Top Gear producer to sue Clarkson
Discussion
Jimmy Recard said:
I would be amazed if this doesn't turn out actually to be a result of the unwanted attention he has received since this happened. I don't know any details but I have read somewhere that he has received threats and abuse online as a result of it.
I would bet a lot of money that it comes down to this but race and violence constitute the initial case.
Aye the celebrity worship thing can have far reaching effects - tis' a queer one. I wouldn't be surprised if it played a part at all.I would bet a lot of money that it comes down to this but race and violence constitute the initial case.
Jimmy Recard said:
I would be amazed if this doesn't turn out actually to be a result of the unwanted attention he has received since this happened. I don't know any details but I have read somewhere that he has received threats and abuse online as a result of it.
I would bet a lot of money that it comes down to this but race and violence constitute the initial case.
And suing Clarkson is going to make that go away .. he's going to get a ton more death threats with this stunt and no one will want to work with himI would bet a lot of money that it comes down to this but race and violence constitute the initial case.
Btw how the hell do you rant at someone for 30mins - it takes two to tango
deltashad said:
Being hit at any workplace is a bit harsh. It's completely stupid in today's society.
There is no place for it.
The sueing culture is even worse. I don't condone what Clarkson did, we don't know the events which triggered it or the actual conversation/emotions which took place but as far as I would be concerned the matter was over and already dealt with.
Maybe Paddy needs a few quid.
Clarkson had a Cancer scare and his mother had just died. It doesn't justify what he did and plenty of people go through similar things without punching anyone, but people who've worked together for years ought to be able to cut a bit of slack under such circumstances.There is no place for it.
The sueing culture is even worse. I don't condone what Clarkson did, we don't know the events which triggered it or the actual conversation/emotions which took place but as far as I would be concerned the matter was over and already dealt with.
Maybe Paddy needs a few quid.
My father died of Cancer when I was three and some of my strongest memories are of not understanding why he was angry and impatient with me when I know now he was very ill and scared. Obviously it turned out Clarkson didn't have Cancer but thinking he did would have been a pretty much all consuming worry on top of losing his mother as well.
Of course, it was Clarkson who reported the incident and the BBC had to act accordingly. However, I don't really see the need for everything to be dragged up again now. It won't do Oisin's reputation any good either with the general public or employers.
I've had managers who've subjected me to long running, underhand bullying which was a lot harder to deal with than an outright, one of punch in the mouth because it's a lot more difficult to prove wrongdoing and get something done about it.
Rs2oo said:
Thank goodness we didn't have that attitude in 1914 and 1939. We should have let the Germans win, then sued them some time later.
Hang on - you just said you were born in the 1960s! So when you say "we", you clearly weren't there and you played no part. You really are low to claim that sacrifices made by Allied soldiers somehow supports your preference for blaming the victim for not being violent.Ilovejapcrap said:
Ive not read any of his except the title.
If someone punched me and worse than that I was all over the media I'd want compensation.
End of thread
No,not 'end of thread'If someone punched me and worse than that I was all over the media I'd want compensation.
End of thread
Why? Where does it say in law you should get compensation and I agree with what was said on another thread. He was happy to be part of the slope joke, murdering prostitute joke making program until he decided his human rights have been upset or offended. Guys clearly a wander but so is Clarkson so they are a perfect match.
Ilovejapcrap said:
Ive not read any of his except the title.
If someone punched me and worse than that I was all over the media I'd want compensation.
End of thread
For what? Not the end of the thread at all. If I was assaulted I'd want the police to look into it and have them charge the aggressor.If someone punched me and worse than that I was all over the media I'd want compensation.
End of thread
If they don't or there wasn't enough evidence well unfortunately it's tough. He is not a special little snow flake who deserves better treatment and cash because he worked for the BBC. Also who will be paying these legal fees and compo? The BBC and therefore our money again wasted on this bs.
Edit. Remy makes a good point for which I hadn't considered. He's been a part of this programme and all its controversies for ten years. Now he's offended because it's his in the firing line?
RemyMartin said:
Ilovejapcrap said:
Ive not read any of his except the title.
If someone punched me and worse than that I was all over the media I'd want compensation.
End of thread
No,not 'end of thread'If someone punched me and worse than that I was all over the media I'd want compensation.
End of thread
Why? Where does it say in law you should get compensation and I agree with what was said on another thread. He was happy to be part of the slope joke, murdering prostitute joke making program until he decided his human rights have been upset or offended. Guys clearly a wander but so is Clarkson so they are a perfect match.
but seeing as he has built a very significant proportion of his professional career around a program that 'pushed the boundaries' in terms of race then he doesn't really have a leg to stand on in regards to taking offence when for once it is turned back on himself momentarily. He was part of the team that gave us Slopegate, had a pop at Mexicans and all the other numerous such events and he never had an issue.
In reality, I think that the 'race card' play is the quickest and most efficient play to get the payout. And frankly if his ability to earn a living has been impacted then this is his right. Although it is worth questioning why no one there at the time wanted to drive him all the way to hospital for a split lip and why he made the enormous effort to get such a minor injury documented. Who knows in that front but that act alone seems to show an original intent to monetise the event?
ruggedscotty said:
Denaris said:
The only thing I watched on TV is now gone because that pathetic little man couldn't get Jezza his dinner.
Nope your getting this wrong TopGear has gone because on of its presenters thought it was okay to commit assault on a fellow employee because he didnt get what he wanted - he threw his dummy out the pram and hit someone. Not the behavior one expects in the work place. So in the same line of thinking
Your wife comes in and tells you that there is no tea and you grab her and slip her face ?
??????
You think that it is okay to smack someone because they didnt perform to your expectations.
The person in the car showroom tells you that the car you had your eye on has been sold, you punch him in the face before leaving ?
Its violence and its not to be tolerated.....
DonkeyApple said:
That is arguably the nub. He has an absolute right to complain about being hit, called lazy or called a but seeing as he has built a very significant proportion of his professional career around a program that 'pushed the boundaries' in terms of race then he doesn't really have a leg to stand on in regards to taking offence when for once it is turned back on himself momentarily.
He was part of the team that gave us Slopegate, had a pop at Mexicans and all the other numerous such events and he never had an issue.
This is a very good point. but seeing as he has built a very significant proportion of his professional career around a program that 'pushed the boundaries' in terms of race then he doesn't really have a leg to stand on in regards to taking offence when for once it is turned back on himself momentarily. He was part of the team that gave us Slopegate, had a pop at Mexicans and all the other numerous such events and he never had an issue.
On the other hand, it would be brave (or foolish, you choose) for the BBC to base their defence on the argument that "He's worked on our racist TV programme for years so he's as bad as the rest of us".
Oops.
Mound Dawg said:
DonkeyApple said:
That is arguably the nub. He has an absolute right to complain about being hit, called lazy or called a but seeing as he has built a very significant proportion of his professional career around a program that 'pushed the boundaries' in terms of race then he doesn't really have a leg to stand on in regards to taking offence when for once it is turned back on himself momentarily.
He was part of the team that gave us Slopegate, had a pop at Mexicans and all the other numerous such events and he never had an issue.
This is a very good point. but seeing as he has built a very significant proportion of his professional career around a program that 'pushed the boundaries' in terms of race then he doesn't really have a leg to stand on in regards to taking offence when for once it is turned back on himself momentarily. He was part of the team that gave us Slopegate, had a pop at Mexicans and all the other numerous such events and he never had an issue.
On the other hand, it would be brave (or foolish, you choose) for the BBC to base their defence on the argument that "He's worked on our racist TV programme for years so he's as bad as the rest of us".
Oops.
MarshPhantom said:
Mound Dawg said:
DonkeyApple said:
That is arguably the nub. He has an absolute right to complain about being hit, called lazy or called a but seeing as he has built a very significant proportion of his professional career around a program that 'pushed the boundaries' in terms of race then he doesn't really have a leg to stand on in regards to taking offence when for once it is turned back on himself momentarily.
He was part of the team that gave us Slopegate, had a pop at Mexicans and all the other numerous such events and he never had an issue.
This is a very good point. but seeing as he has built a very significant proportion of his professional career around a program that 'pushed the boundaries' in terms of race then he doesn't really have a leg to stand on in regards to taking offence when for once it is turned back on himself momentarily. He was part of the team that gave us Slopegate, had a pop at Mexicans and all the other numerous such events and he never had an issue.
On the other hand, it would be brave (or foolish, you choose) for the BBC to base their defence on the argument that "He's worked on our racist TV programme for years so he's as bad as the rest of us".
Oops.
Of all the things he has an absolute right to be suing over, this one matter seems to be the element that he has no right whatsoever to complain about given his complicit actions of the past.
But I do think that it is more a technicality and that it is the focus the legal professionals feel will deliver the quickest and best result.
Maybe it is not without risks. If no payoff is forthcoming then we may see a lot more about past activities or more details of the thirty minute dispute be leaked into the media. One way or another, for those wondering why it has been left until now I think the answer lies very clearly in us being less than 10 days into Amazon's marketing campaign for the new show. It has been timed for maximum pressure and quickest results.
It does seem a very well timed and targeted campaign and has all the feel of the tactics of firms the like of Mishkons.
DonkeyApple said:
Of course. But this chap is attempting to claim that while he was happy to be paid as a senior member of staff on a show that regularly and clearly deliberately courted controversy by pushing the modern boundaries of acceptability in terms of 'racism' he isn't happy to have it pointed at him personally.
If you hadn't been the one so keen to show that the scripts weren't racist, your argument might have some merit. But you claimed (then) that they weren't racist. At all.Now that Clarkson, all on his own, without script, has actually resorted to outright racism when violent towards an innocent party, you claim that the innocent party isn't allowed to mention racism. Because (you imagine while supplying zero evidence), the victim must have been complicit in the earlier scripted racism.
, why when he suffered an injury should he not sue?Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff