Still lots of work for the new DG to do....

[french frank]

Capitalism isn't a moral system.

I don't think anyone has claimed that for it! It's about making money - but to get back: all praise (on this occasion) to the BBC for not making a financial calculation. Though I don't think they had a lot of choice ...

I recall Tommy Pearson commenting on his blog once about Mark Thompson's 'defence' of high salaries for senior BBC managers (to the effect that the BBC paid nowhere near what they could get in the private sector). TP's comment was, 'Well tell them to b****r off then.' Hear, hear - and let the whole Top Gear crew go, if they want to work for the highest bidder. I hope no one will bother to stop them.

[This is a personal view ]

[Conchis]

I'm depressed by the amount of support Clarkson seems to have. You'd think any civilised person would understand that physical violence of the kind he resorted to crosses a very particular line.

I'm also depressed by the BBC's spin on his dismissal: they had no choice but to sack him but why these expressions of 'regret'? He may have been a cash cow for them but he is also a thug and a bully, by anyone's definition.

[Alain Maréchal]

In spite of expressing 'disapproval', the nub of it is that they don't want anything to interrupt their enjoyment. And that this is how besotted people have become with celebrities and popular entertainment. These are the important things in their lives and they'll fight for them.

Well expressed. Very sad, but very true.

[Honoured Guest]

Hear, hear - and let the whole Top Gear crew go, if they want to work for the highest bidder. I hope no one will bother to stop them.

[This is a personal view ]

Top Gear generates an estimated £20m annual profit for BBC Worldwide.

[french frank]

I'm also depressed by the BBC's spin on his dismissal: they had no choice but to sack him but why these expressions of 'regret'? He may have been a cash cow for them but he is also a thug and a bully, by anyone's definition.

The regret may have been that their cash cow was a thug and a bully! It was similar when Ross was suspended - people supported him too. Some people thought the 'prank' was funny

Are we becoming so dehumanised?

[P. G. Tipps]

But the only one possible. (I happen to have a first hand account from someone who was around at the time of the 'fracas' - now quite rightly being called an 'attack'. That person threw up, the incident was so literally sickening. Inevitably, 'le grand public' who showed support did not know the facts).

http://news.sky.com/story/1452410/sa...-police-action

Correct. A thuggish attack is a thuggish attack whether committed by Jeremy Clarkson or Sister Wendy.

I have no time for Clarkson but I have my own views why he has such an apparently popular following in today's PC society so that in itself does not surprise me one bit.

Clarkson will now be snapped up by a commercial TV company and no doubt be paid even more than he earned at the BBC.

Good riddance, as far as I'm concerned.

[Serial_Apologist]

Correct. A thuggish attack is a thuggish attack whether committed by Jeremy Clarkson or Sister Wendy.

I have no time for Clarkson but I have my own views why he has such an apparently popular following in today's PC society so that in itself does not surprise me one bit.

Clarkson will now be snapped up by a commercial TV company and no doubt be paid even more than he earned at the BBC.

Good riddance, as far as I'm concerned.

You make excuses for boorishness by placing it in the context of "today's PC society" then?

Boorishness has been around forever - what you call PC was in part protocols in common decency.

[Beef Oven!]

Correct. A thuggish attack is a thuggish attack whether committed by Jeremy Clarkson or Sister Wendy.

I have no time for Clarkson but I have my own views why he has such an apparently popular following in today's PC society so that in itself does not surprise me one bit.

Clarkson will now be snapped up by a commercial TV company and no doubt be paid even more than he earned at the BBC.

Good riddance, as far as I'm concerned.

Yes, Clarkson is a welcome alternative from the usual PC-friendly clones.

But if he physically attacked a colleague, then that's beyond the pales.

I wonder if the BBC would have sacked him if they weren't, as they are these days, on the back-foot about almost everything.

[Don Petter]

I wonder if the BBC would have sacked him if they weren't, as they are these days, on the back-foot about almost everything.

Seemingly, they haven't sacked him. They are not going to renew his current contract, which just happens to run out at the end of March. (So perhaps they are on the back foot about that as well.)

[Beef Oven!]

Seemingly, they haven't sacked him. They are not going to renew his current contract, which just happens to run out at the end of March. (So perhaps they are on the back foot about that as well.)

I had assumed from the posts on here that he'd been sacked.

Well I suppose it's to Clarkson's credit that he had not fundamentally breached his employment contract. Perhaps we ought not to have jumped to conclusions about what he was alleged to have done.

[P. G. Tipps]

You make excuses for boorishness by placing it in the context of "today's PC society" then?

Boorishness has been around forever - what you call PC was in part protocols in common decency.

Quite to the contrary as you well know ... I have done the very opposite of making excuses for 'boorishness' or more relevantly thuggish behaviour.

I merely reflected how Clarkson is a refreshing antidote for some regarding regular media reporting and comment. By the support he has received that is patently obvious. You do not have to like the man to understand why Top Gear is popular amongst a significant proportion of the viewing population. Personally, I can't stand the programme.

Tony Hall all but conceded that yesterday and said Clarkson's views had a right to a place at the BBC but not physical violence against another member of staff.

Simple and straightforward and it is right his contract has now been terminated.

[Nick Armstrong]

I had assumed from the posts on here that he'd been sacked.

Well I suppose it's to Clarkson's credit that he had not fundamentally breached his employment contract. Perhaps we ought not to have jumped to conclusions about what he was alleged to have done.

As his contract expires on Tuesday and he's been suspended since 10 March, it amounts to the same thing and I don't think anyone's contending that what happened was consistent with his employment contract.

Clearly as you say it's right not to jump to conclusions - much better to rely on the facts i.e. as stated by the DG: "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" and detailed here http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/mediacent...on-summary.pdf

[Beef Oven!]

As his contract expires on Tuesday and he's been suspended since 10 March, it amounts to the same thing and I don't think anyone's contending that what happened was consistent with his employment contract.

Surely if it were true that he clumped a colleague, it would have meant that his contract should be summarily terminated for gross misconduct, rather than be allowed to run it's course for the remainder of its time? So in that sense, it's doesn't amount to the same thing.

Clearly it's right not to jump to conclusions - much better to rely on the facts i.e. as stated by the DG: "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" and detailed here

Indeed, and how do we know the alleged victim wasn't 'simulating', as association football players might?

[Nick Armstrong]

if it were true...

how do we know ...?

Precisely why the investigation took place.

Conclusions: 25 March.

Contract ended: 31 March.

Case closed.

No?

[Beef Oven!]

Precisely why the investigation took place. Conclusions: 25 March. Contract ended 31 March. Case closed.

No?

Based on what you say, if the allegations were substantiated, he should have been summarily dismissed on 25th.

No?