RE: And On That Bombshell: Review
Discussion
RoverP6B said:
Clarkson is continuing his career with Amazon - reinvigorated and vastly better-paid than ever before. The BBC loses out.
That's about as limp of a response to try and justify your discrepancies as we could have expected I suppose, you really have come out of this at the bottom of the pile haven't you!!On the one hand you are claiming he would have gladly have taken a pay cut to stay with the BBC as he "never wanted to leave" and suggested that earnings would have been voluntarily sacrificed to carry on with the career he didn't want to give up, you've even gone as far as to say that "he only went to Amazon because the BBC effectively axed the programme." suggesting that you feel that money would have been of no motivation and that he would rather have still been working for the BBC than Amazon
You are now trying to get out of explaining your contradictory posts by pointing out that he is "continuing his career with Amazon - reinvigorated and vastly better-paid than ever before." suggesting that you also think it is a win/win situation even though they were both previously things that you claimed he would not have even been motivated by and would have gladly have passed on to stay where he was so again I feel the need to point out your contradictions and ask "what is it that your actually trying to say??"
Edited by gigglebug on Wednesday 23 December 00:46
There are no discrepancies. I am merely repeating what I have said already. Clarkson would have had two options: take a big pay cut to stay with the BBC and the Top Gear team, or go it alone without them, going to Amazon on his own. The latter would have been a dismal failure and he'd have been washed up, all out of options. Had the course of action I recommend retrospectively been taken, I very much doubt that Hammond and May would have left too, and likely Wilman, Porter and all the other people who made the programme tick would have stayed at the Beeb. What has actually happened would not even have been an option.
RoverP6B said:
There are no discrepancies. I am merely repeating what I have said already. Clarkson would have had two options: take a big pay cut to stay with the BBC and the Top Gear team, or go it alone without them, going to Amazon on his own. The latter would have been a dismal failure and he'd have been washed up, all out of options. Had the course of action I recommend retrospectively been taken, I very much doubt that Hammond and May would have left too, and likely Wilman, Porter and all the other people who made the programme tick would have stayed at the Beeb. What has actually happened would not even have been an option.
No, and I repeat it as you simply are obviously too comically stupid to get it. He would never have had the option to take a big pay cut to stay at the BBC as this is not a course of action that could have been offered as neither he nor the BBC live in a dream world like you where clear predetermined guide lines do not have to be adhered to. Are you really that thick that you think they could have just made stuff up as they went along just to save his career at the BBC?? Are you really that thick?? It certainly appears to be that way!!Do you seriously think that the BBC's policy on assault in the workplace will be anything other than gross misconduct or are you stupid enough to think that it will be "Assault in the workplace is considered gross misconduct but on the odd occasion where it suits us we will make up a Micky Mouse punishment for a short term period so that you and we can effectively can get away with it (but only if your a valuable asset, if your a normal employee we'll stick to the rules!)" Are you really that stupid that you think this would be the case?? How ignorant are you??
No discrepancies?? I'll repeat your discrepancies as you are obviously too thick to remember 4 post ago
"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."
You say he has effectively escaped punishment but you also say that he never wanted to leave the BBC and have implied (based on what nobody knows) that he would have made sacrifices to remain there so he has effectively been punished by not being able to carry on where he wanted to be, your stupidity only allows you to think of a punishment as being in monetary terms. Contradiction, discrepancy. Did you spot it this time??
And no at the time he wouldn't have had 2 options because at that time no Amazon contact was on the table and indeed it wasn't even announced until 4 months after he left the BBC and even if it was according to you it would have been immaterial as he didn't want to leave
Edited by gigglebug on Wednesday 23 December 14:06
At no point has the BBC used the words "gross misconduct" in this case. The guidelines can say what they like, the effect of taking these actions has hurt the Beeb and not Clarkson. Had they offered him a new contract on a vastly reduced salary with the stipulation that he apologise publicly on the next episode, Top Gear could have continued. Had he chosen to reject that contract, he would have been on his own as I doubt Wilman, Hammond and May would have gone with him as they did. It's then unlikely that Amazon or anyone else with deep pockets would have signed him.
RoverP6B said:
At no point has the BBC used the words "gross misconduct" in this case. The guidelines can say what they like, the effect of taking these actions has hurt the Beeb and not Clarkson. Had they offered him a new contract on a vastly reduced salary with the stipulation that he apologise publicly on the next episode, Top Gear could have continued. Had he chosen to reject that contract, he would have been on his own as I doubt Wilman, Hammond and May would have gone with him as they did. It's then unlikely that Amazon or anyone else with deep pockets would have signed him.
They didn't have to, I'll point you in the right direction as your inability to read between lines is staggering!!https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=jeremy+clarkson+...
A direct quote from the BBC's own guidelines;
Acts of bullying or harassment are regarded as a serious disciplinary matter and could
place your continued employment or engagement with the BBC at risk.
Tony Hall said himself;
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.
Exactly what line do suppose he was referring to??
And just to make the situation even clearer as if it needed it;
It is worth noting that Mr Clarkson had already been given a final warning for his misconduct last year. However, in cases of gross misconduct such as this, it is legitimate for an employer to move directly to dismissal even without previous warnings. Inevitably, the fact that he had been involved in recent incidents did not help his cause or strengthen his defence.
The terms of Mr Clarkson’s contract with the BBC are not public although we understand that he is a self-employed contractor at the BBC, not an employee. His contract was not terminated; rather it will not be renewed and this has made the BBC’s decision less problematic from a legal perspective.
Had Mr Clarkson been an employee, then a failure to renew a fixed-term contract could have amounted to a dismissal potentially enabling him to claim unfair dismissal. However, the BBC’s disciplinary policy states that assault constitutes “gross misconduct”, so that, subject to following a fair procedure, an employee can be terminated immediately without notice. Even if this was not explicitly stated in the policy, an Employment Tribunal would almost certainly hold that physically assaulting a colleague would amount to gross misconduct, and Mr Clarkson would have had little to support an argument that the underlying reason for his dismissal was substantively unfair. We do not know the extent to which the BBC followed a disciplinary process, although in view of the time taken to reach a decision and the manner in which it was communicated by the Director General of the BBC it appears as though a fair procedure was adopted.
By making the decision not to renew Mr Clarkson’s contract, the BBC may have saved itself from potential claims further down the line from Mr Tymon, who is a BBC employee and could have potentially claimed constructive unfair dismissal if the BBC had failed to take appropriate action against Mr Clarkson. Despite the relatively high threshold to prove constructive dismissal claims, Mr Tymon would have had a strong case had the BBC allowed someone who had assaulted him to remain working on the same programme and thereby breached the implied term mutual trust and confidence that must exist between employer and employee.
But hey, I'm sure your idea would have stood up to scrutiny in court!!!
Edited by gigglebug on Thursday 24th December 12:56
And before you get too hung up on Clarkson's actual employment status at the BBC I quote from their own guidlines;
These principles extend to everyone working for or with the BBC including freelancers
(contributors and presenters), sub-contractors, agency workers, those taking part in our
programmes, visitors and guests.
These principles extend to everyone working for or with the BBC including freelancers
(contributors and presenters), sub-contractors, agency workers, those taking part in our
programmes, visitors and guests.
Mr Sparkle said:
I think gigglebug might be Oisin Tymon's Mum, or possibly a bunny boiling Clarkson fan who's love letters were spurned.
He makes some perfectly reasonable points, unlike certain others whose assertions suggest they must be regular drinking buddies with both Clarkson and the BBC management.Mr Sparkle said:
I think gigglebug might be Oisin Tymon's Mum, or possibly a bunny boiling Clarkson fan who's love letters were spurned.
#Theresstillhope
Or maybe I was able to understood the reasons for the actions taken better than others as I don't have any bias and looked at the same facts available to all and applied what is actually permissible in the real world to the situation, rather than come up with a non realistic idea off the top of my head for the sake of defending the indefensible, thus coming to the same conclusion as the many employment lawyers asked to give their opinions on the ruling and indeed what the BBC decided themselves. It wasn't even that hard to understand really!! I'm guessing that as all you were able to add to the discussion was a poor attempt at being funny that the finer points of what happened went straight over your head as well!#Theresstillhope
Edited by gigglebug on Tuesday 29th December 14:50
gigglebug said:
Mr Sparkle said:
I think gigglebug might be Oisin Tymon's Mum, or possibly a bunny boiling Clarkson fan who's love letters were spurned.
#Theresstillhope
Or maybe I was just able to understood the reasons for the actions taken better than others as I looked at the same facts available to all and applied what is actually permissible in the real world to the situation, rather than come up with a non realistic idea off the top of my head for the sake of defending the indefensible, thus coming to the same conclusion as the many employment lawyers asked to give their opinions on the ruling and indeed what the BBC decided themselves. It wasn't even that hard to understand really!! I'm guessing that as all you were able to add to the discussion was a poor attempt at being funny that the finer points of what happened went straight over your head as well!#Theresstillhope
No it didn't go over my head, of course he was fired as he should have been, my post was a way to highlight my exasperation with posters like you that come here only to use a discussion as a way to get in as many condescending/self congratulatory insults as possible: -
-Your obviously as big a dinosaur as Clarkson is himself!
-Your ignorance is laughable!!
-again your ignorance is laughable.
-Your ignorance obviously knows no boundaries!!
-Now I don't expect you to understand what is going on as you clearly don't have the ability to do so
-in the dream world you live in!!
-Probably not, I just don't think you've got the awareness!!
-as you simply are obviously too comically stupid to get it.
-Are you really that thick?? It certainly appears to be that way!!
^^^ this is the kind of nonsense Pistonheads could do without. If you prime reason for coming here is to show how intellectually inferior the other posters are, then why not just go to the YouTube comments section where you can argue and insult to your hearts content.
Mr Sparkle said:
gigglebug said:
Mr Sparkle said:
I think gigglebug might be Oisin Tymon's Mum, or possibly a bunny boiling Clarkson fan who's love letters were spurned.
#Theresstillhope
Or maybe I was just able to understood the reasons for the actions taken better than others as I looked at the same facts available to all and applied what is actually permissible in the real world to the situation, rather than come up with a non realistic idea off the top of my head for the sake of defending the indefensible, thus coming to the same conclusion as the many employment lawyers asked to give their opinions on the ruling and indeed what the BBC decided themselves. It wasn't even that hard to understand really!! I'm guessing that as all you were able to add to the discussion was a poor attempt at being funny that the finer points of what happened went straight over your head as well!#Theresstillhope
No it didn't go over my head, of course he was fired as he should have been, my post was a way to highlight my exasperation with posters like you that come here only to use a discussion as a way to get in as many condescending/self congratulatory insults as possible: -
-Your obviously as big a dinosaur as Clarkson is himself!
-Your ignorance is laughable!!
-again your ignorance is laughable.
-Your ignorance obviously knows no boundaries!!
-Now I don't expect you to understand what is going on as you clearly don't have the ability to do so
-in the dream world you live in!!
-Probably not, I just don't think you've got the awareness!!
-as you simply are obviously too comically stupid to get it.
-Are you really that thick?? It certainly appears to be that way!!
^^^ this is the kind of nonsense Pistonheads could do without. If you prime reason for coming here is to show how intellectually inferior the other posters are, then why not just go to the YouTube comments section where you can argue and insult to your hearts content.
Are you just self righteous to assume that you speak for everyone?? And you've got the gall to accuse me of trying to be condescending/self congratulatory!!
Edited by gigglebug on Tuesday 29th December 19:11
gigglebug said:
Where as your childish initial efforts to belittle me with a vain attempt to gain kudos through "comedy" but without actually adding anything meaningful to a conversation you hadn't bothered to have any part of until it was over is obviously exactly what Pistonheads is there for you hypocrite!! Your second post is merely there to try and justify the fact that your initial efforts were shot down in flames and try to save face as if it was truly what you were trying to convey you would have done it in the first place. Tell me why would I be at all concerned about your opinion on what should be discussed on an open forum, I mean as if you're in the position to decide what should and shouldn't be acceptable!
Are you just self righteous to assume that you speak for everyone?? And you've got the gall to accuse me of trying to be condescending/self congratulatory!!
That's what I though, same miserable, full of exclamations/ranting post as the previous 10.Are you just self righteous to assume that you speak for everyone?? And you've got the gall to accuse me of trying to be condescending/self congratulatory!!
Edited by gigglebug on Tuesday 29th December 19:11
Gassing Station | Books and Literature | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff