Clarkson

chris_bass

I have family members who worked on Top Gear right up to the incident and I can't see any reason to disbelieve that this was anything but unintentional.

bendertherobot

VTech wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

VTech wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Wilman now. May confirming he won't work with Jeremy. Richard has lunch with all three.

Over to you Netflix.......

Does anyone believe that ?

Yes. Wilman has quit.

Yes. May has said that.

Yes, Richard had lunch with all three.

Or do you mean the Netflix thing?

I mean, does anyone think they won't work together as a team again ?

My bad. Typ0. Should have said May wouldn't work without Clarkson.

VTech

Chris Bass wrote:

I have family members who worked on Top Gear right up to the incident and I can't see any reason to disbelieve that this was anything but unintentional.

Speak to them about it. Ask their opinion of the incident and how it came to light, how it became public knowledge and ask them about the meeting at the shard.

chris_bass

VTech wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

I have family members who worked on Top Gear right up to the incident and I can't see any reason to disbelieve that this was anything but unintentional.

Speak to them about it. Ask their opinion of the incident and how it came to light, how it became public knowledge and ask them about the meeting at the shard.

way ahead of you there

VTech

Chris Bass wrote:

VTech wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

I have family members who worked on Top Gear right up to the incident and I can't see any reason to disbelieve that this was anything but unintentional.

Speak to them about it. Ask their opinion of the incident and how it came to light, how it became public knowledge and ask them about the meeting at the shard.

way ahead of you there

OK, so he has an argument about hot food when the hotel confirmed they would not only cook food but they would supply food from the normal menu.

No one made a complaint yet JC made the complaint against himself.

Maybe the people you know are studio workers and not on site ?

ddraver

or you could be less condescending and accept that an already heavily stressed man lost his temper after a crap day and did something very stupid...

chris_bass

ddraver wrote:

or you could be less condescending and accept that an already heavily stressed man lost his temper after a crap day and did something very stupid...

awww, come one, surely last time you did something stupid and potentially sackable at work it was because you were hoping a competitor was going to swoop in and offer you more money.

VTech

Chris Bass wrote:

ddraver wrote:

or you could be less condescending and accept that an already heavily stressed man lost his temper after a crap day and did something very stupid...

awww, come one, surely last time you did something stupid and potentially sackable at work it was because you were hoping a competitor was going to swoop in and offer you more money.

It wasn't a stressful day and I have posted countless info within this thread that is very simple to check out and verify.

So your saying that he wouldn't sign his renewal contract with the BBC worth many millions yet you beleive he was worried about losing money from the last 3 episodes ?

driver thinks it condescending that I don't buy the fact that after no complaints about the events of the evening, JC went and shopped himself ?

Its no big issue, no problem to me and I'm happy for you guys to think as you do. Ive said several times, time will tell.

CiB

VTech wrote:

It wasn't a stressful day

He said in his Times column last week that it was one of the worst days he'd ever had at the BBC, where everything that could go wrong did. Depending on which acc you believe he was in the pub with May & Hammond for a bit before returning to the hotel where it all kicked off, but May was on the wine and Clarkson was reported as not drinking as he still had scripts to write for the next day's shoot.

Regardless of all this, the idea that he punched Tymon to get out of doing TG is unlikely to say the least. The risk of legal action which would hinder his access to the US being high and not really worth taking would be at least in his thoughts, ideally quite prominently.

VTech

CiB wrote:

VTech wrote:

It wasn't a stressful day

He said in his Times column last week that it was one of the worst days he'd ever had at the BBC, where everything that could go wrong did. Depending on which acc you believe he was in the pub with May & Hammond for a bit before returning to the hotel where it all kicked off, but May was on the wine and Clarkson was reported as not drinking as he still had scripts to write for the next day's shoot.

Regardless of all this, the idea that he punched Tymon to get out of doing TG is unlikely to say the least. The risk of legal action which would hinder his access to the US being high and not really worth taking would be at least in his thoughts, ideally quite prominently.

I never said that he hit him to get out of his contract. I don't think that at all, I think something went seriously wrong and I believe stress on his part outside of TG could have effected his judgement.
My thoughts are that he has done all he can to get out of top gear and anyone who honestly thinks differently is IMO lacking (no offence to anyone).
He had almost a year to sign on the line and didn't, that alone confirms a lack of wanting to continue.
Then when you add the new media company and the fact that this media company is setup and run by the same setup as Bedder 6 makes any logically thinking man think something may be wrong here.
Lets be clear about this, he could have taken the route back to the job if he really did regret an action made under stress but he didn't take that route did he.

ddraver

he went and reported his mistake rather than trying to cover it up you mean..?

If he wanted out of his contract with the BBC he had to wait a matter of weeks

VTech

ddraver wrote:

he went and reported his mistake rather than trying to cover it up you mean..?

If he wanted out of his contract with the BBC he had to wait a matter of weeks

Ive gone over this several times.
Although I don't have and nor have I seen his contract, it would be a standard clause to have a non-compete section. It is also well known for contracts to be sided for both parties given certain circumstances and it wouldn't surprise me if JC had a clause that he could go about his business if the BBC decided to terminate his contract rather than him.

Lets be sensible here, he hasn't walked away from this money without reason, he is a money man after all and had to pay his wife a pretty penny when she caught him screwing around with several woman.

turbotommy

VTech wrote:

ddraver wrote:

he went and reported his mistake rather than trying to cover it up you mean..?

If he wanted out of his contract with the BBC he had to wait a matter of weeks[/quote

Lets be sensible here, he hasn't walked away from this money without reason, he is a money man after all and had to pay his wife a pretty penny when she caught him screwing around with several woman.

I don't understand this vtech

He didn't walk away, he was told his contract wouldn't be renewed?

Are we assuming that people make all their decisions in life based on logic and reason? This seems to be a big part of your argument.

But surely history is littered with people far brighter than Jeremy clarkson, who have made far worse choices

Can I ask what odds you would give on clarkson, Hammond and may not presenting another series together again? That goes for any format of show on any tv channel

VTech

TurboTommy wrote:

Can I ask what odds you would give on clarkson, Hammond and may not presenting another series together again? That goes for any format of show on any tv channel

I would guess fair odds on that to be 50/1 that they won't jointly host another format within the next 2 years.

apreading

VTech wrote:

Ive gone over this several times.
Although I don't have and nor have I seen his contract, it would be a standard clause to have a non-compete section. It is also well known for contracts to be sided for both parties given certain circumstances and it wouldn't surprise me if JC had a clause that he could go about his business if the BBC decided to terminate his contract rather than him.

In all of those times you went over it, did you not realise that the BBC did not terminate his contract, they chose not to renew it, as Clarkson could have chosen not the renew it without this fuss. So if that was his plan then it was foolish, didnt work and was never likely to work. So stop going over it with this argument because it makes no sense.

VTech

apreading wrote:

VTech wrote:

Ive gone over this several times.
Although I don't have and nor have I seen his contract, it would be a standard clause to have a non-compete section. It is also well known for contracts to be sided for both parties given certain circumstances and it wouldn't surprise me if JC had a clause that he could go about his business if the BBC decided to terminate his contract rather than him.

In all of those times you went over it, did you not realise that the BBC did not terminate his contract, they chose not to renew it, as Clarkson could have chosen not the renew it without this fuss. So if that was his plan then it was foolish, didnt work and was never likely to work. So stop going over it with this argument because it makes no sense.

Thats the problem with chatting over the internet, you have no idea of the person your talking too.
He could just as well have had the clause of "if the employer choses not to extend the contract it leaves the employee free to work elsewhere" this is in fact a much easier clause to uphold than the one I mentioned earlier.
As I have said countless times, if he had wanted the job he would have signed in any one of those months previously that he chose not to sign.

apreading

Except that would be an illegal contract - it would be co-ercing someone to sign a contract against their will and/or restriction of trade - it would not be legally enforceable.

VTech

apreading wrote:

Except that would be an illegal contract - it would be co-ercing someone to sign a contract against their will and/or restriction of trade - it would not be legally enforceable.

Don't be so daft.
I have very personal experience of this and trust me, the courts uphold them even though it can partly cross over the european human rights laws.

You can legally add a clause to stop someone working in the same industry for a given period after they leave your employment.
You can legally add a clause to stop someone working with companies you are in business with after their employment is terminated.

I have no idea where you get the co-ercing part from ? A contract is usually signed by two willing parties.

turbotommy

Vtech I have to say I don't draw the same conclusions you have from all the points raised. Having said that you may well be proved right, and you feel you have some inside information on the matter. I don't have any inside info, just what I've read (not a massive amount), and a gut feeling.

I think there's an outside chance that not only was this not some kind of master plan by Jeremy clarkson, but that no one wants to take a punt on them for the foreseeable future.

You say 50-1? How about we just say 30-1, that clarkson, may, & Hammond, as a trio, don't make a series, from this day on ( at least 8 episodes make a series in this instance ) on any subject, that is shown on a major British network within the next 2 years.

My £10 to your £300?

Obviously I'm an underdog here but it'll be a good sweat!

apreading

VTech wrote:

apreading wrote:

Except that would be an illegal contract - it would be co-ercing someone to sign a contract against their will and/or restriction of trade - it would not be legally enforceable.

Don't be so daft.
I have very personal experience of this and trust me, the courts uphold them even though it can partly cross over the european human rights laws.

You can legally add a clause to stop someone working in the same industry for a given period after they leave your employment.
You can legally add a clause to stop someone working with companies you are in business with after their employment is terminated.

I have no idea where you get the co-ercing part from ? A contract is usually signed by two willing parties.

I am not being daft and I have very personal experience too. They are rarely upheld.

A restrictive covenant is typically clause in a contract which prohibits an employee from competing with his ex-employer for a certain period after the employee has left the business, or prevents the ex-employee from soliciting or dealing with customers of the business by using knowledge of those customers gained during his prior employment.

The starting point for any such post-termination restriction is that it is void on the grounds that it is a restraint of trade and contrary to public policy. It follows that an employer is generally not entitled to protect himself against competition from his ex-employees. However, if the ex-employer can convince a court that the covenant is:

designed to protect his legitimate business interests; and
that it extends no further than is reasonably necessary to protect those interests then it will be upheld and enforced.

A non-compete clause may be enforced to protect a legitimate business interest – for example, client connections, confidential information or a stable workforce – and not simply to stifle or prevent competition.

They certainly would not be enforceable if they were one sided and in effect if the restricted party (employee) does not renew a fixed term contract but not if the employer does not offer a renewal. That is the coercion - "sign up or I will stop you working anywhere else!"

VTech

apreading wrote:

VTech wrote:

apreading wrote:

Except that would be an illegal contract - it would be co-ercing someone to sign a contract against their will and/or restriction of trade - it would not be legally enforceable.

Don't be so daft.
I have very personal experience of this and trust me, the courts uphold them even though it can partly cross over the european human rights laws.

You can legally add a clause to stop someone working in the same industry for a given period after they leave your employment.
You can legally add a clause to stop someone working with companies you are in business with after their employment is terminated.

I have no idea where you get the co-ercing part from ? A contract is usually signed by two willing parties.

I am not being daft and I have very personal experience too. They are rarely upheld.

A restrictive covenant is typically clause in a contract which prohibits an employee from competing with his ex-employer for a certain period after the employee has left the business, or prevents the ex-employee from soliciting or dealing with customers of the business by using knowledge of those customers gained during his prior employment.

The starting point for any such post-termination restriction is that it is void on the grounds that it is a restraint of trade and contrary to public policy. It follows that an employer is generally not entitled to protect himself against competition from his ex-employees. However, if the ex-employer can convince a court that the covenant is:

designed to protect his legitimate business interests; and
that it extends no further than is reasonably necessary to protect those interests then it will be upheld and enforced.

A non-compete clause may be enforced to protect a legitimate business interest – for example, client connections, confidential information or a stable workforce – and not simply to stifle or prevent competition.

They certainly would not be enforceable if they were one sided and in effect if the restricted party (employee) does not renew a fixed term contract but not if the employer does not offer a renewal. That is the coercion - "sign up or I will stop you working anywhere else!"

For personal legal reasons I can't make a detailed reply but what I can confirm is that a UK court is willing to uphold a restriction of a contract even though it is in direct breach of european laws.