Clarkson

[chaz]

I was quite looking forward to it Hislop and Merton would have ripped into him in a very entertaining fashion.

 

So no prizes for guessing why he is not doing it? He's fritt!

[edcayton]

Yet another great bit of business by the BBC again. Has a great money making business and looses the items which makes it work. Perhaps those who managed the system should also loose their jobs as well, as it will cost us the licence fee payers millions in lost revenues.

 

To start off with the presenters should have been given new contracts long ago tieing them into the series, secondly it was reported that there was a shortage of production crew on the day. And to get to the nub of it, if all the crew had been working long hours that day with little or no catering then there should have been hot food waiting for them 

 

No doubt if they are off to Sky I guess Sky would take better care of their investments

 

I fully agree with your second and third paragraphs, BUT if someone socked me at work I would have expected them to be summarily dismissed (after an investigation) for gross misconduct.

 

Ed

[hayfield]

Ed agreed, but if the actions in the second and third paragraphs had happened then the first would not have.

 

Sadly talent has gone and I guess nothing will change at the BBC 

[PhilJ W]

I object to the suggestion that hot food was not waiting for him, in fact hot food would have been available at the appropriate time but instead he decided to go out and get drunk. It's entirely his own fault that there was no hot food available.

[PGC]

Yet again we're getting a lot of speculation about what happened when we don't know for certain.

 

If Clarkson had punched the producer, why didn't the producer bring charges and why did the Police not press charges after their investigation? In addition, Clarkson wasn't sacked, his contract wasn't renewed. That is not the same thing.

 

Phil

[stovepipe]

So no prizes for guessing why he is not doing it? He's fritt!

Quite so. It would involve him being made fun off, and Jeremy doesn't do that.

 

I don't know why, its just a joke though isn't it? You know like on Top Gear.

[PatB]

Yet again we're getting a lot of speculation about what happened when we don't know for certain.

 

If Clarkson had punched the producer, why didn't the producer bring charges and why did the Police not press charges after their investigation? In addition, Clarkson wasn't sacked, his contract wasn't renewed. That is not the same thing.

 

Phil

 

Something purporting to be a preliminary report from the internal investigation was made available on what appeared to be the BBC's website a couple of weeks ago (sorry, no link as I'd have to trawl through an awful lot of stuff to find the one that I followed) and it was fairly categorical in stating that the producer had, indeed, been struck. Text is here from a different source but matches what I remember reading.

[PGC]

Quite so. It would involve him being made fun off, and Jeremy doesn't do that.

 

I don't know why, its just a joke though isn't it? You know like on Top Gear.

 

Aren't you forgetting the times he has hosted the programme previously? You don't imagine he had a "don't make fun of me" cloak to wear, do you?

 

It has been reported that "Jimmy Mulville, managing director of Hat Trick Productions which makes the show, said: "On reflection, Jeremy Clarkson has decided not to host Have I Got News For You. We fully expect him to resume his hosting duties later in the year."" I have heard that this was becasue the BBC management suggested to Hat Trick that having Clarkson hosting the show might not be a good idea. If that's the case, then why pillory Clarkson for something that has been strong armed in to?

 

To me, there are three sides to the story, Clarkson's, the BBC's and the middle ground. I don't believe Clarkson is innocent, but neither are the BBC!

 

Phil

Something purporting to be a preliminary report from the internal investigation was made available on what appeared to be the BBC's website a couple of weeks ago (sorry, no link as I'd have to trawl through an awful lot of stuff to find the one that I followed) and it was fairly categorical in stating that the producer had, indeed, been struck. Text is here from a different source but matches what I remember reading.

 

So if there's such clear evidence, why didn't the Police press charges?

 

Phil

[stovepipe]

Aren't you forgetting the times he has hosted the programme previously? You don't imagine he had a "don't make fun of me" cloak to wear, do you?

 

I have heard that this was becasue the BBC management suggested to Hat Trick that having Clarkson hosting the show might not be a good idea. If that's the case, then why pillory Clarkson for something that has been strong armed in to?

 

So if there's such clear evidence, why didn't the Police press charges?

 

Phil

 

 

No, of course not. But this time it would have been different, as you well know, especially if you had watched the last Angus Dayton episode.

