and there is where I think the Beeb may just have gone the moral route (maybe for the wrong reasons, but hey ..)
Shame they didn't do it with Savile (and others). It would have saved a lot of abuse. I still think they cover up far more stuff then we hear (even now). If Clarkson had been well liked by the higher ups we wouldn't have heard as much as we had.
But it's the moral route for something that's probably easier solved by other means, rather than previous indiscretions. I dunno, I just don't like agendas and this has been full of them (from a lot of parties).
Agree with that for sure. You can only hope that the senior people today are a lot different than those from that era.
I think this Clarkson affair is their way of showing they're different and "following due process". I wonder if without the Savile stuff this would never have happened. Suspect so.
Part of me wants to believe that and believe they have changed. The other part thinks they are only doing it as he isn't liked by the higher ups. So it is seen as a easy way to get rid and take a massive hit revenue wise, without a lot of the public going mad.
For the people discussing what they might have done if this had been an employee of theirs. There really is a difference between what's happened in the BBC over TG and what would happen in a private company (or even a small public service office). I used to work at IBM. There were occasional punch-ups (often between between drunk wannabe alpha male salesmen). The next day the two people's managers would have a quiet word, point out the error of their ways and everyone moved on. In the BBC, daft politics and power struggles mean that the same incidents would have been splashed across the front pages of the dailies the next morning. At that point it becomes impossible to deal with it quietly and calmly and it has to be dealt with formally. Hence the media circus and trial by newspaper with pressure to act rather than ignore. Vin
Absolutely correct Vin. But that's kinda my point. It was only splashed over the front pages and made into a 'thing' by the big boss, Daniel Thingamybob. Not through any other leak.
Indeed..! It was the thing that made me take a step back and realise the headlines were all just panic buttons to press.
On the bit in bold Vin, what if one of those employees had a track record of 'causing problems'; would a quiet word still suffice? Was the incident a red card incident or just a yellow; were they already on a yellow or not? Does the referee, sorry manager, ignore the fact they may have already had a yellow?
Indeed, I was almost going to post the same thing, except that working for someone was something I last did about 10 years ago. But I can picture one person from back then who was far too obviously aware of his own importance. Although he was a major contributor, and it was difficult to lose him, things were far better once he'd gone. The tension went out of the workplace and everyone performed better.
Some did have a track record but it was very much seen as one of those things that happen when you bundle a large number of driven people together. There were people everyone just knew to avoid if they'd had a drink. They were almost always good producers; the thing that made them aggressive with colleagues also won them business. Bear in mind that the referee's pay depended on the people he/she was refereeing, so this may have altered their views on good salesmen (cue Tom telling me that referees are never biased). Vin
