Jeremy Clarkson suspended by BBC...
Discussion
La Liga said:
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.
Pointing out failure goes down badly with tbose who fail, as per your reply above after you offered the risible notion that the BBC haven't mismanaged their fracas and had reality pointed out. You'll be mature enough to cope though 
If there was any relevance or accuracy to the 'humour' you would have a point, but there wasn't and you don't. Buying the occasional parrot before it's demanded hasn't been a problem but as with everything, the basis needs to be there.
Get your emotional antennae around this and chant the list to Parklife in a show good humour and maturity
Lawrence, Nickell, De Menezes, Richard, Kahar, Jefferies, Tomlinson, Ali, Musavir, Jahan, then on the other side add summer riot early days fiasco, Duckenfield, Cashburn (how apt), Smith, Dizaei and Rice.
Police and other public sector type outfits including the BBC need to learn that outcomes matter. What doesn't matter is how hard you try to get it wrong. Ho Ho Ho!
mybrainhurts said:
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.
After the JC affair thank God the Thatcher family were grocers not butchers.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.
turbobloke said:
La Liga said:
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.
Pointing out failure goes down badly with tbose who fail, as per your reply above after you offered the risible notion that the BBC haven't mismanaged their fracas and had reality pointed out. You'll be mature enough to cope though If there was any relevance or accuracy to the 'humour' you would have a point, but there wasn't and you don't. Buying the occasional parrot before it's demanded hasn't been a problem but as with everything, the basis needs to be there.
Get your emotional antennae around this and chant the list to Parklife in a show good humour and maturity
Lawrence, Nickell, De Menezes, Richard, Kahar, Jefferies, Tomlinson, Ali, Musavir, Jahan, then on the other side add summer riot early days fiasco, Duckenfield, Cashburn (how apt), Smith, Dizaei and Rice.
Police and other public sector type outfits including the BBC need to learn that outcomes matter. What doesn't matter is how hard you try to get it wrong. Ho Ho Ho!
It's important to be critical about information and assign it its "weight".
Irrelevant references to failures within the organisation I work for, along with ignoring the debate around the flimsy sources you're using to detract from my conclusion, wouldn't amount to one of your earlier criticisms, would it?
turbobloke said:
In so far as responding to a group of people unable to defend their position without resorting to personal angles
racinghep said:
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.
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 w
e 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.
There are masses of examples of people who will never be able to spend all the money they have, never-the-less going on stage or wherever and continuing to do it, whatever it might be, and enjoying the attention.
It's a basic human need, and the more you get, the more you need, it's not a full-blown addiction, but they hate not having it.
La Liga said:
turbobloke said:
La Liga said:
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.
Pointing out failure goes down badly with tbose who fail, as per your reply above after you offered the risible notion that the BBC haven't mismanaged their fracas and had reality pointed out. You'll be mature enough to cope though If there was any relevance or accuracy to the 'humour' you would have a point, but there wasn't and you don't. Buying the occasional parrot before it's demanded hasn't been a problem but as with everything, the basis needs to be there.
Get your emotional antennae around this and chant the list to Parklife in a show good humour and maturity
Lawrence, Nickell, De Menezes, Richard, Kahar, Jefferies, Tomlinson, Ali, Musavir, Jahan, then on the other side add summer riot early days fiasco, Duckenfield, Cashburn (how apt), Smith, Dizaei and Rice.
Police and other public sector type outfits including the BBC need to learn that outcomes matter. What doesn't matter is how hard you try to get it wrong. Ho Ho Ho!
It's important to be critical about information and assign it its "weight".
Irrelevant references to failures within the organisation I work for, along with ignoring the debate around the flimsy sources you're using to detract from my conclusion, wouldn't amount to one of your earlier criticisms, would it?
turbobloke said:
In so far as responding to a group of people unable to defend their position without resorting to personal angles
Hmmm, after starting the rot with nonsense claims of immaturity that's not very mature and there's a distinct whiff of discomfort. All I did was point out, with examples that any BiB should know, how senior police mismanagement doesn't get the best out of their 'talent' or handle the ensuing fracas well. The list I gave is entirely a matter of public record, and mismanagement all the way. It would only be personal, as per your immaturity claim, if you were personally responsible. Surely not!
RobinOakapple said:
Bit of hyperbole there, don't normally see that on PH
never RobinOakapple said:
There are masses of examples of people who will never be able to spend all the money they have, never-the-less going on stage or wherever and continuing to do it, whatever it might be, and enjoying the attention.
It's a basic human need, and the more you get, the more you need, it's not a full-blown addiction, but they hate not having it.
It does seem like addiction to a drug for some.It's a basic human need, and the more you get, the more you need, it's not a full-blown addiction, but they hate not having it.
turbobloke said:
Hmmm, after starting the rot with nonsense claims of immaturity that's not very mature and there's a distinct whiff of discomfort. All I did was point out, with examples that any BiB should know, how senior police mismanagement doesn't get the best out of their 'talent' or handle the ensuing fracas well. The list I gave is entirely a matter of public record, and mismanagement all the way. It would only be personal, as per your immaturity claim, if you were personally responsible. Surely not!
Which is in no way relevant to the specific example we're talking about and the question in point. I feel the BBC did and overall professional job of managing the situation. You don't because of an alleged quote from an anonymous source. I then proposed that that didn't have sufficient weight to negate my conclusion. Your response was then to continue focus on the non-related aspect of my post, and highlight failures in an unrelated organisation, which I presume is smoke and mirrors to not have to defend your conclusions based on a source I stated had little weight.
La Liga said:
I feel the BBC did and overall professional job of managing the situation. You don't because of an alleged quote from an anonymous source.
That's quite wrong, you have an evidence problem! And a memory problem at the root of it as you only remembered one out of the three examples in front of you monents ago.I pointed out that there was indeed an anonymous exec involved in the rehab comment and the crass Savile analogy but have pointed out in the past in this thread, and as folks following the saga will know, that it was Director General Tony Hall who went on record to state that there was no timetable for the disciplinary review (when there should have been, and probably was) and that it was Radio 1 Controller Ben Cooper who intervened before the review had concluded to say that the BBC shouls be tough on Clarkson. Also the anonymous comments aren't disputed, it's just that nobody knows for sure who it was. Not only do BBC execs not know how to conduct themselves in the midst of a disciplinary, the highest paid people at the very top say silly things and can't keep lesser execs in order. That's unprofessional all the way.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/mar/12/top-g...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3008566/We...
Hopefully a Gruaniad link and a Mail link balance out nicely.
La Liga said:
I then proposed that that didn't have sufficient weight to negate my conclusion.
See above, it's self-evident, self-confessed, out of the mouths of beebs and sucklings.turbobloke said:
That's quite wrong, you have an evidence prolem!
I pointed out that there was indeed an anonymous exec involved in the rehab comment and the crass Savile analogy but have pointed out in the past in this thread, and as folks following the saga will know, that it was Director General Tony Hall who went on record to state that there was no timetable for the disciplinary review (when there should have been, and probably was) and that it was Radio 1 Controller Ben Cooper who intervened before the review had concluded to say that the BBC shouls be tough on Clarkson. Also the anonymous comments aren't disputed, it's just that nobody knows for sure who it was. Not only do BBC execs not know how to conduct themselves in the midst of a disciplinary, the highest paid people at the very top say silly things and can't keep lesser execs in order. That's unprofessional all the way.
Who cares if he said there wasn't a time table? I pointed out that there was indeed an anonymous exec involved in the rehab comment and the crass Savile analogy but have pointed out in the past in this thread, and as folks following the saga will know, that it was Director General Tony Hall who went on record to state that there was no timetable for the disciplinary review (when there should have been, and probably was) and that it was Radio 1 Controller Ben Cooper who intervened before the review had concluded to say that the BBC shouls be tough on Clarkson. Also the anonymous comments aren't disputed, it's just that nobody knows for sure who it was. Not only do BBC execs not know how to conduct themselves in the midst of a disciplinary, the highest paid people at the very top say silly things and can't keep lesser execs in order. That's unprofessional all the way.
A lack of dispute, doesn't mean it's true. Plus there's not the context and the debate whether or not there's some merit in the point it has made.
The overall saga was managed well given the enormous attention and scrutiny. A mention of a timetable, one chap's opinion and a anonymous source don't make the overall matter "unprofessional". At the very least there are degrees.
La Liga said:
turbobloke said:
That's quite wrong, you have an evidence prolem!
I pointed out that there was indeed an anonymous exec involved in the rehab comment and the crass Savile analogy but have pointed out in the past in this thread, and as folks following the saga will know, that it was Director General Tony Hall who went on record to state that there was no timetable for the disciplinary review (when there should have been, and probably was) and that it was Radio 1 Controller Ben Cooper who intervened before the review had concluded to say that the BBC shouls be tough on Clarkson. Also the anonymous comments aren't disputed, it's just that nobody knows for sure who it was. Not only do BBC execs not know how to conduct themselves in the midst of a disciplinary, the highest paid people at the very top say silly things and can't keep lesser execs in order. That's unprofessional all the way.
Who cares if he said there wasn't a time table?I pointed out that there was indeed an anonymous exec involved in the rehab comment and the crass Savile analogy but have pointed out in the past in this thread, and as folks following the saga will know, that it was Director General Tony Hall who went on record to state that there was no timetable for the disciplinary review (when there should have been, and probably was) and that it was Radio 1 Controller Ben Cooper who intervened before the review had concluded to say that the BBC shouls be tough on Clarkson. Also the anonymous comments aren't disputed, it's just that nobody knows for sure who it was. Not only do BBC execs not know how to conduct themselves in the midst of a disciplinary, the highest paid people at the very top say silly things and can't keep lesser execs in order. That's unprofessional all the way.
La Liga said:
The overall saga was managed well given the enormous attention and scrutiny...
Scrutiny is irrelevant to the quality of judgement and decisions called for from senior execs. And you can repeat the same assertion as often as you like, the evidence as posted several times now shows clearly that the review took place in a free-for-all of prejudicial comments from beeb execs no less. turbobloke said:
There should have been a timetable and as acknowledged there probably was, so there's nothing professional about saying there wasn't.
Relative to the overall management this has very little weight. turbobloke said:
to the extent that he prejudged the outcome
An assumption. And I spoke of his opinion in the last post. turbobloke said:
Scrutiny is irrelevant to the quality of judgement and decisions called for from senior execs. And you can repeat the same assertion as often as you like, the evidence as posted several times now shows clearly that the review took place in a free-for-all of prejudicial comments from beeb execs no less.
Quality of judgement is circumstantial. When you're managing the highest-profile story in the country, which is moving at a quick pace, then the margin for even minor errors is much smaller. The only assertion being made which is questionable is you relying heavily on a contextless, uncorroborated anonymous quote or two. I prefer to rely on what is factual and established, rather than misuse low-weight information.
Just let him get the last word in, its a thread about the BBC, he wont stop posting until you do.
john connor said:
Listen, and understand. That terminator turbobloke is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead you wish you were dead.
La Liga said:
I'm trying really hard not to read certain posts in the "Parklife" rhythm now someone mentioned it
La Liga said:
Remember how Sky dealt with Andy Gray and Richard Keys?
Good comparison IMO. Arguably their punishment was comparatively much harsher given that they weren't on final warnings and didn't physically assault somebody.JC's publicly stated that none of this was the producer's fault. His fellow presenters have stated that he's a knob to work with and this time it was a knobbery too far.
mdavids said:
Just let him get the last word in, its a thread about the BBC, he wont stop posting until you do.
john connor said:
Listen, and understand. That terminator turbobloke is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead you wish you were dead.
Apparently that (
) is the correct mature response to immature bullst as per the above.Hell, have another
Countdown said:
La Liga said:
I'm trying really hard not to read certain posts in the "Parklife" rhythm now someone mentioned it
When reading that reply it's hard not to think about a pigeon strutting around a chess board knocking pieces over and crapping on vacant squares, know what I mean squire? Hilarious
Dr Jekyll said:
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'.
They could have decided to investigate, it would only have taken one phone call to anybody there to realise what happened.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff