|
Yes, you're quite right.
That makes it perfectly acceptable to smack people in the mouth in the workplace.
I should have thought before I posted.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
when did the BBC buy hotels in North Yorkshire?
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
|
|
|
|
|
They didn't buy Antarctica, either, but that was his workplace when he was working there.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
but he wasn't working was he, he was attempting to have a late evening meal.
he is a presenter of a car program not a restaurant revue (don't remember any reports of him driving in the hotel)
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
|
|
|
|
|
He was there for work, the accommodation was paid for by his employer, and was with his work colleagues, preparing for the next day.
Look at your own colleagues, where you work. How much would you support their rights to punch you in the mouth, just because they're in a bad mood?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
But he was not AT WORK, you claimed he was in the workplace which he wasn't, now you say it is because he was with work colleagues, I have been on works Xmas parties where people have come to blows and none of them were ever fired.
I don't claim that he didn't deserve the outcome but I do say that the way The BBC have gone about this leaves a lot to be desired.
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
|
|
|
|
|
When your employer sends you to a remote location to do a job, and pays for all your accommodation, you are there as a representative of your employer -- you are in your workplace.
Do yourself a favour, and stop defending indefensible behaviour.
I'm sure you wouldn't defend such actions if they were taken against you yourself.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
I have been in this situation, and I have been on the end of a punch by a colleague on a works do, he was disciplined but wasn't fired and I don't think he should have been, it was what it was and to blow it up out of all proportion would have resulted in the loss of a colleague who was sorry about the incident and is still a good friend.
why do you think such a draconian punishment is justified? I know it will matter little to Clarkson but next time it might be you that loses your temper and finds yourself unemployed.
I don't defend the behaviour but the punishment extreme for the offence.
and he wasn't fired for bringing he company into disrepute.
You are wrong about the workplace, if you have an accident you are regarded as being outside your place of work.
If not you would be liable to be fired for drinking at work, which is patently absurd
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
|
|
|
|
|
Why do you keep jumping from topic to topic in each thread of this discussion?
And a Draconian rule would have allowed bosses to violate employees, so the word is used entirely incorrectly.
People who are violent once in a specific location/relationship will be violent there again. Almost 100% recidivism. If an employee hits another employee, it's instant dismissal.
The one you adore is not exempt from this.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
draconian is a behaviour and is NOT limited to one faction
that is clearly Not the case it is just your justification for making up a history of behaviour to justify your dislike,
the actions may be the result of circumstances (like the recent loss of his mother) that would not reoccur
striking a co-worker is not and never has been instant dismissal, yes it can lead to dismissal depending on the situation but it is not instant dismissal, every decent company will look at the situation and circumstances before depriving someone of their employment, you however seem to think that your opinion should be sufficient to put someone out of work
and this being outside of work clearly makes it a different case anyway
He was in the wrong their is no doubt about this, he even agrees that he was in the wrong, but in relationship to other things happening in this world it is hardly the most serious of crimes is it?
of are you one of those posters on the Guardian that were screaming for his head?
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
|
|
|
|
|
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote: draconian is a behaviour and is NOT limited to one faction
Sheesh.
"Draconian" is an adjective with an extremely specific meaning that is in no way related to rightly firing violent employees.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
if you don't read the post then I guess no explanation is going to be sufficient, you have made up your mind and that is that it seems
ps maybe it does quite mean what you think it does
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draconian[^]
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
|
|
|
|
|
Oh come on, he was on final warning and punched a colleague. What the elephant did he expect, a ticking off?
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
Was he on a final warning or was that just him being a prat?
The points I was making was,
1, It is not an instant dismissal for punching a cow-worker it is jus one option open to the company
2, he wasn't at work when it happened
3, we don't know enough details to say whether this was a justified punishment
however this hasn't stop idiots from both sides
I do think he should have been punished but to what degree would depend on factors that I have no knowledge of (and neither does any one else not directly connected to the events)
Yet we have these idiots that say he should have got scot free - (which is stupid) right though to those that say he should never be allowed to work in TV again (equally stupid)
I object to both types
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
|
|
|
|
|
It is not acceptable but then again he didn't eat any babies, it was a stupid scuffle and he has paid the price, however if you read the vitriol from his distractors you would think he was jihad John.
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
|
|
|
|
|
He's been fired.
That's it, as far as I'm concerned. He can do what the Hell he likes, now.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
I don't doubt he will and probably on a lot more money that either he was on or that you are on, so I doubt he will care what you think
(oh and to be pedantic he has not been fired, his contract is not being renewed, he will however be paid to the end of his existing contract)
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, let's be pedantic.
He is not being allowed to work until the end of his contract.
That's fired.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
No its not, fired is being dismissed from his employment, what you refer to is suspension on pay which is different.
you do not get paid if you are fired, its pretty much the definition of being fired
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
|
|
|
|
|
Bored with this, now.
If you had to work with someone who behaved that way, you'd be bluddy miserable in your job, so don't try to make out that it's acceptable for other people to work with it.
Stop thinking of Clarkson as if he were some kind of deity, who is exempt from decent, civilised behaviour. He's just an elitist tosser who would treat you like sht1, because you don't have enough family money to impress him.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
oh so you are bored, it must be tough to make these decisions for everyone
you make assumptions based on incomplete information, you regard his actions in ONE instance as an indication of his normal behaviour despite the victim in this case going on records to say the opposite
you then make it about money, nothing said previously indicates this so it is possible to put your attitude down to envy of Clarkson's wealth
being a thug is not the prerogative of the wealthy in fact the amount of cash is no indicator of the personality of the person concerned, there are far more thugs and bullies who are flat broke than are with millions in the bank.
you sound to have a bigger chip on your shoulder than Clarkson has
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
|
|
|
|
|
Dear God.
You know that he will never love you, don't you?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
and haters gotta hate
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
|
|
|
|
|
You're a looney, mate.
I don't hate any of the protagonists of this little scene, but I also do not believe that any of them should be above the law, or should infringe on other people's rights -- e.g. the right to not get punched in the face by cow-orkers.
Your apparent adoration of Mr. Not-in-any-way-special-or-unique Clarkson is blinding you to the fact that he behaved like an @rsehole, and that firing him was the only correct option.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
no you feel that you know more than is public knowledge and assign action that are not proven to justify your dislike of a TV personality, you claim to be supporting the law but as a victim of such behaviour I can assure you that your reaction is NOT based on rational ideas but a knee jerk reaction to someone who you obviously hate, so mush so that your hackles immediately rise should anyone have the nerve to defend him.
I don't think he is or should be above the law I do think that the hate spewed by you and others are far in excess of the crime committed
firing him was not the only option and the fact you think so shows you to be narrow minded and vindictive
as for sanity you may be right however I doubt I will see the inside of a sanatorium without you being there to welcome me on behalf of the other guests
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
