Jeremy Clarkson suspended from BBC

Freefaller · 17 Mar 2015 at 10:19

Is JC actually employed by the BBC or is he a contractor? Not that it makes misbehaving any different but surely it does affect disciplinary proceedings?

Castiel · 17 Mar 2015 at 10:20

Freefaller said:
Is JC actually employed by the BBC or is he a contractor? Not that it makes misbehaving any different but surely it does affect disciplinary proceedings?

He isn't an employee of the BBC.

Burnsy2023 · 17 Mar 2015 at 10:28

cheesyboy said:
Oh, we won't see Clarkson on TG again. No way, it's all gone to far now.

It should have been kept in-house, without the public suspension. Can't see any going back.

The problem is that you have to suspend someone to prevent further harm or issues and there is no way you could have kept the suspension quiet especially as TG was still filming.

ubersonic · 17 Mar 2015 at 10:31

Castiel said:
He isn't an employee of the BBC.

You sure? I thought the whole reason the BBC bought out his production company and the rights to TG was because the bean counters wanted him on a regular contract as a fuss was being made about high end presenters.

Castiel · 17 Mar 2015 at 10:31

Burnsy2023 said:
The problem is that you have to suspend someone to prevent further harm or issues and there is no way you could have kept the suspension quiet especially as TG was still filming.

The problem is that there was no formal complaint. Cohen took action of his own volition, rumour has it that the DG isn't happy. Cohen has tried to get rid of JC before so I suspect there is a bit of feud going on here. Apparently the DG of the BBC is supportive of JC, so it's all a bit messy.

ebilcake · 17 Mar 2015 at 10:34

BuffetSlayer said:
If I assaulted a colleague it would be classed as gross misconduct and I would likely be sacked on the spot.

I guess the truth will come out in time, but fair play to Clarkson for reporting himself to the BBC over the incident (if that is indeed true!).

I don't think you can apply this to the average work place, not that it doesnt happen because it does, however I know people who have had minor bust ups in work or out of work (work events) and they are still employed by the same firm.

It isnt the case that people should be automatically dismissed, they need to review what happened. It's even more complicated when one of the people involved is critical to the success of a project when the other guy can be easily replaced.

We will see what the BBC decide, hopefully we will know more factual details then.

Castiel · 17 Mar 2015 at 10:34

ubersonic said:
You sure? I thought the whole reason the BBC bought out his production company and the rights to TG was because the bean counters wanted him on a regular contract as a fuss was being made about high end presenters.

Yeah I'm sure. They bought the controlling rights to Top Gear, they have to pay him dividends on that regardless of whether he works for the BBC or not. He also has a contract for presenting services, again this is the contract that is up for renewal at the end of this month...he isn't an employee like the producer for example, he is a contractor for want of a better description.

Burnsy2023 · 17 Mar 2015 at 10:40

Castiel said:
The problem is that there was no formal complaint. Cohen took action of his own volition, rumour has it that the DG isn't happy. Cohen has tried to get rid of JC before so I suspect there is a bit of feud going on here. Apparently the DG of the BBC is supportive of JC, so it's all a bit messy.

There doesn't need to be a formal complaint. As far as I'm aware, JC informed someone of the incident and the only right and proper course of action was a suspension at that point.

ubersonic · 17 Mar 2015 at 10:52

Burnsy2023 said:
There doesn't need to be a formal complaint. As far as I'm aware, JC informed someone of the incident and the only right and proper course of action was a suspension at that point.

I think what he means is that a "boss" who hated Clarkson jumped for joy at the news then jumped the gun and suspended him before all the facts were in (much to the annoyance of a higher "boss"), had it been done properly things may have been handled better/different.

Burnsy2023 · 17 Mar 2015 at 10:54

ubersonic said:
I think what he means is that a "boss" who hated Clarkson jumped for joy at the news then jumped the gun and suspended him before all the facts were in, had it been done properly things may have been handled better/different.

I'm not sure what other facts could have helped regardless of the boss' personal feelings. If there has been an instance of violence in the workplace, regardless of complaint, a suspension is right and proper.

Tummy · 17 Mar 2015 at 10:56

Honestly, would not surprise me if Clarkson was to leave (fired, quit) and went to get a nice job with his friends at Sky

. Then using his Sky platform to talk about how rubbish the BBC is and how much of a waste of the license fee payers money it is.

Rybo89 · 17 Mar 2015 at 11:05

Yeah, look forward to seeing his sky 1 program 'Powerrrrrr'

thep02 · 17 Mar 2015 at 11:07

Glaucus said:
Well no.
The reasoning is more along the lines of we don't think he threw a punch as multiple people including his colleagues have come out and said it was a minor disagreement and going from passed disciplinary, they were blown out of proportion by media/bbc. So odds are this has also been blown out of proportion.

Has one single person said if he did throw a punch he shouldn't be sacked?

Hey that poster put a lot of effort into reducing the arguments absurdly and you've broken his point with facts, is that within the gd code?

John40 · 17 Mar 2015 at 11:07

Tummy said:
Honestly, would not surprise me if Clarkson was to leave (fired, quit) and went to get a nice job with his friends at Sky . Then using his Sky platform to talk about how rubbish the BBC is and how much of a waste of the license fee payers money it is.

Well he'd be telling the truth.

Castiel · 17 Mar 2015 at 11:09

Burnsy2023 said:
There doesn't need to be a formal complaint. As far as I'm aware, JC informed someone of the incident and the only right and proper course of action was a suspension at that point.

Not necessarily. A suspension is not obligatory. If there was no continued animosity between the two then a suspension serves no purpose. I've dealt with loads of these kinds of things in the past and sometimes you need to suspend one or both, sometimes you don't. Usually it depends on whether one of the people involved makes a complaint or raises a grievance.

ubersonic · 17 Mar 2015 at 11:10

Burnsy2023 said:
I'm not sure what other facts could have helped regardless of the boss' personal feelings. If there has been an instance of violence in the workplace, regardless of complaint, a suspension is right and proper.

Well usually once an accusation is made a person would be sent home for the rest of the day while the facts are established and then a decision would be made whether or not to suspend them pending a disciplinary. Suspending people on hearsay is a bit harsh.

thep02 · 17 Mar 2015 at 11:12

ubersonic said:
I think what he means is that a "boss" who hated Clarkson jumped for joy at the news then jumped the gun and suspended him before all the facts were in (much to the annoyance of a higher "boss"), had it been done properly things may have been handled better/different.

May be JC sacrificed himself so cohen could be let go for his sins.

Burnsy2023 · 17 Mar 2015 at 11:15

Castiel said:
Not necessarily. A suspension is not obligatory. If there was no continued animosity between the two then a suspension serves no purpose. I've dealt with loads of these kinds of things in the past and sometimes you need to suspend one or both, sometimes you don't. Usually it depends on whether one of the people involved makes a complaint or raises a grievance.

An employer has a duty of care to the staff that work for them. Whilst I agree there may be exceptions, I don't think you can criticise the BBC for what they've done (what is public knowledge anyway).

I like JC and what he produces, but he's put himself in a situation where a suspension, even the best handled, is going to be public.

Tummy · 17 Mar 2015 at 11:17

John40 said:
Well he'd be telling the truth.

No, it would be an opinion.

Castiel · 17 Mar 2015 at 11:23

Burnsy2023 said:
An employer has a duty of care to the staff that work for them. Whilst I agree there may be exceptions, I don't think you can criticise the BBC for what they've done (and is in the public interest).

I like JC and what he produces, but he's put himself in a situation where a suspension, even the best handled, is going to be public.

My point is that Cohen might have jumped the gun a bit. As no one has actually filed a grievance, JC informed them of an altercation as he should have done, but going by rumor (which is all we have) the altercation was not ongoing or anything more than a loss of tempers after a particularly stressful day. The prudent course, given the production and broadcasting obligations, would have been to find out whether the team could continue to work together while an internal investigation was under way. If not, or if a complaint was received then other routes should be considered, inc using suspension.

Cohen does, on the face of it, seem to have gleefully gone full throttle. Not only suspending JC, but cancelling Top Gear (albeit temporarily) and ensuring the whole thing is being played out in the public domain.