Jeremy Clarkson

Well, you know me, I love a sob story. Even if we accept this though and like you say it hardly excuses a 25 minute rant and assault, it doesn't explain all the previous daftness.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...acas-day-happened-stressful-27-years-BBC.html

Doesn't excuse what he's done but certainly understand why.

 

I don't. I'm no Clarkson hater. Loved watching Top Gear and felt a lot of the controversy that followed him was manufactured by the media over the past few years. But this makes little or no sense. Either it was serious enough to weigh heavily on his mind, mood and self-control, in which that's not the kind of thing you wait to get checked out, or he's scraping around for something/anything to justify his behaviour.

 

So your judgement is that he is either lying, or that he did not deal with the doctors diagnosis as well as you think he should have done.

Personally, I would like to think that I may have dealt with such news differently myself, as confirmation from a specialist sounds the best course of action, but I wouldn't judge others if they put off finding out the truth for a few days.

If only we were all as strong as you, UEA.

 

It can't help but look a bit cynical. Maybe it was on his mind, but several million people each year get a diagnosis of cancer for real or have a significant worry and few of those attack their colleagues. Clarkson of all people had the power to resolve the issue, talk to Andy Willman his boss, seek help and support, pay to get a specialist to visit him on set.

I didn't expect you to be such a bleeding heart about what pushes people towards criminal acts. And ZZ if you mean it when you said it didn't excuse it how can you then criticise UEA for holding that line? Were you fishing?

 

Yes, for avoidance of doubt I think he's lying.

 

I thought you said you were well educated. How did you reach that conclusion from my saying...

"I am not excusing his behaviour on that night."

Your determination to just have a go at me, means that you just end up writing total nonsense.

 

Re read your own post FFS. You have a go at UEA for not taking into account Clarkson's situation. What else did 'If only we were all as strong as you' mean if it wasn't mitigation?

Here's a tip. When you write something re-read in case it turns out that it wasn't what you meant.

 

When I say "If only we were all as strong as you', what I mean is "If only we were all as strong as you" nothing more. I put off going to the dentist, let alone a cancer specialist who might be giving me bad news.

Christ, you talk some crap - and, as I said it, is tiresome having to correct your crap all the time.

 

Well what on earth did you mean?

This is a forum. You can't expect to take a pop like you did at UEA and not have to justify it. I have to, so do you.

 

Re justification, see edited post above.

Well, UEA has now been honest, he just thinks that Clarkson is a liar. At least he is being honest.

 

For what it's worth ZZ, i'm usually in agreement with your views. But a serious health scare merits a visit to a specialist and doesn't excuse a childish loss of control such as Clarkson had. Most normal people deal with bad news in a mature way and he didn't, so he deserves little sympathy.

 

But you are not. You are clearly trying to mitigate.

Funny you do this solely for right wing multi-millionaires yet other errants can expect no nanny state, bleeding heart, understanding.

Shouldn't you be off abusing Sue Perkins Twitter account, or driving a tank at the biased BBC?

 

Even if I was, mitigation does not excuse anything on its own.

Have you not considered why the victim did not want Clarkson prosecuted, and the CPS didn't prosecute?

 

I'm all ****ing ears...tell me

 

So what part of "I am not excusing his behaviour on that night." do you disagree with?

Clarkson himself said that ordinary people deal with such situations better than he did, look at the article that Powerjugs linked to.

I am not going to disagree with what the man himself says- without some reason, even if others on here think he is a liar.

 

You are misunderstanding Runkle. In ZZ's book endless speculation about the real motives of BBC Management and the lapping up of titbits about the accused health 'scare' (not real condition mind) do not amount to sympathy. They are merely, how might you say it, objective observations. And you'd be a liar and a communist to suggest otherwise.

 

Grow up Moose.

 

For the benefit of doubt even Clarkson's horrible connections to the Cotswold set of parasites have never stopped me enjoying him. He's a great natural comic and even the butt of his own jokes. I just take exception to the silly notions of him being a victim to 'PC'. He's not.

He's a bit of a state really and needs to sort himself out. That's all.

 

C'mon then, what's the inside story from the BBC Head of Biscuits about why there was no prosecution?

 

Just grow up.

 

I have firsthand experience how a (potential) cancer diagnosis can effect someone's outlook on life in the short term. It can turn your world upside down and everyone deals with the shock in different ways, some better than others.

A little empathy does a long way, gents.

 

Why won't you answer?

 

I have considerable professional knowledge of Cancer so I do agree. It can turn your life upside down. But for the likes of JC who doubtless has a publicist and a retained PR firm, there is a calculation about what you tell the press and when. And, he didn't actually have it.

 

Right, so you think that people like JC, with publicists and a PR firm wouldn't get as affected by a potential cancer diagnosis as "ordinary" people. :dismay:

 

Personally, if I was cynically calculating how much, and when, to release this info, as you are suggesting, I would have done it before I was sacked, not several weeks after.

But Moose knows best.

 

Where did I write that?

 

No he/she didn't. What Dr Imaginaire would have said would be something along the lines of "This should be looked at by a specialist". The two "quick" ways to do this are go directly to your local A&E department or, if you can afford it, a quick phone call to a private hospital by a "connected" medic (possibly one subcontracted by the BBC).

The man's a martyr to his "art".

 

That's true actually - what Dr would tell you 'it's probably cancer' when it's not? Not one you would most likely return to.

Medics very rarely hazard a guess. They have a whole vocabulary of non-committal expressions.

 

Exactly, doctors are by nature cautious and for good reason, they don't throw diagnoses around willy nilly.

 

Soon we'll be hearing from zz the doctors diagnosis was along the lines of "I'm not going to tell you because you're a tory canut and the lefties at the BBC told me to ignore you".

 

What a distasteful lot you are.

It's Clarkson, so he must be lying. You are even quibbling about the exact words a doctor would use. You weren't there. You don't know the circumstances. But he must be lying.

He didn't even use it as an excuse himself, or to save his job!

There really is a hatred of right wing and/or non PC people on here. What a horrible, cynical way to go through life. Almost anyone else and you would have just accepted it and moved on.

Certainly, knowing what you lot think of me, if I had a similar cancer warning from a doctor (and I wouldn't care what exact words the doctor used) I wouldn't mention it on on this Forum, to be told I'm lying - or to be wished a speedy departure ;D

 

Good riddance to bad rubbish I say.

 

Just pray the market mechanism will save you.

 

People don't always react rationally when confronted with major shocks.

It doesn't really matter if he had it or not. I've known people who thought they had something and while it turned out they did not, they certainly didn't just go about their lives normally. The worry and stress does have an impact.

I don't particularly care for Clarkson but it's not hard see how bad news might have set him on edge.