You think his contract says "Please don't hit anyone, by the way"?
I doubt it.
My contract of employment doesn't say that either! Civilised people just assume that you don't attack a fellow worker just because you're having a hissy-fit. Then again - the keyword is 'civilised'.
Sorry...please remind us who's behaviour is the cause of this current situation?
What we need is a 'Sack Jeremy Clarkson From The BBC' petition.
I wasn't agreeing with the call for Danny Cohen to be sacked but pointing out that in the original wording of Guido Fawkes' petition there was also 'Sack Danny Cohen not Jeremy Clarkson!' now removed; obviously he wants to appear reasonable.
No ! He is NO different he is an employee of the BBC, you abide by the rules, or you leave, it's quite a simple choice for most people ! The 'programme' may earn a great deal of money, but he is still a small cog in a very big wheel...... If I cock up in my job, I will cost my employer thousands, if not a few million, and have the possibility of killing hundreds by a simple error, If I break the rules for whatever I expect to be dealt with, and that will be a trip to the job centre, by the same token, if I take a swipe at my Manager, or a collegue, I will also expect to end up in the same place ! Mr Clarkson is no different, imagine also a child coming home with a back eye or similar, and the kid who did it 'got away' with it, because I was deemed ok as the guy on TV can do it !
Ah - another person who imagines that his job equates to Clarkson's job. I'm happy for you to be sacked if you mess up and cost the company 'thousands', and if you kill a few by your actions jail sounds a good bet. That has precisely nothing to do with the Clarkson situation. I don't know why people imagine that it does, or why so many people feel obliged to tell us that in their position dobbing a colleague can only result in one outcome. So what? When you get to a position where you generate millions and in doing so keep down the cost of a hugely unpopular fee, and your job entertains millions worldwide, then you can tell us how you are subject to the same rules as everyone else. And for the umpteenth time, this is not a green light to hitting colleagues. There are more options to resolving this than either sack, or pat on the back and carry on.
The only benefit to sacking Clarkson over this is that it shows us all that rules is rules regardless, and that the enjoyment of millions worldwide and a reasonable compromise being reached is is subservient to that, in this particular situation.
I'm glad that I don't employ or am not employed by managers who have such a narrow outlook on the range of sanctions available.
And the number of pointless analogies - kid hit by another kid because tv guy does it - adds nothing. The discussion is about how Clarkson should be dealt with, given the implications of his actions & potential removal.
I wasn't agreeing with the call for Danny Cohen to be sacked but pointing out that in the original wording of Guido Fawkes' petition there was also 'Sack Danny Cohen not Jeremy Clarkson!' now removed; obviously he wants to appear reasonable.
...Guido is of course a right-wing mouthpiece isn't it.
To me, it beggars belief that there have been 2300 posts on this subject and regarding the petition above, how about this then:
People who, at time of writing this, had signed the petition to put pressure on the Saudi government to pardon Saef Badawi. Who? I hear you ask. Badawi is a journalist who has been sentenced to ten years in prison and 1000 lashes (fifty a week after Friday prayers until 1000 has been reached) for exercising freedom of speech: 1,019,309
Petition to reinstate a self publicising egomaniac who talks a lot about freedom of speech but never says anything of any interest or importance that might merit listening to: 1,015,487
The difference here, is that Badawi's petition was placed online by Amnesty International and the signatories are from all over the world. Clarkson's slavish fanbase is pretty much UK based.
Isn't that a sad and sorry reflection on our priorities?
If anybody wants to sign the petition for Badawi, and in doing so, actually contribute to something worthwhile for once in their life, click on the link below.
The poll asked for the reinstatement of Clarkson. You can extrapolate that how you like, but that's what the poll asked and that's why I signed it.
The poll actually asked for "Freedom to Fracas" - in other words, calling for Clarkson to be given the right to continue getting involved in "fracas" (punching colleagues and putting them in hospital) without fear of losing his job.
In all likelihood the petition that was handed into the BBC yesterday is already in shreds in their waste paper bin where it belongs.
The poll actually asked for "Freedom to Fracas" - in other words, calling for Clarkson to be given the right to continue getting involved in "fracas" (punching colleagues and putting them in hospital) without fear of losing his job.
In all likelihood the petition that was handed into the BBC yesterday is already in shreds in their waste paper bin where it belongs.
The poll was an invitation to support Clarkson's reinstatement; that it had a tag line of freedom to fracas was imo a tongue in cheek comment. Regardless, everyone who imagines that all of Clarkson's supporters believe he should have licence to punch people willy-nilly are either clutching at straws or have failed to grasp that there is more than the nuclear option of sacking him or letting him off scot free. It really is quite simple - those who continually argue that not sacking him is the equivalent of encouraging him to go around hitting whoever he feels like hitting, are not doing their anti-Clarkson / anti-TG arguments any favours. It has an air of desperation about it tbh, claiming such.
Ps interesting that you believe something that gathers a million signatures has absolutely zero validity. If there hadn't been a petition of this nature, I'd have contacted the BBC directly supporting his qualified reinstatement. Instead, I signed the petition. In what way does a million signatures make it invalid? At what number does it become valid? 500 is meaningless; the 100,000 that You Gov petitions need is meaningless. A million though? and you dismiss that? The word arrogant springs to mind.
Regardless, everyone who imagines that all of Clarkson's supporters believe he should have licence to punch people willy-nilly are either clutching at straws or have failed to grasp that there is more than the nuclear option of sacking him or letting him off scot free.
So what option are the petitioners calling for? Ah, they want Clarkson reinstated. So all is forgiven then. He's only been suspended during an investigation, which is standard employment policy for most companies. You think he should be reinstated straight away? Why should Clarkson be treated any different just because you're a fan? This goes way above fandom.
Ps interesting that you believe something that gathers a million signatures has absolutely zero validity. If there hadn't been a petition of this nature, I'd have contacted the BBC directly supporting his qualified reinstatement. Instead, I signed the petition. In what way does a million signatures make it invalid? At what number does it become valid? 500 is meaningless; the 100,000 that You Gov petitions need is meaningless. A million though? and you dismiss that? The word arrogant springs to mind.
Please tell me if I'm wrong, but do you know of a petition that has ever resulted in a change of policy? If you read the BBC's complaints policy it says (I'm paraphrasing here) it doesn't matter whether they get one complaint or a thousand complaints. They will assess the situation and if they've got it wrong - such as breached their own editorial guidelines - they will make a change, but if they haven't got it wrong then they won't.
Ah - another person who imagines that his job equates to Clarkson's job. I'm happy for you to be sacked if you mess up and cost the company 'thousands', and if you kill a few by your actions jail sounds a good bet. That has precisely nothing to do with the Clarkson situation. I don't know why people imagine that it does, or why so many people feel obliged to tell us that in their position dobbing a colleague can only result in one outcome. So what? When you get to a position where you generate millions and in doing so keep down the cost of a hugely unpopular fee, and your job entertains millions worldwide, then you can tell us how you are subject to the same rules as everyone else. And for the umpteenth time, this is not a green light to hitting colleagues. There are more options to resolving this than either sack, or pat on the back and carry on.
The only benefit to sacking Clarkson over this is that it shows us all that rules is rules regardless, and that the enjoyment of millions worldwide and a reasonable compromise being reached is is subservient to that, in this particular situation.
I'm glad that I don't employ or am not employed by managers who have such a narrow outlook on the range of sanctions available.
And the number of pointless analogies - kid hit by another kid because tv guy does it - adds nothing. The discussion is about how Clarkson should be dealt with, given the implications of his actions & potential removal.
To sun up your post
Because of who he is Clarkson can punch whoever he likes, whenever he likes, and the person being punched should consider it an honour and a privilege to be punched by someone so important that he will get away with it,
This has gone way and above the producer now...in fact it has gone right to the top. Decisions will be taken right at the top based on the evidence given to the internal investigation.
Nah, only if you want it to have, is. you're carrying some serious Clarkson baggage.
IIRC the definition covers everything from an argument to a fight, which is a pretty wide range of possibilities, as it can be a disagreement with raised voices, and not just "punching colleagues and putting them in hospital".
It's quite a nice word to use to describe something without giving any real details, yet some people seem to fixate on the extreme end of the range it covers.
Nah, only if you want it to have, is. you're carrying some serious Clarkson baggage.
Your sentence doesn't even make sense. But if you're trying to argue that Clarkson should be above the law and shouldn't bound by his own employment contract, then it's you that's carrying the baggage. You may be a fan of his, but you have to accept that he's responsible for his own actions and he will be held liable for them, just like everyone else.
Because of who he is Clarkson can punch whoever he likes, whenever he likes, and the person being punched should consider it an honour and a privilege to be punched by someone so important that he will get away with it,
Like I said, the anti arguments are in some places, looking a bit desperate. If the sentence* in the middle of my post that you quoted was too difficult for you, there's no point trying to debate it.
* The one that begins "for the umpteenth time". You saw it. It really isn't difficult. The bit about it being an honour is some weird fantasy that you invented.
The poll asked for the reinstatement of Clarkson. You can extrapolate that how you like, but that's what the poll asked and that's why I signed it.
...and given that Guido is a right-wing outlet explains very clearly what their agenda is!
Those supporting Clarkson is actually a really bad reflection on them. It actually says, inappropriate behavior is acceptable if I err like said person allegedly involved. Not something anyone should be signing up to.
The poll was an invitation to support Clarkson's reinstatement; that it had a tag line of freedom to fracas was imo a tongue in cheek comment. Regardless, everyone who imagines that all of Clarkson's supporters believe he should have licence to punch people willy-nilly are either clutching at straws or have failed to grasp that there is more than the nuclear option of sacking him or letting him off scot free. It really is quite simple - those who continually argue that not sacking him is the equivalent of encouraging him to go around hitting whoever he feels like hitting, are not doing their anti-Clarkson / anti-TG arguments any favours. It has an air of desperation about it tbh, claiming such.
Ps interesting that you believe something that gathers a million signatures has absolutely zero validity. If there hadn't been a petition of this nature, I'd have contacted the BBC directly supporting his qualified reinstatement. Instead, I signed the petition. In what way does a million signatures make it invalid? At what number does it become valid? 500 is meaningless; the 100,000 that You Gov petitions need is meaningless. A million though? and you dismiss that? The word arrogant springs to mind.
It's not valid at all...why? Because people are defending a bloke who allegedly behaved inappropriately in the work place. A tiny number of people are defending the indefensible. Stick the petition in recycling.
I see you are trying to defend the 'freedom to fracas' line. What excuse is it this time? Banter? 'Humour'? Utterly appalling.
When will some people understand that most of us like myself signed the petition for Clarkson to be reinstated ONLY, I'm dam sick of seeing comments saying things like you support violence just because you did, to whom who think this just do one.
When will some people understand that most of us like myself signed the petition for Clarkson to be reinstated ONLY, I'm dam sick of seeing comments saying things like you support violence just because you did, to whom who think this just do one.
But it's right isn't it? Signing a petition to get Clarkson reinstated is saying you're condoning violence in the work place.
Youre basically saying it should be forgotten about for the sake of a TV show.
Nah, only if you want it to have, is. you're carrying some serious Clarkson baggage.
Pat I am struggling to take you seriously now. Do you have any knowledge or understanding of disciplinary procedures? We aren't in the playground here where two kids have had a little scuffle...we are in a working environment. An incident happened...Clarkson 'fessed up to BBC bosses... Clarkson is suspended pending the outcome of an internal investigation.
Allow me to give you some scenarios...
1. Let's assume Clarkson assaulted his producer and no action is taken. What is the producer likely to do? What example is being set to other work places? What is the likely impact on the BBC in terms of it's reputation.
2. Clarkson did nothing and is sacked by the BBC. What is Clarkson likely to do? What example is being set to other work places? What is the likely impact on the BBC in terms of it's reputation.
The BBC are following proper procedure. The outcome of the investigation will be made public next week. At this point, the BBC must take the right course of action based on the evidence presented before it. Popularity, unpopularity, how much a 'talent' earns for the BBC cannot be taken into consideration at all. The BBC must do the right thing and be seen to do the right thing. This is incredibly important for the BBC.
To the Clarkson fans... he and only he is responsible for what he does and says. He has slipped up (putting it mildly) on many occasions in the past. He has been given more than enough chances to moderate his behavior / reign himself in. The question now is... is this latest 'incident' one step to far. We will see.
Comments
Sorry...please remind us who's behaviour is the cause of this current situation?
What we need is a 'Sack Jeremy Clarkson From The BBC' petition.
My contract of employment doesn't say that either! Civilised people just assume that you don't attack a fellow worker just because you're having a hissy-fit. Then again - the keyword is 'civilised'.
The only benefit to sacking Clarkson over this is that it shows us all that rules is rules regardless, and that the enjoyment of millions worldwide and a reasonable compromise being reached is is subservient to that, in this particular situation.
I'm glad that I don't employ or am not employed by managers who have such a narrow outlook on the range of sanctions available.
And the number of pointless analogies - kid hit by another kid because tv guy does it - adds nothing. The discussion is about how Clarkson should be dealt with, given the implications of his actions & potential removal.
...Guido is of course a right-wing mouthpiece isn't it.
...and a loony.
He really is.
It's a shame but all of the loons in politics these days seem to be right-wing. Where are the lefties of yesteryear? It's like they've given up.
To me, it beggars belief that there have been 2300 posts on this subject and regarding the petition above, how about this then:
People who, at time of writing this, had signed the petition to put pressure on the Saudi government to pardon Saef Badawi. Who? I hear you ask. Badawi is a journalist who has been sentenced to ten years in prison and 1000 lashes (fifty a week after Friday prayers until 1000 has been reached) for exercising freedom of speech: 1,019,309
Petition to reinstate a self publicising egomaniac who talks a lot about freedom of speech but never says anything of any interest or importance that might merit listening to: 1,015,487
The difference here, is that Badawi's petition was placed online by Amnesty International and the signatories are from all over the world. Clarkson's slavish fanbase is pretty much UK based.
Isn't that a sad and sorry reflection on our priorities?
If anybody wants to sign the petition for Badawi, and in doing so, actually contribute to something worthwhile for once in their life, click on the link below.
https://www.amnesty.org.uk/actions/saudi-arabia-free-raif-badawi-flogged-blogger?gclid=CjwKEAjwrbSoBRDok47Sv6Ci80wSJABFUszTiXU7TPs19RtX7s50zidvIOcoCkc9Xv9gTs1HISAwlRoCZhTw_wcB
Who regularly attacks the BBC, he can be as bad as the Daily Mail at times.
In all likelihood the petition that was handed into the BBC yesterday is already in shreds in their waste paper bin where it belongs.
Ps interesting that you believe something that gathers a million signatures has absolutely zero validity. If there hadn't been a petition of this nature, I'd have contacted the BBC directly supporting his qualified reinstatement. Instead, I signed the petition. In what way does a million signatures make it invalid? At what number does it become valid? 500 is meaningless; the 100,000 that You Gov petitions need is meaningless. A million though? and you dismiss that? The word arrogant springs to mind.
Please tell me if I'm wrong, but do you know of a petition that has ever resulted in a change of policy? If you read the BBC's complaints policy it says (I'm paraphrasing here) it doesn't matter whether they get one complaint or a thousand complaints. They will assess the situation and if they've got it wrong - such as breached their own editorial guidelines - they will make a change, but if they haven't got it wrong then they won't.
To sun up your post
Because of who he is Clarkson can punch whoever he likes, whenever he likes, and the person being punched should consider it an honour and a privilege to be punched by someone so important that he will get away with it,
Nah, only if you want it to have, is. you're carrying some serious Clarkson baggage.
IIRC the definition covers everything from an argument to a fight, which is a pretty wide range of possibilities, as it can be a disagreement with raised voices, and not just "punching colleagues and putting them in hospital".
It's quite a nice word to use to describe something without giving any real details, yet some people seem to fixate on the extreme end of the range it covers.
* The one that begins "for the umpteenth time". You saw it. It really isn't difficult. The bit about it being an honour is some weird fantasy that you invented.
...and given that Guido is a right-wing outlet explains very clearly what their agenda is!
Those supporting Clarkson is actually a really bad reflection on them. It actually says, inappropriate behavior is acceptable if I err like said person allegedly involved. Not something anyone should be signing up to.
It's not valid at all...why? Because people are defending a bloke who allegedly behaved inappropriately in the work place. A tiny number of people are defending the indefensible. Stick the petition in recycling.
I see you are trying to defend the 'freedom to fracas' line. What excuse is it this time? Banter? 'Humour'? Utterly appalling.
So what if it says underneath Freedom To Fracas.
But it's right isn't it? Signing a petition to get Clarkson reinstated is saying you're condoning violence in the work place.
Youre basically saying it should be forgotten about for the sake of a TV show.
Pat I am struggling to take you seriously now. Do you have any knowledge or understanding of disciplinary procedures? We aren't in the playground here where two kids have had a little scuffle...we are in a working environment. An incident happened...Clarkson 'fessed up to BBC bosses... Clarkson is suspended pending the outcome of an internal investigation.
Allow me to give you some scenarios...
1. Let's assume Clarkson assaulted his producer and no action is taken. What is the producer likely to do? What example is being set to other work places? What is the likely impact on the BBC in terms of it's reputation.
2. Clarkson did nothing and is sacked by the BBC. What is Clarkson likely to do? What example is being set to other work places? What is the likely impact on the BBC in terms of it's reputation.
The BBC are following proper procedure. The outcome of the investigation will be made public next week. At this point, the BBC must take the right course of action based on the evidence presented before it. Popularity, unpopularity, how much a 'talent' earns for the BBC cannot be taken into consideration at all. The BBC must do the right thing and be seen to do the right thing. This is incredibly important for the BBC.
To the Clarkson fans... he and only he is responsible for what he does and says. He has slipped up (putting it mildly) on many occasions in the past. He has been given more than enough chances to moderate his behavior / reign himself in. The question now is... is this latest 'incident' one step to far. We will see.