Jeremy Clarkson in trouble again

[IC1967]

Because you are attempting to compare the Clarkson incident to the Cantona one and I have proved how silly you look by doing that.

The Karl Colley incident was far more comparable and what happened to him....

Game, set, match!

You've lost me. I've proved that by referring to the Cantona incident, people don't always get sacked for physical assault. Other punishments can be found. You lefties think instant dismissal is the only way matters can be resolved.

If wing commander attacks an employee do you think he should be instantly dismissed? What happens to the business and employees?

What was that racism cobblers you were on about? You are very incoherent in your statements. Please try and be easily understood like what I am.

[wilts rover]

Mick, if I need to explain the Cantona incident to you- then you probably shouldn't use it a an example.

[BobG]

I suppose the Mick alternative really is to ignore the silly chuff. His megalomania is burgeoning (you better look that up Mick btw) and his complex is likwise. This thread shows just how far he's gone in pushing his fantasy into ever greater depths. The guy really needs help.  And we need to get back to a sensible forum. So, either we, collectively, decide to ignore the arsehole, or, those with the power find his personal details and emply the gagging power of the law that he so witters on about. Me? I'd have a right good go at finding something I could prosecute the bugger for. Well, that or firebomb him!

Cue affronted squeals!

BobG

[IC1967]

Mick, if I need to explain the Cantona incident to you- then you probably shouldn't use it a an example.

Please explain and answer my other questions instead of your usual trick of ignoring them. Why can't you be like me and answer everything that is thrown at you?

[IC1967]

I suppose the Mick alternative really is to ignore the silly chuff. His megalomania is burgeoning (you better look that up Mick btw) and his complex is likwise. This thread shows just how far he's gone in pushing his fantasy into ever greater depths. The guy really needs help.  And we need to get back to a sensible forum. So, either we, collectively, decide to ignore the arsehole, or, those with the power find his personal details and emply the gagging power of the law that he so witters on about. Me? I'd have a right good go at finding something I could prosecute the bugger for. Well, that or firebomb him!

Cue affronted squeals!

BobG

Look. I think it's you that needs help. Some of your ramblings are bordering on insane. Prosecute or firebomb? You really have lost the plot.

I've already put myself up for eviction and the overwhelming view was that I should stay. Given that this forum is predominantly hardcore leftwing that is a considerable achievement.

Get over it.

IC1967

[Orlandokarla]

I suppose the Mick alternative really is to ignore the silly chuff. His megalomania is burgeoning (you better look that up Mick btw) and his complex is likwise. This thread shows just how far he's gone in pushing his fantasy into ever greater depths. The guy really needs help.  And we need to get back to a sensible forum. So, either we, collectively, decide to ignore the arsehole, or, those with the power find his personal details and emply the gagging power of the law that he so witters on about. Me? I'd have a right good go at finding something I could prosecute the bugger for. Well, that or firebomb him!

Cue affronted squeals!

BobG

Look. I think it's you that needs help. Some of your ramblings are bordering on insane. Prosecute or firebomb? You really have lost the plot.

I've already put myself up for eviction and the overwhelming view was that I should stay. Given that this forum is predominantly hardcore leftwing that is a considerable achievement.

Get over it.

IC1967

Mick, there was a time when it seemed that you were merely taking up the devil's advocate role on the forum, in order to provide an alternative view and spark debate. So what if you were a little 'out there' at times, and often seemed to argue for arguement's sake; every village needs an idiot and all that, and your persona was amusing in a pantomime fashion.

However, for quite some time now, you've become increasingly irrational and illogical, to the point where your persona (for your sake I hope that's what it is), appears to exist purely to spout nonsense in order to get a reaction. You're barely even debating points anymore; you say something inflammatory, retreat and wait for the fireworks. You ignore any reasoned debate that is offered in response, and your counter-points have less and less relevance to the topic as every thread goes on.

I'm sure your army of alt usernames will leap to your defence, but I honestly think that you're losing it.

