WMN: t3_30addl_t1_cpqynjg

[TITLE]

CMV: Assuming the allegations against him are true, the decision to fire Jeremy Clarkson was the right one

[feartrich]

It's simple. If I get in a fight in my workplace and send someone (who appears to not have fought back) to the hospital, I deserve to be fired. It doesn't matter how shitty my work conditions are, punching someone in the face after several minutes of cussing someone out is not acceptable behavior. But then, fans say, he's too important! He's an *icon* and a *fundamental part of the show*; you can't compare his position to a *normal* job! IMO this is stupid argument. Many shows have switched hosts and become equally successful. And simply being famous is not an excuse for acting like an ass. Many a CEO/producer/actor has been fired for this kind of behavior, and I simply don't think Clarkson should be exempted from this standard. Please CMV. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

[Stokkolm]

It's just a punch what's the big deal. He regretted and apologized the next day. Other people smile in front of their bosses and then constantly sabotage them and call them idiots behind their back, which is way way worse yet nobody bats an eye.

[Theige]

If the allegations are true they should have called the police.

[MageZero]

They did. There is an investigation ongoing.

[fanningmace]

It's purely a business decision. There are plenty of athletes who are "excused" from their bad behavior because they bring in millions of dollars. It's the same thing with Clarkson. So, was it the right decision from a business perspective to fire him? Only time will tell. I'm guessing the ultimate answer will be "no", but perhaps the BBC won't mind the lost revenue. I do think that Top Gear will cease to exist or will be significantly less-popular that it is now. And, thusly, it will prove to be a poor business decision.

[EyeRedditDaily]

Clarification question: What the hell are you talking about?

[ZeusThunder369]

I don't think this will end up being the right decision. Leaving morality aside, the show will have less viewers with the host replacements than they would have had not firing Jeremy. To put it another way, firing Jeremy will cost them more money than not firing him. It wasn't a good business decision, therefore it was the wrong decision.

[thegwynne]

Assuming making money is your top priority, above being a moral entity, you are of course correct in this. But thats a pretty ludicrous assumption you got there

[SurlyMcBitters]

BBC is a corporation. It only exists for the profit of its shareholders. Money is the only thing.

[strong_potato]

There's more to life than money. Even folks who work for corporations like the BBC understand that.

[thegwynne]

No. It also exists to abide by the laws and morals of the country in which it operates. In particular laws. Which don't condone physical abuse of junior members of staff.

[SurlyMcBitters]

Laws, yes. Morals, no. Corporations are under no obligation to act "morally" in the pursuit of increased shareholder value.

[strong_potato]

They're under no obligation but that doesn't mean they won't do it anyway.

[thegwynne]

Fine then, fuck morals, lets just use law. Like the laws against assault, and the laws protecting employee rights. The point still stands.

[30piecesofkarma]

Do laws against assault carry with them a requirement that the offender be fired from their employment? Do *any* laws protecting employee rights obligate a company to fire an employee?

[thegwynne]

Re employee protection laws, I'm really struggling to find out. Plenty of places say that as an employee you have a right to protection from bullying at work, so if the BBC failed to take action (bearing in mind that JC was on a final warning already, so options for action apart from termination of contract were pretty limited) the guy would almost certainly have had a good claim to sue the BBC, but more precise details are really hard to work out. I'm no legal expert, would following a course of action that you knew would get you were aware would leave you liable to litigation be the same as breaking the law? Regardless, having looked into it a bit more, I am once again prepared to argue that morality DOES come into it, due to the BBC's weird position as a public service broadcaster. In the Royal Charter under which it operates: [STA-CITE]> the Corporation exists to serve the public interest and to promote its public purposes: sustaining citizenship and civil society, promoting education and learning, stimulating creativity and cultural excellence, representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities, bringing the UK to the world and the world to the UK, helping to deliver to the public the benefit of emerging communications technologies and services, and taking a leading role in the switchover to digital television. [END-CITE]This is a list of things the BBC exists to do. Money making is on there, but it is not the only thing, and it is not given special precedence. Frankly it makes me sick that I have to justify my view that companies should be expected to act morally, but given that you're forcing me to do so, here is a reason why this particular company in question has a *requirement* to act morally.

[mybeard]

The BBC doesn't have any shareholders. Its charter (from Wikipedia): [STA-CITE]>The 2007 Charter specifies that the mission of the Corporation is to "inform, educate and entertain". It states that the Corporation exists to serve the public interest and to promote its public purposes: sustaining citizenship and civil society, promoting education and learning, stimulating creativity and cultural excellence, representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities, bringing the UK to the world and the world to the UK, helping to deliver to the public the benefit of emerging communications technologies and services, and taking a leading role in the switchover to digital television. [END-CITE]In full: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/governance/regulatory_framework/charter_agreement.html

[SurlyMcBitters]

Thank you for the knowledge. Excellent post. Upvoted.

[huadpe]

BBC is owned by the government of the United Kingdom. If the sole shareholder (the government) chooses to operate it in a fashion other than maximizing profit, that is their prerogative.

[ZeusThunder369]

Not to be flippant, but assuming that making money is the top priority for a business is... a ludicrous assumption? I've never lived in the UK, is it different there than in the US?

[thegwynne]

Lol, no, the top priority of a business is to abide by the laws (and arguably morals) of the country in which it operates. Second to that comes revenue. To construct a massively exaggerated example, if a company made money by killing people, taking posession of all of their stuff, and then selling it for profit, I assume you would not condone that as a business strategy?

[ZeusThunder369]

No, because that would be illegal and would carry with it enormous penalties; Both in fines and in lost customers. Here is a real world example, that is actually quite common. Many business break white collar and/or finance laws knowing full well that they will be caught. However, since the fine levied against them is less than the extra profit they make by breaking the law, they consider it the "cost of business" and just do it anyway. So clearly, the first priority is revenue ahead of abiding by the laws in this scenario. Another real world example about morality. When vehicle companies have to decide whether or not to issue a recall, they factor in the cost of the recall versus how much money they'd lose in lawsuits. If the lawsuits (from people being injured/killed by their defective products) are assumed to be less than the cost of the recall, often they will not recall the product.

[thegwynne]

If you're claiming that either of those two are morally justified, then we differ too much morally for this to be worth discussing. I agree that they happen, I don't think that they should. ~ the same as corporate tax avoidance.

[MageZero]

I'm pretty sure that looking at how the world works, money trumping morality is not a ludicrous assumption. YMMV.

[robo-tronic]

Imagine a normal working environment. You are a part of it. You assault someone you work with and you lose your job. They replace you with someone else. Now imagine that you are the reason everyone else has that job. If you get fired, the job goes away for everyone. The sound crew, the scouts, the camera crew. The whole operation is finished. The point is, you are replaceable. Just a cog in the wheel that helps things along. Jeremy Clarkson is the thing that makes the whole thing go. Should disciplinary action be taken? Absolutely. Should the whole thing be shit canned and everyone loses? I don't think so.

[chewingofthecud]

If by "right" you mean "right for the health of the show", then that remains to be seen. Normally when a successful show's host is replaced or when a famous band fires their singer, this actually hurts them, so this is a dubious claim. But time will tell. If by "right" you mean "just plain right", then I'm afraid I need clarification. Typically when we say something is "just plain right" we mean that it was right if you want to achieve X. What exactly does firing him achieve, if not improving the production of the show (which was addressed above)?

[guruwin]

Do you mean morally right? Or the best thing for the show? Frankly, the public wasn't that upset about this, most of the online chatter I've seen supports Clarkson (not necessarily his recent actions, but him), and he is extremely popular. A good PR rep could easily make this go away in a few weeks. I think the show would have been better off disciplining him but leaving him as host. I really think the dynamic of the show will be ruined without him. If your view is that it was the morally right thing to do, I won't argue with that.

[awa64]

First thing's first: What Clarkson did was unacceptable. It should not be tolerated, and he should be punished for it. But if the point of firing Jeremy Clarkson is to punish Jeremy Clarkson? He committed assault and battery. There's a branch of the British government whose job it is to deal with that, and it's not the BBC. Moreover, it's not much of a punishment—Clarkson is rich as hell, still has his celebrity cachet, and there's plenty of non-BBC production companies who'd love a Top Gear-esque show featuring Top Gear's main attraction. If the point of firing Jeremy Clarkson is to somehow provide justice for Oison Tymon? Tymon's presumably out of a job now, because there's no Top Gear without Jeremy Clarkson (not because the show couldn't work without him, but because Hammond and May won't do the show without him). If the point of firing Jeremy Clarkson is to demonstrate that sort of behavior is intolerable from their employees, especially employees in positions of power? Well, they lost the moral high ground when a BBC executive compared Clarkson to Jimmy Savile. So what should they have done? I have no idea. Offered to re-sign him for another series, but with him being paid minimum wage and the rest of his compensation going to Tymon, maybe?

[psw1994]

[STA-CITE]> If the point of firing Jeremy Clarkson is to somehow provide justice for Oison Tymon? Tymon's presumably out of a job now, because there's no Top Gear without Jeremy Clarkson (not because the show couldn't work without him, but because Hammond and May won't do the show without him). [END-CITE]I hadn't thought of this, but really it's a fantastic point. Thanks for this, I'll be putting it my Clarkson fanboy arsenal. Top Gear mustn't die.

[BatmanClubSandwich]

Oison Tymon isn't employed for Top Gear, he's employed to the BBC. They'll simply give him a new project.

[mybeard]

It's an inaccurate point, he's still employed by the BBC. Even if Top Gear ceases production (which is unlikely I think) he'll be reassigned.

[falsehood]

[STA-CITE]> If the point of firing Jeremy Clarkson is to demonstrate that sort of behavior is intolerable from their employees, especially employees in positions of power? Well, they lost the moral high ground when a BBC executive compared Clarkson to Jimmy Savile. [END-CITE]Not sure this is a valid counter argument. If they didn't get rid of him, they would yield more of the moral high ground, regardless of the comparison.

[Helicase21]

I agree with you but will dispute your view for the sake of argument: While it may have been the right decision morally, it is not a good decision for the BBC. Top Gear is a huuuuuuge moneymaker for them, and it is largely Clarkson's creation. What's more, Hammond and May (mostly May) seem to be suggesting that they won't return to the program without Clarkson. A refreshed Top Gear with new hosts likely won't do nearly as well as one with Clarkson, Hammond, and May. It depends on your criteria of "right decision". Right morally, sure.Right financially, not so much. Edit for additional argument: According to the BBC report, Clarkson both A) was the one who reported this incident, and B) made repeated attempts to apologize to Mr. Tymon. The BBC appeared to do very little to acknowledge these in its 'sentencing'

[bgaesop]

Nobody seems to be talking about the fact that getting rid of Clarkson will deprive millions of people of millions of manhours of quality entertainment per week. There are 174 episodes of Top Gear, it averages 350 million viewers per episode (more than the entire population of the USA!), that's over six and a half millenia of manhours of entertainment he's provided. Getting rid of Clarkson will stop all of that from continuing to happen, and all of the discussions I've seen of this don't take that into account.

[DeathlyAcorn]

Probably because it's a pretty silly argument. They're not putting him to death, just not renewing his contract. All of that existing content is still available to watch again and again, and it's practically inevitable that he'll reappear in a similar format for another television channel.

[zincpl]

yeah, the standard solution to 'we should fire you but we want to keep you' is some kind of anger management class, I'm surprised they didn't pull that one out here, so probably that means someone higher up wanted him gone anyway.

[ilikewc3]

I've heard he is a pretty huge dick

[bag_of_oatmeal]

Have you even seen the show Top Gear? He is a massive dick, nearly the entire episode. That is part of what makes him so entertaining.

[MontiBurns]

He's been stepping on lots of toes for a while. I think hes funny and the dynamic of those 3 works perfectly, but i get tired of his dickish personality after a while and need a break. Lots of people really dont like him, both at the bbc and the general public. He's gotten to big for his britches in some peoples eyes, and he's beyond being corralled by network execs at this point. Bbc likes the clarkson dickeshness as a breath of fresh air, but dont want him as the face of the bbc. Im sur this is both at a personal and professional level.

[aardvarkious]

I don't think I have ever worked for a company that wouldn't fire someone for violence in the work place. There is no way that is the standard response.

[Akoustyk]

Granted, but firing him ruins the most popular show worldwide. Fuck the BBC executives. I find it's kind of power trippy. Fine him, send him to anger management, get him to publicly apologize, or any number of things, but don't ruin the best show... in the world.

[aardvarkious]

Meh. I like the move. Fuck him. Just because you are famous doesn't mean you should get away with shit like this. Tonnes of kids love the show. It is great for them to show that this kind of behaviour is completely unacceptable, not have it something that is promoted (by someone they enjoy watching doing it with impunity).

[Akoustyk]

People get into altercations all the time. There are a number of ways to publicly humiliate him, or demonstrate that he is not getting away with it, without ruining top gear. Top Gear is over now. That hurts all of us, more than Jeremy. Sure, he should be held accountable for what he did, but destroying Top Gear is like a punishment to the world. I think it's stupid.

[aardvarkious]

People do not get into obscenity ridden, violent altercations at work and keep their job all the time. I have heard of and seen many, many such altercations and never once seen the perpetrator keep their job. A public apology and anger management classes would be a joke- a minor slap on the wrist like that would certainly be him getting away with it. It is a TV show. If this hurts you in any substantial way, you need to re-examine your life.

[Akoustyk]

It's not like they were in the office. May was saying they were all wasted. It's a good show, one of the best shows that exists. It no longer existing sucks. A lot of people will be disappointed. It's one of the only shows I care about. I don't need to re-examine my life because something great has ceased to exist. If you don't care about the show, then good for you. There are a number of different options. They could have pressed charges, or done basically anything. I just gave examples. You can come up with anything else you think is sufficient, that isn't stopping the show, and that would be better.

