Jeremy Clarkson and the future of Top Gear

[DownSouth]

Anyway back on topic If Hammond and May leave then Top Gear on the BBC is dead. Replacement presenters wont work on the show (cue the endless comments about it not being the same etc). Even if they decide to stay the show will struggle to survive without Clarkson, the banter and camerardery between all three is what makes the show work.

For sure.

But I also expect that (if Clarkson's agent didn't put a poison pill in his most recent contract) the BBC will waste a seven figure sum on trying to prove us wrong.

 

[SS4]

For sure.

But I also expect that (if Clarkson's agent didn't put a poison pill in his most recent contract) the BBC will waste a seven figure sum on trying to prove us wrong.

I'd be interested to see if there is a clause which nullifies the contract in cases of gross misconduct. Although I suspect the BBC will pay up anyway to avoid a battle - the reporting has very clearly portrayed the BBC as in the wrong and I do not see that changing

 

[radamfi]

For some reason, I had the impression that Clarkson had a 'moment of madness' when he punched the producer. Maybe I wasn't paying too much attention to the news when it broke. But it would appear that there was verbal abuse for a sustained period followed by 30 seconds of physical violence which was only interrupted by someone else intervening.

So why are we even debating this? It sounds like he should be serving time.

 

[table38]

So why are we even debating this? It sounds like he should be serving time.

It has been reported that the Police have asked to see the BBC's report:

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/mar/25/jeremy-clarkson-police-investigation-bbc-report-top-gear

North Yorkshire police have requested a copy of the BBC report that found Clarkson had been responsible for an “unprovoked physical and verbal attack” on Top Gear producer Oisin Tymon, who sought hospital treatment after the attack.

 

[Failed Unit]

For some reason, I had the impression that Clarkson had a 'moment of madness' when he punched the producer. Maybe I wasn't paying too much attention to the news when it broke. But it would appear that there was verbal abuse for a sustained period followed by 30 seconds of physical violence which was only interrupted by someone else intervening.

So why are we even debating this? It sounds like he should be serving time.

Certainly if that is true it makes it much worse. A one of punch is bad enough (and should still be the same outcome). But 30 seconds battering isnt a rush of blood to the head. Even physical sports wouldn't accept that unpunished

 

[rdeez]

Some very...unorthodox views here, especially the comparison to Saville!

For me it was clear cut. If he was guilty of violence, he should be disciplined. He has been found guilty not just of a single swing, but a sustained assault, which left the producer (who, it was noted, didn't even attempt to retaliate) seeking treatment in A&E. Getting rid of Clarkson wasn't just the right decision, it was the ONLY decision they could logically have reached, without allowing any of their employees / contractors to get away with anything at all.

Tony Hall noted that continuing Top Gear without him would be not at all easy, but they would try.

As for the producer, if he faces bullying or ill treatment as a result of the BBC potentially losing Top Gear revenue, then the BBC might just be finding themselves with a hefty payout for constructive dismissal as well...

 

[Oswyntail]

It seems to be assumed on here that Clarkson could thrive elsewhere. Really, is this certain? He is very much a one-trick pony, and relies heavily, as all TV stars do, on the production team. Not all of them will switch. This is why there is a long list of similar "certs" who have switched channels and bombed.

 

[AM9]

I'd be interested to see if there is a clause which nullifies the contract in cases of gross misconduct. Although I suspect the BBC will pay up anyway to avoid a battle - the reporting has very clearly portrayed the BBC as in the wrong and I do not see that changing

Surely in the case of a contract dispute, it would be a court that determined fault based on evidence not some nebulus idea of wrongdoing portrayed for political or circulation purposes.

 

[Oswyntail]

Surely in the case of a contract dispute, it would be a court that determined fault based on evidence....

Surely we have all heard of people sacked for "gross misconduct". This is not a contract dispute, it is a termination, with sufficient evidence to support it. The "contract" would presumably be a contract of employment.

.... not some nebulus idea of wrongdoing portrayed for political or circulation purposes

He has admitted what happened, witnesses have corroborated the producer's story, and an internal enquiry has found the accounts to be accurate. Only the most one-eyed could still maintain this was "some nebulus idea of wrongdoing portrayed for political or circulation purposes".:roll:

 

[table38]

It seems to be assumed on here that Clarkson could thrive elsewhere. Really, is this certain? He is very much a one-trick pony, and relies heavily, as all TV stars do, on the production team. Not all of them will switch. This is why there is a long list of similar "certs" who have switched channels and bombed.

Not sure about that, he is already thriving quite nicely without Top Gear by writing for the Sunday Times and The Sun, plus he's done plenty of other TV stuff apart from Top Gear:

• Jeremy Clarkson's Motorworld
• Jeremy Clarkson's Extreme Machines
• Jeremy Clarkson's Car Years
• Jeremy Clarkson's Speed
• Jeremy Clarkson Meets the Neighbours
• The Victoria Cross: For Valour
• Inventions That Changed the World
• Jeremy Clarkson: The Greatest Raid of All Time
• An Arctic Convoy Disaster

not to mention a few books:

• Jeremy Clarkson's Motorworld
• Clarkson on Cars
• Clarkson's Hot 100
• Planet Dagenham
• Born to be Riled
• Jeremy Clarkson on Ferrari
• The World According to Clarkson
• I Know You Got Soul
• And Another Thing...
• Don't Stop Me Now!!
• For Crying Out Loud!
• Driven To Distraction
• How Hard Can It Be?
• Round The Bend

Frankly he could probably make a tidy living just by producing Christmas Special DVDs, the ultimate last-minute distress purchase for fathers, uncles, brothers and boyfriends:

• Motorsport Mayhem
• More Motorsport Mayhem
• Motorworld
• Unleashed on Cars
• Extreme Machines
• Apocalypse Clarkson
• The Most Outrageous Jeremy Clarkson Film In The World...Ever!
• Head To Head
• At Full Throttle
• Speed
• Top 100 Cars
• No Limits
• Shoot Out
• Hot Metal
• Heaven & Hell
• The Good, The Bad and the Ugly
• Supercar Showdown
• The Collection
• Thriller
• Duel
• The Italian Job
• War Stories
• Powered Up

Plus there must come a point when you want to stop working and enjoy spending your millions

 

[Oswyntail]

To be fair, a goodly proportion of those look to be the same material (Opinionated bloke says outrageous things in a motoring context). The newspaper writings just stick to the "opinionated bloke" bit.

 

[yorkie]

So why are we even debating this?

Because he's famous and some people who like him don't think the normal rules should apply to him.

If the average person did this, their job would have gone long ago, and they'd be facing charges.

 

[table38]

To be fair, a goodly proportion of those look to be the same material (Opinionated bloke says outrageous things in a motoring context). The newspaper writings just stick to the "opinionated bloke" bit.

So maybe a two trick pony then

 

[jon0844]

[what a motoring show has to do with the usual programs found on History I have no clue]

The same can be said for a lot of shows on History now.

 

[cjmillsnun]

For sure.

But I also expect that (if Clarkson's agent didn't put a poison pill in his most recent contract) the BBC will waste a seven figure sum on trying to prove us wrong.

It doesn't matter. Clarkson, Hammond and May were all on fixed term contracts that have just expired (yesterday). This is a simple matter of non renewal.

As far as a new Top Gear goes. Despite what the beeb have said, I won't expect to see it for a couple of years. They need to let this all die down before trying again.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I know I'm a little late here, but Johnuk123's argument is that because Jimmy Savile was allowed to get away with things 30 years ago that the BBC should let Clarkson get away with this?

I'm genuinely laughing out loud.

 

[AM9]

Surely we have all heard of people sacked for "gross misconduct". This is not a contract dispute, it is a termination, with sufficient evidence to support it. The "contract" would presumably be a contract of employment. He has admitted what happened, witnesses have corroborated the producer's story, and an internal enquiry has found the accounts to be accurate. Only the most one-eyed could still maintain this was "some nebulus idea of wrongdoing portrayed for political or circulation purposes".:roll:

Well Guido Fawkes seems to have lured over a million of those monocular types into an online poll, and since the BBC delivered its judgement, a few twits have made death threats to the victim of the assault, - so it's one eyed and no more than one brain cell!

 

[muz379]

Well Im not entirely surprised they decided not to commit to renewing his contract . Assaulting a producer is a relatively serious matter and the BBC have reached the right decision for the right reasons . Note to everyone talking about his on screen persona the reason for him not having is contract renewed is because of off screen antics .

As for the program . I'm not surprised that Hammond and May are also now talking as if it is the end of top gear for them .I don necessarily agree with May's point that they come as a single unit . All of them have careers themselves as broadcasters and its not inconceivable that they could seek to further their careers individually . May is IMO speaking with the expectation that wherever Clarkson ends up they too will end up which is certainly not guaranteed .

As a fan of top gear in its current(former) format I hope they do end up together producing a very similar show because I enjoyed it . However it is in no way guaranteed in the same way that there is no guarantee is was going to be good every time they produced a new series at the BBC . Fans of the show will just have to wait and see what happens

As for the BBC continuing to produce it , I agree wholeheartedly with a piece I read on the telegraph website earlier which said that the best thing the BBC could seek to do is reinvent the program rather than just trying to find an imitation Clarkson to fill the gap. Whilst this might loose them the 5 million viewers who currently watch top gear , it might find them 5 million other viewers who might want a more serious car show . I certainly would watch a more serious car show even as someone who enjoyed the current top gear format . But then I am one of the "car nerds" earlier mentioned who watched fifth gear from time to time as I actually enjoy a show that tries to discuss motoring facts and reviews normal sensible cars that I can afford .

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It has been reported that the Police have asked to see the BBC's report:

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/mar/25/jeremy-clarkson-police-investigation-bbc-report-top-gear

I do hope that if the evidence shown is clear in its detail, that the law will then follow its normal course of action. Is it not said that the law should be seen to be the same for all in the land?

 

[DownSouth]

Surely we have all heard of people sacked for "gross misconduct". This is not a contract dispute, it is a termination, with sufficient evidence to support it. The "contract" would presumably be a contract of employment.

Any future disputes over non-compete clauses, contractual poison pills killing the show, payment of outstanding royalties or the use of image rights will be contract disputes.

It's also not a termination but simply a non-renewal.

For some reason, I had the impression that Clarkson had a 'moment of madness' when he punched the producer. Maybe I wasn't paying too much attention to the news when it broke. But it would appear that there was verbal abuse for a sustained period followed by 30 seconds of physical violence which was only interrupted by someone else intervening.

This ham-fisted use of "30 seconds" to quantify an act of physical violence is rather hilarious.

Were it being investigated by proper police instead of some BBC hack who learned everything he knew about investigation from a couple of episodes of The Bill, the number of punches/slaps/shoves/kicks/bites etc would be detailed and not the approximate amount of time that elapsed between the first act and the participants disengaging.

It doesn't matter. Clarkson, Hammond and May were all on fixed term contracts that have just expired (yesterday). This is a simple matter of non renewal.

And your experience in the media world is...?

Media contracts are not simply a matter of the person not turning up to work the day after production finishes, they always have implications well beyond the titular expiry date.

The BBC will certainly want to keep on enjoying some of the revenue that Top Gear brings in for sales of previous programs and merchandise. Without having a fair slab of the contract dealing with what happens after production of the show ceases (e.g. the royalties due to the performers and writers) that would be impossible for them.

As far as a new Top Gear goes. Despite what the beeb have said, I won't expect to see it for a couple of years. They need to let this all die down before trying again.

I'd say it would be late 2018 if they don't come to an agreement with Clarkson to mutually release all non-compete clauses going in either direction. Three years is the standard length of non-compete clauses in the media world.

If they do agree to mutually release those obligations, I'd expect it next year.

I do hope that if the evidence shown is clear in its detail, that the law will then follow its normal course of action. Is it not said that the law should be seen to be the same for all in the land?

That includes the right to a fair trial, something which would be absolutely impossible for Clarkson after the BBC's ridiculous semi-public investigation saturated the media all around the world.

I wonder if there was an under-the-table agreement for the BBC to do such a messy investigation that would ruin any attempt at a fair trial in return for Clarkson to not contest the non-renewal?

 

[Bodiddly]

Good riddance! An absolute buffoon using his status to bully and intimidate junior staff members. I am not the only person who thinks that Top Gear is a load of crap and is long due a revamp. This is the chance to get rid of three middle aged tadgers and replace them with real talent.
As for the twitter trolls, faceless keyboard warriors with a severe lack of brain cells. Why would a death threat normally be taken extremely seriously in a phone call or letter but when spouted on tw@tter it's fair game?

