[billy123]

Great news.
Another nail in the coffin of the BBC.
I would prefer ITV to pick them up rather than SKY though.

[the truth]

what did he actually do? ive watched the pitifully inadequate bbc news failing for the 30th day in a row fail to report the actual facts of the matter..ive read up as much as \I can and again nowhere is it clear. he insulted a man several times ....this man was supposedly meant to give him lunch? then a vague statement suggests there was a 30 second physical altercation....what does that mean? then this other chap supposedly went to a and e but noweher does it seem to mention if he had any injuries at all

\if he didn't have any injuries then what is Clarkson sacked for? the radical liberal thought police have yet again shut down free speech humour and intelligent thought. they can try and point to other alleged discretions but they don't add up to much even under the hysterical spotlight of the liberal tabloids. Clarkson himself did report himself to the bbc and he did apologise several times. does everyone who argues now get sacked? ive not seen any physical injuries so one can assume that was all exaggerated too

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by the truth

what did he actually do? ive watched the pitifully inadequate bbc news failing for the 30th day in a row fail to report the actual facts of the matter..ive read up as much as \I can and again nowhere is it clear. he insulted a man several times ....this man was supposedly meant to give him lunch? then a vague statement suggests there was a 30 second physical altercation....what does that mean? then this other chap supposedly went to a and e but noweher does it seem to mention if he had any injuries at all

\if he didn't have any injuries then what is Clarkson sacked for? the radical liberal thought police have yet again shut down free speech humour and intelligent thought. they can try and point to other alleged discretions but they don't add up to much even under the hysterical spotlight of the liberal tabloids. Clarkson himself did report himself to the bbc and he did apologise several times. does everyone who argues now get sacked? ive not seen any physical injuries so one can assume that was all exaggerated too

Statement from Tony Hall
"It is with great regret that I have told Jeremy Clarkson today that the BBC will not be renewing his contract. It is not a decision I have taken lightly. I have done so only after a very careful consideration of the facts and after personally meeting both Jeremy and Oisin Tymon.

"I am grateful to Ken MacQuarrie for the thorough way he has conducted an investigation of the incident on 4th March. Given the obvious and very genuine public interest in this I am publishing the findings of his report. I take no pleasure in doing so. I am only making them public so people can better understand the background. I know how popular the programme is and I also know that this decision will divide opinion. The main facts are not disputed by those involved.

"I want to make three points.

"First - The BBC is a broad church. Our strength in many ways lies in that diversity. We need distinctive and different voices but they cannot come at any price. Common to all at the BBC have to be standards of decency and respect. I cannot condone what has happened on this occasion. A member of staff - who is a completely innocent party - took himself to Accident and Emergency after a physical altercation accompanied by sustained and prolonged verbal abuse of an extreme nature. For me a line has been crossed. There cannot be one rule for one and one rule for another dictated by either rank, or public relations and commercial considerations.

"Second - This has obviously been difficult for everyone involved but in particular for Oisin. I want to make clear that no blame attaches to him for this incident. He has behaved with huge integrity throughout. As a senior producer at the BBC he will continue to have an important role within the organisation in the future.

"Third - Obviously none of us wanted to find ourselves in this position. This decision should in no way detract from the extraordinary contribution that Jeremy Clarkson has made to the BBC. I have always personally been a great fan of his work and Top Gear. Jeremy is a huge talent. He may be leaving the BBC but I am sure he will continue to entertain, challenge and amuse audiences for many years to come.

"The BBC must now look to renew Top Gear for 2016. This will be a big challenge and there is no point in pretending otherwise. I have asked Kim Shillinglaw to look at how best we might take this forward over the coming months. I have also asked her to look at how we put out the last programmes in the current series."

Investigation findings - Ken MacQuarrie
"On 9 March 2015, Jeremy Clarkson reported to BBC management that he had been involved in a physical and verbal incident with Oisin Tymon, the producer of Top Gear, at the Simonstone Hall Hotel, North Yorkshire, whilst working on location. The incident had occurred on 4 March 2015 and Jeremy Clarkson was suspended on 10 March, pending investigation.

"I was asked to undertake an investigation to establish the facts of what occurred. In conducting my investigation, in line with the BBC's usual practice, I interviewed a number of witnesses and others connected with the incident. Accounts were agreed, based on my interviews, with each participant.

"Having conducted these interviews and considered the evidence presented, I conclude the following: on 4 March 2015 Oisin Tymon was subject to an unprovoked physical and verbal attack by Jeremy Clarkson. During the physical attack Oisin Tymon was struck, resulting in swelling and bleeding to his lip. The verbal abuse was sustained over a longer period, both at the time of the physical attack and subsequently.

"Specific facts I have found as part of my investigation are as follows:

earlier on 4 March, studio recording of Top Gear had taken place in Surrey and the presenters had travelled that same evening to the location shoot in North Yorkshire;
the incident occurred on a patio area of the Simonstone Hall Hotel, where Oisin Tymon was working on location for Top Gear;
the physical attack lasted around 30 seconds and was halted by the intervention of a witness;
it is the case that Oisin Tymon offered no retaliation;
the verbal abuse was directed at Oisin Tymon on more than one occasion - both during the attack and subsequently inside the hotel - and contained the strongest expletives and threats to sack him. The abuse was at such volume as to be heard in the dining room, and the shouting was audible in a hotel bedroom;
derogatory and abusive language, relating to Oisin Tymon and other members of the Top Gear team, continued to be used by Jeremy Clarkson inside the hotel, in the presence of others, for a sustained period of time;
it is clear that Oisin Tymon was shocked and distressed by the incident, and believed that he had lost his job;
following the attack, I understand that Oisin Tymon drove to a nearby A&E department for examination;
over the subsequent days, Jeremy Clarkson made a number of attempts to apologise to Oisin Tymon by way of text, email and in person; and
it is the case that Jeremy Clarkson reported the incident to BBC management.

"It was not disputed by Jeremy Clarkson or any witness that Oisin Tymon was the victim of an unprovoked physical and verbal attack. It is also clear to me that Oisin Tymon is an important creative member of the Top Gear team who is well-valued and respected. He has suffered significant personal distress as a result of this incident, through no fault of his own."

This isn't about free speech, humour or intelligence.

An egotistical man physically and verbally assaulted a colleague at work and was reprimanded for it. Simple case.

[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?

[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....

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

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....

I'm just saying, the criminal aspect is more important than the employment aspect, but the BBC seemed to only be concerned with their own corporate business, not the criminal aspect of his actions. why were they more worried about what to do with the show than they were about getting justice for the victim of this crime?

If they truly support the victim, they should have been on the phone with the police IMMEDIATELY and working with them to bring clarkson to justice ASAP. If what he did was truly so terrible, which the BBC is now saying, it was very terrible, and very abusive, and very violent.

[Marsh.]

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

perfect representation of the BBC's explanation of it's actions. Don't be silly peasants, we know best. calm down now peasants. mommy BBC will make it all okay now.

[Marsh.]

Yes, yes...... evil BBC........ grrrrrrr........

[lostalex]

I totally agree with the BBC sacking him, i just don't think the BBC should play the victim in this mess.

[Marsh.]

Urgh, they're not.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Urgh, they're not.

well i certainly haven't heard them admit any mistakes in their handling of it, have you? what have they said that they will do differently in the future?

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by lostalex

well i certainly haven't heard them admit any mistakes in their handling of it, have you? what have they said that they will do differently in the future?

Mistakes such as?

I seem to have missed your investigation into this? Have you published your own report?

Ok.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Mistakes such as?

I seem to have missed your investigation into this? Have you published your own report?

Ok.

nope, just reading the BBC report, which describes clarksons actions as criminal. which means the police should have been involved long before they concluded their report.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by lostalex

nope, just reading the BBC report, which describes clarksons actions as criminal. which means the police should have been involved long before they concluded their report.

And you know they weren't because?

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

And you know they weren't because?

because you just told me that the police are just now asking for more details from the BBC.

unless you were lying to me.

if the police were involved in the investigation why would they have to ask?

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by lostalex

because you just told me that the police are just now asking for more details from the BBC.

unless you were lying to me.

So the police wanting a copy of the BBC's report means the BBC insidiously kept the incident hidden all away from the police (you know despite the media coverage?)?

Ok.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

So the police wanting a copy of the BBC's report means the BBC insidiously kept the incident hidden all away from the police (you know despite the media coverage?)?

Ok.

well it does mean that they weren't revealing everything to the police the entire time. why else would the police need to ask the BBC for information?

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by lostalex

well it does mean that they weren't revealing everything to the police the entire time. why else would the police need to ask the BBC for information?

To ask for their conclusions, ie. the report.