Clarkson Suspended...

[Yellow Fang]

You reallly haven't read the article that you posted or you would be realise that this was not the case


The question raised by the article is whether the protection by powerful people both inside and outside the BBC is aceptable

Saville was protected and so is Clarkson

If that protection allows inapproprate behaviour to continue then the lessons learnt about allowing "Talent" to excuse behaviour, then the lessons from Saville era has not been learnt

Te question should have been:

It's a comparison that should be made. Would you rather that someone who punched you in the face, or sexually abused all your children/grandchildren was protected because they are famous or punished and censured on the same level as anyone else?

I did read it, but whatever was written was undermined by the headline. The two people do not belong in the same category.

 

[ufkacbln]

Ye

I did read it, but whatever was written was undermined by the headline. The two people do not belong in the same category.

Yes they do

There were valuable lessons learnt from the way that the BBC allowed his "celibrity status", popularity, monetary value to influence the decisions made on Saville

Now we have exactly the same with Clarkson he has acted in an inappropriate manner and is the lessons learnt need to be applied

 

[swee'pea99]

I did read it, but whatever was written was undermined by the headline. The two people do not belong in the same category.

Depends of course on what you mean by 'category'. The sins of the stars are of course in no way comparable, but those of the BBC are absolutely on a par.

 

[Yellow Fang]

You reallly haven't read the article that you posted or you would be realise that this was not the case


The question raised by the article is whether the protection by powerful people both inside and outside the BBC is aceptable

Saville was protected and so is Clarkson

If that protection allows inapproprate behaviour to continue then the lessons learnt about allowing "Talent" to excuse behaviour, then the lessons from Saville era has not been learnt

Te question should have been:

It's a comparison that should be made. Would you rather that someone who punched you in the face, or sexually abused all your children/grandchildren was protected because they are famous or punished and censured on the same level as anyone else?

The headline is "BBC boss likens Jeremy Clarkson to Jimmy Savile after establishment support". The Telegraph provided that headline, but they can hardly be blamed when the BBC source repeatedly draws comparison between them. The unnamed BBC source could have made his argument without referring to Savile so much. He does not refer to any other celebrities whose behaviour was protected was protected by friends in high places. Were there any? Two cases do not form a trend, especially when separated by decades of time. Also, it is disingenuous to blame Clarkson's protection on powerful friends. The BBC made a lot of money selling Top Gear around the world. Clarkson obviously had enemies in the BBC. This is one of them attempting to blacken his name.

 

[Yellow Fang]

Depends of course on what you mean by 'category'. The sins of the stars are of course in no way comparable, but those of the BBC are absolutely on a par.

The unnamed BBC source did not blame the BBC for protecting Jeremy Clarkson, and since he brought it up, Jimmy Savile; he blamed high level politicians.

 

[Tin Pot]

Wait...somebody in the media construed false equivalence..?!

Now I have to reassess my entire world view!

Maybe MPs claiming legitimate expenses and world-wide economic collapse ARE the same thing...

Maybe singing a song about promoting Christianity IS the same thing as butchery, genocide, rape, slavery and beheading in the name of Islam...

So now all we need is to decide who can make claims on the Clarkson estate and how much they get.

 

[swee'pea99]

The unnamed BBC source did not blame the BBC for protecting Jeremy Clarkson, and since he brought it up, Jimmy Savile; he blamed high level politicians.

My take on it was that the BBC was being criticised for failing to take on board the lessons of the Saville experience - ie, the importance of not allowing itself to be intimidated by the likes of high level politicians.

 

[ufkacbln]

The headline is "BBC boss likens Jeremy Clarkson to Jimmy Savile after establishment support". The Telegraph provided that headline, but they can hardly be blamed when the BBC source repeatedly draws comparison between them.

The headline is really rather clear in its reference to establishment support any other inference is merely fantasy

The unnamed BBC source could have made his argument without referring to Saville so much. He does not refer to any other celebrities whose behaviour was protected was protected by friends in high places.

Because the recent evidence and investigations have been centred around how Saville was allowed to get away with much of his activity for the same reasons that Clarkson has been allowed to evade censure. Failing to learn is an insult to Saville's victims.

The whole point of what has been learnt from Saville and the others is that allowing or condoning inappropriate behaviour because of a perceived celebrity status is wrong

Were there any?

You haven't read the papers in the last few years than?

Two cases do not form a trend, especially when separated by decades of time. Also, it is disingenuous to blame Clarkson's protection on powerful friends. The BBC made a lot of money selling Top Gear around the world.

The "lot of money" is the reason why the BBC's powerful people are protecting Clarkson.

As for two cases... Just read a paper, and start counting

Clarkson obviously had enemies in the BBC. This is one of them attempting to blacken his name.

Which really rather neatly makes the point..... anyone who criticises Clarkson is in the wrong

 

[srw]

 

[Flying Dodo]

If Top Gear goes, then the Dave TV channel will have to find a lot of new programming from somewhere!

 

[Markymark]

If Top Gear goes, then the Dave TV channel will have to find a lot of new programming from somewhere!

They might have to start endlessly repeating the stuff they already have. Oh, wait......

 

[ufkacbln]

[QUOTE 3591076, member: 9609"]I can't quite make my mind up what to think about Clarkson - but to make any link whatsoever with Saville is just disgraceful, even if you loathe Clarkson, to make any comparison at all would be to undermine the seriousness and vileness of what Saville did.[/QUOTE]


It is NOT about what Clarkson or Saville did, it is about how they are protected from consequences

 

[Dan B]

It is NOT about what Clarkson or Saville did, it is about how they are protected from consequences

You can't expect people to understand that.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

[QUOTE 3591118, member: 9609"]Doesn't matter - being mentioned in the same article is well out of order.[/QUOTE]
We can't have articles in which one type of criminal* is named alongside another type of criminal*?

We can't have articles in which one type of criminal* is named alongside another type of criminal* when the article is about the sort of 'air cover' both types of criminal* got/get from the big boys?


*Insert alleged to taste

 

[Piemaster]

Savile was all shrouded in secrecy for years. Clarkson has a petition and is plastered over the news in hours. There is a difference in actions by both them and the BBC.
Clarkson is not being protected in the same way. If he was we nobody would know about it.
Attitudes and society have changed over the intervening years since Savile was on TV in the way things are dealt with. (Anyone remember 'Love Thy Neighbour' the 70s TV program? - makes me cringe)