 

[AM9]

.... but when spouted on this claptrap site it's fair game?

Which "claptrap site"?

 

[Murph]

And so the mixed messages from the BBC continue…

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

BBC creative director Alan Yentob has said he would not rule out Jeremy Clarkson making a return to the BBC in the future.

"Of course I wouldn't rule that out, but that's not for now," he told the BBC's Newsnight.

…

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.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

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.

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

 

[Tetchytyke]

To be fair, a goodly proportion of those look to be the same material (Opinionated bloke says outrageous things in a motoring context). The newspaper writings just stick to the "opinionated bloke" bit.

Does anyone else remember Clarkson's chat show, the highlight being Damon Hill paintballing a speed camera before it was promptly cancelled?

I'm loving the tinfoil hattery from DownSouth though!

 

[Murph]

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

Of the many things which may be Clarkson's fault, demonstrating gross incompetence in the handling of a fracas by management is not even remotely his fault. That is entirely down to BBC senior management, and Danny Cohen is the worst of the bunch, in my opinion. Cohen had the choice of handling the matter quietly, allowing a formal investigation to happen while not under siege by the nation's press; but instead he chose to go with the most disruptive, most high profile path.

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.

 

[Oswyntail]

And so the mixed messages from the BBC continue…

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

Hardly a "mixed message", more one in keeping with the idea of rehabilitation as a key element of justice. If Clarkson grows up, he could well deserve a return.

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

That is the sort of idea a TG fanboy might think hilariously clever - so might a 14-year old.

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.

I realise you want to lash out because you think someone stole your sweets, but really? Has the "proper handling" been impaired by anyone other than Clarkson, and his public comments? Once the story broke, there was bound to be a "media storm" because the media love kids like Clarkson, and the muppet himself stoked it up. Or are you suggesting that the BBC should have made no comment and investigated behind closed doors because Clarkson was a popular figure in some quarters?
Only one person was responsible for all this. Only one person should be punished in any way.

 

[Murph]

I realise you want to lash out because you think someone stole your sweets, but really? Has the "proper handling" been impaired by anyone other than Clarkson, and his public comments? Once the story broke, there was bound to be a "media storm" because the media love kids like Clarkson, and the muppet himself stoked it up. Or are you suggesting that the BBC should have made no comment and investigated behind closed doors because Clarkson was a popular figure in some quarters?
Only one person was responsible for all this. Only one person should be punished in any way.

I think that the BBC senior management did spectacularly mishandle the situation. There was absolutely no need to go public instantly, choosing the path of maximum disruption and chaos. They should have conducted the investigation quietly before making considered responses. The actions chosen by Cohen were prejudicial to the process, creating an environment where huge pressure was placed on it, instead of enabling an entirely fair and impartial evaluation of fact. I'm choosing to strongly agree with Perry McCarthy, James May, and many others that some of the BBC senior management are basically guilty of gross incompetence.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The actions chosen by Cohen were prejudicial to the process, creating an environment where huge pressure was placed on it, instead of enabling an entirely fair and impartial evaluation of fact.

That BBC conspiracy in full:

1. MALICIOUSLY deprive an adult father of four children of his dindins, FORCING him into delivering a 30-minute tirade of racial abuse and violence that could be heard by hotel guests in their bedrooms.

2. SPITEFULLY and VINDICTIVELY investigate the incident, decide that it had happened and was gross misconduct.

3. ???????????

4. PROFIT
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
On a more serious note, the 30-minute tirade of abuse was heard by hotel staff, hotel guests and other BBC staff working on Top Gear. Do you seriously think that "hear nothing, see nothing, say nothing, do nothing" is an option in that situation? Do you seriously think it wouldn't have been in all the papers the very next day? Do you seriously think it wouldn't have been perceived as a cover-up, protecting a man who was on a final warning because of previous racism?

In any other business people who are accused of violent misconduct are suspended immediately and barred from the premises.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

That includes the right to a fair trial, something which would be absolutely impossible for Clarkson after the BBC's ridiculous semi-public investigation saturated the media all around the world.

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.