Jeremy Clarkson suspended by BBC...
Discussion
robemcdonald said:
Chim said:
Christ on a bike, what type of fairly tale world do you live in, now just a point of note, that 50 million is profit, from a revenue perspective it is some 250 million, just on what planet can any company shrug off that kind of loss and just march on, it will inevitable lead to cuts and job loses, either that or a licence fee hike. So who pays here exactly, certainly not Clarkson, he just strolls off to pick up another check somewhere else.
Oh, to live the life of righteous, f
k the consequences, I followed the rule book, I am therefore exonerated from all and any after effects.
Yip, genius.
Look I don't really want to get into an argument, but just making stuff up like you did in your original post just leaves you open for cross examination. Take for example your assertion that £50m profit equates to £250m of revenue. What information do you have to support the statement. I could be wrong (I frequenatly am) but I suspect that like your comments about dunsfold it's just made up on the spot.Oh, to live the life of righteous, f
k the consequences, I followed the rule book, I am therefore exonerated from all and any after effects.Yip, genius.
So tell me, other than sating your self righteous indignation, and making you feel slightly less worthless about your own life just what effect will this "punishment" have on Clarkson.
Very many years ago (so long ago I was an intern) a more senior member of staff punched me in the face whilst we were enjoying a few beers in at the staff club.
He was a bit 'tired and emotional' and under the impression that I was making advances towards his girlfriend (which I wasn't).
So I ignored it and when he apologised the next day for being 'a bit of a, I mean a complete, tt' continued to ignore it.
Given age I doubt it would qualify as a modern workplace, however it was a large multi national. Nothing reported, no actions taken, and I really didnt care.
So yes you can punch a colleague in the face, at work, in a big company, and it's possible nothing will happen.
He was a bit 'tired and emotional' and under the impression that I was making advances towards his girlfriend (which I wasn't).
So I ignored it and when he apologised the next day for being 'a bit of a, I mean a complete, t
t' continued to ignore it.Given age I doubt it would qualify as a modern workplace, however it was a large multi national. Nothing reported, no actions taken, and I really didnt care.
So yes you can punch a colleague in the face, at work, in a big company, and it's possible nothing will happen.
Chim said:
Oh crap, sue me the figures are off, the point remains regardless of the what way you cut it. The numbers are huge and no organisation can ignore them.
So tell me, other than sating your self righteous indignation, and making you feel slightly less worthless about your own life just what effect will this "punishment" have on Clarkson.
I don't understand why you have to make it personal. I know your upset about top gear. I am as well. If you don't like getting caught out for making things up then don't make things up.So tell me, other than sating your self righteous indignation, and making you feel slightly less worthless about your own life just what effect will this "punishment" have on Clarkson.
Clarkson hasn't been punished has he? His contract hasn't been renewed and that's the part of the problem. I actually think he probably needs a bit of help rather than punishment.
robemcdonald said:
Chim said:
Oh crap, sue me the figures are off, the point remains regardless of the what way you cut it. The numbers are huge and no organisation can ignore them.
So tell me, other than sating your self righteous indignation, and making you feel slightly less worthless about your own life just what effect will this "punishment" have on Clarkson.
I don't understand why you have to make it personal. I know your upset about top gear. I am as well. If you don't like getting caught out for making things up then don't make things up.So tell me, other than sating your self righteous indignation, and making you feel slightly less worthless about your own life just what effect will this "punishment" have on Clarkson.
Clarkson hasn't been punished has he? His contract hasn't been renewed and that's the part of the problem. I actually think he probably needs a bit of help rather than punishment.
robemcdonald said:
I don't understand why you have to make it personal. I know your upset about top gear. I am as well. If you don't like getting caught out for making things up then don't make things up.
Clarkson hasn't been punished has he? His contract hasn't been renewed and that's the part of the problem. I actually think he probably needs a bit of help rather than punishment.
I'm really not getting upset at losing top gear, was a fun show but it will no doubt pop up in another guise in a few months somewhere else. I also think Clarkson has been a complete tosser, probably stressed out of his nut, went over the top, we have all done it. Clarkson hasn't been punished has he? His contract hasn't been renewed and that's the part of the problem. I actually think he probably needs a bit of help rather than punishment.
Not even going to respond to "making things up" line.
And at last, you get it, he has not been "punished" the only losers here are the BBC and the victim of the affair, hence back to my original statement, they have handled the whole thing abysmally and the one guy they are supposed to have been defending in all this has had his life hung out to dry.
Great job there, well done on the BBC for sating the sanctimonious.
Ari said:
lenandsons said:
To understand all that is wrong (IMHO) with the world and society today all you have to do is read some of the namby pamby comments on here! Two blokes have verbals and a minor fisticuff and it is doom and gloom all over.
What has happened to the world? Are we all becoming a bunch of weak kneed limp wristed whingers always looking to blame someone for our mess ups and hiding behind and ever growing list of rules and regulations and political correctness that will eventually suck the very life out of us!
Like him or hate him Clarkson was at least willing to call a spade a spade and have some fun without worrying about some health and safety executive order.
Jesus Christ, is it really so hard to comprehend that if you punch someone that works for you then you're out of a job? What has happened to the world? Are we all becoming a bunch of weak kneed limp wristed whingers always looking to blame someone for our mess ups and hiding behind and ever growing list of rules and regulations and political correctness that will eventually suck the very life out of us!
Like him or hate him Clarkson was at least willing to call a spade a spade and have some fun without worrying about some health and safety executive order.
It seems that in the modern world, there is no price too high for the satisfaction of leftie lust.
This whole matter should have been handled in private. Jeremy should have been punished, and he should have been forced to issue a grovelling apology to Oisin... and perhaps a cheque for £50k.
There is no suggestion that Oisin raised any complaint. Perhaps the right thing would have been to respect his (the victim's) wishes. It's beginning to look like the BBC reaction has screwed Oisin's future.
longblackcoat said:
That proves only that you can download a list, not that you understand the industry.
You fail to point out that the BBC is required to ensure that at least 25% of the content comes from indie producers. So by definition there's going to be a lot.
You also fail to point out that at least 50% comes from in-house.
Here's the relevant bit from the Charter.
"Independent production quota
This relates to levels of programming made by qualifying independent producers only.
The BBC must ensure that at least 25% of qualifying programmes broadcast across its television services are allocated to independent productions. The BBC is committed to treating the 25% as a floor and not a ceiling.
The BBC is also required to ensure at least 25% of BBC One qualifying programmes and at least 25% of BBC Two qualifying programmes are allocated to independent productions.
The definition of a qualifying independent producer are provided in the statutory broadcasting (independent productions) order (see Statement of operation from more information) but in brief, an ‘independent producer’ is a producer:
1.Who is not employed by a broadcaster.
2.Who does not own more than 25% of a broadcaster (unless the producer is based in the EEA and the broadcaster it has a shareholding in is outside the EEA).
3.In which no single UK broadcaster owns a stake of more than 25% or no two or more UK broadcasters together own more than 50%.
A UK Broadcaster is any broadcaster who provides a television service intended for reception in any area of the UK (even if it is also intended for reception elsewhere).
In-house production guarantee
This relates to levels of BBC in-house production only.
From 2007 each genre has had a guaranteed level of in-house output. The guarantees vary across genres ensuring that the BBC sustains a production base to deliver its public service commitments.
Overall the in-house guarantee makes up 50% of output."
Indeed. One of the great things about the Beeb is that they do allow for a huge deal of Indies to start up. And also creatives to get their ideas on air via in-house local activities as well.You fail to point out that the BBC is required to ensure that at least 25% of the content comes from indie producers. So by definition there's going to be a lot.
You also fail to point out that at least 50% comes from in-house.
Here's the relevant bit from the Charter.
"Independent production quota
This relates to levels of programming made by qualifying independent producers only.
The BBC must ensure that at least 25% of qualifying programmes broadcast across its television services are allocated to independent productions. The BBC is committed to treating the 25% as a floor and not a ceiling.
The BBC is also required to ensure at least 25% of BBC One qualifying programmes and at least 25% of BBC Two qualifying programmes are allocated to independent productions.
The definition of a qualifying independent producer are provided in the statutory broadcasting (independent productions) order (see Statement of operation from more information) but in brief, an ‘independent producer’ is a producer:
1.Who is not employed by a broadcaster.
2.Who does not own more than 25% of a broadcaster (unless the producer is based in the EEA and the broadcaster it has a shareholding in is outside the EEA).
3.In which no single UK broadcaster owns a stake of more than 25% or no two or more UK broadcasters together own more than 50%.
A UK Broadcaster is any broadcaster who provides a television service intended for reception in any area of the UK (even if it is also intended for reception elsewhere).
In-house production guarantee
This relates to levels of BBC in-house production only.
From 2007 each genre has had a guaranteed level of in-house output. The guarantees vary across genres ensuring that the BBC sustains a production base to deliver its public service commitments.
Overall the in-house guarantee makes up 50% of output."
wsurfa said:
Very many years ago (so long ago I was an intern) a more senior member of staff punched me in the face whilst we were enjoying a few beers in at the staff club.
He was a bit 'tired and emotional' and under the impression that I was making advances towards his girlfriend (which I wasn't).
So I ignored it and when he apologised the next day for being 'a bit of a, I mean a complete, tt' continued to ignore it.
Given age I doubt it would qualify as a modern workplace, however it was a large multi national. Nothing reported, no actions taken, and I really didnt care.
So yes you can punch a colleague in the face, at work, in a big company, and it's possible nothing will happen.
I'm not sure what point you're making here?He was a bit 'tired and emotional' and under the impression that I was making advances towards his girlfriend (which I wasn't).
So I ignored it and when he apologised the next day for being 'a bit of a, I mean a complete, t
t' continued to ignore it.Given age I doubt it would qualify as a modern workplace, however it was a large multi national. Nothing reported, no actions taken, and I really didnt care.
So yes you can punch a colleague in the face, at work, in a big company, and it's possible nothing will happen.
What if he'd punched and kicked you and you hadn't reported it, that would be ok then?
Punched, kicked, got you on the ground and shove a couple of your ribs in, and you'd not reported it, all good?
Kicked you half to death, stolen your car, driven to your house and torched it? Still no probs as long as you didn't report it?
Or is, in fact, the fact that you chose not to report something completely immaterial as to whether the offence should be punishable or not..?
don4l said:
How do you explain this to the 500 totally innocent other people who will lose their jobs? Danny Cohen has just lost the BBC £50m annual income. This will cost jobs.
It seems that in the modern world, there is no price too high for the satisfaction of leftie lust.
This whole matter should have been handled in private. Jeremy should have been punished, and he should have been forced to issue a grovelling apology to Oisin... and perhaps a cheque for £50k.
There is no suggestion that Oisin raised any complaint. Perhaps the right thing would have been to respect his (the victim's) wishes. It's beginning to look like the BBC reaction has screwed Oisin's future.
It seems that in the modern world, there is no price too high for the satisfaction of leftie lust.
This whole matter should have been handled in private. Jeremy should have been punished, and he should have been forced to issue a grovelling apology to Oisin... and perhaps a cheque for £50k.
There is no suggestion that Oisin raised any complaint. Perhaps the right thing would have been to respect his (the victim's) wishes. It's beginning to look like the BBC reaction has screwed Oisin's future.
BBC Statement said:
“Second – This has obviously been difficult for everyone involved but in particular for Oisin. I want to make clear that no blame attaches to him for this incident. He has behaved with huge integrity throughout. As a senior producer at the BBC he will continue to have an important role within the organisation in the future.
Maybe stop just making things up to suit your agenda? 
Countdown said:
It would normally be hard to imagine people sinking so low as to threaten the innocent party in this whole sad affair. Sadly, reading some of the absolute nonsense posted on here, it isn't too difficult.
Ari said:
don4l said:
How do you explain this to the 500 totally innocent other people who will lose their jobs? Danny Cohen has just lost the BBC £50m annual income. This will cost jobs.
It seems that in the modern world, there is no price too high for the satisfaction of leftie lust.
This whole matter should have been handled in private. Jeremy should have been punished, and he should have been forced to issue a grovelling apology to Oisin... and perhaps a cheque for £50k.
There is no suggestion that Oisin raised any complaint. Perhaps the right thing would have been to respect his (the victim's) wishes. It's beginning to look like the BBC reaction has screwed Oisin's future.
It seems that in the modern world, there is no price too high for the satisfaction of leftie lust.
This whole matter should have been handled in private. Jeremy should have been punished, and he should have been forced to issue a grovelling apology to Oisin... and perhaps a cheque for £50k.
There is no suggestion that Oisin raised any complaint. Perhaps the right thing would have been to respect his (the victim's) wishes. It's beginning to look like the BBC reaction has screwed Oisin's future.
BBC Statement said:
“Second – This has obviously been difficult for everyone involved but in particular for Oisin. I want to make clear that no blame attaches to him for this incident. He has behaved with huge integrity throughout. As a senior producer at the BBC he will continue to have an important role within the organisation in the future.
Maybe stop just making things up to suit your agenda? 
Ari said:
don4l said:
How do you explain this to the 500 totally innocent other people who will lose their jobs? Danny Cohen has just lost the BBC £50m annual income. This will cost jobs.
It seems that in the modern world, there is no price too high for the satisfaction of leftie lust.
This whole matter should have been handled in private. Jeremy should have been punished, and he should have been forced to issue a grovelling apology to Oisin... and perhaps a cheque for £50k.
There is no suggestion that Oisin raised any complaint. Perhaps the right thing would have been to respect his (the victim's) wishes. It's beginning to look like the BBC reaction has screwed Oisin's future.
It seems that in the modern world, there is no price too high for the satisfaction of leftie lust.
This whole matter should have been handled in private. Jeremy should have been punished, and he should have been forced to issue a grovelling apology to Oisin... and perhaps a cheque for £50k.
There is no suggestion that Oisin raised any complaint. Perhaps the right thing would have been to respect his (the victim's) wishes. It's beginning to look like the BBC reaction has screwed Oisin's future.
BBC Statement said:
“Second – This has obviously been difficult for everyone involved but in particular for Oisin. I want to make clear that no blame attaches to him for this incident. He has behaved with huge integrity throughout. As a senior producer at the BBC he will continue to have an important role within the organisation in the future.
Maybe stop just making things up to suit your agenda? In fact, if you read both posts carefully, and without prejudice, you will see that we both agree that Oisin has behaved impeccably.
So, do you really believe that 500 totally innocent people should lose their jobs?
Do you really believe that Oisin's wishes should be ignored?
Pesty said:
Top gear - the gift that keeps on giving.
don4l said:
What do you think that I made up? There is nothing in your post that contradicts anything that I wrote.
In fact, if you read both posts carefully, and without prejudice, you will see that we both agree that Oisin has behaved impeccably.
So, do you really believe that 500 totally innocent people should lose their jobs?
Do you really believe that Oisin's wishes should be ignored?
Sorry I may have missed something, but which 500 people are losing their jobs?In fact, if you read both posts carefully, and without prejudice, you will see that we both agree that Oisin has behaved impeccably.
So, do you really believe that 500 totally innocent people should lose their jobs?
Do you really believe that Oisin's wishes should be ignored?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff