Top Gear on Hold - Clarkson suspended by beeb.

[Biscuit]

You can't change human nature......my wife started an argument over peas (could be anything small) and I said to her:- with galaxy's colliding, wars , people dying of starvation and all you are worried about is peas.

I didn't realise it was human nature to abuse the victim of physical assault. I guess I thought a certain level of compassion was somewhat more natural... Learn something new every day!

[excalibur2]

I didn't realise it was human nature to abuse the victim of physical assault. I guess I thought a certain level of compassion was somewhat more natural... Learn something new every day!

You missed the point....most people are concerned about what affect them....so although people are saddened about the tragedies around the world their interests would be missing Top gear, or what to cook for dinner or will my car pass the MOT and 1000's of other e.gs....and that is human nature.

[Biscuit]

You missed the point....most people are concerned about what affect them....so although people are saddened about the tragedies around the world their interests would be missing Top gear, or what to cook for dinner or will my car pass the MOT and 1000's of other e.gs....and that is human nature.

No you missed the point, if people were just upset about something then fine. People are actually taking to sending abuse and death threats to the poor chap. Are you telling me this is a normal human reaction? If it is then I'm clearly not human.

Please read what i said again:

This isn't really what I was referring too anyway, what's really boiling my blood is the attitude of the public. Given the recent plane crash and the 500 children that went missing in Nigeria recently with barely a word spoken on social media, I think its pretty safe to say that this level of consideration is not what is going on in the public domain.

I'm using these events occurring and not being talked about as an example of why the considerations that TA is putting into reasoning are irrelevant when comparing to the reaction of the public.

[excalibur2]

No you missed the point, if people were just upset about something then fine. People are actually taking to sending abuse and death threats to the poor chap. Are you telling me this is a normal human reaction? If it is then I'm clearly not human.

Please read what i said again:

I'm using these events occurring and not being talked about as an example of why the considerations that TA is putting into reasoning are irrelevant when comparing to the reaction of the public.

Well I have only a reasonable idea how\what normal people think\act\do..... and have no idea about nutters and they should be dealt by the police for death threats.

[peterb]

12 pages about a BBC presenter. Oh the irony!

[directhex]

There is Utopia and the real world, it should have been hushed up somehow considering what is at stake...

That's how they handled Saville. You're saying that's the model to follow?

[Galant]

Does Carol Vorderman like cars?

[Saracen]

its gross misconduct

Probably. Very probably, even.

Though, there is NO legal definition of acts that do, or do not, constitute gross misconduct. Physical violence is, however, a very commonly stated example. As is theft. But then, in some companies, so is divulging a password, or unauthorised installation of software.

Ultimately, gross misconduct is an act of such seriousness that it goes to the heart of the contract, and breaks it. It is, effectively, whatever the contract says it is provided the employer doesn't go too far in what it includes. Doing so would risk rendering the contract provision ineffective.

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.

[excalibur2]

That's how they handled Saville. You're saying that's the model to follow?

Are you saying JC was another Saville?

[TheAnimus]

In my opinion, it would show a level of weakness if they had let him 'get away with it'.

Ultimately, this is where I differ. It's sort of why I'm not a fan of custodial sentences either.

What is his punishment? He's a multimillionaire, he can go work on his next project, people will be lining up to do so. He also doesn't have to worry about the quality and ideas drying up. I thought that TG had jumped the shark when they did the India special.

This course of events, has only served to inconvenience everyone else. The BBC will make considerably less money (something like 10% of revenue came from Top Gear!) the victim, well as I've said before, he is not in the best situation at all.

There are many punishments that could have been put out, alcohol testing, having a bouncer stood next to him the whole time. So when it comes to punishment, is this to prevent future occurrences, or to act as a warning to other people in the organisation?

The effect on Clarkson, is less significant than the effect on the victim. That makes it the wrong course of action.

That is the nature of the beast, that is the world, you have some people who are irreplaceable, you have to manage them, it's in everyones best interests to, even if it's not the 'morally preferred' course of action.

So, in your opinion, would Clarkson have to have done to deserve dismissal? Knifed him, glassed him, murder? Or does the over-riding popularity of the show outweigh all that?

The problem is it's a cost benefit. The BBC have for decades turned a blind eye to far worse. That news article I linked about the assault on the news desk I think is more serious, yet was just glossed over.

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.

Clearly if the man has any history of violence why the BBC management didn't take arrangements to ensure that it wouldn't happen (ie, no alcohol whilst away on work), these things are manageable.

I used to work with an incredibly gifted mathematician who basically had a full time minder working with him. His value was such that it is worth doing so.

He is not above the law, whatever the twitterati might think.

Then, you let the law deal with that. For instance, it would be highly unlikely that they would imprison a man his age for a first violent offence.

People are trying to view this as black and white, someone does something bad, he must be punished. That isn't how the world works. Some people keep saying "oh but if I punched someone at my job, I'd be fired", well, that's because you aren't important enough, we don't live in a world of equality, it's frankly counter productive to try and enforce virtues that way (see pol pot). I could totally punch the guy sat next to me right now, and not 'loose my job'. Bad things would happen, punishments in other ways would follow, but simply, the company couldn't afford to loose me. Just because I know that, doesn't mean I would punch someone, because I know that there are other ways of punishing someone without firing them.

The fact is, by applying the 'punishment' this way, the BBC have in fact impacted the victim more negatively than the perpetrator. That's not a good solution. It doesn't matter that the road was paved with good intentions, it's still lead to a worse place.

[TheAnimus]

Fine, let's have put up & shut up instead of principles, because social media has given the complete nutters of which you speak a platform; heaven forbid we cave to it. Hushing up/playing down might lead to less consequences for the innocent, and yes it's eminently desirable that the consequences for Tymon be minimised, but it's not exactly the finest course. The example you gave - totally different set of circs, and yes, room for manoeuvre there. In this case no, imo.

So riddle me this, who does the current set of events benefit most? Tymon? No, this is possibly the worst outcome. The BBC organisation? No, they've lost revenue, a massive chunk of revenue. People have been mentioning other shows and the like, but as someone mentioned on the radio, it's more than 10% of the revenue, and something like 6 times as popular as their next show (I think that's Dr Who).

So what virtue is there in firing Clarkson? It sends a message that violence isn't tolerated? But that's not really true, considering the events in a newsdesk didn't impact a certain directors career.

It tells Clarkson he can't behave like that? Why's that matter, you aren't working with him again.

It sends a message to a wider social group that violence isn't to be used in the work place (ie the general public). Well that message has completely been lost due to horrific handling of the event up till the date.

So what actually is a good outcome by this action? None. As always, when it comes to any morality the context is key, if there were many people in Clarksons role, whom could see his behaviour as an example to follow, then firing him would set an example, as this situation only got so out of hand because the guy was a sacred cash cow, it's unlikely to have a transferable impact on other employees. Definitely not helped by people like James Mays views expressed on the matter.

[HalloweenJack]

Well they wouldn't get far if I didn't co-operate or be their star witness for the prosecution.

quoting the `Jeremy forrest` case - the star witness was a hostile witness , who was even dragged to court in handcuffs and was arrested to get her there, directly after she had finished her GCSE maths exam.

if they have enough evidence to prove , beyond reasonable doubt, a crime was committed- then the victim and a statement might not actually be needed.

remember Clarkson has already admitted to hitting him

[Top_gun]

So what virtue is there in firing Clarkson? It sends a message that violence isn't tolerated? But that's not really true, considering the events in a newsdesk didn't impact a certain directors career.

Not sacking the idiot sends the wrong message that he is bigger than the BBC. Similar to no star player is bigger than their football club.

I think the next course of action is for the police to take this matter to the courts. No one is above the law.

I also think Suzi Perry is an idea replacement considering her background in the motoring media.

[HalloweenJack]

Probably. Very probably, even.

Though, there is NO legal definition of acts that do, or do not, constitute gross misconduct. Physical violence is, however, a very commonly stated example. As is theft. But then, in some companies, so is divulging a password, or unauthorised installation of software.

Ultimately, gross misconduct is an act of such seriousness that it goes to the heart of the contract, and breaks it. It is, effectively, whatever the contract says it is provided the employer doesn't go too far in what it includes. Doing so would risk rendering the contract provision ineffective.

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.

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

[excalibur2]

quoting the `Jeremy forrest` case - the star witness was a hostile witness , who was even dragged to court in handcuffs and was arrested to get her there, directly after she had finished her GCSE maths exam.

if they have enough evidence to prove , beyond reasonable doubt, a crime was committed- then the victim and a statement might not actually be needed.

remember Clarkson has already admitted to hitting him

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.

[TheAnimus]

Not sacking the idiot sends the wrong message that he is bigger than the BBC. Similar to no star player is bigger than their football club.

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.

When it comes to setting an example who was that for? Let's not forget their next watched program has less than 1/6th of the viewers. The diva syndrome can't be the same.

As I've said, this course of events benefits no one, it's the second worst that I can imagine, but was inevitable as soon as they suspended him, and missed two episodes.

I think the next course of action is for the police to take this matter to the courts. No one is above the law.

Absolutely agree, having a criminal prosecution, if there is suitable evidence will remind people across the country that violence is never a suitable option.

I also think Suzi Perry is an idea replacement considering her background in the motoring media.

Why replacement. Too much of the brand, the vision, was a result of JC. That's why he owned 30%, and May/Hammond owned 0%.

They've got to find a new visionary, someone who has an idea of how to take a show that seldom achieved 7 figure viewing figures, to one that became the most watched in the world, in the most countries too. They need to be brave, and reboot the reboot, it was getting a bit stale anyway.