RE: And On That Bombshell: Review
Discussion
"Prolonged verbal abuse of an extreme nature" my arse. "Lazy Irish 
" takes about two seconds to say. The poor little wet-behind-the-ears boy got called a nasty name and sustained a minor cut to his lip, which in no way warranted a trip to A&E. A suspension and investigation may well have been warranted. A dismissal, or non-renewal of contract, under these specific circumstances, was not.
I repeat my earlier point. Clarkson has effectively escaped punishment. He has been re-signed and will now make more in a year than the BBC has ever paid him (probably). He's the one who has come out of this as the victor. Creative genius or not, can that really be justified? It would have been much more effective to put him back to work on minimum wage and make him issue a profound and sincere apology on the programme. That would have sent a more powerful message.
" takes about two seconds to say. The poor little wet-behind-the-ears boy got called a nasty name and sustained a minor cut to his lip, which in no way warranted a trip to A&E. A suspension and investigation may well have been warranted. A dismissal, or non-renewal of contract, under these specific circumstances, was not.I repeat my earlier point. Clarkson has effectively escaped punishment. He has been re-signed and will now make more in a year than the BBC has ever paid him (probably). He's the one who has come out of this as the victor. Creative genius or not, can that really be justified? It would have been much more effective to put him back to work on minimum wage and make him issue a profound and sincere apology on the programme. That would have sent a more powerful message.
RoverP6B said:
"Prolonged verbal abuse of an extreme nature" my arse. "Lazy Irish " takes about two seconds to say. The poor little wet-behind-the-ears boy got called a nasty name and sustained a minor cut to his lip, which in no way warranted a trip to A&E. A suspension and investigation may well have been warranted. A dismissal, or non-renewal of contract, under these specific circumstances, was not.
You clearly do not know enough about this to make any sort of justifiable comment on it, you make yourself look more and more out of touch with the reality of the subject with each passing post. If you seriously think that what would be classed as an assault within the workplace is not a good enough reason for a dismissal you are clearly either a very ill informed or just a plain ignorant person." takes about two seconds to say. The poor little wet-behind-the-ears boy got called a nasty name and sustained a minor cut to his lip, which in no way warranted a trip to A&E. A suspension and investigation may well have been warranted. A dismissal, or non-renewal of contract, under these specific circumstances, was not.RoverP6B said:
It would have been much more effective to put him back to work on minimum wage and make him issue a profound and sincere apology on the programme. That would have sent a more powerful message.
Nope. Saying that we will not tolerate this sort of behavior from anyone regardless of who you are, what you provide us and what we stand to lose by taking the correct course of action is as strong a message as you can give, end off.Edited by gigglebug on Tuesday 22 December 00:51
A workplace assault in a 'normal' business environment is another matter altogether. In this instance, Clarkson has got away with it, taken his audience with him and earning vastly more money than ever before - and the BBC has lost the vast majority of the income TG brought it. Conventional procedures just don't work when you're dealing with a global phenomenon like this. A public shaming of Clarkson combined with axing as much of his salary as possible while allowing the programme to continue (perhaps removing Clarkson from his 'chairman' role, replacing him with May) would have been much more effective.
RoverP6B said:
A workplace assault in a 'normal' business environment is another matter altogether. In this instance, Clarkson has got away with it, taken his audience with him and earning vastly more money than ever before - and the BBC has lost the vast majority of the income TG brought it. Conventional procedures just don't work when you're dealing with a global phenomenon like this. A public shaming of Clarkson combined with axing as much of his salary as possible while allowing the programme to continue (perhaps removing Clarkson from his 'chairman' role, replacing him with May) would have been much more effective.
You just really cannot get to grips with this can you even though it is being clearly spelled out for you, why are you struggling with this so much!? Employment law would treat this exactly the same regardless of what "business environment" it was implemented in, there is no such thing as "normal" or "abnormal". I just cannot understand why you are finding this so hard to understand!? You are still showing your utter ignorance on the subject by assuming that this is in some way a special circumstance and because of it clear rules set out in law do not have to be followed. You honestly think that the BBC are in a position where they could have come up with some sort of a Micky Mouse made up off the top of their heads punishment which had absolutely no legal standing just because it might have suited them financially, again your ignorance is laughable. You assume that just because the person involved is a "global phenomenon" that "conventional procedures" are somehow irrelevant and do not need to be followed, I mean how utterly out of touch do you have to be or how much lack of understanding do you have have to have to think that this could be the case??As long as Oisin Tymon was happy for his employers to carry out the disciplinary procedures to their natural conclusion there was never going to be any other outcome, it doesn't matter what yours, or mine or anyone else's opinion on the subject is. There is nothing that the BBC could of or should of have done differently, it really is as simple as that!
RoverP6B said:
Had the matter gone to law, you'd be right - but there is no law which says that an employee who assaults a colleague must be dismissed from their job. The BBC cocked it up and THEY are paying the price, not Clarkson...
Your ignorance obviously knows no boundaries!!http://www.hse.gov.uk/violence/law.htm
The BBC's policy on violence in the workplace and it's measures for dealing with it would be clearly set out as it is in any other establishment as it is a legal requirement to do so, yes that's a legal requirement as in law just in case your lack of understanding is preventing you from taking it in. If you are ignorant to believe (which you clearly are) that they will have had any other course of action that they could have followed for what would be classed as an assault and therefore gross misconduct that is just your ignorance and nothing else. It wouldn't have to have anything to do "the law" which I assume is what you are referring to as the police to make it a legal requirement and for a predetermined set procedures to be followed, which they clearly were.
Now I don't expect you to understand what is going on as you clearly don't have the ability to do so but I am happy to continue correcting your ignorance
So, as I said, there is no law requiring an employee who has assaulted a colleague to be dismissed. None of the pieces of legislation or other guidelines to which you have linked says that. It's down to the individual employer to decide policy. The BBC has its own policies, granted - but the implementation thereof has only punished the Corporation itself and not the guilty party. Therefore, a better solution could have been found.
RoverP6B said:
So, as I said, there is no law requiring an employee who has assaulted a colleague to be dismissed. None of the pieces of legislation or other guidelines to which you have linked says that. It's down to the individual employer to decide policy. The BBC has its own policies, granted - but the implementation thereof has only punished the Corporation itself and not the guilty party. Therefore, a better solution could have been found.
And it's been clearly stated on a number of occasions and even by Tony Hall himself when he stated "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" what the corporations own policy is on violence in the workplace is and is why they would have to follow it as the law requires them to do so once they have set it up. They are not in the position to ignore their own policies and implement a different solution to the problem if it suits them any more than you are in the position to understand what has happened and except it for the blindingly obvious set of events that it is. It is irrelevant that the corporation itself is somehow being punished by following it's own policies as they are legally obliged to do so regardless of any implications, so no a "better solution" could not have been found otherwise do you not think it would have happened?RoverP6B said:
I think the public humiliation for Clarkson, putting him on minimum wage and perhaps writing a clause into the renewed contract that he had to hand the BBC half of everything TG-related he earned would have been a more effective punishment than leaving him free for someone else to sign for a vastly increased salary - and the BBC would have avoided the negative PR fallout and loss of earnings.
In what world would Clarkson have signed up to a minimum wage contract and giving away 50% of "TG related earnings" you mental?! 
I assume that being on a minimum wage and giving away 50% would mean that the BBC would be prosecuted for breaching minimum wage legislation
Tony Hall is - as usual - wrong. Clarkson has gone unpunished, the victim uncompensated and the Corporation is paying the price.
Clarkson never wanted to leave the BBC. If being on minimum wage for one series was what it took to save his career, he'd have done it... he only went to Amazon because the BBC effectively axed the programme.
As for giving up 50% of TG-related revenue, I mean on DVD and merchandise sales, not on salary.
Clarkson never wanted to leave the BBC. If being on minimum wage for one series was what it took to save his career, he'd have done it... he only went to Amazon because the BBC effectively axed the programme.
As for giving up 50% of TG-related revenue, I mean on DVD and merchandise sales, not on salary.
RoverP6B said:
Clarkson never wanted to leave the BBC. If being on minimum wage for one series was what it took to save his career, he'd have done it... he only went to Amazon because the BBC effectively axed the programme.
I'll add you to the list of PHers who apparently know Clarkson. (It is a surprisingly long list).RoverP6B said:
Tony Hall is - as usual - wrong. Clarkson has gone unpunished, the victim uncompensated and the Corporation is paying the price.
Clarkson never wanted to leave the BBC. If being on minimum wage for one series was what it took to save his career, he'd have done it... he only went to Amazon because the BBC effectively axed the programme.
As for giving up 50% of TG-related revenue, I mean on DVD and merchandise sales, not on salary.
Ah so now the Director General of the BBC who will of undoubtedly had many very knowledgeable people to help guide him is wrong yet you seem to think that yourself and your made up scenario's of what you think should have happened even though they have no place in reality or what was actually possible are correct!? It must be whole heap of self admiration in the dream world you live in!!Clarkson never wanted to leave the BBC. If being on minimum wage for one series was what it took to save his career, he'd have done it... he only went to Amazon because the BBC effectively axed the programme.
As for giving up 50% of TG-related revenue, I mean on DVD and merchandise sales, not on salary.
RoverP6B said:
BBC management usually find a way to get things badly wrong and this is no exception. They had the opportunity to punish Clarkson and instead they punished themselves.
You do realise that you are contradicting yourself don't you?? Probably not, I just don't think you've got the awareness!! I'll quote you;"I repeat my earlier point. Clarkson has effectively escaped punishment."
"Clarkson never wanted to leave the BBC. If being on minimum wage for one series was what it took to save his career, he'd have done it..."
"They had the opportunity to punish Clarkson and instead they punished themselves."
So you see Clarkson was punished judging by your own take on the situation by being told he would no longer be able to carry on the career that you claim he never wanted to leave and would have happily have served a completely fabricated by your imagination term of punishment to save it.
So could you clarify what you actually meant? I mean I would hate for you to make yourself look a little bit stupid!
Gassing Station | Books and Literature | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff