Let the guy sue Clarkson for assault and get a bunch of his money. Employers aren’t required to ensure their employees get justice nor punish wrongdoers.
Except that any civil suit is going to target Clarkson’s employer (for insufficient supervision) as well as Clarkson himself.
If it was the US, to be sure. I’m not sure that that’s true in the UK.
(Eventually, I expect that all countries will be full of fat, litigious folks. But the US does seem to have hit the mark before all the others.)
However employers generally are required to provide a safe work place. At least in the United States it will be the employer paying out if they winked and nodded at fist fights.
Which makes the OP’s factually incorrect statement correct how?
Meh, a suspension would probably have done the trick. Now the BBC has lost a valuable asset to Amazon. Although actually I think Clarkson is more at home there, having far more freedom than under the restrictions of network TV.
Wow.
…and that’s how Jimmy Savile got away with it for years. And the other Yewtree offenders. And the football managers. And Jerry Sandusky. And all those Catholic priests. And…
What Clarkson did wasn’t remotely as bad, but neither was it permissible, justifiable or ignorable. And this “blame the victim” bullshit isn’t either.
Yes. His persona on the show isn’t an act. It’s basically who he is. There’s a reason James May called Clarkson a knob in public after the punching incident. And May is one of his best friends.
Yes, they are. If they don’t, then they can be sued, too.
It’s also just basic morality. If you allow it to happen, what reason does anyone else have to prevent it from happening to you? If you let him get away with punching people, why should I care if you get punched? Apparently people getting punched is okay.
Society is based on reciprocity. We help others because we would hope that others would help us. That’s how we work together to make things better than if any of us were separate.
It breaks down if you expect everyone to help you, but you refuse to help them. Hence why those who do that are reviled. That’s society punishing them for making everything worse.
How? I mean, slavery was abolished in the UK a few hundred years ago. The kitchen employees worked for the hotel, not the BBC. From the stories at the time, there would have been a hot dinner waiting if Clarkson & the others had gone there straight from filming. But instead, they went to a pub, which is perfectly fine, but obviously screwed up the dinner plans. But if the kitchen staff wants to go home at that point, what’s an assistant producer for the BBC supposed to do? Threaten them? Offer them way more money than he can possibly get from the BBC as a production cost? At some point, the demands of the “talent” are beyond what a single person can meet.
And sometimes being a businessman means showing who is boss.
Sometimes being a businessman means showing that no individual is bigger than the company.
As others commented, it’s not about the Beeb helping an employee get justice; it’s about the Beeb, as employer, being on the hook to the employer who was assaulted on the job by “the talent.”
From the article posted by up_the_junction:
So, is it good business for the Beeb to keep someone around who has put them at risk of bad publicity, endangered other Beeb employees, and triggered significant financial liability for the Beeb?
That doesn’t sound like good business to me.
That’s assuming Clarkson would accept a suspension. Based on the little I’ve heard about him, sounds like his response would be more likely: “Fuck that bollocks!”
I’m really not sure this is right. From what I’ve read the three respect each others’ role and are colleagues and have a certain camaraderie but I thought I’d heard May quoted as saying they weren’t really friends and don’t see each other outside filming.
G
How does a suspension work in the context of being the star of a TV show anyway? They film without him? Would that work?
“Mr Clarkson has gone to a farm in upper Yorkshire, where he is having the time of his life, chasing rabbits.”
“In a Koenigsegg”
Certainly is - vacarious liability of master for acts of servant is a long-established common law rule, and is found in all common law jurisdictions.
Plus, separately, in the context of employment an employer has a duty to provide a safe work environment. Employing someone with form for violence against co-workers is obviously a breach of that duty. That’s why hit a co-worker = instant suspension w/o pay followed by inevitable dismissal.