for them. (Geez, I don't think it's okay to punch a PA.)
The Great AntiJen
retired moderator
#42 Old 9th Apr 2015 at 1:04 AM
Quote: Originally posted by RoseCity
I meant that I would hire a PA to handle my meals rather than rely on the BBC to do it for me since it seems to be too challenging for them. (Geez, I don't think it's okay to punch a PA.)

No, sorry of course you don't.

I no longer come over to MTS very often but if you would like to ask me a question then you can find me on tumblr or my own site tflc. TFLC has an archive of all my CC downloads.
I'm here on tumblr and my site, tflc
Née whiterider
retired moderator
#43 Old 9th Apr 2015 at 9:56 AM
Yeah I was gonna say, doesn't really make any difference... the guy punched someone over a sandwich. He's lucky he's not being charged.

What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact.
 
Page 2 of 2
Back to top