Jeremy Clarkson suspended by BBC...

[Countdown]

Cheese Mechanic said:

Just about the facts of the matter. The worst thing of course being the public exposure of Tymon, who has become a tool of the leftist cretins who's agenda the entire circus has been.

A pox on them , and their house.

Whereabouts on the political spectrum are the cretins who are abusing him?

[TKF]

mdavids said:

Just let him get the last word in, its a thread about the BBC, he wont stop posting until you do.

Turbobloke - show us where the BBC touched you. Use the doll.

[don4l]

Motorrad said:

don4l said:

So, the real victim will never see justice. Far from being compensated, he will be punished for years to come.

So, I have a question for those of you wanted Clarkson sacked. Are you pleased about the outcome for the victim - you know a chap called Oisin Tymon?

Another question, should Oisin have had any say in Clarkson's punishment?

No personal interest/agenda whatsoever here.

Dislike the BBC, find top gear a bore.

You cannot assault a colleague and expect to keep your job. Really that's the end of the story.

I know that.

You ignored my questions.
I asked about the real victim, and you responded exactly as I expected. Your post doesn't mention Oisin once.

You have reinforced my view that there is a certain section of society who will pursue their own agenda without regard to the consequences for innocent victims.

In your world, Oisin's future is a small price to pay to pacify your moral outrage.

Also, you said "No personal interest/agenda whatsoever here. "

I only click on threads that interest me. I'm sure that this applies to most people. I'm also sure that you will understand that readers will be surprised that you have not only clicked on a thread that you have no interest in, but you also took the trouble to post in it.

I'm really struggling to believe that you are being entirely honest.

[Ayahuasca]

Try a thought experiment.


Say a long suffering Buckingham Palace footman kicked a corgi that pissed on his leg, and in a flash of rage the queen slapped him, then apologised

Would the queen lose her job as head of state and be kicked out of Buckingham Palace or would another resolution be found?

Thought experiment.

[robemcdonald]

Ayahuasca said:

Try a thought experiment.


Say a long suffering Buckingham Palace footman kicked a corgi that pissed on his leg, and in a flash of rage the queen slapped him, then apologised

Would the queen lose her job as head of state and be kicked out of Buckingham Palace or would another resolution be found?

Thought experiment.

They probably just wouldn't renew her contract.

[Chim]

Countdown said:

Chim said:

Rules at any cost = fking stupidity

Disregarding rules at any cost = equal stupidity.

I'm a fan of JC and Top Gear. JC abused a colleague for 30 minutes and then hit him. As even his colleagues and supporters have said, he's a knob. That, and only that, is why he got sacked.

Yes, he is a total nob, he lost it, acted like a tit etc etc. Personally, I like top gear, have even met the team and had a play in the RPC, good team, well put together and have a lot of admiration for what they have achieved with the show. I also do not consider the BBC to be a particularly left wing organisation, I do though think they are a badly managed organisation and this has been a classic showing of this poor management. Lets just look at the "rules" for a moment, they are, in essence, in place to protect the company and employees. From a company perspective they are in place to maintain working practices and protect the bottom line and minimise financial, regulatory and reputational risk. At the employee end, they are there to protect from victimisation, discrimination, financial loss, undue stress, and yes, violence in the work place.

So lets look at the action the BBC have taken, firstly they chose to go public on this. Well, that the reputation risk invoked, secondly, they chose to release the name of the employee, that has opened him up to victimisation, discrimination and huge amounts of stress and may or may not result in future financial loss, risk is now there though. Lets now look at the action they have chosen to take. This will now result in financial loss to the company, at the very least it increases the risk of this substantially. So the only box here that is ticked is the violence in the work place one, they have though failed on every other count due to the handling of the affair.

Given what we know and the statement made by the producer it is clear that he had no intention of reporting this, enjoyed his job greatly and has been a friend of Clarkson for many years, he also just seems to have wanted to get on with his job. All of this is screwed now, his job will change, he is being hounded by idiots and must be stressed out of his head, in addition, if it all goes tits up for TG a lot of totally innocent people will have their livelihoods impacted to a greater or lesser degree, certainly, at the very least there must be a lot of worry in many homes due to this.

And the tosser that is Clarkson, he walks away and will no doubt stagger into another big fat pay day, have a holiday and feel relieved that he is out of the stress that was TG and has a little space to think about his next move. So all in all, utter fking failure of management to handle the situation in an appropriate manner. Still, they followed the Rules, unfortunately, they forget to read why the riles are there in the first place.

[Motorrad]

don4l said:

I know that.

You ignored my questions.
I asked about the real victim, and you responded exactly as I expected. Your post doesn't mention Oisin once.

You have reinforced my view that there is a certain section of society who will pursue their own agenda without regard to the consequences for innocent victims.

In your world, Oisin's future is a small price to pay to pacify your moral outrage.

Also, you said "No personal interest/agenda whatsoever here. "

I only click on threads that interest me. I'm sure that this applies to most people. I'm also sure that you will understand that readers will be surprised that you have not only clicked on a thread that you have no interest in, but you also took the trouble to post in it.

I'm really struggling to believe that you are being entirely honest.

I haven't got any moral outrage.

To be honest I don't give a flying fk who Clarkson assaults. Personally I'd have preferred the outcome of the 'fracas' to have been Clarkson getting his front teeth knocked out by a younger and fitter man.

My sole point was that in professional life you can't assault your colleagues and retain your job.

The future careers of anyone involved don't come into it. You can't publicly attack someone and be seen to get away with it whatever your position.

Just for your info I'm a TG hater, a fan of Clarkson in general and a despiser of the BBC.

The fact Clarkson won't suffer and the object of his assault will is a moot point.

[Countdown]

nyxster said:

mph1977 said:

fruitcake hatstand wibble sardine corsetiere haddock p'tang p'tang

Parklife.

A new fixture in the PH lexicon....

[don4l]

Bugger. This is going to test my "quoting" abilities.

Countdown said:

don4l said:

500 jobs will be lost. I'm sure that the 500 affected families will understand that Clarkson had to go, and the sacrifice of their jobs was a small price to pay.

I'm genuinely interested in how you have worked out that 500 jobs will be lost. I have a (admittedly limited) understanding of cost accounting for TV companies and, give how the BBC operates (permanent posts, internal secondments,agency staff, contractors, outsourced or shared services) I'd be surprised if even the production Accountant could say with any degree of certainty that 500 posts will be lost.

Top Gear, according to the BBC, makes a profit of £50m per annum. Without Top Gear, this income will eventually dry up. The BBC may try to keep the show going with different presenters, but I don't think that it will work any better than the last time. So, I believe that this income will be lost.

For large organisations, the average cost is £100,000k per employee. This figure includes salary, rent for office space, business rates, electricity etc. So, if the BBC loses £50m, then it must cut 500 jobs.

You may say that they could save £50m elsewhere, but if they could, then they should do so anyway.

Countdown said:

don4l said:

This is what happens when lefties try to take the high moral ground.

Those self-same lefties who have helped JC to become a millionaire? Those lefties who have contributed towards making TG the success it is? Do you really believe they've spent the last 13 years trying to get rid of him? They've had more than one opportunity to get rid of him. he has been on final warning. He's now hit a colleague. After spending 3 hours in a pub. This wasn't the lefties fault.

I didn't suggest that lefties made him hit Oisin.

Countdown said:

don4l said:

The real victim in this is Oisin.

This is where the conspiracy theories perhaps contradict each other. If JC's sacking was something that the lefty BBC wanted then won't they actually ensure that Oisin {their "patsy") is looked after? Or will he be punished because they didn't want to sack JC?

That comment makes no sense at all.

You have made my point for me.

Oisin is currently in hiding because the BBC released his name. This was an utterly shameful act.

Hopefully, the BBC are paying for his emergency accommodation.

Countdown said:

don4l said:

Oisin could easily have come out of this with a £50k bonus and a secure future.

And then we would have had accusations of "weak, lefty BBC management resorting to bribery to cover things up in order to keep their greedy mitts on the £50m profit, rather than taking the moral high ground". Ever heard the phrase "damned if they do, damned if they don't?"

Nonsense. If they had kept the whole thing quiet and given Oisin £50k, then we would never have heard anything about the "fracas".

The problem with "moral superiority" is that there are victims. In this case Oisin has ended up with much more than a cut lip. There is no way that I can agree that anybody who punches someone in the workplace should keep his/her job.

Equally, I cannot agree that 500 people should lose their jobs because one person misbehaved.

[nyxster]

Countdown said:

A new fixture in the PH lexicon....

and i can't get that bloody song out of my head since it was mentioned, and keep mentally adding parklife to the end of every line posted on every thread.

[don4l]

Motorrad said:

<snip>

My sole point was that in professional life you can't assault your colleagues and retain your job.
<snip>

Yes you can...

Even at the BBC...

Mark Thompson not only retained his job, he became Director General after a serious physical assault on a colleague.

You "lefties" cannot help yourselves, can you?

[greygoose]

TKF said:

mdavids said:

Just let him get the last word in, its a thread about the BBC, he wont stop posting until you do.

Turbobloke - show us where the BBC touched you. Use the doll.

TB wouldn't have a doll but no doubt a strawman will feature in his reply.

[mybrainhurts]

Countdown said:

nyxster said:

mph1977 said:

fruitcake hatstand wibble sardine corsetiere haddock p'tang p'tang

Parklife.

A new fixture in the PH lexicon....

Is it better than pondlife or worse than pondlife...?

[Countdown]

don4l said:

Bugger. This is going to test my "quoting" abilities.

Countdown said:

don4l said:

500 jobs will be lost. I'm sure that the 500 affected families will understand that Clarkson had to go, and the sacrifice of their jobs was a small price to pay.

I'm genuinely interested in how you have worked out that 500 jobs will be lost. I have a (admittedly limited) understanding of cost accounting for TV companies and, give how the BBC operates (permanent posts, internal secondments,agency staff, contractors, outsourced or shared services) I'd be surprised if even the production Accountant could say with any degree of certainty that 500 posts will be lost.

Top Gear, according to the BBC, makes a profit of £50m per annum. Without Top Gear, this income will eventually dry up. The BBC may try to keep the show going with different presenters, but I don't think that it will work any better than the last time. So, I believe that this income will be lost.

For large organisations, the average cost is £100,000k per employee. This figure includes salary, rent for office space, business rates, electricity etc. So, if the BBC loses £50m, then it must cut 500 jobs.

Equally, I cannot agree that 500 people should lose their jobs because one person misbehaved.

Accounting worthy of Ed Balls.....

I can guarantee that the £100k average cost per employee is completely made up. Not wishing to cause offence but its almost as if you've taken the £50m figure, and divided it by 500 to come up with a £100k cost per employee. Off the top of my head here are some of the costs for large employers that I've worked for

£90m 4000 employees (NHS)
£55m 1500 employees (Home Office NDPB)
£12m 200 employees (ACademy)

Average salary in the UK is ITRO £26k. Salaries tend to be between 60% and 80% of employee and related costs. Put simply, it's nowhere near a £100k average.

After having said all that, what you don't appear to have realised is that the £50m is income from historical sales. It's going to keep flowing in, at least in the near future. If the beeB don't manage to relaunch TG and IF they can't find other equivalent programmes then this income stream will gradually reduce. However it's definitely not going to disappear overnight and it's not going to lead to the loss of 500 jobs.

[Countdown]

mybrainhurts said:

Is it better than pondlife or worse than pondlife...?

You tell me....

[Ari]

don4l said:

You are asking the wrong questions.

500 jobs will be lost. I'm sure that the 500 affected families will understand that Clarkson had to go, and the sacrifice of their jobs was a small price to pay.

This is what happens when lefties try to take the high moral ground.

The real victim in this is Oisin.

He didn't want to report the assault. He doesn't want to give any evidence to the police.

Oisin could easily have come out of this with a £50k bonus and a secure future. Instead, the people who are pretending to be outraged that he was assaulted, have forced him into hiding. These people were not outraged because Oisin was assaulted. They are outraged that Clarkson assaulted someone.

In fact, I would say that they are not outraged at all. They reacted with glee when the story broke. They had an opportunity to bring down one of the few "non-lefties" that remain at the BBC.

So, the real victim will never see justice. Far from being compensated, he will be punished for years to come.

So, I have a question for those of you wanted Clarkson sacked. Are you pleased about the outcome for the victim - you know a chap called Oisin Tymon?

Another question, should Oisin have had any say in Clarkson's punishment?

WTF!?

Just when you think this thread can't get any worse...

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Ayahuasca said:

Try a thought experiment.


Say a long suffering Buckingham Palace footman kicked a corgi that pissed on his leg, and in a flash of rage the queen slapped him, then apologised

Would the queen lose her job as head of state and be kicked out of Buckingham Palace or would another resolution be found?

Thought experiment.

Well if he kicked her dog she is entitled to defend her dog from its attacker I would expect. Especially as it's in her own home. I suspect if Oisin had popped round to JC's house to discuss the show and kicked JC's dog, JC would not be in any trouble for hitting him. It would be a private matter.

Also, I'm not sure the queen has a contract of employment, that has to be renewed or otherwise.

Thirdly, is the queen on a final warning following previous bad behaviour?

But those issues aside, the two cases are almost identical and you raise a very interesting point

[mybrainhurts]

Ari said:

don4l said:

You are asking the wrong questions.

500 jobs will be lost. I'm sure that the 500 affected families will understand that Clarkson had to go, and the sacrifice of their jobs was a small price to pay.

This is what happens when lefties try to take the high moral ground.

The real victim in this is Oisin.

He didn't want to report the assault. He doesn't want to give any evidence to the police.

Oisin could easily have come out of this with a £50k bonus and a secure future. Instead, the people who are pretending to be outraged that he was assaulted, have forced him into hiding. These people were not outraged because Oisin was assaulted. They are outraged that Clarkson assaulted someone.

In fact, I would say that they are not outraged at all. They reacted with glee when the story broke. They had an opportunity to bring down one of the few "non-lefties" that remain at the BBC.

So, the real victim will never see justice. Far from being compensated, he will be punished for years to come.

So, I have a question for those of you wanted Clarkson sacked. Are you pleased about the outcome for the victim - you know a chap called Oisin Tymon?

Another question, should Oisin have had any say in Clarkson's punishment?

WTF!?

Just when you think this thread can't get any worse...

Can't see anything that's not true in don's post, what's your problem?

[mph1977]

mybrainhurts said:

Ari said:

don4l said:

You are asking the wrong questions.

500 jobs will be lost. I'm sure that the 500 affected families will understand that Clarkson had to go, and the sacrifice of their jobs was a small price to pay.

This is what happens when lefties try to take the high moral ground.

The real victim in this is Oisin.

He didn't want to report the assault. He doesn't want to give any evidence to the police.

Oisin could easily have come out of this with a £50k bonus and a secure future. Instead, the people who are pretending to be outraged that he was assaulted, have forced him into hiding. These people were not outraged because Oisin was assaulted. They are outraged that Clarkson assaulted someone.

In fact, I would say that they are not outraged at all. They reacted with glee when the story broke. They had an opportunity to bring down one of the few "non-lefties" that remain at the BBC.

So, the real victim will never see justice. Far from being compensated, he will be punished for years to come.

So, I have a question for those of you wanted Clarkson sacked. Are you pleased about the outcome for the victim - you know a chap called Oisin Tymon?

Another question, should Oisin have had any say in Clarkson's punishment?

WTF!?

Just when you think this thread can't get any worse...

Can't see anything that's not true in don's post, what's your problem?

that's because you are both giving the impression of cut from the same rabidly socipoathic ' powerfully built' libertarian cloth where money overrides the law and common deceny

[TwigtheWonderkid]

mybrainhurts said:

Ari said:

don4l said:

You are asking the wrong questions.

500 jobs will be lost. I'm sure that the 500 affected families will understand that Clarkson had to go, and the sacrifice of their jobs was a small price to pay.

This is what happens when lefties try to take the high moral ground.

The real victim in this is Oisin.

He didn't want to report the assault. He doesn't want to give any evidence to the police.

Oisin could easily have come out of this with a £50k bonus and a secure future. Instead, the people who are pretending to be outraged that he was assaulted, have forced him into hiding. These people were not outraged because Oisin was assaulted. They are outraged that Clarkson assaulted someone.

In fact, I would say that they are not outraged at all. They reacted with glee when the story broke. They had an opportunity to bring down one of the few "non-lefties" that remain at the BBC.

So, the real victim will never see justice. Far from being compensated, he will be punished for years to come.

So, I have a question for those of you wanted Clarkson sacked. Are you pleased about the outcome for the victim - you know a chap called Oisin Tymon?

Another question, should Oisin have had any say in Clarkson's punishment?

WTF!?

Just when you think this thread can't get any worse...

Can't see anything that's not true in don's post, what's your problem?

Victims do not get to set punishments for the perpetrators of an offence. Not in this country. Oisin might have been quite happy to carry on working with JC, but other BBC employees may not be so happy and should not have to work with someone who has a record of attacking subordinates on Oisin's say so.

If I was attacked at work by a colleague, I'd complain to my employers. If I was attacked at work by a colleague who'd previously attacked someone else and my employers knew about his or her history, I wouldn't complain to my employers, I'd sue them. For knowingly placing me in a position of danger.

The BBC would have needed to consider that.