It is incomprehensible that the major media organisation in the UK is being petitioned to re-instate an employee who has a public serial 'offending' profile evidenced on film many times. On the basis of the latest incident alleged to have been perpetrated on a member of staff, Clarkson, a presenter of the BBC 'Top Gear' car reviewing programme, has been suspended.
We know the Top Gear programme has been a best seller worldwide and
makes millions of pounds for the BBC. Irrespective of this, What does
the petition to re-instate Clarkson say about the audience profile for
the Top Gear programme?
There was a clear case at an earlier time to halt the cavalier, loose
canon behaviour, which has been exhibited. Money and profit seems to
have been the overriding consideration in the faulty decision-making
process, which allowed Clarkson free reign with his disinhibition to
continue to offend, apparently bully and physically assault others at
work. His arrogance and insubordination has been allowed grow, Clarkson
has had no boundaries. Has he now hit the buffers?
The BBC should not be in a quandary about actions to pursue. Their
history in protecting staff from sexual harassment, offence and assaults
has been seriously faulty.
Now is the time for the Corporation to
demonstrate a different policy from the old one, where suppression
was encouraged. Now, the Corporation must very publicly demonstrate a different moral code that, offensive behaviour and abuse of staff will not be tolerated. Will it; or, will the cult of personality and money-making override, yet again, the corporate moral compass?
Démocratie selon Ségolène Royal
10 hours ago