Jeremy Clarkson suspended from the BBC...

JohnPerry

Samgb said:

Evilmags;573228" said:

Err, it is costing the taxpayer. The franchise was publicly owned. Capitalising it's income stream on industry multiples would value it at over 900 million pounds. That is a loss to the taxpayer that is real and present.

 Get some perspective man come on.

pot meet kettle. It's 350 million people who like the show. Versus one bloke with an attitude problem and another with a cut on his lip

Samgb

JohnPerry;573253" said:

Samgb said:

Evilmags;573228" said:Err, it is costing the taxpayer. The franchise was publicly owned. Capitalising it's income stream on industry multiples would value it at over 900 million pounds. That is a loss to the taxpayer that is real and present.  Get some perspective man come on.





pot meet kettle. It's 350 million people who like the show. Versus one bloke with an attitude problem and another with a cut on his lip

Well, 350 million people watch the show. It's just a small percentage of that audience who think it's OK to punch people because you didn't get the menu you wanted and who are still supporting him now that the facts have been established. For the sake of concision I'm just going to call this group what they are - the pricks.

John_P

Evilmags said:

What should have happened is a big cheque to the producer and everything hushed up. Management have blown 300 mn of income and 67mn of profit. That means smaller budgets and less staff. They have also left themselves big liabilities due to the Saville comparison.

Sorry but if he hit someone then it's his fault.      

Management maybe could have handled him in a way that might prevent this kind of incident, but he chose to act that way so imo he is to blame.    

If any budgets are cut or jobs lost then the people affected should look at the person who actually did it for someone to blame.     

I don't really have an opinion on JC or top gear but if he hit someone, then that was his choice and any repercussions are down him and the choice he made. 

Fretwired

JohnPerry said:

Samgb said:

Evilmags said:

What should have happened is a big cheque to the producer and everything hushed up. Management have blown 300 mn of income and 67mn of profit. That means smaller budgets and less staff. They have also left themselves big liabilities due to the Saville comparison.

Yay for corruption!

You silly man.

i don't think that's silly. Put aside any inherent dislike you may have of Clarkson for a second, since it's not relevant in judging this incident on its own merits. He was obnoxious, gave the bloke a fat lip and insulted him. Highly unpleasant but not the most grevious assault ever. The producer chose to go to A&E. Maybe the damage merited it. Sounded to me like a fat lip. 

The net result of firing Clarkson is that a show enjoyed by 350 million people worldwide and making a fortune for the State-funded BBC is over. It is based around Clarkson and will die without him (as a BBC programme at any rate) and no one should kid themselves otherwise. 

You may not like Top Gear and may not like him. That's irrelevant. A global audience five times the entire population of Britain does.

What harm would have been done for Clarkson to give the producer a grovelling apology and a large cheque in compensation so that all those people could carry on enjoying what he does for a living? Would you fear he might "do it again"? Or is it a purely moral stand you are taking? Zero tolerance to such "corruption" and all that. In which case i trust zero tolerance would apply similarly to you, all your friends and family and every celebrity you like if they ever did anything similar. 

Ultimately, would the "harm" done by keeping this quiet have been greater or less than that done by scrapping the show (as they have in effect) and thus denying an hour of politically incorrect fun each week to that vast audience as well as robbing the BBC of £50 million a year it could have spent on, say, a new Attenborough or Brian Cox science programme?

So let me understand this correctly if I walk into a pub and punch you hard in the face and swear at you in front of your mates then the police should be called, I should be arrested and feel the full force of the law. However, if Jeremy Clarkson punches you in the face and swears a lot you think it's OK if he grovels and gives you a fat cheque by way of compensation as you don't want to upset people who like Top Gear.

So the people that fought hard for a fair justice system in which the rich and powerful should be treated the same way as the poorest street busker were just wasting their time. Perhaps you'd be happy for the law to have Get Out of Jail Free card that the rich can wave at a judge .. a quick grovel, a fat cheque and all is forgiven. Tessa May will love it ....

I'm a fan of Clarkson and Top Gear but I'm sorry the BBC acted correctly. Looks like Clarkson has a few personal problems that need sorting ... Top Gear will be back .. in fairness the current season wasn't all that good.

ICBM

If the details of the assault being reported are true he deserves a criminal record, not just the sack. I wouldn't go as far as wanting him to go to jail but it's not *that* far off. (NB - assuming the reported details are correct that it was a sustained assault.)

I don't give a damn about how much this "costs" the BBC or the public - it's time people woke up to the fact that celebrities are not only subject to the same laws as everyone else, they need to be given *less* deference and leeway about that fact, not more.

You also have to ask how, if the attack went on as long as claimed, someone else didn't intervene sooner. Or were they scared to do so because they believed he was untouchable?

Fretwired

Clarkson's had his first offer .. from the Russian Red Army TV channel ... he can play with Ladas, tanks, APCs and other hardware with live ammo .. sounds just up his street .. Top Tank .. :-)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11497681/Russian-army-TV-channel-invites-Jeremy-Clarkson-to-present-motoring-show.html

randomhandclaps

I think I'm finally starting to understand the whole "Well the BBC didn't get Saville so they shouldn't get Clarkson thing!". 

So the BBC failed to notice and then later acknowledge horrendous abuse both on it's premises and by it staff and stars. This seems to lead some to think the logical step is to allow current and future 'stars' to get away with the most antisocial and criminal behaviour thus avoiding claims criticism of double standard.

It could set a whole new president for society.

• "Hi I'd like to complain as I had an operation and the doctor not only used a rusty second hand scalpel but actually left it in my rib cage!".  "I'm sorry we'd like to help but unfortunately both the Saville brothers abused patients on a premises, whilst working for us.  Like yourself now people did report it but some staff chose to ignore it.  I'm afraid there is little we can do because seemingly we unknowingly set ourselves a precedent."
• "Hello... Is that the Police?  I've been stabbed!".  "Sorry to hear that but I'm afraid our hands are tied.  The problem is that historically officers ignored allegations that Saville was abusing young kids.  As a result we are going to have to ignore this too.  After all the law has to be see to be equal to all."

JohnPerry

Pricks? Ok. You win. I can't compete with that

Fretwired

randomhandclaps said:

I think I'm finally starting to understand the whole "Well the BBC didn't get Saville so they shouldn't get Clarkson thing!". 

So the BBC failed to notice and then later acknowledge horrendous abuse both on it's premises and by it staff and stars. This seems to lead some to think the logical step is to allow current and future 'stars' to get away with the most antisocial and criminal behaviour thus avoiding claims criticism of double standard.

It could set a whole new president for society.

• "Hi I'd like to complain as I had an operation and the doctor not only used a rusty second hand scalpel but actually left it in my rib cage!".  "I'm sorry we'd like to help but unfortunately both the Saville brothers abused patients on a premises, whilst working for us.  Like yourself now people did report it but some staff chose to ignore it.  I'm afraid there is little we can do because seemingly we unknowingly set ourselves a precedent."
• "Hello... Is that the Police?  I've been stabbed!".  "Sorry to hear that but I'm afraid our hands are tied.  The problem is that historically officers ignored allegations that Saville was abusing young kids.  As a result we are going to have to ignore this too.  After all the law has to be see to be equal to all."

I always thought that the establishment didn't give a jot about cars and didn't like Clarkson as he hadn't been to Oxbridge and wasn't one of them - Cameron was just trying to bond with the man in the street. On the other hand, if what one reads is true, Saville's activities were commonplace amongst the elite .. I believe the police covered it up. Now if Clarkson had ....

Samgb

JohnPerry;573406" said:

Pricks? Ok. You win. I can't compete with that

Fair.

Samgb

Fretwired;573323" said:

JohnPerry said:



Samgb said:



Evilmags said:

What should have happened is a big cheque to the producer and everything hushed up. Management have blown 300 mn of income and 67mn of profit. That means smaller budgets and less staff. They have also left themselves big liabilities due to the Saville comparison.





Yay for corruption!

You silly man.







i don't think that's silly.



Put aside any inherent dislike you may have of Clarkson for a second, since it's not relevant in judging this incident on its own merits.



He was obnoxious, gave the bloke a fat lip and insulted him. Highly unpleasant but not the most grevious assault ever. The producer chose to go to A&E. Maybe the damage merited it. Sounded to me like a fat lip. 



The net result of firing Clarkson is that a show enjoyed by 350 million people worldwide and making a fortune for the State-funded BBC is over. It is based around Clarkson and will die without him (as a BBC programme at any rate) and no one should kid themselves otherwise. 



You may not like Top Gear and may not like him. That's irrelevant. A global audience five times the entire population of Britain does.

What harm would have been done for Clarkson to give the producer a grovelling apology and a large cheque in compensation so that all those people could carry on enjoying what he does for a living? Would you fear he might "do it again"? Or is it a purely moral stand you are taking? Zero tolerance to such "corruption" and all that. In which case i trust zero tolerance would apply similarly to you, all your friends and family and every celebrity you like if they ever did anything similar. 

Ultimately, would the "harm" done by keeping this quiet have been greater or less than that done by scrapping the show (as they have in effect) and thus denying an hour of politically incorrect fun each week to that vast audience as well as robbing the BBC of £50 million a year it could have spent on, say, a new Attenborough or Brian Cox science programme?











So let me understand this correctly if I walk into a pub and punch you hard in the face and swear at you in front of your mates then the police should be called, I should be arrested and feel the full force of the law. However, if Jeremy Clarkson punches you in the face and swears a lot you think it's OK if he grovels and gives you a fat cheque by way of compensation as you don't want to upset people who like Top Gear.



So the people that fought hard for a fair justice system in which the rich and powerful should be treated the same way as the poorest street busker were just wasting their time. Perhaps you'd be happy for the law to have Get Out of Jail Free card that the rich can wave at a judge .. a quick grovel, a fat cheque and all is forgiven. Tessa May will love it ....



I'm a fan of Clarkson and Top Gear but I'm sorry the BBC acted correctly. Looks like Clarkson has a few personal problems that need sorting ... Top Gear will be back .. in fairness the current season wasn't all that good.

Spot on.

Axe_meister

He was pissed, and hit somebody.

Sounds like a normal Saturday night on an average  high street. A shit thing to do, but in court he can always claim diminished responsibility (being pissed probably works in his favour).

 

Teetonetal

Fretwired;573416" said:

randomhandclaps said:

I think I'm finally starting to understand the whole "Well the BBC didn't get Saville so they shouldn't get Clarkson thing!".  So the BBC failed to notice and then later acknowledge horrendous abuse both on it's premises and by it staff and stars. This seems to lead some to think the logical step is to allow current and future 'stars' to get away with the most antisocial and criminal behaviour thus avoiding claims criticism of double standard.It could set a whole new president for society."Hi I'd like to complain as I had an operation and the doctor not only used a rusty second hand scalpel but actually left it in my rib cage!".  "I'm sorry we'd like to help but unfortunately both the Saville brothers abused patients on a premises, whilst working for us.  Like yourself now people did report it but some staff chose to ignore it.  I'm afraid there is little we can do because seemingly we unknowingly set ourselves a precedent.""Hello... Is that the Police?  I've been stabbed!".  "Sorry to hear that but I'm afraid our hands are tied.  The problem is that historically officers ignored allegations that Saville was abusing young kids.  As a result we are going to have to ignore this too.  After all the law has to be see to be equal to all."





I always thought that the establishment didn't give a jot about cars and didn't like Clarkson as he hadn't been to Oxbridge and wasn't one of them - Cameron was just trying to bond with the man in the street. On the other hand, if what one reads is true, Saville's activities were commonplace amongst the elite .. I believe the police covered it up. Now if Clarkson had ....

He did go to a private boarding school, but got expelled or left by mutual consent...

Evilmags

Samgb;573247" said:

[quote="Evilmags;573228"]Err, it is costing the taxpayer. The franchise was publicly owned. Capitalising it's income stream on industry multiples would value it at over 900 million pounds. That is a loss to the taxpayer that is real and present.

It's not a loss to the taxpayer. It's a loss to the BBC Corporation. There'll be no hospitals or schools closing because Clarkson has gone. Listen to yourself - you're happy that a rich and powerful public figure can rough up a work colleague and you don't think he should be sacked because it'll mean a TV programme you like won't be on anymore. Get some perspective man come on. [/quote]

It is an easily calculate loss to the taxpayer. BBC is state owned. BBC owned the franchise, which has been devalued. The business is worth less money. Therfore so is its owner. It's owner is the taxpayer. What part of that is difficult to understand.

Philly_Q

Axe_meister said:

He was pissed, and hit somebody.

Sounds like a normal Saturday night on an average  high street. A shit thing to do, but in court he can always claim diminished responsibility (being pissed probably works in his favour).

 

He was pissed at work, and hit a colleague.  That doesn't sound like a normal working day in an average work environment.  At all.

However, in a way, I kind of agree with what you've said - if someone in work lost their temper for some reason and hit me, I would hit them back.... and hope that the next day we could shake hands, say how stupid it was and forget it.  I have a temper too, I understand it.  I certainly wouldn't want them sacked - unless I thought it was unprovoked bullying, and something that might happen on a regular basis.

But that's not the way things actually work.  If the events as reported are true, then it seems to me there was no choice, he had to be sacked.

But the whole thing leaves me with very mixed feelings.  Personally, I'm not bothered about Top Gear being axed - I've often enjoyed the show but it's become extremely repetitive and incredibly contrived in recent years.  There are only so many variations on racing three old bangers between point A and point B and "accidentally" crashing one of them and setting another on fire.  The format was going to reach the end of its natural life sooner rather than later.  And as for Clarkson himself, he's funny but he always goes for the cheapest possible shot (oh look, something German, let's make a crack about the War, it was only 70 fucking years ago...).  He's clever but lazy, boorish and boring.

As a BBC enthusiast (a very unpopular standpoint, I realise...) I feel very sorry that they've effectively been forced to axe a money spinning show.  Yes, there probably are "Guardian reading liberal lefties" at the BBC who want rid of Clarkson anyway, but that's pretty much irrelevant.  This whole mess will probably strengthen the case of those who hate the BBC and want to see the licence fee ended, which fills me with dismay.

At the end of the day, the BBC and its viewers lose out, Clarkson gets reviled - in certain circles - for a little while then fucks off to Sky or somewhere and makes a second-rate copy of Top Gear for twice the money and half the viewers.  Not a great outcome for anybody, really.

Axe_meister

The being pissed at work is actually a grey area. I live in hotels on a regular basis for work. I often get pissed on expenses. Ok I've never hit anybody, but have had some quite heated arguments. But if I've done a 12 hour day am I at work or on personal time regardless if my employer is paying for the hotel or not.

Philly_Q

I wasn't even thinking about the being pissed aspect, just the fact that he allegedly hit a colleague.  I had a couple of glasses of wine at work today, as it happens, because they held someone's retirement party in the office.  But I don't think it would've been considered a mitigating factor if I'd lamped someone...

I'm not a lawyer, I don't know if assaulting a colleague means automatic dismissal or not.  But I was talking about it with friends at work and they told me about two occasions where people at our firm had been punched - in both cases the assailant got sacked. 

Samgb

Evilmags;573507" said:

[quote="Samgb;573247"][quote="Evilmags;573228"]Err, it is costing the taxpayer. The franchise was publicly owned. Capitalising it's income stream on industry multiples would value it at over 900 million pounds. That is a loss to the taxpayer that is real and present.

It's not a loss to the taxpayer. It's a loss to the BBC Corporation. There'll be no hospitals or schools closing because Clarkson has gone. Listen to yourself - you're happy that a rich and powerful public figure can rough up a work colleague and you don't think he should be sacked because it'll mean a TV programme you like won't be on anymore. Get some perspective man come on. [/quote]

It is an easily calculate loss to the taxpayer. BBC is state owned. BBC owned the franchise, which has been devalued. The business is worth less money. Therfore so is its owner. It's owner is the taxpayer. What part of that is difficult to understand. [/quote]

I guess I don't see it as a tax. OK, they might have slightly less to spend on programming. Equally though they might be loathe to hand out the kind of salary they were giving to Clarkson or Jonathan Roses or whoever? Don't know. It might be a good thing. Politically I dint think they're getting a license fee hike any time soon.

Heartfeltdawn

Evilmags said:

How do you think high earning celebs who's work employs hundreds of people should be treated? Management 's job is keeping the money flowing. Someone junior getting paid say half a million to fuck off is somewhat more preferable to the willful destruction of a franchise worth nearly a billion to the taxpayer. Pretty sure a lot of bands have paid off a lot off staff for similar incidents. When the moral high ground costs the taxpayer a fortune and lots of people their jobs it is not really as moral as it seems...

Your posts in this thread has been more entertaining than anything in the last series of Top Gear. 

grungebob

I can't find the link but it suggested to the prolonged assault everybody is referencing was actually verbal and there was a push involved that caught the lip of the producer.

The producer never did anything about it except go much later to a&e probably to cover his arse so something was on record. Clarkson reported the incident to bbc.

This set of facts alters the story IF true but I guess time will tell.