Clarkson: Oisin Tymon launches legal action against Clarkson

Why are people surprised? I'm a Brit living in the US, and I can tell you that stereotypes based on nationality can get extremely tiresome if aimed at you personally. Put it this way, if my boss called me a "lazy British c*nt" and then punched me in the mouth, I would be looking for a lot more than 100k...

I thought that everyone agreed that what JC did was extremely wrong, including JC himself? Only asking.
 
I suspect that the suit is more directed at the BBC than at JC. I ask myself who's more likely to delay a contract settlement, and the answer rings up BBC every time.

I mean, yes, OT is entitled to *some* compensation because his injuries required medical attention. But settling with Clarkson alone would have been easy enough: he apologized, admitting fault, and negotiation could have been kept "in the family."

The BBC, on the other hand, has a bureaucracy who want to wash their hands of the CHM version of Top Gear, and probably wouldn't want to put OT on a new job lest the publicity around him flares up again.
 
Why are people surprised? I'm a Brit living in the US, and I can tell you that stereotypes based on nationality can get extremely tiresome if aimed at you personally. Put it this way, if my boss called me a "lazy British c*nt" and then punched me in the mouth, I would be looking for a lot more than 100k...

I thought that everyone agreed that what JC did was extremely wrong, including JC himself? Only asking.
Yeah, Jeremy did wrong and probably should give the Irish guy something but there are usually several ways to do things, some usually better than others.

I just have a serious problem with the amount lawyers take it off the settlement in cases like this.

So you sue for 100, in the end after numerous problems you get 55.

I would take less than that straight out because let's face it. It happened but what damages can he really claim. It seems he wss seen in emergency. Free visit, no loss. No-one ever said he missed any work. No loss. You could say he was hounded, ok, give him a little for the aggravation, but by doing this, he had just stirred the whole thing up again so what should he get compensation for the before if he is sitting it up himself now.

Back in the days when the guys I worked with fought, it usually ended with a free couple of beers or a good meal. Seemed fair.

I really do not think Jeremy would have minded giving him something to ease the situation. The bbc, not so much. But when you start asking for what is probably more than you make in a year for something so trivial, well, there ya go.
 
Probably all comes back to Jezza's pathetic apology that Richard Porter talked about in the book and in interviews, too little, too late.

Time for Jezza to get serious or he might become a convicted r.... c....
 
Last edited:
I just have a serious problem with the amount lawyers take it off the settlement in cases like this.
So you sue for 100, in the end after numerous problems you get 55.
I've seen a friend offer to take the smaller property, but thanks to a spiteful partner effectively hand over 1.5 houses to divorce lawyers, leaving only half a house to share the value of between them.

If I was a well-funded individual with better things to do, I'd be privately offering an amount just above the plaintiff's most likely cut.
 
So does this mean my old man can now sue me for calling him " Silly Pom" as I'm Australian ?
And we have Slater & Gordon here and they are ambulance chasers
 
I've seen a friend offer to take the smaller property, but thanks to a spiteful partner effectively hand over 1.5 houses to divorce lawyers, leaving only half a house to share the value of between them.

If I was a well-funded individual with better things to do, I'd be privately offering an amount just above the plaintiff's most likely cut.
Actually, after all is said and done, he could possibly come out very little ahead after all the negotiations on the matter. I still do not think he should get anything for being called an Irish c word, but I do think he should get a little feel good money for getting a fat lip.
 
Why are people surprised? I'm a Brit living in the US, and I can tell you that stereotypes based on nationality can get extremely tiresome if aimed at you personally. Put it this way, if my boss called me a "lazy British c*nt" and then punched me in the mouth, I would be looking for a lot more than 100k...

I thought that everyone agreed that what JC did was extremely wrong, including JC himself? Only asking.


There is a certain percentage of the fans that immediately went into apologist or super fanboy mode and made Clarkson the victim. Go back through the fracas thread for numerous examples. A good portion will refuse to change their stance.


And Clarkson was granted a huge favor by the victim, but most have forgot, or just seek to ignore. Tymon did not seek to press charges and thus stalled the investigation that could have seen Clarkson's future creative endeavors forever hampered with a potential criminal conviction. If Clarkson is smart, he should offer a substantial sum to make this all go away and finally put it to bed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TC
And Clarkson was granted a huge favor by the victim, but most have forgot, or just seek to ignore. Tymon did not seek to press charges and thus stalled the investigation that could have seen Clarkson's future creative endeavors forever hampered with a potential criminal conviction. If Clarkson is smart, he should offer a substantial sum to make this all go away and finally put it to bed.
Why should Clarkson a) not be convicted if his crime is worthy of conviction b) pay an extortionate amount of money far beyond compensating for whatever damage he caused?

It's not a contract dispute or something relatively harmless like that that could be handled by an agreement between the 2 parties. What Clarkson did is probably a category 2 assault at best, which carries a penalty in the range of "Band A fine - High level community order". Add in some compensation for medicinal costs, pain and other damages. No more than 10k.

Should Clarkson pay 100k even if he wasn't rich and wasn't in the public eye? Should Clarkson get away with murder if he had enough money?
 
A, I never said he should not be convicted.

B, because a conviction could limit where Clarkson can travel. That would drastically limit his future production capabilities.

This was also a bit more than just a simple assault. The guy got violated more than once by this. Once he got punched, he still had to deal with all the press and the Internet bull shit that came, and is yet to come. He had his world flipped upside down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MWF
A, I never said he should not be convicted.

B, because a conviction could limit where Clarkson can travel. That would drastically limit his future production capabilities.

This was also a bit more than just a simple assault. The guy got violated more than once by this. Once he got punched, he still had to deal with all the press and the Internet bull shit that came, and is yet to come. He had his world flipped upside down.
"he should offer a substantial sum to make this all go away and finally put it to bed" and your B point do make it sound like you think he might be able to avoid conviction

None of that extra BS was caused by Clarkson. Clarkson's involvement, yes, but that shouldn't affect the compensation. If he was assaulted much more severely (more serious injuries) by a poorer, unknown person, should he deserve much lesser compensation? Sue the press for damages (if that's even possible) or seek some sort of compensation from the Independent Press Standards Organisation if that seriously affects your life.

This isn't a direct comparison, and risks turning this thread towards politics, but this year there was a gang rape in Finland. In the sentencing decision, the judge cited the publicity the case received (and it was covered quite widely) as a factor to lower the sentences. If you go that way, Charles Manson should have received monetary compensation instead of prison.
 
It was all as a direct result of the punch Clarkson threw. Before that, Tymon was basically unknown.
 
For this sort of thing, Clarkson should be made to pay Mr. Tymon's medical bill. I'd go as far as mandating Clarkson to give him a bit extra (maybe $10k). Then be done with it.

What they are asking for is a bit much. The guy didn't loose his job and he has no long standing disabilities from the incident. Clarkson is gone, so he doesn't have an asshole stressing him out at work anymore.

I can see being annoyed by the fact that Clarkson ended up benefiting massively from the attack, but that has nothing to do with being made whole.
 
Courts are divided into criminal and civil courts. Tymon couldn't bring anything but a civil case against Clarkson. Only government authorised bodies can bring criminal charges against someone.

The law is convoluted but in essence criminal law is created by government and if there is an offence against government law it can only be prosecuted by government representatives, such as the Crown Prosecution Service, which may result is a criminal conviction and possibly prison time or a fine. Clarkson was not charged with an offence and no criminal case was brought against him.

If Clarkson had been charged, Tymon would not have been pressing the charge in a criminal case; the government would have done it and Tymon would have no more than a witness in the case, even if he was the physically injured party. According to law, the offense was not against Tymon but against the law, probably section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

Private people cannot prosecute criminal offenses. A private person can only claim for damages with a civil suit in a civil court and cannot cause a criminal conviction to be recorded nor the defendant be sent to prison.

http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/20...nd-civil-law-explained-they-are-not-the-same/
http://www.inbrief.co.uk/legal-system/difference-between-civil-criminal-law.htm
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MWF
When it all was fresh, there was a chance of bodily harm done to Tymon by TG fans blaming him instead of JC for "killing Top Gear", remember? Better lay low.

Somebody seems to have decided that threat has now passed.
 
Courts are divided into criminal and civil courts. Tymon couldn't bring anything but a civil case against Clarkson. Only government authorised bodies can bring criminal charges against someone.

The law is convoluted but in essence criminal law is created by government and if there is an offence against government law it can only be prosecuted by government representatives, such as the Crown Prosecution Service, which may result is a criminal conviction and possibly prison time or a fine. Clarkson was not charged with an offence and no criminal case was brought against him.

If Clarkson had been charged, Tymon would not have been pressing the charge in a criminal case; the government would have done it and Tymon would have no more than a witness in the case, even if he was the physically injured party. According to law, the offense was not against Tymon but against the law, probably section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

Private people cannot prosecute criminal offenses. A private person can only claim for damages with a civil suit in a civil court and cannot cause a criminal conviction to be recorded nor the defendant be sent to prison.

http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/20...nd-civil-law-explained-they-are-not-the-same/
http://www.inbrief.co.uk/legal-system/difference-between-civil-criminal-law.htm
Thanks. Finnish Wikipedia led me to English pages where it wasn't clear whether there's a difference between the systems in the UK. I still don't understand how Oisin could have suffered to the tune of ?100k. Is he an emotional wreck with daily psychologist appointments? Is he traumatised and unable to work with people except for a period of 3 hours immediately after lunchtime? Surely the compensation should have some sort of connection with reality.
 
You also have to factor in potential loss of future earnings with because of emotional problems or the perception in the industry that he is somehow less than capable because of the whole incident either because he is perceived to have been at fault beforehand or less able to perform afterwards. Mud once thrown has a tendency to stick and the media industry is somewhat cliquey. The court or tribunal in this case are likely to take all of that into account.
 
Sounds like he waited for Clarkson to get the pay from Amazon and now he can get a bigger settlement out of him.
 
You also have to factor in potential loss of future earnings with because of emotional problems or the perception in the industry that he is somehow less than capable because of the whole incident either because he is perceived to have been at fault beforehand or less able to perform afterwards. Mud once thrown has a tendency to stick and the media industry is somewhat cliquey. The court or tribunal in this case are likely to take all of that into account.

That happens to more famous people, he made himself a larger media news item, he was a victim, he wasnt damaged goods, and i doubt anyone would have faulted him for what happened, no matter what anyone says. This just smacks of whiplash claim.
 
Top