Poll: POLL: Do you agree with Jeremy Clarkson's Sacking?

Do you agree with Jeremy Clarkson's sacking?

  • Yes

    Votes: 778 70.1%

  • No

    Votes: 332 29.9%
  • Total voters
    1,110
Status
Not open for further replies.
When did clarkson get that role?

I still voted yes. He assaulted someone at the end of the day little or large it's still assault. However had it not been for his prior warnings I don't think he'd have been let go.

If it was just words that had been exchanged as I understood it was thanks to those 'witnesses' then I'd have said no.
 
Last edited:
Jono8 said:
Because it seems to be one rule for one and one for another....which is exactly the argument that people who think he should be sacked keep putting forward...

Why is Clarkson being singled out and sacked for breaking the law, whilst Mr Fry is not?
Click to expand...

Because Clarkson has been given more chances than any other person at the BBC for his behaviour and comments. Whether he was being racist (and as for that "didn't know slope was racist" ********, give me a break) or punching someone over a dinner. What happened to Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand after their prank phone call? Fired. Richard Bacon was a Blue Peter presenter who made headlines for using cocaine and was fired from the BBC.

steve45 said:
Absolutely not nonsense, the fact that it was JC, admittedly i'm more interested in the situation, but regardless who it was i'd still have the same veiwpoint.
Click to expand...

Sure you would.
 
OhEsEcks said:
Because Clarkson has been given more chances than any other person at the BBC for his behaviour and comments. Whether he was being racist (and as for that "didn't know slope was racist" ********, give me a break) or punching someone over a dinner. What happened to Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand after their prank phone call? Fired. Richard Bacon was a Blue Peter presenter who made headlines for using cocaine and was fired from the BBC.



Sure you would.
Click to expand...

You are just reinforcing my point. If all those were sacked, why does Fry get special treatment?
 
Can Fry's behaviour be proved? We're there any witnesses? I mean to the specific occasions he mentions.
 
I don't agree with his sacking...simply because he wasn't sacked.

Do I agree with his actions...No. Do I disagree with the BBC not renewing his contract...a qualified No.

But as he wasn't actually sacked, I voted No.
 
steve45 said:
Castiels logic is sound, i dont see any contradiction.
His issue lies with the wording of the question.
Click to expand...

His issues are with me....

Its a simple question...

Technicalities... sacking...not renewing...are meaingless...

Thats the press spin...

When a person is bringing in millions of pounds for a company...and they don't renew the contract...technically it can be seen as a sacking...

No company (BBC) want to get rid of a lucrative employee

Sacking is spin...

Sheesh...some people don't get how the media works lol..
 
easyrider said:
Contradiction.
Click to expand...

Yes you are...my reasoning however, is not.

And, no..technically it isn't a sacking. Technically Clarkson couldn't be sacked as he wasn't a formal employee. He was a contractor, he holds a contract for a specific length of time, which may or may not be renewed by either party...the BBC decided that it no longer wished to enter into a negotiation of a new contract....the current contract and the one he also holds until November (if reported correctly) are still valid and have not been terminated.

Therefore, he has not been terminated or in common parlance..sacked.
 
Last edited:
Should he have been sacked. Yes

Do I want to see the end of top gear. No

I'm not sure Clarkson even needs the BBC any more. He could easily find a willing production company to make the program himself and sell it the world over.

The "sacking" doesn't really mean much apart from to serve as a warning the lesser men at the BBC that the organisation do have some morals eventually... if you push them hard enough.
 
Stretch said:
Should have been sacked. Yes

Do I want to see the end of top gear. No

I'm not sure Clarkson even needs the BBC any more. He could easily find a willing production company to make the program himself and sell it the world over.

The "sacking" doesn't really mean much apart from to serve as a warning the lesser men at the BBC that they do have some morals eventually... if you push them hard enough.
Click to expand...

BBC will have dibs in the " top gear" franchise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom