Dubstepforum.com

Not using irony correctly but will let you off

Are you suggesting the BBC should be making some kind of moral judgement regarding whether the victim "deserved" it or not? They did what they could, I'm sure they would love to keep him since he's quite the cash cow. But he clearly crossed a line and they have to set an example.

Reese_Liar wrote:Are you suggesting the BBC should be making some kind of moral judgement regarding whether the guy "deserved" it or not? They did what they could, I'm sure they would love to keep him since he's quite the cash cow. But he clearly crossed a line and they have to set an example.

Bbc is paid for by license fee from the public

it's essentially a co-op

So put it to a public vote whether he should be sacked or not.

In the hands of the share holders, so to speak

How would that work? It would make every other employee at the BBC pretty uncomfortable, knowing they could be abused by anyone as long as that person is famous or well loved enough by the public.

Also, shareholders don't usually get involved in day-to-day issues like hiring and firing employees, that's what the board of directors -> CEO etc. are for.

Reese_Liar wrote:How would that work? It would make every other employee at the BBC pretty uncomfortable, knowing they could be abused by anyone as long as that person is famous or well loved enough by the public.

Abuse is an exaggeration

The guy was supposed to provide Clarkson with hot food like he was supposed to and was summarily disciplined for it.

Not like Clarkson is roaming the halls looking for interns to slap about. This was just a disgreement on the guys failure to fulfil his duties that got blown out of proportion by the media.

Public vote

Reese_Liar wrote:Also, shareholders don't usually get involved in day-to-day issues like hiring and firing employees, that's what the board of directors -> CEO etc. are for.

Let's not get wrapped up in semantics

we're supposed to have national referendum on a breh that hit another person for not bringing him his dinner on time

le epic troll

soronery wrote:

Reese_Liar wrote:How would that work? It would make every other employee at the BBC pretty uncomfortable, knowing they could be abused by anyone as long as that person is famous or well loved enough by the public.

Abuse is an exaggeration

The guy was supposed to provide Clarkson with hot food like he was supposed to and was summarily disciplined for it.

Not like Clarkson is roaming the halls looking for interns to slap about. This was just a disgreement on the guys failure to fulfil his duties that got blown out of proportion by the media.

The BBC clearly disagree with you. They call it an "unprovoked physical and verbal attack" (http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-32052736).

Regardless if the seriousness of this incident, my point still stands. You can't have a set of rules for the regular employees and another for the famous ones.

Edit: Fixed the quotes

soronery wrote:This was just a disgreement on the guys failure to fulfil his duties that got blown out of proportion by the media.

Tru dat. No way he'd have got sacked if it wasn't blown up by the media and probably rightly so.. they probably could have sorted the issue between them and it'd all have been water under the bridge. But the fact it was blown up and stuck under a microscope you're pretty much forced to act accordingly and properly.. which means sacking someone for punching another employee.. simple as.

RKM wrote:we're supposed to have national referendum on a breh that hit another person for not bringing him his dinner on time

le epic troll

National referendum? Again an exaggeration.

But people vote on Dancing With The Stars or The Voice. Just make it something like that. Hour long presentation of Clarksons career highlights, interview with the incompetent worker who he struck, then open the phone lines.

soronery wrote:

Reese_Liar wrote:Also, shareholders don't usually get involved in day-to-day issues like hiring and firing employees, that's what the board of directors -> CEO etc. are for.

Let's not get wrapped up in semantics

That was not about semantics, it was about pointing out that the decision is not up to the shareholders, but to the director general whom the "shareholders" have elected.

Reese_Liar wrote:You can't have a set of rules for the regular employees and another for the famous ones.

You can, and everywhere across the world does.

That's why the poor go to prison and the rich go to rehab.

Reese_Liar wrote:

soronery wrote:

Reese_Liar wrote:Also, shareholders don't usually get involved in day-to-day issues like hiring and firing employees, that's what the board of directors -> CEO etc. are for.

Let's not get wrapped up in semantics

That was not about semantics, it was about pointing out that the decision is not up to the shareholders, but to the director general whom the "shareholders" have elected.

You're focussing on the use of the word shareholders.

Lets disregard it if its making you agitated.

never worked a job in the uk where incompetence was punished with corporal punishment

soronery wrote:But people vote on Dancing With The Stars or The Voice. Just make it something like that. Hour long presentation of Clarksons career highlights, interview with the incompetent worker who he struck, then open the phone lines.

Bloody communist.

soronery wrote:

Reese_Liar wrote:

soronery wrote:

Reese_Liar wrote:Also, shareholders don't usually get involved in day-to-day issues like hiring and firing employees, that's what the board of directors -> CEO etc. are for.

Let's not get wrapped up in semantics

That was not about semantics, it was about pointing out that the decision is not up to the shareholders, but to the director general whom the "shareholders" have elected.

You're focussing on the use of the word shareholders.

Lets disregard it if its making you agitated.

I'm not focusing on any word in particular. You are saying the public should decide. I'm saying the public have already decided by choosing a director general of the BBC who has then decided on their behalf. That's how it works.

Muncey wrote:

soronery wrote:But people vote on Dancing With The Stars or The Voice. Just make it something like that. Hour long presentation of Clarksons career highlights, interview with the incompetent worker who he struck, then open the phone lines.

Bloody communist.

You may deride the idea, but it'd settle itin a manner fitting of a publicly owned broadcasting company.

Reese_Liar wrote:

soronery wrote:

Reese_Liar wrote:

soronery wrote:

Reese_Liar wrote:Also, shareholders don't usually get involved in day-to-day issues like hiring and firing employees, that's what the board of directors -> CEO etc. are for.

Let's not get wrapped up in semantics

That was not about semantics, it was about pointing out that the decision is not up to the shareholders, but to the director general whom the "shareholders" have elected.

You're focussing on the use of the word shareholders.

Lets disregard it if its making you agitated.

I'm not focusing on any word in particular. You are saying the public should decide. I'm saying the public have already decided by choosing a director general of the BBC who has then decided on their behalf. That's how it works.

A general who does not listen to the public voice is a dictator

The bbc is not a dictatorship.