Top Gear on Hold - Clarkson suspended by beeb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excalibur2

So you are saying if someone attacked me, I have no rights to prosecute or not and the police can force me to prosecute and if I decline I would be fined or sent to prison......I didn't think this was a police state yet.

---

You don't prosecute criminal cases. The crown prosecution service does. If you're attacked and theres sufficient other evidence or witness statements as evidence, and its deemed to be in the public interest to do so then its absolutely right that you be tried for it.

If your statement is needed in a court then you are able to be compelled to do so.

Both of the above a fundamental principles of a sensible judicial system. The police have nothing to do with whether a case is tried or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HalloweenJack

I would put ALOT of money on the fact that, if you punch you boss in the face for 30 seconds , you would be very unemployed and in a police cell very quickly afterwards.

for gross misconduct.

---

No, someone did this to me, and we didn't think that was the best course of action. The guy was useful to us, and having, in effect, a nervous breakdown.

Try to remember some people are hard to replace, as a result they get better treatment. I'd wish we could be in a situation where everyone gets treated so well, but sadly, many people don't generate enough value for the effort.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by herulach

You don't prosecute criminal cases. The crown prosecution service does. If you're attacked and theres sufficient other evidence or witness statements as evidence, and its deemed to be in the public interest to do so then its absolutely right that you be tried for it.

If your statement is needed in a court then you are able to be compelled to do so.

Both of the above a fundamental principles of a sensible judicial system. The police have nothing to do with whether a case is tried or not.

---

...but the police have to submit their findings to the CPS to decide and then it seems to me the law is not equal to everyone in that only attackers in the public interest are prosecuted....assuming in all cases from celebrities to the "little people" the person attacked doesn't want a court case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheAnimus

It's as if you didn't read at all my point.

What positive action has come out of this. You can get more penance from someone, than firing them will yield.

---

I did read your points but chose to take the probity route which I think trumps your points.

Given Clarkson's chequered past and a minority interest show, clearly a lot of good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Top_gun

minority interest show

---

Although i agree he had to go, lets not pretend that this show wasn't anything other than massive. Most popular TV show ever, sold to 214 countries and bringing in £50,000,000 prfoit for the BBC.
No one will be feeling positive about this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Top_gun

I did read your points but chose to take the probity route which I think trumps your points.

---

Eh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Top_gun

Given Clarkson's chequered past and a minority interest show, clearly a lot of good.

---

He has only ever been violent to Peers Morgan. That doesn't count, because Peers Morgan shouldn't be alive.

There is no chequered past of violence.

As for minority interest, it's the worlds most watched program, like it or not, 350m people did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheAnimus

Eh?

---

Sorry, I missed out the 'y'. It should read probity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheAnimus

He has only ever been violent to Peers Morgan. That doesn't count, because Peers Morgan shouldn't be alive.

There is no chequered past of violence.

---

A chequered past of behaviour problems and now extends to violence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheAnimus

As for minority interest, it's the worlds most watched program, like it or not, 350m people did.

---

http://www.cityam.com/assets/uploads...00b867d659.png

I must admit I'm not a fan of the show as I find it incredibly dull even if I cut out the Clarkson's part or make allowances for his behaviour. I think the above chart shows the programme in decline. As for the 350m people I guess this figure is one of those made up nonsense treated as fact because it's mentioned on wikipedia so I treat the number as mumbo jumbo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HalloweenJack

I would put ALOT of money on the fact that, if you punch you boss in the face for 30 seconds , you would be very unemployed and in a police cell very quickly afterwards.

for gross misconduct.

btw you don't have to put it in a contract - as per definition gross misconduct is behaviour which destroys the employee <> employer relationship. But from a tribunal point of view it is highly recommended.
although a self admitted assault , it wouldn't really need to

---

On the technical point, you don't have to put gross misconduct in a contract to be able to dismiss on it but it strengthens an employer's hand considerably if they do put those 'offences' they consider to be most egregious examples in writing. It makes it considerably more likely that, for instance, installing software is gross misconduct worthy of summary dismissal if, in the employment tribunal, you can produce the staff manual that says it is, and the acknowledgement from the employee that they have received and are bound by it. Every staff manual I've ever reviewed have included the obvious items as examples (and examples are all they are), and that has always included physical assault, and theft. It's probably also included harassment, and very probably bullying, too.

Where have you seen evidence that Clarkson punched Tymon in the face for 30 seconds? Genuine question. What I saw said the physical alteration lasted about 30 seconds. Ever seen the average grown men fight? It usually consists of lots of pushing, perhaps grappljng and usually a few half-assed punches that may or may not land, and may of may not do any real damage.

Some time back, I was involved in an altercation that more or less followed that description - grappling, shoving, and an ineffective punch or two, in the course of 30 seconds or a minute of scuffling. Both I and my protagonist ended up in A&E, and we had nearly identical wounds, which consisted of a little light bruising, and a bleeding lip where it had been cut on our own teeth. I ended up with a couple of stitches (as did my protagonist) and I have the scar to this day.

I was, by the way, about 12 at the time, and my protagonist was a year older, and the school bully. Police were not involved, and neither of us were jailed. He didn't bully me again, though.

I'm NOT seeking to make light of Clarkson's activities, or that workplace violence is EVER acceptable. It isn't. My point is that I have seen anything to suggest Tymon was punched for 30 seconds, just that the physical bit of Clarkson's tirade lasted 30 seconds. This may be that that account is out there, and I just haven't seen it, which is why I asked where you saw it.

And before anyone says it, no, it ISN'T acceptable either way, but a bit of a scuffle and a single punch is far less serious than a sustained 30 second pounding, just as a cut lip is far less serious than than a broken jaw, half a dozen missing teeth and smashed cheekbones.

The seriousness of the assault feeds in to the punishment that is commensurate, and certainly feeds into whether police prosecute or not, and if they do, what the charge and the sentence if convicted would be. It is certainly the case that police all over the country break up and disperse the scuffle and cut lip end of the spectrum all over the country just about every weekend, and send people home to sleep it off. In peak times, they're too busy to do much else. If injuries are serious, then both arrest and prosecution are much more likely.

If the full, detailed report is available, then my looking for it was unsuccessful .... if brief. Otherwise, all I've seen is a brief summary from the investigator, and a brief statement from Tony Hall.

Once again, for clarity, I'm NOT expressing a view, one way or the other, on Clarkson's sacking (or rather, lack of contract renewal), and whether the BBC were right, though I'd guess they felt they had no choice. I have expressed a view on whether his actions were wrong. They were. Clearly.

Well I would like it confirmed by a lawyer (that might be on the forum), that if a person is attacked and received minor injuries, can the the police\CPS prosecute the attacker..... if the person attacked does not file a complaint or want to press charges.
The law is an ass if it says "every attacker must be prosecuted no matter how small the injuries to the victim even if the victim makes no complaint". And there must be cases where if the attacker is prosecuted (without the consent of the victim) the victim's family could be in danger and am sure this has happened.

Stop press: Just announced Tymon will not press charges so we'll see what the police\CPS do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheAnimus

So then, what does someone like Clarkson have to do, to be dismissed? Be in a continuing state where he can not work, and the cost of transforming him so he can, is higher to the organisation, than the worth. Basically his 'utility value' in economics terms, has to be a net zero.

---

The notion that someones actions should only be judged by the organisation he works for in terms of his or hers 'utility value' is odious. I'm sure there are plenty of places, very profitable places no doubt, that subscribe to that train of thought, but why should that include the BBC? Using that logic, the BBC would have been right to leave Saville in place and attempt to rehabilitate him, but only if his utility value remained higher than the cost of said rehabilitation, with no thought whatsoever of how it affects any future victims, should he reoffend? Where does common decency come in to all of this for you?

I understand that you don't agree with the decision, the tone of your posts betraying a mixture of anger, incredulity and disappointment, coupled with a fierce loyalty to the miscreant. It all reminds me of myself when my favourite footballer left the team I supported. Why didn't the board do more to keep him? Why wasn't the club building itself around this player? Why should we fans suffer for something that is not OUR fault? It's just not FAIR! One thing was for sure, it wasn't the players fault – No Way; It was everyone else's. I just couldn't accept that the reason he left was because of him, because of decisions he made. But ultimately, just as with Clarkson, the player left because of choices he made, no one else's, and no amount of me affixing blame to anyone apart from the actual person worthy of the blame was going to change the fact. Looking back, whilst feeling slightly embarrassed about my actions at the time, which included posting a very angry letter to the Board of the football club, I can put my misguided anger down to my naivety which, with me being 10, I had in abundance. (Dennis Wise, in case anyone is wondering)

I'm sure Clarkson will be back on the screens soon, allowing fans to get their fix of his insight, irreverent 'humour' and political incorrectness (read casual racism). Equally I'm sure the BBC will struggle along without him. So like the radio DJ the other morning said to all the 1Direction fans – Hold on in there, you'll be ok.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excalibur2

Well I would like it confirmed by a lawyer (that might be on the forum), that if a person is attacked and received minor injuries, can the the police\CPS prosecute the attacker..... if the person attacked does not file a complaint or want to press charges.
The law is an ass if it says "every attacker must be prosecuted no matter how small the injuries to the victim even if the victim makes no complaint". And there must be cases where if the attacker is prosecuted (without the consent of the victim) the victim's family could be in danger and am sure this has happened.

Stop press: Just announced Tymon will not press charges so we'll see what the police\CPS do.

---

As was Elaine's earlier, the police investigate a potential crime if it is reported to them, or they otherwise become aware of it. A bystander may witness the crime and report it.

The police have some discretion over how vigorously they pursue the investigation, but having gathered evidence, it is presented to the CPS. they will decide whether to press charges, taking a number of factors into account, such as the likelihood of securing a conviction, whether prosecution is in the public interest and so on.

If they decide not to, it is still open to you to bring a private prosecution, although that is expensive, and very rare, or you could bring a civil case for damages, perhaps loss of earnings, hospital treatment. The burden of proof in civil cases is lower than that for criminal cases.

Usual caveat - I am not a lawyer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excalibur2

Well I would like it confirmed by a lawyer (that might be on the forum), that if a person is attacked and received minor injuries, can the the police\CPS prosecute the attacker..... if the person attacked does not file a complaint or want to press charges.
The law is an ass if it says "every attacker must be prosecuted no matter how small the injuries to the victim even if the victim makes no complaint". And there must be cases where if the attacker is prosecuted (without the consent of the victim) the victim's family could be in danger and am sure this has happened.

Stop press: Just announced Tymon will not press charges so we'll see what the police\CPS do.

---

I am not a lawyer, but I can tell you for an absolute certainty that not every assault will be prosecuted. For the CPS to procede with a prosecution, two fundamental tests MUST be met :-

- there is a realistic prospect of a conviction, and
- it is in the public interest to prosecute.

That applies to all prosecutions, not just assault.

Also, I'm not a policeman either but again, for a certainty, police officers regularly exercise judgement as to how to deal with a given situation. In the case of boozed-up incidents, a big factor is the attitude of the combatants to police intervention. If they wise up quickly, calm down and go their separate ways, that'll often be the end of it as police can then move on to the next drunken muppets. Cut up too rough and you'll likely end up in a cell for the night to sleep it off. And then, booted out in the morning, or perhaps not. If it goes further, you might be offered a police caution. Or depending on what happened, charged with one of a variety of public order offences, from simple breach of the peace upwards.

Also, as Clarkson chose a nice public place, and because thumping Tymon isn't the only potential charge, they don't necessarily need a complaint from Tymon to either investigate or charge. It sounds like several potential charges might be on offer. But, not having full access to details of what happened, the only way they can decide is to investigate. No doubt they'll start with the BBC report, but then, potentially at least, go on to visit/telephone witnesses like other BBC staff that were present, hotel guests or staff that heard or saw the incident.

Only then can a decision be made on what, if any, offences apoear to have been committed and, if necessary, present the CPS with a file on which they decide if those two tests have been met.

But if every time anyone broke any laws, police followed up in detail and the CPS went to court, we'd need both a police force/service and a court system many times the size of what we have. A LOT of discretion is exercised by both police and CPS.

Some nob head spent the morning today following me down the road hurling abuse at me and being very threatening. If I reported this the police would do sweet FA. I've also been previously physically assaulted, in broad daylight in public outside the window of a restaurant full of people. They did FA then too, even when I reported it myself. Amazing how they decide they should do something in this instance, when no-one has reported it, simply because there is media attention. It's an absolute lie that the police feel compelled to investigate everything reported to them. I can assure you they simply are not bothered. Ditto when my friend lost all her stuff when her place got burgled. They did FA then too. Other than sending a brief letter offering "councilling". And then they wonder why faith in public services isn't what it used to be!

Sorry to keep on guys but who knows others might be interested as well:- So if I am the victim and the CPS decide to prosecute the attacker (without my consent).....there is no way I can stop them doing this, even in front of magistrates or jury for the defense of attacker's solicitor\lawyer and state "I do not want this person prosecuted".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Top_gun

probity.

---

Morals are most certainly not immutable. It's never acceptable to kill, except for all the times its the least worse action, even if it's not the right action.

By trying to claim moral authority, with the situation now being for the worse, for both victim and perpetrator alike. It's clearly not the right action. This is the issue I have, it's the second worse option possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Top_gun

A chequered past of behaviour problems and now extends to violence.

---

I wouldn't correlate the two, at all. There is a gulf of difference between making a joke, saying a sat nav 'only goes to poland' or to better yet 'Poland on a single Tank', offensive, but every German or Polish person I know loves top gear and finds that funny. There is a huge difference between that and violence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Top_gun

I must admit I'm not a fan of the show as I find it incredibly dull even if I cut out the Clarkson's part or make allowances for his behaviour. I think the above chart shows the programme in decline. As for the 350m people I guess this figure is one of those made up nonsense treated as fact because it's mentioned on wikipedia so I treat the number as mumbo jumbo.

---

Be careful with a graph like that, as we know not the data source or range. For instance, a lot more people watch it in on iPlayer now, and I'd personally say 2009 was the magnum opus, which might explain that too. The fact is, we know it still sold very well for the BBC, even if global viewing figures are always going to be problematic, the syndication (219 iirc) isn't at all open for misinterpretation, and is still a record.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excalibur2

Sorry to keep on guys but who knows others might be interested as well:- So if I am the victim and the CPS decide to prosecute the attacker (without my consent).....there is no way I can stop them doing this, even in front of magistrates or jury for the defense of attacker's solicitor\lawyer and state "I do not want this person prosecuted".

---

No, you can't. You might appear in mitigation if the person is convicted, or you could say that if you were called as a witness. But the decision to prosecute is not yours to make.