[wing commander]

   As a owner and Director of 35 employee's I find the majority of this thread drivel in truth..The bottom line is that most organisations have a disciplinary code that is applied to all staff..If anybody commits physical violence against anybody it's gross misconduct and termination of employment and that is pretty much standard in any company..Wether you like him or not is irrelevant...
    They had no choice,if they had fined him or punished him in any other way the BBC would have been inundated with everybody they have let go for similar reasons over the last ten years claiming discrimination and they would have won without a fight...Letting him go at the end of his contract (only a few weeks) takes away all the threat of legal action from anybody...
    Anybody who claims that there was any other action available is ignorant in the workings of business and the courts of the land....Personally I loved the guy and found him very refreshing (sorry Billy) but there was only ever 1 choice open...
   

So what would happen if you punched an employee? Do you get 'sacked'? Do you cease to have any involvement with your own business and it therefore folds causing all your employees to lose their jobs? How is the closure of the business handled if you've been instantly dismissed and no longer have anymore involvement? I could go on.

Summary dismissal is not the only option. Does anyone remember Cantona assaulting a fan? He didn't get sacked did he? I could go on.

   No I don't get sacked but then Clarkson doesn't own the BBC does he,so I'm not sure what your point is ??? I would no doubt find myself in the employment courts losing a lot of money of constructive dismissal and a host of other things..However I would like to think I'm professional enough never do that...Your right you could go on but lets face it your starting to talk drivel...The bbc would be swamped with court claims...If you honestly expected any other outcome for a man on his final warning then you are not living in the real world...

[IC1967]

You don't know what my point is? You've just made it for me! It is possible to find another alternative to sacking someone if they are vital to the success of a business. Top Gear is a business that won't survive without Jeremy. The BBC are going to lose millions. Customers are going to be disappointed.

Just because he doesn't own the BBC is irrelevant. Just because you own the business you are treated differently. Because Jeremy is Top Gear he should be treated differently. I don't see why you should be so special and Jeremy not be just because you own the company.

I doubt if you punched an employee they'd take you to court. They'd probably let you off as they'd want to keep their job.

So it is possible to find a solution to an incident like Jeremy was involved in other than sacking him.

Thank you for proving my point even though it has always been blindingly obvious to anyone that doesn't see everything in a simplistic black or white way.

[IC1967]

I suppose the Mick alternative really is to ignore the silly chuff. His megalomania is burgeoning (you better look that up Mick btw) and his complex is likwise. This thread shows just how far he's gone in pushing his fantasy into ever greater depths. The guy really needs help.  And we need to get back to a sensible forum. So, either we, collectively, decide to ignore the arsehole, or, those with the power find his personal details and emply the gagging power of the law that he so witters on about. Me? I'd have a right good go at finding something I could prosecute the bugger for. Well, that or firebomb him!

Cue affronted squeals!

BobG

Look. I think it's you that needs help. Some of your ramblings are bordering on insane. Prosecute or firebomb? You really have lost the plot.

I've already put myself up for eviction and the overwhelming view was that I should stay. Given that this forum is predominantly hardcore leftwing that is a considerable achievement.

Get over it.

IC1967

Mick, there was a time when it seemed that you were merely taking up the devil's advocate role on the forum, in order to provide an alternative view and spark debate. So what if you were a little 'out there' at times, and often seemed to argue for arguement's sake; every village needs an idiot and all that, and your persona was amusing in a pantomime fashion.

However, for quite some time now, you've become increasingly irrational and illogical, to the point where your persona (for your sake I hope that's what it is), appears to exist purely to spout nonsense in order to get a reaction. You're barely even debating points anymore; you say something inflammatory, retreat and wait for the fireworks. You ignore any reasoned debate that is offered in response, and your counter-points have less and less relevance to the topic as every thread goes on.

I'm sure your army of alt usernames will leap to your defence, but I honestly think that you're losing it.

I'm irrational and illogical! Have you read BobG's recent posts? He's the one that fit's that bill. His comments have become increasingly absurd. You won't say that though will you? You lefties are a breed apart.

May I refer you to the recent should I stay or go thread where I had overwhelming support to stay. Every forum needs a voice of reason and I am it.

Just what has been wrong with arguing that there should be an alternative to sacking him? Perfectly reasonable unless you are a leftie living in a simplistic world.

[BobG]

And there you go again Mick.... It's always anybody but you isn't it?

BobG

[IC1967]

And there you go again Mick.... It's always anybody but you isn't it?

BobG

Look. You're the one making crazy statements. I'll let the readers of the forum decide who is the nutter. I know one thing. If I'd said 10% of the abusive stuff you've said I'd have been banned in an instant as you should have been.

IC1967

[wilts rover]

Mick, if I need to explain the Cantona incident to you- then you probably shouldn't use it a an example.

Please explain and answer my other questions instead of your usual trick of ignoring them. Why can't you be like me and answer everything that is thrown at you?

I refer the honourable gentleman to the answers I gave earlier.

[IC1967]

Mick, if I need to explain the Cantona incident to you- then you probably shouldn't use it a an example.

Please explain and answer my other questions instead of your usual trick of ignoring them. Why can't you be like me and answer everything that is thrown at you?

I refer the honourable gentleman to the answers I gave earlier.

Why am I not surprised. Not only do you not answer my questions you've got the nerve to pretend you already have! Why is it I answer everything and you lefties hardly answer anything? I've got it. It's be because you always lose the debate.

[IC1967]

So he hasn't been sacked after all. The BBC justified their decision so as not to disappoint fans. What about the fans that won't see him on the telly any more? Won't they also be disappointed? Talk about double standards.

If he's sacked he's sacked. Their original decision was daft but this one is even dafter. You couldn't make it up.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-32137424

[Orlandokarla]

This is your intervention; don't change the subject.

There you go again with your 'leftie' jibe. Anyone who disagrees is a leftie in your world.

Your attention/validation seeking poll had more alts in it than World of Warcraft. That's a videogame btw; I know you're a little out of touch.

There's nothing wrong with offering a different perspective, but you're not offering anything to discuss. You're ignoring every valid counterpoint because your arguments are so weak, and you're grasping at straws with increasing desperation. A classic case of trolling, pure and simple, born out of your stubborn refusal to back down, even when you've nothing more to offer. Most kids grow out of that need to always have the last word.

Sometimes things are simple and straightforward.

And stop peddling that BS about always answering questions; it's not true and you're just embarrassing yourself. You accuse others of failing to answer questions, but if you'd pay closer attention, people usually do, but often don't provide you with the answer you want or were expectng.

[IC1967]

This is your intervention; don't change the subject.

There you go again with your 'leftie' jibe. Anyone who disagrees is a leftie in your world.

Your attention/validation seeking poll had more alts in it than World of Warcraft. That's a videogame btw; I know you're a little out of touch.

There's nothing wrong with offering a different perspective, but you're not offering anything to discuss. You're ignoring every valid counterpoint because your arguments are so weak, and you're grasping at straws with increasing desperation. A classic case of trolling, pure and simple, born out of your stubborn refusal to back down, even when you've nothing more to offer. Most kids grow out of that need to always have the last word.

Sometimes things are simple and straightforward.

And stop peddling that BS about always answering questions; it's not true and you're just embarrassing yourself. You accuse others of failing to answer questions, but if you'd pay closer attention, people usually do, but often don't provide you with the answer you want or were expectng.

My poll proves what you're saying is cobblers. Deal with it. Not offering a different perspective or anything to discuss! What are you on about? You lefties wanted him sacked. I didn't. I put the alternative argument. You lefties don't like it so attack me instead of debating the issue properly. I've destroyed every 'valid' counterpoint because they are not valid. Simply saying he should be sacked is not a valid argument. I gave lots of examples of how this could be sorted. You lefties gave one way - he should be sacked. Typical simplistic leftie guff.

I do answer every question (unless it is silly). I've done the calculations and you lefties have only answered 9.834% of my questions. Get over it and address the issue instead of doing what all you lefties always do when you've lost the debate - you attack the man instead.

Luckily I can take it and it just makes you all look pathetic.

Deal with it.

[Al4475]

Well I've read the thread from start to finish and can honestly say I no longer know what it's about! How does a clarkson in trouble again thread evolve into a political argument and then into a trading insults thread? All very strange! Haha!

[wing commander]

   

You don't know what my point is? You've just made it for me! It is possible to find another alternative to sacking someone if they are vital to the success of a business. Top Gear is a business that won't survive without Jeremy. The BBC are going to lose millions. Customers are going to be disappointed.

Just because he doesn't own the BBC is irrelevant. Just because you own the business you are treated differently. Because Jeremy is Top Gear he should be treated differently. I don't see why you should be so special and Jeremy not be just because you own the company.

I doubt if you punched an employee they'd take you to court. They'd probably let you off as they'd want to keep their job.

So it is possible to find a solution to an incident like Jeremy was involved in other than sacking him.

Thank you for proving my point even though it has always been blindingly obvious to anyone that doesn't see everything in a simplistic black or white way.

     You really do talk out your arse Mick...You cant just discriminate when you have a disciplinary procedure for anyone...I wouldn't hit any of my employee's so its irrelevant because it's not what people do at work..Yes it will cost them millions short term but it would have cost them millions too,because in my experience Judges don't seem to accept the argument that he was popular as a reason why joe blogs in scenery should be sacked for hitting someone and he shouldn't..Of course you are right and the bbc with there analysts and anyone with a ounce of realistic intelligence is wrong...
    The fact that you actually think you have won the debate,really just proves how deluded to facts you really are and proves how pointless it is debating with you in truth..
     

[Glyn_Wigley]

So he hasn't been sacked after all. The BBC justified their decision so as not to disappoint fans. What about the fans that won't see him on the telly any more? Won't they also be disappointed? Talk about double standards.

If he's sacked he's sacked. Their original decision was daft but this one is even dafter. You couldn't make it up.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-32137424

Which decision is even dafter?

[Colin C No.3]

I suppose the Mick alternative really is to ignore the silly chuff. His megalomania is burgeoning (you better look that up Mick btw) and his complex is likwise. This thread shows just how far he's gone in pushing his fantasy into ever greater depths. The guy really needs help.  And we need to get back to a sensible forum. So, either we, collectively, decide to ignore the arsehole, or, those with the power find his personal details and emply the gagging power of the law that he so witters on about. Me? I'd have a right good go at finding something I could prosecute the bugger for. Well, that or firebomb him!

Cue affronted squeals!

BobG

Look. I think it's you that needs help. Some of your ramblings are bordering on insane. Prosecute or firebomb? You really have lost the plot.

I've already put myself up for eviction and the overwhelming view was that I should stay. Given that this forum is predominantly hardcore leftwing that is a considerable achievement.

Get over it.

IC1967

Check out Robin Hood Airport ICI.

Colin C No.3

[IC1967]

Well I've read the thread from start to finish and can honestly say I no longer know what it's about! How does a clarkson in trouble again thread evolve into a political argument and then into a trading insults thread? All very strange! Haha!

It's very simple. Jeremy is a well known right winger. He takes the piss out of lefties. They don't like it. The lefties (for that read politically correct brigade) have wanted him sacking for a long time. That's where the politics has come from on this thread.

You'll notice that the lefties have only ever come up with one solution to the problem. Sack him. Simple as that. Unfortunately things in life aren't so simple as I've ably demonstrated. The lefties don't like that so they heap abuse on me. It is a credit to myself that I take it with good grace.

[wing commander]

You remind me of a saying "when you are dead,you don't know that you are dead.It is only difficult for others...It's the same when you are stupid"

[IC1967]

You remind me of a saying "when you are dead,you don't know that you are dead.It is only difficult for others...It's the same when you are stupid"

Right. Its time to summarise this thread. There are 2 schools of thought. One is that he should be sacked no matter what the consequences. The second is that a more appropriate punishment should be found that punishes Jeremy and doesn't instead let him off the hook and punish hundreds of millions of people worldwide instead.

I think it's pretty clear that I have by far the strongest case.

Time to wrap this thread up and chalk it up as another battering dished out to the hard left.

