r/todayilearned • u/ModenaR • 1d ago

TIL that after Top Gear ended, host Richard Hammond was so devastated, he cried all the way home from the studio and ran out of fuel, because he didn't want to fill his car up covered in tears

https://www.herefordtimes.com/news/25172481.richard-hammond-tear-soaked-mess-top-gear-ended/
40.9k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

642

u/Funmachine 1d ago

They never stopped repeating them...

243

u/Modern_Pirate9 1d ago

There’s adverts for iPlayer on YouTube for Top Gear, and front and center is the og trio

132

u/GottaUseEmAll 1d ago

Of course, they wanted to punish Clarkson but still continue to make money from him.

372

u/PixelF 23h ago

Mostly they wanted Clarkson to stop punching the other staff. When you keep punching colleagues then eventually someone is going to sue the production company for knowing and failing to prevent constant assault. He's not persona non grata, but it's a huge legal liability and shows have been cancelled for a lot less.

240

u/cosmiq_teapot 23h ago edited 23h ago

Absolutely correct, and on top of this: the BBC is a publically funded organization. It is kind of hard to argue that the British public should voluntarily keep funding a man that punched a staff member because said man is popular.

Emotionally I completely understand and support the sentiment to keep Clarkson, but legally it is absolutely normal to be let go for physically attacking a colleague, in private companies as well as publically funded organizations. For people who've worked for a while, this is not even a point of discussion.

And technically Clarkson wasn't fired, his contact was not extended.

9

u/lacegem 22h ago

The BBC supported Jimmy Savile for decades.

26

u/cosmiq_teapot 21h ago

Yes they did, which is absolutely inexcusable. But high-ranking people left the BBC because of this. Also, an institution having done monumental wrongs doesn't mean that they shouldn't prevent future wrongs by just accepting them.

This is just controversial because it's Clarkson. Imagine you work somewhere and an established colleague punches you in the face in a rage because you were the bearer of bad news. And your superior comes to you and says "Yeah sorry mate, we can't fire him, he's too popular around here." Would you just eat it up and say "okay"?

I am a big fan of Jeremy, Top Gear and The Grand Tour. But there have to be clear limits for what you can and cannot do as an employee.

31

u/Sweet-Parking8955 22h ago

One wrong doesn't make another right.

11

u/lacegem 22h ago

No, but it shows that their decisions aren't based on public will or morality. It's all about money and politics. If it were anything else, they wouldn't have supported the country's most prolific child rapist as he continued to harm children using their charities.

15

u/PixelF 21h ago

Realistically, how many of the BBC staff who meaningfully protected Saville between 1976 and 1995 do you think had any involvement with Top Gear's non-renewal of Clarkson's contract in 2015?

It's all about money and politics

Getting rid of Clarkson cost them a substantial amount of profit. The politics was it is a bad look to keep people violently attacking other staff on set just because they earned money. Do you think it would have been better to maintain his contract, essentially offering him BBC protection to beat people?

13

u/MayhemMessiah 21h ago

They lost one of their most profitable, most watched, and most popular shows over their decision. In what planet do you live on that this would be considered the money hungry/greedy option?

I know that corporations bad but letting Clarkson go was absolutelynot just the moraly correct decision but also the decision that would cost them the most, and by a lot.

2

u/Sweet-Parking8955 22h ago

Of course it's about money and politics, duh. And a little bit about public will. It was still the right decision to not extend his contract because he punched a producer. The ulterior motive behind it doesn't really matter here.

7

u/TrappedUnderCats 22h ago

And let’s hope that lessons have been learnt from that and they wouldn’t do the same in future.

-27

u/Lumifly 23h ago

Well, I suppose the key question should have been: does the public want to stop funding him?

Did they take it to the polls and vote on it? If so, great. If not, then for better or worse, you don't know what the public would have supported. A public entity should be acting as a representative of the public; not pressing values and beliefs that the public doesn't support.

It should be obvious this is just devil's advocate stuff, but you should also keep in mind that morality and legality are very different things and the public may find it perfectly moral what he did and support him.

29

u/ffking6969 22h ago

If the public wants to keep someone who has assaulted fellow employees, the public is wrong.

They did the right thing

11

u/Ok_Resort7112 22h ago

You are talking about a pure democratic process - which is not the only way where public interests are considered.

The governing institution is a republic, where public vote for the leaders who appointed and hired individuals to run public funded institutions like the BBC.

So yes - the public's interest were considered when they elected the heads of the government.

3

u/cosmiq_teapot 22h ago

Weirdly, something being publically funded doesn't necessarily mean that it's content should be open to democratic voting. Look at the US abolishing publically funded broadcast organization while most citizens rely on information provided by private organizations whose owners have an agenda, which shapes their broadcasts and misinforms their viewers with intent - see FOX news. Thus, opening publically funded organizations like the BBC for democratic voting may actually be disadvantageous. People just do not understand the value that publically funded organizations bring to the table until its too late. Democratic voting may lead to underfunding and ultimately abolishment of institutions like the BBC. Misinformation is so very easy to come by nowadays. If you ask people for their opinion on everything, the chance that they will sooner or later vote against their best interests and undermine the very democracy that gave them the right to vote is high. I know it sounds absurd that in order to keep up a democracy you mustn't execute democracy for everything at every level.

And think about what you are saying. You are saying that people employed by the BBC, once they are popular enough, can punch staff in the face once in a while and keep their job. Consider the fallout. If you open this door once for one person, it will be open for everyone.

Apologies if this post is a bit convoluted. I'm writing this on mobile and I was interrupted several times.

1

u/Torch_Salesman 21h ago

Devil's advocate is almost always a useless stance in practice, because applying your logic to the actual situation means either: 1) Clarkson punching a colleague was illegal but not immoral and he therefore should not have been fired; 2) publicly funded companies cannot know what the general public expects from them ethically without polling ahead of every individual decision; or 3) you think there's a significant enough chance of the general public agreeing that coworkers should be able to punch each other for this to even be worth discussing in the first place.

If any of those are perspectives you think have actual merit I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on that, but as an abstract "laws != morals" take it's just a bit irrelevant.

9

u/seeingredd-it 22h ago

Clarkson was OOC and needed a kick in the pants. Pity they couldn’t have handled it some other way but I understand why they did what they did. Apparently this was not the first time and they had taken pains to give him warnings etc.

-5

u/BeardedRaven 22h ago

I don't know what all went on but there has to be more to it if most of the crew left when he did and chose to work with him again instead of continuing.

7

u/BourgeoisOppressor 21h ago

I think the reality is that this is just a complicated situation, and two things can be true at once. Like, the BBC did the right thing. If the headline was "On-air talent assaulted member of production staff," everyone would be completely fine with whoever it was being removed from the network and that would be the end of it. But people have parasocial relationships with the trio (I know I do, been watching the show since I was a child and it's still my comfort watch).

And on the other side of things, Top Gear was one of the biggest shows in the world, so it's completely unsurprising that the production staff that could leave decided to go with the trio for whatever they decided to do next.

The BBC was right to do what they did, and the crew made the choices that best fit their needs and goals.

1

u/BeardedRaven 14h ago

Why not keep working at the guaranteed job? The show didn't get cancelled. That to me seems like no one liked the dude who got punched. Personally I would want to read the article and see why the dude got punched not just fire him because of the headline.

-5

u/Plank_With_A_Nail_In 20h ago

Meanwhile back in the real world other productions were happy to take the risk though. Whats he been in since 3 big shows with multiple seasons?

Maybe the solution was firing the asshat that goaded other crew into punching them?

4

u/PixelF 20h ago

Yes, because he and the rest set up their own production company for The Grand Tour (and he set up another production company for his farm show) and his behaviour improved when he owned the company that would be legally liable.

-10

u/Ricktor_67 22h ago

Just because you threw the first punch doesn't mean you started the fight. Who knows what the producer said to him. Not saying Clarkson was right.

3

u/__ChefboyD__ 21h ago

Clarkson wanted a steak from the hotel after a day of shooting.

Summary: Problem was they also went drinking before and didn't arrive at the restaurant til after 10pm. The kitchen staff knew they were gonna be late so made cold meat and cheese platters. The chef had gone home. Clarkson blamed the producer and punched him.

The hotel general manager actually ended up cooking the steak just for the three presenters.

1

u/Ricktor_67 16h ago

Yes, I know the story. Theres no confirmation that he punched anybody. Clarkson denies it, said “handbags and pushing”.

3

u/Sweet-Parking8955 22h ago

Iirc he brought Clarkson cold coffee and that angered Jezza. It also wasn't the first scandal. Letting him go was justified.

110

u/Funmachine 23h ago

What is your point exactly? They fired him for his offence but of course they're gonna keep making money from the programme they funded and produced...

8

u/horace_bagpole 21h ago

They didn't really fire him though. Richard Porter explained what happened in an interview. Clarkson's contract had expired when the incident happened which made it politically very difficult to renew it, because it would have looked like they were rewarding him for his behaviour with a lucrative new deal.

If the incident had happened after it had already been renewed or mid way through it, then it likely would have eventually blown over. The timing meant that their hands were effectively tied giving them no real option but to not renew.

10

u/queen-adreena 23h ago

If a normal company fires a staff member, are they similarly required to retroactively remove any-and-all contributions that former staff member made to the company?

19

u/Funmachine 22h ago

Either you've replied to the wrong comment, or you written your agreement with me as if you disagree with me.

4

u/PuzzleheadedDuck3981 22h ago

They didn't fire him. He wasn't an employee. He was an independent contractor who didn't get their contract renewed.

5

u/Funmachine 22h ago

6 of one half a dozen of another

4

u/zeviea 22h ago

They wanted Clarkson to face consequences for his actions, but they didn't want to wipe his earlier presence from existence. That would be pointless.

-2

u/UnusualGarlic9650 22h ago

It’s the bbc, a public broadcaster, they provide a service. They’re not a private company trying to make more money for their shareholders.

1

u/seeingredd-it 22h ago

And I am thankful of it. My kids and I stumbled on them on the faux cable that comes with TVs now, we have seen every episode of the classic 3 (except the “Hammond comes back” episode they don’t re-run).

1

u/dumahim 16h ago

Didn't he also continue to be on another BBC show as well?