Jeremy Clarkson suspended by BBC...
Discussion
turbobloke said:
That might get off the ground but "like" has nothing to do with it. Nor does "bad" apply, so it's stalled on take-off.
The BBC is biased, its staff say so, its output says so too but it's a national broadcaster with a remit to be impartial.
That's not like/dislike or good/bad it's inappropriate. However, people who view the world with the same left-liberal i.e illiberal perspective will see it as fairly normal and acceptable, but it isn't.
Pointing out the inappropriateness isn't "don't like" and what's inappropriate isn't "bad" it's just wrong i.e shouldn't occur.
I know plenty of people who consider the BBC to have a right of centre pro-government bias. I don't agree with them, but it illustrates how one's own outlook can skew perceptions.The BBC is biased, its staff say so, its output says so too but it's a national broadcaster with a remit to be impartial.
That's not like/dislike or good/bad it's inappropriate. However, people who view the world with the same left-liberal i.e illiberal perspective will see it as fairly normal and acceptable, but it isn't.
Pointing out the inappropriateness isn't "don't like" and what's inappropriate isn't "bad" it's just wrong i.e shouldn't occur.
legzr1 said:
Bluebarge said:
It is completely bizarre why some are attempting to put a political slant on this.
You won't find any of the political parties attempting to justify JC's most recent or previous misdemeanours, or criticising the decision not to renew his contract.
Times have changed and what was once acceptable no longer is. Plus ca change.
Exactly.You won't find any of the political parties attempting to justify JC's most recent or previous misdemeanours, or criticising the decision not to renew his contract.
Times have changed and what was once acceptable no longer is. Plus ca change.
This place comes across as a room full of fat 50-something's stuck in some smutty 70's time warp.
Irrelevance beckons
Can't you spell, silly boy?
See, we got things right in the 70s, enjoyed them and learnt how to spell.
If you cave into right-on PC these days, you're left with a very dull existence that's all a bit girly...
If you let them carry on with this tripe, they'll take the army's guns away before you can stifle a fart because that's bad manners.
Sway said:
RichB said:
My understanding is that it's BBC branding that will be removed not Top Gear.
Nope, all BBC held branding. They've renamed the shows 'Jeremy, Richard and James Live' (iirc, May and Hamster's names may be the other way round).mybrainhurts said:
Can't you spell, silly boy?
See, we got things right in the 70s, enjoyed them and learnt how to spell.
If you cave into right-on PC these days, you're left with a very dull existence that's all a bit girly...
If you let them carry on with this tripe, they'll take the army's guns away before you can stifle a fart because that's bad manners.
So for the moment, Andy Wilman is still with the show.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-32137...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-32137...
williamp said:
He should have spoken to acas. employer providing alcohol anc then surrised when alohol has this affdct. Could be constructive dismissal
Good grief, is this what it's come to? 
I doubt they pinned him down and poured it down his throat and presumably he's a grown adult so how about he shows some personal responsibility?
What next, bloke crashes company car at 120mph, sues company for giving him car that will do 120mph?
Ari said:
williamp said:
He should have spoken to acas. employer providing alcohol anc then surrised when alohol has this affdct. Could be constructive dismissal
Good grief, is this what it's come to? I doubt they pinned him down and poured it down his throat and presumably he's a grown adult so how about he shows some personal responsibility?
What next, bloke crashes company car at 120mph, sues company for giving him car that will do 120mph?
BBC declined to renew his contract.
Corpulent Tosser said:
Ari said:
williamp said:
He should have spoken to acas. employer providing alcohol anc then surrised when alohol has this affdct. Could be constructive dismissal
Good grief, is this what it's come to? I doubt they pinned him down and poured it down his throat and presumably he's a grown adult so how about he shows some personal responsibility?
What next, bloke crashes company car at 120mph, sues company for giving him car that will do 120mph?
BBC declined to renew his contract.
I find it sad that the HR people have taken over common sense. Men will and still do fight at work and out of work. Our HR consultant always says that every case is different and to actually have a policy that says if you do X you will be fired is wrong. Every case should be investigated and only after all the facts are found should a decision be made on appropriate action.
What many HR people have fallen into is the fear of appeals. They figure if you sacked X for fighting but then did not sack Y for a similar offence, the lawyers will use that to get compensation. So their answer is to do everything the same and now we have got to everyone thinking this way. There are many cases where people have been sacked for something and then compensated as the case has not been heard properly or a decision was made before the hearing because that is what always happens.
Disciplinary action is meant to be about improving behaviour of an employee, someone who you have invested time and effort training and developing, it is not about punishment or being vindictive. If a brilliant heart surgeon punched someone, many on here would sack him as that is policy regardless, depriving us all of his skills. If he was found to have punched someone who was in the way of him trying to save a life isn't that acceptable? Both cases he punched someone, he is a thug in some eyes, both completely different in mine and our HR consultant. And as an aside, we have never lost a tribunal and in 16 years have only had 4 or 5 cases that have made it that far never settling out of court with over a 1000 staff.
Many of those on here will be working with people that have assaulted someone, stolen things been in prison, committed crimes that you will find appalling but will happily work with them as there is no requirement to tell a new employer anything they don't want to.
And many times when things come out later employees accept the person for what they are, a good person who made a mistake. All those spouting on here they would not want to work with someone who has punched another to me are strange, I want to work with good people and good people make mistakes some more serious than others.
We accept footballers biting, rugby players stamping on each other, Dirty Den a convicted killer as an actor the list goes on, but now ordinary people scream sack them for a moment of madness with no lasting harm as that is what they are told is right. And because of this the BBC felt they had no options left, right or wrong.
As they have not renewed his contract they have not sacked him, so there is no possible claim from JC. I was not in the investigation so I did not hear all the evidence, circumstances etc. but I dislike the one size fits all view on disciplinary action that is now prevalent.
What many HR people have fallen into is the fear of appeals. They figure if you sacked X for fighting but then did not sack Y for a similar offence, the lawyers will use that to get compensation. So their answer is to do everything the same and now we have got to everyone thinking this way. There are many cases where people have been sacked for something and then compensated as the case has not been heard properly or a decision was made before the hearing because that is what always happens.
Disciplinary action is meant to be about improving behaviour of an employee, someone who you have invested time and effort training and developing, it is not about punishment or being vindictive. If a brilliant heart surgeon punched someone, many on here would sack him as that is policy regardless, depriving us all of his skills. If he was found to have punched someone who was in the way of him trying to save a life isn't that acceptable? Both cases he punched someone, he is a thug in some eyes, both completely different in mine and our HR consultant. And as an aside, we have never lost a tribunal and in 16 years have only had 4 or 5 cases that have made it that far never settling out of court with over a 1000 staff.
Many of those on here will be working with people that have assaulted someone, stolen things been in prison, committed crimes that you will find appalling but will happily work with them as there is no requirement to tell a new employer anything they don't want to.
And many times when things come out later employees accept the person for what they are, a good person who made a mistake. All those spouting on here they would not want to work with someone who has punched another to me are strange, I want to work with good people and good people make mistakes some more serious than others.
We accept footballers biting, rugby players stamping on each other, Dirty Den a convicted killer as an actor the list goes on, but now ordinary people scream sack them for a moment of madness with no lasting harm as that is what they are told is right. And because of this the BBC felt they had no options left, right or wrong.
As they have not renewed his contract they have not sacked him, so there is no possible claim from JC. I was not in the investigation so I did not hear all the evidence, circumstances etc. but I dislike the one size fits all view on disciplinary action that is now prevalent.
RichB said:
Sway said:
RichB said:
My understanding is that it's BBC branding that will be removed not Top Gear.
Nope, all BBC held branding. They've renamed the shows 'Jeremy, Richard and James Live' (iirc, May and Hamster's names may be the other way round)."These events will not however feature any BBC Top Gear branding or content"
So presumably the BBC won't be taking any of the money from the shows then.
NoNeed said:
Corpulent Tosser said:
Ari said:
williamp said:
He should have spoken to acas. employer providing alcohol anc then surrised when alohol has this affdct. Could be constructive dismissal
Good grief, is this what it's come to? I doubt they pinned him down and poured it down his throat and presumably he's a grown adult so how about he shows some personal responsibility?
What next, bloke crashes company car at 120mph, sues company for giving him car that will do 120mph?
BBC declined to renew his contract.
Corpulent Tosser said:
I have not seen any announcement of cutting ties, only that he was originally suspended then the decision was made not to renew his contract, I don't know who the contract is with for the live shows but I am guessing it is a different contract from the TV shows.
Seems the best thing to do.Halb said:
Corpulent Tosser said:
I have not seen any announcement of cutting ties, only that he was originally suspended then the decision was made not to renew his contract, I don't know who the contract is with for the live shows but I am guessing it is a different contract from the TV shows.
Seems the best thing to do.The live shows will just be rebranded and they can do those if they wish under a different banner.
Word is that Sky and Channel 4 aren't currently interested in a new TG style show. Maybe ITV will go for it. There probably aren't any other channels with enough money to pay Jezza's asking price.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff