No because the other employees aren’t making everybody rich.
So, you would have given Clarkson a pass on it, specifically because he brought in lots of money for the BBC?
He should have been fired for being a prima donna asshole long before he clocked somebody. This notion we have in our society that “celebrity” is an automatic “get out of jail free” card is disgusting.
Yes, sometimes being a smart businessman means swallowing your pride and doing what’s right for the business.
Did he say “fuckstick” in front of the children?
IMO, that’s not “swallowing your pride,” that’s “selling your soul.”
And, frankly, a lesser star than Clarkson would almost have undoubtedly been sacked by the BBC years earlier. They repeatedly looked the other way, or slapped his wrist, for misbehavior that would have cost the associate producer of the overnight show on BBC2 (or any other less-well-known employee) their job.
Which makes the OP’s factually incorrect statement correct how?
Do you understand that the BBC is not a businessman or indeed a business? Do you understand that it has priorities (for which it is widely revered) other than those of making a buck?
nobody is obligated to suffer (unwanted and unexpected) physical harm just so you can be entertained.
No, no, it’s about money, apparently.
Incidentally, in case you never saw this, Clarkson has worked for the BBC since the incident. He got properly roasted on the show.
And leaving your business open to a series of high-publicity lawsuits from employees, because you let the “the talent” assault the no-name employees to keep up ratings, is good for business, how?
Does Clarkson have a record for being disagreeable to work with? Or was this a one off? Genuine question because I don’t know.*
Personally while I found both Clarkson and Top Gear entertaining I’m not surprised he was fired, they started going over the thin line between being edgily amusing and downright and nasty and insulting (eg the ‘slope on a bridge’ comment, really?).
A pity because when he reigns it in and plays it seriously Clarkson can be very interesting to listen to.
*Just did a quick google search, at least one former co-presenter says he is: Quentin Wilson says Clarkson 'difficult to work with' - ITV News
They should have had the kitchen on permanent standby, and he wouldn’t have had to punch out anyone.
No idea. It sounds like he was reasonably drunk when the fight took place, so it could be that he has an issue there. I feel like this may also have been around the same time that Clarkson was duking it out with his wife, due to his infidelity, so it’s plausible that he was in a poor temper generally, around that time. (Not that getting caught cheating on your wife is a reasonable excuse for punching someone.)
He didn’t have to punch out anyone anyway, the big fucking drunken baby. :rolleyes:
As a matter of interest, what is a reasonable excuse for punching someone?
I’m asking for a friend.
Okay, thanks.
It might help to know that my friend is NOT an astronaut. So, as a matter of interest, what is a reasonable excuse for punching someone, if you’re not an astronaut?
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/self-defense-overview.html
From a philosophical standpoint, the standard of self-defense is higher than the standard that “the guy was an annoying asshat”. Given that you seem to have accepted Buzz Aldrin’s stance on the matter, you seem to accept that punching someone for being an annoying asshat is also reasonable. I’d venture to guess that the reality is that people will generally not admit to following that standard, but will switch around depending on how much they side with the asshat versus the puncher in the matter.