Thank god...i thought i was the only one who could see this as a joke...i cant believe people actually think his last comment was serious, did they not see the expressions on his co presenters. The point was serious and one worthy if debate but in the same way as the presenters never read out a proper email address for viewer comment they make a point and then steer away...at the last moment from taking themselves seriouslyHe was taking the pee, it's an entertainment programme, anyone who watches this for driving advice is dumb, IMO
"he could walk away from the show when his contract runs out at the end of the month."
http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/11845834.Yorkshire_Dales_hotel_named_as_venue_of_Top_Gear_fracas___after__star_offered_cold_meat_platter_
I think disliking Clarkeson and TG is possibly snobbery and I'll try to explain why.
I listen to radio four Friday night comedy as a podcast, they often mimick other nationalities and go close to the bone and some may class this as casual racism.
So.
One is run for and by middle class intellectuals and seen as insightful irony to make a point in a humorous way
The other is run by and for(maybe) working classes and seen as ignorant I'll informed wise cracks by a Neanderthal
Class system at its worst?
...and far more damage to their already very tarnished reputation as a responsible and ethical employer.This is the bit that doesn't make sense to me. If his contract was due to expire in a month or so then why does the BBC make such a big song and dance about this incident. Sure he can be managed out of the BBC but in doing so they've created a situation where 700,000 people have told them not to. These aggrieved folk will naturally follow Clarkson to his next venture. If the BBC had quietly done nothing and then allowed his contract to expire and not renew there would be far less damage to their Top Gear brand.
Clarkson is chums with the prime minister, famously a member of the "Chipping Norton set", and was privately educated. I'm not sure that positioning him in the "working class" is a winner.
(Edit: or relevant, for that matter, but it's not my argument, I suppose).
Don't watch it mate
Didn't know that but wasn't really my point, he aims to be down to earth for the people type of bloke (Whether you buy that or not) whilst the radio four programme has a different audience and type of presenter, yet both do similar things IMO, one is viewed as humorous as its by intellectuals and the other scoffed at as its an idiot (subjective)
May is your best bet for that argument really, as he went to a comprehensive, according to wiki. (Again, from the same source, Hammond is part private school, part grammar).The other is run by and for(maybe) working classes and seen as ignorant I'll informed wise cracks by a Neanderthal
Can't see any way the fracas would not have made it into the news at some point. The reason for the BBC dropping TG would have come out, you can't just not renew a money spinner without giving a good reason, especially as its a public body.This is the bit that doesn't make sense to me. If his contract was due to expire in a month or so then why does the BBC make such a big song and dance about this incident. Sure he can be managed out of the BBC but in doing so they've created a situation where 700,000 people have told them not to. These aggrieved folk will naturally follow Clarkson to his next venture. If the BBC had quietly done nothing and then allowed his contract to expire and not renew there would be far less damage to their Top Gear brand.