Jeremy Clarkson

Well, as he's received death threats and hate mail from people who blame him for JC's suspension, it's not surprising that Mr Tymon's trying to keep a low profile.

There seems to be no doubt that there was a 'fracas', but as far as I know there's been no first-hand evidence of physical assault.

In the case of the alleged 'fact' that "the papers" have reported, it will become a fact for me when the BBC investigation into the fracas states its conclusions, soon. This approach is no different from not assuming someone else accused of a crime is guilty until they have been proved to be so, an approach that is supposed to be enshrined in our justice system.

I don't know how likely it is that JC hit someone as I don't know him personally. One or two people who do know him personally seem quite supportive of him. That could be significant or they could be smarmy bastards with agendas of their own. I have no way of knowing either way. Neither, I suggest, do you.

It seems that Mr Tymon, the producer who is supposed to have been abused, is taking a similarly cautious approach: apparently he "intends to await the outcome of the BBC investigation and will make no comment until that investigation is complete".

Isn't that essentially what we are all saying? But he has been suspended from the show, which has had its last three episodes cancelled. I do not think the BBC would do that unless he had done something that was a lot more serious than just using a four letter word to describe the producer.

Yes, the BBC could suddenly say it was all a mistake, he had behaved beautifully and this was so unusual they suspended him, but I do not think so.

When does something become a fact for you, thatbags?

IMO JC is too big for his boots and appears to believe he can do and say what he wants.

I would put him on that one way spacecraft pdq.

I don't really imagine anything, soon. I only know what it has been reported that he did. Nothing else. I don't know what Clarkson has admitted to and I don't know what he "isn't denying". Does anyone?

At this point I think him neither guilty nor innocent until I know more, even though the law says a person is innocent until proven guilty. I am withholding judgment through ignorance.

I agree with everyone who says that if it turns out Clarkson did assault someone he should not be treated any differently from any other person committing that crime.

thatbags. I shouldnt imagine that you really think that he is innocent of the punch, do you?

He has been accused of hitting a producer. If anyone not in the public eye hit a work colleague they would be out of a job and almost definitely down at the police station accused of GBH.

I used the phrase 'bad behaviour' to cover the offence it has been said he committed and no more than that.

Several of the sunday papers stated that Clarkson raged for half an hour, was verbally abusive (my interpretation of him calling the other guy an irish c**t) and then hit him in the face. The papers state the chap was taken to hospital with a split lip. That's a serious assault. Clarkson isn't issuing denials and the information in the media is based in part on what members of the public observed.

One of the papers quoted a Sky spokesperson as saying they'd recently issued a new bullying/disciplinary procedure and wouldn't touch JC given his track record to date.

flickety, do you know that Clarkson has committed a crime? If he has assaulted someone at work, he has, but we don't know that for certain at the moment. His other misdemeanours have not been criminal. There is a world of difference between crimes and just annoying a lot of people by the things you say.

(I didn't stop to read the rest of the article. No doubt it went on in a manner designed to exonerate the paper)

thatbags. that is not the difference! Far from it!

The headline on the usual suspect of a newspaper was "BBC boss says, Jeremy Clarkson is the same as Jimmy Saville".

Comparing JC with two hotel employees is ridiculous. Different kettle of fish altogether. The world works the way it does, regardless of how we may think it should work.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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 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.

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 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.

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

Male diva = divo?