Jeremy Clarkson and the future of Top Gear

[TheKnightWho]

And so the mixed messages from the BBC continue…

Jeremy Clarkson: Return not ruled out, says senior BBC figure



So, maybe we'll get the remaining 3 episodes using a Clarkson mannequin, then back to normal for 2016?

I can't help thinking that someone in BBC senior management should probably be fired over the overall saga. My nomination is Danny Cohen, for his spectacular mishandling of it, causing a needless media storm which significantly impaired the proper handling of the fracas.

An employee punches another employee. You want to fire the boss.

These are getting even more funny

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Clarkson's blast at the charity do came long after the incompetence from management started, and might well not have happened if they had handled the situation better. The blast was entirely in character for him, given the circumstances, and I am quite convinced by the explanation that it was primarily an act aimed at boosting the bids during the charity auction.

The only thing that I take from your response about that was made in answer to a posting of mine is that the "character" of Clarkson is indeed flawed.

To say that after committing the verbal and assault actions, his following tirade against the BBC was entirely in character for him, would appear something that would certainly NOT be used by a lawyer acting for the defence in a court case, but would be used by those acting for the prosecution.

 

[Murph]

An employee punches another employee. You want to fire the boss.

I don't think that Cohen should go because of anything that Clarkson did, but because he demonstrated a serious lack of judgement in the way that he handled the matter. Cohen was correct to initiate an investigation and disciplinary process, but the way he went about it was severely lacking. Clarkson's guilt or innocence, or his act at the charity event, has absolutely no bearing on Cohen's lack of judgement, they are two separate issues.

 

[CallySleeper]

Before comment is further made on the matter of BBC staff being dismissed, let us all remember that if Clarkson had behaved in a correct manner on the night in question and not in the manner that is now stated in a BBC official response, which is totally and utterly reprehensible, there would not now be the situation that so exists.

The blame lies in the hands of the perpetrator himself who in the interim time period between his actions that evening and the official BBC statement made yesterday, did indeed launch himself upon a verbal tirade against the BBC rather than making a simple and honest public admission of his actions coupled with a deep and sincere apology for them

So Paul what you're effectively saying is that the hundreds of millions of pounds the BBC will now loose is solely because of Clarkson, and that the way this was publicly handled was sound and not in any way self-destructive?

Also, remind me again who made the initial "simple and honest admission of his actions".

 

[Tetchytyke]

I don't think that Cohen should go because of anything that Clarkson did, but because he demonstrated a serious lack of judgement in the way that he handled the matter.

What would you have done differently? Buried your head in the sand? Pretend it didn't happen? Carry on as normal?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

So Paul what you're effectively saying is that the hundreds of millions of pounds the BBC will now loose is solely because of Clarkson, and that the way this was publicly handled was sound and not in any way self-destruction

I have said this quite a few times and I will reiterate it here once again. Clarkson himself was the sole driving force in this matter by his original actions and his subsequent actions. He is the architect of his own downfall from grace, yet there are people who feel that because the BBC have taken a course of action entirely correct in terms of accepted and recognised disciplinary procedure culminating in the decision they have made, that fault lies with them.

In my career at the highest echelons of Senior Management, there have been two occasions where I have had to chair a committee of disciplinary enquiry into quite senior staff members of just one level removed from mine, but never once did I or any other members of the panel charged with the said investigation allow the high company status of both these two managers to sway our judgement in any way whatsoever.

 

[Murph]

What would you have done differently? Buried your head in the sand? Pretend it didn't happen? Carry on as normal?

1. Thank Clarkson for coming forward to admit the incident.
2. Immediately contact the DG due to the high value assets involved.
3. Consult the DG on who would be best placed to act as an impartial investigator.
4. Briefly talk to Tymon to check on his welfare, what his thoughts are on the event, and assure him that it's being taken seriously and will be investigated.
5. Start the investigation.
6. Seek assurances from Clarkson that there will be no short term repeat of his actions.
7. Seek assurances from Wilman that there will be no short term repeat, and that he will personally keep an eye on Clarkson.
8. Instruct everyone to keep the matter private and internal to the BBC while the investigation proceeds.
9. Carry on as normal with the show, and everything else, until such times as the investigation had something to report.
10. Get everyone relevant into a meeting once the investigation had reported, to both try to mediate any issues, and agree on an acceptable way forward.
11. Discuss everything with the DG fully before any actions or public statements are made.

Or in far simpler terms, there was absolutely no need for the immediate and high profile suspension prior to investigation. That single decision by Cohen was the start of the path to maximum disruption, maximum chaos, maximum public pressure, maximum damage to high value assets, and maximum harm to income from TG. It turned what should have been a fairly simple process into a worldwide media event.

 

[CallySleeper]

I have said this quite a few times and I will reiterate it here once again. Clarkson himself was the sole driving force in this matter by his original actions and his subsequent actions. He is the architect of his own downfall from grace, yet there are people who feel that because the BBC have taken a course of action entirely correct in terms of accepted and recognised disciplinary procedure culminating in the decision they have made, that fault lies with them.

Right, and there's no way the BBC could have further helped themselves? What about Cohen's actions?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

1. Seek assurances from Clarkson that there will be no short term repeat of his actions.

Based upon past committed iniquities committed by Clarkson that surely must have been a matter of discussions between the BBC and Clarkson, plus his apparent lack of learning from his past iniquities, how much credence would the BBC now place on any such assurances given by Clarkson.

 

[muz379]

Why do you not think that if a criminal charge against this person actually went to trial on the same assault charges that are myriad in number each year in Britain that a fair trial would not be possible.

All that needs to be viewed was that the accused would be charged with the offence and the case would be tried under due process of law. Surely you are not saying that the judiciary of Britain are swayed by the accused being a known personage, as there have been countless examples in Britain of such accused being tried without reference to their status in society.

There is no guarantee that for a first offence he would even face charges . The police may decide that a caution is a more suitable way to deal with this matter . And even if it did end up in court it would only be heard in a magistrates courts , magistrates are lay members and could very well be influenced by Clarksons celebrity or by the countless stories put forward by the media thus inhibiting his right to a fair trial .


As for the BBC management course of action . If there was no filming left to do on the remaining 3 episodes of this series they could have aired them whilst investigating this matter quietly in the background and then at the end of the series made an announcement . That would have prevented the hype whipped up by the media as well as saved the BBC a lot of money it is now going to have to pay out for cancelled episodes .

If however more filming was required to complete the series then it is absolutely right that Clarkson was suspended otherwise to continue filming would have allowed him, the victim and witnesses of his attack to continue working together whilst the matter was investigated . That would have been completely wrong . In the case that more filming was required the BBC had its hands tied really because they could not continue filming but had to explain to the public why there was now a gap in its Sunday evening schedule .

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Right, and there's no way the BBC could have further helped themselves? What about Cohen's actions?

The issue at hand in my mind has been a following of correct procedural course of action by the BBC. If external viewpoints by media personages are made to move the emphasis of blame away from Clarkson to the BBC, then that is a decision they have chosen to make, which no doubt would see them somewhat perplexed at the actual outcome of the BBC enquiry.

The BBC have no need whatsoever to "have further helped themselves" to use your own phrase and I am sure that those charged with legal matters who act for the BBC would have carefully advised upon the course of action to take in the time periods prior to the setting up of the disciplinary enquiry and during the course of same.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Or in far simpler terms, there was absolutely no need for the immediate and high profile suspension prior to investigation.

Clarkson was Tymon's manager. Do you believe it appropriate for a manager to continue managing an employee he has allegedly assaulted (and has admitted assaulting)?

Do you think the outcome of the investigation- gross misconduct- would have been different without a suspension?

