Clarkson suspended by the BBC, TG taken off air.

Llamaman said:
I couldn't diagree more. There are many reasons why someone may not wish to report it, but let's consider two extreme examples;

1. It's all a big fuss about nothing. There were some heated words and everyone is fine about it, except some busybody with an axe to grind.
2. The producer is intimidated by Clarkson's influence within the show and feels making a complaint that might get the show's 'talent' sacked (and maybe the show canceled) would be career suicide.

Just because the victim might not want to make a formal complaint doesn't mean there is no offense and certainly doesn't mean management should turn a blind eye. Bullies often get away with their behaviour because no-one ever stands up to them or calls them to account.
We don't know whether that's the case here, but if it's not investigated we'll never know.
Click to expand...


Lots of mights. But back to the original point, I said that if there is no victim there is no assault. An assault in Employment terms is the same as in criminal cases.
So, for it to be that, force has to be applied or threatened, that has to be without the consent of the person threatened (or who had the force applied). So in simple terms, if you have no person complaining about force being applied to them or threatened against them, you have no assault.

Also, you would, in the case of a threat as the assault, you have to have the present ability to commit it, if you are being held back by a group of people, you don't have the present ability. Again, that may be a different disciplinary offence, and again, it has a range of punishments, not just dismissal.

I accept that it has to be investigated, and I haven't suggested it shouldn't be, but you need evidence that the force wasn't lawfully applied, unless the victim says it wasn't, you don't have that.
 
Last edited:
Bernie174 said:
Lots of mights. But back to the original point, I said that if there is no victim there is no assault. An assault in Employment terms is the same as in criminal cases.
So, for it to be that, force has to be applied or threatened, that has to be without the consent of the person threatened (or who had the force applied). So in simple terms, if you have no person complaining about force being applied to them or threatened against them, you have no assault.

Also, you would, in the case of a threat as the assault, you have to have the present ability to commit it, if you are being held back by a group of people, you don't have the present ability. Again, that may be a different disciplinary offence, and again, it has a range of punishments, not just dismissal.

I accept that it has to be investigated, and I haven't suggested it shouldn't be, but you need evidence that the force wasn't lawfully applied, unless the victim says it wasn't, you don't have that.
Click to expand...
But not in terms of the burden of proof, which is "beyond reasonable doubt" in criminal and "balance of probabilities" in employment.

I haven't read the rest of the thread and someone else may have already pointed this out - but JC is very different in real life to his on screen persona, which is just an act to get noticed and push up the ratings.
 
Dave1 said:
Even though Top Gear subsidised the BBC licence payer to the tune of around £50 million IIRC?
Click to expand...

Not worried about that - it's about good programming not sinking down to a that level
 
Garry Edwards said:
But not in terms of the burden of proof, which is "beyond reasonable doubt" in criminal and "balance of probabilities" in employment.
Click to expand...

You are missing the point Garry, it's not the proof that is at issue, its the 'offence' in the first place. An assault is only an assault if there's no consent, if there is consent, or in the case of a threat being treated as assault, an inability to carry it out, ity cannot be an assault. Proof doesn't enter into that.
 
BillN_33 said:
Not worried about that - it's about good programming not sinking down to a that level
Click to expand...

You're joking right? It's all about viewing figures, and for BBC worldwide, revenue figures.
For commercial channels it's all about the advertising revenue.

It's not just the tv programme which is successfully sold, but the magazine has a circulation of 1.7 million worldwide. Then there's the franchises, the live shows, the reruns of the old shows. 3 million subscribers to the youtube channel.

It's a huge brand and the BBC senior management rather look like they've acted without thinking this through and killed the Golden Goose. It's been no secret Cohen doesn't like the current format and wanted to replace a presenter with a female, water down the content.
 
Last edited:
I wanted see cars tested not caravans set on fire and dropped from cranes

bring back Tiff
 
Interesting bit of gossip I've just been told - the current ITV Director Of Comedy And Entertainment is Elaine Bedell. The picture that set of the feud between Clarkson and Piers Morgan, is of Clarkson and Bedell.

I wonder if she will be enticing Clarkson into the bosom of ITV...
 
Well pro wrestling then - just about as realistic
 
If you want to know what's happening, ask the "Tea Lady"
 
Nooooo....

and turn it into a magazine car show. Just no.

Blokeish, childish, moronic buffoonery is exactly why I watch it.

If anyone wants to watch a car review type show, don't watch TG.
 
Sorry Nick - I realised that, but my reply didn't convey that I realised that. If that makes sense.
 
I bought a three wheeler Robin for my mother-in-law based on GC's test drive he really is so knowledgeable
 
BillN_33 said:
I wanted see cars tested not caravans set on fire and dropped from cranes

bring back Tiff
Click to expand...


A new season of Fifth Gear (still with Tiff) is languishing in a late night slot on some cable channel, if you want to see cars tested by Tiff just look around 500 slots down the Sky Guide...
 
Thing is - cars are tested. I was eagerly awaiting the new MX-5 review on Sunday, which was great, even with the little engined one.

So last sunday, Clarkson is at the track in the latest Jaguar F-type R and a sensational, modernised E-type called the Eagle Low Drag GT, while Hammond is in Spain to test the brand new version of the legendary Mazda MX-5.

Previous Sunday: Clarkson is on the track in the new 471-horsepower Lexus RC F coupe

Previous show to that: Richard Hammond is at the test track to compare the crisp precision engineering of the new Porsche Cayman GTS with the thunderous all-American muscle of the latest Chevrolet Corvette. Also in this show, James tests the sensational 950-horsepower LaFerrari hypercar hybrid

I could keep going, but I think my point is made.

I mean - if you're going to make silly comments - at least watch the show.

and on that bombshell...
 
There all on my shopping list, although I did buy a 4 x 4 Yeti, but not with the petrol GTI engine which of course, according to GC, would be the one to buy
 
Last edited:
BillN_33 said:
There all on my shopping list, although I did buy a 4 x 4 Yeti, but not with the petrol GTI engine which of course, according to GC, would be the one to buy
Click to expand...
OK I gotta ask Who's this GC you keep referring to?
 
Byker28i said:
Thing is - cars are tested. I was eagerly awaiting the new MX-5 review on Sunday, which was great, even with the little engined one.

So last sunday, Clarkson is at the track in the latest Jaguar F-type R and a sensational, modernised E-type called the Eagle Low Drag GT, while Hammond is in Spain to test the brand new version of the legendary Mazda MX-5.

Previous Sunday: Clarkson is on the track in the new 471-horsepower Lexus RC F coupe

Previous show to that: Richard Hammond is at the test track to compare the crisp precision engineering of the new Porsche Cayman GTS with the thunderous all-American muscle of the latest Chevrolet Corvette. Also in this show, James tests the sensational 950-horsepower LaFerrari hypercar hybrid

I could keep going, but I think my point is made.

I mean - if you're going to make silly comments - at least watch the show.

and on that bombshell...
Click to expand...
Indeed. And I've heard a rumour that next Sunday it was the absolutely bloody fantastic Vw Golf R vs the Subaru STi. As I've had the R for over a year now I can predict the outcome, but it would have been nice to watch it regardless.
 
dejongj said:
Indeed. And I've heard a rumour that next Sunday it was the absolutely bloody fantastic Vw Golf R vs the Subaru STi. As I've had the R for over a year now I can predict the outcome, but it would have been nice to watch it regardless.
Click to expand...

I'd have like to have seen that.the golf r (especially on the offer last year) looked a stunning spec for the money.
 
Just sack the obnoxious over rated knob.There are thousands of people out there that want that job and many that could do it a lot better than him.I am convinced there is some sort on mild mental problem with him.:D
 
shapeshifter said:
Just sack the obnoxious over rated knob.There are thousands of people out there that want that job and many that could do it a lot better than him.I am convinced there is some sort on mild mental problem with him.:D
Click to expand...
So under bbc guidelines, that's you on a disciplinary warning for those comments... :)
 
Bernie174 said:
Lots of mights. But back to the original point, I said that if there is no victim there is no assault. An assault in Employment terms is the same as in criminal cases.
So, for it to be that, force has to be applied or threatened, that has to be without the consent of the person threatened (or who had the force applied). So in simple terms, if you have no person complaining about force being applied to them or threatened against them, you have no assault.

Also, you would, in the case of a threat as the assault, you have to have the present ability to commit it, if you are being held back by a group of people, you don't have the present ability. Again, that may be a different disciplinary offence, and again, it has a range of punishments, not just dismissal.

I accept that it has to be investigated, and I haven't suggested it shouldn't be, but you need evidence that the force wasn't lawfully applied, unless the victim says it wasn't, you don't have that.
Click to expand...

I am confused by the term assault - I thought if you clocked someone it was battery
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top