This also starts up an argument on whether the end result justifies the means. If he did out of protection you would say fire the producer. If he did unprovoked then I would say fire him. But I dont think that either of these things happened.Yes he should be fired for punching someone. But people are allowed to have their own opinions on whether they are telling the entire story.
Because they're mates, and they want to stick togetherI think that if he did punch the producer without being provoked then Hammond and May would stay with the BBC and continue a new, reformed Top Gear. But as they are now talking about leaving and probably have agreed upon it, then that begs the question as to why.
It was something about there being no hot food available at the hotel IIRC, a fact the BBC did report on before. A pathetic excuse for Clarkson's actions of course, but what's done is done.What was said/done for Jeremy to punch the producer? I really dont think that the BBC is telling the entire story.
Being skeptical is fine. Dismissing facts entirely is not. You are the former, btw; as far as I can tell, you're not wilfully dismissing the BBC's statementNow does that make me an idiot for not believing everything that I have been told?
There's sensible intelligent skepticism and then there's losing the plot altogether.I wouldn't trust or believe anything the BBC said anyway.
Thanks.There's sensible intelligent skepticism and then there's losing the plot altogether.
It's the most accurate word I can think of for people who are so blinded by their hatred that they ignore provable truths.I'd steer clear of the 'I' word. No need to Clarkson up the place.