Another light has gone out
It
was pretty much an open and shut case from the start.
After a day’s shooting at
the BBC studios at Dunsfold, Surrey, Clarkson and his two Top Gear cronies
arrogantly left their helicopter waiting while they sunk a few pints at a local
pub.
Then two hours later at 10pm the boozed up trio turn up at their hotel and
Jeremy Clarkson goes into a spoilt-child rant at his producer, Oisin Tymon,
because he couldn’t have a hot meal.
During the tirade he uses some dreadfully
crude and racist language against his timid target who he holds responsible
for the absence of the £21.99 steak dinner from the hotel’s menu.
Clarkson also
darkly promises to have Tymon fired. At one point Clarkson even turns violent
and punches the hapless man leaving him with a split lip and dizziness.
What
else could the BBC do but fire this arrogant prat? It is really irrelevant that
Clarkson is popular and extremely profitable for the corporation. In such a
brazen case the BBC really must be seen to act. In fact it casts the BBC in a
very good light in that it is seen to side with the bullied little guy against
the big star.
As
the BBC’s director general had it:
'For
me a line has been crossed. There cannot be one rule for one and one rule for
another dictated by either rank, or public relations and commercial
considerations.”
Is
there any other way of looking at it?
Well,
how about this.
In
what the director general called “a heavy schedule” of shooting, Clarkson and
his co-presenters take a well earned break in a pub after another long day’s
filming. A couple of hours later they arrive at their luxury hotel at around
10pm. Unbelievably, there is no hot food available.
If you think I'm going too far with my "unbelievably", consider this.
Jeremy
Clarkson is not only the BBC’s biggest star, he fronts the most successful TV
show on the planet. Top Gear is
watched in by 350 million people in 170 countries. The Top Gear magazine circulation
of 1.7 million even puts many national newspapers to shame.
So
Jeremy Clarkson, the biggest TV star on the planet comes back to his hotel and
the BBC can’t even come up with the £21.99 steak dinner from the menu. The
talent is unhappy, and quite frankly he’s got every right to be. Despite the
democratic pieties our media and governmental elites endlessly drone on about,
get this. We are not equal. If you are largely responsible for a fantastically
important show, with hundreds of millions of viewers, generating £67 million in
revenue, and have created hundreds of well paid professional jobs you really do
deserve more consideration than the cleaner or cameraman. At the very least
after yet another gruelling day doing all that job creating, wealth creating,
entertaining stuff you merit at least the consideration of a hot meal.
What
you don’t expect to get is a supercilious smirk and be told that the chef has
gone home. Okay, I added that bit about the supercilious smirk. It just seemed
a likely accompaniment to the incredibly shoddy treatment doled out to the BBC’s
biggest star. Scrub that. The BBC’s only star.
Then
to the question of the producer’s guilt in the affair. As Clarkson himself
concedes Tymon was entirely blameless. But the BBC is not. If it wasn’t the
producer’s job to ensure a hot meal was available for the team on their return
then it sure as hell should have been somebody’s. Is there a manpower shortage
at the BBC? Was it just impossible to find somebody to act as personal
assistant to Clarkson? And if that person was busy what about employing 5 or even
10 people to keep the talent happy?
After
all the BBC has now lost a revenue stream of £67 million a year because it
couldn’t be bothered to employ somebody who would have come up with that paltry
£21.99 steak dinner that Clarkson wanted.
But
then you might say that that is all by the by. The main reason that Clarkson
had to be fired was the assault on Tymon and the crude and racist language he used.
The
racist language allegedly included calling Tymon a “lazy Irish
cunt”. This is doubly damning for
Clarkson, of course, because in the field of geographical invective he has a form sheet as
long as the service history of an Austin Maxi. In the context of Clarkson’s record
of insulting poor benighted foreigners from Berlin to Bombay, the BBC simply couldn’t
ignore this latest example. You see he’s offended so many millions ... he's offended so many millions that Top
Gear is the most popular TV program all around the world from Berlin to Bombay.
Hmmm. Something wrong there.
But
then as Patrick West puts it in an excellent piece in Spiked:
Yet it is paradoxical, ironic
even, that a TV presenter charged with today’s most grievous transgression –
racism – has been responsible for creating a show that has an appeal that
transcends borders, race and national divisions. Clarkson helped to turn Top
Gear into the world’s most successful non-fiction TV programme: in 2013,
Guinness World Records proclaimed it the most widely watched factual TV show on
Earth.
The
BBC must be confused and not a little miffed. In the area of reaching out to
the world they try so hard. Thousands of the BBC’s intense, caring journalists fan
out around the world hugging and blubbering over every ethnic they can catch in
their camera lens and the world switches over to Al Jazeera in droves. It’s
entertainers burn the midnight oil to find some new way to express their hatred
and disgust with being white and British and yet the world is unmoved. Then
this ignorant, old-fashioned, offensive, and unashamedly British oik mocks everybody unmercifully, including the English,
and those cuddly little brown people can’t get enough of him.
I guess it must
be yet another example of the need to raise awareness. Better try that than
think about the implications too deeply. If the BBC looked into the
psychology of this it would blow their tiny liberal minds.
In
short most the complaints about Clarkson’s racism are from the fake offended who
are just exploiting the political possibilities and the rest are ridiculously
thin-skinned people with a chip on their shoulder. The truth, as Clarkson’s
hundreds of millions of fans obviously appreciate, is that the Top Gear presenter is just joking when
he takes the piss out of national stereotypes. Clarkson is no racist, which is
more than can be said of his legion critics who spend every waking hour
obsessing over racial categories with more attention than South Africa’s apartheid
regime ever did.
Ah,
but what about the vicious 30 second assault that left Tymon with a split lip?
On that point consider the two following personnel management methods.
The BBC Way:
Some
dreadful little man annoys a big cheese at the BBC.
“Sorry
Anthony, er, Mr F, F, Ffrench, sir.”
“That’s
okay, Wallid. No harm done. And remember, call me Tony.”
Later
that day.
“I
want that snivelling idiot sacked a.s.a.p., Rebecca. I tell you I won’t dine till I’ve
seen his P-45!”
“Yes,
Anthony, er, Mr F, F, Ffrench, sir.”
“I
told you before, Rebecca. Call me Tony.”
The Clarkson Way:
Clarkson
gets back tired and very, very hungry only to have his producer Oisin brightly
inform him that the chef’s gone home, but:
“I saved you a couple of slices of
ham and a bowl of soup, Jeremy”
“You
lazy Irish cunt! Take that (whack).”
Next
day.
“Sorry
Oisin. I was a bit of a prat yesterday. Obviously I didn’t mean what I said
about firing you. Friends?”
Speaking
as a lazy Irish cunt, I say give me the Clarkson treatment every time.
We need to separate out two issues- Mr Clarkson's possibly oafish, possibly truculent, possibly bullying behaviour; and his values.
ReplyDeleteIf his behaviour were the real issue here, it could have been answered appropriately by taking him into a corner, reading him the riot act and perhaps giving him a bloody nose. He might have respected that.
If it's his values you can't abide, then you demonstrate you are NOT LIKE HIM by 'refusing to indulge in that kind of behaviour'. Instead, you take a well-rehearsed step backwards into the gutter of class-revenge, the type of revenge that 'makes an example' of the man. Liberal snobbery really, 'pour encourager les autres'.
I think it matters more to the BBC powers to proclaim their establishment values, than losing the revenue. They also seem to want to distance themselves from the values of at least a million 'low lifes' like myself, who share Mr Clarkson's values, even if they might have been the first to give him a punch if he acted stupid or nasty. Isn't that what friends are for?
You're spot on about the Beeb's attitude. They don't feel the loss in revenue because the license fee shelters them from such tawdry concerns. But I do think the BBC regret losing their only star and that Top Gear was a sort of a fig leaf covering the left-wing banality of the rest of their output. But they were no doubt relieved to find a way of getting rid of somebody they clearly despise in a way that they think none of the blame attaches to them.
ReplyDeleteBut they are to blame. Even the producer would have been much better off forgiving the attack rather than taking a 70 minute journey to casualty and refusing to accept Clarkson's repeated attempts to apologise . As it is he's now a marked man living on borrowed time. When the fuss has died down the BBC will quietly drop the man they will hold responsible for losing their fig leaf.
As James May said, "I'm sorry that what ought to have been a small incident sorted out easily has turned into something big."
I think you've covered every angle in your blog. Very interesting. I do despise Clarkson and yet his non PC behavior is refreshing in today's climate of 'don't mention the war' or 'don't mention anything to do with someone's race, creed or colour' etc. Great blog John. Sharon.
ReplyDelete"Geographical invective" - O I do love that phrase. Thank you !
ReplyDelete