Regarding Clarkson's departure from Top Gear, where does this leave his business partner Andy Wilman, exec producer of the show? The BBC apparently pays a fee to their joint company.
Regarding Clarkson's departure from Top Gear, where does this leave his business partner Andy Wilman, exec producer of the show? The BBC apparently pays a fee to their joint company.
Regarding Clarkson's departure from Top Gear, where does this leave his business partner Andy Wilman, exec producer of the show? The BBC apparently pays a fee to their joint company.
I would think there's a very good chance that Clarkson, Wilman, Hammond and May will all defect with key members of the production team (probably not Tymon) to their new home.
It's inconceivable that Wilman will carry on as Exec Producer without his best mate Jezza.
Regarding Clarkson's departure from Top Gear, where does this leave his business partner Andy Wilman, exec producer of the show? The BBC apparently pays a fee to their joint company.
I would think there's a very good chance that Clarkson, Wilman, Hammond and May will all defect with key members of the production team (probably not Tymon) to their new home.
It's inconceivable that Wilman will carry on as Exec Producer without his best mate Jezza.
Well people were commenting on how the format had become stale, and a parody of itself. Having to make a new format to avoid copyright issues should help!
Most English and Welsh will believe he is. I'd be very narked if I were Ms Sturgeon.
Or is it a coordinated campaign against SLAB?
It's a good cop, bad cop routine.
Salmond pretty much does not appear in Scottish media, his only appearances in the last 3 months I can recall being his interviews with BBC and STV politics shows on the day his book launched. Nothing before or since.
Meanwhile Nicola is building a very strong support base, both in Scotland and England. She is already the most popular party leader UK-wide and she's only done two days of public relations in England so far.
Meanwhile the media is too obsessed with Salmond to try to attack Nicola at all. It's a strong strategy and working well.
Have you read Salmond's weird, flirtatious, flutes of pink champagne interview with Nelson in the Spectator ? In it Eck reminded me of Hannibal Lecter.
So Clarkson delenda est (for 5 minutes until he and May and Hammond reappear with a lookalike show for twice the money on Sky or somesuch).
Some think the Beeb has done this only ostensibly for waving his fists at some 'lazy Irish cnut' but in reality because Auntie's lefty suits can't bear his politics and worldview. So...I have a rocking great idea:
Kick off the new Top Gear on the BBC with presenters Frankie Boyle, Jimmy Carr and Ricky Gervais. It'd be a riot!
OR, it could be because nobody is allowed to attack another BBC employee and get away with it. "It is understood a report into the so-called ‘fracas’ at a North Yorkshire hotel, concluded that presenter spent 20 minutes verbally abusing producer Oisin Tymon, before launching a 30 second physical assault on him. [Daily Telegraph]"
Only 20 minutes? Is that all? Mr Tymon would not have lasted long with ooh say Mariah Carey. But Clarkson is stupid for being a prima donna and should not have got in a fight or hit anyone. I suspect the incident was overblown but there was no need for it to happen in the first place.
Well that article headline has manged to put an amazingly different slant to all the other journos that were at that lunch.
Salmond didn't say he would unconditionally support Labour. He said he would unconditionally vote against a Conservative Queen's speech. Which is the oldest of old news.
...doesn't distinguish between the BBC's broadcast operations and BBC Worldwide. I assume Worldwide, which runs the Top Gear Live events and publishes Top Gear magazine (of which JC is a co-editor) and puts out the TG DVDs, is a separate organisation. Has it also given up its contracts with JC?
Also, will the BBC (and Dave, which it co-owns) now cease showing all the repeats of TG? It would be hypocrisy for them to now show them wouldn't it?
Most English and Welsh will believe he is. I'd be very narked if I were Ms Sturgeon.
Or is it a coordinated campaign against SLAB?
It's a good cop, bad cop routine.
Salmond pretty much does not appear in Scottish media, his only appearances in the last 3 months I can recall being his interviews with BBC and STV politics shows on the day his book launched. Nothing before or since.
Meanwhile Nicola is building a very strong support base, both in Scotland and England. She is already the most popular party leader UK-wide and she's only done two days of public relations in England so far.
Meanwhile the media is too obsessed with Salmond to try to attack Nicola at all. It's a strong strategy and working well.
People can only see the leadership of political parties in terms of the example set by the Conservatives, Labour and the Lib Dems. They just can't accept a situation where the leading members of the party are working together, rather than engaging in non-stop internecine struggle, because they don't know anything else.
Regarding Clarkson's departure from Top Gear, where does this leave his business partner Andy Wilman, exec producer of the show? The BBC apparently pays a fee to their joint company.
BBC 'hoping' to continue show in 2016
Given that Chris Evans has already said today he will not replace Clarkson under any circumstances I think that is something of a forlorn hope. The programme may come back in some form but it will no longer be the BBC flagship export and I suspect the UK audiences will be a fraction of what they were.
Most English and Welsh will believe he is. I'd be very narked if I were Ms Sturgeon.
Or is it a coordinated campaign against SLAB?
It's a good cop, bad cop routine.
Salmond pretty much does not appear in Scottish media, his only appearances in the last 3 months I can recall being his interviews with BBC and STV politics shows on the day his book launched. Nothing before or since.
Meanwhile Nicola is building a very strong support base, both in Scotland and England. She is already the most popular party leader UK-wide and she's only done two days of public relations in England so far.
Meanwhile the media is too obsessed with Salmond to try to attack Nicola at all. It's a strong strategy and working well.
People can only see the leadership of political parties in terms of the example set by the Conservatives, Labour and the Lib Dems. They just can't accept a situation where the leading members of the party are working together, rather than engaging in non-stop internecine struggle, because they don't know anything else.
Cameron and Clegg despite one or two lovers' tiffs (Boundaries, AV) have managed it well
Most English and Welsh will believe he is. I'd be very narked if I were Ms Sturgeon.
Or is it a coordinated campaign against SLAB?
It's a good cop, bad cop routine.
Salmond pretty much does not appear in Scottish media, his only appearances in the last 3 months I can recall being his interviews with BBC and STV politics shows on the day his book launched. Nothing before or since.
Meanwhile Nicola is building a very strong support base, both in Scotland and England. She is already the most popular party leader UK-wide and she's only done two days of public relations in England so far.
Meanwhile the media is too obsessed with Salmond to try to attack Nicola at all. It's a strong strategy and working well.
People can only see the leadership of political parties in terms of the example set by the Conservatives, Labour and the Lib Dems. They just can't accept a situation where the leading members of the party are working together, rather than engaging in non-stop internecine struggle, because they don't know anything else.
Cameron and Clegg despite one or two lover's tiffs (Boundaries, AV) have managed it well
Yes, but that's because neither is after the other person's job, as leader of the Liberal Democrats/Conservatives.
sean thomas knox @thomasknox Whatever you think of Clarkson, his going means the BBC retreats ever more into a ghetto of left wing "acceptable" opinion: Guardian-on-TV
July 2010 Jeremy Clarkson In the same month, Alastair Campbell revealed on his blog that, in unaired comments, Clarkson had rebuffed claims that he wasn’t very sound on gay rights by replying “Oh yes I am. I demand the right not to be bummed.”
I wonder if they will launch Clarkson off the end of an aircraft carrier? Ahh, they will have a problem, unless they borrow the one parked in the Solent?
I wonder if they will launch Clarkson off the end of an aircraft carrier? Ahh, they will have a problem, unless they borrow the one parked in the Solent?
On topic, off topic - @Nigel4England Mentioned Jodie Kidd last night - his record on current events/reality betting is pretty good and she is 5-1 at Ladbrokes.
Chris Evans looks far too short at 2-5 seeing as he doesn't want the job and doesn't need the money. I don't think the format would work with him in charge either.
How far would Clarkson have to have gone in abusing the producer before the BBC's would have been justified in this decision?
Put it this way. I have been the witness (I mean officially in inquiries) to four separate assaults in the workplace in the last 15 years. Three of them were completely unprovoked as far as I could see and all involved actual physical violence worse than Clarkson is accused of.
In only one of these cases was the accused dismissed. And that was because his actions were found to be due to drugs and he was dismissed for the drug taking not the assault.
In all three other cases - all with different companies - the attacker was docked pay, demoted and/or made to attend courses on anger management or some such. In one case there was a police involvement and he also received a suspended sentence for assault.
Companies do not generally sack people for assaults because they are liable to find themselves being hauled up in front of tribunals and the sacked employee can generally show lack of proper HR management, stress or some other reason why the firm was responsible.
I would be amazed if the BBC didn't have similar cases on its files where they have not sacked the attacker. If and when they come out it will make an interesting comparison.
There were a whole host of ways they could have dealt with this and the fact they used it as an opportunity to get rid of him is just plain dumb.
Clarkson was equally dumb to have made the attack in the first place but in the long run it is the licence fee payer who will lose out here having to compensate for the lost revenue not Clarkson.
On topic, off topic - @Nigel4England Mentioned Jodie Kidd last night - his record on current events/reality betting is pretty good and she is 5-1 at Ladbrokes.
Chris Evans looks far too short at 2-5 seeing as he doesn't want the job and doesn't need the money. I don't think the format would work with him in charge either.
Presumably Tiff Needell and Chris Goffey are anxiously waiting by their phones.
Jodie Kidd isn't half a bad shout though. Can't get odds on my work computer - anything on Steve Coogan?
Most English and Welsh will believe he is. I'd be very narked if I were Ms Sturgeon.
Or is it a coordinated campaign against SLAB?
It's a good cop, bad cop routine.
Salmond pretty much does not appear in Scottish media, his only appearances in the last 3 months I can recall being his interviews with BBC and STV politics shows on the day his book launched. Nothing before or since.
Meanwhile Nicola is building a very strong support base, both in Scotland and England. She is already the most popular party leader UK-wide and she's only done two days of public relations in England so far.
Meanwhile the media is too obsessed with Salmond to try to attack Nicola at all. It's a strong strategy and working well.
Have there been England-only polls on Nicola? I wouldn't call two days of PR "building a very strong support base".
She was on plus 7 in The Times Yougov poll on Sunday, all the other leaders were negative.
On topic, off topic - @Nigel4England Mentioned Jodie Kidd last night - his record on current events/reality betting is pretty good and she is 5-1 at Ladbrokes.
Chris Evans looks far too short at 2-5 seeing as he doesn't want the job and doesn't need the money. I don't think the format would work with him in charge either.
Presumably Tiff Needell and Chris Goffey are anxiously waiting by their phones.
Jodie Kidd isn't half a bad shout though. Can't get odds on my work computer - anything on Steve Coogan?
How far would Clarkson have to have gone in abusing the producer before the BBC's would have been justified in this decision?
Put it this way. I have been the witness (I mean officially in inquiries) to four separate assaults in the workplace in the last 15 years. Three of them were completely unprovoked as far as I could see and all involved actual physical violence worse than Clarkson is accused of.
In only one of these cases was the accused dismissed. And that was because his actions were found to be due to drugs and he was dismissed for the drug taking not the assault.
In all three other cases - all with different companies - the attacker was docked pay, demoted and/or made to attend courses on anger management or some such. In one case there was a police involvement and he also received a suspended sentence for assault.
Companies do not generally sack people for assaults because they are liable to find themselves being hauled up in front of tribunals and the sacked employee can generally show lack of proper HR management, stress or some other reason why the firm was responsible.
I would be amazed if the BBC didn't have similar cases on its files where they have not sacked the attacker. If and when they come out it will make an interesting comparison.
There were a whole host of ways they could have dealt with this and the fact they used it as an opportunity to get rid of him is just plain dumb.
Clarkson was equally dumb to have made the attack in the first place but in the long run it is the licence fee payer who will lose out here having to compensate for the lost revenue not Clarkson.
Disagree 100%.
For some things, there should be zero tolerance and physical violence is one of them. If I were to physically attack my boss, I would be gob-smacked if I wasn't sacked.
To be honest I don't know why the press bothers to interview Alex Salmond they'd save a lot of effort if they just cut the chase and made up the quotes, opinions and policy they wanted as from the last few days that is what they seem to do.
On topic, off topic - @Nigel4England Mentioned Jodie Kidd last night - his record on current events/reality betting is pretty good and she is 5-1 at Ladbrokes.
Chris Evans looks far too short at 2-5 seeing as he doesn't want the job and doesn't need the money. I don't think the format would work with him in charge either.
How far would Clarkson have to have gone in abusing the producer before the BBC's would have been justified in this decision?
Put it this way. I have been the witness (I mean officially in inquiries) to four separate assaults in the workplace in the last 15 years. Three of them were completely unprovoked as far as I could see and all involved actual physical violence worse than Clarkson is accused of.
In only one of these cases was the accused dismissed. And that was because his actions were found to be due to drugs and he was dismissed for the drug taking not the assault.
In all three other cases - all with different companies - the attacker was docked pay, demoted and/or made to attend courses on anger management or some such. In one case there was a police involvement and he also received a suspended sentence for assault.
Companies do not generally sack people for assaults because they are liable to find themselves being hauled up in front of tribunals and the sacked employee can generally show lack of proper HR management, stress or some other reason why the firm was responsible.
I would be amazed if the BBC didn't have similar cases on its files where they have not sacked the attacker. If and when they come out it will make an interesting comparison.
There were a whole host of ways they could have dealt with this and the fact they used it as an opportunity to get rid of him is just plain dumb.
Clarkson was equally dumb to have made the attack in the first place but in the long run it is the licence fee payer who will lose out here having to compensate for the lost revenue not Clarkson.
I'm continually amazed by the type of organisations that other posters work for. I have seen people sacked for a lot less than assaulting a colleague and I wouldnt give anyone much chance of claiming unfair dismissal if they were dismissed for the type of behaviour reported in this case.
Most English and Welsh will believe he is. I'd be very narked if I were Ms Sturgeon.
Or is it a coordinated campaign against SLAB?
It's a good cop, bad cop routine.
Salmond pretty much does not appear in Scottish media, his only appearances in the last 3 months I can recall being his interviews with BBC and STV politics shows on the day his book launched. Nothing before or since.
Meanwhile Nicola is building a very strong support base, both in Scotland and England. She is already the most popular party leader UK-wide and she's only done two days of public relations in England so far.
Meanwhile the media is too obsessed with Salmond to try to attack Nicola at all. It's a strong strategy and working well.
Have you read Salmond's weird, flirtatious, flutes of pink champagne interview with Nelson in the Spectator ? In it Eck reminded me of Hannibal Lecter.
He's supposed to be the bad guy. For an affable, jovial chap like Eck to give that impression, it appears to be working well.
On topic, off topic - @Nigel4England Mentioned Jodie Kidd last night - his record on current events/reality betting is pretty good and she is 5-1 at Ladbrokes.
Chris Evans looks far too short at 2-5 seeing as he doesn't want the job and doesn't need the money. I don't think the format would work with him in charge either.
Jodie Kidd? Seriously?
Nigel4England knows his chips on this sort of stuff.
How far would Clarkson have to have gone in abusing the producer before the BBC's would have been justified in this decision?
Put it this way. I have been the witness (I mean officially in inquiries) to four separate assaults in the workplace in the last 15 years. Three of them were completely unprovoked as far as I could see and all involved actual physical violence worse than Clarkson is accused of.
In only one of these cases was the accused dismissed. And that was because his actions were found to be due to drugs and he was dismissed for the drug taking not the assault.
In all three other cases - all with different companies - the attacker was docked pay, demoted and/or made to attend courses on anger management or some such. In one case there was a police involvement and he also received a suspended sentence for assault.
Companies do not generally sack people for assaults because they are liable to find themselves being hauled up in front of tribunals and the sacked employee can generally show lack of proper HR management, stress or some other reason why the firm was responsible.
I would be amazed if the BBC didn't have similar cases on its files where they have not sacked the attacker. If and when they come out it will make an interesting comparison.
There were a whole host of ways they could have dealt with this and the fact they used it as an opportunity to get rid of him is just plain dumb.
Clarkson was equally dumb to have made the attack in the first place but in the long run it is the licence fee payer who will lose out here having to compensate for the lost revenue not Clarkson.
Disagree 100%.
For some things, there should be zero tolerance and physical violence is one of them. If I were to physically attack my boss, I would be gob-smacked if I wasn't sacked.
I was physically attacked once at work... Wouldn't have dreamed of telling tales to the boss but I guess it takes all sorts
How far would Clarkson have to have gone in abusing the producer before the BBC's would have been justified in this decision?
Put it this way. I have been the witness (I mean officially in inquiries) to four separate assaults in the workplace in the last 15 years. Three of them were completely unprovoked as far as I could see and all involved actual physical violence worse than Clarkson is accused of.
In only one of these cases was the accused dismissed. And that was because his actions were found to be due to drugs and he was dismissed for the drug taking not the assault.
In all three other cases - all with different companies - the attacker was docked pay, demoted and/or made to attend courses on anger management or some such. In one case there was a police involvement and he also received a suspended sentence for assault.
Companies do not generally sack people for assaults because they are liable to find themselves being hauled up in front of tribunals and the sacked employee can generally show lack of proper HR management, stress or some other reason why the firm was responsible.
I would be amazed if the BBC didn't have similar cases on its files where they have not sacked the attacker. If and when they come out it will make an interesting comparison.
There were a whole host of ways they could have dealt with this and the fact they used it as an opportunity to get rid of him is just plain dumb.
Clarkson was equally dumb to have made the attack in the first place but in the long run it is the licence fee payer who will lose out here having to compensate for the lost revenue not Clarkson.
Disagree 100%.
For some things, there should be zero tolerance and physical violence is one of them. If I were to physically attack my boss, I would be gob-smacked if I wasn't sacked.
I was physically attacked once at work... Wouldn't have dreamed of telling tales to the boss but I guess it takes all sorts
Clarkson reported himself. The producer did not report him.
Regarding Clarkson's departure from Top Gear, where does this leave his business partner Andy Wilman, exec producer of the show? The BBC apparently pays a fee to their joint company.
BBC 'hoping' to continue show in 2016
Given that Chris Evans has already said today he will not replace Clarkson under any circumstances I think that is something of a forlorn hope. The programme may come back in some form but it will no longer be the BBC flagship export and I suspect the UK audiences will be a fraction of what they were.
Stupid decision from the BBC.
If Hammond and May stay - which is a pretty big if - the BBC will only employ a woman as the new third presenter. Jodie Kidd mentioned yesterday would actually work - or at least it would work if they BBC did not bar any form of gender based humour - which they will.
How far would Clarkson have to have gone in abusing the producer before the BBC's would have been justified in this decision?
Put it this way. I have been the witness (I mean officially in inquiries) to four separate assaults in the workplace in the last 15 years. Three of them were completely unprovoked as far as I could see and all involved actual physical violence worse than Clarkson is accused of.
In only one of these cases was the accused dismissed. And that was because his actions were found to be due to drugs and he was dismissed for the drug taking not the assault.
In all three other cases - all with different companies - the attacker was docked pay, demoted and/or made to attend courses on anger management or some such. In one case there was a police involvement and he also received a suspended sentence for assault.
Companies do not generally sack people for assaults because they are liable to find themselves being hauled up in front of tribunals and the sacked employee can generally show lack of proper HR management, stress or some other reason why the firm was responsible.
I would be amazed if the BBC didn't have similar cases on its files where they have not sacked the attacker. If and when they come out it will make an interesting comparison.
There were a whole host of ways they could have dealt with this and the fact they used it as an opportunity to get rid of him is just plain dumb.
Clarkson was equally dumb to have made the attack in the first place but in the long run it is the licence fee payer who will lose out here having to compensate for the lost revenue not Clarkson.
Disagree 100%.
For some things, there should be zero tolerance and physical violence is one of them. If I were to physically attack my boss, I would be gob-smacked if I wasn't sacked.
I was physically attacked once at work... Wouldn't have dreamed of telling tales to the boss but I guess it takes all sorts
And of course in this case it was Clarkson not the producer who was attacked who reported the incident to the BBC.
So that's the practical end of Top Gear, James May has also left the show, he now refers to himself as a former presenter on his twitter status, though he is still willing to offer advise on cars:
James May @MrJamesMay · 1h 1 hour ago Reporters outside my house: if you're going to hang around on small streets with your car engines idling all day, don't buy a bloody diesel.
How far would Clarkson have to have gone in abusing the producer before the BBC's would have been justified in this decision?
Put it this way. I have been the witness (I mean officially in inquiries) to four separate assaults in the workplace in the last 15 years. Three of them were completely unprovoked as far as I could see and all involved actual physical violence worse than Clarkson is accused of.
In only one of these cases was the accused dismissed. And that was because his actions were found to be due to drugs and he was dismissed for the drug taking not the assault.
In all three other cases - all with different companies - the attacker was docked pay, demoted and/or made to attend courses on anger management or some such. In one case there was a police involvement and he also received a suspended sentence for assault.
Companies do not generally sack people for assaults because they are liable to find themselves being hauled up in front of tribunals and the sacked employee can generally show lack of proper HR management, stress or some other reason why the firm was responsible.
I would be amazed if the BBC didn't have similar cases on its files where they have not sacked the attacker. If and when they come out it will make an interesting comparison.
There were a whole host of ways they could have dealt with this and the fact they used it as an opportunity to get rid of him is just plain dumb.
Clarkson was equally dumb to have made the attack in the first place but in the long run it is the licence fee payer who will lose out here having to compensate for the lost revenue not Clarkson.
Disagree 100%.
For some things, there should be zero tolerance and physical violence is one of them. If I were to physically attack my boss, I would be gob-smacked if I wasn't sacked.
Funnily enough in the corporate world yours is the view that would be considered palaeolithic.
James May just said that he felt the three of them were a package, and that although Clarkson is a knob, he quite likes him.
In light of the fact that all three presenters are about to come to the end of their present contracts with the BBC, that’s a very interesting comment by James May.
How far would Clarkson have to have gone in abusing the producer before the BBC's would have been justified in this decision?
Put it this way. I have been the witness (I mean officially in inquiries) to four separate assaults in the workplace in the last 15 years. Three of them were completely unprovoked as far as I could see and all involved actual physical violence worse than Clarkson is accused of.
In only one of these cases was the accused dismissed. And that was because his actions were found to be due to drugs and he was dismissed for the drug taking not the assault.
In all three other cases - all with different companies - the attacker was docked pay, demoted and/or made to attend courses on anger management or some such. In one case there was a police involvement and he also received a suspended sentence for assault.
Companies do not generally sack people for assaults because they are liable to find themselves being hauled up in front of tribunals and the sacked employee can generally show lack of proper HR management, stress or some other reason why the firm was responsible.
I would be amazed if the BBC didn't have similar cases on its files where they have not sacked the attacker. If and when they come out it will make an interesting comparison.
There were a whole host of ways they could have dealt with this and the fact they used it as an opportunity to get rid of him is just plain dumb.
Clarkson was equally dumb to have made the attack in the first place but in the long run it is the licence fee payer who will lose out here having to compensate for the lost revenue not Clarkson.
Disagree 100%.
For some things, there should be zero tolerance and physical violence is one of them. If I were to physically attack my boss, I would be gob-smacked if I wasn't sacked.
I was physically attacked once at work... Wouldn't have dreamed of telling tales to the boss but I guess it takes all sorts
I do not believe it is "telling tales" to notify your employer that your physical safety has been compromised. If an employee of mine attacked another one, I would probably sack him, and certainly so if he was on a final warning for other matters.
So Clarkson delenda est (for 5 minutes until he and May and Hammond reappear with a lookalike show for twice the money on Sky or somesuch).
Some think the Beeb has done this only ostensibly for waving his fists at some 'lazy Irish cnut' but in reality because Auntie's lefty suits can't bear his politics and worldview. So...I have a rocking great idea:
Kick off the new Top Gear on the BBC with presenters Frankie Boyle, Jimmy Carr and Ricky Gervais. It'd be a riot!
OR, it could be because nobody is allowed to attack another BBC employee and get away with it. "It is understood a report into the so-called ‘fracas’ at a North Yorkshire hotel, concluded that presenter spent 20 minutes verbally abusing producer Oisin Tymon, before launching a 30 second physical assault on him. [Daily Telegraph]"
Only 20 minutes? Is that all? Mr Tymon would not have lasted long with ooh say Mariah Carey. But Clarkson is stupid for being a prima donna and should not have got in a fight or hit anyone. I suspect the incident was overblown but there was no need for it to happen in the first place.
Presumably anyone could last an unlimited amount of time being verbally abused, by Mariah Carey or anyone else. Presumably there was no need for Clarkson to have reported it to the Beeb, but once he'd done so they had to investigate.
@Richard_Tyndall "Funnily enough in the corporate world yours is the view that would be considered palaeolithic. " Along with honesty, integrity, and fairness?
How far would Clarkson have to have gone in abusing the producer before the BBC's would have been justified in this decision?
Put it this way. I have been the witness (I mean officially in inquiries) to four separate assaults in the workplace in the last 15 years. Three of them were completely unprovoked as far as I could see and all involved actual physical violence worse than Clarkson is accused of.
In only one of these cases was the accused dismissed. And that was because his actions were found to be due to drugs and he was dismissed for the drug taking not the assault.
In all three other cases - all with different companies - the attacker was docked pay, demoted and/or made to attend courses on anger management or some such. In one case there was a police involvement and he also received a suspended sentence for assault.
Companies do not generally sack people for assaults because they are liable to find themselves being hauled up in front of tribunals and the sacked employee can generally show lack of proper HR management, stress or some other reason why the firm was responsible.
I would be amazed if the BBC didn't have similar cases on its files where they have not sacked the attacker. If and when they come out it will make an interesting comparison.
There were a whole host of ways they could have dealt with this and the fact they used it as an opportunity to get rid of him is just plain dumb.
Clarkson was equally dumb to have made the attack in the first place but in the long run it is the licence fee payer who will lose out here having to compensate for the lost revenue not Clarkson.
Disagree 100%.
For some things, there should be zero tolerance and physical violence is one of them. If I were to physically attack my boss, I would be gob-smacked if I wasn't sacked.
I was physically attacked once at work... Wouldn't have dreamed of telling tales to the boss but I guess it takes all sorts
And of course in this case it was Clarkson not the producer who was attacked who reported the incident to the BBC.
How far would Clarkson have to have gone in abusing the producer before the BBC's would have been justified in this decision?
Put it this way. I have been the witness (I mean officially in inquiries) to four separate assaults in the workplace in the last 15 years. Three of them were completely unprovoked as far as I could see and all involved actual physical violence worse than Clarkson is accused of.
In only one of these cases was the accused dismissed. And that was because his actions were found to be due to drugs and he was dismissed for the drug taking not the assault.
In all three other cases - all with different companies - the attacker was docked pay, demoted and/or made to attend courses on anger management or some such. In one case there was a police involvement and he also received a suspended sentence for assault.
Companies do not generally sack people for assaults because they are liable to find themselves being hauled up in front of tribunals and the sacked employee can generally show lack of proper HR management, stress or some other reason why the firm was responsible.
I would be amazed if the BBC didn't have similar cases on its files where they have not sacked the attacker. If and when they come out it will make an interesting comparison.
There were a whole host of ways they could have dealt with this and the fact they used it as an opportunity to get rid of him is just plain dumb.
Clarkson was equally dumb to have made the attack in the first place but in the long run it is the licence fee payer who will lose out here having to compensate for the lost revenue not Clarkson.
Disagree 100%.
For some things, there should be zero tolerance and physical violence is one of them. If I were to physically attack my boss, I would be gob-smacked if I wasn't sacked.
Funnily enough in the corporate world yours is the view that would be considered palaeolithic.
I doubt you'll get too many big names from the corporate world willing to say that they wouldnt sack someone for assaulting a colleague.
Richard Hammond @RichardHammond · 7m 7 minutes ago Gutted at such a sad end to an era. We're all three of us idiots in our different ways but it's been an incredible ride together.
How far would Clarkson have to have gone in abusing the producer before the BBC's would have been justified in this decision?
Put it this way. I have been the witness (I mean officially in inquiries) to four separate assaults in the workplace in the last 15 years. Three of them were completely unprovoked as far as I could see and all involved actual physical violence worse than Clarkson is accused of.
In only one of these cases was the accused dismissed. And that was because his actions were found to be due to drugs and he was dismissed for the drug taking not the assault.
In all three other cases - all with different companies - the attacker was docked pay, demoted and/or made to attend courses on anger management or some such. In one case there was a police involvement and he also received a suspended sentence for assault.
Companies do not generally sack people for assaults because they are liable to find themselves being hauled up in front of tribunals and the sacked employee can generally show lack of proper HR management, stress or some other reason why the firm was responsible.
I would be amazed if the BBC didn't have similar cases on its files where they have not sacked the attacker. If and when they come out it will make an interesting comparison.
There were a whole host of ways they could have dealt with this and the fact they used it as an opportunity to get rid of him is just plain dumb.
Clarkson was equally dumb to have made the attack in the first place but in the long run it is the licence fee payer who will lose out here having to compensate for the lost revenue not Clarkson.
Disagree 100%.
For some things, there should be zero tolerance and physical violence is one of them. If I were to physically attack my boss, I would be gob-smacked if I wasn't sacked.
I was physically attacked once at work... Wouldn't have dreamed of telling tales to the boss but I guess it takes all sorts
And of course in this case it was Clarkson not the producer who was attacked who reported the incident to the BBC.
Oh of course! You da man xxx
Sadly not as much of a man as someone who can take a beating with style.
Clarkson will be fine. Sponsors would be silly not to pick him up and establish a competitor show and the viewers will probably follow him.
Even Captain Kirk gets it.
Shatner's twitter is bizarre, he's 70 but seems to have the attitudes and interests of a 20 something hipster. He live tweets half the shows on The CW.
Just think, this site is called Political Betting, yet 40 days before a GE we are all wired up about a TV show, and so is the rest of the country. The shredding of Top Gear by the BBC has in effect shortened the GE campaign by quite a bit.
Clarkson will be fine. Sponsors would be silly not to pick him up and establish a competitor show and the viewers will probably follow him.
Even Captain Kirk gets it.
Shatner's twitter is bizarre, he's 70 but seems to have the attitudes and interests of a 20 something hipster. He live tweets half the shows on The CW.
I don't think that pb has taken the news of Jeremy Clarkson's dismissal with sufficient gravity. The blog should now have a black border and be playing sombre martial music.
If adolf hitler, Harold shipman, Fred west and jimmy Savile returned as ghosts , haunted Farages house and carried on with the deeds they did while alive, would the conservative guardianistas on here
a) talk up their good points b) blame farage for bringing it on himself c) make jokes about testicular cancer patients d) invent bets they never had to look shrewd?
James May just said that he felt the three of them were a package, and that although Clarkson is a knob, he quite likes him.
In light of the fact that all three presenters are about to come to the end of their present contracts with the BBC, that’s a very interesting comment by James May.
Both May and Hammond stopped contract negotiations when Clarkson was suspended. I hope they will all leap together and pop up in a new home.
I don't think that pb has taken the news of Jeremy Clarkson's dismissal with sufficient gravity. The blog should now have a black border and be playing sombre martial music.
A nation weeps. Violent thug brought low by politically-correct leftist groupthink.
Presumably those defending Clarkson on the grounds that attacking someone for forgetting to order food is acceptable would be OK with a husband punching his wife if she hadn't cooked dinner?
"Ooh, but poor Clarkson was stressed and tired after a hard day without grub!" -- he had enough energy to b*ll*ck the guy for 30 solid minutes I notice.
I don't think that pb has taken the news of Jeremy Clarkson's dismissal with sufficient gravity. The blog should now have a black border and be playing sombre martial music.
LOL.....
TBH, given the other news about, it is rather minor. The BBC will try to continue with Top Gear and Clarkson will sign with somebody else...now in other news I believe there might be a General Election or something coming up.
Richard Hammond @RichardHammond · 7m 7 minutes ago Gutted at such a sad end to an era. We're all three of us idiots in our different ways but it's been an incredible ride together.
Read that into it what you may....
James May has changed his Twitter status to say "former TV presenter".
How far would Clarkson have to have gone in abusing the producer before the BBC's would have been justified in this decision?
Put it this way. I have been the witness (I mean officially in inquiries) to four separate assaults in the workplace in the last 15 years. Three of them were completely unprovoked as far as I could see and all involved actual physical violence worse than Clarkson is accused of.
In only one of these cases was the accused dismissed. And that was because his actions were found to be due to drugs and he was dismissed for the drug taking not the assault.
In all three other cases - all with different companies - the attacker was docked pay, demoted and/or made to attend courses on anger management or some such. In one case there was a police involvement and he also received a suspended sentence for assault.
Companies do not generally sack people for assaults because they are liable to find themselves being hauled up in front of tribunals and the sacked employee can generally show lack of proper HR management, stress or some other reason why the firm was responsible.
I would be amazed if the BBC didn't have similar cases on its files where they have not sacked the attacker. If and when they come out it will make an interesting comparison.
There were a whole host of ways they could have dealt with this and the fact they used it as an opportunity to get rid of him is just plain dumb.
Clarkson was equally dumb to have made the attack in the first place but in the long run it is the licence fee payer who will lose out here having to compensate for the lost revenue not Clarkson.
Disagree 100%.
For some things, there should be zero tolerance and physical violence is one of them. If I were to physically attack my boss, I would be gob-smacked if I wasn't sacked.
I was physically attacked once at work... Wouldn't have dreamed of telling tales to the boss but I guess it takes all sorts
And of course in this case it was Clarkson not the producer who was attacked who reported the incident to the BBC.
Oh of course! You da man xxx
Sadly not as much of a man as someone who can take a beating with style.
I'm continually amazed by the type of organisations that other posters work for. I have seen people sacked for a lot less than assaulting a colleague and I wouldnt give anyone much chance of claiming unfair dismissal if they were dismissed for the type of behaviour reported in this case.
It has certainly changed in the 30 or so years I have been working. I would agree with you if you were talking about a couple of decades ago but nowadays the huge explosion of litigation means that more companies look at the costs involved in fighting cases and decide that - if they believe it was a one off case - they are better of making sure the victim is compensated and the attacker receives the appropriate councilling. Even though I am only a consultant I am forever having to attend these daft team building sessions with all sorts of different clients where we all get colour coded and have to recognise how to approach and deal with 'reds' and how to get the best out of 'greens'.
Bottom line. I agree with you and Murali. Attacking someone probably should be a sackable offence unless there are real extenuating circumstances. But that is not the corporate world these days - at least not the one I seem to be working in. And the BBC could and should have found a way to handle it all better.
No mention anywhere on BBC News website re tomorrow's C4/Sky Cameron/Miliband programme.
Back in 2010 at the equivalent time before the first debate it was the lead story everywhere.
So looks as if the C4/Sky programme at least is not going to get any general media hype.
I think we can expect much more for the ITV 7 person debate next week but it may well be that that is the only event which gets lead story coverage across all media.
I don't think that pb has taken the news of Jeremy Clarkson's dismissal with sufficient gravity. The blog should now have a black border and be playing sombre martial music.
LOL.....
TBH, given the other news about, it is rather minor. The BBC will try to continue with Top Gear and Clarkson will sign with somebody else...now in other news I believe there might be a General Election or something coming up.
How about waiting until May 8th and asking Nick Clegg?
Clarkson will be fine. Sponsors would be silly not to pick him up and establish a competitor show and the viewers will probably follow him.
Even Captain Kirk gets it.
Shatner's twitter is bizarre, he's 70 but seems to have the attitudes and interests of a 20 something hipster. He live tweets half the shows on The CW.
Looks like Cameron has managed to bounce Balls into this new announcement #winwin.
@BBCNormanS: Labour say Ed Miliband did not rule out Nics rise cos PMQs "not right time" to make announcement
Desperate stuff.
Statement of fact. Leader of the opposition asks the questions at PMQ, he does not answer them.
Meanwhile in the real world Ed gets totally rogered again.
I am sure he was. But it is a statement of fact that the LOTO does not answer questions at Prime Minister's Question Time.
The speaker should have intervened and stopped Cameron from asking questions.
It's one thing asking the Prime Minister about the present government's actions and plans, it's another asking him about a putative future government's actions and plans the other side of an election. At that point it would seem quite in order for the Prime Minister to respond in kind, especially when he's given a direct answer to the question posed to him.
If this is the level of gaming that Ed Miliband's team is up to, I fear for him in the debates.
Coogan as himself is a non event. Arguably Clarkson is a good impersonation of Alan Partridge. Foster does some boring show or other on a Discovery type channel. I'm guessing Rowan Atkinson has better thongs to do and Evans has t=ruled himself out - although the BBC really would be putting the boot in employing a ginger. I suggest that in playing 'Guess the Replacement', people start thinking of journalists. Clarkson, as if his antics did not give the game away, is a journalist.
We should remember that TG itself took time to settle down, when its first never repeated first season had a section on second hand cars. At that time it was trying to pretend it was a programme about motoring. TG treads its size 12's along a fine line between irreverent and crass. It trod definitely into the second in its trip through the deep south of the USA for instance. We can all think of others. You cannot manufacture that. Still there are always celebrities wanting to flog their latest book... er, aren't there.
I don't think that pb has taken the news of Jeremy Clarkson's dismissal with sufficient gravity. The blog should now have a black border and be playing sombre martial music.
Coogan as himself is a non event. Arguably Clarkson is a good impersonation of Alan Partridge. Foster does some boring show or other on a Discovery type channel. I'm guessing Rowan Atkinson has better thongs to do and Evans has t=ruled himself out - although the BBC really would be putting the boot in employing a ginger. I suggest that in playing 'Guess the Replacement', people start thinking of journalists. Clarkson, as if his antics did not give the game away, is a journalist.
We should remember that TG itself took time to settle down, when its first never repeated first season had a section on second hand cars. At that time it was trying to pretend it was a programme about motoring. TG treads its size 12's along a fine line between irreverent and crass. It trod definitely into the second in its trip through the deep south of the USA for instance. We can all think of others. You cannot manufacture that. Still there are always celebrities wanting to flog their latest book... er, aren't there.
I remember that first season...Jason Dawe banging on about second hand motors...zzzzzzzzzzzz...
Comments
"I used to be a presenter on the BBC2 motoring show,Top Gear"
Sad. I do think the Beeb could still have found a way here, but it's hard to argue with the even-handed statement by the DG.
It's inconceivable that Wilman will carry on as Exec Producer without his best mate Jezza.
In it Eck reminded me of Hannibal Lecter.
But this is a situation where everyone loses, and raise's the question for many middle aged blokes...'what does the BBC do for us nowadays?'
But Clarkson is stupid for being a prima donna and should not have got in a fight or hit anyone. I suspect the incident was overblown but there was no need for it to happen in the first place.
Sold by Bezzer a while back ?
Does Clarkson still have skin in the game as a director/shareholder of any of Top Gear ?
