Jeremy Clarkson

I hate the way that the rich and powerful in this country, are somehow becoming ever more rich and powerful.

I am still annoyed that DC said anything at all. Not his place in these circumstances.

I don't think its a matter of "rich and powerful" more a case of Jeremy's "diva" ish behaviour which has been around since celebrity emerged ass a concept. Divas are usually female though!

Yes - DC should keep out of it. He does not know the details either; and it is an internal disciplinary matter for the Beeb.

In one of the papers yesterday - I think it was the Guardian - people at the hotel who had witnessed the incident said that they had not been asked by the BBC to give statements as to what they saw. I don't know if it is just early days and they will be approached to give their accounts in due course but, if not, I find that odd.

*diva( therefore sexist language - women are labelled as divas and men as ...?
The BBC enquiry will take time but in a personnel type disciplinary enquiry it would be very unusual to look for statements from non-employees. It is not a court. The hotel employees would be free to write in a letter of complaint to the BBC if they wanted to.

As I said I don't care for the man but I have just read his column in The Sunday Times and it was a very amusing account of his attempts to cook a Vietnamese Po.

Hey jess maybe the masculine version of a diva should be a "Jeremy"!

I read he called the colleague an Irish c* and threatened to have him sacked.

Surely that is racist? Or even sexist!

I would say that constitutes more that diva-ish behaviour.

cn

Oh, I can't get the hang of these asterisks. You'll all have to guess. It's the C word.

JessM I see what you mean and if an incident involving an alleged assault occurred entirely within a workplace then the only witnesses available would normally be fellow workers. However, this incident occurred in a public arena and as such I would have thought it would be sensible to ask members of the public who had witnessed the incident if they would be willing to give a statement.

Otherwise it would presumably be a case of deciding whether JC or the (perhaps reticent) producer is giving a full and accurate account of what happened.

May and Hammond call Clarkson Jennifer sometimes. I've forgotten why, but diva-ishness would seem like a good reason. If diva is used of enough men behaving in a diva-ish way for long enough, will it become gender-free? Is this something we should be aiming at?

Just a thought – wasn't Mr Clarkson given his last warning a while ago?

Male diva = divo?

Could it be he's actually done this intentionally- to start a bidding war (perhaps more intelligent than I thought ...)

I think he realises he's past his sell-by date and wants to go out in a blaze of glory attention seeking behaviour.

I don't like the references to Jimmy Savile in some newspapers though. Totally out of order.

No, but I think they're just highlighting the way the BBC has been seen in the past to bury its head in the sand when scandal threatens one of its cash cows.

I read somewhere that Sky are interested; I wonder if he's exploiting it as a means to attract future employment now the current contract is due to end.

Yes loopylou as I mentioned on Friday (crikey this is a long thread) Sky are just waiting to pounce. I think Mr C is playing a very clever game with the Beeb !

I agree that the newspapers saying he is the same as Saville is very wrong. I would think they are on dodgy ground legally.

There is no way you could even begin to compare JC to the vile, sexual predator that was JS. I agree with jings the newspapers could be treading on dodgy ground even suggesting a comparison. JC might be a big headed oaf but compared with the late JS he is a saint !

I don't think the newspapers are comparing Clarkson to Savile; rather they are drawing comparisons with the culture that allowed Savile to get away with things which were known or thought to be dodgy to a similar culture surrounding Clarkson. Savile's misdeeds were apparently overlooked because he had such a big following and was thought to be above sacking, in the same way there are many who support Clarkson.

The difference is that Savile's criminal wrongdoings were kept secret. Clarkson's non-PC utterances and the recent fracas are completely public. That, to me, is a difference so huge that comparing the two for any reason whatever is ridiculous.

Eleothan I am just imagining a company, or a school, who are conducting a disciplinary investigation under their policy and procedures. Apparently the BBC has a spanking new one.

If for instance it was two hotel employees who had had a fight in front of customers. Unless customers came forward and offered their account I cannot imagine that the hotel would be likely to contact them. Normal procedure would be to take statements from any hotel employees and the 2 people involved. Then the person doing the investigation would report to the appropriate person whether or not a disciplinary hearing should be arranged.

This hearing would then be set up according to the disciplinary procedure. The evidence would be presented with both parties entitled to a union rep or friend (usually not a lawyer) present and both parties being able to present their case and answer questions.

The panel or person conducting the hearing would then reach a decision based on what they have heard. It does not have to reach the legal standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" . If a disciplinary measure is decided on (e.g. sacking) the person will usually have the right to appeal the decision in front of someone else or a panel.

The hotel employees in this case are free to write to the BBC and would also be within their right to report what had happened to the police i.e. if they thought there had been an assault on their premises.

I disagree bags. It is not the crime or its publicity but the underlying attitude of the BBC. In a way if the BBC kept Clarkson it would be worse because, with Savile the implicit condoning of his behaviour was instinctive and institutional.

Since then the issue has been widely discussed, the BBC claims that it has understood the issues and would not let anything like this happen again. If they then keep Clarkson, after he has behaved badly and the knowledge of that behaviour is in the public domain, it shows that they have learnt nothing from the Saville catastrophe.