Jeremy Clarkson dropped from Top Gear Watch

ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#261
Report 4 years ago
#261
Clarkson Island.

0
reply
Observatory
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#262
Report 4 years ago
#262
(Original post by InnerTemple)
But this is not a left vs right thing. It's about an employer's duty and a very stupid man making a very stupid mistake.

An employer has a duty to keep staff safe.
Do you really believe this, i.e. do you think that anyone with a conviction for a violent crime (or is otherwise known to have ever committed one), should be made permanently unemployable? Should that be legally enforced?

Or if not, why is the obligation just to fire someone from their current job, and not prevent them getting a new one?

Suppose I hit someone working in a bakery, get fired, and then immediately hired by the competing bakery across the street - are staff actually any safer than if I had just kept working at my original employer?

If on the other hand it's just about credible punishment, not removing that person permanently from exposure to other staff, then what would have been the problem with just fining Clarkson, benching him, or making him apologise on TV?
0
reply
Zander01
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#263
Report 4 years ago
#263
(Original post by Observatory)
Do you really believe this, i.e. do you think that anyone with a conviction for a violent crime (or is otherwise known to have ever committed one), should be made permanently unemployable? Should that be legally enforced?

Or if not, why is the obligation just to fire someone from their current job, and not prevent them getting a new one?

Suppose I hit someone working in a bakery, get fired, and then immediately hired by the competing bakery across the street - are staff actually any safer than if I had just kept working at my original employer?

If on the other hand it's just about credible punishment, not removing that person permanently from exposure to other staff, then what would have been the problem with just fining Clarkson, benching him, or making him apologise on TV?
You Clarkson apologists are utterly deluded.

No one has mentioned anything about being permanently unemployable.

Your bakery analogy doesn't make sense either. The staff under the original employer are now safer as a result of removing the threat. If someone else employs them knowing the risks associated with such a move then that is their own decision. It is completely out of the realms of responsibility for the original employer.

You really think a measly fine and being told to publicly apologise would have altered Clarksons' behaviour in any way?
0
reply
Observatory
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#264
Report 4 years ago
#264
(Original post by Zander01)
You Clarkson apologists are utterly deluded.

No one has mentioned anything about being permanently unemployable.

Your bakery analogy doesn't make sense either. The staff under the original employer are now safer as a result of removing the threat. If someone else employs them knowing the risks associated with such a move then that is their own decision. It is completely out of the realms of responsibility for the original employer.

You really think a measly fine and being told to publicly apologise would have altered Clarksons' behaviour in any way?
With respect, the point has flown over your head.

If it is irresponsible for an employer to retain an employee who has committed an assault, why is it not irresponsible for an employer to hire a new employee who has committed an assault? If it is OK for an employer to hire a new employee who has committed an assault, why isn't it OK for an employer to retain an old employee who has committed an assault?

Alternatively, if the requirement is just for some punishment, why can't it be achieved some other way? Fining Clarkson, say, £250,000 would certainly have made him sit up (his salary from the BBC was double this).

The claim is that most people would be fired for doing what Clarkson did, which is true. However this is only true because most people aren't very valuable to their employers; firing them is cheaper than putting up with the other employees' dissatisfaction. Firing Clarkson has in effect brought the whole firm down. Even the Producer who was punched is likely to lose far more out of this than he would if Clarkson had stayed.

What's more, sticking to the rule that it's required to fire an employee who punched someone but totally OK to hire an employee who punched someone elsewhere disproportionate hurts Clarkson because the BBC is in effect a monopoly employer for Top Gear presenters. A warehouse foreman can just go work for some other warehouse, but Clarkson can't go work for some other Top Gear show. If there were three or four shows like Top Gear, no doubt he would be immediately re-hired and the only loser would be the BBC - would they still have stood on "principle" and fired him?
0
reply
Zander01
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#265
Report 4 years ago
#265
(Original post by Observatory)
With respect, the point has flown over your head.

If it is irresponsible for an employer to retain an employee who has committed an assault, why is it not irresponsible for an employer to hire a new employee who has committed an assault? If it is OK for an employer to hire a new employee who has committed an assault, why isn't it OK for an employer to retain an old employee who has committed an assault?

Alternatively, if the requirement is just for some punishment, why can't it be achieved some other way? Fining Clarkson, say, £250,000 would certainly have made him sit up (his salary from the BBC was double this).

The claim is that most people would be fired for doing what Clarkson did, which is true. However this is only true because most people aren't very valuable to their employers; firing them is cheaper than putting up with the other employees' dissatisfaction. Firing Clarkson has in effect brought the whole firm down. Even the Producer who was punched is likely to lose far more out of this than he would if Clarkson had stayed.

What's more, sticking to the rule that it's required to fire an employee who punched someone but totally OK to hire an employee who punched someone elsewhere disproportionate hurts Clarkson because the BBC is in effect a monopoly employer for Top Gear presenters. A warehouse foreman can just go work for some other warehouse, but Clarkson can't go work for some other Top Gear show. If there were three or four shows like Top Gear, no doubt he would be immediately re-hired and the only loser would be the BBC - would they still have stood on "principle" and fired him?
Flown over my head? You are talking about completely irrelevant nonsense.

Who said it isn't irresponsible for another employer to hire them? If they want to hire them then that is their own decision and they can live with the consequences. Just like the original employer could have made the decision to let them stay.

Lets not mention that it would be two completely different working environments with different people.

The BBC could have fined him but then also receive a barrage of complaints for letting him stay. I mean, they have already defended him and let him stay after a lot of controversy where many other presenters would have been sacked.

I also don't know why you think the top gear presenters are now going to struggle to find similar work. Aren't they already intending to do a live Top Gear in Australia?
0
reply
Observatory
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#266
Report 4 years ago
#266
(Original post by Zander01)
Flown over my head? You are talking about completely irrelevant nonsense.

Who said it isn't irresponsible for another employer to hire them?
You did here:

(Original post by Zander01)
You Clarkson apologists are utterly deluded.

No one has mentioned anything about being permanently unemployable.
What I said was that if our moral (and possibly legal?) principle should be that employers shouldn't hire people who committed assaults in the past, then the effect of that is to make people who committed assaults in the past permanently unemployable everywhere. You replied immediately that that was obviously absurd.

If they want to hire them then that is their own decision and they can live with the consequences. Just like the original employer could have made the decision to let them stay.
So, you seem to have repudiated this position, because you think it's absurd (and I agree).

But you're now forced to admit that the BBC could have kept Clarkson and the decision to fire him was just a value judgement on their part and not mandated by morality or the law.

Lets not mention that it would be two completely different working environments with different people.

The BBC could have fined him but then also receive a barrage of complaints for letting him stay. I mean, they have already defended him and let him stay after a lot of controversy where many other presenters would have been sacked.
They declined to fire him for disagreeing with their politics. This action gave them much stronger cover, since his infraction wasn't political.

I also don't know why you think the top gear presenters are now going to struggle to find similar work. Aren't they already intending to do a live Top Gear in Australia?
Yes and the BBC owns the rights to that show, as well as all other Top Gear franchises.

No doubt Clarkson will find work if he wants and probably the three of them can find similar-ish work together if they really want, but Top Gear as it was is dead. If anything the producer will suffer more from that than Clarkson &co. will. The audiences will suffer too. Hence this is a vindictive decision on the BBC's part, since it wasn't necessary and mostly harms third parties.

Note that I'm not necessarily saying it's a left wing conspiracy. It's quite possible this is just HR bureaucracy at work and that it would have happened the same way if Clarkson had been more in line with the BBC's other employees politically. But it is certainly a bad decision.
1
reply
InnerTemple
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#267
Report 4 years ago
#267
(Original post by Observatory)
Do you really believe this, i.e. do you think that anyone with a conviction for a violent crime (or is otherwise known to have ever committed one), should be made permanently unemployable? Should that be legally enforced?
No I don't think people with convictions should be permanently unemployable. Of course if their particular conviction makes certain lines of work unsuitable, then that should stand (sex offences and working with children, for example).

(Original post by Observatory)
Or if not, why is the obligation just to fire someone from their current job, and not prevent them getting a new one?
Because an employer has a duty to keep their employees safe. If another employer wants to employ a violent individual, then on their head be it.

I'd expect that most people with a recorded violent offence, where that offence happened in the working environment, would find it hard to get a job which requires some sort of disclosure. Imagine the conversation:

"So Mr Smith, you have an ABH conviction - how did that come about?"
"Decked my colleague cos he put too much milk in my tea."

I reckon that'll be a case of "Don't call us, we'll call you..."
0
reply
Observatory
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#268
Report 4 years ago
#268
(Original post by InnerTemple)
No I don't think people with convictions should be permanently unemployable. Of course if their particular conviction makes certain lines of work unsuitable, then that should stand (sex offences and working with children, for example).



Because an employer has a duty to keep their employees safe. If another employer wants to employ a violent individual, then on their head be it.
This doesn't make any sense. If

1. employers have a duty to keep their employees safe

and

2. having committed any act of violence in the past makes someone dangerous

then anyone convicted of a violent crime (and many more not convicted) should never be able to work anywhere ever again!

Saying that employers should have discretion to hire people who were violent elsewhere but not to keep on people who were violent in their own workplaces is a distinction without reason.

I'd expect that most people with a recorded violent offence, where that offence happened in the working environment, would find it hard to get a job which requires some sort of disclosure. Imagine the conversation:

"So Mr Smith, you have an ABH conviction - how did that come about?"
"Decked my colleague cos he put too much milk in my tea."

I reckon that'll be a case of "Don't call us, we'll call you..."
Hundreds of thousands if not millions of people must have current and spent convictions for assault and bodily harm, and far more will have at some point committed some violent act that never went to court (like this one).
0
reply
InnerTemple
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#269
Report 4 years ago
#269
(Original post by Observatory)
Hundreds of thousands if not millions of people must have current and spent convictions for assault and bodily harm, and far more will have at some point committed some violent act that never went to court (like this one).
Employers will have their own policy on such matters. I think I have made my position pretty clear.

In most professional environments, bullying in the workplace is just unacceptable. It appears that on this occasion, Clarkson resorted to verbally and physically assaulting a co-worker.

It was totally proportionate and reasonable that he be sacked. There is no one else to blame here but Clarkson - and he has admitted as much.

Not forgetting that he was on a final warning at the time of the incident.

It is rather depressing that there are many incidents of people actually being wrongfully dismissed. In these cases the government has made it harder for these people to appeal. In some cases unions try and help - only for this action to be criticised.

Yet when someone is dismissed quite legitimately, not only does the PM wade in but it seems people are in absolute despair. It appears that being a bit of a loud mouth and deliberately offensive old man earns one some kind of special status...
0
reply
Observatory
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#270
Report 4 years ago
#270
(Original post by InnerTemple)
Employers will have their own policy on such matters. I think I have made my position pretty clear.

In most professional environments, bullying in the workplace is just unacceptable. It appears that on this occasion, Clarkson resorted to verbally and physically assaulting a co-worker.

It was totally proportionate and reasonable that he be sacked. There is no one else to blame here but Clarkson - and he has admitted as much.
The point is becoming laboured, but here it is again: either you think that employing a person who once punched a co-worker is a discretionary matter for employers or you think there's a clear obligation to fire such a person. If you believe there is a clear obligation to fire such a person, you haven't explained why it is OK to ever re-hire that person. If, in turn, you believe that people who ever used violence at work should be made permanently unemployed and regardless of whether the incident ever went to court, you're advocating a level of punishment that most would consider cruel and unusual.

You have not at all made your position clear on these matters. You have tried your best to make uncontroversial statements but these statements have necessarily had contradictory implications.
0
reply
41b
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#271
Report 4 years ago
#271
(Original post by Observatory)
The point is becoming laboured, but here it is again: either you think that employing a person who once punched a co-worker is a discretionary matter for employers or you think there's a clear obligation to fire such a person. If you believe there is a clear obligation to fire such a person, you haven't explained why it is OK to ever re-hire that person. If, in turn, you believe that people who ever used violence at work should be made permanently unemployed and regardless of whether the incident ever went to court, you're advocating a level of punishment that most would consider cruel and unusual.

You have not at all made your position clear on these matters. You have tried your best to make uncontroversial statements but these statements have necessarily had contradictory implications.
He's arrived at his conclusions before thinking through his argument. It's an easy pitfall.
0
reply
41b
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#272
Report 4 years ago
#272
(Original post by wsxcde)
who cares if he hit someone, clarkson is one of the highest and most famous people in our society and he had a long day and the guy wasnt doing his job properly and he didnt even hit him that hard the other guy should learn his place and have felt lucky to work so near to clarkson, a lot of people probably would have done his job for free just to be nearer to clarkson and meet him and be a part of topgear, a lot of people would probably pay to be punched by clarkson and have a picture of it taken to put on facebook and things. But this guy decided to be selfish and destroy a show that millions of people loved just because he wanted revenge for being hit gently. Now after firing clarkson the bbc will lose millions of pounds. If they really cared about people being hit they could have kept clarkson on and donated all the money he made to charities to stop violence but they didnt do this because they dont care about that just for pleasing all the people who always complain all the time and be offended by everything.
Danny Cohen, an awful socialist, had a vendetta against him.
0
reply
InnerTemple
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#273
Report 4 years ago
#273
(Original post by Observatory)
The point is becoming laboured, but here it is again: either you think that employing a person who once punched a co-worker is a discretionary matter for employers or you think there's a clear obligation to fire such a person. If you believe there is a clear obligation to fire such a person, you haven't explained why it is OK to ever re-hire that person. If, in turn, you believe that people who ever used violence at work should be made permanently unemployed and regardless of whether the incident ever went to court, you're advocating a level of punishment that most would consider cruel and unusual.

You have not at all made your position clear on these matters. You have tried your best to make uncontroversial statements but these statements have necessarily had contradictory implications.
I don't understand what is so contentious here.

Of course it is discretionary whether or not an employer sacks someone. I have never said different.

What I have said though is that there is a duty on employers to ensure a safe working environment for their employees. This duty comes into play in such circumstances where there is a violent incident. Interestingly, had the BBC not sacked Clarkson and the victim been so inclined, he could have had grounds for making a claim of constructive dismissal against the BBC.

Now should an employer decide that they cannot guarantee a safe working environment for so long as they hire a person, the main remedy will be to dismiss that person. Once this has been done, it is not for the (now) former employer to dictate to other prospective employers whether or not they are to hire the individual.

It would be up for the prospective employer to make that decision - and it ought to be done on a case by case basis. Maybe the individual was violent because of very specific circumstances. It might be reasonable to conclude that the risk of that person being violent in a new job is nil - or as close as to make no difference.

That said - if the individual is just a nasty piece of work and just likes to lump people one every so often, you might find it difficult to get anyone to take them on.

The point being - I do not believe that people who are violent in work should be barred from employment entirely. But I do believe that it is totally reasonable for them to be dismissed.

In any event, Clarkson was on thin ice and he knew it. He was on a final warning. He only has himself to blame for all of this.

It is also worth noting that his contract was up for renewal anyway. Imagine how silly the BBC would have looked had they (stupidly) kept him on only for him to bugger off to a different company in a month or so time.
0
reply
41b
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#274
Report 4 years ago
#274
(Original post by InnerTemple)
I don't understand what is so contentious here.

Of course it is discretionary whether or not an employer sacks someone. I have never said different.

What I have said though is that there is a duty on employers to ensure a safe working environment for their employees. This duty comes into play in such circumstances where there is a violent incident. Interestingly, had the BBC not sacked Clarkson and the victim been so inclined, he could have had grounds for making a claim of constructive dismissal against the BBC.

Now should an employer decide that they cannot guarantee a safe working environment for so long as they hire a person, the main remedy will be to dismiss that person. Once this has been done, it is not for the (now) former employer to dictate to other prospective employers whether or not they are to hire the individual.

It would be up for the prospective employer to make that decision - and it ought to be done on a case by case basis. Maybe the individual was violent because of very specific circumstances. It might be reasonable to conclude that the risk of that person being violent in a new job is nil - or as close as to make no difference.

That said - if the individual is just a nasty piece of work and just likes to lump people one every so often, you might find it difficult to get anyone to take them on.

The point being - I do not believe that people who are violent in work should be barred from employment entirely. But I do believe that it is totally reasonable for them to be dismissed.

In any event, Clarkson was on thin ice and he knew it. He was on a final warning. He only has himself to blame for all of this.

It is also worth noting that his contract was up for renewal anyway. Imagine how silly the BBC would have looked had they (stupidly) kept him on only for him to bugger off to a different company in a month or so time.
Regardless of the law, the guy deserved it, which is precisely why he hasn't pressed charges. He knows he deserved it, and he knows his little tantrum has cost him his livelihood. No one other than the BBC will ever hire him again, and he's reviled by anyone who loves Clarkson, which is an awful lot of people. His photo's been plastered all over the internet and he will face street abuse for years. Considering what a wimpy chump he appeared to be, he'll probably leave the country or have a breakdown.

In a private corporation the guy would've been fired for incompetency months before it came to this. It's a testament to the BBC's inefficiency that a fool who can't arrange a simple dinner is kept on in employment until he angers the star of their show to the point of violence.
0
reply
Observatory
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#275
Report 4 years ago
#275
(Original post by InnerTemple)
I don't understand what is so contentious here.

Of course it is discretionary whether or not an employer sacks someone. I have never said different.

What I have said though is that there is a duty on employers to ensure a safe working environment for their employees. This duty comes into play in such circumstances where there is a violent incident. Interestingly, had the BBC not sacked Clarkson and the victim been so inclined, he could have had grounds for making a claim of constructive dismissal against the BBC.

Now should an employer decide that they cannot guarantee a safe working environment for so long as they hire a person, the main remedy will be to dismiss that person. Once this has been done, it is not for the (now) former employer to dictate to other prospective employers whether or not they are to hire the individual.

It would be up for the prospective employer to make that decision - and it ought to be done on a case by case basis. Maybe the individual was violent because of very specific circumstances. It might be reasonable to conclude that the risk of that person being violent in a new job is nil - or as close as to make no difference.

That said - if the individual is just a nasty piece of work and just likes to lump people one every so often, you might find it difficult to get anyone to take them on.

The point being - I do not believe that people who are violent in work should be barred from employment entirely. But I do believe that it is totally reasonable for them to be dismissed.
We've established that - what you refuse to answer is why. If someone is dangerous as an employee of Business A they are just as dangerous as an employee of Business B. The sharp distinction between the original and secondary employer does not make sense.
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#276
Report 4 years ago
#276
(Original post by chocolate hottie)
That is all it is.

If Danny Cohen had wanted to keep him and the show he would have. He didn't, he leaked it to the media, and put his DG in an impossible position.

This was his opportunity and he seized it...
The evidence seems to be that it was Clarkson himself who leaked it to the media. It was definitely Clarkson who informed the BBC formally about the incident - he even rang the DG to let him know personally. That was reported the following day, suggesting that the leak came from Clarkson.

Jezza has been manipulating the media throughout this charade. It is almost certainly the case that he wanted to quit the show and this was his chosen method of doing so. Perhaps the aim was to try to hole the BBC and the series below the waterline, so that it would be too damaged to recover when Clarkie and the gang take off to Sky.
0
reply
username1751857
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#277
Report 4 years ago
#277
He brought it upon himself, and I don't see why people want to sign that petition to get him back because it seems like he doesn't care. The things he has said and done is unacceptable, he has crossed the line and this is his outcome. BBC has done the right thing, every employer is legally required to look after their employees and if it's something like what Clarkson did they need to take action. Doesn't matter if it was only once or if it was continous if you're violent in the workplace you're sacked, that is how it is. People who make silly decisions like Clarkson who decided to punch the man for whatever reason is sacked, you can't allow people like him to come back in a working environment for the person to repeat the incident.

For e.g.

I get annoyed at someone because they're mean to me (in the scene of the work place), then I punch that person. Punching someone for annoying you or bullying you and etc is considered immature and simply stupid. There are other ways you can deal with a problem without resulting to violence.

It's a shame really, one bad step and he has lost his career. He's smart enough to know what he did was stupid...
0
reply
InnerTemple
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#278
Report 4 years ago
#278
(Original post by Observatory)
We've established that - what you refuse to answer is why. If someone is dangerous as an employee of Business A they are just as dangerous as an employee of Business B. The sharp distinction between the original and secondary employer does not make sense.
I don't think it necessarily follows that the employee will be just as dangerous at Business B as he was at Business A.

In any event, it is down to business B to decide whether or not they want to hire the employee. I wouldn't be too shocked if Business B decide not to give the guy a job.
0
reply
Steliata
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#279
Report 4 years ago
#279
He punches a producer, he gets fired.

Common sense really, I see it as the right decision.
0
reply
Chief Wiggum
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#280
Report 4 years ago
#280
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
The evidence seems to be that it was Clarkson himself who leaked it to the media. It was definitely Clarkson who informed the BBC formally about the incident - he even rang the DG to let him know personally. That was reported the following day, suggesting that the leak came from Clarkson.

Jezza has been manipulating the media throughout this charade. It is almost certainly the case that he wanted to quit the show and this was his chosen method of doing so. Perhaps the aim was to try to hole the BBC and the series below the waterline, so that it would be too damaged to recover when Clarkie and the gang take off to Sky.
Why do you think Clarkson leaked it?

Surely the news stories at the time contained a statement from the BBC? Clarkson let the BBC know, the BBC then suspended him and issued a statement about it. That's what I presumed had happened anyway...
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you made up your mind on your five uni choices?

Yes I know where I'm applying (121)
65.05%
No I haven't decided yet (39)
20.97%
Yes but I might change my mind (26)
13.98%

Watched Threads

View All