Yeah, I know, it's the Guardian, but it still seems legit:
QuoteJeremy Clarkson's contract will not be renewed after the Top Gear presenter was involved in a 30-second physical assault on a producer, the BBC's internal inquiry will report on Wednesday.
BBC director general Tony Hall is understood to have come to the conclusion that he has "little alternative" but to end Clarkson's BBC career, 16 days after he was suspended following a "fracas" with a member of the Top Gear production team.
A BBC investigation led by BBC Scotland boss Ken MacQuarrie is thought to have found that Clarkson engaged Oisin Tymon in a 30-second physical assault after a 20-minute verbal tirade.
Live BBC will not renew Jeremy Clarkson contract – live updates
Follow live updates as the Guardian obtains confirmation of the BBC's decision not to renew the contract of the controversial Top Gear front man
Read more
Hall is a Top Gear fan and has previously stood by the presenter following a string of controversies, including an incident last year when he appeared to mumble the N-word in a Top Gear out-take.
The BBC also hugely values the audience that Clarkson and the BBC2 programme – regularly watched by more than 5 million viewers – brings to the BBC.
But a source close to the inquiry said: "There can't be one rule for talent and one rule for ordinary human beings."
Following the findings of the MacQuarrie inquiry, and the fact that Clarkson was put on a final warning after the N-word controversy last year, a source said Hall had "little alternative" but to let Clarkson go.
Clarkson's contract with the BBC was due to expire at the end of of March.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/mar/25/jeremy-clarkson-top-gear-contract-bbc (http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/mar/25/jeremy-clarkson-top-gear-contract-bbc)
Clarkson may be a brilliant presenter, but clearly isn't the kind of person you want hanging round your organization. There's rumors that Netflix may want to re-create the show, but I can't see that lasting very long. Clarkson should probably take some time off and consider what success has done to his ego.
This likely means both May and Hammond also will quit. That's the end of Top Gear then.
I imagine him and the others will be picked up by Sky. Evans seems a solid choice.
Quote from: Brezel on March 25, 2015, 07:44:56 AM
This likely means both May and Hammond also will quit. That's the end of Top Gear then.
We can only hope.
Wonder how much they will be restricted in terms of format as BBC own the rights to Top Gear
Quote from: Gups on March 25, 2015, 08:03:16 AM
Wonder how much they will be restricted in terms of format as BBC own the rights to Top Gear
They own the rights to the name, but how could they own any rights to a "format?"
Yeah, it's not like a "rude guy talking shit about cars" is something you can copyright.
Quote from: Martinus on March 25, 2015, 08:07:36 AM
Yeah, it's not like a "rude guy talking shit about cars" is something you can copyright.
If it is, he could easily go with a "shit guy talking about rude cars" format.
Quote from: grumbler on March 25, 2015, 08:05:55 AM
Quote from: Gups on March 25, 2015, 08:03:16 AM
Wonder how much they will be restricted in terms of format as BBC own the rights to Top Gear
They own the rights to the name, but how could they own any rights to a "format?"
Of course,, it's possible to won the rights to a format if it's sufficiently distinctive. Otherwise, shows like Big Brother, X Country's Got Talent or Who Wants to be a Millionaire could never get international sales. Here's part of an analysis by some lawyers
http://www.thedrum.com/opinion/2015/03/13/life-after-top-gear-road-ahead-jeremy-clarkson-and-bbc
So who owns Top Gear? In 2008, a grateful BBC rewarded Clarkson by giving him 30 per cent of the series through a joint venture company, Bedder 6 Limited. Long-time producer Andy Wilman got 20 per cent at the same time with the remainder held by BBC Worldwide, the BBC's commercial wing.
However, in 2012, embarrassed by the hefty dividends that Clarkson was reaping, the BBC bought them both out, with Clarkson netting £8.4m for his stake. This can only be seen as a good move by the BBC as its ability to fire Clarkson would be considerably constrained if he still owned 30 per cent of the series.
So, while for many members of the audience Jeremy Clarkson is Top Gear, in law the format and brand are owned by the BBC.
However, TV formats are difficult to protect in law, as 1970s TV presenter Hughie Green found out when he accused TV stations of ripping off his Opportunity Knocks talent show. The courts threw out his claims, saying that copyright cannot protect the format of a talent show as it was not sufficiently original.
Since then, the law has moved on a bit and it is likely that original elements of Top Gear, such as a Star in a Reasonably Priced Car, could be protected. While neither the BBC nor anyone else can own the motoring programme format, any rival programme on another channel would have to take care not to replicate the most original and distinctive elements of the Top Gear format.
The BBC also owns an extensive suite of trademarks over the Top Gear brand, including the Top Gear name and logos and covering uses ranging from broadcasting, television and publishing to "preparations for the hair" and soap. So sorry, Jeremy, the Top Gear hair tonic will just have to stay on hold.
All is not lost for Clarkson, however. He is likely to have producers and broadcasters lining up with offers – and while the BBC may own the rights to Top Gear they do not own rights in Clarkson's own image and neither will they be able to prevent him from continuing his career as a professional television presenter and journalist.
Indeed, subject to their respective contracts, there is nothing to stop Clarkson, May and Hammond simply going to a new channel and starting a new show, with a different format and branding.
Sadly for disappointed fans, they will not have any legal recourse if the BBC decides to scrap the remaining episodes of the series, although it is likely they will face claims from some of the hundreds of TV stations to whom the series is sold.
:(
Yeah, it is almost impossible to hold the rights to a format. Big Brother is just a modification of Survivor, and Who Wants to be a Millionaire is just one of many variants on the standard quiz show. If one could copyright a format, there'd be about 12 shows, total, on the air. All of the skit names 9as well as the show name) are copyrighted, of course.
A non-BBC version of Top Gear wouldn't use any of the names of the Top Gear skits and stunts, but could otherwise have a very similar show. I'd think they would emphasize the stars, though, just as BBC does, rather than any particular format. They'd want to do a car show for the advertising, but I don't think that it being a car show would be an essential element of its success.
To be honest, I think this is kind of sad.
Clarkson may be a bumbling buffoon at times, but for once I think the PC-brigade is well in the wrong.
I have kind of lost interest in Top Gear, but I do love their challenges and long trips. The one from South America was brilliant.
I don't think it's PC that gets you fired when you're violent against a fellow employee.
I think that was just the final drop. Clarkson's been on probation for years. He suffers from chronic foot-in-mouth disease.
And look at him. How hard could it be (to use a phrase he perfected) to defend yourself against him?
Quote from: Norgy on March 25, 2015, 09:00:50 AM
I think that was just the final drop. Clarkson's been on probation for years. He suffers from chronic foot-in-mouth disease.
And look at him. How hard could it be (to use a phrase he perfected) to defend yourself against him?
So I'm allowed to be abusive and physically confrontational as I want as long as I'm in lousy shape?
Quote from: frunk on March 25, 2015, 09:03:00 AM
Quote from: Norgy on March 25, 2015, 09:00:50 AM
I think that was just the final drop. Clarkson's been on probation for years. He suffers from chronic foot-in-mouth disease.
And look at him. How hard could it be (to use a phrase he perfected) to defend yourself against him?
So I'm allowed to be abusive and physically confrontational as I want as long as I'm in lousy shape?
Basically everyone I have read or heard defending him ended up being saying that ts kind of ok under certain annoying circumstances to have a go at some other guy's face with your fist.
QuoteIndeed, subject to their respective contracts, there is nothing to stop Clarkson, May and Hammond simply going to a new channel and starting a new show, with a different format and branding.
This is an interesting point. I do wonder to what extent any company that takes on these three - if they stay together - could actually reconstitute the format. It is very expensive to put on and there is a large logistical train involved, but the BBC can do it because it already has the rich stream of licencing revenue. If Sky, for example, were to pick it up, would they have the same income to set against the production expenses without the Top Gear brand?
Quote from: frunk on March 25, 2015, 09:03:00 AM
So I'm allowed to be abusive and physically confrontational as I want as long as I'm in lousy shape?
Of course not. You have neither fame nor any remarkable skills.
Quote from: Tamas on March 25, 2015, 09:20:28 AM
Basically everyone I have read or heard defending him ended up being saying that ts kind of ok under certain annoying circumstances to have a go at some other guy's face with your fist.
I still have yet to encounter anyone defending him. Lots of people sorry he got himself canned, but nobody saying he didn't deserve it.
Quote from: Warspite on March 25, 2015, 09:21:46 AM
QuoteIndeed, subject to their respective contracts, there is nothing to stop Clarkson, May and Hammond simply going to a new channel and starting a new show, with a different format and branding.
This is an interesting point. I do wonder to what extent any company that takes on these three - if they stay together - could actually reconstitute the format. It is very expensive to put on and there is a large logistical train involved, but the BBC can do it because it already has the rich stream of licencing revenue. If Sky, for example, were to pick it up, would they have the same income to set against the production expenses without the Top Gear brand?
I think that, if Top Gear is very expensive for BBC to put on, it is more to do with BBC and not the format of the show, which is pretty inexpensive on the face of it. It involves travel and paying "star salaries" but not sets, costumes, special effects, dialogue writing, and the other things that make for an expensive TV show. I don't think that a new network, especially one already used to practicing fiscal self-discipline in making shows, would have any trouble making the show for a reasonable cost. I also think that it is the personalities and not the brands that make the show popular, so if you had those, you'd gain a substantial amount of the current show's viewers and thus revenue.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 25, 2015, 09:27:40 AM
Of course not. You have neither fame nor any remarkable skills.
I can juggle.
Quote from: grumbler on March 25, 2015, 09:37:59 AM
Quote from: Warspite on March 25, 2015, 09:21:46 AM
QuoteIndeed, subject to their respective contracts, there is nothing to stop Clarkson, May and Hammond simply going to a new channel and starting a new show, with a different format and branding.
This is an interesting point. I do wonder to what extent any company that takes on these three - if they stay together - could actually reconstitute the format. It is very expensive to put on and there is a large logistical train involved, but the BBC can do it because it already has the rich stream of licencing revenue. If Sky, for example, were to pick it up, would they have the same income to set against the production expenses without the Top Gear brand?
I think that, if Top Gear is very expensive for BBC to put on, it is more to do with BBC and not the format of the show, which is pretty inexpensive on the face of it. It involves travel and paying "star salaries" but not sets, costumes, special effects, dialogue writing, and the other things that make for an expensive TV show. I don't think that a new network, especially one already used to practicing fiscal self-discipline in making shows, would have any trouble making the show for a reasonable cost. I also think that it is the personalities and not the brands that make the show popular, so if you had those, you'd gain a substantial amount of the current show's viewers and thus revenue.
All the stunts are probably quite expensive to put on, though. Plus they travel around a lot, and they need to drag a lot of equipment and crew when they do.
If they remake Top Gear, I hope they'll reboot to where they were 5-10 years ago. They took the reality show part from being one of many necessary components, to pretty much the sole ingredient.
Car shows aren't fun. There's a limit to how entertained I am by someone racing a car I never can afford around a track.
You need the reality show part. It's where Top Gear shone. Mini Morris down a ski jump? Sure.
The unfortunate part is that it's usually in those settings Clarkson is a buffoon. What was it, slope?
And that was not the first or last time.
I like Clarkson, because he offers strong opinion. Most of which I vehemently disagree with. Taking him off screen will just make him a marthyr for the junk right.
I got a hoot out of the segment where he kept tipping over in the three wheeler.
Quote from: celedhring on March 25, 2015, 09:46:51 AM
All the stunts are probably quite expensive to put on, though. Plus they travel around a lot, and they need to drag a lot of equipment and crew when they do.
I can't think of an expensive stunt I've seen on the show. The stunts are funny and often very original, but used cars (and caravans) are dirt cheap. Travel and salaries are about it for costs.
Quote from: Norgy on March 25, 2015, 10:06:11 AM
I like Clarkson, because he offers strong opinion. Most of which I vehemently disagree with. Taking him off screen will just make him a marthyr for the junk right.
Taking him off the air also makes it possible to afford your insurance. Allow a known criminal (yes, assault is criminal, even i charges are not pursued) to escape sacking after he attcks one of your own employees, and you've lost any claim for compensation the next time he loses control and really hurts someone. Sacking him was, i think, unavoidable.
I agree that it is contrary nature that makes him so appealing as a presenter. You're never quite sure what he will say, ad he is brilliant (mostly) with his little ad libs. I never felt that they were ever truly mean-spirited.
Quote from: Norgy on March 25, 2015, 10:06:11 AM
Car shows aren't fun. There's a limit to how entertained I am by someone racing a car I never can afford around a track.
I agree about cars you can never afford. That to me is problem #2 with that show. All those super-duper-cars with carbon fiber everything that are made in batches of 10 are utterly boring. They don't become any less boring if you burn down a set of tires doing stupid stunts on the test track. It's a lot more interesting when they focus on cars like Golf GTI, which are both fun and affordable to most.
Quote from: grumbler on March 25, 2015, 10:17:34 AM
Quote from: Norgy on March 25, 2015, 10:06:11 AM
I like Clarkson, because he offers strong opinion. Most of which I vehemently disagree with. Taking him off screen will just make him a marthyr for the junk right.
Taking him off the air also makes it possible to afford your insurance. Allow a known criminal (yes, assault is criminal, even i charges are not pursued) to escape sacking after he attcks one of your own employees, and you've lost any claim for compensation the next time he loses control and really hurts someone. Sacking him was, i think, unavoidable.
I agree that it is contrary nature that makes him so appealing as a presenter. You're never quite sure what he will say, ad he is brilliant (mostly) with his little ad libs. I never felt that they were ever truly mean-spirited.
Yeah, I just can't see how this can be possibly construed as him being sacked for the sake of PC-ness. He attacked a fellow coworker, he couldn't have possibly kept his job after that without generating a vicious working environment and lots of trouble for the BBC if there ever was another incident.
Quote from: grumbler on March 25, 2015, 10:13:20 AM
Quote from: celedhring on March 25, 2015, 09:46:51 AM
All the stunts are probably quite expensive to put on, though. Plus they travel around a lot, and they need to drag a lot of equipment and crew when they do.
I can't think of an expensive stunt I've seen on the show. The stunts are funny and often very original, but used cars (and caravans) are dirt cheap. Travel and salaries are about it for costs.
Travel, salaries, insurance (I don't know any exact figures, but I'd assume insuring those stunts is going to cost a pretty penny); also, quite a few of those stunts have involved "collector" cars that were probably more expensive to obtain than a typical street beater.
The Robin Reliant stunt, for example, while hilarious, probably cost a pretty hefty amount to insure due to the age of the car and its known reliability problems.
Not to mention location filming often involves more than just plane tickets; municipalities and states generally tack on conditions to the filming- one of the ways they used to cut down on expenses was to claim credit for Top Gear being "educational," which at least one jurisdiction later watched the show and revoked their "educational" filming status, making it more expensive to do the same kinds of location shooting (I want to say this was Australia, but it's been a couple years now, so I don't remember 100%).
Quote from: DGuller on March 25, 2015, 10:20:10 AM
Quote from: Norgy on March 25, 2015, 10:06:11 AM
Car shows aren't fun. There's a limit to how entertained I am by someone racing a car I never can afford around a track.
I agree about cars you can never afford. That to me is problem #2 with that show. All those super-duper-cars with carbon fiber everything that are made in batches of 10 are utterly boring. They don't become any less boring if you burn down a set of tires doing stupid stunts on the test track. It's a lot more interesting when they focus on cars like Golf GTI, which are both fun and affordable to most.
Did you ever try writing them a letter :hmm:
Quote from: Brezel on March 25, 2015, 10:49:01 AM
Quote from: DGuller on March 25, 2015, 10:20:10 AM
Quote from: Norgy on March 25, 2015, 10:06:11 AM
Car shows aren't fun. There's a limit to how entertained I am by someone racing a car I never can afford around a track.
I agree about cars you can never afford. That to me is problem #2 with that show. All those super-duper-cars with carbon fiber everything that are made in batches of 10 are utterly boring. They don't become any less boring if you burn down a set of tires doing stupid stunts on the test track. It's a lot more interesting when they focus on cars like Golf GTI, which are both fun and affordable to most.
Did you ever try writing them a letter :hmm:
No, why do you ask?
I enjoyed the supercars, personally. Yeah, it would have been annoying if the show was only about those, but they mixed it up well.
Quote from: DGuller on March 25, 2015, 10:52:41 AM
No, why do you ask?
Sometimes they would review a normal car such as Ford Fiesta, supposedly because of letters from viewers complaining about lack of such inputs.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi14.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa313%2FHabbaku%2Fclarkson_zpsd2hj0r9n.jpg&hash=707fc7f1aec9a36143ce22e44f208d0ccaaa29e3)
Anyone who lived through the 70s has dork pictures.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 25, 2015, 11:32:32 AM
Anyone who lived through the 70s has dork pictures.
:ph34r:
Quote from: celedhring on March 25, 2015, 10:56:43 AM
I enjoyed the supercars, personally. Yeah, it would have been annoying if the show was only about those, but they mixed it up well.
I watched a number of episodes and enjoyed them, despite a very limited interest in cars. There were the often entertaining travel specials, the celebrity pratting around the circuit, messing about with cars both cheap and expensive. The "bloke" element of the show was hammed up, imo, for comedic effect.........sometimes they overdid it. I think, for a lot of people, it was just a temporary escape into being a kid again instead of fussing over mortgages, job and children.
Doesn't excusing him thumping the producer of course.
I think the BBC are in a bit of a bind here, the show was suck a money spinner for BBC/worldwide, they have to carry on or re-launch it. Wasn't it bringing in tens of millions a year?
It's not impossible that the trio of presenters part company, the two junior ones were doing plenty of their own shows in recent years. Perhaps they might be persuaded to stay if their 'editorial' involvement was increased?
Do they really need to find a 'Clarkson' replacement? Maybe just keep the two and bring in a woman (unfortunately bound to be young and attractive) ?
Re-launch with Alan Patridge hosting would be amazing.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 25, 2015, 12:14:14 PM
Quote from: celedhring on March 25, 2015, 10:56:43 AM
I enjoyed the supercars, personally. Yeah, it would have been annoying if the show was only about those, but they mixed it up well.
I watched a number of episodes and enjoyed them, despite a very limited interest in cars. There were the often entertaining travel specials, the celebrity pratting around the circuit, messing about with cars both cheap and expensive. The "bloke" element of the show was hammed up, imo, for comedic effect.........sometimes they overdid it. I think, for a lot of people, it was just a temporary escape into being a kid again instead of fussing over mortgages, job and children.
Doesn't excusing him thumping the producer of course.
Indeed, I have no interest in cars (heck, I don't even have a driving license), but I enjoyed the show a lot. The stunts and contests, the locales, the banter between them. Even the occasional dive into the world of the rich and the glamorous.
A "young and attractive" woman host is "unfortunate?" :huh:
A classic "mongers moment." :lol:
I wonder if they will have an episode that shows him beating up the producer?
Quote from: grumbler on March 25, 2015, 12:52:06 PM
A "young and attractive" woman host is "unfortunate?" :huh:
A classic "mongers moment." :lol:
I demand a woman at least as attractive as Jeremy Clarkson.
Quote from: grumbler on March 25, 2015, 09:37:59 AM
Quote from: Warspite on March 25, 2015, 09:21:46 AM
QuoteIndeed, subject to their respective contracts, there is nothing to stop Clarkson, May and Hammond simply going to a new channel and starting a new show, with a different format and branding.
This is an interesting point. I do wonder to what extent any company that takes on these three - if they stay together - could actually reconstitute the format. It is very expensive to put on and there is a large logistical train involved, but the BBC can do it because it already has the rich stream of licencing revenue. If Sky, for example, were to pick it up, would they have the same income to set against the production expenses without the Top Gear brand?
I think that, if Top Gear is very expensive for BBC to put on, it is more to do with BBC and not the format of the show, which is pretty inexpensive on the face of it. It involves travel and paying "star salaries" but not sets, costumes, special effects, dialogue writing, and the other things that make for an expensive TV show. I don't think that a new network, especially one already used to practicing fiscal self-discipline in making shows, would have any trouble making the show for a reasonable cost. I also think that it is the personalities and not the brands that make the show popular, so if you had those, you'd gain a substantial amount of the current show's viewers and thus revenue.
They might not be paying eye-watering rates for special effects, but they do have a dialogue-writing of sorts - there has to be a team of researchers that generate and investigate the feasibility of the stunts they do. And Top Gear do also have to pay for specialist camera crews (including helicopter filming), associated vehicles (including a Eurofighter in one stunt), getting those crews and vehicles where they need to be, all sorts of insurance, filming rights, road closure permissions, The Stig, and the administrative team who have the time and contacts and languages to sort all the boring administrative arrangements for filming and doing stunts all around the world (all the meanwhile complying with the UK's stringent anti-bribery legislation). The health and safety compliance must also be an absolute nightmare.
I can see how a TV show about cars would be cheap. I can't see how Top Gear is cheap because it's more of a concept show that involves some motor vehicles.
Quote from: Warspite on March 25, 2015, 01:18:02 PM
They might not be paying eye-watering rates for special effects, but they do have a dialogue-writing of sorts - there has to be a team of researchers that generate and investigate the feasibility of the stunts they do. And Top Gear do also have to pay for specialist camera crews (including helicopter filming), associated vehicles (including a Eurofighter in one stunt), getting those crews and vehicles where they need to be, all sorts of insurance, filming rights, road closure permissions, The Stig, and the administrative team who have the time and contacts and languages to sort all the boring administrative arrangements for filming and doing stunts all around the world (all the meanwhile complying with the UK's stringent anti-bribery legislation). The health and safety compliance must also be an absolute nightmare.
I can see how a TV show about cars would be cheap. I can't see how Top Gear is cheap because it's more of a concept show that involves some motor vehicles.
I guess you have the response, then, if someone argues that making TG is "cheap." I am arguing that it is less expensive than many other shows (and certainly not in comparison to other TV shows, not cheap as in a few pounds per episode. I am sure that an episode of
Top Gear costs several hundred thousand pounds. But it's almost certainly actually a lot cheaper than the average for TV shows, not "very expensive" as you argue. And I think you miss the fact that a lot of the gear they use on the show is lent to them - they didn't actually have to buy (or even rent) a Eurofighter for that episode. Here's a 2009 story about the MoD and Top Gear: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/nov/18/army-on-bbc-top-gear-cost (http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/nov/18/army-on-bbc-top-gear-cost)
Every TV show has to deal with "getting....crews and vehicles where they need to be, all sorts of insurance, filming rights, road closure permissions, [salaries], and the administrative team who have the time and contacts and languages to sort all the boring administrative arrangements for filming..." These are going to cost more for Top Gear than the typical scripted show, but TG also saves because they don't pay for scripts, special effects, a large cast, multiple directors, hours of retakes, and the like.
In short, I think that this show is much less (relatively) expensive than you believe it to be, and so easier for another network to pick up and imitate if they so desire than you believe.
Quote from: Valmy on March 25, 2015, 01:08:05 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 25, 2015, 12:52:06 PM
A "young and attractive" woman host is "unfortunate?" :huh:
A classic "mongers moment." :lol:
I demand a woman at least as attractive as Jeremy Clarkson.
I thought you at least, being one of our more pro-feminist posters, would get the point that if they choose a woman presenter, unfortunately I think her age and attractiveness would be a consideration, as opposed to choosing a mature woman, perhaps of a similar age to the other presenters?
Personally I'd like to see them have Angela Rippon doing a few episodes presenting it as she's both a mature woman in her sixties, but also one of the original presenters!
Perhaps they could have different guest presenters each week to take over the Clarkson slot, it worked for another headline BBC series where the lead presenter left in disgrace.
Isn't this something like one of the top rated shows in the world? Whatever the production costs are, someone should be willing to finance them.
Quote from: mongers on March 25, 2015, 02:05:06 PM
I thought you at least, being one of our more pro-feminist posters, would get the point that if they choose a woman presenter, unfortunately I think her age and attractiveness would be a consideration, as opposed to choosing a mature woman, perhaps of a similar age to the other presenters?
I did get that point. I was pointing out age and attractiveness were not considerations for Clarkson.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 25, 2015, 02:08:00 PM
Isn't this something like one of the top rated shows in the world? Whatever the production costs are, someone should be willing to finance them.
Which is why I don't think the BBC can afford to lose it, they have to continue making it.
Disney should copyright the "hero's journey" format. :P
Quote from: Martinus on March 25, 2015, 02:11:44 PM
Disney should copyright the "hero's journey" format. :P
And sue Homer's pants off !!!!
Oh, wait...
Quote from: mongers on March 25, 2015, 02:05:06 PM
it worked for another headline BBC series where the lead presenter left in disgrace.
that would be "Have I got news" iirc?
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 25, 2015, 02:23:21 PM
Quote from: mongers on March 25, 2015, 02:05:06 PM
it worked for another headline BBC series where the lead presenter left in disgrace.
that would be "Have I got news" iirc?
Yes, incidentally Jerermy Clarkson was one of the funniest guest hosts that show had. :P
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 25, 2015, 02:23:21 PM
Quote from: mongers on March 25, 2015, 02:05:06 PM
it worked for another headline BBC series where the lead presenter left in disgrace.
that would be "Have I got news" iirc?
Yes. Maybe the a new guest presenter each week could work for Top Gear?
Quote from: mongers on March 25, 2015, 02:28:12 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 25, 2015, 02:23:21 PM
Quote from: mongers on March 25, 2015, 02:05:06 PM
it worked for another headline BBC series where the lead presenter left in disgrace.
that would be "Have I got news" iirc?
Yes. Maybe the a new guest presenter each week could work for Top Gear?
Aye, we could start with Angus Deayton snorting a line of coke whilst driving round the circuit in a Skoda :cool:
I once was an expert witness in a plagiarism trial regarding a children TV program. The plaintiff lost - on one hand it was painfully obvious they had ripped off her work, but on the other hand it's not like she created something so unmistakably unique as to merit protection by itself.
So it's really hard to get protection on these things unless it's something really blatant.
Quote from: celedhring on March 25, 2015, 03:41:57 PM
I once was an expert witness in a plagiarism trial regarding a children TV program. The plaintiff lost - on one hand it was painfully obvious they had ripped off her work, but on the other hand it's not like she created something so unmistakably unique as to merit protection by itself.
:hmm: Did you just plagiarize this off the Germanwings thread?
Quote from: DGuller on March 25, 2015, 03:44:52 PM
Quote from: celedhring on March 25, 2015, 03:41:57 PM
I once was an expert witness in a plagiarism trial regarding a children TV program. The plaintiff lost - on one hand it was painfully obvious they had ripped off her work, but on the other hand it's not like she created something so unmistakably unique as to merit protection by itself.
:hmm: Did you just plagiarize this off the Germanwings thread?
This version has one sentence that's different, so I'm scot free.
Quote from: grumbler on March 25, 2015, 12:52:06 PM
A "young and attractive" woman host is "unfortunate?" :huh:
A classic "mongers moment." :lol:
Grumbler trolling, really I should be flattered by the way he follows me from thread to thread, but I can understand how some women he's know would have found that disquieting. These posts of his are worthwhile as they revels the quality of the man.
A big plus is they waste ever more of his limited remaining life span, time he might otherwise used to post snide, rude or offensive comments targeting vulnerable members of our community; so by all means please do carry on
stalking posting these comments.
All I have to do is cut and paste this reply, say 10 seconds efforts vs however long you burn up in constructing these little efforts, which are less to do with the topic at hand and more about showing your true character. :cool:
Quote from: mongers on March 25, 2015, 03:48:12 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 25, 2015, 12:52:06 PM
A "young and attractive" woman host is "unfortunate?" :huh:
A classic "mongers moment." :lol:
Grumbler trolling, really I should be flattered by the way he follows me from thread to thread, but I can understand how some women he's know would have found that disquieting. These posts of his are worthwhile as they revels the quality of the man.
A big plus is they waste ever more of his limited remaining life span, time he might otherwise used to post snide, rude or offensive comments targeting vulnerable members of our community; so by all means please do carry on stalking posting these comments.
All I have to do is cut and paste this reply, say 10 seconds efforts vs however long you burn up in constructing these little efforts, which are less to do with the topic at hand and more about showing your true character. :cool:
And mongers, not satisfied to note that youth and attractiveness is unfortunate, earns himself a Carmen Miranda Award by dancing the Flamenco on his own crank! :lol:
Quote from: grumbler on March 25, 2015, 04:00:23 PM
Quote from: mongers on March 25, 2015, 03:48:12 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 25, 2015, 12:52:06 PM
A "young and attractive" woman host is "unfortunate?" :huh:
A classic "mongers moment." :lol:
Grumbler trolling, really I should be flattered by the way he follows me from thread to thread, but I can understand how some women he's know would have found that disquieting. These posts of his are worthwhile as they revels the quality of the man.
A big plus is they waste ever more of his limited remaining life span, time he might otherwise used to post snide, rude or offensive comments targeting vulnerable members of our community; so by all means please do carry on stalking posting these comments.
All I have to do is cut and paste this reply, say 10 seconds efforts vs however long you burn up in constructing these little efforts, which are less to do with the topic at hand and more about showing your true character. :cool:
And mongers, not satisfied to note that youth and attractiveness is unfortunate, earns himself a Carmen Miranda Award by dancing the Flamenco on his own crank! :lol:
Quote from: mongers on March 25, 2015, 03:48:12 PM
A big plus is they waste ever more of his limited remaining life span, time he might otherwise used to post snide, rude or offensive comments targeting vulnerable members of our community; so by all means please do carry on stalking posting these comments.
All I have to do is cut and paste this reply, say 10 seconds efforts vs however long you burn up in constructing these little efforts, which are less to do with the topic at hand and more about showing your true character. :cool:
Quote from: mongers on March 25, 2015, 04:05:56 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 25, 2015, 04:00:23 PM
Quote from: mongers on March 25, 2015, 03:48:12 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 25, 2015, 12:52:06 PM
A "young and attractive" woman host is "unfortunate?" :huh:
A classic "mongers moment." :lol:
Grumbler trolling, really I should be flattered by the way he follows me from thread to thread, but I can understand how some women he's know would have found that disquieting. These posts of his are worthwhile as they revels the quality of the man.
A big plus is they waste ever more of his limited remaining life span, time he might otherwise used to post snide, rude or offensive comments targeting vulnerable members of our community; so by all means please do carry on stalking posting these comments.
All I have to do is cut and paste this reply, say 10 seconds efforts vs however long you burn up in constructing these little efforts, which are less to do with the topic at hand and more about showing your true character. :cool:
And mongers, not satisfied to note that youth and attractiveness is unfortunate, earns himself a Carmen Miranda Award by dancing the Flamenco on his own crank! :lol:
Quote from: mongers on March 25, 2015, 03:48:12 PM
A big plus is they waste ever more of his limited remaining life span, time he might otherwise used to post snide, rude or offensive comments targeting vulnerable members of our community; so by all means please do carry on stalking posting these comments.
All I have to do is cut and paste this reply, say 10 seconds efforts vs however long you burn up in constructing these little efforts, which are less to do with the topic at hand and more about showing your true character. :cool:
Quote from: grumbler on March 25, 2015, 04:10:57 PM
Quote from: mongers on March 25, 2015, 04:05:56 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 25, 2015, 04:00:23 PM
Quote from: mongers on March 25, 2015, 03:48:12 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 25, 2015, 12:52:06 PM
A "young and attractive" woman host is "unfortunate?" :huh:
A classic "mongers moment." :lol:
Grumbler trolling, really I should be flattered by the way he follows me from thread to thread, but I can understand how some women he's know would have found that disquieting. These posts of his are worthwhile as they revels the quality of the man.
A big plus is they waste ever more of his limited remaining life span, time he might otherwise used to post snide, rude or offensive comments targeting vulnerable members of our community; so by all means please do carry on stalking posting these comments.
All I have to do is cut and paste this reply, say 10 seconds efforts vs however long you burn up in constructing these little efforts, which are less to do with the topic at hand and more about showing your true character. :cool:
And mongers, not satisfied to note that youth and attractiveness is unfortunate, earns himself a Carmen Miranda Award by dancing the Flamenco on his own crank! :lol:
Quote from: mongers on March 25, 2015, 03:48:12 PM
A big plus is they waste ever more of his limited remaining life span, time he might otherwise used to post snide, rude or offensive comments targeting vulnerable members of our community; so by all means please do carry on stalking posting these comments.
All I have to do is cut and paste this reply, say 10 seconds efforts vs however long you burn up in constructing these little efforts, which are less to do with the topic at hand and more about showing your true character. :cool:
Quote from: mongers on March 25, 2015, 03:48:12 PM
A big plus is they waste ever more of his limited remaining life span, time he might otherwise used to post snide, rude or offensive comments targeting vulnerable members of our community; so by all means please do carry on stalking posting these comments.
All I have to do is cut and paste this reply, say 10 seconds efforts vs however long you burn up in constructing these little efforts, which are less to do with the topic at hand and more about showing your true character. :cool:
Quote from: Gups on March 25, 2015, 12:39:52 PM
Re-launch with Alan Patridge hosting would be amazing.
Sweet Jesus, yes.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 25, 2015, 07:36:58 PM
Quote from: Gups on March 25, 2015, 12:39:52 PM
Re-launch with Alan Patridge hosting would be amazing.
