Clarkson suspended by the BBC, TG taken off air.

ChasG said:
I am baffled by the BBC/JC row.

As I understand it JC works for/is employed by a production company. In which case surely the investigation etc should be carried out by this company.

e.g. If I worked or the company that supplies envelopes to say Royal Mail and had a fracas with a colleague why would Royal Mail get involved in an internal disciplinary matter?
Click to expand...

Which maybe point to the fact that there is a contract in existence directly between JC and the BBC?
Let's face it, at this point, the only folks who know for sure are JC, the BBC and a few lawyers.
 
Come to think of it, since TG is now wholly owned and produced by the BBC, JC may well be employed by them like many others are as presenters.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
It's an Abbott 105mm self-propelled gun, it's an Artillery piece, same ordnance as the 105mm light gun. Nowhere close to a tank !
Click to expand...

What the hell constitutes a tank then? Big armour, check. Big Gun, check. Tracks, check...it's a tank surely?
 
Alan Clogwyn said:
What the hell constitutes a tank then? Big armour, check. Big Gun, check. Tracks, check...it's a tank surely?
Click to expand...

A tank fires directly at targets from a turret gun, a self propelled artillery piece fires indirectly at targets at a greater distance, essentially just artillery on its own motorised tracks.
 
A rose by any other name still smells just as sweet ....
or in the case makes a bloody loud bang :D
 
Alan Clogwyn said:
What the hell constitutes a tank then? Big armour, check. Big Gun, check. Tracks, check...it's a tank surely?
Click to expand...

To be fair it does look like a tank and but thats where the similarities end. It is completely different battlefield weapon. The tank was designed to support the infantry advancing on the battlefield and was first used in WWI to break the the trenches and make ground over no mans land. It's a relative new comer to the battlefield compared to cannons have been around since the 12th century.

In essence, the tank can always see the target, normally another tank or defensive position. Artillery by comparison shoot 'over the hill' and can hit a target accurately 15 miles away. Of course, this is dependant of the elevation of the barrel and the type of charge used, All Artillery pieces can be used to kill tanks using an anti-tank round, but this is not there primary purpose and is very much a last resort tactic,

A few famous 'Gunner quotes'

“Do not forget your dogs of war, your big guns, which are the most-to-be respected arguments of the rights of kings.” – Frederick II of Prussia

“The Guns, thank God, the Guns.” – Rudyard Kipling

"The harder the fighting and the longer the war, the more the infantry, and in fact all the arms, lean on the gunners" - Field Marshal Montgomery

“Renown awaits the commander who first restores artillery to its prime importance on the battlefield.” – Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill

In recent times has been used during the Falklands, Gulf and Afghanistan and every major conflict.

The Royal Horse Artillery on parade with its guns, takes precedence over all other Regiments and Corps of the British Army followed by other Arms and services.
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
Wasnt that a police officer 'testing' a car ? , or am i thinking of something else ?
Click to expand...

Something else. That case was ages old, this ones much newer

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...10859140/Driver-clocked-at-149mph-on-M25.html

149mph. Not dangerous driving just speeding in Kent.

138mph is dangerous in Scotland despite the laws of physics being the same here and there.

It's the way these offences are handed. Different prosecutors have different views as do judges. It's very inconsistent
 
Last edited:
ST4 said:
Something else. That case was ages old, this ones much newer

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...10859140/Driver-clocked-at-149mph-on-M25.html

149mph. Not dangerous driving just speeding in Kent.

138mph is dangerous in Scotland despite the laws of physics being the same here and there.

It's the way these offences are handed. Different prosecutors have different views as do judges. It's very inconsistent
Click to expand...
Perhaps the judges in Kent prefer to watch top gear reruns on their work computers and the ones in Scotland Porn ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Blank_Canvas said:
In recent times has been used during the Falklands, Gulf and Afghanistan and every major conflict.

The Royal Horse Artillery on parade with its guns, takes precedence over all other Regiments and Corps of the British Army followed by other Arms and services.
Click to expand...

An interesting discussion point right there. The use of Artillery in modern warfare. In the gulf, the Iraqi's tried to rely on it and I dont believe a single hit on allied forces was achieved. Instead it was taken out by Air, Apache's etc. Did we even take any AS90's to Afganistan?

Whilst it's not impacted by weather, technology is catching up to reduce the significance or need of artillery
 
Blank_Canvas said:
Artillery by comparison shoot 'over the hill' and can hit a target accurately 15 miles away.
Click to expand...

Unless it is an American unit, accuracy is not required as long as the round goes forward.
 
Byker28i said:
An interesting discussion point right there. The use of Artillery in modern warfare. In the gulf, the Iraqi's tried to rely on it and I dont believe a single hit on allied forces was achieved. Instead it was taken out by Air, Apache's etc. Did we even take any AS90's to Afganistan?

Whilst it's not impacted by weather, technology is catching up to reduce the significance or need of artillery
Click to expand...

I don't believe we did, one of the most cited reasons is that 155 is too heavy to move around country and get to the FOBs. 105mm light gun were certainly deployed but they are very portable units. Guns are not the only weapon in that armoury now the RA use UAVs in the recommence target acquisition role, air defence and missile systems.

Rockets are not new to the Royal Artillery, the first being developed by Sir William Congreve in 1804 ( a year before the Battle of Trafalgar) but we're used to good effect during the Napoleonic War.

The MRLS system can take out a whole kilometre square on a single fire mission that's quite an effective weapon. The role of the Artillery certainly has changed and will continue to.
 
Last edited:
Talking of warfare and Jeremy Clarkson, has anyone seen the excellent TV documentaries on the subject by Jeremy?

Am happy to see that the online petition to reinstate him has now passed one million. It won't make any difference to an outcome as JC reportedly doesn't want to continue with Auntie Beeb anyway but it does show him people's support.

The BBC smear comparing Clarkson with Saville is both outrageous and irrelevant and I hope that they pay very dearly for that. It does refect Auntie Beeb's utter stupidity and arrogance though.
 
A genuine question (I know, I know...):
For all the people who 'blame the BBC' for all this nonsense; what should they have done, or what could they possibly have done to make this right?

There's no point in 'they shouldn't have done what they did', we're all adults, we may have managed people, we've almost certainly been managed, so we should understand the mechanics of it, so what would have been a 'good result' for the BBC here?
 
Phil V said:
A genuine question (I know, I know...):
For all the people who 'blame the BBC' for all this nonsense; what should they have done, or what could they possibly have done to make this right?

There's no point in 'they shouldn't have done what they did', we're all adults, we may have managed people, we've almost certainly been managed, so we should understand the mechanics of it, so what would have been a 'good result' for the BBC here?
Click to expand...

....The answer to that question is very easy in my opinion :

1) - Suspend BOTH parties pending a formal investigation.

2) - Continue broadcasting the Top Gear series programmes which have already been made.

3) - Have more sense, decorum and professionalism than to smear Jeremy Clarkson's reputation by publicly likening him to Savile.

Personally I greatly disrespect Auntie Beeb for their atrocious behaviour over this fracas and was glad to join a million others in signing the petition - I very, very rarely sign any petitions.
 
Phil V said:
A genuine question (I know, I know...):
For all the people who 'blame the BBC' for all this nonsense; what should they have done, or what could they possibly have done to make this right?

There's no point in 'they shouldn't have done what they did', we're all adults, we may have managed people, we've almost certainly been managed, so we should understand the mechanics of it, so what would have been a 'good result' for the BBC here?
Click to expand...

At the very least both parties should have been suspended. Anybody that's worked for hours on end out in the field knows how hungry you can get. Tiredness lack lack of sleep can make most people irritable at the best of time. A hot meal at the end of the day isn't too much to ask. The lack of logistics was clearly an issue, I would suggest incompetent, therefore to show a little balance the producer should have been suspended too for lack of management.
 
RedRobin said:
....The answer to that question is very easy in my opinion :

1) - Suspend BOTH parties pending a formal investigation.

2) - Continue broadcasting the Top Gear series programmes which have already been made.

3) - Have more sense, decorum and professionalism than to smear Jeremy Clarkson's reputation by publicly likening him to Savile.

Personally I greatly disrespect Auntie Beeb for their atrocious behaviour over this fracas and was glad to join a million others in signing the petition - I very, very rarely sign any petitions.
Click to expand...
Well that's simple
1, What did the producer do wrong? certainly the person who reported Clarkson (himself) hasn't reported the producer for any wrongdoing.
2, That wasn't the BBC's decision, the other 2 presenters refused to take part
3, Thats the 'what shouldn't they have done' (and semantics... 'The BBC' didn't do that, a member of their staff did)
 
Blank_Canvas said:
At the very least both parties should have been suspended. Anybody that's worked for hours on end out in the field knows how hungry you can get. Tiredness lack lack of sleep can make most people irritable at the best of time. A hot meal at the end of the day isn't too much to ask. The lack of logistics was clearly an issue, I would suggest incompetent, therefore to show a little balance the producer should have been suspended too for lack of management.
Click to expand...
And you know for definite that it was his fault?
 
Two blokes had an argument. Don't blow it all out of proportion and allow JC to apologise for being a knob, which he tried to do apparently

As soon as you get Senior management and lawyers involved then its too late.

As it is, it looks like it's a £150m business down the pan, with the crew, the magazine, and lots of associated...
 
@RedRobin Unfortunately with part two of your reply, as the studio sections are filmed on a Wednesday (iirc), there were no complete TG episodes to be aired.
 
Phil V said:
And you know for definite that it was his fault?
Click to expand...

How do two people have an argument for 30-40 mins (if you believe the mirror). instead of, JC you're being a knob, we'll speak when you've calmed down... and walk away
 
According to one of the papers there was previous between JC and the producer, JC had called him a lazy Irish b*****d. The show will end up moving to another channel and being called second gear or something.
 
Phil V said:
A genuine question (I know, I know...):
For all the people who 'blame the BBC' for all this nonsense; what should they have done, or what could they possibly have done to make this right?

There's no point in 'they shouldn't have done what they did', we're all adults, we may have managed people, we've almost certainly been managed, so we should understand the mechanics of it, so what would have been a 'good result' for the BBC here?
Click to expand...

How do you think the BBC should of handled it then Phil ?
 
Blank_Canvas said:
How do you think the BBC should of handled it then Phil ?
Click to expand...
They should probably have suspended both parties. But what difference to the media scrum and public outrage would that have made?

My full response later, I'm off to Brum ;)
 
Last edited:
I think the BBC director who killed the golden goose should be managed out as well.
 
Phil V said:
They should probably have suspended both parties.
Click to expand...


....Really? But you then replied to my post #467 in which I wrote: "1) - Suspend BOTH parties pending a formal investigation" as follows :

Phil V said:
1, What did the producer do wrong? certainly the person who reported Clarkson (himself) hasn't reported the producer for any wrongdoing.
Click to expand...


So I am left thinking that you are contradicting yourself. Or have you simply changed your mind on this point?

Anyway, all this is now academic and it will be interesting to see what happens next. I hope that it costs the BBC dearly for their irrelevant smear by comparing Jeremy Clarkson to Savile. When will the bloody BBC ever learn!?

 
They won't learn unless the free funding gets taken away. Not something I would like but to me it is their own fault when it happens.

Btw I do think it is right to be upset when you aren't being fed. A job taken very seriously in all environments, something I tell my PMs during any big release. Stop interfering let the skilled people do their job, theirs is to keep everyone watered and fed.
 
But is it right to throw a punch at someone? IIRC you said that if someone punched you, you would have them done for assault - same rules should apply to corpulent, overpaid TV personalities IMO. It's not as if missing a meal would do the fat git any real harm (and wasn't it just that he couldn't have a particular steak he fancied rather than NO food at all?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top