 

No, I haven't heard the BBC have suggested it not go ahead. I assume you have a link? I've noticed that those who dislike the BBC often 'hear' things that I do not.

 

It's fairly obvious that the producer does not want it to go further that is why no charges have been pressed. The Police do not press charges without support of the victim, this is pretty elementary stuff surely. Clarkson did hit the bloke - it was in the report, why do you try to deny it?

[jjb1970]

I think in this case Clarkson is saving everybody a lot of embarrassment. Clearly it does not sit right for the BBC not to renew his contract on account of him punching somebody but then happily let him continue working on other shows. The fact they're made by other companies is a moot point, they're commissioned and paid for by the BBC and to the viewing world it is the BBC regardless of whether it is made directly by them or by a third party producer. In other businesses you don't get dismissed for hitting a colleague in accounts and then get told its OK, we'll give you another job in sales or whatever.

[PhilH]

Ed agreed, but if the actions in the second and third paragraphs had happened then the first would not have.

 

Sadly TALENT has gone and I guess nothing will change at the BBC

 

Who's that then?

[PGC]

No, of course not. But this time it would have been different, as you well know, especially if you had watched the last Angus Dayton episode.

 

No, I haven't heard the BBC have suggested it not go ahead. I assume you have a link? I've noticed that those who dislike the BBC often 'hear' things that I do not.

 

It's fairly obvious that the producer does not want it to go further that is why no charges have been pressed. The Police do not press charges without support of the victim, this is pretty elementary stuff surely. Clarkson did hit the bloke - it was in the report, why do you try to deny it?

 

Yes, I have links.

 

Why makes you think I dislike the BBC? I think the BBC is a fantastic institution, sadly it seems to be run by left wing children of the 60's, and I don't like political manipulators, which is mostly what those people are (warning, that's a generalisation alert!).

 

Don't you know the facts about this?

 

When assault takes place, the victim can, if they wish, press charges. The Police are then duty bound to investigate and take further cation if deemed necessary, but it the victim doesn't wish to press charges, the police are at liberty not to investigate. I know this (unless things have changed since) - in 1995 my ex wife assaulted me outside the court after the divorce hearing, the Police investigated and threatened to charge with assault until they learnt the ex wife had not only lied, she also hadn't told them about just losing the divorce settlement that meant she lost the house she claimed was hers etc. Strangely, the police didn't press charges against me - can't work out why!

 

If, however, an assault has taken place and the victim doesn't press charges, the police can investigate and press charges themselves. I forget exactly what the charges are for, but that is what they were looking at following the Clarkson incident.

 

 

Before the Police became involved, Oisin Tymon stated that he wouldn't be pressing charges. Following the publication of the BBC internal investigation, the North Yorkshire Police took the BBC report and, following further investigations, no further action was taken.

 

It's no bias on my part as to whether Clarkson is guilty or not - I'm looking at the facts and deciding that if the police aren't taking matters further, perhaps he's not as guilty as those who want to deride him, run him down etc. make out.

 

Phil

[Stanley Melrose]

Unfortunately, in this day and age, "talent", "star" and "legend" are applied to people who have no right to those appelations.

 

Clarkson epitomises this, IMHO.

 

Good riddance . . .

 

Now if only his Murdoch contract were not to be renewed he would probably vanish up his fundamental orifice (to enjoy his £millions).

 

Now if only Murdoch could behave in a similar fashion  . . .

 

Stan

[Bernard Lamb]

I fully agree with your second and third paragraphs, BUT if someone socked me at work I would have expected them to be summarily dismissed (after an investigation) for gross misconduct.

 

Ed

Back in my day if you hit another employee and there was a third party present who saw what happened then it was instant dismissal for gross misconduct. No investigation, no appeal, no meeting. Out on the spot.

You knew the rules and you kept to them.

Oh the joy of a PC world.

Bernard

[stovepipe]

Yes, I have links.

 

Why makes you think I dislike the BBC? I think the BBC is a fantastic institution, sadly it seems to be run by left wing children of the 60's, and I don't like political manipulators, which is mostly what those people are (warning, that's a generalisation alert!).

 

Don't you know the facts about this?

 

When assault takes place, the victim can, if they wish, press charges. The Police are then duty bound to investigate and take further cation if deemed necessary, but it the victim doesn't wish to press charges, the police are at liberty not to investigate. I know this (unless things have changed since) - in 1995 my ex wife assaulted me outside the court after the divorce hearing, the Police investigated and threatened to charge with assault until they learnt the ex wife had not only lied, she also hadn't told them about just losing the divorce settlement that meant she lost the house she claimed was hers etc. Strangely, the police didn't press charges against me - can't work out why!

 

If, however, an assault has taken place and the victim doesn't press charges, the police can investigate and press charges themselves. I forget exactly what the charges are for, but that is what they were looking at following the Clarkson incident.

 

 

Before the Police became involved, Oisin Tymon stated that he wouldn't be pressing charges. Following the publication of the BBC internal investigation, the North Yorkshire Police took the BBC report and, following further investigations, no further action was taken.

 

It's no bias on my part as to whether Clarkson is guilty or not - I'm looking at the facts and deciding that if the police aren't taking matters further, perhaps he's not as guilty as those who want to deride him, run him down etc. make out.

 

Phil

 

I'm not sure I agree about your take on the BBC, but given some of the right-wing nut jobs who run certain newspapers then perhaps the BBC is correctly a counterweight in some respects, and needs to be for our democracy. I don't notice much bias in their news output; if anything I feel they support whoever is in government, particularly in recent times. Still no links I see to your claim the BBC are behind his no show on HIGNFY however.

 

Yes, I know all of that about the Police, but I very much doubt the CPS are going to entertain a case where the alleged victim does not want to press charges. There would have to be an over-riding public interest, which I very much doubt exists in the Clarkson case. Given that many people apparently think it's OK to lamp someone at work, if you have enough talent, I doubt the Police where ever going to go there. This does not mean it didn't happen, which seems to be the line you are taking.

 

I really do wonder why people are getting themselves into such contortions trying to support Clarkson; he must be like some kind of messiah to them.

[hayfield]

I thought those at the BBC were a cross breed between liberals and labour, with a bit of Scottish intendant thrown in plus any other loony idea that is doing the rounds at the time. Still most lovies like to pretend that they are something they are not, 

 

Edit

 

I don't like the Tories much either, before the lefties want to string me up. I class all politicians with the likes of estate agents and double glazing salesmen. My vote goes to the pub landlord 

[PGC]

I'm not sure I agree about your take on the BBC, but given some of the right-wing nut jobs who run certain newspapers then perhaps the BBC is correctly a counterweight in some respects, and needs to be for our democracy. I don't notice much bias in their news output; if anything I feel they support whoever is in government, particularly in recent times. Still no links I see to your claim the BBC are behind his no show on HIGNFY however.

 

Yes, I know all of that about the Police, but I very much doubt the CPS are going to entertain a case where the alleged victim does not want to press charges. There would have to be an over-riding public interest, which I very much doubt exists in the Clarkson case. Given that many people apparently think it's OK to lamp someone at work, if you have enough talent, I doubt the Police where ever going to go there. This does not mean it didn't happen, which seems to be the line you are taking.

 

I really do wonder why people are getting themselves into such contortions trying to support Clarkson; he must be like some kind of messiah to them.

 

So now you're the BBC supporter. Are you a closet left wing child of the 60's? Have we just outed you?

[hayfield]

I'm not sure I agree about your take on the BBC, but given some of the right-wing nut jobs who run certain newspapers then perhaps the BBC is correctly a counterweight in some respects, and needs to be for our democracy. I don't notice much bias in their news output; if anything I feel they support whoever is in government, particularly in recent times. Still no links I see to your claim the BBC are behind his no show on HIGNFY however.

 

Yes, I know all of that about the Police, but I very much doubt the CPS are going to entertain a case where the alleged victim does not want to press charges. There would have to be an over-riding public interest, which I very much doubt exists in the Clarkson case. Given that many people apparently think it's OK to lamp someone at work, if you have enough talent, I doubt the Police where ever going to go there. This does not mean it didn't happen, which seems to be the line you are taking.

 

I really do wonder why people are getting themselves into such contortions trying to support Clarkson; he must be like some kind of messiah to them.

 

 

I thought the BBC was superposed to be neutral, counter weight. More like dead weights, and where have all the model railway shows gone!!!!