Are you really just sad that a programme you enjoy has reached the end of its natural life?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

There is no guarantee that for a first offence he would even face charges . The police may decide that a caution is a more suitable way to deal with this matter . And even if it did end up in court it would only be heard in a magistrates courts , magistrates are lay members and could very well be influenced by Clarksons celebrity or by the countless stories put forward by the media thus inhibiting his right to a fair trial .

Two of my sons are magistrates, one in Greater Manchester, the other in Suffolk. They have told me in the past of the original training they received then having to attend training updates at following time periods. Any magistrate acting in the way that you so intimate would be subject to the force of the law and quite rightly so.

To say that magistrates will be affected by so-called "celebrity" status is a comment that I will equate to be on the same level as those postings upon the "Football" thread on this website that state referees in matches where Manchester United play are swayed by the "celebrity" status of that club and its players.

 

[oldman]

[8]Instruct everyone to keep the matter private and internal to the BBC while the investigation proceeds.

I am sure that would have been easy - media people are noted for their reluctance to gossip. It would have come out, and then the criticism would have been for a cover-up.

Bottom line is, high-value assets should not attack (presumably) lower-value assets.

 

[Busaholic]

1. Seek assurances from Wilman that there will be no short term repeat, and that he will personally keep an eye on Clarkson

1. 
   
   This reminds me of the guy on charge in India for raping then murdering a female bus passenger - his defence that it was all her fault for resisting him, apparently said with a sneer. What assurances would be sought from Wilman - that he shouldn't be so careless as to have an unprotected head when he's around Clarkson in case C fancies a bit of physical? I think there's been more rubbish spoken on this subject than on any other since 31st August 1997 and its aftermath.Apart from anything else, Clarkson will always deserve opprobrium as a journalist fot using his money and influence to prevent press reporting of his private affairs, which spoke volumes.
   
   Clarkson hasn't been sacked anyway: he hasn't had his contract renewed, a situation which tens of thousands people a year face in this country. I've been in the situation myself, and there's nothing you can do about it basically, even if you feel aggrieved. At least Clarkson won't be able to get his ego massaged in front of a tribunal, a process which would have required the massage parlours of England to be denuded of staff for the duration, so massive is the ego.

 

[Murph]

Clarkson was Tymon's manager. Do you believe it appropriate for a manager to continue managing an employee he has allegedly assaulted (and has admitted assaulting)?

Do you think the outcome of the investigation- gross misconduct- would have been different without a suspension?

Are you really just sad that a programme you enjoy has reached the end of its natural life?

It would have been quite possible to ensure that they were kept apart and/or protected while the investigation proceeded, without suspending him and the show. I think that the investigation and decision process is something which should have been done quietly and in private, without the media circus. I have no idea if the outcome would have been different, but I do think that the handling of it was damaging and prejudicial.

I do not believe that it is appropriate to draw black and white lines, a one size badly fits all, for how to deal with these things. Personally, I have witnessed a manager and employee having a drunken street brawl on a company night out. In that case it was an isolated incident from an argument which escalated, but all was good once it was out of their systems. They shook hands, apologised, and moved on; there was no formal disciplinary action; and they continued to work together just fine afterwards. In that case, no action was the correct action, and others informally watched them both for a while to ensure that all was good.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What assurances would be sought from Wilman - that he shouldn't be so careless as to have an unprotected head when he's around Clarkson in case C fancies a bit of physical?

Wilman is the TG Executive Producer, Clarkson's friend and peer, someone well placed to act as temporary minder while the investigation proceeds, someone with the position and authority to ensure that Clarkson and Tymon don't need to work together or cross paths until the matter is resolved.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

We do appear to have been subjected to yet another outbreak of "Clarkson apologist syndrome" upon this thread.

 

[yorkie]

It's unbelievable how some people think that someone who they like, who is famous, should be able to get away with something that the rest of us would NOT get away with.

I think times are slowly changing, and famous people are able to get away with a lot less than they were able to get away with, but they still do get away with some things, and when they're caught bang to rights, there's still outrage among some of their supporters.

Absolutely if they were the victim, they'd not be making the same arguments.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It would have been quite possible to ensure that they were kept apart and/or protected while the investigation proceeded, without suspending him and the show.

And how does one do that- Tymon is a producer, not a teaboy- without keeping one of them at home?

I can't decide what's more hilarious, the Clarkson apologism or the tinfoil hattery (I'm guessing Danny Cohen (who he, ed?) was in the grassy knoll too).

The Huffington Post got the whole thing right in their headline yesterday: MAN LOSES JOB AFTER PUNCHING COLLEAGUE IN FACE.

 

[muz379]

Two of my sons are magistrates, one in Greater Manchester, the other in Suffolk. They have told me in the past of the original training they received then having to attend training updates at following time periods. Any magistrate acting in the way that you so intimate would be subject to the force of the law and quite rightly so.

To say that magistrates will be affected by so-called "celebrity" status is a comment that I will equate to be on the same level as those postings upon the "Football" thread on this website that state referees in matches where Manchester United play are swayed by the "celebrity" status of that club and its players.

The full force of the law yeah sure , Just like when the magistrate that made completely wrong and backwards comments about a gay family that wished to adopt was sent for "equality training" instead of being dismissed from such a responsible role . I'm sorry but my reading and understanding and views of lay magistrates is that as a system it is outdated and either needs replacing or bringing up to date .

It is not true that any magistrate acting in this way would face the full force of the law , it is actually the case that any magistrate caught acting that way . and full force of the law as many cases have shown merely means they will be retrained despite having obvious prejudices and a gross inability to act with fairness and integrity .

In the case of Clarkson a magistrate could easily hand down a lesser sentence to Mr Clarkson and nobody would or could bat an eyelid . There have been several studies and reams of data out there showing the massive disparity in sentences magistrates hand down in seemingly similar cases .


As for the football thread , I do not know as I do not frequent there as I am not a fan of football .

 

[Tetchytyke]

Lay magistrates do not sit alone, they sit in a panel of three.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

1. Thank Clarkson for coming forward to admit the incident.
2. Immediately contact the DG due to the high value assets involved.
3. Consult the DG on who would be best placed to act as an impartial investigator.
4. Briefly talk to Tymon to check on his welfare, what his thoughts are on the event, and assure him that it's being taken seriously and will be investigated.
5. Start the investigation.
6. Seek assurances from Clarkson that there will be no short term repeat of his actions.
7. Seek assurances from Wilman that there will be no short term repeat, and that he will personally keep an eye on Clarkson.
8. Instruct everyone to keep the matter private and internal to the BBC while the investigation proceeds.
9. Carry on as normal with the show, and everything else, until such times as the investigation had something to report.
10. Get everyone relevant into a meeting once the investigation had reported, to both try to mediate any issues, and agree on an acceptable way forward.
11. Discuss everything with the DG fully before any actions or public statements are made.

Substitute 'Savile' for 'Clarkson' and you might get some idea of what's wrong with following the procedure you've just outlined when an alleged crime against an innocent victim occurs at a place of employment. (And yes, I am well aware that Savile's crimes were massively more serious and horrific. The point here is, what do you do when someone commits a crime that harms another person while working for you).

 

[muz379]

Lay magistrates do not sit alone, they sit in a panel of three.

Right you are , When I speak of "magistrate" I mean the bench as a whole as they rarely if ever disagree amongst themselves

 

[Oswyntail]

1. Thank Clarkson for coming forward to admit the incident.
2. Immediately contact the DG due to the high value assets involved.
3. Consult the DG on who would be best placed to act as an impartial investigator.
4. Briefly talk to Tymon to check on his welfare, what his thoughts are on the event, and assure him that it's being taken seriously and will be investigated.
5. Start the investigation.
6. Seek assurances from Clarkson that there will be no short term repeat of his actions.
7. Seek assurances from Wilman that there will be no short term repeat, and that he will personally keep an eye on Clarkson.
8. Instruct everyone to keep the matter private and internal to the BBC while the investigation proceeds.
9. Carry on as normal with the show, and everything else, until such times as the investigation had something to report.
10. Get everyone relevant into a meeting once the investigation had reported, to both try to mediate any issues, and agree on an acceptable way forward.
11. Discuss everything with the DG fully before any actions or public statements are made.

Or in far simpler terms, there was absolutely no need for the immediate and high profile suspension prior to investigation. That single decision by Cohen was the start of the path to maximum disruption, maximum chaos, maximum public pressure, maximum damage to high value assets, and maximum harm to income from TG. It turned what should have been a fairly simple process into a worldwide media event.

How many of the items on that list did not happen? You have absolutely no idea, and neither do I. The penultimate item seems not to have occurred, but had really been pre-empted by Mr Buffoon and his various public utterances anyway.
I would say that the suspension was almost mandatory in the current climate anyway - the BBC of all organisations cannot be seen to be treating star employees as if they are above the law. That news of the suspension was kept under wraps for a few days, and then "leaked" suggests some behind the scenes consideration was going on.
And, as you seem to refuse to admit, the "start of the path" was actually Clarkson assaulting a co-worker. This despite all the assurances of personal reform bandied about after previous incidents. Grown-ups should not behave like that - grown-ups should not support them in their behaviour.

 

[Murph]

It's unbelievable how some people think that someone who they like, who is famous, should be able to get away with something that the rest of us would NOT get away with.

I think times are slowly changing, and famous people are able to get away with a lot less than they were able to get away with, but they still do get away with some things, and when they're caught bang to rights, there's still outrage among some of their supporters.

Absolutely if they were the victim, they'd not be making the same arguments.

I'm not arguing that he should have "got away" with it, but that I really don't like the way that it was handled.

If I was the victim, one of three things would have happened, either I'd have found a way to organise some hot food, or I'd have successfully told him to F.O. and walked away somewhere around the 5 minute mark, or he'd also be sporting some injuries if an assault occurred despite trying to walk away. For me, either outcome would be the end of it, as long as he also left it alone at that point (ideally shaking hands and apologising for the verbals later on). I certainly wouldn't be interested in a process that caused a huge media circus.

As it stands, the way things were handled by Cohen resulted in a fairly poor outcome for Tymon as well. For the record, I don't think he deserves the hate that he's reportedly receiving, and think he should be left alone. I am quite mystified by him taking verbal abuse for so long without walking away from it, quite confused why he couldn't have thrown some of the show's big money at the problem to get some hot food arranged, but that doesn't justify a physical attack. Better handling of the situation by Cohen could have given Tymon a better outcome.

And how does one do that- Tymon is a producer, not a teaboy- without keeping one of them at home?

Well, in this case, they were effectively both suspended anyway, as the show itself had to be suspended without Clarkson. TG is a big show, it has a production team, not a single producer. It should have been quite possible to give Tymon useful work appropriate to his position and talents, while simultaneously keeping him some distance from Clarkson.

 

[muz379]

If I was the victim, one of three things would have happened, either I'd have found a way to organise some hot food, or I'd have successfully told him to F.O. and walked away somewhere around the 5 minute mark, or he'd also be sporting some injuries if an assault occurred despite trying to walk away. For me, either outcome would be the end of it, as long as he also left it alone at that point (ideally shaking hands and apologising for the verbals later on). I certainly wouldn't be interested in a process that caused a huge media circus.

Apart from the bit about Organizing hot food , how do we not know that the Victim merely wanted to leave it alone , draw a line under the incident and get on with it . Heck how do we know this producer didnt try and move heaven and hearth to get Clarkson some hot food ?

