Jeremy Clarkson in trouble again

[wilts rover]

Mick

Ask wing commander, I dont care, ooh look he's already answered.

[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.

     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..
     

You say you can't discriminate for anyone when you have a disciplinary procedure. Well why have you said you would be treated differently if you punched an employee?

You say you can't have different rules for different people. You then put your foot in it by saying yes you can as long as you're the owner. You couldn't make it up!

[IC1967]

Mick

Ask wing commander, I dont care, ooh look he's already answered.

So you agree with him! Glad you cleared that up because he is brilliant at contradicting himself just like you are. Come on clear up the Cantona issue. You seem to be saying he was justified in his actions because the fan was racist. I'd be grateful if you could confirm this.

[Bentley Bullet]

Wilts,

As I understand it, all IC1967 is saying is that there was an alternative route to take other than sacking Clarkson. He could have been fined, suspended, made to apologise or all three as an alternative.

I don't think he's saying that would have been the moral route to take, I think he's saying  it's the direction often taken in situations where the consequences of sacking someone is outweighed by the effect it would have on others as a result.

What I'M saying is I don't think Clarkson should be judged by the mob who wanted him sacked anyway, simply because they don't like him.

What's the problem with that?

[Glyn_Wigley]

Wilts,

As I understand it, all IC1967 is saying is that there was an alternative route to take other than sacking Clarkson. He could have been fined, suspended, made to apologise or all three as an alternative.

I don't think he's saying that would have been the moral route to take, I think he's saying  it's the direction often taken in situations where the consequences of sacking someone is outweighed by the effect it would have on others as a result.

What I'M saying is I don't think Clarkson should be judged by the mob who wanted him sacked anyway, simply because they don't like him.

What's the problem with that?

The problem is that Clarkson wasn't a BBC employee, he's a freelance performer. So the BBC would have had a tough time fining him, suspending him, compelling him to apologise or whatever crackpot alternative Mick hasn't come up with yet despite being asked. It's also why the continued use of the word 'sacked' is completely wrong.

[Bentley Bullet]

If the BBC have the power to not renew his contract (Sack him), they surely have (had) the power to suspend a new contract?

[Glyn_Wigley]

If the BBC have the power to not renew his contract (Sack him), they surely have (had) the power to suspend a new contract?

All very well if the current contract fortuitously happens to end at the same time. Do you think they'd have been able to do any of what you suggest if there had still been a year to run on the contract? All they'd done in the past was suspend the broadcast of programmes he'd already recorded till the dust had settled - which punished Clarkson not one jot.

And not renewing a contract is not the same as sacking. A sacking is termination of employment due to disciplinary reasons. Clarkson wasn't employed by the BBC.

[Bentley Bullet]

But that wasn't the case, was it? The timing was perfect for a fine, suspension or/and an apology.

Clarkson's employment was terminated due to disciplinary reasons. He was paid by the BBC, so he was obviously employed by them.

[Glyn_Wigley]

But that wasn't the case, was it? The timing was perfect for a fine, suspension or/and an apology.

Clarkson's employment was terminated due to disciplinary reasons. He was paid by the BBC, so he was obviously employed by them.

Clarkson's employment was not terminated at all, his contract ended and was not renewed. Completely different. He was not a BBC employee any more than a plumber unblocking your toilet is your employee. As Clarkson was a contracted freelance and not a BBC employee he was not subject to whatever disciplinary procedures the BBC has for those directly employed by them so the BBC was not in any position to impose a fine, a suspension, or direct to apologise.

The BBC could have terminated his contract by deeming that his behaviour broke the terms of that contract, but they didn't and they wimped out of that as they could have been subject to Clarkson suing them in return if he (or his legal people) thought they could argue that the contract didn't cover the circumstances.

[BillyStubbsTears]

BB

My company does work for a number of different big organisations.

If, in  a meeting, I t**tted one of their employees (and believe me, I've felt like it several times), how exactly could they impose a fine on me?

What they could and undoubtedly WOULD do is to cancel any contracts with my company.

[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..
     

You say you can't discriminate for anyone when you have a disciplinary procedure. Well why have you said you would be treated differently if you punched an employee?

You say you can't have different rules for different people. You then put your foot in it by saying yes you can as long as you're the owner. You couldn't make it up!

Do you actually read what people put??? Of course I couldn't be sacked..I pay all the bills,sign all the cheques,without me the company couldn't function..What I would be is hauled in front of the industrial tribunial and fined heavily as would my company and no doubt face personal litigation for Assault,my insurance costs would rocket and my credit limits with suppliers cut....I haven't seen the bbc disciplinary charter but I bet there is something in there about gross misconduct..and bbc employees will have been dismissed under that charter...Clarkson was on a final written warning due to his past behaviour..So really what did you expect them to do????? He had to be dismissed anybody with any knowledge of business and employment knew that,Clarkson knew that,his Lawyers knew that...Sadly you don't seem to grasp how business works within legal parameters....

