Lammy

I pretty much covered myself fine there. Both legally and ethically. I am discussing acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. i didnt say he punched him or that he committed assault. You need to re-read what I wrote. 
Considering Andrew's post was chock full of assumptions without covering his arse that you are  taking issue with what I wrote when I said "if" and stated the hypothetical nature of what i wrote then I am most perplexed!

The paradox here is the Andrew mentions Jimmy Saville, the epitome of a company (a whole nation, almost) covering up someone's misdoings to protect the star of the show, yet fails to see the two incidents as being similar.
Obviously what Saville did is far more serious than punching someone... But the crux of the matter is that celebs and big earners should not be above the law or above punishment. Hiding that notion behind some kind of anti liberal, anti PC crusade makes it no easier to stomach.

I've got to say I feel uneasy with with Andrew's implication that minorities are to blame, that the BBC are too easy to fall under political correctness. This is dangerous territory here...
I must say some of Jeremy Clarkson's work is entertaining, much like I find Stephen Colbert's right wing character entertaining. And fast cars are always cool to see.
As to the above point - I would say Andrew's post is nothing like Charlie Brooker, because that guy is a champion for the minorities (as comedy should be uphill battle) and because of the good points Jimmy and Philip laid out. If we're talking about some of Clarkson's humour, Brooker (and Steve Coogan) has already picked it apart as mostly bullying rather than comedy; "Haha it's funny because it's racist." - on point wit. 
But let's not get confused here... this isn't to do political correctness. This is to do with Clarkson possibly being unpleasant, overstepping the line and possibly punching someone.

I've got to say I feel uneasy with with Andrew's implication that minorities are to blame, that the BBC are too easy to fall under political correctness. This is dangerous territory here...
I must say some of Jeremy Clarkson's work is entertaining, much like I find Stephen Colbert's right wing character entertaining. And fast cars are always cool to see.
As to the above point - I would say Andrew's post is nothing like Charlie Brooker, because that guy is a champion for the minorities (as comedy should be uphill battle) and because of the good points Jimmy and Philip laid out. If we're talking about some of Clarkson's humour, Brooker (and Steve Coogan) has already picked it apart as mostly bullying rather than comedy; "Haha it's funny because it's racist." - on point wit. 
But let's not get confused here... this isn't to do political correctness. This is to do with Clarkson possibly being unpleasant, overstepping the line and possibly punching someone.

I agree. I read a quote that the BBC need to learn how to handle larger than life characters. Nonsense. Punching someone is not larger than life.  You can't send out a message that "it's ok...it's clarkson being Clarkson!" 
 

Well, yea, he did. Off camera, on camera, out take... What's the difference, he said it, he apologised. It shows the mindset of the man.
I'm about as hard to offend as possible, I'm not offended by Clarkson. I don't even dislike the guy (other than being a chelsea fan)... I laughed out loud when he said he was "off to the job centre" yesterday.
I just don't believe that huge stars should be given different rights to anyone else. If the producer had punched Clarkson, do you think he would be working today?
This diatribe is hiding an ugly point behind an indie/creativity mask.... That big stars should be able to do whatever they want, without consequence... Because they bring in money and entertain. It's the opposite of the indie mindset.

Hey Andrew
clearly this bothers you
the he thing is you are making statements based not upon facts not assumptions. We don't know the full story here but I can tell you this if the presenter of a show I was working on (allegedly) punched a producer the show would be most likely suspended until this was sorted out.
 
Love him or loathe him he is the show. He is what you see, a loutish, arrogant loudmouth. That's why he is so polarising. I personally grew tired of him a couple of decades ago but my post here is not about my personal feelings towards Mr. Clarkson. He does what he does very well indeed.  
There clearly is more to this than we have been told but hypothetically if Clarkson punched this producer unprovoked just because there was no catering that is beyond acceptable behaviour. He should be fired. If it was the other way round and producer punched Clarkson would the show be suspended like this? Would the producer still have a job a half million petition to bring him back? If there was a fight between them behind closed doors then maybe, just maybe they could sort it out between them. But in the public? It becomes something more...this is public behaviour.
If Clarkson did punch him then it's assault pure and simple. Do we just ignore it and give out the message this is ok to do? No we do not. Last time I checked punching someone was still illegal. 
Yes, it's a massively successful show and brings in huge amounts of money. I think what the BBC have done is show balls! The cynical amongst us would have expected the Beeb to not want to lose their cash cow and sweep it under the carpet, pay off producer and carry on like nothing happened for danger of losing said cash cow. 
The BBC have to be beyond reproach. It's part of their remit. They are not a broadcaster like all the others. If they want to do away with the licence fee and make it a commercial station like all the rest then they could get away with the aforementioned cynical behaviour. They are the BBC. They cannot. They have a really bad stigma these days about very serious past incidents that they ignored. We all know what those are. They HAVE to be seen to not protect their stars and brush stuff under the carpet. No company should but especially the BBC given what's happened the past two years or so. 
 
so there are my thoughts.  
if you miss the show watch the movie version.  It's more believable. "fast and the furious"  

I'm not offended by your post, but I do find it a load of tub thumping nonsense.
1) If a lead star on a production punched a producer, there would be consequences, even if it were Tom Cruise.
2) You seem to conveniently paper over the fact that he was caught saying nigger on camera and also called an asian guy a "slant'. Two of numerous offences that went unpunished and led to his final warning.
If you want to move into this sort of editorial you need to put down both sides of the story, especially when your followers are not all UK based.
This isn't bending over to political correctness, it is very lightly punishing someone for a constant stream of problems. Most other presenters would have been kicked in to touch long ago. You cannot let someone go unpunished, time and again, just because he is a creative asset and pulls in big bucks.
I don't mind Clarkson, he can be funny, entertaining, no nonsense and clearly knows his cars. But that isn't a green light to do absolutely anything.

SlippyWill.... Sorry, I missed that.
re: second point. He has not been suspended for anything he has done as his "persona" and certainly not anything that is stifling creativity. This is why I think the blog post is a nonsense.