In the construction industry, where it's common for people to work together, live together and go out drinking together, if they fired everybody who got into a scuffle, nothing would ever get built.
.
Presumably you do know that this incident had nothing to do with people 'getting into a scuffle'. Someone abused, threatened and finally hit a more junior employee, who believed that his job depended on him, so was unable to retaliate in any way. That is not a 'scuffle' by any wild flight of the imagination.
Presumably you do know that this incident had nothing to do with people 'getting into a scuffle'. Someone abused, threatened and finally hit a more junior employee, who believed that his job depended on him, so was unable to retaliate in any way. That is not a 'scuffle' by any wild flight of the imagination.
If it takes place inside the average modern open plan office it will be multi witnessed, and those witnesses will probably include managers as well.
I agree that a building site is a bit different, so to some extent it depends on the type of workplace, but I'd say in the majority of cases, violent conduct would lead to dismissal. .
It doesn't really work like that - investigations must take place and considerations made with any mitigating/extenuating circumstances offered as some kind of defence (i.e. dealing with a terminally ill family member, money troubles, divorce, etc.). Looking at their previous employment record matters, too.
Instances of violence within a workplace shouldn't always be an open and shut case.
That said, it very much depends on the type and size of the business, too.....I daresay that a small family run business may well just sack someone for violent conduct, irrespective of any mitigation offered.
Must admit, I really do usually like James May but his comments show him as somebody who's equally determined to paint himself as "a bit of a lad" and, at the same time, remain firmly non-committal.
And why not remain non-committal? At least in public.
They both know they would be damned whether they stick up for him, say he was wrong or say nothing and the best out of the three is to be non-committal.
It does seem Clarkson has been under personal life stress and also writing and starring in a and presenting a world-wide show has to be stressful. Not excusing him punching someone. If there hadn't been a punch it might have been different - BBC tells him to go and sort his head out. I know of people who have flared up at work a bit and been told to sort themselves out along with a warning.
Presumably you do know that this incident had nothing to do with people 'getting into a scuffle'. Someone abused, threatened and finally hit a more junior employee, who believed that his job depended on him, so was unable to retaliate in any way. That is not a 'scuffle' by any wild flight of the imagination.
Honestly, if you really believe it was as serious as you make it sound then I genuinely fear for the future of this country.
And why not remain non-committal? At least in public.
There's nothing wrong with being non-committal.
It's the whole "I was blind drunk so I didn't see anything" that strikes me as a bit disingenuous or, at least, unnecessary.
Since his sacking, this thread has trundled on quite a few pages - has anyone asked those who previously signed the Bring Back Clarkson petition if they still believe he shouldn't have been sacked? Do we know if any DS members signed it?
I guess in your ideal 'non-pc' world, everyone could just go around lamping people without any repercussion.
I really wouldn't want to live in that world.
I'm not sure where you got that idea.
It's about as realistic as me suggesting that I wouldn't want to live in a world where it was impossible to voice any criticism without fear of being pilloried for "abuse".
In the construction industry, where it's common for people to work together, live together and go out drinking together, if they fired everybody who got into a scuffle, nothing would ever get built.
In my experience, people are always offered the option of formal disciplinary proceedings but it's usually preferred if things can be sorted out amicably.
This isn't the construction industry though - but the biggest difference is that this wasn't a scuffle between two co-workers... it was a bullying violent assault by a person in authority against someone who, effectively, worked for them and who did not fight back. I doubt even in the rufty-tufty world of construction that would be tolerated - aside from anything else I suspect the unions would down-tools in a heartbeat.
What Clarkson did was wrong - what the BBC did was right. There is no defence for what Clarkson did ... none at all.
Since his sacking, this thread has trundled on quite a few pages - has anyone asked those who previously signed the Bring Back Clarkson petition if they still believe he shouldn't have been sacked? Do we know if any DS members signed it?
TBH, I certainly didn't sign it but, aside from blind loyalty, I suppose there might be people who think that there's such a dearth of decent shows being created by the BBC that they'd want Clarkson kept on simply because they think TG was one of the only things worth watching.
There's nothing wrong with being non-committal.
It's the whole "I was blind drunk so I didn't see anything" that strikes me as a bit disingenuous or, at least, unnecessary.
I just saw that as a kind of "Look, don't bother asking because I'm saying nothing" type of response.
It doesn't really work like that - investigations must take place and considerations made with any mitigating/extenuating circumstances offered as some kind of defence (i.e. dealing with a terminally ill family member, money troubles, divorce, etc.). Looking at their previous employment record matters, too.
Instances of violence within a workplace shouldn't always be an open and shut case.
That said, it very much depends on the type and size of the business, too.....I daresay that a small family run business may well just sack someone for violent conduct, irrespective of any mitigation offered.
Oh sure, for cases like Clarkson's, there'd be an investigation and a report, whilst the person was suspended. Then they'd be sacked.
What is wrong with some people ? JC punched a colleague because he didnt get his dinner and still some will justify it or excuse it or think it could have been "sorted "
I despair sometimes
Since his sacking, this thread has trundled on quite a few pages - has anyone asked those who previously signed the Bring Back Clarkson petition if they still believe he shouldn't have been sacked? Do we know if any DS members signed it?
I signed it. I think a suspension would be the best way. After all (as mentioned on Newsnight) if a footballer lamps someone on the pitch he gets a suspension or a fine or both. Not usually the complete and utter sack.
Who's that plonker who has a habit of biting opposing players? He's done it at least twice and he seems to still playing.
Not mine. I posted when this kicked off that we had two guys rolling around in the car park a while back because one rented a flat from the other, and they had a disagreement about the rent. They were split up and sent home, but both came back to work the next day.
What kind of employment/employer is that?
Is your employer aware of their legal obligations to all employees during working hours? If what you say is true then it would seem not. They will soon find out when sitting in the dock facing charges of negligence.
Your employers insurance company would also be very interested in what you've written!
In the construction industry, where it's common for people to work together, live together and go out drinking together, if they fired everybody who got into a scuffle, nothing would ever get built.
Employers are responsible for the safety of all employees during working hours.
In my experience, people are always offered the option of formal disciplinary proceedings but it's usually preferred if things can be sorted out amicably.
Any half decent law abiding employer who values keeping his business makes no 'options' at all. Employers have Disciplinary procedures in place for a purpose. It's not there for a bit of fun to be used or abused at anyones whim or fancy.
No employer in his right mind would practice the kind of 'gung ho' approach to work you seem to think is the way. "OK you pair, it's either a punch up outside and the winner is the guy in the right....or you can have a written warning instead so what's it to be?"
You've been watching too many Clint Eastwood movies!
This isn't the construction industry though - but the biggest difference is that this wasn't a scuffle between two co-workers... it was a bullying violent assault by a person in authority against someone who, effectively, worked for them and who did not fight back. I doubt even in the rufty-tufty world of construction that would be tolerated - aside from anything else I suspect the unions would down-tools in a heartbeat.
What Clarkson did was wrong - what the BBC did was right. There is no defence for what Clarkson did ... none at all.
It absolutely beggars belief that intelligent adults on here are still making excuses for Clarkson's act.
The cold reality is that if it happened to them, they wouldn't be.
This isn't the construction industry though - but the biggest difference is that this wasn't a scuffle between two co-workers... it was a bullying violent assault by a person in authority against someone who, effectively, worked for them and who did not fight back. I doubt even in the rufty-tufty world of construction that would be tolerated - aside from anything else I suspect the unions would down-tools in a heartbeat.
What Clarkson did was wrong - what the BBC did was right. There is no defence for what Clarkson did ... none at all.
It wasn't an open-plan office where everybody works from 9 to 5 and then goes home either.
I'd say that TV production has quite a bit in common with living & working conditions in the construction industry.
Your comment about unions downing-tools suggests you have little experience of the construction industry, where a similar incident would quite easily be resolved by several of Tymon's friends suggesting that Clarkson might be called upon to buy everybody food and beer for a few days by way of apology.
Is your employer aware of their legal obligations to all employees during working hours? If what you say is true then it would seem not. They will soon find out when sitting in the dock facing charges of negligence.
My employer is a huge company in the industry. But this was sorted out locally at site level with both getting warnings. It was on our property, but out of hours as it was as both had finished their working day, and their disagreement was of a personal nature. They're best of mates again now, these things blow over.
Comments
I think you have an extremely weird view of what constitutes acceptable behaviour in the workplace.
I'd suggest it was simply a more realistic one.
Like anything, somebody always has to throw the first punch.
Presumably you do know that this incident had nothing to do with people 'getting into a scuffle'. Someone abused, threatened and finally hit a more junior employee, who believed that his job depended on him, so was unable to retaliate in any way. That is not a 'scuffle' by any wild flight of the imagination.
It was a fracas, not a scuffle.
It doesn't really work like that - investigations must take place and considerations made with any mitigating/extenuating circumstances offered as some kind of defence (i.e. dealing with a terminally ill family member, money troubles, divorce, etc.). Looking at their previous employment record matters, too.
Instances of violence within a workplace shouldn't always be an open and shut case.
That said, it very much depends on the type and size of the business, too.....I daresay that a small family run business may well just sack someone for violent conduct, irrespective of any mitigation offered.
And why not remain non-committal? At least in public.
They both know they would be damned whether they stick up for him, say he was wrong or say nothing and the best out of the three is to be non-committal.
It does seem Clarkson has been under personal life stress and also writing and starring in a and presenting a world-wide show has to be stressful. Not excusing him punching someone. If there hadn't been a punch it might have been different - BBC tells him to go and sort his head out. I know of people who have flared up at work a bit and been told to sort themselves out along with a warning.
Honestly, if you really believe it was as serious as you make it sound then I genuinely fear for the future of this country.
I guess in your ideal 'non-pc' world, everyone could just go around lamping people without any repercussion.
I really wouldn't want to live in that world.
There's nothing wrong with being non-committal.
It's the whole "I was blind drunk so I didn't see anything" that strikes me as a bit disingenuous or, at least, unnecessary.
I'm not sure where you got that idea.
It's about as realistic as me suggesting that I wouldn't want to live in a world where it was impossible to voice any criticism without fear of being pilloried for "abuse".
This isn't the construction industry though - but the biggest difference is that this wasn't a scuffle between two co-workers... it was a bullying violent assault by a person in authority against someone who, effectively, worked for them and who did not fight back. I doubt even in the rufty-tufty world of construction that would be tolerated - aside from anything else I suspect the unions would down-tools in a heartbeat.
What Clarkson did was wrong - what the BBC did was right. There is no defence for what Clarkson did ... none at all.
TBH, I certainly didn't sign it but, aside from blind loyalty, I suppose there might be people who think that there's such a dearth of decent shows being created by the BBC that they'd want Clarkson kept on simply because they think TG was one of the only things worth watching.
I just saw that as a kind of "Look, don't bother asking because I'm saying nothing" type of response.
Oh sure, for cases like Clarkson's, there'd be an investigation and a report, whilst the person was suspended. Then they'd be sacked.
I despair sometimes
I signed it. I think a suspension would be the best way. After all (as mentioned on Newsnight) if a footballer lamps someone on the pitch he gets a suspension or a fine or both. Not usually the complete and utter sack.
Who's that plonker who has a habit of biting opposing players? He's done it at least twice and he seems to still playing.
Is your employer aware of their legal obligations to all employees during working hours? If what you say is true then it would seem not. They will soon find out when sitting in the dock facing charges of negligence.
Your employers insurance company would also be very interested in what you've written!
Employers are responsible for the safety of all employees during working hours.
Any half decent law abiding employer who values keeping his business makes no 'options' at all. Employers have Disciplinary procedures in place for a purpose. It's not there for a bit of fun to be used or abused at anyones whim or fancy.
No employer in his right mind would practice the kind of 'gung ho' approach to work you seem to think is the way. "OK you pair, it's either a punch up outside and the winner is the guy in the right....or you can have a written warning instead so what's it to be?"
You've been watching too many Clint Eastwood movies!
It absolutely beggars belief that intelligent adults on here are still making excuses for Clarkson's act.
The cold reality is that if it happened to them, they wouldn't be.
It wasn't an open-plan office where everybody works from 9 to 5 and then goes home either.
I'd say that TV production has quite a bit in common with living & working conditions in the construction industry.
Your comment about unions downing-tools suggests you have little experience of the construction industry, where a similar incident would quite easily be resolved by several of Tymon's friends suggesting that Clarkson might be called upon to buy everybody food and beer for a few days by way of apology.
My thoughts exactly . What is wrong with some people ?
My employer is a huge company in the industry. But this was sorted out locally at site level with both getting warnings. It was on our property, but out of hours as it was as both had finished their working day, and their disagreement was of a personal nature. They're best of mates again now, these things blow over.