[Bentley Bullet]

But that wasn't the case, was it? The timing was perfect for a fine, suspension or/and an apology.

Clarkson's employment was terminated due to disciplinary reasons. He was paid by the BBC, so he was obviously employed by them.

Clarkson's employment was not terminated at all, his contract ended and was not renewed. Completely different. He was not a BBC employee any more than a plumber unblocking your toilet is your employee. As Clarkson was a contracted freelance and not a BBC employee he was not subject to whatever disciplinary procedures the BBC has for those directly employed by them so the BBC was not in any position to impose a fine, a suspension, or direct to apologise.

The BBC could have terminated his contract by deeming that his behaviour broke the terms of that contract, but they didn't and they wimped out of that as they could have been subject to Clarkson suing them in return if he (or his legal people) thought they could argue that the contract didn't cover the circumstances.

Clarkson was hired by the BBC. To hire someone means that you employ them. Clarkson's contract was terminated with immediate effect in respect of the last two episodes of the series being postponed.

An alternative to sacking him could have been found. He for instance could have been offered the opportunity to pay his victim compensation, thus indirectly imposing a fine. He could have been offered the chance to publicly  apologise also.

[idler]

When I was at Rockware a lad who had been there years threw punches and grappled with a lad for little or no reason. He was sent home and later offered the choice or resign and get a decent reference because of his service or be sacked. He resigned admitting he'd been stupid.

[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.

     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..
     

You say you can't discriminate for anyone when you have a disciplinary procedure. Well why have you said you would be treated differently if you punched an employee?

You say you can't have different rules for different people. You then put your foot in it by saying yes you can as long as you're the owner. You couldn't make it up!

Do you actually read what people put??? Of course I couldn't be sacked..I pay all the bills,sign all the cheques,without me the company couldn't function..What I would be is hauled in front of the industrial tribunial and fined heavily as would my company and no doubt face personal litigation for Assault,my insurance costs would rocket and my credit limits with suppliers cut....I haven't seen the bbc disciplinary charter but I bet there is something in there about gross misconduct..and bbc employees will have been dismissed under that charter...Clarkson was on a final written warning due to his past behaviour..So really what did you expect them to do????? He had to be dismissed anybody with any knowledge of business and employment knew that,Clarkson knew that,his Lawyers knew that...Sadly you don't seem to grasp how business works within legal parameters....

Jeremy was not a direct employee of the BBC so whatever their disciplinary procedures are for employees is irrelevant. So even if I accepted your argument (which I don't) that he should be treated the same as all BBC employees the BBC had plenty of wriggle room to come up with an alternative to 'sacking' him.

You really don't get it do you? You are crucial to the success of your business so are treated differently to other people involved with the business even if you commit the same crime say punch another worker. My point (which should be especially easy to understand by someone like you) is that if you are that crucial to a business you shouldn't be 'sacked' if another punishment can possibly be found. You've listed what would happen to you. Why on earth couldn't an appropriate punishment be found for Jeremy?

Like you he is crucial to the business. Without him Top Gear ceases to exist.

So why you still think he should have been sacked is a complete mystery to me given that you more than anyone that has posted on this thread should know it's not that simple.

Unbelievable!

[wilts rover]

Mick

Ask wing commander, I dont care, ooh look he's already answered.

So you agree with him! Glad you cleared that up because he is brilliant at contradicting himself just like you are. Come on clear up the Cantona issue. You seem to be saying he was justified in his actions because the fan was racist. I'd be grateful if you could confirm this.

No I dont, I say the incidents were different therfore the punishments were different therefore you are wrong. Please highlight for me anywhere where I say Cantona was justified? I make no comment whatsoever on the punishment for Cantona - in my opinion he should have been banned from football (which is not being sacked by the way).

Please also highlight for me where I say I agree with wing commander. I say he has already answered your question. You are wrong again.

I notice he has had to reply to you again. What he hasn't put - and I didnt wish to write this earlier as it would only embarass you - is the question is foolish. Anyone with even the smallest knowledge of economics and employment law )or even the English language) would know that in a capitalist society it is impossible to sack the owner of the capital. There is no one to sack him. The question is foolish. Other penalties could be taken against him, but only a contracted employee can be sacked.

Give up Mick, the more you write the more foolish you look.

[IC1967]

Mick

Ask wing commander, I dont care, ooh look he's already answered.

So you agree with him! Glad you cleared that up because he is brilliant at contradicting himself just like you are. Come on clear up the Cantona issue. You seem to be saying he was justified in his actions because the fan was racist. I'd be grateful if you could confirm this.

No I dont, I say the incidents were different therfore the punishments were different therefore you are wrong. Please highlight for me anywhere where I say Cantona was justified? I make no comment whatsoever on the punishment for Cantona - in my opinion he should have been banned from football (which is not being sacked by the way).

Please also highlight for me where I say I agree with wing commander. I say he has already answered your question. You are wrong again.

I notice he has had to reply to you again. What he hasn't put - and I didnt wish to write this earlier as it would only embarass you - is the question is foolish. Anyone with even the smallest knowledge of economics and employment law )or even the English language) would know that in a capitalist society it is impossible to sack the owner of the capital. There is no one to sack him. The question is foolish. Other penalties could be taken against him, but only a contracted employee can be sacked.

Give up Mick, the more you write the more foolish you look.

You don't answer questions, you pretend to. So when we try to make sense of your incoherent ramblings you start to wriggle. Then you still don't answer the questions. Unbelievable!

I'll leave it up to the readers of the forum to decide who is foolish. To say sacking him was the only option is simplistic cobblers. That this option should then benefit Jeremy financially and affect hundreds of millions worldwide makes it even more ludicrous that you and your mates think sacking was the only option.

You and your friends look incredibly stupid by refusing to countenance that there are other punishments that could have been considered and implemented.

[idler]

I could have thought about forgiveness if he'd punched Jonathon Ross or Russell Brand, plus a long list of others. 😜

[BobG]

Hi BB. I may be wrong, but my understanding is that Clarkson was not hired by the BBC. A company that he worked (works?) for was hired - under the terms of a contract. Clarkson was employed by, and paid by, that company. It is exactly how I have worked this last few years. I have a company of which I am the sole director. It wins contracts. It pays me to work to deliver the contract for the company of which I am the owner and director.  So whoever I am doing the work for cannot sack me no matter what I do. As Billy explained very lucidly above, they can terminate the contract if I have caused the company that employs me to breach its terms, or more likely, they could sue. There's absolutely no other option for the BBC. It's how an enormous amount of work is done these days. It's called 'contracting' for shorthand. In Jeremy's case, it protects him, gives him huge scope for tax mitigation and ensures the BBC has sod all sanction. They did about the best they could - unless there was a clause about behaving himself in the contract with the company that employed Clarkson. if there was, then they could have terminated that contract (but not Clarkson per se) for breach of contract. And sued for costs and losses. If there wasn't, then not renewing is all they could do. And in any legal and practical sense that is most definitely not 'the sack' for Clarkers.

Bob

[afro goal machine]

Have I got news for you 24th April will be worth watching. Doncasters finest hosting it

[IC1967]

Talk about double standards. Has he been sacked or hasn't he?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-32214799

[Glyn_Wigley]

Talk about double standards. Has he been sacked or hasn't he?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-32214799

He hasn't been sacked. You should read other people.

[wilts rover]

Talk about double standards. Has he been sacked or hasn't he?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-32214799

What, you dont even know what you have been arguing about - unbelievable!!!!

[Bentley Bullet]

Well the general consensus is.... http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/566390/Sacked-Jeremy-Clarkson-blasts-critics-Top-Gear-magazine


And here; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3030028/Jeremy-Clarkson-appear-BBC-just-one-month-sacked-Gear-punching-producer.html


And here; http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/jeremy-clarkson-stages-bbc-comeback-5476152


And here; http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/article9778420.ece/alternates/w620/v3-11-Clarkson-BBC.jpg

[BobG]

Have you not thought that copyeriters, and headline writers, look for short, easily understandable headldines that the more moronic people amongst will be able to comprehend and so be more likely to buy these papers?

He wasn't sacked. It is legally, contractually and physically impossible for him to have been sacked. He was not employed by them.

BobG

[IC1967]

Look. It's very simple he was sacked. Only pedants would say he hadn't been.

[Bentley Bullet]

Bob,

Most people who posted on this thread wanted Clarkson sacking. Then suddenly it was revealed that in fact he can't be sacked, for one technicality or another. I used the word sacked as a means of saying he was not going to be employed for Top Gear any more, and because the remaining two programmes were shelved. If that's not technically sacked then so be it. Perhaps you can tell me the correct term I should have used?

At the end of the day the use of the word 'sacked' has changed the direction of the whole argument, and it has been picked up on as nothing more than a weak and trivial way of 'changing the subject' from the point I was originally making.

[BobG]

Ok. Fair enough. Shorthand is a fair way to use the word. It's pillocks like Mick who get hung up about him actually 'being sacked' rather than his contract not being renewed. He's gone. That's the crucial point!

Cheers!

Bob

[IC1967]

I hope you Jeremy haters are happy with yourselves as yet another one of my excellent predictions comes true. If it wasn't for you lot, he'd still be at the BBC happy earning a lot less than he will now.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/top-gears-richard-hammond-james-5836424

[GM-MarkB]

Well I shall watch Chris Evans' reincarnation but, love them or hate them, it just won't be the same 

[Sammy Chung was King]

I commented on this way back, and i have to admit after watching a few shows i see why he is popular, all three of the presenters together are very entertaining, separate them and you wouldn't get the same effect.
I prefer when they go to other countries rather than in the studio, he does give me the impression he likes the sauce, and he has lost his rag and done something you can't do in the workplace, but that's me speculating.
The Top gear show without those three won't be the same, i give it a couple of episodes until they realise Chris Evans is an annoying c..t, and they ask the lot of them back, however it's been worded, he was sacked.