 |
|   | Subject: The idiotic decision to sack Angus Deayton
Posted Jan 4, 2003 by Fraeya
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 41
|
| | Subject: The idiotic decision to sack Angus Deayton
Posted Jan 4, 2003 by Stuart
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 42
|
So I am not alone. I couldnt agree more.
I to would like to see Jeremy Clarkson in the chair. His humour can be as sharp as a scalpel at times and cut just as deep. Forthright is putting it mildly.
Stuart
| | Subject: The idiotic decision to sack Angus Deayton
Posted Jan 6, 2003 by DJR
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 43
|
yeh JC is outspoken, which is always good for HIGNFY. as long as it isn't Liza Turbuck or anyone else who has no strength in personality. CK, AR, JC are all good in that respect.
but about Angus D, watching the Very Best Of HIGNFY DVD, you realise why the show became so popular - it was his in your face attitude towards the guests that made it appealing - people tuned in to watch the 3 celebrity-baiting and mocking politicians. the whole idea of that is the fundemental part of the show.
supposing angus hadn't been an arse and didn't do what he did, there would not even be a suggestion that he should go. why? because he is one third of why the programme is what it is. its only now, after this stuff has been revealed, and he has gone, that people have decided to come and say that he should have gone before etc. etc.
i daresay that if he hadn't been sacked, the mocking would have eventually died down... in fact it would have probably been gone by now. the show would not have lost anything, except gaining viewers who tuned in to see what all the fuss is/was about.
| | Subject: The idiotic decision to sack Angus Deayton
Posted Jan 7, 2003 by Thin Lizzy
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 44
|
Yeah. I know it's the real world but I do think the Beeb may have stood up for him better. He's good at what he does, after all. I know Stuart doesn't agree with me, but I think it's just a case of give-a-dog-a-bad-name-and-hang-him.
| | Subject: The idiotic decision to sack Angus Deayton
Posted Jan 7, 2003 by Stuart
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 45
|
I'm sure the BBC would have carried out some kind of investigation of their own before they sacked him. Nobody could be so stupid as to act on newspaer reports alone. I can imagine a scenario like this between Angus and the Head of Light Entertainment or somebody similar.
knock, knock
HLE: Come in Angus. Take a seat.
Angus: Good morning Chief, you wanted to see me.
HLE: About these reports I have been reading about your cavorting with postitutes and taking cocaine.
Angus: Well there crap really, you know what the media is like.
HLE: There are witness that say the they say you taking cocaine.
Angus: Well perhaps I did a little snort at two at a party. You know how these things happen.
HLE: Well in that case Angus, I am afraid we will have to dispense with your services. We cannot afford to have drug takers on the team. Thank and Goodbye.
I'm not saying that this is what really happend, but I would bet my boots its not to far from the truth.
Admitting to a snort or two at a party will not secure a conviction in a crimminal court, but it would be enough to get you the sack from most employers.
When I refere to the team, I dont mean the team you see on your TV screen. I mean the team that puts the show together, including the producer, director, camermen, floor manager, lighting engineers and the rest that are needed to put a TV show together.
Stuart
| | Subject: The idiotic decision to sack Angus Deayton
Posted Jan 21, 2003 by Fraeya
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 46
|
don't worry lizzy no one agrees with stuart. i dont you dont deno dosn't does anyone here agree with him?
Yeah you do seem a bit condecending, and you also have the arrogance that comes with thinking that if your older than someone your always right. Deayton was sacked as bbcs way of condoning his actions, its ruined the show but i cant see the bbc reversing their opinions
| | Subject: The idiotic decision to sack Angus Deayton
Posted Jan 26, 2003 by Stuart
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 48
|
“Deayton was sacked as bbcs way of condoning his actions”
Before you start criticising and condemning, you should really first learn to use the English language properly. If you condone something that means you agree with it. The opposite of condemn. The BBC did condemn his actions, mainly because they had no choice. It wasn’t the BBC’s opinion that precipitated their decision, it was public opinion, which, thank God, still comes down against drug takers, regardless of how amusing they might be.
To suggest that I think I am always right because I am older reveals a degree of ignorance on your part. As you have only heard my opinion on one subject, it is silly of you to suggest what I think. My life extends a little bit further than an anonymous computer forum, and believe me, you are in the minority. However, I am certain of one thing, and that is that I am right on this occasion. You will have to admit, not necessarily to me, but in your own mind at least, that the scenario outlined in post 45 does have the ring of authenticity about it. If it did not, someone would have come up with a coherent argument against it and nobody has. In fact coherent argument has been noticeable in its absence in this thread.
Its tough world out there. Make a mistake and you pay the penalty. That’s the way it is with everyone. You can learn by other peoples mistakes, but that takes a degree of intelligence and wisdom, something I have found sadly lacking in this thread, but not entirely absent. If you don’t learn by other peoples mistakes, you will certainly learn by your own. That’s the way it has been since Adam walked the Earth and look what happened to him.
Stuart
| | Subject: The idiotic decision to sack Angus Deayton
Posted Feb 2, 2003 by Fraeya
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 49
|
and he just starts again
| | Subject: The idiotic decision to sack Angus Deayton
Posted Feb 3, 2003 by Thin Lizzy
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 50
|
Personally, I still think that as long as he doesn't come into work stoned, it's passable. But I can see where Stuart is coming at, in one sense. But I must protest that he has to be the only person I know who thinks the BBC were right. I doubt he is the majority, therefore. However, we hold very different company. Maybe, Stuart, your friends think the BBC were right. Am I right?
| | Subject: The idiotic decision to sack Angus Deayton
Posted Feb 3, 2003 by Stuart
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 51
|
Yes, Lizzy, you are right. I do hold different company, generally in my own age group and amongst them I get a lot agreement. Its the age thing again.
Stuart
| | Subject: re: stuart's age group
Posted Feb 8, 2003 by DJR
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 52
|
i am not being rude, but what age group might that be. obviously you don't have to answer, but i am just curious to know where the age boundary of opinion is...
i'd also add that most of my teachers, all of whom are at least 40, think that he should not have been sacked.
| | Subject: re: stuart's age group
Posted Feb 8, 2003 by Stuart
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 53
|
I despair if teachers are condoning illegal activity. Dont they teach moral resposibilty in school anymore? But then 40 is still on the young side of life.
Lizzy knows how old I am. See post 18/19. At least one person agrees with me.
Stuart
Your belief that everybody wants Angus sacked has at last got an explanation. Your company is, with all due respect, very different to ours. We're a bit more forgiving of his doings because we've been brought up in a time where a lot of it is more common. I see that a lot of the older generation (Sorry!) thinks the Beeb was right. But a lot of the younger generation think it was wrong. We know little of each other's company, after all.
| | Subject: re: stuart's age group
Posted Feb 9, 2003 by Stuart
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 55
|
"..because we've been brought up in a time where a lot of it is more common."
Sadly that is all to true.
Stuart
| | Subject: Modern Day Society
Posted Feb 10, 2003 by DJR
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 56
|
you are entirely right in saying that the society of today is different from than 30 odd years ago, and yes in many ways it is worse. but nevertheless, (and this is what my teacher(s) argued), is it right that someone who is in the public eye, in this case Angus D, gets treated worse than anyone else? who knows how many people have been with prostitutes, and the same with cocaine. no one is condoning it, but these has to be some consistency.
at my age, and i think lizzy's too (if she is still doing english essays), we get a face full of things like this all the time, be it on some TV programme, some film or even books. we are subject to all unpleasantaries in general more than your generation, and because of this we do not consider them as harsh as your generation would. is that wrong? it is the future, so it can't really be changed...
to turn over the argument, in your generation smoking was encouraged left right and centre. pictures of babies saying 'smoke marlboro' or some disgusting crap were all over the place, and everyone was encouraged to do it. you thought it was right at the time, and now it is (rightly) frowned upon. we have seen the light about smoking - we know that we don't want to ruin our lives. therefore our generation's viewpoints are not that wrong - this is a prime example of us being able to make better decisions than your generations.
sorry to bore everyone, but i like to stand up for my generation.
| | Subject: Modern Day Society
Posted Feb 10, 2003 by Stuart
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 57
|
I’m not so sure that Angus was treated any worse than any other employee. It wasn’t the prostitutes or the philandering that got him the sack. If that was all it was then I would agree that is his own business. It was the cocaine that was his downfall. I have know ordinary workers lose their jobs for the same reason, especially in a job with any kind or responsibility attached and even more so if safety is involved. The difference is that Angus, being public figure, far more people got to know about it.
To take fairness to extremes, if Angus had been in the Armed Forces, not only would he have got the sack, he would have also spent time in jail, then got the sack - and that’s just for marijuana let alone cocaine. Beyond reasonable doubt wouldn’t have entered into it. Are servicemen therefore being treated unfairly?
The comparison with my generation and smoking is not strictly accurate. You are right that when I started smoking it was encouraged and even seen as beneficial. But that was through ignorance of the damage it could cause. The dangers of Lung Cancer and the like didn’t surface until the mid sixties. No such ignorance can be claimed in respect of cocaine. So its not a case of making better decisions - its more like having better information on which to base those decisions.
Stuart
 |  |
| | Subject: Modern Day Society
Posted Feb 10, 2003 by Stuart
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 58
|
I’m not so sure that Angus was treated any worse than any other employee. It wasn’t the prostitutes or the philandering that got him the sack. If that was all it was then I would agree that is his own business. It was the cocaine that was his downfall. I have know ordinary workers lose their jobs for the same reason, especially in a job with any kind or responsibility attached and even more so if safety is involved. The difference is that Angus, being public figure, far more people got to know about it.
To take fairness to extremes, if Angus had been in the Armed Forces, not only would he have got the sack, he would have also spent time in jail, then got the sack - and that’s just for marijuana let alone cocaine. Beyond reasonable doubt wouldn’t have entered into it. Are servicemen therefore being treated unfairly?
The comparison with my generation and smoking is not strictly accurate. You are right that when I started smoking it was encouraged and even seen as beneficial. But that was through ignorance of the damage it could cause. The dangers of Lung Cancer and the like didn’t surface until the mid sixties. No such ignorance can be claimed in respect of cocaine. So its not a case of making better decisions - its more like having better information on which to base those decisions.
Stuart
| | Subject: Modern Day Society
Posted Feb 17, 2003 by Fraeya
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 59
|
as soon as i saw that title i groaned 'in my young days' 'young people these days' errgh its gone a bit off topic this coversation hasn't it
Yeah, whay were we originally talking about? Something about biscuits, I think.
Please note that Not Panicking Ltd is not responsible for the content of any external sites listed. The content on h2g2 is created by h2g2's Researchers, who are members of the public. Unlike Edited Guide Entries, the content on this page has not necessarily been checked by a h2g2 editor. In the event that you consider anything on this page to be in breach of the site's House Rules, please
click here
.
|
