Top Gear producer to sue Clarkson
Discussion
Smollet said:
If I called someone a lovely Irish person that that would be a racist compliment making me a suitable target for litigation under the race laws?
You're missing the point - for it to be racial abuse it has to be abusive. Racism is a word that is predicated on negative outcomes and defines an undesirable action.IainT said:
Smollet said:
If I called someone a lovely Irish person that that would be a racist compliment making me a suitable target for litigation under the race laws?
You're missing the point - for it to be racial abuse it has to be abusive. Racism is a word that is predicated on negative outcomes and defines an undesirable action.Edited by Smollet on Monday 16th November 12:15
The law is not as silly as some appear to assume. Simply calling someone Irish would not attract any legal consequences. If, however, you were in the course of bullying an employee or subordinate and you were to refer to that person's national origin in a derogatory manner, then you might be accused of unlawful harassment with a racial element, using the term racial here in the loose sense in which it is used as a shorthand for ethnic, national and so on. Context is everything. The allegation here is presumably that saying "lazy Irish 
" was much the same, in context, as saying "lazy black " or "lazy Jewish " or lazy " would have been if the employee on the receiving end of the rant had been black, Jewish, Pakistani or whatever. Would Clarkson have said "lazy English "? That seems a bit unlikely. The term "Irish" , in context, was arguably part of the rant.
Note also that when considering whether workplace harassment has occurred you look at the impact on the recipient of the words or conduct in question, not on the intent of the person who says the words or does the action.
" was much the same, in context, as saying "lazy black " or "lazy Jewish " or lazy " would have been if the employee on the receiving end of the rant had been black, Jewish, Pakistani or whatever. Would Clarkson have said "lazy English "? That seems a bit unlikely. The term "Irish" , in context, was arguably part of the rant. Note also that when considering whether workplace harassment has occurred you look at the impact on the recipient of the words or conduct in question, not on the intent of the person who says the words or does the action.
Breadvan72 said:
The law is not as silly as some appear to assume. Simply calling someone Irish would not attract any legal consequences. If, however, you were in the course of bullying an employee or subordinate and you were to refer to that person's national origin in a derogatory manner, then you might be accused of unlawful harassment with a racial element, using the term racial here in the loose sense in which it is used as a shorthand for ethnic, national and so on. Context is everything. The allegation here is presumably that saying "lazy Irish " was much the same, in context, as saying "lazy black " or "lazy Jewish " or lazy " would have been if the employee on the receiving end of the rant had been black, Jewish, Pakistani or whatever. Would Clarkson have said "lazy English "? That seems a bit unlikely. The term "Irish" , in context, was arguably part of the rant.
Note also that when considering whether workplace harassment has occurred you look at the impact on the recipient of the words or conduct in question, not on the intent of the person who says the words or does the action.
That makes sense. I think that a person of a certain nationality would not highlight the same nationality when making a comment about someone else though. I'm English and I've never called a " was much the same, in context, as saying "lazy black " or "lazy Jewish " or lazy " would have been if the employee on the receiving end of the rant had been black, Jewish, Pakistani or whatever. Would Clarkson have said "lazy English "? That seems a bit unlikely. The term "Irish" , in context, was arguably part of the rant. Note also that when considering whether workplace harassment has occurred you look at the impact on the recipient of the words or conduct in question, not on the intent of the person who says the words or does the action.
an English . Honest 
Smollet said:
That makes sense. I think that a person of a certain nationality would not highlight the same nationality when making a comment about someone else though. I'm English and I've never called a an English . Honest
There are unpleasant regional, racist slurs though which, IMHO could cause equal upset when not said in jest; "thieving Scouse" being one such. an English . Honest Smollet said:
Breadvan72 said:
The law is not as silly as some appear to assume. Simply calling someone Irish would not attract any legal consequences. If, however, you were in the course of bullying an employee or subordinate and you were to refer to that person's national origin in a derogatory manner, then you might be accused of unlawful harassment with a racial element, using the term racial here in the loose sense in which it is used as a shorthand for ethnic, national and so on. Context is everything. The allegation here is presumably that saying "lazy Irish " was much the same, in context, as saying "lazy black " or "lazy Jewish " or lazy " would have been if the employee on the receiving end of the rant had been black, Jewish, Pakistani or whatever. Would Clarkson have said "lazy English "? That seems a bit unlikely. The term "Irish" , in context, was arguably part of the rant.
Note also that when considering whether workplace harassment has occurred you look at the impact on the recipient of the words or conduct in question, not on the intent of the person who says the words or does the action.
That makes sense. I think that a person of a certain nationality would not highlight the same nationality when making a comment about someone else though. I'm English and I've never called a " was much the same, in context, as saying "lazy black " or "lazy Jewish " or lazy " would have been if the employee on the receiving end of the rant had been black, Jewish, Pakistani or whatever. Would Clarkson have said "lazy English "? That seems a bit unlikely. The term "Irish" , in context, was arguably part of the rant. Note also that when considering whether workplace harassment has occurred you look at the impact on the recipient of the words or conduct in question, not on the intent of the person who says the words or does the action.
an English . Honest If he isn't being greedy why hasn't he gone to the racial discrimination people and taken the BBC (his employer) to court, this is greed because JC is worth suing.
Adrian W said:
I have been call English XXXX by Scottish customers on more than one occasion.
If he isn't being greedy why hasn't he gone to the racial discrimination people and taken the BBC (his employer) to court, this is greed because JC is worth suing.
He's suing the CryptoCommieLeftyBeeb as wellIf he isn't being greedy why hasn't he gone to the racial discrimination people and taken the BBC (his employer) to court, this is greed because JC is worth suing.
Adrian W said:
...
If he isn't being greedy why hasn't he gone to the racial discrimination people and taken the BBC (his employer) to court, this is greed because JC is worth suing.
Who are "the racial discrimination people"?If he isn't being greedy why hasn't he gone to the racial discrimination people and taken the BBC (his employer) to court, this is greed because JC is worth suing.
AFAIK, the bloke has made or is proposing to make a claim in an employment tribunal against Clarkson and the BBC.
An employer has in some circumstances an obligation to protect its employee against harassment and abuse. Two black women working for an hotel won their claim when they were exposed to racist and sexist taunts by Bernard Manning and members of his audience whilst waitressing at a do. The employer was liable because it failed to withdraw the women from the gig once the taunting started. They had to work in an intimidating and hostile environment, Manning having encouraged the audience to get stuck in to the two employees.
The Prison Service probably wouldn't be liable to a prison officer who is racially insulted by prisoners, as there is perhaps
no effective way to stop that, and it sort of goes with the territory, but it might be liable if through failure to take proper precautions it placed an officer in a situation where he or she was duffed up.
The Prison Service probably wouldn't be liable to a prison officer who is racially insulted by prisoners, as there is perhaps
no effective way to stop that, and it sort of goes with the territory, but it might be liable if through failure to take proper precautions it placed an officer in a situation where he or she was duffed up.
time trying to debunk the rather 
opinions on this matter.What's wrong with him suing the BBC & Clarkson for a pile of £££ anyway?
Don't want to be sued? Don't punch people. Simple.
Don't want to be sued for your employees (or in this case contracted writer/presenter under a loan agreement) punching people? Don't let them misbehave for years.
In the lazy Irish guys shoes, I'd probably seek to get as much as possible so I could retire earlier and maybe write a 'tell all' book to boot. Life's too short to waste working if you don't need to.
Don't want to be sued? Don't punch people. Simple.
Don't want to be sued for your employees (or in this case contracted writer/presenter under a loan agreement) punching people? Don't let them misbehave for years.
In the lazy Irish guys shoes, I'd probably seek to get as much as possible so I could retire earlier and maybe write a 'tell all' book to boot. Life's too short to waste working if you don't need to.
johnfm said:
What's wrong with him suing the BBC & Clarkson for a pile of £££ anyway?
Damn right. I'm a Clarkson fan but FFS, if you fvck up someones career in a temper tantrum you've got to expect to pay up. It's a shame there are lawyers involved and they couldn't have just settled it in private with a bit of class.CS Garth said:
dubloon said:
CS Garth said:
Who cares? Someone who can't rustle up a rare sirloin got hand bagged by a man who drinks rose wine and bases his humour on casual racism which looks bad on paper but no one can seriously believe the man is a racist. [
You may find people in Argentina have an opinion which differs from you own.Some observations:
Clarkson was a bloody fool acting the way he did. It was his own bloody fault they were late to the hotel, spent the evening getting pished at Dunsfold and even more pished on the helicopter instead of making the journey in a timely, sober manner. It was his own bloody fault he didn't get his steak when he first demanded it, and it was utterly reprehensible of him to wallop Tymon. That behaviour is not acceptable under any circumstances. Richard Porter addresses the subject at some length in his book, which I recommend to everyone. He does, however, suggest that the Reinstate Clarkson petition was signed exclusively by people who think workplace assault is OK if the assailant is a likeable bloke off the telly. I signed it and believe no such thing. I just didn't think Clarkson leaving the Beeb was a satisfactory conclusion to the episode.
Tymon is being a bit wet. For one thing, he got six months' fully paid leave and offers of work on Top Gear Mk3 (which he rejected) and other BBC programming (ditto). I also don't see how "lazy Irish cúnt" is racist, really - the "Irish" bit is a statement of fact. Echoes of Clarkson calling Gordon Brown a "one-eyed Scottish idiot". That wasn't racist either. BTW, I've got Dublin-Irish ancestry and lived my first 28 years in Scotland, and my wife's half-Irish too, before anyone accuses me of English arrogance.
In his shoes, having been subjected to the pasting he got, I'd probably be after every penny I could get too, but I'd probably be going back to work too. If not, I'd be launching an independent car media venture, as per Chris Harris et al. In the circumstances, I'm surprised he's only going for 100k. Does that include lawyers' fees? Not really all that much money. I could burn through 100k very quickly just doing up the house, paying off the mortgage etc. Who's going to employ the bloke now? If he wanted compensation, he should probably have pursued a criminal prosecution against Clarkson first.
Curious parallel to all of this in the Tim Wonnacott/Bargain Hunt episode.
Oh, and Danny Cohen's left the Beeb. Asked to leave because he lost them the golden-egg-laying goose?
Clarkson was a bloody fool acting the way he did. It was his own bloody fault they were late to the hotel, spent the evening getting pished at Dunsfold and even more pished on the helicopter instead of making the journey in a timely, sober manner. It was his own bloody fault he didn't get his steak when he first demanded it, and it was utterly reprehensible of him to wallop Tymon. That behaviour is not acceptable under any circumstances. Richard Porter addresses the subject at some length in his book, which I recommend to everyone. He does, however, suggest that the Reinstate Clarkson petition was signed exclusively by people who think workplace assault is OK if the assailant is a likeable bloke off the telly. I signed it and believe no such thing. I just didn't think Clarkson leaving the Beeb was a satisfactory conclusion to the episode.
Tymon is being a bit wet. For one thing, he got six months' fully paid leave and offers of work on Top Gear Mk3 (which he rejected) and other BBC programming (ditto). I also don't see how "lazy Irish cúnt" is racist, really - the "Irish" bit is a statement of fact. Echoes of Clarkson calling Gordon Brown a "one-eyed Scottish idiot". That wasn't racist either. BTW, I've got Dublin-Irish ancestry and lived my first 28 years in Scotland, and my wife's half-Irish too, before anyone accuses me of English arrogance.
In his shoes, having been subjected to the pasting he got, I'd probably be after every penny I could get too, but I'd probably be going back to work too. If not, I'd be launching an independent car media venture, as per Chris Harris et al. In the circumstances, I'm surprised he's only going for 100k. Does that include lawyers' fees? Not really all that much money. I could burn through 100k very quickly just doing up the house, paying off the mortgage etc. Who's going to employ the bloke now? If he wanted compensation, he should probably have pursued a criminal prosecution against Clarkson first.
Curious parallel to all of this in the Tim Wonnacott/Bargain Hunt episode.
Oh, and Danny Cohen's left the Beeb. Asked to leave because he lost them the golden-egg-laying goose?
Edited by RoverP6B on Thursday 26th November 01:30
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff