Top Gear

(25-03-2015 15:11 )HannahsPet Wrote:  Thats not being sacked like sky news keep saying lol

Indeed.

bytor Wrote:If its true then its the end of Top Gear in its present format.

It's the end anyway. They can't credibly do the same format with just a replacement for Jeremy, and with three new presenters, it might as well be a completely new show.

I wonder if Quentin Wilson has a little cry that nobody suggested him as a replacement?

William Woolard is still alive ( I checked on Wikipedia ) maybe he could come back.

James may Twitter Profile now saying Former Tv Presenter

(25-03-2015 16:18 )Tractor boy Wrote:  William Woolard is still alive ( I checked on Wikipedia ) maybe he could come back.

Get No Ledmonds off that bloody Deal or No Deal. In fact, he could swap with Clarkson

Didnt he present the first series ?

Not condoning the behaviour, but it does sound like this producer needs to grow a pair. He attended A&E with a cut lip! Blimey, no wonder the NHS is struggling if they have to deal with cry babies like that

Seriously, the only reason I can see for seeking medical attention would be to get the injury on record for an official complaint or claim, but he never made any complaint! Strange.

Not at all surprised to see May apparently going as well, I wonder if rent-a-presenter Hamster will walk the walk as well, or will he take the money?

Given the money the show makes, Auntie has little option but to try to keep it going, but I can't see it working whatever they do with it.

One less reason to watch BBC2 now, at this rate I'll be able to dump my TV license altogether soon

You assault someone in the workplace you get dismissed - it really is that simple.

Hopefully the sycophantic Clarkson apologists will go away now or follow him to wherever he resurfaces to enjoy his base humour and intolerant comments.

(25-03-2015 16:35 )munch1917 Wrote:  One less reason to watch BBC2 now, at this rate I'll be able to dump my TV license altogether soon

The TV license isn't just for the BBC though. You still need it even if you never watch the BBC.

(25-03-2015 16:52 )Matt77 Wrote:  You assault someone in the workplace you get dismissed - it really is that simple.

Hopefully the sycophantic Clarkson apologists will go away now or follow him to wherever he resurfaces to enjoy his base humour and intolerant comments.

Well he is getting rewarded with a new contract somewhere else for a commercial broadcaster who will proberly double or treble his money only winner is him

(25-03-2015 16:53 )elgar1uk Wrote:  The TV license isn't just for the BBC though. You still need it even if you never watch the BBC.

Not true actually. Under the current terms, you only need a license to watch 'live tv', that is, if you watch what is currently being broadcast at this moment by the tv channels.

So, if you only watch catch-up stuff, or netflix type stuff, you don't need a license.
On the other hand, if, for instance, you watch what is currently being broadcast via the channels on iplayer, then you would need a license, even if you don't even own an actual tv.

From the tv license website :

Quote:You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast. This includes the use of devices such as a computer, laptop, mobile phone or DVD/video recorder.

There are very few original shows that I actually watch these days. I watch a lot of repeats simply because there is little else of interest, and I watch a number of US shows which I usually download rather than wait for them to be broadcast here.
So I wouldn't really miss watching tv as it is being broadcast, perhaps a few sports things, but there are few of those on free-to-air channels anyhow. It might take a little bit of getting used to, but I really don't think it would be much, and the 12 bucks per month would cover a subscription to one of the streaming services with some left over.