Sweet Jesus, yes.
Isn't that a fictional character? :hmm:
Quote from: Valmy on March 25, 2015, 07:48:36 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 25, 2015, 07:36:58 PM
Quote from: Gups on March 25, 2015, 12:39:52 PM
Re-launch with Alan Patridge hosting would be amazing.
Sweet Jesus, yes.
Isn't that a fictional character? :hmm:
Jeremy Clarkson could easily have been as well.
I just found out a few minutes ago that Top Gear is a car show.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 25, 2015, 07:36:58 PM
Quote from: Gups on March 25, 2015, 12:39:52 PM
Re-launch with Alan Patridge hosting would be amazing.
Sweet Jesus, yes.
It could could work, if we assume Top Gear was increasingly sending itself up over recent years.
But I think it might also work it Coogan was himself, as he's both a 'petrol-head' (horrible expression), but also funny/sardonic enough out of character to be a good front-man/presenter. :)
Weirdly, if Wiki is to be believed, Steve Coogan's younger brother was once a Top Gear Presenter, having taken over from Clarkson in 1999, but he left/was sacked because of a drink-driving conviction. :blink:
Quote from: Liep on March 25, 2015, 07:52:04 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 25, 2015, 07:48:36 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 25, 2015, 07:36:58 PM
Quote from: Gups on March 25, 2015, 12:39:52 PM
Re-launch with Alan Patridge hosting would be amazing.
Sweet Jesus, yes.
Isn't that a fictional character? :hmm:
Jeremy Clarkson could easily have been as well.
Perhaps he was and Clarkson's 'downfall' came because he ended up believing it was real too. :P
Quote from: grumbler on March 25, 2015, 10:17:34 AM
Quote from: Norgy on March 25, 2015, 10:06:11 AM
I like Clarkson, because he offers strong opinion. Most of which I vehemently disagree with. Taking him off screen will just make him a marthyr for the junk right.
Taking him off the air also makes it possible to afford your insurance. Allow a known criminal (yes, assault is criminal, even i charges are not pursued) to escape sacking after he attcks one of your own employees, and you've lost any claim for compensation the next time he loses control and really hurts someone. Sacking him was, i think, unavoidable.
I agree that it is contrary nature that makes him so appealing as a presenter. You're never quite sure what he will say, ad he is brilliant (mostly) with his little ad libs. I never felt that they were ever truly mean-spirited.
Can't argue against you there.
And I retract my position after getting more factual information. You don't hit colleagues. It's not just bad form, it's assault in most places.
Quote from: celedhring on March 25, 2015, 03:46:09 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 25, 2015, 03:44:52 PM
Quote from: celedhring on March 25, 2015, 03:41:57 PM
I once was an expert witness in a plagiarism trial regarding a children TV program. The plaintiff lost - on one hand it was painfully obvious they had ripped off her work, but on the other hand it's not like she created something so unmistakably unique as to merit protection by itself.
:hmm: Did you just plagiarize this off the Germanwings thread?
This version has one sentence that's different, so I'm scot free.
Scotland gets no love again...
Scotland is a shithole.
It's a place where they take the politics of Northern Ireland, mix it with "fitba" and women have G-cup bras not because they are sexy, but because they have deep-fried everything.
Quote from: mongers on March 25, 2015, 09:30:27 PM
'petrol-head' (horrible expression)
We say gear head.
Quote from: mongers on March 25, 2015, 02:05:06 PM
I thought you at least, being one of our more pro-feminist posters, would get the point that if they choose a woman presenter, unfortunately I think her age and attractiveness would be a consideration, as opposed to choosing a mature woman, perhaps of a similar age to the other presenters?
Personally I'd like to see them have Angela Rippon doing a few episodes presenting it as she's both a mature woman in her sixties, but also one of the original presenters!
Perhaps they could have different guest presenters each week to take over the Clarkson slot, it worked for another headline BBC series where the lead presenter left in disgrace.
OTOH, Q tried that with having guests fill in for Ghomeshi. It only worked as an interim, Ghomeshi's permanent replacement is starting next month.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 26, 2015, 10:27:55 AM
Quote from: mongers on March 25, 2015, 02:05:06 PM
I thought you at least, being one of our more pro-feminist posters, would get the point that if they choose a woman presenter, unfortunately I think her age and attractiveness would be a consideration, as opposed to choosing a mature woman, perhaps of a similar age to the other presenters?
Personally I'd like to see them have Angela Rippon doing a few episodes presenting it as she's both a mature woman in her sixties, but also one of the original presenters!
Perhaps they could have different guest presenters each week to take over the Clarkson slot, it worked for another headline BBC series where the lead presenter left in disgrace.
OTOH, Q tried that with having guests fill in for Ghomeshi. It only worked as an interim, Ghomeshi's permanent replacement is starting next month.
Sure that's an approach that could well work.