RE: And On That Bombshell: Review

[anonymous-user]

In recent years, TG hadn’t much to offer petrol-heads. It was just a family entertainment show, in the same bracket as the Generation Game, except that Bruce F was genuinely funny and, unlike Jezza, could run a show without giving the impression that he was continually bursting to say something out of the Daily Mail book of social clichés. Clarkson in his day was an excellent car journalist and his reviews used to be great. And his books are great fun. But, in later years, the scripted TG gags and stunts were all becoming far too contrived. The lads seemed in recent years to be just going through the motions. Less big-budget expense accounts and more enthusiasm for what they were doing would have helped. Sometimes, when a bloke screws up in such spectacular style, it can be self-sabotage. There was something pathetic about the bust-up with a junior employee. The real mark of a person is how they treat subordinates. Jeremy may have wanted out anyway. It’s a fine line as a proper car show will never be on mainstream TV. But there is room for an entertainment car show which isn’t 100% goofy. Here’s hoping.

[Wills2]

Familiarity breeds contempt...they all worked closely and in each others pockets for years, things can get out of hand.

Wasn't the first bust up between colleagues and won't be last, as an example I'm not sure I've attended a works Christmas party that hasn't had a few handbags going on.

I will get the book though sounds a good read.

[alock]

gigglebug said:

Or they could terminate his employment for gross misconduct like any other organisation would have to do as he assaulted another employee, or do you think that companies get to bend the rules if the person concerned is either a) "funny" or b) a nice little earner??

I work for a small IT company of about 20 people. I'm under no pretence that the company revolves around the CEO and owner.

If during one of our many drunken Christmas parties the CEO hit me, there are several paths that could be followed.
1) I get lots of apologies, a month off on full pay and a bonus doubling my salary.
2) The CEO resigns (or is forced out by the other director). Company deteriorates over next 12 months and all 20 of use lose our jobs.

I know which option I would prefer. I know Clarkson isn't the CEO but the show revolves around him in the same it revolves around the CEO for many small companies. Closing the company is rarely the best option for the other employees. Forget the two involved. A company has a wider obligation to the rest of its employees.

[gigglebug]

alock said:

gigglebug said:

Or they could terminate his employment for gross misconduct like any other organisation would have to do as he assaulted another employee, or do you think that companies get to bend the rules if the person concerned is either a) "funny" or b) a nice little earner??

I work for a small IT company of about 20 people. I'm under no pretence that the company revolves around the CEO and owner.

If during one of our many drunken Christmas parties the CEO hit me, there are several paths that could be followed.
1) I get lots of apologies, a month off on full pay and a bonus doubling my salary.
2) The CEO resigns (or is forced out by the other director). Company deteriorates over next 12 months and all 20 of use lose our jobs.

I know which option I would prefer. I know Clarkson isn't the CEO but the show revolves around him in the same it revolves around the CEO for many small companies. Closing the company is rarely the best option for the other employees. Forget the two involved. A company has a wider obligation to the rest of its employees.

Unfortunately nothing you have put has anything to do with UK law, opinions or made up scenario's don't count for anything. A person was assaulted at his work place with witnesses present and a formal complaint was made (whether anyone thinks he should have or should not have done so are irrelevant). The company has no obligation at this point and isn't in the position to consider any other employees other than the person that was assaulted and the company wouldn't be in any position to defend the aggressor due to the ramifications that not complying to their own disciplinary procedures could bring upon themselves. If you let yourself get into a position where you attack someone at work, no matter for what reason, you are accepting the fact that if the other person puts in a complaint you are going to get fired. It's that simple and trust me I speak from experience!

[Emeye]

tommy1973s said:

In recent years, TG hadn’t much to offer petrol-heads. It was just a family entertainment show, in the same bracket as the Generation Game, except that Bruce F was genuinely funny and, unlike Jezza, could run a show without giving the impression that he was continually bursting to say something out of the Daily Mail book of social clichés. Clarkson in his day was an excellent car journalist and his reviews used to be great. And his books are great fun. But, in later years, the scripted TG gags and stunts were all becoming far too contrived. The lads seemed in recent years to be just going through the motions. Less big-budget expense accounts and more enthusiasm for what they were doing would have helped. Sometimes, when a bloke screws up in such spectacular style, it can be self-sabotage. There was something pathetic about the bust-up with a junior employee. The real mark of a person is how they treat subordinates. Jeremy may have wanted out anyway. It’s a fine line as a proper car show will never be on mainstream TV. But there is room for an entertainment car show which isn’t 100% goofy. Here’s hoping.

Bruce Forsyth "was" funny, about 30 years ago, they should have dragged him out the back of Television House years ago and shot him.

Listening to this book until now, it seems at first they learnt by their mistakes, but this reminds me of a successful musician or band - their first commercial album is great, second may be good or OK, but then generally the following albums over the year are just average regurgitate crap, but when they have a huge following, that following will continue to buy whatever dross they churn out - I think the same went for Top Gear, but there were still the odd glimpses of magic.

[jagfan2]

Wholeheartedly agree, would be hard enough for any private company to keep him employed, let alone a public one, there was no way he could keep being employed in any capacity

And the BBC still using old top gear material is not hypocritical, just sensible, just underlining the end of an era

Hoping I get the book for Xmas and if not will buy myself, follow most stuff he does , sniffpetrol, evo column and Gareth Jones on speed podcast, which is also hilarious and accurately geeky

gigglebug said:

Unfortunately nothing you have put has anything to do with UK law, opinions or made up scenario's don't count for anything. A person was assaulted at his work place with witnesses present and a formal complaint was made (whether anyone thinks he should have or should not have done so are irrelevant). The company has no obligation at this point and isn't in the position to consider any other employees other than the person that was assaulted and the company wouldn't be in any position to defend the aggressor due to the ramifications that not complying to their own disciplinary procedures could bring upon themselves. If you let yourself get into a position where you attack someone at work, no matter for what reason, you are accepting the fact that if the other person puts in a complaint you are going to get fired. It's that simple and trust me I speak from experience!

[RoverP6B]

When the employer relies on that employee to reach 360 million people, and makes it that much money, there are better, more effective ways of dealing with the problem than sacking.

[gigglebug]

RoverP6B said:

When the employer relies on that employee to reach 360 million people, and makes it that much money, there are better, more effective ways of dealing with the problem than sacking.

Again you are rather naively assuming that a company can just ignore UK employment laws and make up their own punishments if it benefit's them which they can't, end off. The amount people the employee "reaches out to" and the amount of income that employee generates is irrelevant in the eye's of the law, why is that too hard for you understand?? Once the official complaint had been made and the claims were backed up by the witnesses present the companies hands were tied. They could have hoped that the person assaulted dropped the charges, they may have hoped that he accepted some sort of severance behind the scenes in return for not going ahead with the claim if it was financially beneficial for them to do so but the fact is he didn't so the organisation had no choice but to terminate the employment of the aggressor.

And as for this comment;

"Between all that and going to hospital for a mildly split lip courtesy of a very unfit drunk middle-aged bloke, he does come across almost as badly as Clarkson himself."

Try explaining to the many victims of alcohol abuse every year from so called "very unfit drunk middle-aged blokes" that they are in some way being a little bit pathetic for not accepting it if you dare!!

Edited by gigglebug on Sunday 20th December 11:35

[MarshPhantom]

Rotrax said:

Perhaps the BBC might consider a show about Cars, rather than stupidity and Egos.

Best of luck with that.

[gigglebug]

MarshPhantom said:

Rotrax said:

Perhaps the BBC might consider a show about Cars, rather than stupidity and Egos.

Best of luck with that.

I can't see the new show trying to follow the exact same formula as what has gone before if for nothing else other than Chris Evans being clever enough to realise that there would be no way of emulating what Jeremy, Richard and James were capable of. Fifth Gear briefly flirted with the middle aged men trying to be stupid on purpose and it bombed, I can't see Chris trying to have another go at it to be honest.

