Management let him go gently instead of just sacking him for gross misconduct!From what I've seen Mr Clarkson has NOT been sacked, he's simply not having his contract renewed when it runs out - the two are quite different.
Being sacked (dismissed) would have meant him not getting paid to the end of his contract, the way things stand he will not be working but will still get paid to end of that contract. So for now UK license payers are gong to be footing the bill for him and his two side-kicks with no shows currently planned, a bizarre decision at best, especially for such a money spinner.
Given the results of the disciplinary hearing I wonder why the BBC felt it wasn't OK to sack him, he could hardly have claimed unfair dismissal? If (as has been suggested) the BBC wanted rid of him they could have announced they weren't renewing his contract at any point anyway without all of this.
Now that the level of the verbal and physical attack has come out shouldn't he have been dismissed?
An(other) example of mismanagement at the BBC?
An(other) example of wasting license payers fees?