'see sense' ? If what he did is true, and there is no reason to think otherwise otherwise at the moment, then that is Gross Misconduct, and I would have thought in ANY Company that would end up in dismissal. and if the other guy 'lied' then the same would apply to him.
Certainly the Company I work for, it would be 'instant dismissal' with no notice, with a right to appeal, and if I was on a final warning already............!
No person is bigger then their employer
I think you will find that plenty of scuffles have taken place over the years at the BBC between the 'talent' and producers and most of the time it gets smoothed out quietly.
The issue with Clarkson is he has more enemies than friends at the BBC and this is not a one off but one of a string of incidents.
Do you mean because the BBC are just looking for any excuse to get rid of him, and whether this latest incident is true or not, it's just the latest in a long line of bad publicity, or because you tend to believe on balance that the reports of him punching a producer are true?
If the BBC conclude that reports of him punching the producer have been greatly exaggerated, then surely it would be un-fair to sack him?
Some people at the BBC want rid of him, I don't think that is a secret. If it were a one off it may well have been sorted out with a handshake and a pint, but it's not a one off from Jezza.
No one really knows what went on but I think BBC politics may be the decider.
the public should not have known this was happening until the investigation was completed, innocent until proven guilty. pretend everything is ok if necessary, the press intrusion is neither needed nor wanted by either gentleman.
was the programme shown really the back up for top gear not going ahead? no better contingency? or just something cheap to show for an hour on a sunday as they knew top gear was the ratings winner and no tg = give up?
How could they avoid the public knowing or questioning why Alan Carr was interviewing the star in a reasonably priced car? Could they trust schoolboys May and Hammond not to say something?
Why would any broadcaster have something of the quality you deem acceptable just lying around, surely it would have already been broadcast or due for broadcasting at a later date....they provided a fuel injected programme about the Red Arrows.
Granted they could have shown an episode of Sewing Bee and achieved a higher rating and brought out the feminine side of many Top Gear viewers.
The good thing to come out of this if he is gone, is that there will be further proof that online petitions mean sod all.
It's good if people recognise it, but a shame, because some online petitions are actually worth-while, especially when about something not in the mainstream media, and people work hard to get people to take an interest.
But yes, it says a lot when a million people apparently want to campaign to support someone who has been accused of bullying and violence. I hope those people realise that not only have they condoned violence and bullying in the workplace, but they have made it a lot harder for genuinely worthy projects to be taken seriously. I doubt won't care, unless they find themselves campaigning for something genuinely important in the future.
How could they avoid the public knowing or questioning why Alan Carr was interviewing the star in a reasonably priced car? Could they trust schoolboys May and Hammond not to say something?
Why would any broadcaster have something of the quality you deem acceptable just lying around, surely it would have already been broadcast or due for broadcasting at a later date....they provided a fuel injected programme about the Red Arrows.
Granted they could have shown an episode of Sewing Bee and achieved a higher rating and brought out the feminine side of many Top Gear viewers.
They should have kept clarkson on subject to the investigation in order to keep it private, the story broke nearly 2 weeks ago and all we have had is publicity stunts, public outrage etc, and whatever decision is made is going to be compromised by all of it.
may and hammond are two very smart men, they act like schoolboys because it is an ACT, they would be told how to behave and would do it.
Hypothetical question, top gear due to be broadcast, unforseen circumstances delay filming of live parts- what would the bbc do then? they would have something on standby surely?
It's good if people recognise it, but a shame, because some online petitions are actually worth-while, especially when about something not in the mainstream media, and people work hard to get people to take an interest.
But yes, it says a lot when a million people apparently want to campaign to support someone who has been accused of bullying and violence. I hope those people realise that not only have they condoned violence and bullying in the workplace, but they have made it a lot harder for genuinely worthy projects to be taken seriously. I doubt won't care, unless they find themselves campaigning for something genuinely important in the future.
I signed.
If it annoys people using hyperbole as a replacement for rational discussion, I'm happy.
They should have kept clarkson on subject to the investigation in order to keep it private, the story broke nearly 2 weeks ago and all we have had is publicity stunts, public outrage etc, and whatever decision is made is going to be compromised by all of it.
That's not how most companies would handle this sort of an issue. The member of staff would be suspended, either with or without pay, pending the outcome of the investigation. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a concept for the courts, employers are not obliged to follow that same principle if they have reason to believe a suspension is appropriate. Which is what the BBC have done.
It's three episodes of a TV programme which has been on for the past 13 years, it's not as though the nation is being asked to undergo rationing.
But yes, it says a lot when a million people apparently want to campaign to support someone who has been accused of bullying and violence.
Accused by whom, himself? AFAIK, the supposed recipient of this violence has yet to comment. Strange, if he's been the victim of an assault. Most peeps would call the police, but he seems content to let the BBC judge whether the law has been broken.
If, as Clarkson has alluded today, he has been sacked, then the BBC are in for a severe bashing. One million people prepared to sign a petition means there are at least ten times that amount, and possibly a great deal more who are not at all happy, but don't want to 'get involved' to the extent of giving their name, etc. Add to this the Top Gear audience in the wider world, and that is a tremendous amount of viewers to piss off, all over some hand-bagging.
If someone is parachuted in to replace Clarkson (quite possibly someone who is left wing and right on that would fit with Cohen's view of TV) on a bigger salary than them, they may both decide to walk, leaving the BBC with a bigger headache.
I have it from unreliable sources that Cohen's poaching Gok Wan as we speak. Perfect for a TG:NG makeover.
That's not how most companies would handle this sort of an issue. The member of staff would be suspended, either with or without pay, pending the outcome of the investigation. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a concept for the courts, employers are not obliged to follow that same principle if they have reason to believe a suspension is appropriate. Which is what the BBC have done.
It's three episodes of a TV programme which has been on for the past 13 years, it's not as though the nation is being asked to undergo rationing.
but when anything happens in the world of tv we are told that it is different to employees of a regular company, posters on ds cannot have it both ways
if the bbc had handled the matter discreetly then none of us would be any the wiser until the hearing and investigation had been completed, no abuse to the victim, no campaign to save clarkson- and why would there be? he could just be dismissed at the end of the series if that was the verdict, he could even choose to leave and we would be none the wiser, usual story of ''wanting a new challenge'' or ''going out on a high''
also if we are talking about other companies, no-one would know externally if someone was undergoing disciplinary/suspension or dismissal
Accused by whom, himself? AFAIK, the supposed recipient of this violence has yet to comment. Strange, if he's been the victim of an assault. Most peeps would call the police, but he seems content to let the BBC judge whether the law has been broken.
If, as Clarkson has alluded today, he has been sacked, then the BBC are in for a severe bashing. One million people prepared to sign a petition means there are at least ten times that amount, and possibly a great deal more who are not at all happy, but don't want to 'get involved' to the extent of giving their name, etc. Add to this the Top Gear audience in the wider world, and that is a tremendous amount of viewers to piss off, all over some hand-bagging.
Interesting that you have such a casual attitude towards violence (physical or otherwise) in the work place.
If Clarkson is sacked for his behaviour, he has no-one else to blame apart from himself. End of... How many 'final warnings' has this bloke been given?
Threats of violence / actual violence have no place in the work place or indeed outside of it.
And to those defending the alleged behaviour, I am actually astonished. #baffled in fact.
So what. It changes nothing. If he assaulted a fellow colleague, he needs to go. I expect the very highest standards from the BBC and our other public institutions / organisations.
So what. It changes nothing. If he assaulted a fellow colleague, he needs to go. I expect the very highest standards from the BBC and our other public institutions / organisations.
If the producer's good to go, and Clarkson grovels enough, that should be an end to it.
If the producer's looking to stick it to him, that's another matter. But I doubt that.
Hypothetical question, top gear due to be broadcast, unforseen circumstances delay filming of live parts- what would the bbc do then? they would have something on standby surely?
Hypothetical answer, Yes...a programme about the Red Arrows.
Accused by whom, himself? AFAIK, the supposed recipient of this violence has yet to comment. Strange, if he's been the victim of an assault. Most peeps would call the police, but he seems content to let the BBC judge whether the law has been broken.
If, as Clarkson has alluded today, he has been sacked, then the BBC are in for a severe bashing. One million people prepared to sign a petition means there are at least ten times that amount, and possibly a great deal more who are not at all happy, but don't want to 'get involved' to the extent of giving their name, etc. Add to this the Top Gear audience in the wider world, and that is a tremendous amount of viewers to piss off, all over some hand-bagging.
What's strange about the recipient not going to the police?
It seems he was prepared to take it on the chin, what we don't know is if there had been previous and the producer felt threatened he's the one whose said to have been abused online by petrol sniffers, he's been the one who has had death threats for what exactly?
If the recipient had taken it no further, if it was so petty, if it was just a hand-bagging why does it appear Jeremy Clarkson felt the need to inform the higher ups? Clarkson has management, crisis management, PR and legal advisers.
Jeremy Clarkson is the one who put his foot to the metal, did he discuss it with his old schoolchum & bedder?
Both may have felt it was petty and Clarkson reported it to his bosses just in case in got into the media but on checking the BBC are told a person was hit, felt dizzy and took themselves to hospital...I'd think they or any organisation would take it more seriously.
If the producer's good to go, and Clarkson grovels enough, that should be an end to it.
If the producer's looking to stick it to him, that's another matter. But I doubt that.
Not at all. It goes above and beyond the producer to the employer. If Clarkson has broken the terms of his employment, he needs to go. The same applies to the rest of working Britain, Clarkson is no different.
What's strange about the recipient not going to the police?
It seems he was prepared to take it on the chin, what we don't know is if there had been previous and the producer felt threatened he's the one whose said to have been abused online by petrol sniffers, he's been the one who has had death threats for what exactly?
If the recipient had taken it no further, if it was so petty, if it was just a hand-bagging why does it appear Jeremy Clarkson felt the need to inform the higher ups? Clarkson has management, crisis management, PR and legal advisers.
Jeremy Clarkson is the one who put his foot to the metal, did he discuss it with his old schoolchum & bedder?
Both may have felt it was petty and Clarkson reported it to his bosses just in case in got into the media but on checking the BBC are told a person was hit, felt dizzy and took themselves to hospital...I'd think they or any organisation would take it more seriously.
Absolutely right. I too have heard that the producer had to go to hospital.
What I can't get my head around is this...why people are defending the act of violence / assault at work just because they like the bloke. What a strange world we live in.
Not at all. It goes above and beyond the producer to the employer. If Clarkson has broken the terms of his employment, he needs to go. The same applies to the rest of working Britain, Clarkson is no different.
But he is different, like someone already said how may workers contribute to making £150 million for their company?
Absolutely right. I too have heard that the producer had to go to hospital.
What I can't get my head around is this...why people are defending the act of violence / assault at work just because they like the bloke. What a strange world we live in.
Because most people aren't. They seem to want him to continue doing the show, having taken whatever punishment the BBC deem to be appropriate for what he did (whatever that is). Breach of contract in this way doesn't necessarily involve getting the sack, there are other options. Over now to the BBC disciplinary, and Clarkson himself, whatever will be will be.
Comments
I think you will find that plenty of scuffles have taken place over the years at the BBC between the 'talent' and producers and most of the time it gets smoothed out quietly.
The issue with Clarkson is he has more enemies than friends at the BBC and this is not a one off but one of a string of incidents.
I think he's toast.
Some people at the BBC want rid of him, I don't think that is a secret. If it were a one off it may well have been sorted out with a handshake and a pint, but it's not a one off from Jezza.
No one really knows what went on but I think BBC politics may be the decider.
How could they avoid the public knowing or questioning why Alan Carr was interviewing the star in a reasonably priced car? Could they trust schoolboys May and Hammond not to say something?
Why would any broadcaster have something of the quality you deem acceptable just lying around, surely it would have already been broadcast or due for broadcasting at a later date....they provided a fuel injected programme about the Red Arrows.
Granted they could have shown an episode of Sewing Bee and achieved a higher rating and brought out the feminine side of many Top Gear viewers.
It's good if people recognise it, but a shame, because some online petitions are actually worth-while, especially when about something not in the mainstream media, and people work hard to get people to take an interest.
But yes, it says a lot when a million people apparently want to campaign to support someone who has been accused of bullying and violence. I hope those people realise that not only have they condoned violence and bullying in the workplace, but they have made it a lot harder for genuinely worthy projects to be taken seriously. I doubt won't care, unless they find themselves campaigning for something genuinely important in the future.
Must be a joke. They've not delivered the Clarkson report yet.
See post #2243
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showpost.php?p=77393483&postcount=2243
They should have kept clarkson on subject to the investigation in order to keep it private, the story broke nearly 2 weeks ago and all we have had is publicity stunts, public outrage etc, and whatever decision is made is going to be compromised by all of it.
may and hammond are two very smart men, they act like schoolboys because it is an ACT, they would be told how to behave and would do it.
Hypothetical question, top gear due to be broadcast, unforseen circumstances delay filming of live parts- what would the bbc do then? they would have something on standby surely?
If it annoys people using hyperbole as a replacement for rational discussion, I'm happy.
Well it's 3pm soo..
It's Jennifer Clarkson
https://www.facebook.com/RichardHammondFanClub/photos/a.235968186532160.53572.175283669267279/699712706824370/?type=1&theater
That's not how most companies would handle this sort of an issue. The member of staff would be suspended, either with or without pay, pending the outcome of the investigation. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a concept for the courts, employers are not obliged to follow that same principle if they have reason to believe a suspension is appropriate. Which is what the BBC have done.
It's three episodes of a TV programme which has been on for the past 13 years, it's not as though the nation is being asked to undergo rationing.
Accused by whom, himself? AFAIK, the supposed recipient of this violence has yet to comment. Strange, if he's been the victim of an assault. Most peeps would call the police, but he seems content to let the BBC judge whether the law has been broken.
If, as Clarkson has alluded today, he has been sacked, then the BBC are in for a severe bashing. One million people prepared to sign a petition means there are at least ten times that amount, and possibly a great deal more who are not at all happy, but don't want to 'get involved' to the extent of giving their name, etc. Add to this the Top Gear audience in the wider world, and that is a tremendous amount of viewers to piss off, all over some hand-bagging.
I have it from unreliable sources that Cohen's poaching Gok Wan as we speak. Perfect for a TG:NG makeover.
but when anything happens in the world of tv we are told that it is different to employees of a regular company, posters on ds cannot have it both ways
if the bbc had handled the matter discreetly then none of us would be any the wiser until the hearing and investigation had been completed, no abuse to the victim, no campaign to save clarkson- and why would there be? he could just be dismissed at the end of the series if that was the verdict, he could even choose to leave and we would be none the wiser, usual story of ''wanting a new challenge'' or ''going out on a high''
also if we are talking about other companies, no-one would know externally if someone was undergoing disciplinary/suspension or dismissal
Interesting that you have such a casual attitude towards violence (physical or otherwise) in the work place.
If Clarkson is sacked for his behaviour, he has no-one else to blame apart from himself. End of... How many 'final warnings' has this bloke been given?
Threats of violence / actual violence have no place in the work place or indeed outside of it.
And to those defending the alleged behaviour, I am actually astonished. #baffled in fact.
So what. It changes nothing. If he assaulted a fellow colleague, he needs to go. I expect the very highest standards from the BBC and our other public institutions / organisations.
If the producer's good to go, and Clarkson grovels enough, that should be an end to it.
If the producer's looking to stick it to him, that's another matter. But I doubt that.
Hypothetical answer, Yes...a programme about the Red Arrows.
What's strange about the recipient not going to the police?
It seems he was prepared to take it on the chin, what we don't know is if there had been previous and the producer felt threatened he's the one whose said to have been abused online by petrol sniffers, he's been the one who has had death threats for what exactly?
If the recipient had taken it no further, if it was so petty, if it was just a hand-bagging why does it appear Jeremy Clarkson felt the need to inform the higher ups? Clarkson has management, crisis management, PR and legal advisers.
Jeremy Clarkson is the one who put his foot to the metal, did he discuss it with his old schoolchum & bedder?
Both may have felt it was petty and Clarkson reported it to his bosses just in case in got into the media but on checking the BBC are told a person was hit, felt dizzy and took themselves to hospital...I'd think they or any organisation would take it more seriously.
Not at all. It goes above and beyond the producer to the employer. If Clarkson has broken the terms of his employment, he needs to go. The same applies to the rest of working Britain, Clarkson is no different.
Absolutely right. I too have heard that the producer had to go to hospital.
What I can't get my head around is this...why people are defending the act of violence / assault at work just because they like the bloke. What a strange world we live in.
It's a hearing about JC's conduct. What the producer wants or doesn't want won't make that much difference. its beyond that now.
But he is different, like someone already said how may workers contribute to making £150 million for their company?
Because most people aren't. They seem to want him to continue doing the show, having taken whatever punishment the BBC deem to be appropriate for what he did (whatever that is). Breach of contract in this way doesn't necessarily involve getting the sack, there are other options. Over now to the BBC disciplinary, and Clarkson himself, whatever will be will be.