Jeremy Clarkson suspended by BBC...
Discussion
La Liga said:
turbobloke said:
Was biting a colleague not considered an assault back then? By the police too?
In my 1988 workplace, not the BBC, biting a colleague would have led to dismissal as the staff handbook had violence as one of the examples of gross misconduct.
If only the BBC could manage to conduct investigations in a matter of hours.
Which has no relevance to the fact he was talking about what his son in laws would be expecting today. In my 1988 workplace, not the BBC, biting a colleague would have led to dismissal as the staff handbook had violence as one of the examples of gross misconduct.
If only the BBC could manage to conduct investigations in a matter of hours.
You relied on a poor source to try and undermine his point, but it was an incident at a time when many things were different. If it were more recent and dealt with under the current laws, structure, policies, HR, procedures and organisational culture, then it would be relevant.
Mind you, kiddy fiddlers weren't kept in employment either.
I, obviously, didn't work at the BBC.
Edited by don4l on Tuesday 31st March 20:08
La Liga said:
turbobloke said:
Was biting a colleague not considered an assault back then? By the police too?
In my 1988 workplace, not the BBC, biting a colleague would have led to dismissal as the staff handbook had violence as one of the examples of gross misconduct.
If only the BBC could manage to conduct investigations in a matter of hours.
Which has no relevance to the fact he was talking about what his son in laws would be expecting today.In my 1988 workplace, not the BBC, biting a colleague would have led to dismissal as the staff handbook had violence as one of the examples of gross misconduct.
If only the BBC could manage to conduct investigations in a matter of hours.
La Liga said:
You relied on a poor source to try and undermine his point...
And succeeded, though your leaping in was undoubtedly chivalrous. Also there are multiple sources for the information cited, including the person who was bitten. Try dismissing this source by the ultra-weak approach of shooting the messenger that you tried with Guido, though you may well have a go on present form!http://www.standard.co.uk/news/the-day-i-was-bitte...
"Before I could say a word he suddenly turned, snarled, and sank his teeth into my left upper arm (leaving marks through the shirt, but not drawing blood). It hurt."
"He just bit me in the arm for no reason without any warning or preamble."
"I wanted to bring the whole BBC disciplinary process down on Thompson's head, but Cramer (boss) was desperate for that not to happen."
Fast forward to 2015 and BBC bosses desperate for something to happen?
La Liga said:
...but it was an incident at a time when many things were different....
You may wish to slow down at this point, just in case at the same time as excusing one colleague biting another as historically different (!) you follow the unprofessional BBC execs and mention Savile in another context involving the passage of time. Nobody would want that surely?La Liga said:
If it were more recent and dealt with under the current laws, structure, policies, HR, procedures and organisational culture, then it would be relevant.
So under past laws, rather than current laws, biting somebody was indeed not an assault? That's news. As already indicated, HR procedures of that time could and did include violence as gross misconduct, so instant dismissal would have been possible. turbobloke said:
And succeeded, though your leaping in was undoubtedly chivalrous. Also there are multiple sources for the information cited, including the person who was bitten. Try dismissing this source by the ultra-weak approach of shooting the messenger that you tried with Guido, though you may well have a go on present form!
You misinterpret what I am saying. I don't dispute the incident occurred or it may have amounted to an assault. If you thought about it a little more you'd realise I know there are more sources. Where do you think I got the date from?
The point was the poor source was one which removed the context of time to try and make a 'double standards' argument. The fact the incidents were so far apart means it isn't. If it were something that occurred more recently, it'd become more relevant.
You fell for the same thing but trying to undermine someone who was speculating as to what would happen today, not back in 1988.
turbobloke said:
You may wish to slow down at this point, just in case at the same time as excusing one colleague biting another as historically different (!) you follow the unprofessional BBC execs and mention Savile in another context involving the passage of time. Nobody would want that surely?
I made no excuse, I made a general point that an incident in 1988 doesn't undermine speculating as to what would happen today. turbobloke said:
So under past laws, rather than current laws, biting somebody was indeed not an assault? That's news. As already indicated, HR procedures of that time could and did include violence as gross misconduct, so instant dismissal would have been possible.
The right and wrong isn't relevant, the expectation of how such an incident would be dealt with TODAY, as oppose to 1988, is. don4l said:
Where I worked in 1988, you couldn't assault someone without getting the boot.
Mind you, kiddy fiddlers weren't kept in employment either.
Clearly, I didn't work at the BBC.
I didn't say it was right, I said it wasn't relevant to undermine speculating on what would happen about a hypothetical incident occurring today. Mind you, kiddy fiddlers weren't kept in employment either.
Clearly, I didn't work at the BBC.
When I joined the police, I joined with people who policed in the mid / late 1970s. It's likely I served at the same time as someone who had a drink-drive conviction from the 1970s.
If I say I would get sacked for a drink-driving conviction, it has no relevance, decades ago, that someone still in the organisation wasn't, does it?
Countdown said:
blueg33 said:
We employ about 150 people directly in this subsidiary, mostly professionals. We are a developer/investor of public sector and care infrastructure. We employ a further 150 or so in joint venture subsidiaries, salary levels are similar. Typically 1 admin person for 10 professionals.
We have a very flat management structure.
If you don't mind me asking, professional "what's"? Quantity Surveyors? Bricklayers? Would you say the salaries of these roles are average for London or above average? Apologies for being so inquisitive - I'm genuinely curious as to what kind of organisation (outside of IB and Dotcom startup) pays its staff an average of £100kWe have a very flat management structure.
La Liga said:
turbobloke said:
And succeeded, though your leaping in was undoubtedly chivalrous. Also there are multiple sources for the information cited, including the person who was bitten. Try dismissing this source by the ultra-weak approach of shooting the messenger that you tried with Guido, though you may well have a go on present form!
You misinterpret what I am saying. I don't dispute the incident occurred or it may have amounted to an assault. If you thought about it a little more you'd realise I know there are more sources. Where do you think I got the date from?
Even so you then inevitably acknowledge there was no basis to your shooting-the-messenger approach, cheers.
La Liga said:
The point was the poor source was one which removed the context of time to try and make a 'double standards' argument. The fact the incidents were so far apart means it isn't.
No, it doesn't. You stating it does is neither here nor there, my stating it doesn't would appear to be backed by the law of the land, since I doubt that biting was <not> considered an assault at the time of the prior incident, and there were certainly workplace policies with violence as gross misconduct, meaning instant dismissal was possible. The time lapse is irrelevant. La Liga said:
You fell for the same thing but trying to undermine someone who was speculating as to what would happen today, not back in 1988.
Sure.
La Liga said:
turbobloke said:
You may wish to slow down at this point, just in case at the same time as excusing one colleague biting another as historically different (!) you follow the unprofessional BBC execs and mention Savile in another context involving the passage of time. Nobody would want that surely?
I made no excuse, I made a general point that an incident in 1988 doesn't undermine speculating as to what would happen today.La Liga said:
turbobloke said:
So under past laws, rather than current laws, biting somebody was indeed not an assault? That's news. As already indicated, HR procedures of that time could and did include violence as gross misconduct, so instant dismissal would have been possible.
The right and wrong isn't relevant, the expectation of how such an incident would be dealt with TODAY, as oppose to 1988, is.La Liga said:
don4l said:
Where I worked in 1988, you couldn't assault someone without getting the boot.
Mind you, kiddy fiddlers weren't kept in employment either.
Clearly, I didn't work at the BBC.
I didn't say it was right, I said it wasn't relevant to undermine speculating on what would happen about a hypothetical incident occurring today. Mind you, kiddy fiddlers weren't kept in employment either.
Clearly, I didn't work at the BBC.
turbobloke said:
Even so you then inevitably acknowledge there was no basis to your shooting-the-messenger approach, cheers.
The source took away the context of time to make a 'double-standards' argument. turbobloke said:
No, it doesn't. You stating it does is neither here nor there, my stating it doesn't would appear to be backed by the law of the land, since I doubt that biting was <not> considered an assault at the time of the prior incident, and there were certainly workplace policies with violence as gross misconduct, meaning instant dismissal was possible. The time lapse is irrelevant.
This is one big strawman. At no point have I argued it wasn't a potential assault or a misconduct issue. If I have, please show me. My argument is that it was dealt with differently because things were fundamentally different in 1988 (even if that were the lesser application of the law / procedures / different culture). This means that a hypothetical assault incident occurring TODAY isn't undermined because of how a possible one occurring in 1988 was dealt with (or not). I can't make it any more simple.
I think you didn't check the date of the original incident which is why you need to keep misrepresenting my argument around what is an assault / what HR practices were like in 1988 etc.
turbobloke said:
And as above, they would be dealt with in the same way - with competent management not 'desperate' to protect the assailant.
Evidently not, since a recent assault at the BBC you may have heard about was dealt differently to one occurring in 1988. legzr1 said:
277 pages?
Sad.
Nonsense.Sad.
This is a joyous thread.
We have before us, on full display, the faux outrage of the professionally offended, politically correct lefties.
They appear to be angry about a show that they don't watch. How, does that work, eh?
What I especially enjoy is the way that anybody who disagrees with them must be wrong... even when you provide them with incontrovertible evidence.
Some of the logic employed by the lefties has been a wonder to behold. For example, when asked if Oisin should have any input into Clarkson's punishment, they all cried "No!".
I wonder what these people would have said if I had asked if a rape victim's statement should be taken into account when the judge is considering his sentence.
They would, of course, have said "Yes".
Lefties tend to be hypocrites.
Here is a typical example:- order-order.com/2015/03/30/tax-dodge-shame-of-labo...
If that didn't convince you, there is more:- order-order.com/2015/03/31/labours-martin-fairness...
It's all excellent stuff, and nothing more than a bit of fun.
don4l said:
For example, when asked if Oisin should have any input into Clarkson's punishment, they all cried "No!".
I wonder what these people would have said if I had asked if a rape victim's statement should be taken into account when the judge is considering his sentence.
They would, of course, have said "Yes".
Lefties tend to be hypocrites.
Why would it be hypocritical to have different views on a criminal matter as oppose to a employment / contractual one? I'd prefer consistency and matters decided objectively (without the victim involved) on a matter decided on a lower threshold of proof i.e. beyond reasonable doubt as oppose to on the balance of probabilities as the margin for error is wider on the latter. I wonder what these people would have said if I had asked if a rape victim's statement should be taken into account when the judge is considering his sentence.
They would, of course, have said "Yes".
Lefties tend to be hypocrites.
La Liga said:
My argument is that it was dealt with differently because things were fundamentally different in 1988 (even if that were the lesser application of the law / procedures / different culture). This means that a hypothetical assault incident occurring TODAY isn't undermined because of how a possible one occurring in 1988 was dealt with (or not). I can't make it any more simple.
Simple or not, it's still wrong. This thread has had several instances including at least two direct first-hand accounts of how past employment conditions at the time of the biting incident referred to violence in the workplace including assault and battery (harmful physical contact as you know) as gross misconduct and therefore liable to instant dismissal. La Liga said:
I think you didn't check the date of the original incident which is why you need to keep misrepresenting my argument around what is an assault / what HR practices were like in 1988 etc.
Your thoughts were misplaced, a common theme, redolent of wishful thinking and failed point scoring, I had read about the biting incident prior to the Clarkson incident.don4l said:
legzr1 said:
277 pages?
Sad.
Nonsense.Sad.
This is a joyous thread.
We have before us, on full display, the faux outrage of the professionally offended, politically correct lefties.
They appear to be angry about a show that they don't watch. How, does that work, eh?
What I especially enjoy is the way that anybody who disagrees with them must be wrong... even when you provide them with incontrovertible evidence.
Some of the logic employed by the lefties has been a wonder to behold. For example, when asked if Oisin should have any input into Clarkson's punishment, they all cried "No!".
I wonder what these people would have said if I had asked if a rape victim's statement should be taken into account when the judge is considering his sentence.
They would, of course, have said "Yes".
Lefties tend to be hypocrites.
Here is a typical example:- order-order.com/2015/03/30/tax-dodge-shame-of-labo...
If that didn't convince you, there is more:- order-order.com/2015/03/31/labours-martin-fairness...
It's all excellent stuff, and nothing more than a bit of fun.
turbobloke said:
Simple or not, it's still wrong. This thread has had several instances including at least two direct first-hand accounts of how past employment conditions at the time of the biting incident referred to violence in the workplace including assault and battery (harmful physical contact as you know) as gross misconduct and therefore liable to instant dismissal.
Which aren't relevant to using a past incident at the BBC, and how it was dealt with, to undermine what would happen if an incident were to occur to today.In fact, if you're presenting the BBC's lack of action in 1988 as atypical (through the other first-hand examples), then that strengthens the point that an assault today would not be dealt like it was in that incident in 1988, wouldn't it?
So why use it to undermine someone speculating as to what would happen if an incident would occur today?
don4l said:
Nonsense.
This is a joyous thread.
We have before us, on full display, the faux outrage of the professionally offended, politically correct lefties.
They appear to be angry about a show that they don't watch. How, does that work, eh?
What I especially enjoy is the way that anybody who disagrees with them must be wrong... even when you provide them with incontrovertible evidence.
Some of the logic employed by the lefties has been a wonder to behold. For example, when asked if Oisin should have any input into Clarkson's punishment, they all cried "No!".
I wonder what these people would have said if I had asked if a rape victim's statement should be taken into account when the judge is considering his sentence.
They would, of course, have said "Yes".
Lefties tend to be hypocrites.
Here is a typical example:- order-order.com/2015/03/30/tax-dodge-shame-of-labo...
If that didn't convince you, there is more:- order-order.com/2015/03/31/labours-martin-fairness...
It's all excellent stuff, and nothing more than a bit of fun.
How do you know it's "lefties" that are the ones who are "offended"?This is a joyous thread.
We have before us, on full display, the faux outrage of the professionally offended, politically correct lefties.
They appear to be angry about a show that they don't watch. How, does that work, eh?
What I especially enjoy is the way that anybody who disagrees with them must be wrong... even when you provide them with incontrovertible evidence.
Some of the logic employed by the lefties has been a wonder to behold. For example, when asked if Oisin should have any input into Clarkson's punishment, they all cried "No!".
I wonder what these people would have said if I had asked if a rape victim's statement should be taken into account when the judge is considering his sentence.
They would, of course, have said "Yes".
Lefties tend to be hypocrites.
Here is a typical example:- order-order.com/2015/03/30/tax-dodge-shame-of-labo...
If that didn't convince you, there is more:- order-order.com/2015/03/31/labours-martin-fairness...
It's all excellent stuff, and nothing more than a bit of fun.
And "offended" by what? If indeed it is the lefty-brigade who are anti JC then surely they'd be leased rather than offended? Surely it's the swivel-eyed for others who are offended that their "Chosen One" has been defrocked?
Still, I agree. It's excellent stuff watching people make strawmen
turbobloke said:
don4l said:
legzr1 said:
277 pages?
Sad.
Nonsense.Sad.
This is a joyous thread.
We have before us, on full display, the faux outrage of the professionally offended, politically correct lefties.
They appear to be angry about a show that they don't watch. How, does that work, eh?
What I especially enjoy is the way that anybody who disagrees with them must be wrong... even when you provide them with incontrovertible evidence.
Some of the logic employed by the lefties has been a wonder to behold. For example, when asked if Oisin should have any input into Clarkson's punishment, they all cried "No!".
I wonder what these people would have said if I had asked if a rape victim's statement should be taken into account when the judge is considering his sentence.
They would, of course, have said "Yes".
Lefties tend to be hypocrites.
Here is a typical example:- order-order.com/2015/03/30/tax-dodge-shame-of-labo...
If that didn't convince you, there is more:- order-order.com/2015/03/31/labours-martin-fairness...
It's all excellent stuff, and nothing more than a bit of fun.
La Liga said:
turbobloke said:
Simple or not, it's still wrong. This thread has had several instances including at least two direct first-hand accounts of how past employment conditions at the time of the biting incident referred to violence in the workplace including assault and battery (harmful physical contact as you know) as gross misconduct and therefore liable to instant dismissal.
Which aren't relevant to using a past incident at the BBC, and how it was dealt with, to undermine what would happen if an incident were to occur to today.La Liga said:
In fact, if you're presenting the BBC's lack of action in 1988 as atypical (through the other first-hand examples), then that strengthens the point that an assault today would not be dealt like it was in that incident in 1988, wouldn't it?
How simplistic and misleading! The account of the person assaulted in the previous era shows that management were desperate to retain the assailant. Today, with the TG incident, there have been links in this very thread (not particularly necessary) showing that Clarkson was by no means the subject of desperate retention. Your naive omission of management bias as a pertinent factor is curious.La Liga said:
So why use it to undermine someone speculating as to what would happen if an incident would occur today?
Because they had no valid point, evidenced previously and ignored by you repeatedly. Two people at least have shown from direct experience that conditions back then around workplace violence were the same as now, all that's needed to reject your curious backing for the lost cause. There's little point in going around the circle again. Post a reply, have the last word, and we can move on 
La Liga said:
don4l said:
Where I worked in 1988, you couldn't assault someone without getting the boot.
Mind you, kiddy fiddlers weren't kept in employment either.
Clearly, I didn't work at the BBC.
I didn't say it was right, I said it wasn't relevant to undermine speculating on what would happen about a hypothetical incident occurring today. Mind you, kiddy fiddlers weren't kept in employment either.
Clearly, I didn't work at the BBC.
When I joined the police, I joined with people who policed in the mid / late 1970s. It's likely I served at the same time as someone who had a drink-drive conviction from the 1970s.
If I say I would get sacked for a drink-driving conviction, it has no relevance, decades ago, that someone still in the organisation wasn't, does it?
I was, and if I had punched someone at work, then I would have been sacked on the spot. No ifs, no buts.
Assault meant instant dismissal.
Drink driving was not seen in the same light then as it is now,... but assault was an absolute no-no.
The thing that has changed the most is the gender issue. Men and women used to work in an atmosphere of sexual tension. It is difficult to explain, but both sexes enjoyed it enormously. In 1986, I worked at an electronics distributor. All of the people on the sales desk were female. For a couple of years they all got into a "who is the sexiest" competition, and they all wore stockings and suspenders to work.
One day, I had a customer visit our office. At the end of the tour I introduced him to the girl who would do his quotations. I said to her "Give him a twang", and she gripped her suspender through her skirt and lifted it and released it. My customer was stunned!
This all sounds primitive to you, but the girl was happy at the effect she caused. The customer was impressed. I got more business.
Randy Winkman said:
Oh well, I had been thinking we could change a few words and say basically the same things about pro-Clarkson UKIPers. Depends on your starting point I suppose.
I'm offended - How dare you tar pro-Clarkson and Ukip with the same brush? In serious mode it's quite possible to be pro-JC and think he's a knob. In this case a complete and utter knob. But he's a good journalist. I enjoy watching him and reading his work. I still think it was right for him to be sacked.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff