Jeremy Clarkson dropped from Top Gear

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Afternoon,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-32052736


I didn't expect that .


Onion Magnet

Clauso 25 Mar 2015
In reply to Onion magnet:

I'd have preferred him dropped from a great height, personally.
2
 Tricadam 25 Mar 2015
In reply to Clauso:

> I'd have preferred him dropped from a great height, personally.

Which of the Ben's gullies would be most suitable for the purpose and why? Gardyloo after the India/toilet episode?
 Trangia 25 Mar 2015
In reply to Onion magnet:

It's got to be the right decision. No one can be allowed to get away with physically and verbally abusing a work colleague to that extent. He is violent man who is lucky he isn't facing a criminal assault charge.
1
 deepsoup 25 Mar 2015
In reply to Clauso:
> I'd have preferred him dropped from a great height, personally.

Quite right. Some may say he shouldn't be given the oxygen of publicity. I'm not sure he deserves the oxygen of oxygen.
1
 Phil79 25 Mar 2015
In reply to Onion magnet:

> I didn't expect that .

Didn't you? If all the speculative accounts over the last 3 weeks regarding what happened were anywhere near the mark (as they seem to have been, i.e. an unprovoked verbal and physical assault), how could the BBC possibly have done anything else?

You can't punch people in the work place and expect not to be sacked.

Unless you're a boxer, obviously
In reply to Trangia:

> It's got to be the right decision. No one can be allowed to get away with physically and verbally abusing a work colleague to that extent.

He is violent man who is lucky he isn't facing a criminal assault charge.

I agree.
I just thought that money would be the deciding factor as to whether or not they actually got rid of him. We know that TG is one of the big money makers for the BBC.

OM
In reply to Onion magnet:

Big fan of the show - and in some ways of Clarkson himself, as I felt that some of his disingenuousness was deliberate and a running joke - but he deserved this entirely. The Beeb were caught on the horns of a dilemma - popularity and profitability against unconscionable behaviour.

Threatening to sack somebody and then smacking that somebody because your steak's not ready isn't funny or entertaining and it makes one wonder how much of the tripe that Clarkson's spouted over the years has actually been deliberate and with conviction.

Another three-legged horse backed by Our Dave.....
1
In reply to Onion magnet:

Could easily turn into 'Top Gear drops the BBC' if the others leave with him and go somewhere else.

This isn't going to do the BBC any good either financially or in terms of being able to address the whole range of political viewpoints.
1
In reply to Martin not maisie:
> Threatening to sack somebody and then smacking that somebody because your steak's not ready isn't funny or entertaining and it makes one wonder how much of the tripe that Clarkson's spouted over the years has actually been deliberate and with conviction.

I think it's pretty clear from character references that he's not someone who denies man made climate change, nor someone who hates football, nor a racist. (To cite some quick descriptions he himself and others pin on him.)

It also seems clear from accounts of staff that have worked with him that he is very used to getting his own way. Now I'll assume he (as many of my friends do) suffers with irritability on low blood sugar, I can understand, not condone, but understand why he'd get angry at there being no 'hearty food'.

Hitting someone as a result though, good bye.
Post edited at 14:52
1
 MonkeyPuzzle 25 Mar 2015
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

It's a car show. I think the BBC, and us for that matter, will live.
2
 Frank4short 25 Mar 2015
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
> This isn't going to do the BBC any good either financially or in terms of being able to address the whole range of political viewpoints.

Being able to address a range of political viewpoints? What viewpoints does Clarkson espouse? The much maligned and under represented rich middle age white Englishmen? Cause they're definitely not heard enough.

Edit: Just to add I'm not a Clarkson hater. I find him entertaining as both a broadcaster and his ability at times to write interestingly as well. However whatever he may represent the one thing he doesn't do is add a political viewpoint or narrative that is unheard or misrepresented.

As to the possibility it could be because he overreacted due to low blood sugar or something like that, well he's notorious, with people that have dealt with him in the hospitality and airline industries, for being a wanker. So i'm guessing it's probably more likely the case after a long time at the top of his profession he just overstepped the mark cause he's been allowed to get away with stuff unchecked rather than just having a bad/long day.
Post edited at 15:14
1
 jethro kiernan 25 Mar 2015
In reply to Onion magnet:

Much of the money earned will be for the endless repeats of top gear, and rights to use the format this will continue regardless we wont suddenly see a 50 million pound shorfall in the beebs cashflow just because jeremy isnt around.
1
 goose299 25 Mar 2015
In reply to Onion magnet:

Apparently May and Hammond aren't going to carry on without him. No surprise really
 deepsoup 25 Mar 2015
In reply to Onion magnet:
> I just thought that money would be the deciding factor as to whether or not they actually got rid of him. We know that TG is one of the big money makers for the BBC.

A few years ago it almost certainly would have been.
 deepsoup 25 Mar 2015
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
> Could easily turn into 'Top Gear drops the BBC' if the others leave with him and go somewhere else.

Indeed. In which case the Beeb having been put in a position where they really had no choice but to let him go (and the other presenters follow) in a blaze of publicity would suggest a more than usually plausible conspiracy theory.

What do you think Sky will call their spookily familiar new car programme? ;O)

 toad 25 Mar 2015
In reply to Onion magnet:

It's a Guardian link, but it's to the actual text of the BBC investigation into the incident. It's fairly unambiguous

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/mar/25/jeremy-clarkson-fracas-report-...
1
 tony 25 Mar 2015
In reply to deepsoup:

> What do you think Sky will call their spookily familiar new car programme? ;O)

Sky have already said they wouldn't sign Clarkson, on the grounds that their commitment to diversity would be at odds with some of Clarkson's offensive utterances in recent years.

1
In reply to tony:

Isn't Sky owned by Murdoch - who also owns the Times and the Sun, both mouthpieces for Clarkson?
1
 Nevis-the-cat 25 Mar 2015
In reply to Martin not maisie:

Murdooch has said that he thinks th BBC are idiots for sacking him. So, he must be so laid back and groovy that he thinks it's ok to tw*t someone in the workplace.

I wonder if he's that laid back about someone shagging his wife.....
1
In reply to toad:

> It's a Guardian link, but it's to the actual text of the BBC investigation into the incident. It's fairly unambiguous


Cheers I hadn't read that. To be honest I'm more interested in the public outcry and way its playing out.
I'm neither a fan of cars or tight denim.

1
 tony 25 Mar 2015
In reply to Martin not maisie:

> Isn't Sky owned by Murdoch - who also owns the Times and the Sun, both mouthpieces for Clarkson?

That is true, but they don't seem to shout about their diversity policies as much as Sky. But of course, Sky could turn round and change their mind completely.
1
 Bob 25 Mar 2015
In reply to toad:

So he (JC) took four days to report the incident? Working up an exit strategy perhaps? Rather than just allow his contract to expire and move on, go out looking like the aggrieved party despite admitting the assault.
1
 deepsoup 25 Mar 2015
In reply to tony:

"Commitment to diversity" - good point, they would *definitely* let that stand in the way of making a big pile of cash at the BBC's expense. ;O)
1
 The New NickB 25 Mar 2015
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

It will do the BBC more good than them saying, big stars are free to assault and abuse other BBC employees. Or are you still saying he didn't do it?
1
 duchessofmalfi 25 Mar 2015
Now JC's gone will it be his mate DC next?
1
 deepsoup 25 Mar 2015
In reply to duchessofmalfi:

I would prefer it if JC didn't have the oxygen of publicity.
DC, if I had my way, would be denied the oxygen of actual oxygen.
1
 Chris the Tall 25 Mar 2015
In reply to Onion magnet:

News of the sacking has reached Somerset

http://www.cheddarvalleygazette.co.uk/Jeremy-Clarkson-fired-just-years-afty...

"It comes just two years after Clarkson's colleague James May filmed a sequence with a double-decker bus in Cheddar Gorge.

Clarkson is not believed to have been there for the filming."

 GrahamD 25 Mar 2015
In reply to Onion magnet:

Not having contract renewed is lenient. In any other profession (well, nearly any) it would be grounds for summary dismissal.
1
 toad 25 Mar 2015
In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

> Murdooch has said that he thinks th BBC are idiots for sacking him. So, he must be so laid back and groovy that he thinks it's ok to tw*t someone in the workplace.

> I wonder if he's that laid back about someone shagging his wife.....

