Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 3,779
- Location
- Wales
time for this thread to be sacked tbqfh
Its time for the BBC to sack Clarkson?
- Thread starter easyrider
- Start date
Well, the DailyMail is still talking about it. But they're special. They got wound up that he left the country immediately after starting a media storm, so started printing yet more **** about him.
The DM has been trying to bring down Clarkson for years. They got Jonathan Ross the other year good and proper by using the same tactics. So they must be even more wound up now that Clarkson survived it
Last edited:
Secretly, they share a lot of views. But the DM has one overruling compulsion to "attack attack attack" any controversial celebrity when they think they have an opportunity of stirring up a hate campaign to bring them down. The DM is very proud of themselves that they were responsible for toppling Jonathan Ross.
I shouldn't have to explain what execution is when eating ice cream on the sofa with my kids at 7pm week nights.
Its the BBC's job and ethic to follow its own Remit and maintain Reithian Values especially at certain timeslots. Next you will be wanting to watch Jimmy Carr at 7.30pm
Nobody here is particularly against the BBC reverting to more "Reithian values". But coming down on Clarkson with a ton of bricks is really not going to solve that overnight.
It's not his fault he was put on the One Show as a guest. It was clearly a last minute thing as he was catching a flight just minutes after the show. Maybe their proper guest had pulled out and BBC personalities like Clarkson probably have a clause in their contract that means they must fill empty guest slots when possible and remotely convenient.
It's not his fault he was put on the One Show as a guest. It was clearly a last minute thing as he was catching a flight just minutes after the show. Maybe their proper guest had pulled out and BBC personalities like Clarkson probably have a clause in their contract that means they must fill empty guest slots when possible and remotely convenient.
I'd love to see Jimmy Carr on there pre-watershed, I think your head would explode
Jimmy Carr was on the One Show last night. He didn't shock or offend. He is intelligent and professional enough to know whats suitable to say at any given time slot on TV.
If they don't already know what it is, why did you explain it to them? What they don't know doesn't hurt them.
I know what Reithian values are, but have not seen a copy of the remit document the BBC must adhere to. Can you provide it please?
BTW Reithian values have no place in todays broadcasting, where ratings and popularity rule over ethical practices.
Not that anything Clarkson said on the One Show should be regarded as unethical.
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 11,557
- Location
- Bucks
Oh please, the BBC has not stuck to those values in a long time. It effectively advertises its own programmes in its news segments for crying out loud at every oportunity it gets and whilst were on the news its so biased you might as well call it FOX.
It competes with all other channels on the network and is so focused on ratings that its actually become another standard terrestrial channel - its just unlucky that we have to pay for 99% of ***** programme that comes out of their studios.
You sound like your living in the past where the BBC ruled all and everyone left their door unlocked
No swearing
Gilly
Last edited:
I just can't believe this thread is still ongoing. It's not going anywhere because - as I told you lot - Easyrider doesn't listen to anyone's point if it proves him wrong. It either gets ignored or shouted down.
And as such the thread is going nowhere. I recommend it be closed.
And as such the thread is going nowhere. I recommend it be closed.
It does...They asked about Uncle Mike being off work and asked if he was a bad person....
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=BBC+Remit
To educate entertain and inform is still a fundamental part of BBC broadcasting. Hence why programs like Frozen Planet are still being made.
It does...They asked about Uncle Mike being off work and asked if he was a bad person....
I hope you replied with "Yes, he's a filthy scummer".
Can you point out where in there it states that satire is for post-watershed?
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/broadcasting/broadcast-codes/broadcast-code/protecting-under-18s/
JC broke the rules as he described Violence Joking or not.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/england/ace/pdf/ace_standards_report.pdf
Whole section on JC in the latter document.
Another Factor that was deemed unacceptable was not the comment about Lorry Drivers killing prostitutes its self but the knock on effect of the comment leading to Bullying in the school playground if a Child's Dad is a truck driver etc...as lots of kids watch Top Gear because they are into cars.
That's why Its important to look at the bigger picture rather than just the comment itself.
JC broke the rules as he described Violence Joking or not.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/england/ace/pdf/ace_standards_report.pdf
Whole section on JC in the latter document.
Another Factor that was deemed unacceptable was not the comment about Lorry Drivers killing prostitutes its self but the knock on effect of the comment leading to Bullying in the school playground if a Child's Dad is a truck driver etc...as lots of kids watch Top Gear because they are into cars.
That's why Its important to look at the bigger picture rather than just the comment itself.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 3,779
- Location
- Wales
Clarkson wants me shot in front of my own family, so what? Except that he doesn't?
I can't believe some people are actually taking it literally. He had to say something extreme or the entire joke would have fallen apart. See, in attempting to provide a balanced view, he completely swung it around way past the balancing point - genius?! Ah what's the use.
Admittedly if I was shot there *would* technically be 1 less person on the road, so I guess both viewpoints are balanced in the sense that the more extreme one gives him the same result.
I can't believe some people are actually taking it literally. He had to say something extreme or the entire joke would have fallen apart. See, in attempting to provide a balanced view, he completely swung it around way past the balancing point - genius?! Ah what's the use.
Admittedly if I was shot there *would* technically be 1 less person on the road, so I guess both viewpoints are balanced in the sense that the more extreme one gives him the same result.
Last edited:
Its against the rules to describe violence pre watershed.
What don't you get?
Its Black and white right there in front of you to read.
Whether it was a joke or not is a moot point.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 3,779
- Location
- Wales
Come on. 'Have them all shot' is just a flippant by-phrase, used in everyday conversation, for saying 'I don't like them or what they're doing'. It's actually less pronounced and less effective than just saying the latter!
'Executed in front of their families' hilarious borderline elaboration. Even Saturday morning cartoons have ****ing mice on bikes shooting laser beams at each other for heaven's sake. Get a grip. It wasn't exactly horrific in the sense that I'm willing to bet those guidelines were written to cater for (not that I can be bothered to read them). It's all down to interpretation!