FabSwingers.com forum: Violence at Work

By *inaTitz OP TV/TS
over a year ago

Titz Towers, North Notts

Having looked at the petition doing the rounds to reinstate Clarkson, I've concluded that to some people getting violent at work is ok, if you are popular enough.

I can't think of many jobs where you can belt your gaffer and not get suspended pending an investigation.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I guess none of us know the full story. People will always stick up for someone they like and jump on the bandwagon! I find him hilarious but if he's done something wrong then I think he must face the consequences.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Iv had a few jobs that I'd of happily punched the boss at, but I'd of instantly lost my job!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *randy and CockCouple
over a year ago

Near Blackpool

You don't know the story, maybe the other guy took a swing at him first, we just don't know. Trial by media, better to form an opinion when in posession of the full facts !

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I got straight sack for cracking someone but it wasn't him who grassed me up it was gross misconduct

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

But rule for one and rule for another

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *erbyDalesCplCouple
over a year ago

Derbyshire

I can't think of many jobs where you can belt your gaffer and not get suspended pending an investigation. "

Boxing?

Mr ddc

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

In Tv and films, the talent must be pampered. The production crew know that dinner must be served on time. If that had happens to the crew they would have been justified to take industrial action. Ie: strike.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I can't think of many jobs where you can belt your gaffer and not get suspended pending an investigation.

Boxing?

Mr ddc"

You beat me to it!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *evaquitCouple
over a year ago

Catthorpe

I have a violent, known football hooligan as our quality control and he's always using abusive and threating language on the section with the sole purpose of intimidating some of our team to up the quality. He worked for Bentley and comes with a reputation for "making things happen", his behaviour is largely ignored by the big bosses as they want want he does, can't stand the guy and feel it's only a matter of time before he loses it and clocks someone, that's probably what he wants, people to think he's a whisker away. As for the question, lol, no I don't think violence or even the threat of it should be tolerated.

Him.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Even in the army we are not allowed to punch, shove or grab people any more, we have to fill out paperwork to give somebody a punishment......it's a joke. for instance somebody accidently fires a weapon and it misses somebody by about a couple of inches,,,, not allowed to punch the person for being a complete and utter dick, but we have to fill paperwork then they get charged.

Getting punched means you didn't do it again, getting charged isn't much of a punishment in my eyes.

The world is going mad!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I've managed to get through life without feeling the need to punch anyone. As have a variety of people I know.

Some people need anger management lessons.

I really feel anger management should be taught to kids in school.

I love how the threat of paperwork is worse than punching someone in the army. Says a lot. Not in a good way.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *hetalkingstoveMan
over a year ago

London

"You don't know the story, maybe the other guy took a swing at him first, we just don't know. Trial by media, better to form an opinion when in posession of the full facts !"

We know that the BBC have taken action, when in the past they have bent over backwards to ignore the stupid things Clarkson says and does.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

I'm thinking of starting a petition that Clarkson not be reinstated.

In fact, tell him he's going to be on an I'm a Celebrity type show, drop him off in the depths of a remote jungle somewhere and leave him there.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

And unfortunately many of us work in roles where the public think that it's ok to be verbally or physically abusive.

Clarkson - even if the BBC sack him, he will most likely go to another network, so he won't be too perturbed.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Was once in a situation where a Spanish man whom I worked with tried to get me fired by kicking me in the face. He wanted me to hit back. Did the correct procedure and informed my boss. In the end, to keep my job, I had to say sorry to the Spanish man as he started crying, saying that I had picked on him because he didn't understand English. Which was false. Violence at work is unprofessional.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I'm thinking of starting a petition that Clarkson not be reinstated.

In fact, tell him he's going to be on an I'm a Celebrity type show, drop him off in the depths of a remote jungle somewhere and leave him there."

He needs to be sacked to show everyone that violence in the workplace is never acceptable.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *eliciouslyNastyMan
over a year ago

London

"I have a violent, known football hooligan as our quality control and he's always using abusive and threating language on the section with the sole purpose of intimidating some of our team to up the quality. He worked for Bentley and comes with a reputation for "making things happen", his behaviour is largely ignored by the big bosses as they want want he does, can't stand the guy and feel it's only a matter of time before he loses it and clocks someone, that's probably what he wants, people to think he's a whisker away. As for the question, lol, no I don't think violence or even the threat of it should be tolerated.

Him."

Hmmmmm.... I once worked on a job at the docks & every meeting nearly ended in a punch up...

Didn't matter who said it to who, just constant conflict all day.

Now I have and still do work in a testosterone soaked, aggressive environment, it's got better (a lot) from when I started...

But that job in particular, big guys, old school, rough as fuck and hyper aggressive.

We had people from Germany and Scandinavia there too and they would just sit in science shocked.

This was at all levels too, from top to bottom, holding people back at project board meetings. I once saw a mass rolling on the floor fist fight, when I was driving home.

And the most aggressive of all...

Customs and Excise...

Those guys are fucking horrendous!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

As far as I'm aware there hasn't been an official statement. Just some rumours.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"As far as I'm aware there hasn't been an official statement. Just some rumours."

Had that EVER stopped people from jumping in before? Your pissing in the wind with that statement on here. I am starting to think its all a PR scam. Every other fuck up he has made, has only improved their viewing figures.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Used to have some great ding dongs at work.

Was a very rough paper round.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *eliciouslyNastyMan
over a year ago

London

"As far as I'm aware there hasn't been an official statement. Just some rumours.

Yep... I was with PR all the way... Except they would never cancel the show on Sunday. That just doesn't make commercial sense.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *eliciouslyNastyMan
over a year ago

London

"Used to have some great ding dongs at work.

Was a very rough paper round. "

Milton Keynes!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"You don't know the story, maybe the other guy took a swing at him first, we just don't know. Trial by media, better to form an opinion when in posession of the full facts !"

I know all about trial by media

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *unky monkeyMan
over a year ago

in the night garden

All the peeps at work play football on a Thursday night. It's used to legitimately hurt people you don't like. It's quite cathartic to kick a boss on the kneecap.

So thankfully no fracaseseses here (off pitch).

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"As far as I'm aware there hasn't been an official statement. Just some rumours.

Yep... I was with PR all the way... Except they would never cancel the show on Sunday. That just doesn't make commercial sense."

Its a long game. The shows recorded, put it on in a couple of weeks. Let the punters sweat a bit and always leave 'em wanting more. Even more viewers when they do show it.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

"All the peeps at work play football on a Thursday night. It's used to legitimately hurt people you don't like. It's quite cathartic to kick a boss on the kneecap.

So thankfully no fracaseseses here (off pitch).

Kicking a ball and a kneecap are quite different things.

Violence is never to be condoned. Playing a game and working through your issues using the rules

as an excuse to hurt someone

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *educedWoman
over a year ago

Birmingham

"And unfortunately many of us work in roles where the public think that it's ok to be verbally or physically abusive.

Clarkson - even if the BBC sack him, he will most likely go to another network, so he won't be too perturbed. "

This!

As someone who works in the public sector (primarily with young people) abuse and threats of violence are a common occurrence (it's usually the parents who get their knickers in a twist).

I do hope that if these rumours are true the BCC make an example of him. He is not a good role model.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

He isn't a role model. He never pretended to be. You choose your own heroes, that you want to put on a pedestal and emulate.

The "role model" excuse is trotted out all the time. It doesn't wash with me. If I think someone's in the wrong, its up to ME to stop watching them or allowing my kids to watch them. Not the BBC.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *unky monkeyMan
over a year ago

in the night garden

"All the peeps at work play football on a Thursday night. It's used to legitimately hurt people you don't like. It's quite cathartic to kick a boss on the kneecap.

So thankfully no fracaseseses here (off pitch).

Kicking a ball and a kneecap are quite different things.

Violence is never to be condoned. Playing a game and working through your issues using the rules

as an excuse to hurt someone

Next you will be saying you haven't purposely aimed your tiddlywink at an opponent before.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

"He isn't a role model. He never pretended to be. You choose your own heroes, that you want to put on a pedestal and emulate.

The "role model" excuse is trotted out all the time. It doesn't wash with me. If I think someone's in the wrong, its up to ME to stop watching them or allowing my kids to watch them. Not the BBC."

Yes and no.

Violent and abusive people should not be celebrities, or celebrated. Those that make money tend to get away with far too much.

Viewer responsibility is important but those whose anti-social behaviour is sufficiently serious should lose publicity. No tv/film/radio contracts, no media coverage.

They should also be prosecuted as if they are "ordinary" people, without PR companies to cover things up and pay their way out of trouble.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
Forum Mod
over a year ago

Why are people so angry about everything these days?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *educedWoman
over a year ago

Birmingham

"He isn't a role model. He never pretended to be. You choose your own heroes, that you want to put on a pedestal and emulate.

The "role model" excuse is trotted out all the time. It doesn't wash with me. If I think someone's in the wrong, its up to ME to stop watching them or allowing my kids to watch them. Not the BBC."

I am happy that you are quite clearly able to distinguish that the man (and others) is an eejit.

However, there is a large proportion of society who don't!

Celebrities, who despite appalling behaviour, are heralded as the best thing since sliced bread and are people who should be emulated.

We try to teach our children and young people about the consequences of their actions and yet they see the 'rich and famous' getting away with all sorts and despite what you say or what you believe, it does have an affect.

The BBC (and others) have a moral obligation to do the right thing should the rumours be true.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"He isn't a role model. He never pretended to be. You choose your own heroes, that you want to put on a pedestal and emulate.

The "role model" excuse is trotted out all the time. It doesn't wash with me. If I think someone's in the wrong, its up to ME to stop watching them or allowing my kids to watch them. Not the BBC.

Yes and no.

Violent and abusive people should not be celebrities, or celebrated. Those that make money tend to get away with far too much.

Viewer responsibility is important but those whose anti-social behaviour is sufficiently serious should lose publicity. No tv/film/radio contracts, no media coverage.

They should also be prosecuted as if they are "ordinary" people, without PR companies to cover things up and pay their way out of trouble."

But there isn't a law that says someone cannot be an actor/presenter/sportsperson just because they punched someone in the face. If that were the case,then we would be showing a LOT of repeats. He can be prosecuted as easily as Joe public, its a criminal offence to punch someone in the face. Everyone is covered by that law, from the homeless to royalty.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *lshere77Man
over a year ago

Wigan

I reckon the producer had it coming.......the sandwiches still had the crusts on!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I just LOVE trial by Media

Geneflucting Gimp

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *nleashedCrakenMan
over a year ago

Widnes

Being a bit of a fan of the old Orangutan I'll save my judgment until all the relevant facts are know.

However I'm also a firm believer in the rule of law and that all people should be equal under the law. Therefore, if it turns out that Clarkson has behaved inappropriately he should be treated in exactly the same way as anyone else would be in similar circumstances. No better and no worse!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *eliciouslyNastyMan
over a year ago

London

"Why are people so angry about everything these days? "

Yeah... I just don't get it either...

The worlds such a better place if your relaxed...

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

At my work, the people who get violent and decide to punch, kick or bite you have dementia, I got smacked last night for trying to help someone

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *nleashedCrakenMan
over a year ago

Widnes

"He isn't a role model. He never pretended to be. You choose your own heroes, that you want to put on a pedestal and emulate.

The "role model" excuse is trotted out all the time. It doesn't wash with me. If I think someone's in the wrong, its up to ME to stop watching them or allowing my kids to watch them. Not the BBC.

Yes and no.

Violent and abusive people should not be celebrities, or celebrated. Those that make money tend to get away with far too much.

Viewer responsibility is important but those whose anti-social behaviour is sufficiently serious should lose publicity. No tv/film/radio contracts, no media coverage.

They should also be prosecuted as if they are "ordinary" people, without PR companies to cover things up and pay their way out of trouble.

Except that the current Sovereign (currently the Queen) can claim Sovereignty Immunity, as can any serving monarch from any country. Which means she, or they, can do pretty much what they like in this country and not be prosecuted.

Some people are actually and legally, above the law.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *nleashedCrakenMan
over a year ago

Widnes

"Why are people so angry about everything these days? "

I don't know why people are so angry about everything these days. It just makes my blood boil.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

When I first started work in a shipyard in 1977, fights were considered normal, but times have changed, probably for the better, but I do think work could be so much better if just occasionally you could smash a computer screen over the bosses head, there quite light these days, aren't they.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

"He isn't a role model. He never pretended to be. You choose your own heroes, that you want to put on a pedestal and emulate.

The "role model" excuse is trotted out all the time. It doesn't wash with me. If I think someone's in the wrong, its up to ME to stop watching them or allowing my kids to watch them. Not the BBC.

Yes and no.

Violent and abusive people should not be celebrities, or celebrated. Those that make money tend to get away with far too much.

Viewer responsibility is important but those whose anti-social behaviour is sufficiently serious should lose publicity. No tv/film/radio contracts, no media coverage.

They should also be prosecuted as if they are "ordinary" people, without PR companies to cover things up and pay their way out of trouble.

I didn't say there was a law.

I'm saying the BBC and other broadcasters, film production companies, sports teams etc should not employ people in public roles who simply cannot behave, (and obviously I only mean for repeated or serious transgressions).

They shouldn't be able to let the fame, money and success go to their head because they should know that it's over the minute they get too big for their boots.

Too many stars think they are beyond the law and, unfortunately, quite a few seem to be correct (despite your apparent belief that we're all subject equally to the same laws).

If the public have a responsibility not to watch those they consider bad role models, (as you suggested), the BBC and other organisations should have a responsibility not to give them publicity.

The BBC could refuse to employ Clarkson, or anyone else who thinks they can randomly punch people, (if, in fact, he did), without there needing to be a law about it.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

His daughter tweeted "please take him back he's in the kitchen cooking!"

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"He isn't a role model. He never pretended to be. You choose your own heroes, that you want to put on a pedestal and emulate.

The "role model" excuse is trotted out all the time. It doesn't wash with me. If I think someone's in the wrong, its up to ME to stop watching them or allowing my kids to watch them. Not the BBC.

Yes and no.

Violent and abusive people should not be celebrities, or celebrated. Those that make money tend to get away with far too much.

Viewer responsibility is important but those whose anti-social behaviour is sufficiently serious should lose publicity. No tv/film/radio contracts, no media coverage.

They should also be prosecuted as if they are "ordinary" people, without PR companies to cover things up and pay their way out of trouble.

Some people are actually and legally, above the law."

She DOES need slapping. They CAN claim immunity, but I hardly think they would. Its not good PR!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I love how the threat of paperwork is worse than punching someone in the army. Says a lot. Not in a good way.

Paperwork is the threat to the person handing out the punishment, the person that messed up doesn't have to spend and hour writing a form out on how he should be dealt with. We didn't get punched for messing up little things etc, we got punched for messing up big time, like almost killing somebody etc. I remember getting punched for things that seemed trivial but I learnt my lesson and didn't do it again.

today, the privates, craftsmen etc get pissed, get into a fight, somebody has to fill in hours of paperwork, they get a crap punishment like a guard duty, which in some places is a perk as you get the next day of work paid. what happens the Friday after that, they do the same thing again. He wouldnt do it twice if he had some sense smacked into him.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"His daughter tweeted "please take him back he's in the kitchen cooking!"

Its a bloody scam for publicity, like shooting council officials in front of their children.

Whatever you think about him, he plays this evil pantomime villain to a tea, using the PC brigade to fan the flames.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"He isn't a role model. He never pretended to be. You choose your own heroes, that you want to put on a pedestal and emulate.

The "role model" excuse is trotted out all the time. It doesn't wash with me. If I think someone's in the wrong, its up to ME to stop watching them or allowing my kids to watch them. Not the BBC.

Yes and no.

Violent and abusive people should not be celebrities, or celebrated. Those that make money tend to get away with far too much.

Viewer responsibility is important but those whose anti-social behaviour is sufficiently serious should lose publicity. No tv/film/radio contracts, no media coverage.

They should also be prosecuted as if they are "ordinary" people, without PR companies to cover things up and pay their way out of trouble.

I didn't say there was a law.

They shouldn't be able to let the fame, money and success go to their head because they should know that it's over the minute they get too big for their boots.

Too many stars think they are beyond the law and, unfortunately, quite a few seem to be correct (despite your apparent belief that we're all subject equally to the same laws).

If the public have a responsibility not to watch those they consider bad role models, (as you suggested), the BBC and other organisations should have a responsibility not to give them publicity.

The BBC could refuse to employ Clarkson, or anyone else who thinks they can randomly punch people, (if, in fact, he did), without there needing to be a law about it.

Why should the BBC have to take the moral high ground? They can do as they please in regards to who they employ. They are employers, nothing else. They are not a special cade, and if they were, then legislation would have to be drawn up to encompass this issue. Its a minefield. Its all very well to say "they" shouldn't do tis, that or the other, but to do that, you need laws. We already have those laws. Do you want different laws for different people just because they are famous?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

"He isn't a role model. He never pretended to be. You choose your own heroes, that you want to put on a pedestal and emulate.

The "role model" excuse is trotted out all the time. It doesn't wash with me. If I think someone's in the wrong, its up to ME to stop watching them or allowing my kids to watch them. Not the BBC.

Yes and no.

Violent and abusive people should not be celebrities, or celebrated. Those that make money tend to get away with far too much.

Viewer responsibility is important but those whose anti-social behaviour is sufficiently serious should lose publicity. No tv/film/radio contracts, no media coverage.

They should also be prosecuted as if they are "ordinary" people, without PR companies to cover things up and pay their way out of trouble.

I didn't say there was a law.

They shouldn't be able to let the fame, money and success go to their head because they should know that it's over the minute they get too big for their boots.

Too many stars think they are beyond the law and, unfortunately, quite a few seem to be correct (despite your apparent belief that we're all subject equally to the same laws).

If the public have a responsibility not to watch those they consider bad role models, (as you suggested), the BBC and other organisations should have a responsibility not to give them publicity.

The BBC could refuse to employ Clarkson, or anyone else who thinks they can randomly punch people, (if, in fact, he did), without there needing to be a law about it.

Special laws would not have to be drawn up.

Any employer, including the BBC, radio stations, film producers etc. can refuse to employ anyone on any grounds as long as they aren't discriminating against race/sex/religion etc.

If some random bloke in any town had a name for punching people, it's unlikely any local company, or any company that knew about it would give him a job.

The BBC and other entertainment companies and sports teams etc. create a lot of these problems by making people believe they are above the rules for mere mortals. THAT'S why they should be partially responsible for stopping it.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *icky999Man
over a year ago

warrington

Its just who he is.

He doesn't really harm anyone.

We need to keep quality entertainers at the bbc.

He does alot of work for charity.

Its how people of his generation are.

Said the head of radio1 in 1974

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"He isn't a role model. He never pretended to be. You choose your own heroes, that you want to put on a pedestal and emulate.

The "role model" excuse is trotted out all the time. It doesn't wash with me. If I think someone's in the wrong, its up to ME to stop watching them or allowing my kids to watch them. Not the BBC.

Yes and no.

Violent and abusive people should not be celebrities, or celebrated. Those that make money tend to get away with far too much.

Viewer responsibility is important but those whose anti-social behaviour is sufficiently serious should lose publicity. No tv/film/radio contracts, no media coverage.

They should also be prosecuted as if they are "ordinary" people, without PR companies to cover things up and pay their way out of trouble.

I didn't say there was a law.

They shouldn't be able to let the fame, money and success go to their head because they should know that it's over the minute they get too big for their boots.

Too many stars think they are beyond the law and, unfortunately, quite a few seem to be correct (despite your apparent belief that we're all subject equally to the same laws).

If the public have a responsibility not to watch those they consider bad role models, (as you suggested), the BBC and other organisations should have a responsibility not to give them publicity.

The BBC could refuse to employ Clarkson, or anyone else who thinks they can randomly punch people, (if, in fact, he did), without there needing to be a law about it.

Special laws would not have to be drawn up.

Any employer, including the BBC, radio stations, film producers etc. can refuse to employ anyone on any grounds as long as they aren't discriminating against race/sex/religion etc.

If some random bloke in any town had a name for punching people, it's unlikely any local company, or any company that knew about it would give him a job.

They have the right to sack him. Nobody had the right to make them sack him. Nor should they.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire

Not so much on here but on the other thread it seems some folks are ok that someone allegedly punched someone because they are 'popular' or a bit of a lad etc etc..

have to assume that they would be happy to accept their child coming home after being punched by the best kid on the schools football team for whatever..

or to go into work and cop one but its ok as the person doing the punching has been top of the sales targets this month or has a really good sickness record..

i just dont get it, you wouldn't allow it for yourself or your own but it seems fine cos again allegedly some guy is popular..

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Even in the army we are not allowed to punch, shove or grab people any more, we have to fill out paperwork to give somebody a punishment......it's a joke. for instance somebody accidently fires a weapon and it misses somebody by about a couple of inches,,,, not allowed to punch the person for being a complete and utter dick, but we have to fill paperwork then they get charged.

Getting punched means you didn't do it again, getting charged isn't much of a punishment in my eyes.

The world is going mad!"

In some cases a right hander is all they understand.

The building industry for another.

I've seen lives put at risk deliberately to save time and money.

When you are working in an environment that one stupid action can kill, making reports are pointless. Especially when random subcontractors arrive on a daily basis.

As with the ex docker above, I've seen a crane drivers mate hospitalised by the beating he got for lifting concrete blocks over men's heads without the safety netting, the banding snapped!

He never returned to the site to make any report.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

"He isn't a role model. He never pretended to be. You choose your own heroes, that you want to put on a pedestal and emulate.

The "role model" excuse is trotted out all the time. It doesn't wash with me. If I think someone's in the wrong, its up to ME to stop watching them or allowing my kids to watch them. Not the BBC.

Yes and no.

Violent and abusive people should not be celebrities, or celebrated. Those that make money tend to get away with far too much.

Viewer responsibility is important but those whose anti-social behaviour is sufficiently serious should lose publicity. No tv/film/radio contracts, no media coverage.

They should also be prosecuted as if they are "ordinary" people, without PR companies to cover things up and pay their way out of trouble.

I didn't say there was a law.

They shouldn't be able to let the fame, money and success go to their head because they should know that it's over the minute they get too big for their boots.

Too many stars think they are beyond the law and, unfortunately, quite a few seem to be correct (despite your apparent belief that we're all subject equally to the same laws).

If the public have a responsibility not to watch those they consider bad role models, (as you suggested), the BBC and other organisations should have a responsibility not to give them publicity.

The BBC could refuse to employ Clarkson, or anyone else who thinks they can randomly punch people, (if, in fact, he did), without there needing to be a law about it.

Special laws would not have to be drawn up.

Any employer, including the BBC, radio stations, film producers etc. can refuse to employ anyone on any grounds as long as they aren't discriminating against race/sex/religion etc.

If some random bloke in any town had a name for punching people, it's unlikely any local company, or any company that knew about it would give him a job.

They have the right to sack him. Nobody had the right to make them sack him. Nor should they."

I'm not sure what you're reading but you don't seem to be reading my posts, the ones which you're quoting.

First you said there's no law when I hadn't suggested there's a law.

Now you've said nobody should make the BBC sack him when I've not suggested that either.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ee340Man
over a year ago

Wallington

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

People are going on about violence in the work place etc, technically this incident didn't happen in the work place, it was in their hotel at the end of the working day and according to the story clarkson attempted to punch the other guy which suggests no contact was made. Sounds like it's been blown up by the media to be something much worse than what actually happened.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

"He isn't a role model. He never pretended to be. You choose your own heroes, that you want to put on a pedestal and emulate.

The "role model" excuse is trotted out all the time. It doesn't wash with me. If I think someone's in the wrong, its up to ME to stop watching them or allowing my kids to watch them. Not the BBC.

I am happy that you are quite clearly able to distinguish that the man (and others) is an eejit.

However, there is a large proportion of society who don't!

Celebrities, who despite appalling behaviour, are heralded as the best thing since sliced bread and are people who should be emulated.

The BBC (and others) have a moral obligation to do the right thing should the rumours be true.

They his all the rumours about Savile and others, turning a blind eye because of the 'talent'. Those asking for Clarkson to be reinstated are asking for more blind eyes for 'talent'.

As has been said, violence at work is not acceptable.

If he or anyone else was violent then that should be dealt with.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

"All the peeps at work play football on a Thursday night. It's used to legitimately hurt people you don't like. It's quite cathartic to kick a boss on the kneecap.

So thankfully no fracaseseses here (off pitch).

Kicking a ball and a kneecap are quite different things.

Violence is never to be condoned. Playing a game and working through your issues using the rules

as an excuse to hurt someone

Next you will be saying you haven't purposely aimed your tiddlywink at an opponent before.

Never, but I have winked at some tiddly's.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

"At my work, the people who get violent and decide to punch, kick or bite you have dementia, I got smacked last night for trying to help someone

Hopefully you're not describing the actions of the staff.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ere-for-my-convenienceWoman
over a year ago

Tenbury Wells

I experienced violence in the workplace

Attacked by a drug adict and almost murdered

He did despicable things to me and my colleague with a knife

I'll never ever ever forgive him

I pity him thought because his life's shit

Mine improved

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

"Its just who he is.

He doesn't really harm anyone.

We need to keep quality entertainers at the bbc.

He does alot of work for charity.

Its how people of his generation are.

Said the head of radio1 in 1974

Exactly!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I worked on London Underground for ten years and violence was a daily occurrence. I was assaulted four times.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

"People are going on about violence in the work place etc, technically this incident didn't happen in the work place, it was in their hotel at the end of the working day and according to the story clarkson attempted to punch the other guy which suggests no contact was made. Sounds like it's been blown up by the media to be something much worse than what actually happened. "

When working away from home you're still on work insurance, rules etc. At least that is the case everywhere I have ever worked. Anyone working for me punching a colleague in the hotel I am paying for would have to answer for that.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

"I worked on London Underground for ten years and violence was a daily occurrence. I was assaulted four times. "

I hope not by colleagues.

I have been assaulted at work by another worker - I didn't know him. I have been assaulted by and had threats from clients not great but comes with the territory with the client groups. I expect more from colleagues.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 11/03/15 17:22:45]

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I worked on London Underground for ten years and violence was a daily occurrence. I was assaulted four times.

I hope not by colleagues.

Never by a colleague. And LUL where always very supportive.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Getting punched means you didn't do it again, getting charged isn't much of a punishment in my eyes.

The world is going mad!"

If someone lets off a round and nearly kills someone, punching him isn't going to stop him from doing it again.

Correct training and remedial action through appropriate legal channels us surely the way ahead.

Say you did it and decked him. Over and done with.

If he does it again and kills someone, there will be an inquiry. He could argue that he wasn't retrained correctly so didn't know better. He could also argue he was shit scared of making a mistake and getting punched, he forgot the right drills.

The paperwork is as much to protect you as anything. Punishment is there to train someone of the right behaviors to carry out, not as retribution.

Surely the Army has moved on. Operating within the law isn't going soft, it is doing what is right. And legal.

I don't believe you were ever "allowed" to punch people, not since the army stopped flogging.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *inaTitz OP TV/TS
over a year ago

Titz Towers, North Notts

There are some interesting views expressed here.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Do the armed forces get food served late?if they do, whst do they do?

Mr clarkston should humble himself before others if he can handle such a task. When a human can not humble himself he has had to much exposure

On tv and media.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *andWCouple
over a year ago

Pontypridd

"At my work, the people who get violent and decide to punch, kick or bite you have dementia, I got smacked last night for trying to help someone

Unfortunately that's just part of the job, and understandable violence, not anywhere near the same bracket as Clarkson.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

If I started a thread about my friend, let's call him CJ, who was 'unfairly' suspended because he was accused of hitting someone who obviously deserved it how do you think the forum would respond?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ratty_DamselWoman
over a year ago

London.

Not being able to control ones temper and resorting to violence is the sign over an overgrown child.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I've punched a customer not never a colleague

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Getting punched means you didn't do it again, getting charged isn't much of a punishment in my eyes.

The world is going mad!"

It certainly taught all those that died at Deepdale didn't it, they certainly didn't do it again.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

"If I started a thread about my friend, let's call him CJ, who was 'unfairly' suspended because he was accused of hitting someone who obviously deserved it how do you think the forum would respond?

Is he a single male?

Hang him!!!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

"If I started a thread about my friend, let's call him CJ, who was 'unfairly' suspended because he was accused of hitting someone who obviously deserved it how do you think the forum would respond?

Is he a single male?

Hang him!!!"

But he's ever so popular. The other guy must have deserved it or he wouldn't have hit him.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire

"If I started a thread about my friend, let's call him CJ, who was 'unfairly' suspended because he was accused of hitting someone who obviously deserved it how do you think the forum would respond?

Is he a single male?

Hang him!!!"

would that not make him well hung and possibly increase any on line petition in his support..?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

"If I started a thread about my friend, let's call him CJ, who was 'unfairly' suspended because he was accused of hitting someone who obviously deserved it how do you think the forum would respond?

Is he a single male?

Hang him!!!

But he's ever so popular. The other guy must have deserved it or he wouldn't have hit him.

Is the other guy also a single male?

Hang them both. And then shoot them and stab them a few times, just to be sure.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"If I started a thread about my friend, let's call him CJ, who was 'unfairly' suspended because he was accused of hitting someone who obviously deserved it how do you think the forum would respond?

Is he a single male?

Hang him!!!

But he's ever so popular. The other guy must have deserved it or he wouldn't have hit him.

Is the other guy also a single male?

Hang them both. And then shoot them and stab them a few times, just to be sure."
.

There's a post going at the BBC hr department..

I think your perfect for it

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

"If I started a thread about my friend, let's call him CJ, who was 'unfairly' suspended because he was accused of hitting someone who obviously deserved it how do you think the forum would respond?

Is he a single male?

Hang him!!!

would that not make him well hung and possibly increase any on line petition in his support..?"

Haven't you heard? Size doesn't matter. It's all about the the motion of the yacht and the colour of the sea. Or something.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire

"If I started a thread about my friend, let's call him CJ, who was 'unfairly' suspended because he was accused of hitting someone who obviously deserved it how do you think the forum would respond?

Is he a single male?

Hang him!!!

would that not make him well hung and possibly increase any on line petition in his support..?

Haven't you heard? Size doesn't matter. It's all about the the motion of the yacht and the colour of the sea. Or something."

downsizing is the new err thingie..

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I love how the threat of paperwork is worse than punching someone in the army. Says a lot. Not in a good way.

No. You misunderstand. I find it sad that the idea is punching someone is a better option than paperwork. That "to save time" you are happy to use your fists.

You know what? I can't be arsed to explain further. I'll just punch you in the face. That'll teach you not to accept my opinion as the right one.

Hey, traffic wardens, sod writing out those tickets, just wait for the car owner to come back and deck them.

Yeah... I can see the world functioning so much more efficiently! I totally get your point.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

If it wasn't for form filling bureaucracy this economy would be fucked!.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

No. You misunderstand. I find it sad that the idea is punching someone is a better option than paperwork. That "to save time" you are happy to use your fists.

You know what? I can't be arsed to explain further. I'll just punch you in the face. That'll teach you not to accept my opinion as the right one.

Hey, traffic wardens, sod writing out those tickets, just wait for the car owner to come back and deck them.

Yeah... I can see the world functioning so much more efficiently! I totally get your point."

woah, yes I admit I may have misunderstood your comment and I apologise for that. However if somebody has messed up to the point that somebody's life could be at risk then they deserve the punch. I personally have never had to punch somebody in work. I was just stating that when I was a youngling and I messed up I got punched and didn't do it again.

The option isn't easier than paperwork, paperwork doesn't get the message across to the person who messed up, which means they are gonna do it again and again. which means they mess up and the person really being punished is the person writing the paperwork.

the fact that you would like to punch me is rather harsh, especially over this. but hey you are entitled to your opinion. I just think you have misunderstood my point.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ethnmelvCouple
over a year ago

Cardiff

"If I started a thread about my friend, let's call him CJ, who was 'unfairly' suspended because he was accused of hitting someone who obviously deserved it how do you think the forum would respond?

You make a fair point. The problem is that the 'media' have their teeth in this one.

I have often wondered how footballers who elbow or punch or deliberately head but oponents, or rugby players doings the same, or even cricketers who deliberately bowl to hurt their opponents get away with it.

It is always a question of context and what society deems acceptable at the time - i don't condone violence and personally would always walk away, but it is clear we live in a society with incredible double standards.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I love how the threat of paperwork is worse than punching someone in the army. Says a lot. Not in a good way.

So Craftsman A has a fight. You bring him into your office the next day, and rather than having this fight put on his record, you punch him.

He fights again. There is no record that he was fighting before, because you wouldn't report the fact you punched him.

so you punch him again, to teach him again.

What does he learn? The way to deal with a problem is to punch it.

So you try to stop someone using violence by using violence?

As for getting punched for the very big things like nearly killing someone? As I said earlier, that being done is illegal and counter productive. Surely Military Law has a way of dealing with such offences that is appropriate.

I really hope that if my kids intend to serve in our Military, which is the finest in the world, that they do not end up being trained by you.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *aneandpaulCouple
over a year ago

cleveleys

Nothing wrong with giving someone a slap it,s professional bullying thats far the worst we got bullied out of our job by a little arse hole. I could have flicked him to one side like a fly on your egg but would have lost every thing it made both me and my wife ill. They made us an offer to go we tool it if i ever come across him i would part him from his breath VIOLENCE.

is nothing compared to being professional bullied believe me hope none of you go through it

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

"Nothing wrong with giving someone a slap it,s professional bullying thats far the worst we got bullied out of our job by a little arse hole. I could have flicked him to one side like a fly on your egg but would have lost every thing it made both me and my wife ill. They made us an offer to go we tool it if i ever come across him i would part him from his breath VIOLENCE.

is nothing compared to being professional bullied believe me hope none of you go through it "

Nothing wrong with giving someone a slap?

I, and the law, disagree with you.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

Egads! Having been told yesterday that I'm the most confrontational person on here, it actually seems I'd have to try an awful lot harder for that to actually be the case.

There are some seriously scary things being posted on this thread.

I used to think giving someone a slap was a perfectly good way to deal with things and I had an... erm... rather hands-on approach to dispute resolution. Thankfully I grew out of it and realised the error of my ways in my early 20's.

I find it astounding, and worrying, that anyone could get to my age, or beyond, and still believe that smacking someone is a good way to deal with a problem.

In self defence, yes, as long as it's not a pre-emptive strike. As a means of solving a disagreement or as a means of "education"? No.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *empting Devil.Woman
over a year ago

Sheffield

I once walked away from a job because I got attacked by one of the people working for me. It wasn't the attack that caused me to leave but the reaction of my management team. This person had a history of instability (which I was aware of) and violence (which noone had bothered to fill me in on). Apparently my behaviour in reporting this person's friend for a serious breach of conduct (coming to work d*unk and theft) pushed her beyond her limits and knowing her history of violence (which I didn't) I should have seen this coming. As a result she was not reprimanded and went back to work yet I got a tribunal and a formal warning.

They received my notice when I received the warning.

Every contract I have ever signed has stated that violence towards a colleague or client/customer is grounds for instant dismissal. Unfortunately these rules are only as good as the people who oversee them.

Violence is never an appropriate response. Never.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

"I once walked away from a job because I got attacked by one of the people working for me. It wasn't the attack that caused me to leave but the reaction of my management team. This person had a history of instability (which I was aware of) and violence (which noone had bothered to fill me in on). Apparently my behaviour in reporting this person's friend for a serious breach of conduct (coming to work d*unk and theft) pushed her beyond her limits and knowing her history of violence (which I didn't) I should have seen this coming. As a result she was not reprimanded and went back to work yet I got a tribunal and a formal warning.

They received my notice when I received the warning.

Violence is never an appropriate response. Never."

Except in the case of theft of my chocolate.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *empting Devil.Woman
over a year ago

Sheffield

They received my notice when I received the warning.

Violence is never an appropriate response. Never.

Except in the case of theft of my chocolate."

Nope, not even then.

Yup I'm one of those lefty guardian reading liberals.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

They received my notice when I received the warning.

Violence is never an appropriate response. Never.

Except in the case of theft of my chocolate.

Nope, not even then.

Yup I'm one of those lefty guardian reading liberals.

Did The Guardian cover the story of the man who stabbed his mate in the thigh with a fork, in a Weatherspoon's, because he'd told the mate he could take some chips but he took an onion ring instead?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

the fact that you would like to punch me is rather harsh, especially over this. but hey you are entitled to your opinion. I just think you have misunderstood my point."

No, I think you misunderstand actually.

Punching someone doesn't teach them anything. Except that problems are solved by punching.

If someone discharges a weapon unsafely then presumably the correct course of action would be to understand why that mistake happened and work with them to make sure it never happened again (while, of course, examining the system and checking that it was not the system at fault).

Punching doesn't educate someone. It just hurts them.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *.nottsbloke..Man
over a year ago

the vale

They received my notice when I received the warning.

Violence is never an appropriate response. Never.

Except in the case of theft of my chocolate.

Nope, not even then.

Yup I'm one of those lefty guardian reading liberals.

Did The Guardian cover the story of the man who stabbed his mate in the thigh with a fork, in a Weatherspoon's, because he'd told the mate he could take some chips but he took an onion ring instead?"

