[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by lostalex

if he assaulted someone unprovoked, why isn't he in jail? why didn't the BBC call the police and give them all of the evidence against clarkson?

The police have requested the investigation results from the BBC apparently. :/

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

The police have requested the investigation results from the BBC apparently. :/

if the event was as serious as the BBC asserts that it was, the police should have been involved from the beginning.

why does the BBC think it is above the law, and does it's own investigations before contacting the authorities?

you would think they wouldn't hesitate after the jimmy saville revelations. but it seems they still think they can deal with abuse cases themselves. much like the catholic church.

The BBC needs to be knocked down a peg or 20 and realize they are not above the law.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by lostalex

if the event was as serious as the BBC asserts that it was, the police should have been involved from the beginning.

why does the BBC think it is above the law, and does it's own investigations before contacting the authorities?

Because unless the victim of an assault reports the incident what more can be done? :/

Above the law? What are you talking about?

The BBC was only made aware of the incident 5 days after it happened because Clarkson himself reported it.

Also, they were handling their side of things (Clarkson's employment with them), now the police will handle their side of things (whether to prosecute or not).

But by all means continue talking about things you clearly know nothing about.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Because unless the victim of an assault reports the incident what more can be done? :/

Above the law? What are you talking about?

The BBC was only made aware of the incident 5 days after it happened because Clarkson himself reported it.

I still think this should be a criminal issue, and the BBC should not act on anything until the police conclude their investigation. and if clarkson is not found guilty of anything, he should not be penalized.

instead this whole thing makes it seem like the BBC is judge, jury, and executioner. and we all know how unreliable they are when it comes to internal personel issues.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by lostalex

I still think this should be a criminal issue, and the BBC should not act on anything until the police conclude their investigation. and if clarkson is not found guilty of anything, he should not be penalized.

That makes zero sense. If they couldn't sack/penalise an employee because they haven't done anything "illegal" or had charges pressed for an incident they were involved in then employees could get away with an awful lot.

He IS guilty, he himself has admitted and reported the incident.

The BBC found this behaviour unacceptable and terminated his contract, as is their right, regardless of whether he's found to have broken the law or not.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

That makes zero sense. If they couldn't sack/penalise an employee because they haven't done anything "illegal" or had charges pressed for an incident they were involved in then employees could get away with an awful lot.

He IS guilty, he himself has admitted and reported the incident.

The BBC found this behaviour unacceptable and terminated his contract, as is their right, regardless of whether he's found to have broken the law or not.

if he is guilty, then he should be penalized criminally and then deal with the job issue.

a violent assault is a serious crime. the criminal aspect should be dealt with first. the fact that BBC was sitting around worrying about whether or not he should be fired should be secondary to the fact that a man violently assaulted another man. but BBC decided his employment was more important than justice???

it;s no different than the catholic church saying, we should sit around and decide what to do with this cardinal who probably molested a child, instead of doing what should be done, which is reporting his behavior for the truth and assisting the process of justice first and foremost.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by lostalex

if he is guilty, then he should be penalized criminally and then deal with the job issue.

a violent assault is a serious crime. the criminal aspect should be dealt with first. the fact that BBC was sitting around worrying about whether or not he should be fired should be secondary to the fact that a man violently assaulted another man. but BBC decided his employment was more important than justice???

Erm, why is it one or the other?

They're both simultaneous. The BBC didn't stop anything. The BBC did what an employer is supposed to do and the police are doing what the police are supposed to do.

But you're clearly out to make some nonsensical parallel between this and the Saville stuff so carry on....