Jeremy Clarkson and the future of Top Gear

[Murph]

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 .

We still don't know the full story, quite probably never will. My paragraph you referenced is in response to the "what if you were the victim?" aspect of the discussion. I have no idea what Tymon wanted to happen, other than presumably to keep his job and for TG's success to continue.

In the current situation, Tymon effectively loses, possibly in the long term. There's a real risk that he could permanently end up being "the guy who couldn't organise food for Clarkson", whether or not he deserves that tag line. He may well have lost his TG job anyway. The media circus might well have damaged his career. That is something which could have possibly been more likely avoided if Cohen had handled the situation better. I wonder if Tymon was even consulted before the whole thing was handed over to the public media circus? He clearly had the good sense to keep his head down, and I wonder if he'd have preferred a much quieter, private process.

Tymon should not have to put up with being punched at work, it's not part of a producer's job, I have absolutely no problem with that point. Getting yelled at by talent, that is arguably part of the job, but something that a producer should be able to walk away from with impunity if it's starting to cross lines, going on too long, or looking like it could escalate. That he kept his head down, didn't involve the police, and didn't complain to the BBC; that all suggests to me that he would have preferred a much quieter outcome, and likely have been much better off from a quieter outcome.

 

[muz379]

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.

Funny that , I remember coming across the offence mentioned in my reading of law at university . I also however recall reading many instances of "errant" magistrates acting in a manner that is inappropriate . I also recall reading about the apparent disparity between sentences passed down by magistrates in cases of a similar nature .Just because the law says X should happen does not mean that X will always happen .
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

We still don't know the full story, quite probably never will. My paragraph you referenced is in response to the "what if you were the victim?" aspect of the discussion. I have no idea what Tymon wanted to happen, other than presumably to keep his job and for TG's success to continue.

In the current situation, Tymon effectively loses, possibly in the long term. There's a real risk that he could permanently end up being "the guy who couldn't organise food for Clarkson", whether or not he deserves that tag line. He may well have lost his TG job anyway. The media circus might well have damaged his career. That is something which could have possibly been more likely avoided if Cohen had handled the situation better. I wonder if Tymon was even consulted before the whole thing was handed over to the public media circus? He clearly had the good sense to keep his head down, and I wonder if he'd have preferred a much quieter, private process.

Tymon should not have to put up with being punched at work, it's not part of a producer's job, I have absolutely no problem with that point. Getting yelled at by talent, that is arguably part of the job, but something that a producer should be able to walk away from with impunity if it's starting to cross lines, going on too long, or looking like it could escalate. That he kept his head down, didn't involve the police, and didn't complain to the BBC; that all suggests to me that he would have preferred a much quieter outcome, and likely have been much better off from a quieter outcome.

Maybe the producer was more worried about his ongoing relationship with Clarkson in the instance that the BBC let Clarkson off the hook in this instance .
Or Maybe Clarkson reported himself before the Tymon had chance to report it himself .

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

That he kept his head down, didn't involve the police, and didn't complain to the BBC; that all suggests to me that he would have preferred a much quieter outcome, and likely have been much better off from a quieter outcome.

This part of your posting is one that I shall not make any constructive comment upon, save to say that I hope that you are never considered for the role of a mediation advisor.

 

[muz379]

We really wont know .

I agree that a quiet resolution to this matter would have been preferable . However there is no way that they could have allowed them to continue filming the show together whilst investigating those allegations .

How else where they supposed to explain the gap in the sunday night schedule ?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Tymon should not have to put up with being punched at work, it's not part of a producer's job, I have absolutely no problem with that point. Getting yelled at by talent, that is arguably part of the job, but something that a producer should be able to walk away from with impunity if it's starting to cross lines, going on too long, or looking like it could escalate. That he kept his head down, didn't involve the police, and didn't complain to the BBC; that all suggests to me that he would have preferred a much quieter outcome, and likely have been much better off from a quieter outcome.

You seriously think that "Getting yelled at by talent" by your manager should be a part of a person's job? I would very strongly disagree there, expecially when the context is, apparently, an extended period of continuous yelling.

I'm also puzzled by your inclusion of the words 'by talent'. Do you believe it's OK for anyone to spend, apparently, 30 minutes, yelling at those who work for them, or should that privilege be reserved only to people of 'talent'?

 

[Murph]

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.

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

Your postings also frankly continue to demonstrate a lack of impartiality on the other side. Honestly, there's probably not a single impartial and unbiased person in this thread at this point, we've all got our biases for or against Clarkson. He's just that sort of person, people either like him or despise him, with relatively little middle ground.

I really can't see May risking his own reputation by being dishonest in what he said after Clarkson's non-renewal was announced. Yes, he's not impartial, but I do think he's overall decent and honest, so I choose to believe him when he says that it was relatively minor and both could and should have been handled without the media circus. My guess that it was likely "some shoving and a single punch", comes from the reported injuries, and everything else reported about the incident, including the official PDF summary of the BBC's inquiry (not a news story, but an official 1 page document released from their corporate pages).

The police are just doing an exercise in arse covering at this point, as far as I can see. I wouldn't bet either way on the possibility of charges at this point

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Your postings also frankly continue to demonstrate a lack of impartiality on the other side. Honestly, there's probably not a single impartial and unbiased person in this thread at this point, we've all got our biases for or against Clarkson. He's just that sort of person, people either like him or despise him, with relatively little middle ground.

I really can't see May risking his own reputation by being dishonest in what he said after Clarkson's non-renewal was announced. Yes, he's not impartial, but I do think he's overall decent and honest, so I choose to believe him when he says that it was relatively minor and both could and should have been handled without the media circus. My guess that it was likely "some shoving and a single punch", comes from the reported injuries, and everything else reported about the incident, including the official PDF summary of the BBC's enquiry (not a news story, but an official 1 page document released from their corporate pages).

The police are just doing an exercise in arse covering at this point, as far as I can see. I wouldn't bet either way on the possibility of charges at this point

By your selective omission of the second part of my posting that states that a single punch in itself constitutes an assault in the hope of not making a response to it by explaining how your version of that matter in law is disingenuous to say the very least.

The final part of your posting is "par for the course" for you, having now done all that you can to cast aspersions upon the BBC, you now compound this by making a supercilious statement about any police action that may be taken.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Your postings also frankly continue to demonstrate a lack of impartiality on the other side. Honestly, there's probably not a single impartial and unbiased person in this thread at this point, we've all got our biases for or against Clarkson. He's just that sort of person, people either like him or despise him, with relatively little middle ground.

FWIW I like Clarkson and like Top Gear, and I've defended him before. But not this time, his behaviour in indefensible.

There goes that theory.

 

[Murph]

By your selective omission of the second part of my posting that states that a single punch in itself constitutes an assault in the hope of not making a response to it by explaining how your version of that matter in law is disingenuous to say the very least.

The final part of your posting is "par for the course" for you, having now done all that you can to cast aspersions upon the BBC, you now compound this by making a supercilious statement about any police action that may be taken.

Excuse me, but that was something which you added to your post after I started replying to it. I included your entire post as it was when I hit the "reply and quote" button (or whatever the forum calls it). I have literally only just seen your edited post. I do trim quotes, for relevance or brevity, but never to do what you are accusing me of, and am quite offended by your accusation! Your accusation, frankly, seems quite dishonest! As far as I can see, I did not trim your post at all. If you are going to retrospectively add significant statements to posts, you must accept that someone may already have started to reply to the original version of your post.

It's common for the police to basically ignore minor assaults if the victim is not interested in pursuing the matter. I have been the victim of a minor assault, spoke to the police very shortly after it (they witnessed it from a distance, but the perpetrator had absconded by the time they arrived, they approached me to ask about it). Despite it being caught on CCTV (something I highlighted to them at the time, to ensure that I would not be accused of throwing the first punch), no action was taken because I indicated that I was not interested in pursuing it.

I stand by my earlier statement, that I view the police action as arse covering at this stage. I'll go further now, and say that it's prudent arse covering, they have to be seen to at least look at the BBC inquiry report. As I said, I wouldn't bet either way on charges arising. I'll expand on that and say that I wouldn't bet either way, unless Tymon wishes to pursue the matter, which I previously considered implicit and obvious.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Excuse me, but that was something which you added to your post after I started replying to it. I included your entire post as it was when I hit the "reply and quote" button (or whatever the forum calls it). I have literally only just seen your edited post. I do trim quotes, for relevance or brevity, but never to do what you are accusing me of, and am quite offended by your accusation! Your accusation, frankly, seems quite dishonest! As far as I can see, I did not trim your post at all. If you are going to retrospectively add significant statements to posts, you must accept that someone may already have started to reply to the original version of your post.

It's common for the police to basically ignore minor assaults if the victim is not interested in pursuing the matter. I have been the victim of a minor assault, spoke to the police very shortly after it (they witnessed it from a distance, but the perpetrator had absconded by the time they arrived, they approached me to ask about it). Despite it being caught on CCTV (something I highlighted to them at the time, to ensure that I would not be accused of throwing the first punch), no action was taken because I indicated that I was not interested in pursuing it.

I stand by my earlier statement, that I view the police action as arse covering at this stage. I'll go further now, and say that it's prudent arse covering, they have to be seen to at least look at the BBC inquiry report. As I said, I wouldn't bet either way on charges arising. I'll expand on that and say that I wouldn't bet either way, unless Tymon wishes to pursue the matter, which I previously considered implicit and obvious.

And you know the victim didn't report him to the police?

Frankly, I really can't see anything in your argument than "he's rich and makes lots of money - he should be able to get away with it."

Funny - that's exactly the attitude people had with Jimmy Savile. We should fighting against nepotism and bias, and not promoting it because we happen to like someone.

Also, have you considered the fact that people are biased against Clarkson because he punched someone because he didn't get food? If he was poor he'd've been branded a thug, and if he was unpopular he'd've been branded a bully. You don't get to get away with stuff because you're a "bloke". It's as simple as that, and frankly it's disgusting that people are outraged that something is being done about it.

 

[muz379]

Your postings also frankly continue to demonstrate a lack of impartiality on the other side. Honestly, there's probably not a single impartial and unbiased person in this thread at this point, we've all got our biases for or against Clarkson. He's just that sort of person, people either like him or despise him, with relatively little middle ground.

There are some postings on here that do seem to espouse the view that they are glad Clarkson has gone because they didn't like him / he was racist/he was a bigot/ he said un PC things . I say to those people he has not been dismissed for any of those reasons . Senior people at the BBC had no problems with the material he produced . He is not having a contract renewal because of an off screen incident with a producer .

As for the Bias , I am quite a fan of Clarkson . Loved top gear in this current format and will certainly watch whatever program it is clarkson(and maybe Hammond & May ) ends up producing for another network (if at all any )

That being said I cant defend his action in attacking a producer . As a fan of top gear I accept that they have to get rid of him . Instead of wishing that the BBC could have handled it differently you should be wishing that Clarkson didn't attack a producer . Because without that none of this would have happened .

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Excuse me, but that was something which you added to your post after I started replying to it. I included your entire post as it was when I hit the "reply and quote" button (or whatever the forum calls it). I have literally only just seen your edited post. I do trim quotes, for relevance or brevity, but never to do what you are accusing me of, and am quite offended by your accusation! Your accusation, frankly, seems quite dishonest! As far as I can see, I did not trim your post at all. If you are going to retrospectively add significant statements to posts, you must accept that someone may already have started to reply to the original version of your post.

Shall we have the records put straight here, as you are now having to "clutch at straws" in an attempt to prove yourself right.

My posting was made at 1232 and edited at 1241.

Your posting was made at 1253 and edited at 1256.

Sorry, but I do not believe your version of matters, as this would suggest a time-gap of some 12 minutes from the edited time of my posting and the subsequent posting made by you.

Do not cast aspersions upon my veracity...

 

[Murph]

That being said I cant defend his action in attacking a producer . As a fan of top gear I accept that they have to get rid of him . Instead of wishing that the BBC could have handled it differently you should be wishing that Clarkson didn't attack a producer . Because without that none of this would have happened .

I've said it in various different ways, he shouldn't have hit the producer, it was wrong. There may or may not be mitigation to at least partially explain it (e.g. stress caused by a demanding schedule, a very long day, and his ongoing divorce; to list a few known things which might well generate stress). Even if there is mitigation, it's still wrong, just wrong with some relevant explanation.

I do wish that Clarkson hadn't hit Tymon. After that, I wish that they could have dusted themselves off, shook hands, and apologised (which Tymon wouldn't be obliged to do, by the account of the inquiry summary). I wish that they could have resolved things amicably before it got to formal inquiry stages (which Tymon had no obligation to do). I also wish that the BBC had handled the situation better, and continue to strongly believe that they could have done so. Wishing that the BBC had handled it better isn't about defending him as much as wishing for a better outcome for all concerned (Clarkson, Tymon, Top Gear, the BBC, and fans).

 

[eastwestdivide]

If the posting was made at 1253, the poster could have clicked "reply" at 1240 before the 1241 edit was committed, and was then writing it/thinking about it for the next 13 minutes, so it's not as clear cut as the times indicate.
Edit: this refers to post 462 above, as post 463 was made while I was writing this one.

 

[muz379]

Sorry, but I do not believe your version of matters, as this would suggest a time-gap of some 12 minutes from the edited time of my posting and the subsequent posting made by you.

Do not cast aspersions upon my veracity...

Excuse me , you cannot claim not to believe someone elses version of events . but then have a tantrum when someone else dare questions you .

I've said it in various different ways, he shouldn't have hit the producer, it was wrong. There may or may not be mitigation to at least partially explain it (e.g. stress caused by a demanding schedule, a very long day, and his ongoing divorce; to list a few known things which might well generate stress). Even if there is mitigation, it's still wrong, just wrong with some relevant explanation.

I do wish that Clarkson hadn't hit Tymon. After that, I wish that they could have dusted themselves off, shook hands, and apologised (which Tymon wouldn't be obliged to do, by the account of the inquiry summary). I wish that they could have resolved things amicably before it got to formal inquiry stages (which Tymon had no obligation to do). I also wish that the BBC had handled the situation better, and continue to strongly believe that they could have done so. Wishing that the BBC had handled it better isn't about defending him as much as wishing for a better outcome for all concerned (Clarkson, Tymon, Top Gear, the BBC, and fans).

I see where you are coming from completely . However personally as a fan the only person I hold responsible for the downfall of the show is Clarkson himself .
The BBC suspended him as there was no way they could accept them working together on the remainder of the series . They had to explain somehow the gap in programming on Sunday evenings . Would they have been better to lie to the public ?

I do think the press holds some responsibility for whipping up a load of hysteria and speculating . That is a massive problem with the 24hr news culture we live in , they have to fill the time with something and its usually speculation because they are not in possession of the full facts . Look at this plane crash in the french alps . Had you read the paper on Wednesday you would have believed the plane suffered an explosive decompression . Now they are running with the story that the co-pilot crashed the plane because of depression or links to terrorism or whatever the latest theory is .

 

[Murph]

Shall we have the records put straight here, as you are now having to "clutch at straws" in an attempt to prove yourself right.

My posting was made at 1232 and edited at 1241.

Your posting was made at 1253 and edited at 1256.

Sorry, but I do not believe your version of matters, as this would suggest a time-gap of some 12 minutes from the edited time of my posting and the subsequent posting made by you.

Do not cast aspersions upon my veracity...

I don't have the precise time that I hit the quote button, but it was prior to your edit. Frankly, I don't give a damn whether you believe me or not. You admit that you added the disputed sentence retrospectively, approximately 9 minutes after your original post, leaving a large window of time for me to quote the previous version and start replying. At my sole discretion, I take as long as I please to type and edit my posts, evidently at least 12 minutes in this case. On controversial discussions, such as this one, I've been known to re-write a reply several times before finally posting it, or leave it on the screen for a while to consider the reply. I can't honestly say for certain how long I spent on that particular message, from quoting to submitting the reply, only that I now know that it was at least 12 minutes, and less than 21 minutes.

I stand by my previous statements on this matter, and continue to consider your accusation to be dishonest. You know damn well that you added that sentence retrospectively, with a significant time window for me to start to reply, and that it is entirely possible that my "version of matters" is entirely truthful.

 

[ainsworth74]

Keep it civil people we seem to be wandering off into a rather off topic discussion about who said what and when.

If you have concerns with a post report it (

) or if you have a personal disagreement keep it to PMs (but remember you can report those also if you have a problem with the contents of a PM).

 

[AM9]

I think that Clarkson's blind followers are of more concern that the person himself. The stupid notion that a petition of any size should take precedent over appropriate action by a responsible organisation following a case of unprovoked assault by a bully in the workplace defies beleif. The subsequent death threats on the victim hopefully will be treated seriously by the authorities.
UK society is still obsessed with celebrity, even Cameron, who will now need to do a quick climb-down from his 'tremendous talent' praise when Clarkson's 'problem' first hit the media.
It's ironic that in the year when we celebrate 800 years since the signing of Magna Carta which established the concept of nobody being above the law, that so many conveniently would trade that to protect a broadcaster's profit, a celebrity bully's continued public presence or even the continuation of a blokeish tv programme!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Excuse me , you cannot claim not to believe someone elses version of events, but then have a tantrum when someone else dare questions you .

....unless of course your name is Jeremy Clarkson...

Tantrum, moi..:roll:

 

[yorkie]

If I was the victim, one of three things would have happened, either I'd have found a way to organise some hot food

Hmm, easier said than done!

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.

So, you're criticising the producer for not swearing and running away, or hitting him back? Maybe I've misunderstood, but that's what it sounds like.

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.

The producer, despite being attacked, didn't report it. It was Clarkson who reported 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,....

How much taxpayers money should be spent to pay the chef to work late into the night?

 

[GB]

There are some postings on here that do seem to espouse the view that they are glad Clarkson has gone because they didn't like him / he was racist/he was a bigot/ he said un PC things . I say to those people he has not been dismissed for any of those reasons . Senior people at the BBC had no problems with the material he produced . He is not having a contract renewal because of an off screen incident with a producer .

.

He might not not have had his contract renewed for that that reason alone, but you have to figure that his past indiscretions probably didn't help. It was already reported that he was very thin ice.

I do wonder if it had been either May or Hammond that throw the punch if the result would have been the same. We will never know for sure.

 

[Darandio]

How much taxpayers money should be spent to pay the chef to work late into the night?

I thought Top Gear wasn't directly funded from the licence fee?

 

[Geezertronic]

I think it is quite frankly moronic to make any comparisons between this and Savile etc... in any capacity. The two are such a distance apart it is unreal.

 

[Murph]

So, you're criticising the producer for not swearing and running away, or hitting him back? Maybe I've misunderstood, but that's what it sounds like.

Honestly, yeah, I am criticising him for not walking away (walk, not run), but that doesn't absolve Clarkson of blame. Walking away is the correct thing to do, when it's gone beyond yelled complaint/criticism from VIP into verbal abuse, when it is starting to cross lines. Telling him to F.O. prior to walking away is a matter of personal choice, personally I would, but others wouldn't. Depending on just how gratuitous the abuse was, I might even choose something far more robust to say before walking away.

As for hitting him back, maybe I would, maybe I wouldn't, but it could easily happen as an immediate instinctive reaction. If I had to bet on it, I'd bet on him ending up with some damage as a result of hitting me without provocation, especially if he'd put effort into verbals prior to it. I'd prefer not to do that, but sometimes instinct overrides preference.

The hypothetical was approximately "how would you feel in Tymon's position?". I'd have walked away long before the climax of the incident, if at all possible, but honestly would quite likely have left some damage on Clarkson if he'd hit me without provocation. Either way, I would not have wanted a big song and dance, or even any formal action, as long as there was a later shaking of hands, exchange of apologies, and agreement to move on, once cooler heads prevailed.

I'm not Tymon, however, and he's entitled to his own reasonable choices. We don't know the entire story, but I really don't understand why he didn't walk away from it. Again, however, that doesn't put blame on him, or take blame off Clarkson, it just confuses me in trying to understand the incident. Good on him for not hitting back, but I'd have no criticism if he had clocked Clarkson as a direct response to being hit.

The producer, despite being attacked, didn't report it. It was Clarkson who reported it.

Yup, 4-5 days later (I think it was Wed to Mon). I do hope that Cohen actually spoke to Tymon properly (to get his take on it, find out how he wanted to proceed) before suspending Clarkson, but frankly I have no confidence in Cohen, and I honestly suspect that he probably thought something like "great, now I've got him, let's throw him to the wolves double quick".

How much taxpayers money should be spent to pay the chef to work late into the night?

None, and none would have been needed. That said, even for a taxpayer funded show, it's only proper to do what's necessary to look after the staff when they are working very long days away from home, especially ensuring that they can get a good meal. Top Gear was net cash positive by a very large margin, so not unreasonable to pay what's needed for catering. Compared to a helicopter from Surrey to Yorkshire, probably a drop in the ocean. Personally, I've managed to get a hot meal without much of a problem after arriving late at night at a good hotel in a remote location, well after the kitchen has closed and the chef had gone home, cooked by the duty manager.

 

[NorthernSpirit]

All I've seen on the past 32 pages is links to left wing papers and people scream race / racsim / racist. Y'know the more people do that, the better chance that a particular libetarian party will get into number 10 on the 8th May.

Anyway, I know of two left wingers who despise of Clarkson and his un PC ways, but life isn't about being wrapped up in cotton wool and being told you can't do this that or the other because someone will find it wasisit, honestly get a grip - life is about getting into scrapes, after all we are human. Me, I do find Top Gear entertaining as its three adults using the kid inside of them either smashing up old bangers or building outragous vehicles such as the Hovervan that only someone in their late teens early to mid twenties would love to do but its far safer watching three adults in their 40's / 50's perform the stunts in a controlled area with the reasurance that there is the emergency services on site should the final take go wrong.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I've said it in various different ways, he shouldn't have hit the producer, it was wrong. There may or may not be mitigation to at least partially explain it (e.g. stress caused by a demanding schedule, a very long day, and his ongoing divorce; to list a few known things which might well generate stress). Even if there is mitigation, it's still wrong, just wrong with some relevant explanation.

I do wish that Clarkson hadn't hit Tymon. After that, I wish that they could have dusted themselves off, shook hands, and apologised (which Tymon wouldn't be obliged to do, by the account of the inquiry summary). I wish that they could have resolved things amicably before it got to formal inquiry stages (which Tymon had no obligation to do). I also wish that the BBC had handled the situation better, and continue to strongly believe that they could have done so. Wishing that the BBC had handled it better isn't about defending him as much as wishing for a better outcome for all concerned (Clarkson, Tymon, Top Gear, the BBC, and fans).

He was under no obligation... but he was perfectly within his rights!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think it is quite frankly moronic to make any comparisons between this and Savile etc... in any capacity. The two are such a distance apart it is unreal.

It's about celebrities not being above the law
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Honestly, yeah, I am criticising him for not walking away (walk, not run), but that doesn't absolve Clarkson of blame. Walking away is the correct thing to do, when it's gone beyond yelled complaint/criticism from VIP into verbal abuse, when it is starting to cross lines. Telling him to F.O. prior to walking away is a matter of personal choice, personally I would, but others wouldn't. Depending on just how gratuitous the abuse was, I might even choose something far more robust to say before walking away.

As for hitting him back, maybe I would, maybe I wouldn't, but it could easily happen as an immediate instinctive reaction. If I had to bet on it, I'd bet on him ending up with some damage as a result of hitting me without provocation, especially if he'd put effort into verbals prior to it. I'd prefer not to do that, but sometimes instinct overrides preference.

The hypothetical was approximately "how would you feel in Tymon's position?". I'd have walked away long before the climax of the incident, if at all possible, but honestly would quite likely have left some damage on Clarkson if he'd hit me without provocation. Either way, I would not have wanted a big song and dance, or even any formal action, as long as there was a later shaking of hands, exchange of apologies, and agreement to move on, once cooler heads prevailed.

I'm not Tymon, however, and he's entitled to his own reasonable choices. We don't know the entire story, but I really don't understand why he didn't walk away from it. Again, however, that doesn't put blame on him, or take blame off Clarkson, it just confuses me in trying to understand the incident. Good on him for not hitting back, but I'd have no criticism if he had clocked Clarkson as a direct response to being hit.

You are literally blaming the victim of this incident for following procedure, which was entirely Clarkson's fault. Can you not see how ridiculous that is?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

All I've seen on the past 32 pages is links to left wing papers and people scream race / racsim / racist. Y'know the more people do that, the better chance that a particular libetarian party will get into number 10 on the 8th May.

Anyway, I know of two left wingers who despise of Clarkson and his un PC ways, but life isn't about being wrapped up in cotton wool and being told you can't do this that or the other because someone will find it wasisit, honestly get a grip - life is about getting into scrapes, after all we are human. Me, I do find Top Gear entertaining as its three adults using the kid inside of them either smashing up old bangers or building outragous vehicles such as the Hovervan that only someone in their late teens early to mid twenties would love to do but its far safer watching three adults in their 40's / 50's perform the stunts in a controlled area with the reasurance that there is the emergency services on site should the final take go wrong.

Did you even read this thread? The majority of it has been about whose fault it was and what should be done about it.

And frankly, mocking the concept of racism because "life's hard" is pathetic. It's exactly the attitude that has justified a lot of awful behaviour over the years, and is exactly the problem that needs to be overcome. Life is hard because people make it hard - you shouldn't have to put up with crap just because some people can't get their act together to treat each other like human beings, rather than a laughing stock. Or would you prefer we go back to 1950s attitudes towards women as well for example, where inappropriate comments were all the rage? Life's hard, after all! Why bother doing anything about it?

 

[Murph]

You are literally blaming the victim of this incident for following procedure, which was entirely Clarkson's fault. Can you not see how ridiculous that is?

Um, no! Questioning his actions during the incident, trying to understand them, that's a world apart from blaming him, even if I'm suggesting that there might have been some better choices to make. I even clearly stated that it doesn't shift the blame:

I'm not Tymon, however, and he's entitled to his own reasonable choices. We don't know the entire story, but I really don't understand why he didn't walk away from it. Again, however, that doesn't put blame on him, or take blame off Clarkson, it just confuses me in trying to understand the incident. Good on him for not hitting back, but I'd have no criticism if he had clocked Clarkson as a direct response to being hit.

Following procedure? There's a procedure which says that you can't walk away from verbal abuse? Can't tell the abuser to F.O., then walk away? Can't instinctively hit someone in direct response to them hitting you without provocation? There's a procedure which says a victim shouldn't report an incident? What procedure are we following here?

To me, the only standard procedure is that one should, if possible, try to walk away from confrontational trouble/abuse when it occurs on neutral ground. Why didn't he walk away from the verbal abuse is a perfectly reasonable question, and is not intended to directly assign any portion of the blame. Criticising him for not walking away (and maybe there is a reasonable explanation) does not take any blame off Clarkson. Receiving an unprovoked punch from Clarkson doesn't elevate him to some saintly status where it's unacceptable to question or criticise his actions in any way.

(And, once again, it's not a case of defending Clarkson. Clarkson should not have hit him without provocation, that was wrong.)

 

[DynamicSpirit]

To me, the only standard procedure is that one should, if possible, try to walk away from confrontational trouble/abuse when it occurs on neutral ground. Why didn't he walk away from the verbal abuse is a perfectly reasonable question, and is not intended to directly assign any portion of the blame. Criticising him for not walking away (and maybe there is a reasonable explanation) does not take any blame off Clarkson. Receiving an unprovoked punch from Clarkson doesn't elevate him to some saintly status where it's unacceptable to question or criticise his actions in any way.

It is of course pure speculation (like much of your posts), but if the person giving you verbal abuse is your manager, and he's telling you you're sacked, and you would quite like not to be sacked, that could well be quite a strong incentive to stay to try and calm your manager down.

 

[yorkie]

Why didn't he walk away from the verbal abuse is a perfectly reasonable question...

It's a pointless and utterly irrelevant question.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Um, no! Questioning his actions during the incident, trying to understand them, that's a world apart from blaming him, even if I'm suggesting that there might have been some better choices to make. I even clearly stated that it doesn't shift the blame:

Trying to understand Clarkson's actions? That may well be a noble thing to do But if you are so keen to do that, then it seems strange then that, so far as I can tell from your posts, you have shown no interest at all in trying to understand Danny Cohen's actions, in your rush to call for him to be sacked for doing what appears to be the only sensible thing a manager in his position could do.