Top Gear on Hold - Clarkson suspended by beeb.

[Saracen]

I can't see any reports that Mr Tynon has lost his job at the BBC. He may not produce Top Gun, but as a BBC employee, he may go on to produce other shows.

No doubt he will go on to produce other shows, but Top Gear is, or was, a plum job. It's one of the most high profile shows the BBC has, and if that degrades or disappears, as I think it will without the current team, then he has a less high profile show to produce. And if he moves away from Top Gear, he cannot expect to just waltz in to another top ten show, not least because someone else already has the job producing those.

I can't see how he can avoid either a less popular show in Top Gear, or a less popular show somewhere else. In other words, his career profile drops a bit.

[Saracen]

http://www.theguardian.com/media/201...bbc-macquarrie

If you want the full report it's downloadable as a PDF here:
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/mediacent...on-summary.pdf

That's not what I call a full report. It's a one-page summary of findings. It's not a detailed picture of what happened, but a pastiche, a cartoon.

[sammyc]

No doubt he will go on to produce other shows, but Top Gear is, or was, a plum job. It's one of the most high profile shows the BBC has, and if that degrades or disappears, as I think it will without the current team, then he has a less high profile show to produce. And if he moves away from Top Gear, he cannot expect to just waltz in to another top ten show, not least because someone else already has the job producing those.

I can't see how he can avoid either a less popular show in Top Gear, or a less popular show somewhere else. In other words, his career profile drops a bit.

(& to go back a bit)

So, ultimately, it's for an employer to assert a given act is GM, for the employee to agree or not, and in the final event, for an employment tribunal to rule.

But even if it was, and I entirely agree it very probably was, it gives justification for dismissal, not making it the only option. Depending on individual circumstances in a given case, an employer can consider other options.

Given that Mr Tymon will be the worse off for the path that was taken in this case, ie dismissal over 'other options' (worse off to what degree depending on the individual view) do you personally think there were options that would have worked to keep him in his position with Top Gear and the show and JC in place?

As hushing up completely was never an option, that leaves any measures aimed at keeping the status quo & saving the show as is - temporary absence for JC with possible 'rehab'/ anger management/ support as suggested, or continuing with JC 'on a leash', etc. Let's say hypothetically these were realistic, & having been put to Mr Tymon let's also assume his hypothetical agreement - do you think that whatever the arguments for 'right' thing as against 'best' thing, there was any getting round the bottom line of the BBC having to be seen to do the 'right' thing, and they could/should have taken another route? Out of interest.

[sammyc]

By far the oddest thing about this whole business (now talking generally) is the air that somehow this is Mr Tymon's fault in any way, almost as if he will come to regret having made a fuss & brought about his/JC's/Top Gear's downfall. Staggering.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-32103665
edit: correction, blame & threats are being spread about evenly; some for Mr Tymon & fair shares for the DG

[Saracen]

By far the oddest thing about this whole business (now talking generally) is the air that somehow this is Mr Tymon's fault in any way, almost as if he will come to regret having made a fuss & brought about his/JC's/Top Gear's downfall. Staggering.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-32103665
edit: correction, blame & threats are being spread about evenly; some for Mr Tymon & fair shares for the DG

Well, as for it being Mr Tymon's fault in some way, from what I've read, yes, it is.

As I understand it, part of the producer's job is tha background management of the non-creative bit, like ensuring accomodation, travel, etc, ate sorted. And, food wasn't. After a 13-hour day, I wouldn't expect to be told my dinner is a sandwich either.

Clearly, a physical assault is not, under any circumstances, an acceptable reaction. That much ought to be a given. But I can certainly see me having words with whoever had the job of ensuring a decent hot meal if they didn't. On the first such occurrence, it'd be a reasonably polite word, but if it had happened repeatedly, sooner or later I would probably be threatening someone with the sack if theg weren't doing their job properly.

Was this "no hot food" trigger the first time or the second, fifth, twentieth or whatever? We don't know, because we have simply seen a brief conclusions page, not individual accounts, or any detail.

[Saracen]

(& to go back a bit)

Given that Mr Tymon will be the worse off for the path that was taken in this case, ie dismissal over 'other options' (worse off to what degree depending on the individual view) do you personally think there were options that would have worked to keep him in his position with Top Gear and the show and JC in place?

As hushing up completely was never an option, that leaves any measures aimed at keeping the status quo & saving the show as is - temporary absence for JC with possible 'rehab'/ anger management/ support as suggested, or continuing with JC 'on a leash', etc. Let's say hypothetically these were realistic, & having been put to Mr Tymon let's also assume his hypothetical agreement - do you think that whatever the arguments for 'right' thing as against 'best' thing, there was any getting round the bottom line of the BBC having to be seen to do the 'right' thing, and they could/should have taken another route? Out of interest.

Do I "personally think there were options"?

I don't know, because we have neither a full account of the detail of the incident, or what, if any, history lay behind it. If I were heading the BBC, I'd certainly want a full account of what, why, and detailed accounts from both participants and, at least, any BBC staff present.

Other options in this sort of situation generally certainly exist, ranging from mandatory counselling, to a period of unpaid leave. It is certainly not the case that ANY violence automatically leads to dismissal, as several footballers could attest, despite the teethmarks they bear.

Was their anything the BBC ciuld have done? I have no idea, because I haven't seen the full account of what happened. I also, for the record, don't much care either way. As I said earlier, Clarkson isn't marmite for me. I quite like Top Gear, and probably would watch it if if's on .... or record and watch later. But I can take it or leave it. And on Clarkson personally, my only knowledge of him is the media character, having never met the man himself. And my opinion of the media character is that he is, or was, PAID by the BBC to be the politically incorrect and slightly obnoxious loudmouth he plays on Top Gear. He's paid to stir things up.

And THAT, I do have some personal experience of, in a tiny way. I have had commissions from magazine and paper editors to write a 'controversial' letter for theit letters page and to, and I quote, "provoke a response", because the letters were getting a bit boring. "Light a fire", I was told.

I have no doubt (though zero actual knowledge) Clarkson's brief was similarly to be outspoken, controversial, a bit politically incorrect. And the BBC have been milking that for all it's worth, for years. Trouble is, if you pay someone to constantly be outrageous, sooner or later they're going to misjudge it and be a bit too outrageous.

Clarkson, IMHO, gets too much of the credit for the .... style .... of Top Gear, that has made it so popular, but also too much of the blame for things that go wrong. He's no doubt influential in the "creative" decisions, but TG isn't his own personal little playground to do as he wishes. It's run by a creative team, with BBC managers, like Tymon, that could pull the plug any time they wished. Yet, in a rather two-faced manner, the BBC expected Clarkson to push it all the time, then blame him when he does.

I do think the BBC could have found other options, especially if Tymon was on-board with something that didn't destroy the current format .... if he was. I didn't expect that the BBC would, though. They did exactly what I expected them to do.

[Splash]

To put a little perspective on this: I was recently delayed on a redeye flight back from SFO and missed my onward connection at LHR. I was checked into a hotel at the airline's expense, with a voucher for an evening meal. Said evening meal was essentially pasta salad, bread and other cold stuff. Did I punch someone, or did I just call for a pizza (at my own expense)?


EDIT: ok, so the hotel was a little out of the way, but according to http://www.just-eat.co.uk/restaurants-aroma-dl6/menu he could have had a curry, though one of the runners would have to pick it up. Or he could have gone out to one of the excellent pubs in Hawes.

[sammyc]

As I understand it, part of the producer's job is tha background management of the non-creative bit, like ensuring accomodation, travel, etc, ate sorted. And, food wasn't. After a 13-hour day, I wouldn't expect to be told my dinner is a sandwich either.

Clearly, a physical assault is not, under any circumstances, an acceptable reaction. That much ought to be a given. But I can certainly see me having words with whoever had the job of ensuring a decent hot meal if they didn't. On the first such occurrence, it'd be a reasonably polite word, but if it had happened repeatedly, sooner or later I would probably be threatening someone with the sack if theg weren't doing their job properly.

If it was straight after a 13-hour day then I would have [some] sympathy with that, but as it was Clarkson that was late arriving having kept the helicopter sent to collect him waiting for 2 hours, and having come from a pub where he could & (you'd think) would have fed himself if he was that desperate - then I'd personally consider Tymon or anyone in a similar position to have already done their job to the best of their ability. Anything beyond that, and you are getting into bend-over-backwards territory, having your job made unnecessarily difficult, and after the twentieth or so time of that, I'd imagine it would wear as equally thin as from the other side. Unless this sort of role carries an expectation to oil the behind-the-scenes wheels & never mind how - ie that it's your responsibility to persuade others to keep the kitchen open, or take whatever other steps, as in this instance - which I think is unreasonable unless it's a rarity, an emergency, etc. And given, as you point out, that we don't know the full ins & outs & whether this was a recurring thing. But if you were having polite words (or less so) with someone after persistently being late etc yourself, unless unavoidably, then yes I would think that was unfair & unreasonable to cast blame elsewhere.

Additionally I'm not sure the camp that blame Tymon are being as specific as to pin it on the source incident, are they? - ie, 'if he'd got JC his dinner sorted none of this would have happened' - as much as general blame-pinning onto anyone but JC. As if Tymon kicked up a fuss in the wake of the fallout, regardless of who 'started it', & shouldn't have; when any escalation is not down to him as far as I can see. No running to complain, no shouting up for something to be done, no overreacting. It's not directly his fault how it has subsequently been handled, was as much my point as anything, but the general hostility would give you to think it was.

I do think the BBC could have found other options, especially if Tymon was on-board with something that didn't destroy the current format .... if he was. I didn't expect that the BBC would, though. They did exactly what I expected them to do.

What I was really getting at, is whether you think taking up other options with Tymon's agreement and whatever else would be required, would it have 'washed'? That it would have blown over with no backlash that the BBC would be seen to have, not condoned matters exactly, but certainly been a little soft-pedal, essentially to keep their nice little earner? As you say, bite-happy footballers are still running around at large - I don't hold with that, either, unsurprisingly.

[Saracen]

....

What I was really getting at, is whether you think taking up other options with Tymon's agreement and whatever else would be required, would it have 'washed'? That it would have blown over with no backlash that the BBC would be seen to have, not condoned matters exactly, but certainly been a little soft-pedal, essentially to keep their nice little earner? As you say, bite-happy footballers are still running around at large - I don't hold with that, either, unsurprisingly.

How am I supposed to have any form of informed opinion on whether it would have "washed" when we don't even have a full or detailed account of what happened?

Unless, by "washed", you mean if there would have been people that disagreed with it? If so, given that Clarkson is something of a marmite character, where most people seem to love him or hate him, there was going to be backlash whatever the BBC did.

Some of the comments I've seen on various websites, or even heard on radio discussions, have been along the lines of 'well, I've never watched Top Gear because it's rubbish, but I'm glad Clarkson's gone so maybe they'll can the show now and put something good on instead".

Which begs the comments ....

1) If they've never seen it, how do they know it's rubbish?

2) Some people don't understand the difference between "I don't like it", and "it's rubbish". Fact is, millions do like it .... or love it.

Given a degree of irrationality both among those that want to put Clarkson on a pedestal and those that want him lynched, and in both cases, largely regardless of what actually happened or what Tymon thinks of it, nothing they did was going to "wash" with everyone.

[TheAnimus]

To put a little perspective on this: I was recently delayed on a redeye flight back from SFO and missed my onward connection at LHR. I was checked into a hotel at the airline's expense, with a voucher for an evening meal. Said evening meal was essentially pasta salad, bread and other cold stuff. Did I punch someone, or did I just call for a pizza (at my own expense)?

That's not putting any perspective on it at all.

Have you ever worked in a high stress environment? People flip out often over something trivial, it's a survival mechanism I think, the most important thing, the one that is creating the stress, is this sacred cow, it mustn't be the bit that bears the brunt of it. So something trivial is found instead.

I remember watching someone get a torrent of abuse because they'd lost a lot of money the day before, the abuse was for being late.

People seldom, in any kind of relationship, business or personal, communicate directly about what it is they are upset with. Instead it comes out as a side effect. This bit of human behaviour has always puzzled me, because I don't behave that way.

[Saracen]

That's not putting any perspective on it at all.

Have you ever worked in a high stress environment? People flip out often over something trivial, it's a survival mechanism I think, the most important thing, the one that is creating the stress, is this sacred cow, it mustn't be the bit that bears the brunt of it. So something trivial is found instead.

I remember watching someone get a torrent of abuse because they'd lost a lot of money the day before, the abuse was for being late.

People seldom, in any kind of relationship, business or personal, communicate directly about what it is they are upset with. Instead it comes out as a side effect. This bit of human behaviour has always puzzled me, because I don't behave that way.

Another side to this that I've seen little mention of, perhaps not surprisingly, is Clarkson's frame of mind.

I did hear one report referring to "illness", and to "death in the family". I know nothing more than that about his personal life, but if he's had serious and significant personal stresses, AND was over-tired after a very long day, then this sort of irrational and extreme tantrum would make more sense - it could (and I emphasise COULD) be a reaction to stress, and even undiagnosed (or diagnosed, by not public) depression. I have certainly seen many examples where people manage to cope with huge stress levels, only to flip out and totally lose it over something apparently trivial. Like a missing hot meal.

Seems to me that his tirade was consistent with that, and the more I think about it, the more .... consistent .... it seems. Though it is, of course, speculative.

And if it were the case, I can also understand why he wouldn't want that being made public. Nor would I, and I'm not a media figure where the world's press are looking for any tidbit to knaw on. I can't believe that if he were to report that even in the strictest confidence to the BBC as part of this inquiry, that it wouldn't get out. And it's an intensely private sort of thing.

[opel80uk]

Anymore of this handwringing and I'm gonna have to get my hanky out. If the suggestion that he is suffering from some unspecified illness, mental or otherwise, prove true, then he should go away, get himself some treatment and, when better, look for some sort of redemption instead of the arrogance and faux apologies that usually follow his misdemeanours. I don't like him and, whilst I don't think it should be on the BBC, I think there must be a place for someone like him on British TV.

Interestingly, for such a stellar presenter, reports suggest that none of the British broadcasters are interested in signing him, yet. There is something deliciously ironic about the possibility of Clarkson having to go to the US to continue his TV career. I wonder if the self-styled 'man of the people' would continue unabashed with his targeting of the of the States for comedy purposes when a US company pays his wages?

[TheAnimus]

I did hear one report referring to "illness", and to "death in the family". I know nothing more than that about his personal life, but if he's had serious and significant personal stresses, AND was over-tired after a very long day, then this sort of irrational and extreme tantrum would make more sense - it could (and I emphasise COULD) be a reaction to stress, and even undiagnosed (or diagnosed, by not public) depression. I have certainly seen many examples where people manage to cope with huge stress levels, only to flip out and totally lose it over something apparently trivial. Like a missing hot meal.

Indeed, the fellow who sucker punched me was on the brink of his marriage failing (it did).

I find it very funny to see all these people who are paragons of morality, so intent on holding people to standards they themselves wouldn't adhere to. It's perfectly fine for someones argument to be I don't like his personality, so have no sympathy, and want him punished because I don't like him.

I do not believe prison works for rehabilitation, I think it should only be used when that person poses a continuing risk. Many people agree with me on this, yet believe someone should be fired for any serious mistake, regardless of circumstances and context. Odd.

[opel80uk]

I find it very funny to see all these people who are paragons of morality, so intent on holding people to standards they themselves wouldn't adhere to.

What standards wouldn't these 'paragons of morality' that you speak of adhere to? That they wouldn't be able to restrain themselves from striking someone when they don't get a hot meal, or that they wouldn't expect to get fired from their job if they did strike someone for not getting them a hot meal?

[excalibur2]

...but you all wouldn't be arguing now if the BBC could have hushed it up, and probably could all have been settled quietly by JC and Tymon...this is all a mountain out of a mole hill compared to what governments and orgs get up to....and the public only know many years later

[Splash]

That's not putting any perspective on it at all.

Have you ever worked in a high stress environment? People flip out often over something trivial, it's a survival mechanism I think, the most important thing, the one that is creating the stress, is this sacred cow, it mustn't be the bit that bears the brunt of it. So something trivial is found instead.

I remember watching someone get a torrent of abuse because they'd lost a lot of money the day before, the abuse was for being late.

People seldom, in any kind of relationship, business or personal, communicate directly about what it is they are upset with. Instead it comes out as a side effect. This bit of human behaviour has always puzzled me, because I don't behave that way.

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.