3 ms·
On the other hand, Clarkson assaulted a member of the production crew because the hotel he was at didn't have hot food. It's plainly obvious that he should (and
by 9point6 11y ago
On the other hand, Clarkson assaulted a member of the production crew because the hotel he was at didn't have hot food. It's plainly obvious that he should (and was) have been fired for that - had they not it kickback would give the BBC much bigger problems.
The Top Gear brand is still owned by the BBC and they're rebooting it with a new set of presenters, so Top Gear is far from over yet.
- MBCook 11y agoI'm actually pissed that Amazon agreed to 'buy' 'Top Gear' and that Netflix was interested. Clarkson should not be rewarded with more freedom and money after punching a staff member over some little thing.
- Practicality 11y agoHe's not being rewarded for punching a person, he is being rewarded for being highly entertaining. He got punished for punching a person (he was fired). Perhaps you think he should have received more punishment and that is valid, but he received no reward for attacking a person. He could have made the same move without getting fired first, and it would have probably been much easier.
- MBCook 11y agoIt's not a direct reward, you're right. But in many ways his life doesn't seem worse off than it was before he punched the guy. In some ways it might be better. And I see those enabling this and paying him more as somewhat complicit and scuzzy.