I see that Jeremy Clarkson is in hot water again. I’m not going to speculate about what we don’t know, although throwing a punch is not generally a good thing. That said, Mrs L did say that some people are just begging for a smack in the mouth. Miliband and Balls spring to mind. I mean, you’d never tire of punching those two smug, self-important faces, would you?
Anyway, back to Clarkson. I tend to regard him as a canary in the mine. I measure him by those he upsets and as a general rule, he upsets all the right people; the professional offenderati cling to every word looking for an excuse to be offended, even when the rational, dispassionate and logical among us can see that he is winding them up, that what he says is frequently hyperbole designed for effect. No, they would rather take it at face value, get all prissy and offended and prove him right. Nor do they recognise self-parody when they see it, either. Clarkson is a breath of fresh air in the foetid atmosphere of political correctness. He comes out with the sort of stuff we might have said forty or fifty years ago and thought nothing of it. These days, no one is allowed to be offended and we are poorer for it.
All of which provides a delicious irony. The BBC has in Clarkson and Top Gear a world leading product that makes them a lot of money. But the leftist establishment despises everything they represent and those who enjoy the programme – the great unwashed petrol-heads. The plebs. People like you and I. They hate us. They despise us. Sure, at this moment they seek our endorsement because they want power, but the leftist establishment is faced with a conundrum; Clarkson who makes them money and their ideology, which abhors the motor car and those of us who love them.
If the BBC decides to get rid of Clarkson, then someone else will happily take him on, for he is eminently saleable. It will be the BBC’s loss. Long may he reign and long may he be a thorn in the side of the professionally offended.
Heh!
We don’t know what happened yet.
If it is the case that he punched someone he should be dismissed.
There is no doubt about that, and no way around it.
It doesn’t matter that he annoys Guardianistas and those like them; it doesn’t matter that the programme is popular and makes lots of money.
If anyone thinks that either of those conditions excuse punching someone at work then I must ask two questions:
What would you say if a tosser like Ed Balls punched someone at work, should his prominent position excuse him?
If there was an assault and the offender is not dismissed then can any employee be confident that he is protected from assault at work?
(I’ll declare my opinion of Clarkson here: I think he is a complete c***t.)
Well, Prescott & that alcoholic Scots MP (Joyce..?) are still ’employed’, so…
Julia,
1) Prescott has never been anything other than a dockside thug, kept in place to appease the left & unions.
2) “…alcoholic Scots…”? Surely that’s damned close to tautology…
Prescott acted in self defence after being the victim of an unprovoked assault. Joyce was prosecuted and convicted for assault. Whether Clarkson keeps his job is a matter for the BBC but the low-life should certainly be standing in the dock.
If you charged a fee for the public to punch Ed Miliband you could make a significant reduction in the National Debt
More than half a million have signed the petition asking for Mr. Clarkson to be reinstated.
https://www.change.org/p/bbc-reinstate-jeremy-clarkson
And I sincerely hope the BBC takes note.
Just as a (sort of) aside, a caller to one of the radio stations today pointed out that the findings of the Hillsborough tragedy were due out today and (as always seemed likely), as the authorities come in for some fairly hefty criticism, these findings may well have made the front pages, had the Clarkson story not conveniently cropped up …
Conspiracy theorist? Me? Never!
Oh, and “professional offenderati” is a real gem of a phrase, LR!
Apparently the three presenters of TG have contracts that expire on the 31st March. None of them have so far signed fresh ones.
Rumour has it that Clarkson is off to another network so the Beeb provoked this so called fracas to discredit him. If so, it will come back and bite them
Rumour has it that Clarkson is off to another network so the Beeb provoked this so called fracas to discredit him. If so, it will come back and bite them
How on earth did the BBC provoke the incident? Pour several pints down his throat so that he arrived too late for dinner blind drunk? Clarkson even reported the incident himself, probably to get his word in first, before the TV crew or bystanders reported it.
An ordinary person who committed a sustained foul mouthed rant in hotel lobby would have had the police called on him. Whether he succeeded in punching the producer or was so drunk that he could not throw a punch that found its target, is irrelevant. Legally it is an affray and behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace.
Dioclese, I`ve heard the same, that certain other TV channels are already writing big fat cheques in readiness in case the BBC sacks him,indeed some are saying that the whole thing was engineered so he could get away from the BBC.
Clarkson is an oaf and a yobbo and we shouldn’t be too surprised that he behaves like that in a public place. I am quite happy to let the BBC decide his fate, noting that usually such behaviour in the workplace is counted gross professional misconduct, warranting instant dismissal; but perhaps that doesn’t apply to rich drunk white blokes with a massive sense of entitlement and earnings potential for the BBC.
What is always more interesting cases like these is the behaviour and arguments of his supporters, who have (i) used it as a stick to beat the BBC, or (ii) seem to think that “the talent” should be entitled to behave like foul mouthed low-lifes and the BBC should therefore turn a blind eye (*) or (iii) the most bizarre claim of all, that the BBC and its producer had a legal duty of care to provide a tanked up Clarkson with a steak!
It demonstrates yet again the sense of victimhood of the sort of conservative who sees Clarkson as a doughty opponent of “political correctness” (sic) and sticking it to all those “liberals” that said conservative thinks oppresses him. It is quite funny really. What is also quite funny is that all this roistering is clearly not doing Clarkson any good. He looks terrible for a man in his mid fifties: terrible complexion and strong indications of dependence on alcohol. His fans shouldn’t be cheering him on: they should be recommending a spell in a detox unit.
(*) That approach worked so well with Savile, didn’t it?
Top gear ceased being a programme for unwashed pleb petrol heads like me (and I willingly accept the tag) ages ago. Many people who are fans of the show freely admit they have zero interest in cars. That’s all fine, but I wouldn’t miss it – Clarkson can be funny but it’s a bit sickening to me that he has 500+ fanbois who will sign up to say he can do what he wants. Maybe these people pay for the BBC – I don’t. I watch TG on catchup or YouTube very occasionally and I fast forward through most of it – I have zero interest in how much smoke Clarkson get liberate from the tyres of the latest BMW.