[Glyn_Wigley]

You remind me of a saying "when you are dead,you don't know that you are dead.It is only difficult for others...It's the same when you are stupid"

Right. Its time to summarise this thread. There are 2 schools of thought. One is that he should be sacked no matter what the consequences. The second is that a more appropriate punishment should be found that punishes Jeremy and doesn't instead let him off the hook and punish hundreds of millions of people worldwide instead.

I think it's pretty clear that I have by far the strongest case.

Time to wrap this thread up and chalk it up as another battering dished out to the hard left.

How about explaining this 'appropriate punishment' you're talking about? I know you've been dying for someone to ask, so now's your chance.

[wilts rover]

Mick, if I need to explain the Cantona incident to you- then you probably shouldn't use it a an example.

Please explain and answer my other questions instead of your usual trick of ignoring them. Why can't you be like me and answer everything that is thrown at you?

I refer the honourable gentleman to the answers I gave earlier.

Why am I not surprised. Not only do you not answer my questions you've got the nerve to pretend you already have! Why is it I answer everything and you lefties hardly answer anything? I've got it. It's be because you always lose the debate.

As above. I refer the honourable gentleman to the answers I gave earlier - you will find all the answers to your questions there, just like wot wen you answer.

Lost again Mick, game, set, match - give up, you are to easy.

[IC1967]

Mick, if I need to explain the Cantona incident to you- then you probably shouldn't use it a an example.

Please explain and answer my other questions instead of your usual trick of ignoring them. Why can't you be like me and answer everything that is thrown at you?

I refer the honourable gentleman to the answers I gave earlier.

Why am I not surprised. Not only do you not answer my questions you've got the nerve to pretend you already have! Why is it I answer everything and you lefties hardly answer anything? I've got it. It's be because you always lose the debate.

As above. I refer the honourable gentleman to the answers I gave earlier - you will find all the answers to your questions there, just like wot wen you answer.

Lost again Mick, game, set, match - give up, you are to easy.

Ok, I'll have one more go. Here's what I said earlier:

You've lost me. I've proved that by referring to the Cantona incident, people don't always get sacked for physical assault. Other punishments can be found. You lefties think instant dismissal is the only way matters can be resolved.

If wing commander attacks an employee do you think he should be instantly dismissed? What happens to the business and employees?

What was that racism cobblers you were on about? You are very incoherent in your statements. Please try and be easily understood like what I am.

So please feel free to explain the Cantona example. What about the wing commander questions? What about your racist cobblers?

Please answer instead of your usual trick of saying you've answered when you haven't. I've checked your answering ratio for my questions. It's way down at 8.435%. You really must try harder.

[wilts rover]

Mick, I have provided a comprehensive answer to why the Clarkson and Cantona incidents bear no comparison to one another and thus disporved your point entirely. Go back and read it, I have no need to do it again and make you look even sillier than you already do. Everyone else has got it.

Too easy.

[Bentley Bullet]

Sorry, I haven't got it. Are you saying that you should be sacked for a physical attack in the work place, or even in the pub with a work colleague at night, UNLESS it's retaliation over a racist remark, in which case it shouldn't be a sackable offence?

Referring to Cantona, what about his previous misdemeanours? Should he, for instance have been sacked for throwing a pair of football boots in the face of a TEAM MATE, while at Montpellier?

[IC1967]

Mick, I have provided a comprehensive answer to why the Clarkson and Cantona incidents bear no comparison to one another and thus disporved your point entirely. Go back and read it, I have no need to do it again and make you look even sillier than you already do. Everyone else has got it.

Too easy.

No you haven't and you haven't answered the wing commander questions.

[wilts rover]

No Bentley, if you look back Mick attempted to justify his position by saying that Clarkson should not be sacked because Cantona wasnt. I said the circumstance behind the two incidents were very different, hence the punishments were different. The producer that Clarkson hit, made no provocation whatsover, it was a totally unprovoked attack (by someone who was already on a warning) against a totally innocent man. There were mitigating circumstances for Cantona - hence the different punishment.

The Clarkson case has more in common with Karl Colley than Cantona, and as Mick agrees, Karl Colley was sacked.

To be honest, I care even less about Eric Cantona than I do Jeremy Clarkson, its up to the club.