Jeremy Clarkson sacked by the BBC

[hutch]

With an ego that size, why wouldn't he? I don't understand how they feel they can sack him then put him back on the screen within a few weeks. Mind you Ross still takes the Queens shilling on Radio 2. Shame the BBC don't have the courage of their convictions. It is a shame too that the police have dropped the case. One again there is one rule for the celebrities and another for us plebs.

Or maybe, no matter how much you wish for it, he didn't actually break any laws.

[Whitey Grandad]

With an ego that size, why wouldn't he? I don't understand how they feel they can sack him then put him back on the screen within a few weeks. Mind you Ross still takes the Queens shilling on Radio 2. Shame the BBC don't have the courage of their convictions. It is a shame too that the police have dropped the case. One again there is one rule for the celebrities and another for us plebs.

 

Was he sacked? I thought that they had decided not to renew his contract, which is not the same thing.

[buctootim]

Or maybe, no matter how much you wish for it, he didn't actually break any laws.

 

 

He wasnt prosecuted because the victim declined to give a statement. Threatening behaviour and assault are crimes.

[trousers]

He wasnt prosecuted because the victim declined to give a statement.

 

He wasn't prosecuted because the police/prosecutor decided the evidence wasn't convincing enough to secure a prosecution. Victims can ask for a case to be dropped but they have no right to demand it is. There were plenty of witnesses to the event so the victim declining to give a statement isn't reason alone to drop the case.

[buctootim]

He wasn't prosecuted because the police/prosecutor decided the evidence wasn't convincing enough to secure a prosecution. Victims can ask for a case to be dropped but they have no right to demand it is. There were plenty of witnesses to the event so the victim declining to give a statement isn't reason alone to drop the case.

 

Im not saying it should have gone to court. No doubt the producer was concerned about his career and got some good assurances / compensation. I just think its odd that anyone would deny there was a crime when the facts of the abuse and assault arent disputed.

[Whitey Grandad]

Im not saying it should have gone to court. No doubt the producer was concerned about his career and got some good assurances / compensation. I just think its odd that anyone would deny there was a crime when the facts of the abuse and assault arent disputed.

 

I thought they were?

[buctootim]

I thought they were?

 

I thought they weren't? Hasnt Clarkson admitted to it?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/jeremy-clarkson-handed-himself-because-5323137

[trousers]

I thought they weren't? Hasnt Clarkson admitted to it?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/jeremy-clarkson-handed-himself-because-5323137

 

#devil's advocate klaxon#

 

Where did the Mirror get the “forcibly manhandled” quote from given it would have been a private conversation between Cohen and Clarkson?

[buctootim]

#devil's advocate klaxon#

 

Where did the Mirror get the “forcibly manhandled” quote from given it would have been a private conversation between Cohen and Clarkson?

 

I dont know, and tbh honest I dont care enough about Clarkson, steak dinners or the producer to bother googling further!

[Whitey Grandad]

I thought they weren't? Hasnt Clarkson admitted to it?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/jeremy-clarkson-handed-himself-because-5323137

 

Hmm... All a bit hearsay, isn't it? It would never stand up in court in the absence of any corroborating witnesses.

[CB Fry]

Aaaand he's pulled out of HIGNFY.

[Jonnyboy]

Hmm... All a bit hearsay, isn't it? It would never stand up in court in the absence of any corroborating witnesses.

 

I thought a variety of guests in the hotel bar witnessed the fracas?

[CB Fry]

I thought a variety of guests in the hotel bar witnessed the fracas?

They did indeed. I fact pretty much no one has denied what happened, especially Clarkson himself. Whitey is spectacularly wrong about most things, though, so let him live on his "it's all hearsay" fantasy island.

[Whitey Grandad]

They did indeed. I fact pretty much no one has denied what happened, especially Clarkson himself. Whitey is spectacularly wrong about most things, though, so let him live on his "it's all hearsay" fantasy island.

 

Accounts of the alleged affair differ. Stick to what we actually know and not our prejudices. When you say 'denied what happened', what do you believe actually happened? I have yet to see a first-hand account from anybody. Anything else is speculation and hearsay.

 

See, you have gone off on one again. If I say 'it's all hearsay', what evidence, and I mean real evidence, is there as to what actually happened. I have never said that nothing happened, just that nobody actually knows what actually happened. I wouldn't want to find you sitting in the jury box if you're going to make your mind up on newspaper reports and media speculation.

[Viking Warrior]

I seem to recall before the TG investigation was completed that he would still appear on have I got news for you at the ENd OF April .

A couple of weeks larger he is advised his contract with TG is not being renewed

I suspect the BBC had different contractural arrangements with clarksons , may , and Hammond for different shows .

The BEeb from what I read did not sack clarkson from the BBC .

[CB Fry]

Accounts of the alleged affair differ. Stick to what we actually know and not our prejudices. When you say 'denied what happened', what do you believe actually happened? I have yet to see a first-hand account from anybody. Anything else is speculation and hearsay.

 

See, you have gone off on one again. If I say 'it's all hearsay', what evidence, and I mean real evidence, is there as to what actually happened. I have never said that nothing happened, just that nobody actually knows what actually happened. I wouldn't want to find you sitting in the jury box if you're going to make your mind up on newspaper reports and media speculation.

 

I think you're speculating more than anyone else, living in some world where the Clarkson affair is some intricate web that requires a jury to decide what happened, rather than a grumpy TV presenter going off on one and lamping someone, and then reporting it, himself, to his bosses.

 

How long do you think this fantasy island court case with a jury and everything would take to finally, finally unpick the mysterious truth of this enigmatic kaleidoscope of a crime?

 

The OJ Simpson trial took ten months to work through - do you think a jury could make a decision in that time on this one, or is it just one of those cases we may never, ever solve?

Edited 9 April, 2015 by CB Fry

[sadoldgit]

Or maybe, no matter how much you wish for it, he didn't actually break any laws.

 

He did. He hit someone which is common assault. Luckily for him the person he hit did not press charges and the police have decided not to take it any further.

[Whitey Grandad]

I think you're speculating more than anyone else, living in some world where the Clarkson affair is some intricate web that requires a jury to decide what happened, rather than a grumpy TV presenter going off on one and lamping someone, and then reporting it, himself, to his bosses.

 

How long do you think this fantasy island court case with a jury and everything would take to finally, finally unpick the mysterious truth of this enigmatic kaleidoscope of a crime?

 

The OJ Simpson trial took ten months to work through - do you think a jury could make a decision in that time on this one, or is it just one of those cases we may never, ever solve?

 

I learnt long ago never to jump to conclusions and never to blindly believe anything that was written in the papers nor reported on the television. All media is manipulated to reflect the angle of the presenter and everybody has an axe to grind. Even if we were present we still may not know what actually happened.

[CB Fry]

I learnt long ago never to jump to conclusions and never to blindly believe anything that was written in the papers nor reported on the television. All media is manipulated to reflect the angle of the presenter and everybody has an axe to grind. Even if we were present we still may not know what actually happened.

 

So you've strung together some utterly meaningless and facile platitudes/maxims. Have a peanut.

 

What's your point?

Edited 9 April, 2015 by CB Fry

[Saint in Paradise]

So you've strung together some utterly meaningless and facile platitudes/maxims. Have a peanut.

 

What's your point?

 

Well post your address and I will arrange for a Mr T.ESCO to deliver a couple of cwt as you deserve them.

[Whitey Grandad]

So you've strung together some utterly meaningless and facile platitudes/maxims. Have a peanut.

 

What's your point?

 

They may be meaningless to you but that doesn't mean they don't have any meaning.

 

You have accused me of speculating, but that is precisely what I have strictly avoided.

[CB Fry]

They may be meaningless to you but that doesn't mean they don't have any meaning.

 

You have accused me of speculating, but that is precisely what I have strictly avoided.

Except, of course, you are speculating.

 

The idea that "no one knows what happened" is total speculation and, indeed, total nonsense. As is the idea all we have to refer to is "media reports" - worse than speculation, this is just a lie on your part.

 

The BBC have conducted a full investigation, speaking to everyone involved and reached conclusions and shared them, via the Director General. You think Lord Hall based all that on "media reports" and "hearsay"?

 

As it stands Jeremy Clarkson has not contested this or sued anyone for libel.

 

So you might think you are being all jolly clever by disregarding everything as hearsay but clearly it isn't and saying otherwise is pointless speculation on your part.

[Big Bad Bob]

[video=youtube;m7sl-r7OW6A]

[Whitey Grandad]

Except, of course, you are speculating.

 

The idea that "no one knows what happened" is total speculation and, indeed, total nonsense. As is the idea all we have to refer to is "media reports" - worse than speculation, this is just a lie on your part.

 

The BBC have conducted a full investigation, speaking to everyone involved and reached conclusions and shared them, via the Director General. You think Lord Hall based all that on "media reports" and "hearsay"?

 

As it stands Jeremy Clarkson has not contested this or sued anyone for libel.

 

So you might think you are being all jolly clever by disregarding everything as hearsay but clearly it isn't and saying otherwise is pointless speculation on your part.

 

Wrong use of the word 'speculation'.

[CB Fry]

Wrong use of the word 'speculation'.

I think you wrongly used the phrase "no one knows what actually happened". This is just untrue.

[sadoldgit]

To be fair Whitey, there was an internal enquiry and Clarkson was adjudged to have done what we heard he had done.

[Whitey Grandad]

To be fair Whitey, there was an internal enquiry and Clarkson was adjudged to have done what we heard he had done.

 

Thanks, I had read the statement on the MacQuarrie investigation (apologies if already posted): http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/investigation-summary.pdf

 

This summaries the version of events agreed almongst all three parties although the details have not been spelled out.

 

I would add here that I hold no candle for Clarkson and if I never saw him again I would not be too bothered either way.

[Whitey Grandad]

I think you wrongly used the phrase "no one knows what actually happened". This is just untrue.

 

All right, 'none of us' insted of 'no one knows. There are only two people who actually know and they're not telling us.

[CB Fry]

All right, 'none of us' insted of 'no one knows. There are only two people who actually know and they're not telling us.

You started by describing the entire event as "hearsay" conducted by the media that clever old you learned many years ago to ignore.

 

Now, was what Lord Hall said on the matter based on "hearsay" in the media? Yes or no?

 

Or was what Lord Hall said on the matter based on an investigation involving all parties including witnesses?

 

Are you finally coming round to accept this incident did actually happen now? Or is it still "hearsay" and "newspaper reports and media speculation" that other less clever people "blindly believe"?

 

Lastly, for someone supposedly above rumours in the media that clever old you many years ago learned to ignore, you seem to be desperate to hear first hand reports from the two people involved to satisfy yourself it happened.

 

Well, high profile personalities aside, this is an internal disciplinary procedure that quite frankly is none of your fu cking business to hear chapter and verse exactly what happened. However, If you're still after salacious gossip you just might find that in your favourite tabloid.

Edited 10 April, 2015 by CB Fry

[Whitey Grandad]

You started by describing the entire event as "hearsay" conducted by the media that clever old you learned many years ago to ignore.

 

Now, was what Lord Hall said on the matter based on "hearsay" in the media? Yes or no?

 

Or was what Lord Hall said on the matter based on an investigation involving all parties including witnesses?

 

Are you finally coming round to accept this incident did actually happen now? Or is it still "hearsay" and "newspaper reports and media speculation" that other less clever people "blindly believe"?

 

Lastly, for someone supposedly above rumours in the media that clever old you many years ago learned to ignore, you seem to be desperate to hear first hand reports from the two people involved to satisfy yourself it happened.

 

Well, high profile personalities aside, this is an internal disciplinary procedure that quite frankly is none of your fu cking business to hear chapter and verse exactly what happened. However, If you're still after salacious gossip you just might find that in your favourite tabloid.

 

I've had enough of you. Got back to the playground and bully someone else.

[CB Fry]

I've had enough of you. Got back to the playground and bully someone else.

Oh please do us another pompous speech about how you don't believe hearsay and speculation in the newspapers. You're so clever to be above all that.

 

And then massively backtrack when it dawns on you that the Clarkson incident is not hearsay at all and is what normal human being call "something that actually happened and everyone involved accepts happened".

 

I accept your apology.

Edited 10 April, 2015 by CB Fry

[hutch]

I thought the discussion was about whether a crime had been committed, not whether an incident had taken place.

[CB Fry]

I thought the discussion was about whether a crime had been committed, not whether an incident had taken place.

Punching someone so they end up in A&E is a crime. But probably not a crime worth dragging through the courts. Much like the various punch ups that happen across the UK every weekend. Not really sure who is going to say what happened wasn't a crime, and what difference it makes anyway.

[Viking Warrior]

Thanks, I had read the statement on the MacQuarrie investigation (apologies if already posted): http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/investigation-summary.pdf

 

This summaries the version of events agreed almongst all three parties although the details have not been spelled out.

 

I would add here that I hold no candle for Clarkson and if I never saw him again I would not be too bothered either way.

 

Disciplinary hearings are not normally made public. Or is that another of one of those deliberatly leaked BBC documents.

I wonder where the rest of the full report is .

[Viking Warrior]

Punching someone so they end up in A&E is a crime. But probably not a crime worth dragging through the courts. Much like the various punch ups that happen across the UK every weekend. Not really sure who is going to say what happened wasn't a crime, and what difference it makes anyway.

 

CB sorry for being pedantic , but the spin you put on the assault suggests he was conveyed there by ambulance.

It was later on in the evening that he drove himself to the nearest A&E some 50 miles away.

So while he was wrong to have been assaulted . his split lip was not life threatening ,

[Whitey Grandad]

Disciplinary hearings are not normally made public. Or is that another of one of those deliberatly leaked BBC documents.

I wonder where the rest of the full report is .

 

Quite so. It does read rather like an agreed public statement.

[pap]

I've had enough of you. Got back to the playground and bully someone else.

 

Whitey, you know I love ya, but one of the reasons we spar so much on here is because you belong to a class of posters that doesn't spend a great deal of time in justifying your position. Don't get me wrong, it's great for overall forum activity and can even lend a conversational style to proceedings, but when compounded with basic errors or obvious speculation, you paint yourself into a corner.

 

Some posters on here have the twin virtues of being detail-conscious and a bit of a shít. As a long-term contributor to the forum, you know this, so my advice to sir would be to stop bowling underarm.

 

Punching someone so they end up in A&E is a crime. But probably not a crime worth dragging through the courts. Much like the various punch ups that happen across the UK every weekend. Not really sure who is going to say what happened wasn't a crime, and what difference it makes anyway.

 

CB sorry for being pedantic , but the spin you put on the assault suggests he was conveyed there by ambulance.

It was later on in the evening that he drove himself to the nearest A&E some 50 miles away.

So while he was wrong to have been assaulted . his split lip was not life threatening ,

 

VW, if you punch me on the lip and bust it open, it's a crime. Doesn't have to be life-threatening. You won't do any bird, but it's still a crime. I'd have done the same thing in Oysin's situation, just for peace of mind.

[CB Fry]

CB sorry for being pedantic , but the spin you put on the assault suggests he was conveyed there by ambulance.

It was later on in the evening that he drove himself to the nearest A&E some 50 miles away.

So while he was wrong to have been assaulted . his split lip was not life threatening ,

 

That will be your spin not mine, unless you want to point out in my post anything about life threatening or ambulances - do show me. In fact I compared it to similar instances up and down the country. The spin is people trying to make out it wasn't a crime. It was- a minor, pointless crime.

[sadoldgit]

Just to clarify, striking comes under the heading of common assault. If the victim or the police had decided to press charges it would have been dealt with in the Magistrates Court. As has been said, it happens frequently and people do not get charged. That doesn't mean that they have not broken the law, it just means they have not been charged. As the injury caused a cut Clarkson could have been charged with ABH. More serious damage could have led to GBH. You don't have to draw blood to be charged with common assault. A slap across the face would do it. Bottom line, if you hit someone you are breaking the law and could end up in court.

Edited 11 April, 2015 by sadoldgit
amended

[CB Fry]

Quite so. It does read rather like an agreed public statement.

Maybe because everyone agrees what happened?

 

You seem to be suggesting there is something untoward. Funny really, when you positioned yourself as being above hearsay and speculation.

Edited 11 April, 2015 by CB Fry

[Verbal]

Disciplinary hearings are not normally made public. Or is that another of one of those deliberatly leaked BBC documents.

I wonder where the rest of the full report is .

 

The outcome of the hearing was not leaked - it was made publicly available. What WAS leaked was that Jeremy Clarkson himself had reported the fracas in a phone call to Danny Cohen, the BBC's director of television. That might seem an odd thing to have done, given that Cohen and Clarkson do not get on, and that Clarkson himself had said publicly that he was already on a 'last warning' from Cohen about his conduct.

 

But in view of that - and because Clarkson is clearly a public figure, and Top Gear is a hugely popular show whose future is now at stake - there was never any doubt that the result of the hearing would be made public, though clearly it would be wrong to release the details of the hearing for all sorts of reasons.

 

So I don't understand how you can criticise the 'deliberate leak' of the report's conclusions on the one hand, and then on the other, say you want to see the detailed report.

 

The BBC can be attacked for many things, but they properly followed a procedure here.

 

What's also odd is that we seem to have turned an incident about which there has been no known dispute between the parties involved into a Saintsweb unknowable mystery.

[Whitey Grandad]

Maybe because everyone agrees what happened?

 

You seem to be suggesting there is something untoward. Funny really, when you positioned yourself as being above hearsay and speculation.

 

The question mark was the clue, surprised you missed it. If I'm speculating I will indicate so. I wouldn't want anybody speculating over my speculation.

[CB Fry]

The question mark was the clue, surprised you missed it. If I'm speculating I will indicate so. I wouldn't want anybody speculating over my speculation.

Here's the post I replied to. Where is the question mark?

 

Quite so. It does read rather like an agreed public statement.

 

Anyway. Do you still think that the incident was just "hearsay" in media? I'm asking you a question, as indicated by using the correct punctuation.

 

A simple yes or no answer would be fine.

[Whitey Grandad]

Here's the post I replied to. Where is the question mark?

 

 

 

Anyway. Do you still think that the incident was just "hearsay" in media? I'm asking you a question, as indicated by using the correct punctuation.

 

A simple yes or no answer would be fine.

 

You have consistently misunderstood what I have written. Only you know if this is deliberate or accidental.

 

I have said that the 'punch' is not substantiated. Since you know so much about it, please tell me if it was a punch with his right hand or left hand! Was it a haymaker, a wild swing, a short jab, an uppercut? Did he nut the fellow? All we know from the BBC is that there was a 'physical and verbal assault' and that Tymon sustained an injury. Was it a case of being grabbed by the lapels and as a defensive move he got caught by someone's handbag? In heated incidents of this type the participants themselves are often unclear as to exactly what happened.

 

All this is pure speculation. I will say that the verbal abuse by itself is unacceptable behaviour and sufficient for those in the BBC who don't see Clarkson as their type of presenter to not renew his contract. When I raised the example earlier of John

Prescott assaulting a protester his actions were dismissed as justifiable in the face of provocation. What other factors were in play here? We can only speculate.

[CB Fry]

You have consistently misunderstood what I have written. Only you know if this is deliberate or accidental.

 

I have said that the 'punch' is not substantiated. Since you know so much about it, please tell me if it was a punch with his right hand or left hand! Was it a haymaker, a wild swing, a short jab, an uppercut? Did he nut the fellow? All we know from the BBC is that there was a 'physical and verbal assault' and that Tymon sustained an injury. Was it a case of being grabbed by the lapels and as a defensive move he got caught by someone's handbag? In heated incidents of this type the participants themselves are often unclear as to exactly what happened.

 

All this is pure speculation. I will say that the verbal abuse by itself is unacceptable behaviour and sufficient for those in the BBC who don't see Clarkson as their type of presenter to not renew his contract. When I raised the example earlier of John

Prescott assaulting a protester his actions were dismissed as justifiable in the face of provocation. What other factors were in play here? We can only speculate.

So no answer on the great question mark mystery then.

 

No idea why you are getting so wound up about the precise details of the actual assault. As I've already said, It's a private internal disciplinary matter and absolutely none of your business. Just looks like gossip mongering on your part really.

 

And it's pretty bloody obvious it bears no relationship whatsoever with the Prescott thing. The key word in the statement is "unprovoked".

 

That statement has not been contested by Clarkson and as you yourself say in your previous post it was an "agreed" statement.

 

You understand the English word "unprovoked", yes?

 

Feel free to post up the YouTube of Prescott and try and convince me that punch was "unprovoked".

 

I doubt you will, you'll probably just squinny off claiming I'm bullying you.

 

It's not me "misunderstanding" things here.

[Whitey Grandad]

So no answer on the great question mark mystery then.

 

No idea why you are getting so wound up about the precise details of the actual assault. As I've already said, It's a private internal disciplinary matter and absolutely none of your business. Just looks like gossip mongering on your part really.

 

And it's pretty bloody obvious it bears no relationship whatsoever with the Prescott thing. The key word in the statement is "unprovoked".

 

That statement has not been contested by Clarkson and as you yourself say in your previous post it was an "agreed" statement.

 

You understand the English word "unprovoked", yes?

 

Feel free to post up the YouTube of Prescott and try and convince me that punch was "unprovoked".

 

I doubt you will, you'll probably just squinny off claiming I'm bullying you.

 

It's not me "misunderstanding" things here.

None of our business? Then we might as well delete the whole thread and do something more rewarding.

 

An assault is an assault, with or without provocation. That only comes into play during sentencing.

[CB Fry]

None of our business? Then we might as well delete the whole thread and do something more rewarding.

 

An assault is an assault, with or without provocation. That only comes into play during sentencing.

I think you might need to actually work out what you are trying to say on this matter, because frankly you're all over the shop.

 

Found that question mark for me yet?

[PhilippineSaint]

Maybe because everyone agrees what happened?

 

You seem to be suggesting there is something untoward. Funny really, when you positioned yourself as being above heresy and persecution.

 

The Inquisition is back nobody expected them.

[Viking Warrior]

Verbal

 

I doubt you have any disciplinary investigation experience , maybe you have I don't know

The Beeb letter about is a investigation summary according to the attachment , which is not complete that's why I said what I said

There is no mention in the document to the specific allegations under the BBC staff rules and disciplinary procedures

The report should have been redacted , as there is a potential breach of Data Protection . Re naming of staff ,

Etc Okay. Clarksons is a big name , but those are the rules in such normal disciplinary investigations.

 

Witness statements are pretty sensitive information and will only be provided to the the alleged perpetrator of the breachl if they are going to a formal disciplinary hearing . So they can prepare their defence.

 

Equally if a witness shares his or statement to others and compromises the investigation , they to could well have breach disciplinary rules.

Any FOI received asking for a copy of the disciplinary report . Will only receive it in exceptional circumstances and then it will be heavily redacted. With names and sensitive information totally redacted.

 

I deal with these matters on a regular basis. so do have a fair bit of experience.

 

What I don't know is was this investigation done under the BBC disciplinary procedure or was it because clarkson had breach the terms of his Top Gear contract. I suspect it was disciplinary . As he had previously said he recieved a final written warning

[Unbelievable Jeff]

You have consistently misunderstood what I have written. Only you know if this is deliberate or accidental.

 

I have said that the 'punch' is not substantiated. Since you know so much about it, please tell me if it was a punch with his right hand or left hand! Was it a haymaker, a wild swing, a short jab, an uppercut? Did he nut the fellow? All we know from the BBC is that there was a 'physical and verbal assault' and that Tymon sustained an injury. Was it a case of being grabbed by the lapels and as a defensive move he got caught by someone's handbag? In heated incidents of this type the participants themselves are often unclear as to exactly what happened.

 

All this is pure speculation. I will say that the verbal abuse by itself is unacceptable behaviour and sufficient for those in the BBC who don't see Clarkson as their type of presenter to not renew his contract. When I raised the example earlier of John

Prescott assaulting a protester his actions were dismissed as justifiable in the face of provocation. What other factors were in play here? We can only speculate.

 

He has a habit of misreading posts and implying something that hasn't been written, so I wouldn't worry. He has previous.