Jeremy Clarkson HIGNFY

JC was being well paid to take the brickbats as were the panel to deliver them!

And your point is?

Don't care how well he handled things. It is supposed to be a topical news based programme and he is no longer topical or news. It was self indulgent to say the least.

Self-indulgent of whom, trish? Presumably the BBC invited him to present the epsiode of HIGNFY and offered him money to do so.

Self-indulgent of the BBC, then. Hmm.

The presenter doesn't have to be anything to do with what's topical. He/She is just there to present the show in an entertaining way.

I will happily watch Jeremy do anything. However I can't watch any history programmes presentd by Neil Oliver as DH can't stand him and calls him a long haires scottish idiot! Not sure how we will get on with BBC's series on the Celts as he really likes Alice but would have to suffer Neil

Deeda- that is a totally different story. This is not about whether you like or dislike JC, or whether he was good or not on HIGNFU- or anytime before.

It is about being sacked for a series of misdeamenour that culminated in him having a violent arguement with a member of staff, that ended up in him punching the guy- and having to be forcefully pulled away and restrained to prevent worse. He should not be back, for the above- whether you or I or anyone likes him or not- is totally irrelevant to this argument.

Well, it seems the BBC doesn't agree with you, gj. I'm not sure I do either. It was right that he was sacked after punching someone. His other misdemeanours, as you call them, were PC faux pas for the most part, I seem to recall, which I'm not sure are sackable offences, notwithstanding recent nonsense over wotsisname being kicked out of his post at UCL.

Well yes, this is what the thread is all about- that the BBC has chosen not to agree with a significant proportion of the public who see JC being brought back as sheer hypocrisy. Many of his past very havey faux pas were not sackable, but did add up in the case about him after his violent outburst and attack.

But hey ho- looks like it won't be the last time we will just have to disagree bags- that's ok.

Well yes, this is what the thread is all about- that the BBC has chosen not to agree with a significant proportion of the public who see JC being brought back as sheer hypocrisy. Many of his past very havey faux pas were not sackable, but did add up in the case about him after his violent outburst and attack.

But hey ho- looks like it won't be the last time we will just have to disagree bags- that's ok.

Most people in other professions would never have been given another chance- but it's all about money, isn't it.

I think you are quite right about it being about money in the end, gj. Clarkson draws viewers and the BBC needs that.

I'm trying to think of an analogy... What if one ran a business and had to sack one of one's employees for a wrong-doing. A while later, the same employee–duly contrite and having received his punishment, and really rather a good employee on the whole and not a bad chap, just rather annoying at times, not the sort everyone likes–is available to be employed on a new and temporary contract and the boss thinks that he is the best one for the job (we don't have to agree with the boss, but he's running the joint, not us) and so the boss duly exercises forgiveness and tolerance and has him back with a stricter and temporary contract to do a certain job. Has the boss done wrong or been hypocritical? I think not.

Jonathan Ross has wormed his way back into favour so why not Jeremy Clarkson?

Your analogy is interesting. It just depends on the nature of the job (do you re-instate a teacher or doctor who has beaten or in other ways abused a kid or patient, for intance- even if they say 'sorry') and also the very public nature of the job- eg footballer, star singer, tv presenter- who is seen by the public, especially kids, teenagers- as an 'idol' to be copied, aspired to- or not? imho makes a huge difference.

I agree. The nature of the crime makes a difference. I don't think what Clarkson did is in the same category as the examples you mention. It looks as if the BBC doesn't think so either. I wouldn't know about idolising. Hard to imagine anyone idolising Clarkson tbh. Not hard to imagine people finding his outrageous sayings (I'm not calling them his actual views–though they could be–because I think most of it is an act) funny entertaining in a naughty sort of way. Which I think was the whole point of his Top Gear act.

Based on that analogy thatbags hasn't the "boss" then set a president for all other staff members. Its okay to verbally abuse/hit ones colleague. We will be seen to sack you for a while to make things look right and then we will welcome you back with open arms. Oh and you will have to put up with a few minutes of sarcastic banter on HIGNFY

The BBC are typical of many government funded organisations. They have their own way of doing things, they pay who they want, what they want, whenever they want and won't take criticism from anyone even though they are funded by our taxes

Interesting point about setting a precedent, gillybob. Again, I think it would depend on the individual circumstances of the case. I'm sure there are employment laws that the BBC has to abide by. Was Clarkson charged with a criminal offence? He reported himself, didn't he? That suggests to me that hitting a colleague was completely out of character.

People who have served prison sentences can get jobs once they've served their sentence, can't they? They are not banned from working.

My bloody spelling it apawling atroshish very bad indeed !!!

I'm not sure which president I would like to set..... its a toss up between Obama and Clinton

Yes they can thatbags but I doubt whether it would be with the oganisation against whom they comitted the crime.

I think it would depend somewhat on what the crime had been. I don't think there's a clear black and white, right or wrong answer to these kinds of things.

Except to say that hitting a colleague is wrong, which I think nobody is arguing about.

Perhaps the BBC have an "offence payback policy".

Punching colleague in the face = 2 months ban plus acting as chair on HIGNFY

Telephoning a former colleagues family member (live on air) and subjecting them to deep humiliation = 6 months ban then welcome back with open arms.

Re the punching I thought the punishment was sacking. He presumably would have been given a new contract for a new series of Top Gear if he hadn't punched the guy. I'm not excusing his behaviour and I don't know what the employment rules are at the BBC.

I was not aware of the telephoning business. Will google.

Or what employment rules are anywhere, come to that.