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 took it as May just blithely playing with the journalists.
I just saw that as a kind of "Look, don't bother asking because I'm saying nothing" type of response.
Exactly what I think he was saying. Being a TV "character", but also someone with millions of pounds of income at stake, he wouldn't want to say nothing, or what he knew really happened, or a bland "I can't say anything about what happened without talking to my lawyer and agent" What he said perfectly fitted his TV "persona"
I bet he and Hammond must be pretty cheesed off about what happened to say the least.
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.
Whats that got to do with JC punching a producer ?
Not every company is as lacks as yours and ignore a violant act
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.
And the company doesn't have the inconvenience and expense of hiring and training replacement staff?
It could almost be considered to be a good result for all parties except, of course, for the outrage-by-proxy brigade, who will always demand satisfaction!!!
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.
I have plenty of experience in a wide variety of industries including construction - and I know that a boss does not get away with assaulting a junior member of staff. Not that it matters - you keep making excuses for something that was inexcusable - it doesn't matter where it happened, it was wrong. You are being an apologist for a bully and a thug. Shame on you.
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.
Yeah and a lot of us think it's a disgrace that it's allowed to happen. I know people who are involved in youth football and they are extremely frustrated with the behaviour of some players - and parents - but know it's not surprising when they see their heroes doing exactly the same things over and over and effectively getting away with it.
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.
Then the employer followed correct disciplinary procedures. The reason things have tightened up a lot is employers have an abundance of laws they are required to adhere to....not just company 'rules'.
My ex-employer was responsible for an employee that was still on the premises even after their shift had ended and they had officially 'clocked out'. Their responsibility only ended once the employee had exited the main gates. Much of that was to do with insurance.
I have plenty of experience in a wide variety of industries including construction - and I know that a boss does not get away with assaulting a junior member of staff. Not that it matters - you keep making excuses for something that was inexcusable - it doesn't matter where it happened, it was wrong. You are being an apologist for a bully and a thug. Shame on you.
In my experience, it's almost accepted-practice for bosses to "assault" junior members of staff.
Beyond that, though, you seem to be confusing my dislike for a reliance on formal discipline for condoning violence.
I certainly don't condone violence but I simply think it's naive, unproductive and sometimes downright inflammatory to arbitrarily resort to official sanctions rather than try to work things out amicably.
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.
And that has exactly what to do with this situation, other than you continuing to support Clarkson even after the verdict is in and he's gone?
And the company doesn't have the inconvenience and expense of hiring and training replacement staff?
It could almost be considered to be a good result for all parties except, of course, for the outrage-by-proxy brigade, who will always demand satisfaction!!!
The problem is that these things always revert to a kind of formal language that makes them sound worse than they probably were. Clarkson is a big oaf, but he also comes across as a kind of perennial public schoolboy who likely hasn't got a decent punch in him. I also think him ranting and raving wouldn't be too much of a concern to those who knew him best either. However, what we get of course is the official line "he verbally abused and physically assaulted his junior colleague!!!!"
What that probably means is he skulked about a bit shouting and calling the guy names, then there was probably a bit of a comedy tussle, then a half-hearted drunken slap that through sheer luck caught this guy in the lip. All very roll-eyes in nature, nothing much to worry about, but now it's all gone nuclear.
In my experience, it's almost accepted-practice for bosses to "assault" junior members of staff.
Beyond that, though, you seem to be confusing my dislike for a reliance on formal discipline for condoning violence.
I certainly don't condone violence but I simply think it's naive, unproductive and sometimes downright inflammatory to arbitrarily resort to official sanctions rather than try to work things out amicably.
You're forgetting that there were 4 independent witnesses to the incident and also that Clarkson (obviously aware of that) reported the matter himself.
Having been given a final warning just last year, there wasn't much else the BBC could do.
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.
He was on his last warning, so not sacking him would have set a precedent and would have placed him on an even higher pedestal than he was already on.
Football is different because it's a game that involves significant physical contact - I think Suarez should have been sacked....but, that said, if the TV industry operated like football, the BBC may well have just put Clarkson on the transfer list, where he would no doubt have been snapped up by another network.
Football and TV are different industries so comparing employment practices between them is pointless.
I find it strange that you signed a petition without full disclosure of the details being given.
I'm inclined to believe that he wasn't on anything of the sort, and that such a statement was made simply to placate the complainants following their last collective outrage.
The problem is that these things always revert to a kind of formal language that makes them sound worse than they probably were. Clarkson is a big oaf, but he also comes across as a kind of perennial public schoolboy who likely hasn't got a decent punch in him. I also think him ranting and raving wouldn't be too much of a concern to those who knew him best either. However, what we get of course is the official line "he verbally abused and physically assaulted his junior colleague!!!!"
What that probably means is he skulked about a bit shouting and calling the guy names, then there was probably a bit of a comedy tussle, then a half-hearted drunken slap that through sheer luck caught this guy in the lip. All very roll-eyes in nature, nothing much to worry about, but now it's all gone nuclear.
Haha, your delusion knows no bounds
He didn't skulk about at all. He shouted abuse so loud that the diners heard him and people in bedrooms heard him. His language was unrepeatable , apparently. It went on for over 20 minutes. He was pissed and angry and volatile . Then to really make his drunken point he socked the guy. This wasn't a row , this was a drunk venting his spleen at a minion. Poor show , and I'm glad he is gone.
He was on his last warning, so not sacking him would have set a precedent and would have placed him on an even higher pedestal than he was already on.
Football is different because it's a game that involved significant physical contact - I think Suarez should have been sacked....but, that said, if the TV industry operated like football, the BBC may well have just put Clarkson on the transfer list, where he would no doubt have been snapped up by another network.
Football and TV are different industries so comparing employment practices between them is pointless.
I find it strange that you signed a petition without full disclosure of the details being given.
He was on his last warning but has never been suspended before, so why not a suspension? Then the sack if he misbehaved again?
I bet I'm right, in that if one were able to go back in time, be a fly on the wall and witness it, it wouldn't be half as bad as reported. These things are always blown out of proportion.
Some nice words from James May on that interview. "As much as I think he's a knob, I quite like working with Jeremy" and tellingly "It's a shame that something small which could have easily been sorted out became something big"
In fairness, I think the 'something small' May is referring to is the lack of hot food. Jeremy turned it into a big deal.
I'm inclined to believe that he wasn't on anything of the sort, and that such a statement was made simply to placate the complainants following their last collective outrage.
Well, we only have what JC said regarding this and without anyone else contradicting it, I can't see how we can disagree with it.
Comments
I took it as May just blithely playing with the journalists.
Exactly what I think he was saying. Being a TV "character", but also someone with millions of pounds of income at stake, he wouldn't want to say nothing, or what he knew really happened, or a bland "I can't say anything about what happened without talking to my lawyer and agent" What he said perfectly fitted his TV "persona"
I bet he and Hammond must be pretty cheesed off about what happened to say the least.
Whats that got to do with JC punching a producer ?
Not every company is as lacks as yours and ignore a violant act
And the company doesn't have the inconvenience and expense of hiring and training replacement staff?
It could almost be considered to be a good result for all parties except, of course, for the outrage-by-proxy brigade, who will always demand satisfaction!!!
I have plenty of experience in a wide variety of industries including construction - and I know that a boss does not get away with assaulting a junior member of staff. Not that it matters - you keep making excuses for something that was inexcusable - it doesn't matter where it happened, it was wrong. You are being an apologist for a bully and a thug. Shame on you.
That would have seemed funny at first, in fact it is a pity he didn't thump JC back.
Oisin Tymon showed great discipline and strenght and came out the better man by not thumping him back
Yeah and a lot of us think it's a disgrace that it's allowed to happen. I know people who are involved in youth football and they are extremely frustrated with the behaviour of some players - and parents - but know it's not surprising when they see their heroes doing exactly the same things over and over and effectively getting away with it.
My ex-employer was responsible for an employee that was still on the premises even after their shift had ended and they had officially 'clocked out'. Their responsibility only ended once the employee had exited the main gates. Much of that was to do with insurance.
In my experience, it's almost accepted-practice for bosses to "assault" junior members of staff.
Beyond that, though, you seem to be confusing my dislike for a reliance on formal discipline for condoning violence.
I certainly don't condone violence but I simply think it's naive, unproductive and sometimes downright inflammatory to arbitrarily resort to official sanctions rather than try to work things out amicably.
And that has exactly what to do with this situation, other than you continuing to support Clarkson even after the verdict is in and he's gone?
The problem is that these things always revert to a kind of formal language that makes them sound worse than they probably were. Clarkson is a big oaf, but he also comes across as a kind of perennial public schoolboy who likely hasn't got a decent punch in him. I also think him ranting and raving wouldn't be too much of a concern to those who knew him best either. However, what we get of course is the official line "he verbally abused and physically assaulted his junior colleague!!!!"
What that probably means is he skulked about a bit shouting and calling the guy names, then there was probably a bit of a comedy tussle, then a half-hearted drunken slap that through sheer luck caught this guy in the lip. All very roll-eyes in nature, nothing much to worry about, but now it's all gone nuclear.
"Listen, my wife left me last night...."
"I found out this morning that my brother has terminal cancer..."
Both may well have changed the outcome of his disciplinary.
Because blueblade made a blanket statement about all workplaces, which obviously isn't true.
You're forgetting that there were 4 independent witnesses to the incident and also that Clarkson (obviously aware of that) reported the matter himself.
Having been given a final warning just last year, there wasn't much else the BBC could do.
He was on his last warning, so not sacking him would have set a precedent and would have placed him on an even higher pedestal than he was already on.
Football is different because it's a game that involves significant physical contact - I think Suarez should have been sacked....but, that said, if the TV industry operated like football, the BBC may well have just put Clarkson on the transfer list, where he would no doubt have been snapped up by another network.
Football and TV are different industries so comparing employment practices between them is pointless.
I find it strange that you signed a petition without full disclosure of the details being given.
I'm inclined to believe that he wasn't on anything of the sort, and that such a statement was made simply to placate the complainants following their last collective outrage.
Haha, your delusion knows no bounds
He didn't skulk about at all. He shouted abuse so loud that the diners heard him and people in bedrooms heard him. His language was unrepeatable , apparently. It went on for over 20 minutes. He was pissed and angry and volatile . Then to really make his drunken point he socked the guy. This wasn't a row , this was a drunk venting his spleen at a minion. Poor show , and I'm glad he is gone.
He was on his last warning but has never been suspended before, so why not a suspension? Then the sack if he misbehaved again?
What better manner would you suggest, for someone who hit a colleague who'd not attacked him, by the account that seems now agreed.
I bet I'm right, in that if one were able to go back in time, be a fly on the wall and witness it, it wouldn't be half as bad as reported. These things are always blown out of proportion.
In fairness, I think the 'something small' May is referring to is the lack of hot food. Jeremy turned it into a big deal.
Well, we only have what JC said regarding this and without anyone else contradicting it, I can't see how we can disagree with it.