Jeremy Clarkson

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.

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".

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

When does something become a fact for you, thatbags?

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.

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".

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.

I expect he'd have been advised by his lawyer to keep a low profile in any case. I hope the people sending death threats are caught.

I have finally worked out what you do thatbags.

You say you dont care about someone or something, but on the one hand you are sure that, to take this example, JC is mucking about, and obviously doesnt mean his wee comments, racist comments etc etc,[no facts needed there I notice, even though he has written many 100o's of words] and on the other side of the equation, there will be facts for you about what he might if done only once the BBC has completed their investigations.
Thus currently making him innocent of everything.
Yeah!

You find an end result you want first. Then work it backwards.

Not only is that nonsense soontobe, it's extremely rude.

Jeremy Clarkson's sense of humour is well known for being iconoclastic, to choose a polite word, and he is much appreciated by some for his willingness, even eagerness to demolish sacred cows. He usually judges his audience well but occasionally oversteps the mark, as with his comments about lazy Mexicans.

More importantly, the facts about this recent altercation are not fully known, at least not to the general public. The various news media give different versions of the same story. It is always unwise to jump to conclusions without knowing the facts and the kangaroo court of public opinion is never a good guide. These facts are most likely to be revealed as a result of the formal investigation.

Although I don't always agree with the opinions thatbags expresses, I think the way she expresses them is invariably a model of clarity and her comments always have the merit of being relevant. She is also always polite to other posters (except when following a long-standing tradition of bandying words with jingl). That is a lot more than can be said of some posters.

I don't think everyone would agree with that last paragraph Absent, especially your last sentence. And you also can be abrupt and quite patronising in certain posts. It may be that those who are being criticised do not mean to sound as they do, though sometimes being a 'model of clarity' equates to a bluntness that others find rude.

In fact most posters are polite.

Thank you for your analysis, soon. I'm not sure I understand it but perhaps I will in due course. I think you are mistaken about whether I care about whatever. I care very much about truth and justice, whoever or whatever the subject of the case. In this particular case, whether one likes Jeremy Clarkson's public persona is beside the point. The issue is whether he committed a crime. He has been accused of a crime by "the papers" (not by the person against whom he is said to have committed said crime) and that is all we know at the moment. I have been at pains to point this out a few times when I feel people have made unjustified assumptions (e.g. that he is guilty of the above mentioned crime). That is all.

Now, like everyone else, I'm waiting for further information before making any further judgment about the case.

I often wonder why some posters rush to the defence of other posters, as if they are unable to speak for themselves.

I don't agree with your last para either absent. A bit rosy spectacles but no offence to Bags.

I think most people do that thing soon mentioned: start from an emotionally arrived at point of view and then argue backwards to support it with logic.

soontobe was being just a little bit blunt though! .

Friendship might account for it, petallus —that defence thing you mentioned—and I appreciate absent's friendship even if you don't.

I have no problem with bluntness. Keep it up, soon

I did assume you were buddies and that is, I agree, a thing to be appreciated.

I'm still not sure I would want my friends to rush in to defend me though, before I had had a chance to say something myself.

I might feel disempowered.

But that's just me.

I agree you care about justice.
And it is up to anyone whether they choose not to guess whether someone is guilty or innocent of an alleged crime.