coldel

If you think that you can do what the hell you like outside of work without it being considered as misconduct then I think your realm of fantasy is certainly a pretty far fetched one. If one of my employees threatens another whilst on a work event at a hotel then it absolutely becomes my issue and will take appropriate action - you would be the biggest mug of a manager running a professional business if you didnt. I would imagine if this was a bunch of mates from a building site having it out whilst all drunk down the pub as per usual then it might not have the same effect. But its not its meant to be a publically funded business and thats different and is being treated as such. Unfortuantely, almost like the Scottish debate, the ones supporting Clarkson here are just calling the ones looking at it from an objective and professional perspective as haters - I don't hate Clarkson, but I don't like his humour either - but I have experienced too much bullying in work places to really sit here and support that kind of behaviour and brush it off as a bit of nothing.

Were they not associated with the notorious 'Ric' fella some time back? I have heard their stuff is hit and miss - so be prepared with back up cash to fix bad fitment.

Sounds like he got wasted, rocked up, couldnt get food as hotel was finished serving for the evening (which I think they are entitled to do) and then he turned his anger on other people and threatened them with being fired as well as various other obscenities. I think the thing most people are missing is that he is an employee of the BBC who pay his salary, his employer categorically told him he is on a final warning and any behaviour deemed misconduct would result in his suspension which from what we know this morning certainly falls into that category. Judging this incident on its own (along with various other anectdotes) is irrelevant, his suspension is a result of cumulative events. He was on a yellow card and he went in studs up and got a second which resulted in a red. As far as I can see the BBC has done what any responsible employer should do and that is look to the interests of ALL its staff, which includes the not so famous people like producers, and decide a next course of action - if it was vice versa and the recipient of the abuse had done it to clarkson he would be fired already and finding his next job, Clarkson is just lucky he is part of a valuable brand but still that shouldn't allow for misconduct to go unchallenged.

Wouldnt be too up tight about 'oiled' filters, lots of stories about them but never actually seen anyone on any forum have an engine problem because of them being oiled (if thats what you are concerned about)

But were they signing a new contract as their current ones are expiring? If so then no need to get 'fired' I would have thought? I would love to see them go off to Sky TV with its more limited viewing audience and see some new blood come in and make Top Gear a more exciting programme to watch again

Perfect match!

I suspect you will get 90% of people say Pistonheads eBay Autotrader Here Nissan garage

I think it's a combination of all of those, along with the added "herd mentality" aspect. As soon as something is posted on Facebook, it instantly becomes internet fact and there's a certain element of those who just want to "belong". You see it on here from certain people who post stuff up just because the internet said so, without taking the time to find out the actual facts behind it. You even see it on here where Facebook conversations are posted up and presented as fact. Cold ice water buckets for a charity they neither heard of or care about for instance? But yes it is ridiculous that so many people have chosen to support someone regardless of what they might have done without knowing the facts. Actually though that's the mentality of your core UKIP supporter so there are plenty of them out there!

I wonder if someone on set threw a punch at JC if he would laugh it off or go off on some rant and want the guy sacked? Suspect it might be the latter

Very lucky, for the first 15 seconds or so they are doing what looks to me about 60mph+, there could be a very good reason the car is stuck there, stupid driving on blind bends.

Miles better than OEM, ran mine for 6 months before I sold the car and worked very well, more than enough capability for my driving style (ie not that fast)

Is like that JC making an apology for comments he has made but they are still not accepted If you think people that like him are 40 something thickos thats completely fine, you are entitled to your opinion, its a FREE world People like to think they live in a Free world the truth I am sure is not so close to that

NOBODY HAS SAID HE HIT SOMEBODY..!!! :scare: PS..I'm an over forty thicko as well... But it is still not clear what he has done that has justified his employer suspending him - yet people want to vote blindly to get him back on? What if it turns out he shoved over the producers pregnant wife during a fracas - would you be happy with your vote then? What if Clarkson was suggesting that the 350z-uk.com community was a bunch of morons and the website be suspended immediately and the BBC were sticking up for you, would you vote for him then? (you get my point ) Voting in effect to re-instate someone when you don't know what he has been suspended for (and lets not forget, it must have taken something along the lines of gross misconduct to have that happen) is not really a good call in my opinion. Wait until you know the facts, if it seems unreasonable in your eyes, then cast your vote to get him back - I just cant believe people would want to vote him back in without knowing why he was suspended in the first place?

...and people wont use TGM because they are a few quid more expensive - well worth taking recommendations with evidence I guess as well - lots of lessons learned with the whole sorry saga

Its not that easy though is it? What does he do when he moves to Sky? Makes a motoring programme? But it wont be Top Gear. What makes Clarkson is him + Top Gear, Clarkson is a one trick pony (can you see him presenting anything other than some satirical motoring show?) yes Sky could create a programme but it will simply split the Top Gear fan base I would suspect.

The question is not whether his wealth 'matters' it's whether it influences his behaviour. I'd be willing to bet that one of the reasons he felt able to behave in a way that most of us wouldn't dream of at work is because the consequences for him would not be the same as they would for us. If I punch someone at work I get the sack. If I get the sack that has a major impact on my life because I lose my income. If I'm a millionaire I don't have to worry about that. The sad part is that 150,000 people who think it's alright to punch someone have signed a petition to have him reinstated. Oh dear. I am just catching up on the whole 'fracas' and yes I was astonished that so many people signed a petition to get it back on without any idea of why it was taken off in the first place. Just, stupid really. I think the BBC have made the right call if he did indeed hit someone, he has stepped right on the line enough times and had plenty of warnings, he was on a last warning, and didn't adhere to that. As much as he brings that entertainment angle to the programme for some people (personally I just don't find him funny, all his stuff is scripted by other people he is just reading it back, probably why when he goes off piste with comments there just isnt the brain power there to be clever about what he says or does) they have to make a call on whether he stays and generally the BBC being the type of business they are have to be sensitive to the majority of the people whose licence fees pay for the show, the majority are not hardcore Top Gear fans although there are plenty of them. I say let the truth come out and then make a call on it, if he has overstepped the line, hit people, then that accounts to gross misconduct and is a sackable offence, I dont see why it should be treated otherwise?

Your write up sounds at least reasoned and not some inane ranting as I can imagine it could be. So well done for that. Sounds like the guy thinks that now his business is 'set up' the hard work is done, if that's his attitude then it will fail in a very short space of time as the customer complaints pile up. Karma is a pretty powerful thing... ...out of interest what experience/qualifications does he have for body work? As most people have said, I could have done (and have done) a better job with a few rattle cans than that shocking piece of work (work used in its loosest terms).

I thought DBA were more expensive by some distance, thats why I bought BD a few years back instead of DBA - absolutely fine on the road no problems at all.

I hate to say it but JC makes Top Gear. If he goes the next presenter will have very big shoes to fill. Be interesting to see if he pipes up on Twitter about it now its been made public. Isnt Clarkson a shareholder of some sort in the Top Gear brand?

To be fair, there was a time when you wouldn't even change a phone (handset) as often as every couple of years. The sceptical, devout anti-Applist voice in my head is currently screaming; just wait until Apple tells everyone they need a new watch ever year or two and watch the sheep come flocking. Granted that may be a somewhat skewed outlook, but you have to admit with Apple it could well happen (to an extent at least). On the topic of tradesmen people of all genders; I know many who wont take their smartphones onto a work site (unless it's the work's phone!). Almost all of them still use those indestructible Nokia handsets for phone calls when on site because their "proper" phones are too expensive to risk. I can't see them taking the same chances with a several hundred pounds worth of watch to be honest. Although that's not to say no one will, of course. Yep not a chance, it will get scratched in some shape or form within a week and that will be that. Most people I know in those trades have the older phones with work numbers separate to personal numbers. When I first got a mobile must be 15 years ago now, I changed yearly when 12 month contracts were the norm - actually only changing every two years seems somewhat odd. The scary thing with these watches is that they will be out of date in terms of hardware within 12 months no problem given the speed of change. Buying this because of the heart rate/health options is really not a sensible choice, given the multitude of devices out there at a fraction of the cost that do exactly that - yes they arent Apple, but I dont think I could justify that sort of money just for a heart rate monitor?

But didn't star trek have 'communicators' which were the flip out things which made a beeping noise - those have been around for years, called, mobile phones, I think

You'd be surprised, lots of guys are wearing half decent watches these days. Plus if you're happy to take your £700 smartphone on site, what difference a £300 watch...? I can stick my phone in a rubber case, in a bag, inside another bag and put the bag away from my powerdrills My dad and brother are car mechanics, they remove all jewellery and watches when they work including wedding rings, they would just get scratched and smashed otherwise. They have cheaper phones with rubberised cases that get put out the way when working.

Cant imagine anyone in skilled labour would want one unless it had a rubber casing and shock proofing - its a lot of £££ even at the lower end of the scale to risk bashing it on something whilst working.

All they need is a few of the right celebs daft enough to spend £13000 on a gold one and pow these could take off irrespective of if they are useful or not. For me they are just not a big enough step change from a phone - I it was hard to see why a tablet could succeed many years ago when they launched but they were enough of a step change from a laptop (size, weight, touchscreen) the watch though I just cant see what tangible benefits there are at the moment that step it away from a phone.

I had a brief read through but lots of different variables missing 1. is the best competition being put up against it 2. it doesnt mention cost of each product (as you would always have a cost vs quality equation, sure a Ferrari is faster than a VW Golf but of course it is, sticking them in a drag race proves nothing) 3. what does the accellerated time rusting period actually signify? is this what you might expect over the course of a year, two, or fifty? If this is say fifty years corrosion then its utterly irrelevant Well those were the main things, but my point is that they would have decided what the test is, the parameters, picked the competition etc - I know, because I have seen this type of 'research' done a million times by many brands (I am a market researcher for FMCGs and they do this sort of 'research' all the time to prove a proven point not to fairly test a hypothesis i.e. L'oreal does this and Persil does that, the whole thing is a fix from the start) and you would be fool to take it as gospel. That said, I am sure its a really good product, but this is hardly definitive.