Bearing in mind it was Clarkson himself who reported the matter to the BBC . And out of the two people involved in this incident the producer is the one who has the most to loose . Clarkson could never work again and still afford a life of luxury , but the massive talent that Clarkson is its obvious he wont struggle to find work .
Meanwhile the downfall of top gear is not in any way in the interests of a producer who works on that program . Sure he has skills as a producer but he might never get to work on another program as big as top gear .

 

[Murph]

Substitute 'Savile' for 'Clarkson' and you might get some idea of what's wrong with following the procedure you've just outlined when an alleged crime against an innocent victim occurs at a place of employment. (And yes, I am well aware that Savile's crimes were massively more serious and horrific. The point here is, what do you do when someone commits a crime that harms another person while working for you).

One size does not fit all. Based on the scale of the reported injuries, and comments by James May, I believe the assault was likely quite minor, most likely some shoving and a single punch (or similar). The response should be tailored to the incident.

Something more serious, and it would be more appropriate to hand it over to the police instead.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The full force of the law yeah sure , Just like when the magistrate that made completely wrong and backwards comments about a gay family that wished to adopt was sent for "equality training" instead of being dismissed from such a responsible role . I'm sorry but my reading and understanding and views of lay magistrates is that as a system it is outdated and either needs replacing or bringing up to date .

It is not true that any magistrate acting in this way would face the full force of the law , it is actually the case that any magistrate caught acting that way . and full force of the law as many cases have shown merely means they will be retrained despite having obvious prejudices and a gross inability to act with fairness and integrity .

Having read this posting, I decided that a good course of action would be to ring my son who is a magistrate in Suffolk. He wishes to inform you that there is a Common Law offence that concerns Perverting the Course of Justice.

As has already been said on this thread, there are three magistrates that sit upon cases brought to them and should one of these express any personal views of being swayed by the status of the accused, the other two magistrates are then beholden to act accordingly. I am told that I cannot reveal any subsequent actions that will be then taken against the said errant magistrate, save to say that matters will not just be "glossed over" by the relevant legal body.

 

[rdeez]

1. Thank Clarkson for coming forward to admit the incident.
2. Immediately contact the DG due to the high value assets involved.

...[redacted list of things that may or may not have actually happened]

Or in far simpler terms, there was absolutely no need for the immediate and high profile suspension prior to investigation... [snip]

Sorry, but you've got your head lost in the clouds of your own opinions. Whether or not Clarkson was suspended, it wouldn't have made the slightest difference to the media attention - given the many, many witnesses! Furthermore, it may well be BBC policy that where someone is suspected of gross misconduct, they must be suspended pending investigation - that's certainly the policy in the organisations I have worked for. That being the case, policy can't just be disregarded because the person it is being applied to is well known.

And, as others have rightfully pointed out, non-suspension would have meant continuing production on the remaining episodes of Top Gear. This would have meant the victim having to work under the aggressor, with the matter under investigation - unless you think Tymon should have been reassigned to other duties while Jeremy continued filming? But that would have been entirely unfair on Tymon, as he was not under investigation.

The BBC's statements during the investigation have been mostly "We will announce an outcome when we have one". I can't really see how they could have handled things much differently.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

One size does not fit all. Based on the scale of the reported injuries, and comments by James May, I believe the assault was likely quite minor, most likely some shoving and a single punch (or similar). The response should be tailored to the incident.

Something more serious, and it would be more appropriate to hand it over to the police instead.

Your posting again reveals a total lack of impartiality:-
1)...James May is a colleague of Clarkson whose views on the matter will not be impartial.
2)...Where does your belief that the said assault only involved "some shoving and a single punch" emanate from. A single punch in itself constitutes an assault, but perhaps your view of the law is somewhat different than mine.

Why is it that the police have chosen to investigate the matter if it is as simple as you state.