Not that laid back about foam pies either
1
 winhill 25 Mar 2015
In reply to GrahamD:

> Not having contract renewed is lenient. In any other profession (well, nearly any) it would be grounds for summary dismissal.

Isn't the clue in the wording there?

He is on contract, not employed.
 winhill 25 Mar 2015
In reply to Onion magnet:

Some serious piss-taking from the BBC here:

"16:31 Breaking News

Zayn Malik quits One Direction

We interrupt the rolling Clarkson coverage to tell you that Zayn Malik has quit One Direction."
 winhill 25 Mar 2015
In reply to Bob:

> So he (JC) took four days to report the incident? Working up an exit strategy perhaps? Rather than just allow his contract to expire and move on, go out looking like the aggrieved party despite admitting the assault.

There's been a bun fight in the media pages over Clarkson, the Grauniad quite gleeful, but that whole piece doesn't make a lot of sense. I would have thought he was persuaded to admit it before someone reported him.

The variously described altercation and fracas never actually describes what happened - a 30 second fracas means what? A bit of shoving and grappling, a good 30 second pummelling? Was there an actual punch or a slap or someone's hand accidentally catching someone in the face? None of it's very clear.
In reply to winhill:

Have you not seen the news? It's very clear.

"An internal investigation began last week, led by Ken MacQuarrie, the director of BBC Scotland.
It found that Mr Tymon took himself to hospital after he was subject to an "unprovoked physical and verbal attack".
"During the physical attack Oisin Tymon was struck, resulting in swelling and bleeding to his lip."
It lasted "around 30 seconds and was halted by the intervention of a witness," Mr MacQuarrie noted in his report.
"The verbal abuse was sustained over a longer period" and "contained the strongest expletives and threats to sack" Mr Tymon, who believed he had lost his job."
1
JMGLondon 25 Mar 2015
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Could easily turn into 'Top Gear drops the BBC' if the others leave with him and go somewhere else.

> This isn't going to do the BBC any good either financially or in terms of being able to address the whole range of political viewpoints.

Oh ffs.

1
 elsewhere 25 Mar 2015
In reply to winhill:
Looks like the best source of information so far.

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/investigation-summary.pdf

 winhill 25 Mar 2015
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> Have you not seen the news? It's very clear.

None of that is very clear at all, if someone was raining down punches for 30 seconds I'd expect the victim to look like elephant man, so what did happen if you think that account is clear? A single punch, a headbutt, a drop kick?
1
 GrahamD 25 Mar 2015
In reply to winhill:

> Isn't the clue in the wording there?

> He is on contract, not employed.

In which case contract should have been terminated from the time of the offence, not allowed to run down to the end of the month.
1
 GrahamD 25 Mar 2015
In reply to winhill:

> None of that is very clear at all, if someone was raining down punches for 30 seconds I'd expect the victim to look like elephant man, so what did happen if you think that account is clear? A single punch, a headbutt, a drop kick?

Maybe Clarkson can't really punch very well ?
1
 The New NickB 25 Mar 2015
In reply to GrahamD:

> In which case contract should have been terminated from the time of the offence, not allowed to run down to the end of the month.

Alternatively, they could have investigated the incident then acted upon the facts. Doesn't seem unreasonable.
2
 TMM 25 Mar 2015
In reply to Onion magnet:

Can't believe none of you are reading between the lines in this media story.

Today has been a very carefully choreographed piece of media management.

The Clarkson contract non-renewal was announced and just minutes later we learn that Zain Malik has quit One Direction (1D to reader under 30).

I confidently predict that in the next 24hrs it will be announced that Malik will join Hammond and May on Top Gear with Clarkson joining Harry Styles and the other ones in One Direction.

You read it here first....
 RomTheBear 25 Mar 2015
In reply to Onion magnet:

Not a surprise, physically assaulting his producer whilst already being on a final warning because of the "n word" thing... DOn;t think they had a choice there. I think it's fair.

Sure it's not fair for the top gear fans, but they can only blame Clarkson IMO. I am wondering, would it be possible for the BBC to sell the top gear format to Clarkson so he can produce his own show ?
1
 GrahamD 25 Mar 2015
In reply to The New NickB:

Isn't that what they have tried to do ?
1
In reply to winhill:

> None of that is very clear at all, if someone was raining down punches for 30 seconds I'd expect the victim to look like elephant man, so what did happen if you think that account is clear? A single punch, a headbutt, a drop kick?

If there was any significant visible injury the paparrazi would have pictures of it by now. You can bet that with a story this big they have gone looking for that shot.
 Nevis-the-cat 25 Mar 2015


The telegraph has a piece from Brendan O'reillly about how it is all the fault of the liberal PC hand wringing set. Really is a piece and a half. A full reverse Toynbee.

In fact it's such a spittle flecked outpouring that it could only come from the pen of our own Simon 4.

Whilst some commenters try to remind him that generally, punching somone in the workplace is a dismissal offence in most UK workplaces and that nobody is too big to be fired, the overall comments make Judge John Hawthorne look cuddly.

1
 FactorXXX 25 Mar 2015
In reply to Phil79:

You can't punch people in the work place and expect not to be sacked.

Is it the work place though?
The incident happened after the days filming had been done, they'd been to the pub and had returned to their accommodation.
Not defending Clarkson's actions, just curious on the definition of 'work place'.
 Simon4 25 Mar 2015
In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

Guardian reading bigots and hypocrites show their normal tolerance and open-mindedness.

The Fascist left - don't you just despise them!
2
KevinD 25 Mar 2015
In reply to Simon4:

> Guardian reading bigots and hypocrites show their normal tolerance and open-mindedness.

oh come on. You are slacking here. I think everyone was looking for about ten paragraphs of ranting.
Perhaps if you expanded on your claims a bit since I am curious as to why you feel thinking someone should be given the boot for assaulting someone is hypocritical.
1
KevinD 25 Mar 2015
In reply to FactorXXX:

> Not defending Clarkson's actions, just curious on the definition of 'work place'.

On location would normally tick the box by itself. That Clarkson assaulted him since he was claiming hot food should have been provided definitely ticks the box.
In reply to Martin not maisie:

Sky is a listed company that Rupert Murdoch founded, so no he doesn't own it although I assume he has some shares and some influence.
1
 The New NickB 25 Mar 2015
In reply to FactorXXX:

> Not defending Clarkson's actions, just curious on the definition of 'work place'.

Really, I don't think they were there for a romantic weekend!
 The New NickB 25 Mar 2015
In reply to Simon4:

> Guardian reading bigots and hypocrites show their normal tolerance and open-mindedness.

> The Fascist left - don't you just despise them!

Could you explain more Simon!
1
 The New NickB 25 Mar 2015
In reply to GrahamD:

> Isn't that what they have tried to do ?

Yes. You seem to be suggesting that they shouldn't have bothered.
1
 zimpara 25 Mar 2015
In reply to Onion magnet:

Any publicity is good publicity.
Amen
 Timmd 25 Mar 2015
In reply to Simon4:
> Guardian reading bigots and hypocrites show their normal tolerance and open-mindedness.

> The Fascist left - don't you just despise them!

This is the kind of tone the Telegraph writer used, in saying that by having Clarkson as their token right winger, or words to that effect, in being a smoking xenophobic petrol head, it makes right wingers all the easier to dismiss (ideologically that is).
Post edited at 18:48
1
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Right you are - have never had it, but his name seems to crop up. I'm unconvinced that Sky will protect us from Clarkson rather than cash in, mind.

A couple of weekends ago, I bought the Sunday Times - which I've not read for years. On the front of one section was a full page image of a gagged Clarkson, with some mindless froth about how the ST was letting him speak his mind, unlike the Beeb. I think Murdoch probably had plans in place already.....

Thoreau was supposed to have said something along the lines of 'you can judge a man's character by how he treats those...... who cannot harm him'. I don't think Clarkson has passed that particular test, which is a shame as TG was a staple in our house.
1
 Timmd 25 Mar 2015
In reply to Martin not maisie:
I quite liked it on occasion even if Clarkson did his 'annoying the environmentalists' bit occasionally.
Post edited at 18:59
1
In reply to Timmd:

> I quite liked it on occasion especially if Clarkson did his 'annoying the environmentalists' bit occasionally.

Fixed that for you
1
 toad 25 Mar 2015
In reply to Simon4:
> Guardian reading bigots and hypocrites show their normal tolerance and open-mindedness.

> The Fascist left - don't you just despise them!

Guardianista

You're slipping

I was in a cafe today and they had a Jeremy Clarkson special. I couldn't work out what it was
















..........then it hit me.

Two drums and a cymbal jump off a cliff...........
Post edited at 19:49
1
 Ridge 25 Mar 2015
In reply to Nevis-the-cat:
> A full reverse Toynbee.

No further explanation necessary.
Post edited at 19:49
 abr1966 25 Mar 2015
In reply to Simon4:

God i haven't been on ukc forums for about a year....i come back on and uou are still spouting it! .
Clarkson is a t**t...has a tantrum and then plays hard done to. Anyone would expect the sack...employed or contracted. I suspect he knows what he's doing...the show is past it and he sold his share to bbcages ago. He's an arse....good riddance..
1
 Yanis Nayu 25 Mar 2015
In reply to Onion magnet:

I think it's a shame, but inevitable after what he did, and his previous.

The guy he had a go at has handled himself with dignity. The whole thing must have been a nightmare - Clarkson may be used to being in the middle of a media shit storm, but this guy isn't.
 dek 25 Mar 2015
In reply to Simon4:

> Guardian reading bigots and hypocrites show their normal tolerance and open-mindedness.

> The Skoda loving Fascist left - don't you just despise them!

FTFY
1
 Billhook 25 Mar 2015
In reply to FactorXXX:

It makes absolutely NO difference whether an assault took place at work, during work or outside of work, IF it brought the company into disrepute. And this does, as they were in effect at a work related function.
Kipper 25 Mar 2015
In reply to TMM:

> I confidently predict that in the next 24hrs it will be announced that Malik will join Hammond and May on Top Gear with Clarkson joining Harry Styles and the other ones in One Direction.

One Gear?
Top Direction?

 The New NickB 25 Mar 2015
In reply to Onion magnet:

Has anyone noticed various news sources are saying that Top Gear is sold to 214 countries? How many countries are there in the world? Surely somewhere between 190 and 206 depending on various definitions.
1
 icnoble 25 Mar 2015
In reply to Onion magnet: A government minister punched a member of the public. He didn't get the sack and he is now a lord

1
 icnoble 25 Mar 2015
In reply to Onion magnet: At least Mr. Clarkson hasn't abused children and kept his job

 MonkeyPuzzle 25 Mar 2015
In reply to icnoble:

I think you've just taken the lead in the whataboutery stakes.
1
KevinD 25 Mar 2015
In reply to icnoble:
Any more whatabouttery?
To take your two comparisons.
I assume in the first case you mean Prescott who was responding to someone lobbing an egg at him. Not exactly the same.
Although on the other hand Brown was supposed to have been a bit of a tw*t and it is a shame he wasnt dealt with.

For the abuse of kids I am assuming this is a current case which has been reported to police but nothing has been done? Or are you comparing it to historical cases where the talent were treated as untouchable?
Post edited at 23:39
1
 GrahamD 26 Mar 2015
In reply to The New NickB:

Not at all. Having established the facts , cozily allowing his contract to wind down at heaven knows how much per day is lenient to say the least.
1
 Dave Garnett 26 Mar 2015
In reply to The New NickB:

> Has anyone noticed various news sources are saying that Top Gear is sold to 214 countries? How many countries are there in the world? Surely somewhere between 190 and 206 depending on various definitions

You're only counting the terrestrial ones.
1
 JJL 26 Mar 2015
In reply to Onion magnet:

Hilarious thread.

My tuppence:
- hitting a colleague is never ok (FFS what's with the "low blood sugar" apologists?). I can't really see why the Beeb has such hand-wringing about it all, given the investigation findings.
- allowing the contract to run (to 31/3) is probably pragmatic, although retrospective claw back to the time of the incident (and a claim for bringing the BBC into disrepute) would I suppose have been possible

I thought the interview on R4 last night (with Alan Yentob) was pretty disturbing - they'd really lost sight of a level horizon. All that guff about "talent" and "other industries where they don't have to manage talent", as if there was some special set of rules required for these prima donnas.

Don't think it will significantly financially wound the BBC; and I think JC may find it harder than currently suggested to find another gig of the same stature.
1
 The New NickB 26 Mar 2015
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> You're only counting the terrestrial ones.

Which extraterrestrial countries show top gear
1
 tony 26 Mar 2015
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> If there was any significant visible injury the paparrazi would have pictures of it by now. You can bet that with a story this big they have gone looking for that shot.

What paparrazzi would that be? Were there paparrazzi on scene at the hotel when the assault happened? Funny that no-one else has mentioned their presence.
1
In reply to tony:

> What paparrazzi would that be? Were there paparrazzi on scene at the hotel when the assault happened? Funny that no-one else has mentioned their presence.

The paparazzi that are taking all the pics of May and Clarkson leaving their houses? Those guys will have been staking Tymon out too trying to get a pic of a bruised face to sell the newspapers.
 elsewhere 26 Mar 2015
I can't imagine many of us would keep our jobs if we punched a subordinate during a sweary rant at work and in public.



1
 tony 26 Mar 2015
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> The paparazzi that are taking all the pics of May and Clarkson leaving their houses? Those guys will have been staking Tymon out too trying to get a pic of a bruised face to sell the newspapers.

Maybe he didn't open his door? Maybe the paps were in the wrong place? Who knows? I don't know, and I'd be willing to bet you don't either.

The fact that there are no pics of him in any state post-assault means it's pretty meaningless to say anything one way or another. You'd think that pics of him in an unbruised state would be as valuable as if he were bruised, as part of the whole Clarkson-is-innocent crusade.
1
KevinD 26 Mar 2015
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
> Those guys will have been staking Tymon out too trying to get a pic of a bruised face to sell the newspapers.

The ones who have failed to get any pictures of him at all?
In addition I am not sure what you feel it would prove. Even if he was barely marked all that could mean anything from it didnt happen to possibly Clarkson isnt that handy in a fight.
Unless Clarkson launches a lawsuit saying the BBC lied I dont think it is unreasonable to conclude their portrayal of the evidence is correct.
1
 The New NickB 26 Mar 2015
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> The paparazzi that are taking all the pics of May and Clarkson leaving their houses? Those guys will have been staking Tymon out too trying to get a pic of a bruised face to sell the newspapers.

Not until a week after the incident took place.
1
 Bob Hughes 26 Mar 2015
In reply to AllanMac:

that's Alan Yentob replying to a direct question with a pre-prepared talking point. It's basically a journalist hunting for click-bait "Do you think he'll work for the BBC in the future? Would you rule it out? So you wouldn't rule it out then?"
kerny 26 Mar 2015
In reply to Onion magnet:

After hearing the news of Jeremy Clarkson's sacking, the Stig is said to be speechless.
 solomonkey 26 Mar 2015
In reply to kerny:

> After hearing the news of Jeremy Clarkson's sacking, the Stig is said to be speechless.

Poor stig
And that now there truly is nothing worth watching on the BBC !
andymac 26 Mar 2015
In reply to Onion magnet:

No more Top Gear on the Beeb

And no more Downton Abbey on ITV.

Life will not be worth living..........


If you depend on such programmes to get you through life.

Bye Bye Jezza.and the other pair of twuts.
1
 RockAngel 27 Mar 2015
In reply to FactorXXX: they were on location with work, with colleagues, and Jeremy clarkson was clearly expecting the minions to run around after him, so yes, it was still the workplace

 Billhook 27 Mar 2015
In reply to RockAngel:

But it makes no practical difference whether the assault took place in work, or out of work and in the privacy of your own home.
In reply to Dave Perry:

Why not? Surely punching your brother at home (if he doesn't file charges) should not impact your job necessarily.
 FactorXXX 27 Mar 2015
In reply to RockAngel:

they were on location with work, with colleagues, and Jeremy clarkson was clearly expecting the minions to run around after him, so yes, it was still the workplace

Perhaps by definition it is, but doesn't the fact that they've been to the pub make it a bit of a grey area?
I've worked in places where that sort of thing would be looked at as 'What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas'...
 FactorXXX 27 Mar 2015
In reply to Dave Perry:

But it makes no practical difference whether the assault took place in work, or out of work and in the privacy of your own home.

Assaulting someone in your own house should result in you getting sacked?
 Bob 27 Mar 2015
In reply to Onion magnet:

This does appear to have been "manufactured" ...

Some sort of "fracas" takes place in which Clarkson is alleged to have struck the show's producer.
Producer drives himself to A&E for repair.
Four days later Clarkson reports himself to the BBC over the incident, he is suspended. The producer at this point hasn't reported the incident.
Lots of hooha from people who weren't there.
BBC holds investigation and as a result informs Clarkson that his contract will not be renewed.
Producer informs police that he will not press charges.

It seems to me that Clarkson didn't want to renew his contract but rather than simply walking away decided to escalate the incident and force the BBC's hand so that he appeared to be the aggrieved party.

Or am I being cynical?
1
 The New NickB 27 Mar 2015
In reply to Bob:

I don't know. It is been reported that Clarkson has been going through a tough time, his mother died recently and he is going through a divorce. This certainly doesn't excuse anything, but it might partly explain why this is perhaps more a case of someone losing control rather than a calculated act. It's all speculation though.
1
In reply to Bob:
> Or am I being cynical?

Yes. I think so.

Clarkson's a smart guy, and I'd agree that he may have been relieved at the luxury of being sacked given his position was extremely difficult in both professional and personal terms. He may well have acted with this in mind. However I would be surprised if it was all a ruse against the BBC and to stir up public unrest against them.

I don't think he expected quite the outcry from a clearly pretty stupid percentage of Top Gear fans (I count myself a fan but not in this category I hope!) regarding the boycott of the BBC and the public shaming of the producer. In fact it's my suspicion he feels pretty terrible about the whole thing.
Post edited at 14:49
1
 Bob 27 Mar 2015
In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

I like Top Gear (I'm really not a petrolhead - I'd list my cars as: white one; blue one; red one; red one; blue one; red one; black one ) as much because of the way it winds so many people up but also because it is (was) good entertainment.

Maybe he (Clarkson) is messed up as Nick suggests, I don't follow "celebrity" gossip but given that divorce and bereavement are two of the top three causes of stress it wouldn't be surprising if he felt that way. His comments about asking the press to leave the producer alone would support the notion that he feels it's his fault.
1
 RomTheBear 27 Mar 2015
In reply to Simon4:
> Guardian reading bigots and hypocrites show their normal tolerance and open-mindedness.
> The Fascist left - don't you just despise them!

Don't be sad, it's just a poor TV show, I'm sure they are enough knobheads in Britain to replace Jeremy.
Post edited at 15:15
1
 Billhook 27 Mar 2015
In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:
But he didn't punch his brother. He punched another employee.

In employment law terms any action "which brings the company into disrepute", OR, takes place whilst you are not at work but which the employer has in someway been responsible for can result in disciplinary action being taken against you. The fact that an assault took place in the privacy of someones home is irrelevant.

There are some caveats to this of course, but clearly Clarkson hit a fellow employee which is unacceptable in most employment circumstances.

What the employer does about it is of course up to the employer to decide. All the law states on this is whether the employer's response is that which a 'reasonable' employer' would have taken. I cannot recall an assault of one employee against another which did not result in dismissal.

Whether the employee or not 'files charges' or reports the matter is irrelevant. The assault took place whether the employee complained or not.

(This is a separate matter from reporting it to the police and/or any separate legal proceedings).

The fact that he is Jeremy Clarkson makes him no less immune that if he was Jimmy Saville
Post edited at 15:53
1
 neilh 27 Mar 2015
In reply to Dave Perry:

The best comment I have read on this subject is from Martin Sorrell of WPP fame. He basically said this sort of behaviour was rampant in the advertising /PR world. Its now been stamped out and is no longer considered acceptable. It's so last century .
1
 jezb1 27 Mar 2015
In reply to Onion magnet:

Why do I keep hearing Clarkson and Saville mentioned in the same breath?!

 MonkeyPuzzle 27 Mar 2015
In reply to jezb1:

Because they were both big stars at the Beeb. Do keep up.
1
 Billhook 27 Mar 2015
In reply to jezb1:

Because we must not let fame get in the way of justice!
1
 jezb1 27 Mar 2015
In reply to Dave Perry:

I'm all for treating people equally independent of fame / power / position.

But comparing pedophilia to someone punching another person? Get real.
 GrantM 27 Mar 2015
In reply to Dave Perry:

> The fact that he is Jeremy Clarkson makes him no less immune that if he was Jimmy Saville

Savile was completely immune from any disciplinary action at the BBC, even after he died they refused to broadcast a Newsnight investigation.
1
 deepsoup 27 Mar 2015
In reply to Bob:
> Or am I being cynical?

Yes you are, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you're wrong. ;O)
1
 Yanis Nayu 27 Mar 2015
In reply to jezb1:

> I'm all for treating people equally independent of fame / power / position.

> But comparing pedophilia to someone punching another person? Get real.

Quite. Their position is logical; but it proves the point that one can be both logical and stupid.
1
 RockAngel 27 Mar 2015
In reply to FactorXXX: so if youve gone to a conference with colleagues from work and a similar situation arises, would that person be sacked?

Jeremy and the Top Gear staff were still at work, hence why Jermey got upset that his dinner was not available. If he was 'clocked off' from work, he should not have been expecting the producer to arrange his tea for him.

1
 Billhook 27 Mar 2015
In reply to jezb1:

So are you saying because Clarkson is famous and assaulted someone whilst working for the BBC he shouldn't be treated like everyone else and be dismissed?.
1
Jim C 27 Mar 2015
In reply to Dave Perry:

> So are you saying because Clarkson is famous and assaulted someone whilst working for the BBC he shouldn't be treated like everyone else and be dismissed?.

I know what you mean ,mhe missed a meal, it is not like nuts were served to him in a bag rather than on a silver plate!
(What did he have to complain about in comparison with that indignity)

These people need to live in the real world.
1
 The New NickB 27 Mar 2015
In reply to jezb1:

> I'm all for treating people equally independent of fame / power / position.

> But comparing pedophilia to someone punching another person? Get real.

Which he isn't doing!
1
 marsbar 27 Mar 2015
In reply to jezb1:

I don't think its comparing the crimes, more that the BBC has form for not dealing with issues and now it suddenly thinks it will prove it does.
1
 FactorXXX 27 Mar 2015
In reply to RockAngel:

so if youve gone to a conference with colleagues from work and a similar situation arises, would that person be sacked?
Jeremy and the Top Gear staff were still at work, hence why Jermey got upset that his dinner was not available. If he was 'clocked off' from work, he should not have been expecting the producer to arrange his tea for him.



If we'd all been down the pub, I'm not sure.
I really don't know what would happen, after all, getting drunk in work is also frowned upon...

1
 The New NickB 27 Mar 2015
In reply to FactorXXX:

I've done the odd works thing that involved having a few drinks, I suspect smacking a colleague wouldn't have gone down well.

I guess if you are out with a mate who is also a work colleague and have a fall out, you can probably sort it out like mates.

Obviously this isn't one of those situations.
In reply to Dave Perry:

> In employment law terms any action "which brings the company into disrepute", OR, takes place whilst you are not at work but which the employer has in someway been responsible for can result in disciplinary action being taken against you. The fact that an assault took place in the privacy of someones home is irrelevant.

I think sacking someone because they had a fight with their flatmate for example is probably the wrong course of action and when they require the assistance of their employer the most to sort out their issues.

So no, I don't think hitting someone at home is the same as hitting someone at work. The two different scenarios to me suggest two different (but overlapping) sets of stresses, they are to be addressed in different ways.
 Billhook 30 Mar 2015
In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

In this case one employee hit another in what was a public place - the hotel. It was witnessed too and it was whilst they were carrying out or in the process of a work function =- making a film.

However if you hit someone in your own home who had no connection with your employment, then even if someone at your work found out about it - 'someone gossiped for example, then, a reasonable employer would probably NOT take any action as the matter (the assault) could probably not be classed as 'bringing the company into disrepute'

If I've mislead you then I apologise. Your summing up is exactly what you would expect to happen in employment law terms.
Dave P
Removed User 30 Mar 2015
In reply to Dave Perry:

> In this case one employee hit another in what was a public place - the hotel. It was witnessed too and it was whilst they were carrying out or in the process of a work function =- making a film.

Taking place in public would also breach, one would think, the 'showing the company in a bad light' standard, although it is the beeb we're talking about...
In reply to Dave Perry:

Agreed. Seems like we're on the same page Dave.

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...