So exposing yourself and sexual assault is fine, hitting someone is not?

Defcon

Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2005
Messages
56
Evans has admitted he used to expose himself to coworkers, he boasts about it, apparently its 'funny'. He's also being investigated for rape charges. But the BBC come out and say they will stand behind him :mad:

Does anyone think this wasn't a factor in forcing Chris out? He clearly didn't resign himself, he had a 3 year contract.
 
To be honest, I don't think flashing is "fine", but nowhere near as much of an issue as physical assault.

So far, the allegations are under investigation. On the other side...not much investigation was needed in the Clarkson fiasco.
 
To be honest, I don't think flashing is "fine", but nowhere near as much of an issue as physical assault.

So far, the allegations are under investigation. On the other side...not much investigation was needed in the Clarkson fiasco.

Evans has admitted he's exposed himself over and over in his offices. Specifically, he admitted it in a newspaper interview in 2005. Not much investigation needed here, either... but they still put the guy in charge of Top Gear even after he'd admitted it.

From the available evidence (Savile, others) it seems like the BBC is a leftist protection league for sexual predators that occasionally makes TV shows.
 
I'm under the assumption that there was at least one more serious situation that is the "meat" of the specific allegation from one specific accuser...but I could be reading too much into the uninformative drivel that's been published.
 
There shouldn't have *had* to be anything more serious than this before the BBC terminated him.

In an interview with the Sunday Times in 2005, Evans admitted his penchant for exposing himself at work.

The newspaper reported that Evans ?frequently exposed himself at the offices of Ginger Media Group, which owned Virgin Radio and television shows such as TFI Friday. He would interrupt meetings by standing up to pull down his tracksuit bottoms to reveal that he was sexually aroused.?

At the time, Evans told the newspaper: ?If you get your willy out, it?s the funniest thing in the world. Everybody laughs, everyone of our generation. I wouldn?t do it in front of my mum, for example. Girls love it; boys -?Oh, I can?t believe you did that?. It also takes the night to a new level. I actually haven?t done it for a while. But I will do it again.?

Yet they continued to employ him and allow him to inflict his co-workers with unwanted views of his genitals for 11 years after.
 
The "I will do it again" line is just...just...
 
The "I will do it again" line is just...just...

Remember, the BBC is still employing him and having him run shows as the boss eleven years later. This is the same guy who threatens people who don't do what he wants with public embarrassment and humiliation on international television.

Why is he employed in *any* capacity at the BBC again?
 
Is this possibly something he said as a joke? any coworker who can verify it?
 
Is this possibly something he said as a joke? any coworker who can verify it?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/cel...ris-Evans-exposed-himself-to-women-staff.html

How BBC Radio 2 star Chris Evans exposed himself to women staff
Chris Evans, the BBC Radio 2 star, used to strip naked in front of women colleagues on his television show, according to his co-star Gaby Roslin.

As women complain of their treatment at the BBC, spare a thought for those who work for Chris Evans.

Gaby Roslin tells Mandrake that the Radio 2 presenter would frequently expose himself to staff.

?He used to run naked through the studio all the time,? she says of their time together at Channel 4. ?If he flashed his willy at parties, it wouldn?t surprise me, but I just don?t know that I was at those parties.?

This was in 2012 and Google shows reports from his co-workers dating back to at least 2005 from varied different people - none of whom he sued for slander or libel that I can see.

The line I quoted in the prior post was said directly to the Times reporter. It does not seem to have been a joke, and he does seem to have been very interested in exposing himself to his co-workers on a regular basis.
 
That being the case then the BBC can hang its head in shame, after that, a grumpy old man throwing a hot-headed punch at a colleague seems like nothing at all. I would rather be Clarkson's punching bag for 3 hours than have to look at that weird ginger's dick.
 
Evans has admitted he's exposed himself over and over in his offices. Specifically, he admitted it in a newspaper interview in 2005. Not much investigation needed here, either... but they still put the guy in charge of Top Gear even after he'd admitted it.

From the available evidence (Savile, others) it seems like the BBC is a leftist protection league for sexual predators that occasionally makes TV shows.

Evans isn't getting investigate by the police for flashing and occasionally streaking his crew. He is under investigation for allegedly sexually assaulting a woman in 1990s. Details are sketchy at the moment but it's not the same thing. Clarkson not only punched and verbally abused the producer he called the BBC the next day and admitted it and the BBC still had an extensive investigation before they decided not to fire him but just not offer him a new contract.
I know it's tempting to have another whinge about the BBC and how it should be axed so that Sky TV or whatever can have a monopoly on Britain but this isn't a case of sexual assault is fine but one isn't and considering many people here seemed to think it's okay to punch a colleague a little hypocritical.
 
Evans isn't getting investigate by the police for flashing and occasionally streaking his crew. He is under investigation for allegedly sexually assaulting a woman in 1990s. Details are sketchy at the moment but it's not the same thing. Clarkson not only punched and verbally abused the producer he called the BBC the next day and admitted it and the BBC still had an extensive investigation before they decided not to fire him but just not offer him a new contract.
I know it's tempting to have another whinge about the BBC and how it should be axed so that Sky TV or whatever can have a monopoly on Britain but this isn't a case of sexual assault is fine but one isn't and considering many people here seemed to think it's okay to punch a colleague a little hypocritical.

I didn't think it was okay to punch a co-worker and said that Jeremy was rightfully and correctly terminated - it was the six week plus investigation that was a farce.

I also don't think it's okay for a man to run around, expose himself to co-workers, especially those in a subordinate position to him, brag about it to the press, then keep doing it for the next decade and get handed the reins to the BBC's (arguably) top international brand. The moment that 2005 article was printed, the BBC should have terminated him.

And yes, since the BBC seems completely unable to even contemplate ridding themselves of sexual predators or holding the 'beautiful people' responsible, they should have their funding withheld until the people responsible for that are fired. Remember, zero people were fired for aiding, covering up and procuring for Jimmy Savile. ZERO.
 
Last edited:
It's fucked up.

If I had worked at the BBC and he had exposed himself in front of me it would be the last time he did it to anyone.
 
This confirms Jeremy was fired due to personal agendas - not condoning what he did, but the Beeb clearly has very high tolerance for what's acceptable at work, and a one time physical assault, details of which are still not public, in somewhat mitigating circumstances (the day after he's told he may have cancer, long day), is clearly less serious than gross sexual misconduct lasting several years and publicly admitting it.

I mean any sane person would think so unless you have an agenda and they were looking to get rid of Clarkson for years.
 
I know it's tempting to have another whinge about the BBC and how it should be axed so that Sky TV or whatever can have a monopoly on Britain...

You're right. We should just continue to be legally obliged to pay a tax for a bunch of people who have demonstrated, time and again, that they not only don't know what they're doing but they're also wholly amoral. All so we can sleep sound at night safe in the knowledge that Murdoch doesn't quite own everything yet.
 
You're right. We should just continue to be legally obliged to pay a tax for a bunch of people who have demonstrated, time and again, that they not only don't know what they're doing but they're also wholly amoral. All so we can sleep sound at night safe in the knowledge that Murdoch doesn't quite own everything yet.

Yes, you should.
 
I mean who else is going to pay for a show where James May screws together a Lawnmower.
 
Top