I never condone violence but if someone takes food off my plate!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *aneandpaulCouple
over a year ago

cleveleys

Voluptouse Virgo hope you never go through what we went through with getting professionally bullied to leave your Job like what happened to us give me a slap any time at least i could have slapped back. At 60 year old lied in bed on a night crying because there is nothing you can do make both of us ill believe me a slap is nothing

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

the fact that you would like to punch me is rather harsh, especially over this. but hey you are entitled to your opinion. I just think you have misunderstood my point.

No, I think you misunderstand actually.

Punching someone doesn't teach them anything. Except that problems are solved by punching.

Punching doesn't educate someone. It just hurts them."

Weapon safety, its about time the British army taught this subject to every soldier, along with making every weapon as safe to handle as possible.

It must be these cutbacks, recruiting idiots and removing the safety catches

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *nleashedCrakenMan
over a year ago

Widnes

"If I started a thread about my friend, let's call him CJ, who was 'unfairly' suspended because he was accused of hitting someone who obviously deserved it how do you think the forum would respond?

As no one ever 'deserves' to he hit in the work place or anywhere else. If your friend CJ hit anybody for any reason other than self defence or prevention of a crime then your friend has committed an assault and should be sacked and possibly prosecuted.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

"Voluptouse Virgo hope you never go through what we went through with getting professionally bullied to leave your Job like what happened to us give me a slap any time at least i could have slapped back. At 60 year old lied in bed on a night crying because there is nothing you can do make both of us ill believe me a slap is nothing"

Because there are worse things out there does not make violence any more acceptable.

It's ok to run over someone in a car because you could have driven over them in a tank? I don't think so.

"There's nothing wrong with giving someone a slap" is a bullshit statement.

And don't presume to know what I have or have not been through.

It is possible to go through tough times - really bad times, far beyond laying in bed at night in tears - without deciding that violence or threats of violence are an acceptable solution.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

When the story broke it was that he "threw a punch at" a producer. No one said he connected or actually punched anyone.

Now in interviews with dozens of so called "experts" it has become a bust up, a fight, a fracas, or he "punched" the producer.

It could be serious or it could indeed be something and nothing.

I for one will miss Top Gear......it will not survive without Clarkson. He is a tit....but that's what makes the programme!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *empting Devil.Woman
over a year ago

Sheffield

"If I started a thread about my friend, let's call him CJ, who was 'unfairly' suspended because he was accused of hitting someone who obviously deserved it how do you think the forum would respond?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *arry247Couple
over a year ago

Wakefield

"Having looked at the petition doing the rounds to reinstate Clarkson, I've concluded that to some people getting violent at work is ok, if you are popular enough.

I can't think of many jobs where you can belt your gaffer and not get suspended pending an investigation. "

There is a lot of guessing about what occurred.

the full picture has not been reported.

Some say it was at work, some say it was after work at the hotel.

It is not even certain that the producer was hit or whether he was pushed or what actually happened.

Why not wait until the facts are know before drawing conclusions?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I love how the threat of paperwork is worse than punching someone in the army. Says a lot. Not in a good way.

So Craftsman A has a fight. You bring him into your office the next day, and rather than having this fight put on his record, you punch him.

He fights again. There is no record that he was fighting before, because you wouldn't report the fact you punched him.

so you punch him again, to teach him again.

What does he learn? The way to deal with a problem is to punch it.

So you try to stop someone using violence by using violence?

I really hope that if my kids intend to serve in our Military, which is the finest in the world, that they do not end up being trained by you.

Like I said previously, I have never hit any of my lads and I wouldnt. We have respect for each other. the point I was trying to make is that when I was punched, shoved and kicked it taught me never to make that mistake again. I learnt from it.

The army actually trialled a yellow and red card system, basically if a recruit felt threatened as he was being shouted at they could hold up a card and the corporal or saergent was no longer aloud to carry on shouting at them....... that's just ridiculous

the army needs to shout, it's one way you learn, to be able to do things when you are scared and under pressure.

I have never ever lifted a finger to people I command, I have never needed to as its not in my teaching methods. I was pointing out that the army has changed. If a mate had accidently messed up and it could have possibly killed somebody then I know the mentality in the army, take the punch and its forgotten about. paperwork will ruin his career over an accident.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

"Having looked at the petition doing the rounds to reinstate Clarkson, I've concluded that to some people getting violent at work is ok, if you are popular enough.

I can't think of many jobs where you can belt your gaffer and not get suspended pending an investigation.

There is a lot of guessing about what occurred.

the full picture has not been reported.

Some say it was at work, some say it was after work at the hotel.

It is not even certain that the producer was hit or whether he was pushed or what actually happened.

Why not wait until the facts are know before drawing conclusions?"

The only conclusions most are drawing is that violence is not acceptable and that Clarkson is a pillock.

I can't see many people declaring him guilty or innocent and I can see a lot of "if"s.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ardbellyCouple
over a year ago

Alicante

I can't think of many jobs where you can belt your gaffer and not get suspended pending an investigation.

Boxing?

Mr ddc"

Made me giggle

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

I love how the threat of paperwork is worse than punching someone in the army. Says a lot. Not in a good way.

So Craftsman A has a fight. You bring him into your office the next day, and rather than having this fight put on his record, you punch him.

He fights again. There is no record that he was fighting before, because you wouldn't report the fact you punched him.

so you punch him again, to teach him again.

What does he learn? The way to deal with a problem is to punch it.

So you try to stop someone using violence by using violence?

I really hope that if my kids intend to serve in our Military, which is the finest in the world, that they do not end up being trained by you.

the army needs to shout, it's one way you learn, to be able to do things when you are scared and under pressure.

Actually it's been proven that positive reinforcement works better than negative reinforcement and that a person in fear or under severe stress is less able to learn and remember than they otherwise would be.

I'm quite sure Forces personnel need to be pushed. I am certain that punching people and yelling at them is not the best way to teach anybody.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"He isn't a role model. He never pretended to be. You choose your own heroes, that you want to put on a pedestal and emulate.

The "role model" excuse is trotted out all the time. It doesn't wash with me. If I think someone's in the wrong, its up to ME to stop watching them or allowing my kids to watch them. Not the BBC.

Yes and no.

Violent and abusive people should not be celebrities, or celebrated. Those that make money tend to get away with far too much.

Viewer responsibility is important but those whose anti-social behaviour is sufficiently serious should lose publicity. No tv/film/radio contracts, no media coverage.

They should also be prosecuted as if they are "ordinary" people, without PR companies to cover things up and pay their way out of trouble.

I didn't say there was a law.

They shouldn't be able to let the fame, money and success go to their head because they should know that it's over the minute they get too big for their boots.

Too many stars think they are beyond the law and, unfortunately, quite a few seem to be correct (despite your apparent belief that we're all subject equally to the same laws).

If the public have a responsibility not to watch those they consider bad role models, (as you suggested), the BBC and other organisations should have a responsibility not to give them publicity.

The BBC could refuse to employ Clarkson, or anyone else who thinks they can randomly punch people, (if, in fact, he did), without there needing to be a law about it.

Special laws would not have to be drawn up.

Any employer, including the BBC, radio stations, film producers etc. can refuse to employ anyone on any grounds as long as they aren't discriminating against race/sex/religion etc.

If some random bloke in any town had a name for punching people, it's unlikely any local company, or any company that knew about it would give him a job.

They have the right to sack him. Nobody had the right to make them sack him. Nor should they.

I'm not sure what you're reading but you don't seem to be reading my posts, the ones which you're quoting.

First you said there's no law when I hadn't suggested there's a law.

Now you've said nobody should make the BBC sack him when I've not suggested that either.

You said the BBC shouldn't employ people that cannot behave. The inference is that you want him sacked. How else can they not employ him? If he is employed by them, and you think he shouldn't be, he would have to be sacked.

He is subject to the same employment rules as everyone else at the BBC. If he did punch someone in the face it is instant dismissal. That's the same for every employee. The fact that he hasn't been dismissed, sounds to me like he never actually punched anyone.

He punched Piers Morgan, granted, but that was on his own time. He should have been given an OBE for that.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *nleashedCrakenMan
over a year ago

Widnes

"Having looked at the petition doing the rounds to reinstate Clarkson, I've concluded that to some people getting violent at work is ok, if you are popular enough.

I can't think of many jobs where you can belt your gaffer and not get suspended pending an investigation.

There is a lot of guessing about what occurred.

the full picture has not been reported.

Some say it was at work, some say it was after work at the hotel.

If they were at the hotel in a work related activity or as a result of a work related activity then it counts as being at work.

It is not even certain that the producer was hit or whether he was pushed or what actually happened.

Why not wait until the facts are know before drawing conclusions?"

Agree, we should all wait till the facts are know before passing judgment.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

"He isn't a role model. He never pretended to be. You choose your own heroes, that you want to put on a pedestal and emulate.

The "role model" excuse is trotted out all the time. It doesn't wash with me. If I think someone's in the wrong, its up to ME to stop watching them or allowing my kids to watch them. Not the BBC.

Yes and no.

Violent and abusive people should not be celebrities, or celebrated. Those that make money tend to get away with far too much.

Viewer responsibility is important but those whose anti-social behaviour is sufficiently serious should lose publicity. No tv/film/radio contracts, no media coverage.

They should also be prosecuted as if they are "ordinary" people, without PR companies to cover things up and pay their way out of trouble.

I didn't say there was a law.

They shouldn't be able to let the fame, money and success go to their head because they should know that it's over the minute they get too big for their boots.

Too many stars think they are beyond the law and, unfortunately, quite a few seem to be correct (despite your apparent belief that we're all subject equally to the same laws).

If the public have a responsibility not to watch those they consider bad role models, (as you suggested), the BBC and other organisations should have a responsibility not to give them publicity.

The BBC could refuse to employ Clarkson, or anyone else who thinks they can randomly punch people, (if, in fact, he did), without there needing to be a law about it.

Special laws would not have to be drawn up.

Any employer, including the BBC, radio stations, film producers etc. can refuse to employ anyone on any grounds as long as they aren't discriminating against race/sex/religion etc.

If some random bloke in any town had a name for punching people, it's unlikely any local company, or any company that knew about it would give him a job.

They have the right to sack him. Nobody had the right to make them sack him. Nor should they.

I'm not sure what you're reading but you don't seem to be reading my posts, the ones which you're quoting.

First you said there's no law when I hadn't suggested there's a law.

Now you've said nobody should make the BBC sack him when I've not suggested that either.

He punched Piers Morgan, granted, but that was on his own time. He should have been given an OBE for that.

You may infer all you like. What I actually said is written quite clearly.

Violence is not acceptable in a work situation, (or anywhere else). What I do or do not want is irrelevant.

Since Clarkson has been suspended, it suggests that the BBC think he may have acted inappropriately but are taking the time to investigate properly. It's hardly a statement of his innocence.

The fact remains, IF he punched, or attempted to punch, someone it's entirely unacceptable.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

I was bullied at work in two different jobs. It's hell. However, if I had hit anyone then my hell would have been worse.

I have been attacked at work. The two things aren't the same but both took their toll.

NEITHER ARE ACCEPTABLE.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

"Having looked at the petition doing the rounds to reinstate Clarkson, I've concluded that to some people getting violent at work is ok, if you are popular enough.

I can't think of many jobs where you can belt your gaffer and not get suspended pending an investigation.

There is a lot of guessing about what occurred.

the full picture has not been reported.

Some say it was at work, some say it was after work at the hotel.

It is not even certain that the producer was hit or whether he was pushed or what actually happened.

Why not wait until the facts are know before drawing conclusions?"

So threatening violence is acceptable?

I agree about knowing the facts but we are now discussing the principle of violence at work.

Funny how my fictional friend, CJ, isn't treated the same as the famous JC.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *nleashedCrakenMan
over a year ago

Widnes

"Having looked at the petition doing the rounds to reinstate Clarkson, I've concluded that to some people getting violent at work is ok, if you are popular enough.

I can't think of many jobs where you can belt your gaffer and not get suspended pending an investigation.

There is a lot of guessing about what occurred.

the full picture has not been reported.

Some say it was at work, some say it was after work at the hotel.

It is not even certain that the producer was hit or whether he was pushed or what actually happened.

Why not wait until the facts are know before drawing conclusions?

So threatening violence is acceptable?

I agree about knowing the facts but we are now discussing the principle of violence at work.

Funny how my fictional friend, CJ, isn't treated the same as the famous JC."

Even more funny is how you conclude that. The general direction of argument on here so far seems to be from most that violence, or the threat of violence, is unacceptable in the work place, or anywhere else, and that if that is what has happened with either JC or CJ then he should be treated exactly the same as anyone else. However, before jumping to judgment, we should wait till the facts are clearly know.