Clarkson to be sued - I hope

[rodneybewes]

red devil Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm still not buying the Irish are a distinct

> race...nationality, yes

Well, for the purposes of the law race includes colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin. And we're talking about the law here, so...

[Sue]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Just a nasty pissed up dick who is used to getting

> his way abusing an underling. Not sure race had

> any part of it really.

As I think someone already said, the amount of compensation awarded can be higher if race (as legally defined for the purposes of the relevant act) was a component.

So if the vile Clarkson at some point during his tirade/assault called the guy "an Irish (insert insult here)" then that could be sufficient to get the compensation upped.

I'm just surmising, but I'm guessing he took legal advice and that might have been suggested. I'm assuming there were witnesses who could back up what exactly Clarkson said.

ETA: So the assault wasn't because he was Irish, ie wasn't racially motivated, but if "Irish" had been used as part of it, that could be enough?

ETA: In a previous life I used to know about this stuff - no longer :))

[Loz]

Just to add... Clarkson has denied he said what Tymon is claiming.

[Mick Mac]

Racially aggravated rather than racially motivated would be the appellants argument presumably...

And sorry RD but your view is out of date.

[red devil]

That's ok Mick, we all have our cross to bear...

[Mick Mac]

We do my son, we do.

[malumbu]

Even Jezzer can see common sense. Or maybe his lawyers!

"I would like to say sorry, once again, to Oisin Tymon for the incident and its regrettable aftermath,"

"I want to reiterate that none of this was in any way his fault.

"I would also like to make it clear that the abuse he has suffered since the incident is unwarranted and I am sorry too that he has had to go through that.

"I am pleased that this matter is now resolved. Oisin was always a creatively exciting part of Top Gear and I wish him every success with his future projects."

Mr Tymon's lawyers said the case had been settled but did not give details of the settlement.

It is understood to be in excess of ?100,000, an amount to which both Clarkson and the BBC contributed.

[Loz]

malumbu Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Even Jezzer can see common sense. Or maybe his lawyers!

Except it had 'legally obliged apology' written all over it.

[Mick Mac]

"the incident" being not defined publically, means Clarkson gets off rather lightly imo.

[Alan Medic]

Not in mine. You hit someone (not too badly), swear at them, abuse their nationality and they end up with ?100k. Perhaps Clarkson should be paying it all and not the taxpayers, but apart from that what punishment would fit the crime?

[Jah Lush]

Personally, I'd cut his balls off, shove 'em in his mouth and sow it up.

[Loz]

Jah Lush Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Personally, I'd cut his balls off, shove 'em in his mouth and sow it up.

That's a bit harsh for just being unable to rustle up a steak dinner.

[Jah Lush]

Harsh but fair. Especially for a cunt like him.

[Loz]

Alan Medic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Not in mine. You hit someone (not too badly), swear at them, abuse their nationality and they

> end up with ?100k. Perhaps Clarkson should be paying it all and not the taxpayers, but apart

> from that what punishment would fit the crime?

This is the problem with the legal system. Get hit by Fred Nobody? Suck it up. Get hit by someone famous? Quids in.

I think stuff like this should be separated into actual damages and punitive damages (including damages for stuff like 'hurt feelings'). Actual damages go to the victim and punitive to the state (and to cover legal costs). Both sides get what they deserve, in both senses of the phrase.

[Loz]

Jah Lush Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Harsh but fair. Especially for a @#$%& like him.

Crikey - he got off lightly with Clarkson just punching him, then.

[Earl Aelfheah]

The guy also lost his job as a result of this, received death threats and may potentially have suffered damage to his reputation in a pretty 'closed shop' type of industry.

[Mick Mac]

I wasn't talking about the money. The negligible impact on Clarkson's employability was what I had in mind.

[Loz]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The guy also lost his job as a result of this

Did he?

[Jah Lush]

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I wasn't talking about the money. The negligible

> impact on Clarkson's employability was what I had

> in mind.

The BBC never sacked him. Just cancelled Top Gear. He lost nothing out of this. He walked pretty much straight into a much more lucrative contract. Kerching!

[Alan Medic]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rahrahrah Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > The guy also lost his job as a result of this

>

> Did he?

I think he still has a job at the BBC in a different/better role.

[DaveR]

"This is the problem with the legal system. Get hit by Fred Nobody? Suck it up. Get hit by someone famous? Quids in."

The assessment of damages (the bit that involves the legal system) is the same whether the defendant has money or not - whether the guy has got any money to pay them or not is another matter. Where someone is willing to pay over the odds to avoid having to get in the witness box, that's something else, but nothing to do with the legal system.

"I think stuff like this should be separated into actual damages and punitive damages (including damages for stuff like 'hurt feelings'). Actual damages go to the victim and punitive to the state (and to cover legal costs). Both sides get what they deserve, in both senses of the phrase."

In the UK punitive damages are known as exemplary damages, but they're not for hurt feelings - those are 'actual' damages (injury to feelings is a recognised form of loss - you may agree or disagree with this). But neither of these have anything to do with legal costs (which are paid by the parties, not by the state) or court costs (there are fees that are supposed to cover a proportion of these costs).

If you are going to start a post with "This is the problem with the legal system" it might be a good idea if you had some vague clue about how it works.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Alan Medic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Loz Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > rahrahrah Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > The guy also lost his job as a result of this

> >

> > Did he?

>

> I think he still has a job at the BBC in a

> different/better role.

fair enough, I assumed as they'd cancelled the programme that he'd lost his job.

[Loz]

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If you are going to start a post with "This is the problem with the legal system" it might be a good

> idea if you had some vague clue about how it works.

Except absolutely nothing you have said detracts from my original point - that only people that got punched by someone famous would get a pay out. And that ?100k for what is essentially a slightly cut lip is ridiculous. Damages should cover actual monetary loss. Anything above that is being punitive and that should not go to the person complaining.

The system is ridiculous. Your additional information only confirms that.

[DaveR]

"Except absolutely nothing you have said detracts from my original point - that only people that got punched by someone famous would get a pay out. And that ?100k for what is essentially a slightly cut lip is ridiculous. Damages should cover actual monetary loss. Anything above that is being punitive and that should not go to the person complaining.

The system is ridiculous. Your additional information only confirms that."

Sorry, you're still talking out of your @rse. No one make a claim against someone who obviously can't pay - nothing to do with 'the system'. I have no idea how the ?100k figure was arrived at, but it wasn't by a court i.e. 'the system', and it's likely to have been (at least) a generous offer because Clarkson doesn't want the publicity.

"Damages should cover actual monetary loss" - really? What if I published a new story on the front page of The Times saying that you were a paedophile? Or stood outside your house every night playing Guns n Roses with my amp turned up to 11? Or took a shit on your doorstep just before you left the house for work every morning?

Edited to add - in the latter case would you feel properly compensated by the cost of a tin of shoe polish?

[LondonMix]

I imagine he got more than 100k.

To be frank, if someone offered me 100k to get belittled, punched in the face and then harassed by the public with death threats I'd turn it down flat. I'm not poor but not so rich that 100k isn't serious money to me but in no way would it be worth it.