Jeremy Clarkson sacked by the BBC

[Verbal]

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

 

VW, you seem awfully confused. First of all, I have taken part as a witness in grievance procedures in the BBC, so I do know the somewhat Byzantine rules. The Clarkson investigation was carried out under those internal BBC procedures.

 

The thing you constantly forget is that there was in this case, quite rarely, no dispute between the parties as to what happened during the 'fracas'. Indeed, Clarkson was the one who alerted BBC management to the incident in the first place.

 

I don't get how you can moan about people's DPA rights being infringed (which they were not because they were already in the public domain) and at the same time complain that the report is 'incomplete'. The full report would include names of other witnesses (McQuarry only took evidence from BBC employees not others who also witnessed the incident) - and so to release that report would achieve the breach of the DPA. They wouldn't consider redacting the names of the two involved because that would make them look silly. And the BBC wouldn't redact witness names for the simple reason that the detailed report itself would not be released except to the two parties involved - not even under FOI. With all your experience you should know that the details of internal investigations of this sort are simply not public property. Why should they be? The only people interested in this kind of detail are the prurient and the dangerously obsessed.

 

So you seem to be both for and against a breach of the DPA, which is very odd.

 

Your question about whether the investigation was under BBC rules or because he allegedly breached his contract is equally nonsensical. All contracts, whether employment contracts or loan-outs (as Clarkson's was), would have stipulations about standards of behaviour and not bringing the BBC into disrepute. The kind of contract has no bearing on the matter.

 

On your last point, Clarkson did not say he had been given a final written warning - only that he had been given what he believed was a final warning. What that amounted to, and what kind of conduct was covered by it, is unclear - but, really, who cares?

[CB Fry]

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

Awful lot of waffle there but really not making any particular point. Great work.

 

Almost like you are desperate to find fault in something that all parties involved have agreed on and moved on from. Your "I know about disciplinary procedure, I do" stuff really only becomes relevant if one of the parties subsequently makes a complaint. Guess what, they aren't going to. Not Clarkson, not anyone else.

 

There is no great mystery and nothing contentious in this affair, but well done on your desperate digging around to find something to get upset about.

[CB Fry]

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

That's nice, dear.

[Viking Warrior]

Verbal , I'm sorry to disappoint you. But I am certainly not confused. I wasn't saying the investigation was incomplete

Just referring to the PDF that was in post 177.

I don't doubt the prima facia aspects of clarksons behaviour,

DPA and confidentiality have a major role in this sort of investigations

I was just a tad surprised to see the article / part report in the public domain and to me it does seem incomplete . But maybe that is how the BBC do their disciplinary investigations. I am not really fussed if it is but there are slightly different models out there,

 

CB fry . I'm not looking to find fault let alone trying to find something to get upset about . I leave that to the likes of you.

All I was just alluding to was the process of investigating breaches of disciplinary rules in the work place. Sometimes it is never a straight forward process as there always two sides to a story. I am also aware that clarksons reported his behaviour to his bosses.

You seem to take joy in mocking the likes of whitey and co. Why not just respect we have a different opinions and views than yours

[Verbal]

Verbal , I'm sorry to disappoint you. But I am certainly not confused. I wasn't saying the investigation was incomplete

Just referring to the PDF that was in post 177.

I don't doubt the prima facia aspects of clarksons behaviour,

DPA and confidentiality have a major role in this sort of investigations

I was just a tad surprised to see the article / part report in the public domain and to me it does seem incomplete . But maybe that is how the BBC do their disciplinary investigations. I am not really fussed if it is but there are slightly different models out there,

 

CB fry . I'm not looking to find fault let alone trying to find something to get upset about . I leave that to the likes of you.

All I was just alluding to was the process of investigating breaches of disciplinary rules in the work place. Sometimes it is never a straight forward process as there always two sides to a story. I am also aware that clarksons reported his behaviour to his bosses.

You seem to take joy in mocking the likes of whitey and co. Why not just respect we have a different opinions and views than yours

 

Nope, still hopelessly confused.

 

This may get convoluted - responding to you point by point has the effect of making everything hard to read...but here goes:

 

I know you weren't saying the investigation was incomplete - I never suggested you said it was. You said the report was incomplete, which I said is a nonsensical remark. See above for the reasons why - it doesn't help to repeat them.

 

DPA and confidentiality do NOT 'have a major role in this sort of investigation', only in what's made public, if anything, about such an investigation.

 

You use the word 'incomplete' as if it can possibly mean something to you as someone who has no information about what's omitted. They made public what was necessary to make public in order to explain that a major BBC star will not be having his contract renewed. No vaguely credible organisation goes around publishing the full (or in your words 'complete') details of internal disciplinary hearings

 

And how many times do you need to have to spelled out that in this case there are NOT 'two sides to every story'. Repeating the cliche does not make it true. There is precisely zero evidence that anything of substance has been disputed.

[CB Fry]

Verbal , I'm sorry to disappoint you. But I am certainly not confused. I wasn't saying the investigation was incomplete

Just referring to the PDF that was in post 177.

I don't doubt the prima facia aspects of clarksons behaviour,

DPA and confidentiality have a major role in this sort of investigations

I was just a tad surprised to see the article / part report in the public domain and to me it does seem incomplete . But maybe that is how the BBC do their disciplinary investigations. I am not really fussed if it is but there are slightly different models out there,

 

CB fry . I'm not looking to find fault let alone trying to find something to get upset about . I leave that to the likes of you.

All I was just alluding to was the process of investigating breaches of disciplinary rules in the work place. Sometimes it is never a straight forward process as there always two sides to a story. I am also aware that clarksons reported his behaviour to his bosses.

You seem to take joy in mocking the likes of whitey and co. Why not just respect we have a different opinions and views than yours

 

So then, what is the second side to the story being that Clarkson, the BBC and the producer are on one side together in agreement. Who is on the other side and what is it?

 

And If I am mocking Whitey it is because he doesn't actually have an opinion on this subject. He is just flailing about looking for something to get upset with but he can't work out what. Anyone dismissing the matter as media "hearsay" on one hand then demanding to be told intimate gossip like what type of punch was thrown ("was it a haymaker??") on the other is a deeply confused individual.

 

The pair of you are picking at non existent or irrelevant threads on this matter but neither of you seem to have any specific point to make apart from a strange need to turn something that has been resolved and dealt with into an unsolvable mystery. It's bizarre, not an "opinion" that needs to be "respected" and I'll happily mock you for it.

Edited 13 April, 2015 by CB Fry

[Whitey Grandad]

So then, what is the second side to the story being that Clarkson, the BBC and the producer are on one side together in agreement. Who is on the other side and what is it?

 

And If I am mocking Whitey it is because he doesn't actually have an opinion on this subject. He is just flailing about looking for something to get upset with but he can't work out what. Anyone dismissing the matter as media "hearsay" on one hand then demanding to be told intimate gossip like what type of punch was thrown ("was it a haymaker??") on the other is a deeply confused individual.

 

The pair of you are picking at non existent or irrelevant threads on this matter but neither of you seem to have any specific point to make apart from a strange need to turn something that has been resolved and dealt with into an unsolvable mystery. It's bizarre, not an "opinion" that needs to be "respected" and I'll happily mock you for it.

 

You're confusing me with someone who gives a toss. That I don't is one of the very few advantages of getting old.

 

My detailed questioning of you as to the details of the incident are to demonstrate how little any of us actually know, and you in particular. The questions I ask are very often rhetorical, asking people to examine and test their views.

 

My wider concern is with the rush to judgment, sometimes based on individual prejudices. All I am urging is that it is better to stand back and take a wider view and wait for the dust to settle before throwing the stones. Just think of me as the voice of conscience whispering in the background.

[sadoldgit]

A point of order. Surely if there were three programmes to go and they have not been recorded he has been sacked? If it was just that his contract had not been renewed then surely they would have made the remaining three programmes?

[Whitey Grandad]

A point of order. Surely if there were three programmes to go and they have not been recorded he has been sacked? If it was just that his contract had not been renewed then surely they would have made the remaining three programmes?

 

An interesting question. I think they decided not to make the remaining programs and just let his contract run out.

[Verbal]

A point of order. Surely if there were three programmes to go and they have not been recorded he has been sacked? If it was just that his contract had not been renewed then surely they would have made the remaining three programmes?

 

You've confused a few things here. Three pre-recorded main items were made, not whole programmes. When the 'fracas' happened, they had not recorded the star in a car thing (the track race or the star's reaction in the studio) or any of the studio links. So without Clarkson, the decision was taken not to cobble something together with the other presenters alone. This decision would have probably been influenced by, among other things, Hammond and May refusing to do the studio links in his absence.

 

So trying to make some distinction between non-renewal and sacking is needless hair-splitting I'm afraid. It doesn't really matter what you call it - it amounts to the same thing.

[Whitey Grandad]

You've confused a few things here. Three pre-recorded main items were made, not whole programmes. When the 'fracas' happened, they had not recorded the star in a car thing (the track race or the star's reaction in the studio) or any of the studio links. So without Clarkson, the decision was taken not to cobble something together with the other presenters alone. This decision would have probably been influenced by, among other things, Hammond and May refusing to do the studio links in his absence.

 

So trying to make some distinction between non-renewal and sacking is needless hair-splitting I'm afraid. It doesn't really matter what you call it - it amounts to the same thing.

 

Quite so. The result is the same, that he most likely won't work for the BBC again, it's only a matter of how it looks on his CV. I expect he cares even less than I do.

[Verbal]

Quite so. The result is the same, that he most likely won't work for the BBC again, it's only a matter of how it looks on his CV. I expect he cares even less than I do.

 

The bigger question is whether the BBC's response was the right one. As it stands, a very large and broadly based audience has lost a show it enjoyed; Oisin Tymon, the producer on the receiving end of the 'fracas' has lost a position on that now-cancelled show - a show he's said very clearly he loved working on; and Clarkson, along with Hammond, May and executive producer Andy Wilman find themselves without a home (for now at least) for TG. No one's a winner.

 

Was there another way? Certainly. In my experience these incidents usually happen as a result of a number of things going wrong or because of other festering, often low-level grievances. A process of conciliation undertaken during a pause in the series, with an airing among the production staff and crew of all the issues they think need to be fixed, along with the introduction of some escape-valve procedures when things get bent out of shape, and some clear instruction on conduct, would have kept things on the road - probably. It would have needed an empathetic exec parachuted in to keep an eye on things once some mutual agreements had been worked out - but given the sheer money-spinning nature of the show that would have been no hardship for anyone.

 

This didn't happen. And arguably it couldn't once it was leaked that Clarkson had called Danny Cohen to tell him about about the 'fracas' (Clarkson's phrase, I believe). I don't know who leaked that information, but my guess is that whoever did knew very well what the consequences would be.

[Whitey Grandad]

The bigger question is whether the BBC's response was the right one. As it stands, a very large and broadly based audience has lost a show it enjoyed; Oisin Tymon, the producer on the receiving end of the 'fracas' has lost a position on that now-cancelled show - a show he's said very clearly he loved working on; and Clarkson, along with Hammond, May and executive producer Andy Wilman find themselves without a home (for now at least) for TG. No one's a winner.

 

Was there another way? Certainly. In my experience these incidents usually happen as a result of a number of things going wrong or because of other festering, often low-level grievances. A process of conciliation undertaken during a pause in the series, with an airing among the production staff and crew of all the issues they think need to be fixed, along with the introduction of some escape-valve procedures when things get bent out of shape, and some clear instruction on conduct, would have kept things on the road - probably. It would have needed an empathetic exec parachuted in to keep an eye on things once some mutual agreements had been worked out - but given the sheer money-spinning nature of the show that would have been no hardship for anyone.

 

This didn't happen. And arguably it couldn't once it was leaked that Clarkson had called Danny Cohen to tell him about about the 'fracas' (Clarkson's phrase, I believe). I don't know who leaked that information, but my guess is that whoever did knew very well what the consequences would be.

All a very fair summary of the situation, in my opinion. It seems obvious to me that Clarkson had enemies within the BBC, there was also the leaked video of the eeny-meeny incident which didn't happen by accident. All very unsatisfactory and nobody comes out of this with any credit. Unfortunately all my contacts at the beeb have retired long ago so I can't find out much more, even if I wanted to.

[CB Fry]

My wider concern is with the rush to judgment, sometimes based on individual prejudices. All I am urging is that it is better to stand back and take a wider view and wait for the dust to settle before throwing the stones. Just think of me as the voice of conscience whispering in the background.

 

It seems obvious to me that Clarkson had enemies within the BBC, there was also the leaked video of the eeny-meeny incident which didn't happen by accident.

 

Sometimes I don't even need to try. You're a walking talking self-parody.

[Viking Warrior]

CB Fry you really are one antagonistic person

I have never said in my recent post there was a second side to the story . Clarksons admitted he had done wrong . It was he who reported it

My comment was about the misinformation being released on the internet re the investigation and due process

But you take pleasure as usual to try and belittle someone who has a differing view and who is very competent in dealing with disciplinary / grievances or bullying and harassment investigations

 

Let's agree to disagree .

[CB Fry]

CB Fry you really are one antagonistic person

I have never said in my recent post there was a second side to the story . Clarksons admitted he had done wrong . It was he who reported it

My comment was about the misinformation being released on the internet re the investigation and due process

But you take pleasure as usual to try and belittle someone who has a differing view and who is very competent in dealing with disciplinary / grievances or bullying and harassment investigations

 

Let's agree to disagree .

What "misinformation on the internet"? You've been complaining about the BBC's official statement on the matter.

 

Verbal has very effectively dealt with your muddled and contradictory complaints about that already. Far from it being an opportunity to agree to disagree you just come across as incredibly confused and incorrect.

 

If anyone is dishing out "misinformation on the internet" I'd say it was you.

[whelk]

Those petrolheads like their violent threats. http://news.sky.com/story/1464711/sue-perkins-receives-top-gear-death-threats

[Whitey Grandad]

Sometimes I don't even need to try. You're a walking talking self-parody.

 

Isn't everyone a self-parody by definition?

 

You seem to have trouble understanding what has been written and especially the various nuances that it contains. Please come back when you've had a nappy-change and a fresh saucer of milk and then perhaps we can get away from the abuse.

[CB Fry]

 

You seem to have trouble understanding what has been written and especially the various nuances that it contains. Please come back when you've had a nappy-change and a fresh saucer of milk and then perhaps we can get away from the abuse.

 

Let's go back to where I joined the debate shall we?

 

 

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?

 

 

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

 

That post was nonsense then and it still is.

 

The only nuances are your dead-fish flapping as you desperately try and formulate a position to prove your foolish assertion right. From pompous (I learnt long ago never to believe the papers, I did) to lying (about not speculating to almost immediately speculating like mad about what type of punch was thrown) to crying (boo hoo CB Fry is a bully).

 

Despite those nuances of your shape-shifting from anti-speculator to speculator-in-chief (was it a haymaker??) the fact remains that the Clarkson affair was not hearsay, and Jeremy Clarkson himself and the witnesses and the producer could all easily stand up in court and tell you that.

 

They won't ever need to as the whole affair is done and dusted and people have moved on.

 

You've struggled to move on, but you crack on pretending it was "hearsay" where the facts of the case are being disputed. It was not, they are not.

 

I was right umpteen posts ago and still am leaving me to devote all my energy to mocking you. You seem to have missed that nuance but then you aint too bright.

Edited 14 April, 2015 by CB Fry

[Whitey Grandad]

Let's go back to where I joined the debate shall we?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That post was nonsense then and it still is.

 

The only nuances are your dead-fish flapping as you desperately try and formulate a position to prove your foolish assertion right. From pompous (I learnt long ago never to believe the papers, I did) to lying (about not speculating to almost immediately speculating like mad about what type of punch was thrown) to crying (boo hoo CB Fry is a bully).

 

Despite those nuances of your shape-shifting from anti-speculator to speculator-in-chief (was it a haymaker??) the fact remains that the Clarkson affair was not hearsay, and Jeremy Clarkson himself and the witnesses and the producer could all easily stand up in court and tell you that.

 

They won't ever need to as the whole affair is done and dusted and people have moved on.

 

You've struggled to move on, but you crack on pretending it was "hearsay" where the facts of the case are being disputed. It was not, they are not.

 

I was right umpteen posts ago and still am leaving me to devote all my energy to mocking you. You seem to have missed that nuance but then you aint too bright.

 

Keep digging. (Subtle enough for you? )

[CB Fry]

Keep digging. (Subtle enough for you? )

Boo hoo stop bullying me.

[Whitey Grandad]

Let's go back to where I joined the debate shall we?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That post was nonsense then and it still is.

 

The only nuances are your dead-fish flapping as you desperately try and formulate a position to prove your foolish assertion right. From pompous (I learnt long ago never to believe the papers, I did) to lying (about not speculating to almost immediately speculating like mad about what type of punch was thrown) to crying (boo hoo CB Fry is a bully).

 

Despite those nuances of your shape-shifting from anti-speculator to speculator-in-chief (was it a haymaker??) the fact remains that the Clarkson affair was not hearsay, and Jeremy Clarkson himself and the witnesses and the producer could all easily stand up in court and tell you that.

 

They won't ever need to as the whole affair is done and dusted and people have moved on.

 

You've struggled to move on, but you crack on pretending it was "hearsay" where the facts of the case are being disputed. It was not, they are not.

 

I was right umpteen posts ago and still am leaving me to devote all my energy to mocking you. You seem to have missed that nuance but then you aint too bright.

 

Accusing someone of lying is extremely serious and should be used very carefully.

 

Hearsay is a specific legal term relating to evidence which is not first-hand and cannot be tested in court, under oath. You may not have been aware of this.

 

The questions that I specifically asked you, although somewhat rhetorical in nature, were not speculation but were intended to demonstrate to you (and possibly anyone else who might still be interested if they haven't fallen asleep or found some other passion to fulfil) how few details of the affair are public knowledge. Basically you and others have said 'Jeremy Clarkson punched somebody'. Could you stand up in court and substantiate that? Of course you couldn't, so in determining whether any crime has been committed anything that any of us might think is legally 'hearsay'.

 

On a more personal note, and with apologies for straying from the subject under discussion, I am struggling to see why you participate in this forum. It provides somewhere for us all to offer opinions on Saints, football, and many other worldy matters and should not be seen as an opportunity to satisfy your misanthropic tendencies. Perhaps we should meet up for a beer sometime and then we could treat each other with respect as fellow Saints fans and forumeers. Now that really is speculation

[Whitey Grandad]

.....

Edited 15 April, 2015 by Whitey Grandad
Duplicate post

[CB Fry]

Accusing someone of lying is extremely serious and should be used very carefully.

 

Hearsay is a specific legal term relating to evidence which is not first-hand and cannot be tested in court, under oath. You may not have been aware of this.

 

The questions that I specifically asked you, although somewhat rhetorical in nature, were not speculation but were intended to demonstrate to you (and possibly anyone else who might still be interested if they haven't fallen asleep or found some other passion to fulfil) how few details of the affair are public knowledge. Basically you and others have said 'Jeremy Clarkson punched somebody'. Could you stand up in court and substantiate that? Of course you couldn't, so in determining whether any crime has been committed anything that any of us might think is legally 'hearsay'.

 

Why would I ever need to "stand up in court" to testify on the Clarkson case? These are the ramblings of a bloody nutcase. Don't lecture me on legal terms if that's your argument. Nonsense. Pure and Simple.

 

I'm pretty sure I've never said he punched someone. I don't really care because it makes eff all difference to the case and its outcome. Pure and Simple.

 

It's just you, not me, wittering on whether or not it was a punch and you're oddly desperate to see totally private results of the investigation to satisfy your own need for gossip. Couch it in your faux-legal bulls hit if you like but it's just classless prying on your part. Pure and Simple.

 

The investigation - agreed by all parties - described it as an "assault" and that the producer ended up in A&E. A crime, it will never end up in court, but a crime. Pure and Simple.

 

The investigation reached it conclusion and it hasn't been challenged. It won't be. It's over. Pure and Simple.

 

Maybe over time you'll reconcile yourself to the fact that whether or not a punch was thrown is of infinitesimal importance in this matter. Pure and Simple.

Edited 15 April, 2015 by CB Fry

[pap]

You've been saying that I’m driving you crazy,

And I haven't been around for you lately,

but I had a few things on my mind.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Way to kill the thread guys...

[CB Fry]

Danny was my favourite.

[pap]

Danny was my favourite.

A leftfield choice. I reckon Whitey would love Myleene.

[Whitey Grandad]

A leftfield choice. I reckon Whitey would love Myleene.

 

At my age I can't be choosy

 

(Who is/was Myleene?)

[pap]

[hutch]

A crime, it will never end up in court, but a crime. Pure and Simple.

An opinion, it will never be proven or disproven, but an opinion. Pure and simple.

[Whitey Grandad]

 

Oh that Myleene.

 

Yes I might Just as long as she passes the practical test.

[sadoldgit]

It is a shame that so much time has been wasted on such a ***t. Time to move on guys.

[Goatboy]

Oh that Myleene.

 

Yes I might Just as long as she passes the practical test.

 

Tight nuts and lubrication?

[pap]

It is a shame that so much time has been wasted on such a ***t. Time to move on guys.

 

Impossible!

 

I haven't linked Clarkson Island yet.

 

[video=youtube;DMuO-8S_0Wg]

 

Now we can wrap this shít up.

[CB Fry]

An opinion, it will never be proven or disproven, but an opinion. Pure and simple.

Wrong. The national crime survey reports 7.0m crimes last year, less than 4m even reported to the police, let alone end up in court or with a positive result.

 

In that accepted use of the word crime, an "unprovoked physical altercation" with the victim ending up in A&E is easily and factually a crime. Sorry and that.

 

When the English language comes up for a brand new word for "unreported crime" you might have a point. Right now, no dice.

[hutch]

Wrong. The national crime survey reports 7.0m crimes last year, less than 4m even reported to the police, let alone end up in court or with a positive result.

 

In that accepted use of the word crime, an "unprovoked physical altercation" with the victim ending up in A&E is easily and factually a crime. Sorry and that.

 

When the English language comes up for a brand new word for "unreported crime" you might have a point. Right now, no dice.

Thanks for that, and kind of you to take the time to reply.

 

But for now, I'll stick with the opinion of the police regarding this incident that was reported to them.

 

If that's OK with you.

[CB Fry]

Thanks for that, and kind of you to take the time to reply.

 

But for now, I'll stick with the opinion of the police regarding this incident that was reported to them.

 

If that's OK with you.

 

I'm perfectly happy with you doing that. Doesn't mean it wasn't a crime though, as there are literally millions of crimes every year that "no further action" is taken or no conviction reached.

 

It's okay. I don't expect you ever to understand.

Edited 17 April, 2015 by CB Fry

[trousers]

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/jeremy-clarkson-is-brave-in-opening-up-so-dont-sneer-at-him-10190468.html

[sadoldgit]

Many of use break the speed limit every day and many of us don't get caught and charge. Does that mean we haven't committed a crime? Does a crime only exist if there is a charge and a conviction? What of the rapes that go uncharged? No crime?

[sadoldgit]

Impossible!

 

I haven't linked Clarkson Island yet.

 

[video=youtube;DMuO-8S_0Wg]

[/

 

Now we can wrap this shít up.

 

Love it!

[Pancake]

Many of use break the speed limit every day and many of us don't get caught and charge. Does that mean we haven't committed a crime? Does a crime only exist if there is a charge and a conviction? What of the rapes that go uncharged? No crime?

 

If a tree falls in a wood...

[Lets B Avenue]

It is a shame that so much time has been wasted on such a ***t. Time to move on guys.

 

Seeing you have posted more than anybody else on this and the initial Clarkson thread, that is probably sage advice.

 

Many of use break the speed limit every day and many of us don't get caught and charge. Does that mean we haven't committed a crime? Does a crime only exist if there is a charge and a conviction? What of the rapes that go uncharged? No crime?

 

Oh well.

[CB Fry]

If a tree falls in a wood...

...and the results of an investigation into that tree falling is published across every media outlet in Britain, then a tree has fallen down.

[Whitey Grandad]

...and the results of an investigation into that tree falling is published across every media outlet in Britain, then a tree has fallen down.

 

But did it make any noise?

[CB Fry]

But did it make any noise?

Apparently it did but it's all legally "hearsay" because someone on a football forum can't stand up in court and say it did. That's definitely what "hearsay" means.

Edited 21 April, 2015 by CB Fry

[Whitey Grandad]

Apparently it did but it's all legally "hearsay" because someone on a football can't stand up in court and say it did. That's definitely what "hearsay" means.

 

You've actually touched on the basic philosophy there. Nobody knows if it actually made any noise because nobody was there as a first-hand witness.

 

Still, we digress and I think we've exhausted this subject. Have a good evening

[CB Fry]

You've actually touched on the basic philosophy there. Nobody knows if it actually made any noise because nobody was there as a first-hand witness.

 

Still, we digress and I think we've exhausted this subject. Have a good evening

The person running the investigation interviewed witnesses, the person the tree fell on, and the flaming tree itself. Kinda why it isn't hearsay. Apparently that's, like, a legal term and everything.

[Whitey Grandad]

The person running the investigation interviewed witnesses, the person the tree fell on, and the flaming tree itself. Kinda why it isn't hearsay. Apparently that's, like, a legal term and everything.

 

You know perfectly well the full version:

 

'...and there's nobody there to hear it.'

 

No witnesses; it didn't happen. Honest guv'nor

[CB Fry]

You know perfectly well the full version:

 

'...and there's nobody there to hear it.'

 

No witnesses; it didn't happen. Honest guv'nor

 

You also know perfectly well my post #244, which you quoted and you also understand what I was referring to.

 

The topic of thread did have witnesses and did happen. It's why it isn't hearsay.