Salmond didn't say he would unconditionally support Labour. He said he would unconditionally vote against a Conservative Queen's speech. Which is the oldest of old news.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/statements/jeremy-clarkson-dg-statement
...doesn't distinguish between the BBC's broadcast operations and BBC Worldwide. I assume Worldwide, which runs the Top Gear Live events and publishes Top Gear magazine (of which JC is a co-editor) and puts out the TG DVDs, is a separate organisation. Has it also given up its contracts with JC?
Also, will the BBC (and Dave, which it co-owns) now cease showing all the repeats of TG? It would be hypocrisy for them to now show them wouldn't it?
Any 'new' Top Gear would be so removed, you might as well start a brand new show without the baggage.
Constituency tip:
Betfred still 4-7 on Warwick and Leamington.
Stupid decision from the BBC.
sean thomas knox @thomasknox
Whatever you think of Clarkson, his going means the BBC retreats ever more into a ghetto of left wing "acceptable" opinion: Guardian-on-TV
Indeed...
July 2010
Jeremy Clarkson
In the same month, Alastair Campbell revealed on his blog that, in unaired comments, Clarkson had rebuffed claims that he wasn’t very sound on gay rights by replying “Oh yes I am. I demand the right not to be bummed.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAQOSveCJqc
Ahh, they will have a problem, unless they borrow the one parked in the Solent?
I thought aircraft carriers carried aircraft?
Chris Evans looks far too short at 2-5 seeing as he doesn't want the job and doesn't need the money. I don't think the format would work with him in charge either.
In only one of these cases was the accused dismissed. And that was because his actions were found to be due to drugs and he was dismissed for the drug taking not the assault.
In all three other cases - all with different companies - the attacker was docked pay, demoted and/or made to attend courses on anger management or some such. In one case there was a police involvement and he also received a suspended sentence for assault.
Companies do not generally sack people for assaults because they are liable to find themselves being hauled up in front of tribunals and the sacked employee can generally show lack of proper HR management, stress or some other reason why the firm was responsible.
I would be amazed if the BBC didn't have similar cases on its files where they have not sacked the attacker. If and when they come out it will make an interesting comparison.
There were a whole host of ways they could have dealt with this and the fact they used it as an opportunity to get rid of him is just plain dumb.
Clarkson was equally dumb to have made the attack in the first place but in the long run it is the licence fee payer who will lose out here having to compensate for the lost revenue not Clarkson.
Jodie Kidd isn't half a bad shout though. Can't get odds on my work computer - anything on Steve Coogan?
Clarkson will be fine. Sponsors would be silly not to pick him up and establish a competitor show and the viewers will probably follow him.
Even Captain Kirk gets it.
For some things, there should be zero tolerance and physical violence is one of them. If I were to physically attack my boss, I would be gob-smacked if I wasn't sacked.
The only other being Doctor Who really.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-479134/Coogan-Barbarian-The-truth-man-blamed-leading-Owen-Wilson-brink-suicide.html
“We work very much as a package.”
[who do you want to work with as replacement for Jeremy] "As much as I think he is a knob...I quite like working with Jeremy"
http://order-order.com/2015/03/25/watch-james-may-hints-hes-off-with-clarkson/
Sounds like Top Gear will need more than one new presenter.
Basically it's already dead.
James May @MrJamesMay · 1h 1 hour ago
Reporters outside my house: if you're going to hang around on small streets with your car engines idling all day, don't buy a bloody diesel.
Presumably there was no need for Clarkson to have reported it to the Beeb, but once he'd done so they had to investigate.
"Funnily enough in the corporate world yours is the view that would be considered palaeolithic. "
Along with honesty, integrity, and fairness?
Kitchen Nightmares perhaps? Or the dreadful "Mud, Sweat and Gears" featuring a presenter from Fifth Gear.
What will become of The Stig, a Wilman creation? Presumably that's part of the Top Gear format.
Gutted at such a sad end to an era. We're all three of us idiots in our different ways but it's been an incredible ride together.
Read that into it what you may....
The shredding of Top Gear by the BBC has in effect shortened the GE campaign by quite a bit.
a) talk up their good points
b) blame farage for bringing it on himself
c) make jokes about testicular cancer patients
d) invent bets they never had to look shrewd?
"Ooh, but poor Clarkson was stressed and tired after a hard day without grub!" -- he had enough energy to b*ll*ck the guy for 30 solid minutes I notice.
TBH, given the other news about, it is rather minor. The BBC will try to continue with Top Gear and Clarkson will sign with somebody else...now in other news I believe there might be a General Election or something coming up.
The BBC management can't manage.
Or about the GE?
This week is all about Top Gear this and Clarkson that.
Bottom line. I agree with you and Murali. Attacking someone probably should be a sackable offence unless there are real extenuating circumstances. But that is not the corporate world these days - at least not the one I seem to be working in. And the BBC could and should have found a way to handle it all better.
Back in 2010 at the equivalent time before the first debate it was the lead story everywhere.
So looks as if the C4/Sky programme at least is not going to get any general media hype.
I think we can expect much more for the ITV 7 person debate next week but it may well be that that is the only event which gets lead story coverage across all media.
If this is the level of gaming that Ed Miliband's team is up to, I fear for him in the debates.
I suggest that in playing 'Guess the Replacement', people start thinking of journalists. Clarkson, as if his antics did not give the game away, is a journalist.
We should remember that TG itself took time to settle down, when its first never repeated first season had a section on second hand cars. At that time it was trying to pretend it was a programme about motoring. TG treads its size 12's along a fine line between irreverent and crass. It trod definitely into the second in its trip through the deep south of the USA for instance. We can all think of others. You cannot manufacture that. Still there are always celebrities wanting to flog their latest book... er, aren't there.
"Look Jeremy, this is your final final warning, after that, I am afraid we will have to give you a final warning"