Jeremy Clarkson suspended by BBC...
Discussion
troublesbrewing said:
Well, some of the people posting here seem to be very excitable and think that JC has been treated badly....
Quite. The desperation to blame everybody except the actual bloke who punched a colleague is almost hysterical.It's been an eye opener how far out of the window people can throw common sense and logic, death threats really is just an extension of the same mind set.
don4l said:
I agree that Oisin would likely go with them. He has worked with Clarkson for 10 years, and apart from a small incident, their relationship appears to be quite good.
These are my absolute favourite type of posts on this thread. 
Unless you're part of the team (are you?) how could you possibly even begin to know that?
Oh right, the Daily Mail said so.
Ari said:
Quite. The desperation to blame everybody except the actual bloke who punched a colleague is almost hysterical.
It's been an eye opener how far out of the window people can throw common sense and logic, death threats really is just an extension of the same mind set.
This thread and some of the idiots posting on here can be summarised as follows:It's been an eye opener how far out of the window people can throw common sense and logic, death threats really is just an extension of the same mind set.
- The leftie commie-tards at the BBC are a bunch of hysterical over-reacting PC socialists who protect child rapists and are against freedom of speech, don't like the fact that Clarkson is a bit of a lad and that's why they want to get rid of him. Nothing to do with him being an alcoholic c*ckend at all;
- Punch ups happen constantly at work - I know that for a fact as I work on an oil rig and have been in 15 dust ups in the last 3.754 minutes;
- If the BBC get rid of Top Gear, I'm going to cancel my TV License as they largely produce crap programmes, protect child rapists, and routinely attack freedom of speech. It's political correctness gone mad. Top Gear would be much better on Sky Television anyway;
- That Tymon is a snitch and a pr*ck who should have never offered Clarkson a cold meat platter - what the f**k was Tymon thinking? Tymon is obviously incompetent and needs to be fired;
- So what if Clarkson punched a colleague in the face? Sh*t happens. Why don't they just give Tymon aka Assistant Producer Gimp a settlement to shut the f*ck up and everyone will be happy. Clarkson is obviously a far more important asset than Tymon.
When it become painfully apparent that Clarkson had behaved like an enormous giant tw*t of galactic proportions and that the BBC acted reasonably in this instance, the tune of the thread changed to:
- Obviously there are issues with the socialist, lentil loving BBC that things like this happen in the workplace;
- Consequently, there needs to be investigation immediately and if you don't agree, then you're the kind of person who let Savile f**k all those kids.
My reading of it is more
One side said:
Obviously Clarkson has behaved badly and nobody condones workplace fisticuffs, but the BBC has been looking for excuses to sack him for a long while which must have added to the pressure JC was under and it's a pity for the viewers that the entire programme has been axed.
To which the others replyother lot said:
How dare you say Clarkson has done nothing wrong and that workplace violence is acceptable.
Dr Jekyll said:
My reading of it is more
In an ideal world this would be the case. Unfortunately i think jimbo has a more accurate summary.One side said:
Obviously Clarkson has behaved badly and nobody condones workplace fisticuffs, but the BBC has been looking for excuses to sack him for a long while which must have added to the pressure JC was under and it's a pity for the viewers that the entire programme has been axed.
To which the others replyother lot said:
How dare you say Clarkson has done nothing wrong and that workplace violence is acceptable.
Dr Jekyll said:
My reading of it is more
Have you been following this thread?! If you've followed this thread at all, you'll see innumerable people making countless excuses for Clarkson's behaviour, stating that workplace violence is common/acceptable and that we've become a nation of pansies, that Clarkson shouldn't be in this position and this is all politically motivated, pointing the blame firmly at Tymon and questioning his competence...the list goes on. One side said:
Obviously Clarkson has behaved badly and nobody condones workplace fisticuffs, but the BBC has been looking for excuses to sack him for a long while which must have added to the pressure JC was under and it's a pity for the viewers that the entire programme has been axed.
To which the others replyother lot said:
How dare you say Clarkson has done nothing wrong and that workplace violence is acceptable.
Some of the stuff that's been mentioned in this thread has been unbelievable. Just because I felt the BBC acted reasonably in this case, one poster in response to me said (spelling mistakes kept in):
"Are you that blind to the inadequacies of the BBC that you will comletely ignore their failings? It was people like you that made it possible for that dirty fkin nonce saville to gain so much pleasure and cause so much pain."
Ari said:
don4l said:
I agree that Oisin would likely go with them. He has worked with Clarkson for 10 years, and apart from a small incident, their relationship appears to be quite good.
These are my absolute favourite type of posts on this thread. Unless you're part of the team (are you?) how could you possibly even begin to know that?
Oh right, the Daily Mail said so.
Jimbo0912 said:
Have you been following this thread?! If you've followed this thread at all, you'll see innumerable people making countless excuses for Clarkson's behaviour, stating that workplace violence is common/acceptable and that we've become a nation of pansies, that Clarkson shouldn't be in this position and this is all politically motivated, pointing the blame firmly at Tymon and questioning his competence...the list goes on.
Some of the stuff that's been mentioned in this thread has been unbelievable. Just because I felt the BBC acted reasonably in this case, one poster in response to me said (spelling mistakes kept in):
"Are you that blind to the inadequacies of the BBC that you will comletely ignore their failings? It was people like you that made it possible for that dirty fkin nonce saville to gain so much pleasure and cause so much pain."
You are telling lies there.Some of the stuff that's been mentioned in this thread has been unbelievable. Just because I felt the BBC acted reasonably in this case, one poster in response to me said (spelling mistakes kept in):
"Are you that blind to the inadequacies of the BBC that you will comletely ignore their failings? It was people like you that made it possible for that dirty fkin nonce saville to gain so much pleasure and cause so much pain."
We were talking about the fact that for 6 days nothing happened, Clarkson had nothing to do with it we agreed he had been a t
t. That response was purely about how the BBC deal with things.As for those spelling mistakes I see one typo where a P was missed and a deliberate one due to a swear word. You have a thing about spelling mistakes don't you? Maybe you want to go back to school and carry on with your playground bullying, you appear to be missing it.
MTech535 said:
Any ideas as to how the BBC will justify keeping Clarkson on for the live shows?
They will not renew his current contract and will instead be giving him and even bigger and better one that will contain a confidentiality clause stating that if he punches anybody he must keep his mouth shut this time.don4l said:
No, not the Daily Mail - Perry McCarthy.
Well that's a reliable source Someone who is still very much up Clarkson's arse a decade after he left the show since outing himself as The Stig for some extra publicity. This is also the person who still seems to live off, and remind everyone at every given opportunity, of the fact that he was once "The Original Stig" for a short period of time, via every conceivable social media outlet, or any TV programme or printed media that will have him, especially in the last 2 weeks or so since it all kicked off.
Edited by AlexRS2782 on Sunday 29th March 19:44
TwigtheWonderkid said:
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!? 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?
Just when you think this thread can't get any worse...
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.
I asked if people thought that Oisin should have any input into Clarkson's punishment. You inferred that I said that Oisin should be allowed to set the punishment.
You then proceeded to prove that I was wrong because you disagree with a statement that I didn't actually make.
To make matters worse, the CPS say that a victim should have an input into punishments. Here is a quote from their page on Victim Impact Statements :-
Crown Prosecution Service said:
The court must pass what it judges to be the appropriate sentence having regard to the circumstances of the offence and of the offender, taking into account, so far as the court considers it appropriate, the impact on the victim.
Edited by don4l on Sunday 29th March 19:42
don4l said:
fractional wittery about Victim impact statements
once again your apparent tenuous grip on reality is demonstrated Edited by don4l on Sunday 29th March 19:42
VIS is a counter to the defence mitigation on behalf of the guilty - it is widely perecieved that pre VIS the impact on the victim from a psychosocial point of view was ignored, yet much of the mitigation offered in Defence after conviction is aobut psycho-social factors ...
mph1977 said:
don4l said:
fractional wittery about Victim impact statements
once again your apparent tenuous grip on reality is demonstrated Edited by don4l on Sunday 29th March 19:42
VIS is a counter to the defence mitigation on behalf of the guilty - it is widely perecieved that pre VIS the impact on the victim from a psychosocial point of view was ignored, yet much of the mitigation offered in Defence after conviction is aobut psycho-social factors ...
I suspect that you wanted to disagree with me. Am I correct?
Countdown said:
Don4l - anything to add re. your assertion that average employees cost £100k ergo 500 BBC employees will lose their jobs?
Hello Countdown,I remember the question, and I also remember typing out a reply.
I cannot be sure that I clicked "submit". Or perhaps, you asked a supplementary question that I didn't see?
I've had a 5 minute search for the exchange, and I have not found it. Would you mind telling me what page your question is on?
This one
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 said:
don4l said:
Bugger. This is going to test my "quoting" abilities.
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..... 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.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.
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.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff