Jeremy Clarkson suspended by BBC...

[Halb]

confused_buyer said:

The BBC doesn't make "profit". The shows are paid for by the Licence Fee so, in those terms, any £ of revenue is profit as their base costs are zero as they'd be spending the money on some sort of programming anyway.

BBC2 is given an annual budget and told "go spend it". It always gets spent. If some of what they spend it on brings in some actual cash as well that is a bonus.

From somewhere in here, or one of the many other threads, it was stated (sourced) that the only thing that is paid for out of the licence fee is Clarkson's presenter fee. Otherwise Top Gear pays for itself.

[blueg33]

Its interesting isn't it,

Likley penalty in the court for assault - small fine, maybe community service (bloke that broke my nose totally unprovoked only got a caution)

Penalty from BBC circa £12m, public hanging, comparison with Saville etc etc

One of the two above is probably wrong

IMO as an employer the BBC did have a choice, their choice was to manage the whole thing properly or make a complete meal of it. They chose the latter, no one has come out of this looking good or even looking like they acted reasonably.

[racinghep]

turbobloke said:

NicD said:

I imagine he has a lot stashed away, so if I were him, I would be more interested in quality of life/work and perhaps prestige than just the huge contract value.

Yes possibly so, his wealth is estimated to be £50m, but with a divorce ongoing apparently.

It was nevertheless a chance to increase his stash significantly.

I was having this discussion with someone the other day as it goes.

If you could have £50m now or maybe £75m in three years time and in the intervening three years you still had to work pretty hard - even if it was something you enjoyed. Would you?

I mean is your life really going to be that much different with an additional £25m? Would you really do vastly different things?

If the difference was £50m now and say £150m+ then you might go for it but for that difference. I don't know about other people on here but I wouldn't bother. I would far rather do other things of a more philanthropic nature with my time than earn more money that really is not going to make much more difference to my life.

[anonymous-user]

racinghep said:

I mean is your life really going to be that much different with an additional £25m? Would you really do vastly different things?

That's just a financial consideration though. I imagine Clarkson's increasingly bad behaviour is at least in part due to the fact that so many people seem to support everything he does.

You or I could perhaps quit with 'enough' money but I wonder if he's become a bit addicted to all the fawning attention.

Imagine if you went on a internet forum and thousands of people were saying that you "speak for them" or that there was a hole in them where your TV show used to be. Imagine them suggesting you should be PM.

Then, a bit drunk with all that slavish support, you get dismissed for punching someone. Incredibly, your supporters then say you were the victim of a left wing media conspiracy and 1,000,000 people signed a petition to reinstate you.

I'm sure it would be hard to give up.

[McWigglebum4th]

McWigglebum4th said:

A question for those saying clarkson should not of been giving the boot


How much should i be earning before i can boot you firmly in the nuts and not be sacked?

If i earn double that can i kick you twice in the nuts?


If i earn half that am i allowed to give you a gentle slap?


Earnings needed to fart in your face?


And now the biggy

Would bill gates be allowed to chainsaw both your arms off without you complaining?

Can no one tell me how much i have to earn to kick folk in the nuts

[Halb]

McWigglebum4th said:

Can no one tell me how much i have to earn to kick folk in the nuts

Erm, do I pay you or you pay me?

[mph1977]

Scuffers said:

confused_buyer said:

The BBC doesn't make "profit". The shows are paid for by the Licence Fee so, in those terms, any £ of revenue is profit as their base costs are zero as they'd be spending the money on some sort of programming anyway.

BBC2 is given an annual budget and told "go spend it". It always gets spent. If some of what they spend it on brings in some actual cash as well that is a bonus.

BBC worldwide does make a profit.

what you then term to call that in the bigger context of all of the BBC is up to you.

alot of people seem to struggle with the way in which not for profits , public bodfies and charities account for their money and the subtle differences between these types of structure and a commercial company.

surplus = profit , deficit = loss ... the main difference is that surplus is not extracted in the form of dividend in the way that profit may be...

[Sway]

McWigglebum4th said:

Can no one tell me how much i have to earn to kick folk in the nuts

If you're in a position where your performance keeps my family fed, then kick away!

Usually have to pay for that sort of treatment, so getting it for free along with a job would be a good thing...

[turbobloke]

mph1977 said:

Scuffers said:

confused_buyer said:

The BBC doesn't make "profit". The shows are paid for by the Licence Fee so, in those terms, any £ of revenue is profit as their base costs are zero as they'd be spending the money on some sort of programming anyway.

BBC2 is given an annual budget and told "go spend it". It always gets spent. If some of what they spend it on brings in some actual cash as well that is a bonus.

BBC worldwide does make a profit.

what you then term to call that in the bigger context of all of the BBC is up to you.

alot of people seem to struggle with the way in which not for profits , public bodfies and charities account for their money and the subtle differences between these types of structure and a commercial company.

surplus = profit , deficit = loss ... the main difference is that surplus is not extracted in the form of dividend in the way that profit may be...

A lot? Plenty of people in paid private sector work or running businesses have roles as Members or Directors in charitable Trusts or similar, and understand the concept of an operating surplus perfectly well.

In the case of the BBC, the last time I remember reading about a surplus was a few years ago when it was around £150m at a time when the BBC was cutting thousands of jobs.

There's also BBC Worldwide and related international ops, with profits of around £200m iirc, although working out what's really going on can be tricky as I recall reading that the BBC isn't making it easy for outsiders to see the true picture.

Within the current financial and political climate there may be an element of self-protection at work as there were substantial bonus payments in the recent past e.g. Tim Davie £200k. Bonus payments many multiples of the average wage aren't exactly right-on these days, even where they're earned.

[racinghep]

el stovey said:

racinghep said:

I mean is your life really going to be that much different with an additional £25m? Would you really do vastly different things?

That's just a financial consideration though. I imagine Clarkson's increasingly bad behaviour is at least in part due to the fact that so many people seem to support everything he does.

You or I could perhaps quit with 'enough' money but I wonder if he's become a bit addicted to all the fawning attention.

Imagine if you went on a internet forum and thousands of people were saying that you "speak for them" or that there was a hole in them where your TV show used to be. Imagine them suggesting you should be PM.

Then, a bit drunk with all that slavish support, you get dismissed for punching someone. Incredibly, your supporters then say you were the victim of a left wing media conspiracy and 1,000,000 people signed a petition to reinstate you.

I'm sure it would be hard to give up.

I get what you are saying, however:

Assuming someone in a modern western society has a desire for the acquisition of financial security for themselves and their future generations is one thing.

Assuming that they are immersed in the attention we kind of celeb culture is a bit of a stretch, especially when I don't seem to recall seeing much of what I would consider courting of that in his writing and performances over the years.

But all things are possible I guess.

[blueg33]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

If it's not interesting why bother to comment, especially as you have jumped to the conclusion that I am condoning what he did.
He didn't get to that position through our money, he got to it because the public possibly you and I included were entertained by his programmes and kept on watching them.

[anonymous-user]

I'm trying really hard not to read certain posts in the "Parklife" rhythm now someone mentioned it

PRTVR said:

but I suppose as soon as the legal vultures get involved the outcome was inevitably, arse covering for the BBC, forget the cost, money isn't important, all due to the unique way the BBC is funded.

It seems like the behaviour of a large, professional organisation to me.

Remember how Sky dealt with Andy Gray and Richard Keys?

allergictocheese said:

Clarkson put the BBC in an impossible position as an employer. Advocating letting him off as a means to an end, on the basis Clarkson is revenue positive for them, is misconceived on the principle. Letting people commit criminal acts without sanction in the course of their employment on the basis they otherwise do a good for their employers is morally wrong.

I agree. I'm still surprised people can do the necessary mental gymnastics, based upon his popularity to justify apportion blame to the BBC.

blueg33 said:

IMO as an employer the BBC did have a choice, their choice was to manage the whole thing properly or make a complete meal of it. They chose the latter, no one has come out of this looking good or even looking like they acted reasonably.

How did thy make a 'complete meal' out of it? I've seen a lot of people say it's been mismanaged, and the only point I see up for debate is how the producer's name came to be.

[blueg33]

They didn't deal with it quickly, they allowed senior execs to make pejorative pre judgement comments, they released the name of the victim.

As I said no one has come out of it looking good.

[V8A*ndy]

Some "Top Gear Live" billboards have just appeared overnight round my neck of the woods.

[turbobloke]

La Liga said:

PRTVR said:

but I suppose as soon as the legal vultures get involved the outcome was inevitably, arse covering for the BBC, forget the cost, money isn't important, all due to the unique way the BBC is funded.

It seems like the behaviour of a large, professional organisation to me.

Police and Russell Brand tainting your view? Memory playing up?!

- top man says no timetable for review, there should have been and probably was
- senior exec says during the review that one of the parties involved needs rehab
- the same exec uses a crass Savile analogy
- another exec says one party should be given tough treatment also during the review

None of that is remotely professional.

[NoNeed]

Dr Jekyll said:

NoNeed said:

Like I said though we have not been talking about Clarkson it is you that keeps bringing him into it, it is the fact that for 6 days it went unreported, for 6 days Clarkson went unsuspended and for 6 days you knew nothing and all that was because of a culture within the BBC of covering up and protecting it's people.

No, it was because the incident hadn't been reported to the BBC. They can't cover up something they don't know about.

This comment from the former chair of the BBC trust confirms that far from protecting Clarkson the BBC were looking to get rid of him even before this incident.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/mar/26/bbc-j...

Are you aware of how many of the production team, a team that is mostly employed by the BBC were present or had knowledge of the incident within a few hours?

They can say they was not told officially but to claim no knowledge at all would be a lie.

[Dr Jekyll]

NoNeed said:

Are you aware of how many of the production team, a team that is mostly employed by the BBC were present or had knowledge of the incident within a few hours?

They can say they was not told officially but to claim no knowledge at all would be a lie.

They might have known something had happened but they wouldn't know the details without an official report. The BBC can't very well put out a press release saying 'we've heard a rumour about a punch up but we don't know the details and nobody has complained'.

[anonymous-user]

You'd come across better if you lightened up about that reference someone made. Having an emotional, defensive reaction and implying people aren't able to debate with you because they found it funny isn't a mature reaction.

turbobloke said:

- senior exec says during the review that one of the parties involved needs rehab
- the same exec uses a crass Savile analogy

Oh, that anonymous source which 'The Mail on Sunday' has quoted, which apparently was linked to James Purnell, but then not.

I take it all back given that high quality and wholly reliable information.

Even if it had been said, what was the context and audience? Is there no validity at all? Perhaps unprofessional if said publicly, but perhaps two colleagues trying to move the BBC's culture away from letting famous people do what they want.

The over-arching event was managed well. It was reported and the investigation completely quickly and decisive action taken. The DG came across well and fulfilled his role as the head of a publicity-funded organisation.

If the best you can do to detract from it is cite anonymous sources, I'd say that's a reflection things were carried out well.

[jhonn]

NicD said:

As a performer, he will miss the comfy slot, likely to be downhill from here in terms of public popularity, but you never know.

Be interesting to see how he looks back on this.

That's where my interest now lies - how are the public going to perceive him in the coming months?

If he carries on 'just being Clarkson' and acting as if nothing had happened, I suspect that his popularity may take a nose-dive - it will be interesting to see how he handles it.

I hope, for his sake, that he has access to the right kind of support.

[mybrainhurts]

Strocky said:

mybrainhurts said:

Strocky said:

mybrainhurts said:

Jimbo0912 said:

Let's not forget that Savile was also very close friends with Margaret Thatcher who gave a knighthood to a pederast in Cyril Smith despite the fact that she was made well aware of his disgusting deviations. What does that say about her?!

I think you've said that before.

Savile very close friend of Margaret Thatcher.

Margaret Thatcher knew what Cyril Smith was doing.

Where did you get that information?

Here's your starter for (number) 10

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2984529/Ca...

Thanks. All that says is she knew of allegations and knew he had not been prosecuted.

Any other information?

Are you wanting interviews from the kids he fked ffs?

Another case of good ol' PH RTFQ before you reply. You've lost me there, what the hell has that got to do with anything I said?

Strocky said:

[He was a nonce and it was well known he's a nonce even back then

If I was in Thatcher's shoes at the very least I wouldn't be knighting a beast and as a parent I would have thought she would have used her powers to investigate why he wasn't facing trial despite the "overwhelming evidence"

Aye, this is the problem I have here. Smith wasn't a Conservative, so there's no reason for her to favour him. If she knew the allegations were true, do you really think she would have gone along with the honour?

I don't. I would suggest she had a mountain of other more important things to do and just got this issue out of the way quickly because it didn't warrant lengthy attention.

Nothing else fits.