Top Gear on Hold - Clarkson suspended by beeb.

[peterb]

I'm sorry, but I don't buy this at all. Should we make people who choose to work in a high stress environment wear a hat to identify themselves so that others can avoid them when they decide to go postal?

I'm just suggesting that people who do what is alleged to have happen (and JC seems to be in agreement that this is indeed the case, having referred himself and according to the summary that has been posted elsewhere not denying what happened) should be treated in the same way as anyone else who does this, regardless of whether they're a celebrity who divides opinion. If he has personal stress issues then he needs to deal with that like a reasonable person - take a holiday, get some counselling, whatever it takes. I find it hard to believe that the BBC or the production company don't offer any support pathways especially if it's the case that this is the case that JC is the cash cow people are claiming. You'd expect if anything that they'd have been keen to reach out and offer help.

I suffered the loss of a close friend a few years ago which hit me personally very hard. I spoke to my boss at the time and explained the situation and arranged to take some unpaid leave while I helped his wife arrange the funeral and got my head straight, at which point I returned to work as a healthy, productive employee.

I honestly don't care much for JC, but I certainly don't wish him any ill. I just think that as a reasonable member of society he should be treated as the rest of us are if we commit a crime.

And if someone (doesn't really matter who) is suffering from stress, I'd expect that to be submitted in mitigation (with supporting evidence) at any tribunal/investigation, which might therefore change the outcome, perhaps on condition the the person continues with treatment, or agrees to move to a lower stress job.

[Splash]

And if someone (doesn't really matter who) is suffering from stress, I'd expect that to be submitted in mitigation (with supporting evidence) at any tribunal/investigation, which might therefore change the outcome, perhaps on condition the the person continues with treatment, or agrees to move to a lower stress job.

Seem reasonable. Aside from what people have posted in this thread though I'm yet to see any evidence of a claim to stress, and if this were the case that the outcome of the investigation neglected to consider this.

There's also the small matter that he was widely reported to be on a final warning from previous disciplinary action. If there were a stress trigger you'd expect that it might have been investigated and managed by this point, no?

[peterb]

Seem reasonable. Aside from what people have posted in this thread though I'm yet to see any evidence of a claim to stress, and if this were the case that the outcome of the investigation neglected to consider this.

There's also the small matter that he was widely reported to be on a final warning from previous disciplinary action. If there were a stress trigger you'd expect that it might have been investigated and managed by this point, no?

Indeed

[sammyc]

There's also the small matter that he was widely reported to be on a final warning from previous disciplinary action. If there were a stress trigger you'd expect that it might have been investigated and managed by this point, no?

If not expect, then you'd hope so, yes. Just to clarify any feeling that opinions are being coloured by personal opinion towards JC; for myself I can categorically say that's not the case. He's not my cup of tea but my opinions throughout are stated as relates solely to the case, as per a hypothetical principle, and would be exactly the same in reverse ie had someone clocked JC. Same goes if any celebrity I had existing respect & admiration for was the person at fault. Whether you like the show or as Saracen says think it's rubbish without even watching, should have nothing to do with it - but I fully accept there's a lot of partisan irrationality surrounding this issue.

Equally I don't take a hard line against JC with total disregard to mitigating circumstances, any such circs should have been handled better on all fronts by the sounds of it. Even if one factor was that Tymon had been repeatedly found wanting in JC's view, that's something to have been dealt with sooner; by give & take, or a request put in 'higher up' for a change of team, etc, than letting it get to the personal confrontation 'I'll have your job' stage. The fact that (allegedly) other crew members feared a scene and beat a retreat on the night in question doesn't speak well for the tone the past relationship - though that may have not been JC/Tymon specific.

[Splash]

If not expect, then you'd hope so, yes. Just to clarify any feeling that opinions are being coloured by personal opinion towards JC; for myself I can categorically say that's not the case. He's not my cup of tea but my opinions throughout are stated as relates solely to the case, as per a hypothetical principle, and would be exactly the same in reverse ie had someone clocked JC. Same goes if any celebrity I had existing respect & admiration for was the person at fault. Whether you like the show or as Saracen says think it's rubbish without even watching, should have nothing to do with it - but I fully accept there's a lot of partisan irrationality surrounding this issue.

Agreed: I hold no ill will to Clarkson, I just don't believe that he should be treated like a special little snowflake. Treat him as you would anyone else.

[peterb]

And there's part of the problem. We don't really know the full history, or where "creative tension" crossed the line into possible animosity.

And there has been a media storm over this - after all, it sells! But (as I referred to in an earlier post) while that storm is created by the "celeb status", celebs (in general) do quite well out of that status, and perhaps, like politicians and other figures in the public eye, they need to be particularly careful about how their actions might be perceived/reported/judged.

Unfair? Maybe, but as I said, they do quite well out of being 'celebs'! Being judged in the 'Court of Public Opinion' (as I think Harriet Harperson once put it) is a hazard of the job.

[TheAnimus]

I'm sorry, but I don't buy this at all. Should we make people who choose to work in a high stress environment wear a hat to identify themselves so that others can avoid them when they decide to go postal?

No, not at all, it's the responsibility of the organisation to ensure that if someone does go postal, the consequences are minimised.

should be treated in the same way as anyone else who does this, regardless of whether they're a celebrity who divides opinion.

I suffered the loss of a close friend a few years ago which hit me personally very hard. I spoke to my boss at the time and explained the situation and arranged to take some unpaid leave while I helped his wife arrange the funeral and got my head straight

I've taken those two comments, because I think it makes it obvious now to me why we think so differently. I had a need to take some compassionate leave, they paid me, my very good wage the whole time I was there. 6 hours in, I've the first problem. Someone doesn't like the decision my second in command has made, he wants him to check it with me. Ok, we do that. So for my first day of leave, I only spent 4 hours working, during day time, as my grandfather was dying, after 6 hours of travelling there. Not great, but better than not at all. Next day, big problem. I end up having to check into a local internet cafe. Third day the fund had made a donation to the hospice and I had the use of an office.

If you think that workers can just take time off, that someone dying is important, you are wrong. I know one that chartered a helicopter to bring someone back from their fathers funeral in a hurry.

Some people are vital, others are not. So you treat them differently. We're not equal, don't pretend.

This isn't to say he can punch as many people as he wants without consequence, it's more that when you look at the context, the reaction of those who he had to work with, no one is saying (openly) that this was the right thing to do. People in situations that are high stress will act out and badly. Hence why the BBC didn't fire the newsdesk guy who bit some. Or still has Jonathan Creek on QI despite him chewing someone's ear off (literally, not figuratively).

[Saracen]

I entirely agree TA with on one point (well, more than one, but I'm referring to one here) .... not everybody can just take time off. There's been many occasions when I couldn't have, becsuse I was contracted to deliver x product or service by a specified date, and if I didn't, then at the very least, penalties applied and so, potentially, did breach of contract.

So, when things like bereavement occur, what happens is sometimes what happened to me, which is you get lots of wonderful expressions of sympathy from some business contacts, but nonetheless, a contract is a contract, and a deadline is exactly that.

And re: Top Gear, there's what, 120-ish people involved in making it, hotels, flights and facilities booked, some of which may not be able to just be rearranged, like celeb guests, and of course, broadcast schedules to be met. Taking a few weeks off in the middle of that is just not doable, short of absolutely no alternative, like a broken leg or heart attack.

In my case, missing deadlines without very good reason, or even with very good reason if you did it too often, was a good way to not get future work. Had I missed deadlines without cast-iron medical necessity, like broken leg, etc, I know exactly what message it would have sent ....."unreliable".

One reason I know is I've been on the other end of that decision. If I get let down and jerked about too much, even for medical reasons, then even if sympathetic, sooner or later my reaction is that, sorry, but unreliable is unreliable regardless of why someone is unreliable, so I'll use someone that isn't unreliable.

And that's for people that aren't effectively a lynchpin for the entire exercise, with 120 other people all depending on it.

Clarkson couldn't just take a few weeks off, in the middle of production season, even if he wanted to. Oh, and by the way, a production season that had already been extended from the usual 8 episode season to a 12 episode season, apparently against Clarkson's wishes, which may also account for extreme tiredness.

I do also agree that Clarkson shouldn't be treated as a snowflake because he's a celeb, but nor should he be crucified because he is. If it were the case that this sort of altercation ALWAYS resulted in termination, regardless of circumstances, then fine, so it should here. But it does not. And the duty on the BBC under normal employment law (which probably isn't entirely relevant, if at all relevant, here) is to consider all circumstances, and all options. Violence is certainly grounds for gross misconduct dismissal, but dismissal isn't mandatory, if the employer sees a viable alternative option, consistent with duties to safety of other staff, and if the essential trust hadn't been destroyed. One such option might be, as I said before, suspension together with support, councelling, medical services, etc.

And before anyone jumps on that as me suggesting that's what ought to have happened to JC, I'm not. My point is that we have a fairly brief summary of the investigation, and NO details of the content of any disciplinary hearing. Not that we, the public, are entitled to hear them, of course. If there even was one. Bear in mind, JC wasn't "sacked", fired, dismissed, whatever. His contract simply wasn't renewed. Which is rather different.

[Splash]

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one I'm afraid. In my experience a situation whereby someone feels they cannot take time out to deal with personal issues is *precisely* the kind of environment that is likely to lead to someone suffering a stress related incident.

@TheAnimus what would have happened if you were laid unconscious in a hospital bed? Would the company have sat and waited until you came around before making a decision? Surely the person delegated with the responsibility that you gave them should was in that position because you trusted them to make the right call?

@Saracen I guess this is the world of the sole trader, whereby you don't have a team that can deliver in your absence. In which case I guess that the only person who can make the call as to whether you need to take that time off or not is yourself. Sure, it may result in you losing out on future work but I think I'd rather lose a client for being unreliable than lose a potential whole load more when the story hit the press that I'd lashed out at somebody I was supposed to be working with due to a stress related incident. Or ended up in hospital. Or worse.

Ultimately I believe that the individual is responsible for the decisions that they take, and any repercussions from that. I don't believe that it's ever acceptable (and it seems that you agree with me on this front) to use physical intimidation or violence against a coworker. If JC was under the level of stress (again, I've not seen anything official stating that this was the case) that some people are suggesting then it's his responsibility to inform his employer, and their responsibility to take whatever action is required to manage this.

[TheAnimus]

@TheAnimus what would have happened if you were laid unconscious in a hospital bed? Would the company have sat and waited until you came around before making a decision? Surely the person delegated with the responsibility that you gave them should was in that position because you trusted them to make the right call?

Back then, given how rag-tag the whole set up was, they would have closed my positions and started to look for a replacement. Shutting down part of a $2bn business. The issue was more of one of perception, I'm a very strong character, with a very good track record. This other guy, didn't have those feathers in his cap, so when something went wrong, it resulted in a loss of confidence in him. It took them over a year to find my replacement.

But you are absolutely right regarding key-man-risk as part of your business continuity planing. That firm failed to do so because we grew out that operation on a shoe string, and suddenly it took off, it's very hard to scale when you require not just a set of skills but a whole mindset too. One of the misconceptions I find people have is that all workers are fungible, this is not true, at all.

In the case of Clarkson and Mays segment, it resulted in the program not been aired. It was no secret the top gear team (producers, editors too) pissed people off, often by being late, but the whole program was run on a massive budget, yet often stretched out (4 more episodes this year please).

Now the problem is how do you have your BCP when you've got a program that is about 3 people really? This is another one of those examples of how key man risk can emerge naturally. Top Gear wasn't a highly watched program before the re-launch. The first season did well, but it wasn't until later that the meteoric rise happened, after they got rid of that dealer telling you that there were car bargains to be had second hand, and replaced him with May. The problem was all their characters were lacking in some way, but together they worked quite well, in the early episodes, especially the specials, they appear to have a real chemistry too. You can't just drop that in either.

then it's his responsibility to inform his employer, and their responsibility to take whatever action is required to manage this.

But that's not how people behave when they are stressed... It's also not how our culture behaves towards anything that is a mental illness.

I had my arm in a sling, I had a special keyboard and track-pad within an hour of reporting this. I was offered a graduate who wanted to learn some of my area as a typist too. I had no remarks, no snide jokes, even thou it was my own fault this particular injury happened. If I'd said I was stressed, that would have been it. I would forever be watched.

[Saracen]

....

@Saracen I guess this is the world of the sole trader, whereby you don't have a team that can deliver in your absence. In which case I guess that the only person who can make the call .....

I guess it applies to sole traders too, but that wasn't the context in which I was talking. Also, it isn't always the case, perhaps surprisingly, that a sole trader doesn't have a team. I have often had situations where I can take a job, but rely on subcontractors to do some, or all, of a job. Or, where I was such a subcontractor. That even applies to my sole trader work in the media.

[CathalM]

Oh cock.

[sammyc]

Jeremy Clarkson to host Have I Got News For You

Hit the other children at a party and no birthday cake for you (but auntie will let you watch tv and eat trifle in the other room). There's your message boys & girls.

[kalniel]

Only he's pulled out (for now).

But it does give me two ideas:
1) rotate guest presenters ala HIGNFY after the Angus cocaine scandal.
2) Just make John Humphrys the main presenter.

[TheAnimus]

Hit the other children at a party and no birthday cake for you (but auntie will let you watch tv and eat trifle in the other room). There's your message boys & girls.

It's almost as if this whole thing has been handled really badly, with only the second worst possible outcome being achieved! Any attempt to 'send a message' about behaviour has been completely lost and polarised many into justifying it as acceptable to blaming the victim.

I called that the second they suspended him.

[WalterWhite78]

I'm really dissaponited in the Beeb. Clarkson IS the BBC, and everything that is great about the UK. If there were more Jeremy Clarkson's in the world, it would be a more effeciant place, thats for sure.