[probably-on-ambien]

If they pressed charges and Jeremy lost he would be in jail for a substantial amount of time. No one is saying he can't ever be on TV again and no one is saying he can't work with Richard and James again. But the BBC told him he had one more strike til he was out, they WARNED him, **twice**, and at this point it's his own goddamn fault.

[Akoustyk]

They did warn him, I'll give you that, but Top gear is special. They didn't ruin Jeremy, they ruined top gear.

[aardvarkious]

Charges are being pressed too. I love the show as well. It is one of the few shows which I have seen every episode for. However, we live in an egalitarian society. You shouldn't be treated differently than anyone else just because you are a TV star.

[Akoustyk]

It's not because he is a TV star. It's because he is an artist. His creations can no longer exist now. There was some serendipitous magic when those three were brought together to make this special show that took over the world because it is so great. It's magic they somehow managed to find. The producer is just some guy in some bureaucracy. I mean, obviously no people should go around punching people or being abusive. But boxers and soccer players sometimes bite people, or headbutt refs, and things like that. Sometimes stuff happens. When a rare artist makes a mistake, it makes no sense to deprive the rest of history of some special art, that some rare group of guys are making. Reprimand him, sure. You oculd do so many things. You could make him publicly declare that he was at fault, and give the producer 50% of his earnings for the next 2 years, or anything. There is so much you could do to reprimand him. Depriving the world of this rare creation makes no sense to me. Art is special. It doesn't matter if he is a star, or famous or rich. None of that matters. What matters is that no more top gears will ever be made. That's it, it was destroyed. It's like shooting ronaldo in the kneecaps or something. Obviously you never want to shoot anyone in the kneecaps, but it's not the same to shoot a guy stealing your stereo in the kneecaps, and the best soccer player in the world. It's just not the same thing. They are both completely illegal, and it's the same crime legally, but the guy that shoot the thief in the kneecaps would be much less of an idiot than the guy that shot ronaldo in the kneecaps. That producer ruined special art. He didn't have to.

[jamiroq]

It sets a bad precedent for other employees at the BBC, "one rule for them and one rule for us" type mentality, the BBC were really stuck between a rock and a hard place on this decision. What if Clarkson doesn't get sacked and in a few months time does something that's grounds for instant dismissal again? Do they just write it off again and again because Top Gear is important? You can't let anyone think they can get away with anything they want and while it's a shame Top Gear won't be the same, you only have Clarkson to blame.

[Akoustyk]

There is only one clarkson and one top gear. If one thinks that Clarkson decking his producer when he is drunk is precedent for one to hit their boss when they're drunk and not get fired, then they're an idiot, and they deserve to lose their job.

[zardeh]

Key word, "but we want to keep you"

[feartrich]

∆ Honestly, I didn't think of it this way. I think in this kind of situation, you're not usually fired for money, but rather because people don't want to work with you anymore. But I see a reason why they shouldn't fire him: because it's bad for business.

[TheInternetHivemind]

If you want to go into the moral side. The guy he punched said he just wants to get back to filming Top Gear. With Jeremy fired, and May/Hammond's contracts coming up in a month, there will be no Top Gear. So essentially, the victim got fired against his own wishes because he got punched.

[Jazz-Cigarettes]

Even if that is true, it's not only about the victim's feelings on the matter. The BBC has a professional reputation to worry about, and if they don't handle this forcefully then people (most importantly, current and potential future employees) will regard them as a joke. Imagine if your boss at your work assaulted another one of your colleagues and the senior management swept it under the rug rather than firing him because somebody thought he was cool and funny. Even if the victim was "ok with it", you'd still think it was incredibly fucked up because it means that your employer is apparently willing to tolerate *you* getting abused by management with seemingly no repercussions. Their decisions have an impact on the whole company, not just the two individuals directly involved.

[mybeard]

He's a senior producer with the BBC, he hasn't lost his job even if Top Gear doesn't continue production.

[MontiBurns]

On the contrary, giving someone impunity by not firing them is terrible for business in the long run, tegardless of their success. Shows come and go, stars come and go, but the network remains. Success comes in cycles. You cant afford to give out special treatment to the successful stars because that establishes a culture of stars[STA-CITE]>network. You get a network thats run by self absorbed personalities who are free to do what they please because they are beyond the reach of execs. where stars dont care about hurting their networks brand in the long run as lng as it boosts their profile in the short term. Its absolutely crucial that the bbc maintain the authority and control over their personalities, regardless of how successful they are. [END-CITE]Edit. Obviously the punishment should fit the crime. Charlie scheen got fired as the highest paid actor on tv, both because of his personal life and calling his boss a kike. Physical violence is waaay over that line

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Helicase21. [^Helicase21's ^delta ^history](/r/ChangeMyView/wiki/user/helicase21) ^| [^delta ^system ^explained](/r/ChangeMyView/wiki/DeltaBot)