Top Gear for me was at it's height when it was still concentrating on the cars. Yes the odd unscripted funny thing would happen and it added greatly to what was a very good show, Jeremy is very quick witted and was the perfect host ably backed up by the other 2. Unfortunately it turned into a largely scripted, unnatural mess which in the end had very little to do with cars and more to do with slapstick comedy and general put downs which in it's self isn't a bad thing but not what I personally look for in a car show. I like cars, that's why I would watch a car show

[MarshPhantom]

gigglebug said:

MarshPhantom said:

Rotrax said:

Perhaps the BBC might consider a show about Cars, rather than stupidity and Egos.

Best of luck with that.

I can't see the new show trying to follow the exact same formula as what has gone before if for nothing else other than Chris Evans being clever enough to realise that there would be no way of emulating what Jeremy, Richard and James were capable of. Fifth Gear briefly flirted with the middle aged men trying to be stupid on purpose and it bombed, I can't see Chris trying to have another go at it to be honest.

Top Gear for me was at it's height when it was still concentrating on the cars. Yes the odd unscripted funny thing would happen and it added greatly to what was a very good show, Jeremy is very quick witted and was the perfect host ably backed up by the other 2. Unfortunately it turned into a largely scripted, unnatural mess which in the end had very little to do with cars and more to do with slapstick comedy and general put downs which in it's self isn't a bad thing but not what I personally look for in a car show. I like cars, that's why I would watch a car show

Evans has said it will be evolution not revolution and the only thing that is staying for sure is SIARPC.

[Ahonen]

Rotrax said:

So, the Idiot Show is no more?

Thank God for that.

Perhaps the BBC might consider a show about Cars, rather than stupidity and Egos.

Yeah, bring back William Woollard! Etc.

[RoverP6B]

gigglebug said:

Again you are rather naively assuming that a company can just ignore UK employment laws and make up their own punishments if it benefits them, which they can't, end of. The amount people the employee "reaches out to" and the amount of income that employee generates is irrelevant in the eyes of the law, why is that too hard for you understand? Once the official complaint had been made and the claims were backed up by the witnesses present, the companies hands were tied. They could have hoped that the person assaulted dropped the charges, they may have hoped that he accepted some sort of severance behind the scenes in return for not going ahead with the claim if it was financially beneficial for them to do so but the fact is he didn't, so the organisation had no choice but to terminate the employment of the aggressor.

And as for this comment; "Between all that and going to hospital for a mildly split lip courtesy of a very unfit drunk middle-aged bloke, he does come across almost as badly as Clarkson himself."

Try explaining to the many victims of alcohol abuse every year from so called "very unfit drunk middle-aged blokes" that they are in some way being a little bit pathetic for not accepting it if you dare!

The case did not go to law: there was no obligation upon the BBC to dismiss Clarkson. Nor did they dismiss him. They merely decided not to renew his contract. The outcome could have been very different had they sacked Clarkson with immediate effect rather than suspending him for the remainder of the contractual period. The assault was actually reported by Clarkson himself - any official complaint did not come until later. There were opportunities for the BBC to handle it much better, giving Clarkson the arse-kicking he richly deserved without cutting its own corporate nose off to spite its face. Oisin Tymon never sought to bring charges. I have been critical of Tymon mainly because he's suing the BBC having rejected several offers of further employment with the Corporation - and yeah, sustaining a cut lip when an unfit drunk takes a swing at you does not warrant a trip to A&E - then people wonder why A&E units are so overstretched! It's not remotely comparable to those who sustain serious harm as the victims of alcohol-fuelled abuse.

[gigglebug]

RoverP6B said:

The case did not go to law: there was no obligation upon the BBC to dismiss Clarkson. Nor did they dismiss him. They merely decided not to renew his contract. The outcome could have been very different had they sacked Clarkson with immediate effect rather than suspending him for the remainder of the contractual period. The assault was actually reported by Clarkson himself - any official complaint did not come until later. There were opportunities for the BBC to handle it much better, giving Clarkson the arse-kicking he richly deserved without cutting its own corporate nose off to spite its face. Oisin Tymon never sought to bring charges. I have been critical of Tymon mainly because he's suing the BBC having rejected several offers of further employment with the Corporation - and yeah, sustaining a cut lip when an unfit drunk takes a swing at you does not warrant a trip to A&E - then people wonder why A&E units are so overstretched! It's not remotely comparable to those who sustain serious harm as the victims of alcohol-fuelled abuse.

Your clearly never going to get it are you!! Your obviously as big a dinosaur as Clarkson is himself! Once the altercation was made aware to the company they would have to follow their own disciplinary procedures if for nothing else but to cover themselves in the event of any litigation at a later date (which as it happens appears to have happened) which would mean the suspension of the accused party whilst an internal investigation was carried out into the events that took place, that is workplace law and nothing to do with the police and criminal law even though the police were quite keen at the time to receive a report so that they could take action if necessary. Work law and criminal law are two different things, I suggested one not the other. It makes absolutely no difference who reported the event as long as there were witnesses to corroborate what had happened and in this case as it was the accused himself who reported it they would probably only have needed confirmation from the victim, I never suggested that it was Mr Tymone who put in a complaint I just said a complaint had been made. The fact that the contract ended within weeks of the altercation and even sooner after the official findings of the investigation may have allowed them to use not renewing the contract as an alternative to a straight termination and Clarkson having dismissal for assault on his employment record. Do you really think that if Clarkson had have had a contract that was still running for any length of time that they would have been able to just make up some sort of punishment outside of their own and work place guidelines to justify keeping him in employment just because he is a valuable asset?? Is that honestly what you believe is possible?? Your ignorance is laughable!!

I'll quote Tony Hall directly from his post investigation statement;

"A member of staff – who is a completely innocent party – took himself to Accident and Emergency after a physical altercation accompanied by sustained and prolonged verbal abuse of an extreme nature. For me a line has been crossed. There cannot be one rule for one and one rule for another dictated by either rank, or public relations and commercial considerations."

So yes they would have had an obligation to dismiss Clarkson, it's quite obvious really if you bothered to have any understanding of it!! The fact that his contract was imminently about to expire naturally is merely a convenient coincidence not an indication that they could of and should of have done anything differently.

And secondly who are you to determine what severity of injury is required to make a visit to A&E justifiable?? If there was no need for treatment he wouldn't have been treated, simple!! People turning up to A&E with the sniffles when plenty of off the shelf remedies are readily available is a waste of time for the NHS. Someone trying to determine whether a cut is severe enough to need treatment isn't you backward oaf!!

[gigglebug]

RoverP6B said:

It's not remotely comparable to those who sustain serious harm as the victims of alcohol-fuelled abuse.

So someone attended A&E after what was, and I quote "a physical altercation accompanied by sustained and prolonged verbal abuse of an extreme nature" and all you have is the general ignorance to say that's it's not remotely comparable?? You should hang your head in shame, what an embarrassment!!

[pSynrg]

You couldn't pay me to wipe my backside with it.

[Hackney]

Rotrax said:

So, the Idiot Show is no more?

Thank God for that.

Perhaps the BBC might consider a show about Cars, rather than stupidity and Egos.

Have you only just realised?

[Hackney]

pSynrg said:

You couldn't pay me to wipe my backside with it.

And yet you read a review of it... although your decision must have been made prior to reading the review (as the review is positive) so I feel it only right to question your decision making process or your mental health.

[V8RX7]

gumsie said:

Clarkson is crass and deliberately obtuse and whilst that’s funny at first he just comes off as an oaf after a while.

They should have sacked him and compensated Tymon.

My how times change, I was punched in the face at work 10yrs ago.

The manager thought I was having an affair with his wife (I worked with his wife and we were good friends)

He wasn't sacked and I wasn't compensated.

[gigglebug]

V8RX7 said:

gumsie said:

Clarkson is crass and deliberately obtuse and whilst that’s funny at first he just comes off as an oaf after a while.

They should have sacked him and compensated Tymon.

My how times change, I was punched in the face at work 10yrs ago.

The manager thought I was having an affair with his wife (I worked with his wife and we were good friends)

He wasn't sacked and I wasn't compensated.

Just the way it is nowadays, for better or for worse! The BBC will have been acting as much if not more to protect themselves as to protect Tymon, I don't think compensation can come into it from the employment point of view. It's obviously a shame to many that it has happened but rules are rules and they tend to get followed to the letter nowadays as folks are far more likely to go down the action route than they used to be