Jeremy Clarkson suspended by BBC...
Discussion
supersingle said:
BBC Director General has to sign off jokes
Oh dear, I can see 'new' Top Gear being about as funny as a dose of athletes foot.
Comedy by committee. Maybe after all it wasn't Clare Balding's fault that her show was so dull.Oh dear, I can see 'new' Top Gear being about as funny as a dose of athletes foot.
La Liga said:
Catatafish said:
Puggit said:
N Yorks police have announced no charges for Clarkson.
So the Beeb has well and truly shot itself in the foot.One is an internal disciplinary system which takes into account previous issues and is decided on the balance of probabilities.
The second a criminal investigation for a minor assault where there is no complaint, which would need to be decided beyond all reasonable doubt.
We know that NYPD asked for a copy of the BBC inquiry report, not that they needed to.
The Published and Widely Circulated BBC MacQuarrie Inquiry Report said:
It was not disputed by Jeremy Clarkson or any witness that Oisin Tymon was the victim of an unprovoked physical and verbal attack.
What reasonable doubt exists when the police hold direct evidence of a voluntary confession, backed up by medical examination and witness testimony including from the victim? There could hardly be any doubt of any kind, reasonable or not. Zero. Unless Clarkson, Captain Slow, Hamster, Oisin and other onlookers conspired to pervert the course of justice with an elaborate fiction
then Clarkson committed an unprovoked assault and battery on the producer.By way of comparison:
CPS Guidelines on Domestic rather than Top Gear violence said:
We will prosecute cases where there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest to do so.
Is unprovoked assault and battery against a man outside the family context second class crime not in the public interest to prosecute? It may well have been in the public interest not to prosecute, but if so the public deserve to be told the basis for that.NYPD said:
Last week... Mr Tymon said he did not wish the police to take action on his behalf. However, at that point we still needed to speak to some members of the public who were present at the time of the incident, who had been affected by the event, and whose views also needed to be considered. Now that all the interviews are complete, we have properly established that there is no need for further police action.
That stopped a couple of lines short of an explanation, since DV can be and is prosecuted by the police/CPS pursuing the case themsleves e.g. where the victim gives evidence, often far less compelling that a confession with witnesses and medical evidence, but asks for the police not to proceed. As the CPS guidelines on DV put it: "we prosecute cases on behalf of the public at large and not just based on the interests of any particular individual".If the police have said more than appears on Sky, BBC et al it would be interesting to know where, and what.
turbobloke said:
La Liga said:
Catatafish said:
Puggit said:
N Yorks police have announced no charges for Clarkson.
So the Beeb has well and truly shot itself in the foot.One is an internal disciplinary system which takes into account previous issues and is decided on the balance of probabilities.
The second a criminal investigation for a minor assault where there is no complaint, which would need to be decided beyond all reasonable doubt.
We know that NYPD asked for a copy of the BBC inquiry report, not that they needed to.
The Published and Widely Circulated BBC MacQuarrie Inquiry Report said:
It was not disputed by Jeremy Clarkson or any witness that Oisin Tymon was the victim of an unprovoked physical and verbal attack.
What reasonable doubt exists when the police hold direct evidence of a voluntary confession, backed up by medical examination and witness testimony including from the victim? There could hardly be any doubt of any kind, reasonable or not. Zero. Unless Clarkson, Captain Slow, Hamster, Oisin and other onlookers conspired to pervert the course of justice with an elaborate fiction
then Clarkson committed an unprovoked assault and battery on the producer.By way of comparison:
CPS Guidelines on Domestic rather than Top Gear violence said:
We will prosecute cases where there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest to do so.
Is unprovoked assault and battery against a man outside the family context second class crime not in the public interest to prosecute? It may well have been in the public interest not to prosecute, but if so the public deserve to be told the basis for that.NYPD said:
Last week... Mr Tymon said he did not wish the police to take action on his behalf. However, at that point we still needed to speak to some members of the public who were present at the time of the incident, who had been affected by the event, and whose views also needed to be considered. Now that all the interviews are complete, we have properly established that there is no need for further police action.
That stopped a couple of lines short of an explanation, since DV can be and is prosecuted by the police/CPS pursuing the case themsleves e.g. where the victim gives evidence, often far less compelling that a confession with witnesses and medical evidence, but asks for the police not to proceed. As the CPS guidelines on DV put it: "we prosecute cases on behalf of the public at large and not just based on the interests of any particular individual".If the police have said more than appears on Sky, BBC et al it would be interesting to know where, and what.
If it were pursued and Clarkson admitted the offence, then he'd be eligible for a caution / restorative justice. It wouldn't go near the CPS or a court.
Regardless of the evidence, I expect you've speculated correctly when you talk of the public interest part. A minor / no-complaint assault with no likelihood of future risk doesn't have the public interest to pursue any further.
DV is a different matter given the risks involved, the often wider issues and the link to homicide, which is why the public interest is much higher as a default.
Good job Clarkson lamping Tymon didn't cause any Alarm or Distress eh?:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2347553/On...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2347553/On...
La Liga said:
he evidence the BBC gathered wouldn't necessarily be criminally admissible. Other aspects like medical evidence would require the complainant's signature for the police to obtain.
Interview after arrest or merely under caution as happens for celebs with our one-law-for-all system, and with the MacQuarrie report on the desk open at a certain page:"Mr Clarkson you have already confessed in an interview with Mr MacQuarrie to committing an unprovoked assault and battery, witnessed by several independent onlookers, and the victim attended hospital as a result."
"You aint never gonna fit me up, copper"
Not really likely, is it.
La Liga said:
If it were pursued and Clarkson admitted the offence, then he'd be eligible for a caution / restorative justice. It wouldn't go near the CPS or a court.
Quite so, but who mentioned Court? La Liga said:
Regardless of the evidence, I expect you've speculated correctly when you talk of the public interest part. A minor / no-complaint assault with no likelihood of future risk doesn't have the public interest to pursue any further.
Fair enough, and yes I did make that point, but when something is done 'in the public interest' it seems very reasonable that we the public get the full story as it's our interest supposedly being pursued.La Liga said:
DV is a different matter given the risks involved, the often wider issues and the link to homicide, which is why the public interest is much higher as a default.
It can be different, but isn't always. Charles Saatchi didn't get NFA'd he enjoyed a 4-hour police interview and accepted a Caution after admitting the relevant offence. Not really that different as far as 'wider issues' and 'homicide' go, so public interest appears to be a very malleable commodity.I'm not saying they couldn't gather the evidence to prove the case to the necessary threshold. It would probably be there in one form or another, whether directly or third party.
According to NYP, Tymon asked them not to take action on his behalf, so that's another factor. I'd also consider the internal aspect if it were a work-based incident. Sometimes scuffles at work are dealt with internally and there's no need for "two bites", so to speak. This isn't anything unique.
The Saatchi example seems consistent to what we've quoted and have been saying. Reducing the collective risk of DV isn't about individual examples (in terms of approach or policy), it's about a global approach. Some DV matters that come to police attention may turn out to have practically no future risk, but the point is the risk of missing those that do because of assumptions etc is too high. Sometimes 'wider issues' aren't known / indicated prior to interviewing the suspect, either.
According to NYP, Tymon asked them not to take action on his behalf, so that's another factor. I'd also consider the internal aspect if it were a work-based incident. Sometimes scuffles at work are dealt with internally and there's no need for "two bites", so to speak. This isn't anything unique.
The Saatchi example seems consistent to what we've quoted and have been saying. Reducing the collective risk of DV isn't about individual examples (in terms of approach or policy), it's about a global approach. Some DV matters that come to police attention may turn out to have practically no future risk, but the point is the risk of missing those that do because of assumptions etc is too high. Sometimes 'wider issues' aren't known / indicated prior to interviewing the suspect, either.
La Liga said:
Other aspects like medical evidence would require the complainant's signature for the police to obtain.
It would appear not. IANAL and a lawyer may explain that this says something other than the obvious. Doubtful all the same as it looks plain as day.
CPS said:
The application for a witness summons must, where the Court directs, be served on the person to whom the confidential document relates (i.e. the patient in the case of medical records) Rule 28.5(3)(b).
There are limited circumstances in which confidential records can be obtained, but these are used for serious, often sexual offences. Anything minor and less proportional (the justification vs the intrusion) and article 8 of the ECHR (the right to privacy) becomes a brick wall IIRC.
I'll also mention I am far from an experienced expert on more complex disclosure matters.
I'll also mention I am far from an experienced expert on more complex disclosure matters.
La Liga said:
There are limited circumstances in which confidential records can be obtained, but these are used for serious, often sexual offences. Anything minor and less proportional (the justification vs the intrusion) and article 8 of the ECHR (the right to privacy) becomes a brick wall IIRC.
I'll also mention I am far from an experienced expert on more complex disclosure matters.
The CPS guidance mentions Article 8 EHCR but says usually rather than always so it left the door open. IANAL but this stuff is of interest due to 'public interest' and being a MoP(ublic) I'll also mention I am far from an experienced expert on more complex disclosure matters.
Jeremy appears to have done reasonably well out of the public interest position. And on we go to the not Top Gear C-M-H shows.
CAFEDEAD said:
Comedy by committee. Maybe after all it wasn't Clare Balding's fault that her show was so dull.
You'll have to blame BT Sport, not the BBC, for that. Considering it's a show that's paid for, produced and broadcast by BT Sport. The BBC only bought the rights to delayed repeats.turbobloke said:
The CPS guidance mentions Article 8 EHCR but says usually rather than always so it left the door open. IANAL but this stuff is of interest due to 'public interest' and being a MoP(ublic)
Jeremy appears to have done reasonably well out of the public interest position. And on we go to the not Top Gear C-M-H shows.
I think it's important to keep perspective. It's a no complaint common assault. It's important to remember the victim's wishes, too, and how they want to move on / get closure from the event. I'd say for such a minor event that would carry quite a lot of weight. Sometimes the state will 'do what's best' for the victim, but I am critical of when the state should do this. As we know, it's usually DV / vulnerable victims where this becomes justified. Jeremy appears to have done reasonably well out of the public interest position. And on we go to the not Top Gear C-M-H shows.
I don't see the same set of circumstances being treated any differently without the high-profile nature.
You could argue that the high-profile nature means a 'message should be sent out', but I don't like the idea that because someone is famous they get treated differently (which works both ways).
La Liga said:
t makes no difference whatsoever.
One is an internal disciplinary system which takes into account previous issues and is decided on the balance of probabilities.
The second a criminal investigation for a minor assault where there is no complaint, which would need to be decided beyond all reasonable doubt.
I reckon his lawyers could make it into a big difference I He wishes, One is an internal disciplinary system which takes into account previous issues and is decided on the balance of probabilities.
The second a criminal investigation for a minor assault where there is no complaint, which would need to be decided beyond all reasonable doubt.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff