The BBC’s Firing of Jeremy Clarkson Proves a Point About the Progressive Media

Posted in News
Thu, Mar 26 - 10:00 am EDT | 2 years ago by
Comments: 44
Be Sociable, Share!
    Use Arrow Keys (← →) to Browse

    The BBC just proved that Progressive media serves the tiny elite who think they should run our lives.

    It’s official: The BBC have fired Jeremy Clarkson, the main presenter and inventor of the modern version of Top Gear. If you don’t yet know what Top Gear is, go look it up. It pretends to be a show about cars, but it’s actually a fascinating series about three crazy personalities doing insane stunts, and (for very good reasons) it’s been for the last 13 years the most popular non-fiction TV show… in the world.

    Jeremy Clarkson - Top Gear
    Photo by The Times/Gallo Images/Getty Images

    The craziest thing about it is that, purely by a series of unusual events that spiraled out of the hands of the elitist snobs who run it, Top Gear was made by the British Broadcasting Corporation (the BBC). It was a show being made by a broadcaster run by the type of people who despise the type of show Top Gear is: funny, fascinating, utterly irreverent, not environmentally friendly, starring three middle-aged white guys, not even a tiny bit politically correct, and incredibly astoundingly popular. Most sinful of all to them: it makes money. Tons and tons of money. For these types, anything that makes money because it’s popular with everyday people is the very definition of a show that does not under any circumstances belong on the BBC.

    The BBC has always, from its inception, been supposed to act in the interest of the British Public. This was understood on its creation to mean that it would put the audiences first, and provide informative, creative and entertaining programming to the British public. This was so important that the BBC’s programming is supposed to be judged not by how much money a show makes (in fact, the vast majority of their shows make no money at all, being instead financed by a TV ownership tax), but by something called the “Audience Appreciation Index”. This is a measurement of how much the public appreciates the program. This is supposed to determine what shows should be be on the BBC.

    But it has also been a reality that, almost from the beginning, the BBC has always been run by elitists who felt they knew better than the public, and that they should get to dictate TO (rather than be dictated by) the British public as to what is best to them. The BBC bosses have always been partisans of whatever ideology was the most elitist, the most sanctimonious, the most anti-public, in any given age: in the 60s and 70s it was full of communists, today it is full of Politically-correct Progressives. They are almost always Leftist, always Collectivist, and almost always humorless.

    And the BBC’s mid-level bureaucrats have always, always hated Top Gear. The current BBC’s manager, Danny Cohen, had been very vocal about how desperate he was to get rid of Jeremy Clarkson, and now he got his wish. In the process, it made a pretty startling revelation as to how Collectivists work, and who they serve.

    When it was announced that the BBC was using a dinnertime argument as an excuse to fire (or “sack” as they say across the pond) the driving force behind Top Gear, two big petitions were being promoted across the social media almost instantly. The first was in support of Clarkson, demanding that the BBC not fire him; it ended up with over a million signatures and became the fastest-growing petition in the history of change.org. The second demanded that Clarkson be fired for his various crimes against humanity (which mostly consisted of being anti-Europe, anti-Left, anti-nanny-state, and anti-political-correctness). This petition garnered a whopping 34127 signatures. It featured, in brazen shamelessness, a completely un-ironic picture of Clarkson with his mouth gagged on it, making it very clear what these people wanted: to totally silence those who disagree with them.

    This is an interesting result for two reasons. First, it gives us a very good, albeit non-scientific, look at just what the divide between the Collectivist elitists and the Individualists is: the Collectivist-Crowd made up about 3.2% of the population who signed either petition. These are the people who are strident in their advocacy of the Collectivist values of the modern “progressive” Left, that believe in pogroms against free speech; but more importantly, that will despise anything just because everyday people like it too much. After all, Top Gear was not an overtly political show; this wasn’t a battle against a right-wing radio talk show or something like that.

    Top Gear‘s immense popularity allowed it to survive for 13 years without the BBC Commisars being able to shut it down in spite of Jeremy Clarkson’s outspoken anti-PC views, but the show itself was mostly about having wild irreverent fun with cars (seriously, if you’ve never seen it go watch it now; I don’t like cars, I haven’t even driven a car in almost 20 years, but I love the show, not for the cars but for the passion and humor and brilliance of it). So for the Collectivists, getting rid of Jeremy Clarkson wasn’t just about getting rid of Jeremy Clarkson, it was also about getting rid of a show that they hated for being too proletarian, too popular with the unwashed masses who they feel can’t be trusted and who should be told what is the proper kind of fun to have. The show itself was dangerous to them, because it suggested to ordinary people that they could and should have a free choice about what they enjoy, without all the special considerations the Elites put into the (always far less popular) programs that they have chosen for the correct indoctrination of the ‘unwashed masses’. This 3.2% resented Top Gear‘s existence because it was a loud (and fun) statement against their notion that they should control the other 96.8% of us.

    Second, it made it very clear where the BBC stands on this. They have regularly influenced the facts of their reporting to represent the liberal biases of their mid-level bureaucrats: having downplayed a massive child-abuse scandal that was going on in England because they felt it would look “racist”, having consistently refused to use the word “terrorism” (even during the brutal Mumbai terrorist attacks), and have bent over backward to appease the pro-Palestine anti-Israel Leftists to the point of claiming that Jerusalem is the “capital” of Palestine and that Israel has no capital. They have openly admitted to their intense anti-American bias ), they have been found in two different independent reports of having an extreme pro-European-Union bias, and a pro-immigrant bias that focused on anecdotal personal stories rather than concrete data as a way to influence the public. Here, with Jeremy Clarkson, they suddenly felt they had to take a ‘strong principled stand’ about ‘policing their own house’ because God forbid a man who makes them more than a hundred million dollars a year and invented the most popular TV show they currently air should get mad about the BBC crew not having a hot meal for him at the end of a full day’s work. And yet they never felt the need to take such a stand for the THIRTY YEARS they spent actively covering up pedophile scandals in their own studio.

    The BBC stands with the 3.2%, with the over-indoctrinated self-satisfied elitists, and against the 96.8% of the public they were chartered to serve.

    I can tell you how the rest of this will play out from here, too. Clarkson and his co-hosts James May and Richard Hammond (who will almost certainly choose to leave with him) will, if they so desire, get a new contract for insanely more money than the BBC ever gave them, to do a Top Gear-clone for a private broadcaster. That show will be more popular than ever. Make our own TV show
    Source: Twitter

    Meanwhile, the BBC will almost certainly re-staff Top Gear with presenters chosen for their identity-politic demographics (race, gender, sexuality; you know, all that stuff that’s so incredibly important as a qualification to host a show about driving fast cars) rather than anything resembling a personality. They’ll retool the show to get rid of the most “offensive” parts, and to make it more “educational”. It will be a horrific flop, which will allow the BBC executives to do what they wanted in the first place and either cancel it or relegate it to bleakest outlying corners of their government-funded media empire, and then do a lot of commentary on “News” shows about how the failure of the New Top Gear was the public’s fault for being such horrible racists/sexists/whatever.

    And the 3.2% will sagely nod in agreement and bemoan the cruelty of a world full of people who are so much less sophisticated and righteous than they are, and wonder why these ignorants don’t just give in and let them run all our lives.

    Kasimir Urbanski doesn’t write on a specific subject; he’s EveryJoe’s resident maniac-at-large. A recovering Humanities academic and world-traveler, he now lives in South America and is a researcher of fringe religion, eastern philosophy, and esoteric consciousness-expansion. In his spare time he writes tabletop RPGs, and blogs about them at therpgpundit.blogspot.com.

    Read more from Urbanski by clicking through the gallery below.


    Gun Control

    Read about what other countries can teach us about the gun control debate.

    Photo by Elrepho385/Getty Images

    Election 2016

    Find out about how Trump's fake Christianity might help him win the election.

    Photo by Branden Camp/Getty Images

    Censorship

    Believe it or not, millennials are begging the government to censor them, and all of us.

    Photo by Ferenc Gerak / Getty Images

    Climate Change

    Find out more about the history of climate change and what you can REALLY learn from it.

    Photo by Getty Images

    Socialism

    A primer on how to rate your socialist craphole.

    Photo by Jean Catuffe/Getty Images

    Right vs Left

    Never mind why the Right stands up against censorship, why doesn't the Left?

    Photo by Nomadsoul1 / Getty Images

    Censorship

    Fundamentally, the claim that only government can censor is a cheap way to weasel out of admitting that you’re pro-censorship.

    Photo by StockWithMe / Getty Images

    Comedy

    Liberals claim they are funnier than their conservative counterparts, but is that really true?

    Photo by Brad Barket / Getty Images

    Election 2016

    Could Bernie Sanders really be President? Sure, if he runs against Alf.

    The Left

    Kasimir Urbanski explores why the Left likes to make up conservatives.

    Government

    Urbanski discusses the game-changer that could make the left-right fights meaningless.

    The Future

    What will the robot-driven future economy mean for you?

    Religious Offense

    Urbanski sounds off about the hypocrisy of the New York Times.

    Personal Rights

    Urbanski asks the question, Who do you think should be in charge of your own body and mind?

    University Censorship

    The next generation of academics, and journalists, are being indoctrinated into not even knowing what free speech means.

    U.S. Conservatism Needs a Divorce

    Read Part I, Part II and Part III of this series addressing the need for free-thinking conservatives to split from the politicized Religious Right.

    Urbanski Explains Islam

    When it comes to understanding Islam, the Left and the Right both get it wrong.

    Free Speech

    Kasimir Urbanski discusses why it has to be free speech, every time.

    Looking Ahead

    The new year is upon us. Will 2015 look to the stars, or back to the cave?

    Urbanski Saves Christmas

    Christmastime comes with all the usual seasonal zaniness of the Culture Wars, but Kasimir Urbanski is here to save the holiday and unite us all.

    The Infection of Postmodernism

    In his first "Riposte Modernism" column, Kasimir Urbanski talks about the nemesis of modern civilization.
    Use Arrow Keys (← →) to Browse

    Be Sociable, Share!

      Related Posts

      • James

        Figured this would happen. Sigh the stupid marches on.

        • RPGChindit

          Anyone who wishes to pretend the BBC had any other choice after one
          of its employees struck another of its employees in a public venue should really just go fuck themselves.

        • Matthew House

          So covering up multiple decades of child molestation and rape are -just fine-, but a bloody lip is grounds for sacking. Got it.

        • Kasimir Urbanski

          Yeah, the hypocrisy of that is what amazes me. That they can say with a straight face that “we at the BBC have high standards” when they let one of their hippie friends rape underage girls for 30 years and actively covered it up for him, is just disgusting.

        • RPGChindit

          So the BBC is an immortal gestalt entity? The BBC of the 60s is the same BBC that just sacked Clarkey? Are they lizard people too? I know your day job is making shit up but don’t confuse the BBC for the masons.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kfNKMUUOmY

        • Kasimir Urbanski

          The BBC is a company, albeit a “crown corporation”, and has a company culture. It has a history, like any old company would, where there’s a certain internal culture that will generally be encouraged and maintained over the generations through a process of like-minded people choosing their successors with similar agendas and a corporate atmosphere that is inculcated in its employees. I assume you’ve never worked for a big corporation? The people change, but the mentality remains, and if anything (barring really huge shake-ups) tends to calcify over time.

        • Kasimir Urbanski

          And for the record, Jimmy Savile was NOT a Freemason. He was Catholic and had received a Papal Knighthood, which the Catholic Church refused to rescind after the allegations of his wrongdoings came to light.

        • RPGChindit

          I guess the genius of saville was not raping them in a hotel foyer.

      • Bill Pirmostaff

        This is to show that corporations always find a way, no matter how popular or “irreplaceable” an employee might be.

        • RPGChindit

          Don’t make me fucking laugh. If a co-worker smacked up upside the head (and god knows…) they’d be fired. Being shit at your job does not mean you can be punched, unless you’re in the army, in which case have at it.

        • Guest

          I’m surprised the fact that he punched somebody never came up in the article. I’m on the US side of the pond, and one can be a great employee but if you punch somebody, even if they richly deserve it, you usually get fired for cause.

        • Kasimir Urbanski

          That’s because there was no punch. There was some rough-housing, apparently. That the person on the receiving end didn’t consider a big enough deal to complain about, much less to file charges. And he kept right on insisting it wasn’t a big deal, even while the BBC execs like Cohen were probably making him offers of anything he wanted or threats that he’d never work again. Oisin Tymon (the “victim”) took Jeremy Clarkson’s side. The BBC fired him anyways.

        • LouS22
        • Kasimir Urbanski

          Amusing how “progressives” are suddenly quoting the Daily Mail, a newspaper they routinely deride and despise, for evidence.
          You’ll note that everything there is hearsay, and that even that article notes that NO ONE in the hotel offered anything to the police that seemed to give them any grounds for a charge.

        • LouS22

          I have no idea what paper has what bias in the UK as I’ve spent probably less than 2total weeks in the UK.

          But, you’re saying that a paper that is ‘anti-progressive’ is citing information that, because it goes against your narrative, you won’t trust it?

          IF you read the BBC report (ok, sure, you don’t trust that either), Clarkson does not deny the actions. http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/investigation-summary.pdf

          So are you calling Clarkson a liar and toady for the BBC?

          I get it, you hate the BBC and you hate progressives but you’d be more convincing if you’d recognize the facts and not just believe what you want. Or, if you do have facts, then cite them vs. just asserting your opinion. What other news outlets assert that nothing happened and this is just a fabrication from the BBC?

        • Kasimir Urbanski

          I’m saying Clarkson knew he had acted like an oaf in the incident, and had already made amends with Tymon, who had NO FURTHER DESIRE to punish Clarkson in any way. Clarkson also knew that Danny Cohen was going to oust him regardless of what he did, and was not so low as to lie in order to save his job, or ask Oisin to lie even though both of them felt Jeremy should keep his job.

          Note how even in Macquarries report it does not say anywhere that there was a punch thrown.

      • Charles

        You’re stretching pretty far on this conspiracy/persecution theory.

        Clarkson was fired for physically and verbally assaulting a coworker.

        If BBC wanted to be rid of Clarkson for his politics, they could have opted not to renew his contract at any time. Instead, they have kept him around for THIRTEEN YEARS.

        The petition to keep Clarkson got huge because the people who use change.org — young (left-wing) Americans — love Top Gear.

        The petition to fire Clarkson never got big because (1) he was already fired, so the petition made no sense; and (2) Clarkson hasn’t committed crimes against humanity, he’s just an asshole.

        • RPGChindit
        • Kasimir Urbanski

          No, they couldn’t. Because the top-level BBC head loves the fact that he can report the money the BBC makes to the government, so that the Conservatives can’t argue that the BBC should be cut. Shows like Top Gear or Doctor Who, the ones that actually make a profit, let the BBC justify their existence to the conservatives.
          But the mid-level managers, like Danny Cohen, don’t think they should have to justify themselves to the Government or to anyone (certainly NOT to the British Public).
          Your argument fails because Cohen ALREADY DID try to get Clarkson fired, its rumored on multiple occasions, but was only stopped by his superior (the political head of the BBC).

          They couldn’t dump Clarkson for his ideology because his show was too successful and popular. So they finally trumped up some invented charge (note that the producer that was ‘assaulted’ didn’t consider it assault, didn’t press charges, didn’t make a complaint to the BBC or anyone else, and is on record as being opposed to the sacking of Clarkson) so that they could finally get rid of the man they hated for not thinking like they do and being much, much more popular than they are.

        • Charles

          “Didn’t press charges” isn’t the same as “wasn’t an assault.” BBC’s investigation concluded that there was a physical attack. The Guardian reports the same. So does The Telegraph. James May didn’t comment on a physical attack, but did say Clarkson was blind drunk, throwing racial slurs.

          Do you have evidence that contradicts these news sources, or did you write it off as a “dinnertime argument” because that fits better with the narrative you’re trying to advance?

          Furthermore, you claim that Clarkson would have been fired already, if not for his popularity. Now that he has been fired, you bring up the petition to show that he is still massively popular. Your two positions contradict one another.

          If Clarkson’s still as popular as ever, how could they have fired him?

          If Clarkson’s boss hates him, and has the power to fire him despite his popularity, why wait 13 years?

        • Kasimir Urbanski

          The boss didn’t have the power to fire him. In this case, the “boss” we’re talking about is Mr. Cohen, whom it was repeatedly commented despises Mr.Clarkson and wanted him gone. He had on more than one occasion tried to push for his firing but was always stopped by his immediate higher-up, the government head of the BBC. This time, a ‘narrative’ was carefully crafted that made it impossible for the higher-ups (even the Prime Minister) to stop it from happening.

        • Charles

          Your theory depends on the assumption that the “narrative” is false.

          If Clarkson actually did punch a coworker, his firing was completely appropriate, even if the coworker chose not to press criminal charges.

          Again: do you have evidence that the widely-reported physical attack never happened?

        • Kasimir Urbanski

          Sorry, but surely the burden of proof is on the PROSECUTION?

          The BBC have FAILED to find one person, NOT ONE PERSON who would come forward and lay charges against Clarkson or testify that he did indeed do something constituting assault. They pushed for a police investigation and then got NOTHING out of it because out of all the people at the hotel that day (which included the owner, staff, and visitors who had nothing to do with Clarkson and no reason to protect him), none of them were willing to do what the BBC wanted and accuse.

          So yes, this is a BLATANTLY obvious example of an incredibly powerful Media force spinning a narrative to try to get rid of an opponent.

        • Charles

          I mentioned the BBC’s investigation above, but it doesn’t seem like you’ve read it. That’s a little confusing, since it’s easily accessible and directly addresses the claims you’re making.

          The investigation was carried out by Ken MacQuarrie, the BBC Scotland boss. You can read the full text here:

          http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/mar/25/jeremy-clarkson-fracas-report-full-text-bbc-macquarrie

          Here are some key quotes:

          “On 9 March 2015, Jeremy Clarkson reported to BBC management that he had been involved in a physical and verbal incident with Oisin Tymon”

          “I interviewed a number of witnesses and others connected with the incident. Accounts were agreed, based on my interviews, with each participant.”

          “on 4 March 2015 Oisin Tymon was subject to an unprovoked physical and verbal attack by Jeremy Clarkson. During the physical attack Oisin Tymon was struck, resulting in swelling and bleeding to his lip.”

          “It was not disputed by Jeremy Clarkson or any witness that Oisin Tymon was the victim of an unprovoked physical and verbal attack.”

        • Kasimir Urbanski

          I did read it, and have responded to it elsewhere. Nowhere does it say anyone wanted to lay charges against Clarkson. They weren’t able to find ONE witness that admitted it was a fight.
          You’ll note the language in the BBC report: “an unprovoked physical and verbal attack” – means nothing. was that 3 minutes of shouting and one second of jostling? Hell , you could make 2 hours of shouting and one nudge into a “physical and verbal assault”.

          But here’s the kicker: “during the physical attack Oisin Tymon WAS STRUCK, resulting in…”. You’ll note two very very interesting things there:
          a) the passive grammar there. Oisin WAS STRUCK. Not “jeremy clarkson struck Oisin”. This could mean pretty much ANYTHING, again; it could mean they pushed each other and he tripped and fell down. It could mean they wrestled and he got his face bumped against a door. But the report was very very careful to make it SEEM like Clarkson was the “striker”, to infer that, while at no time actually saying that it was Clarkson who actually struck him. WAS STRUCK.

          b) Note the use of the word “struck”. NOWHERE does it say it was a punch. You’d think the BBC, desperate as Danny Cohen was to get him fired, and to be able to justify that firing to the British public, would have gone into gory explicit detail about just how many time Clarckson savagely beat Tymon… but no. Instead we get “Tymon WAS STRUCK”. Not beaten, not punched, not kicked, no eye-gouging, just “struck”. By who? We don’t know. With what? The BBC seems to intentionally not want to say. You’d think if it was with Clarkson’s fist, with all the effort they knew they’d have to put into justifying the kangaroo-court firing of him, they’d go out of their way to say it again and again. And indeed, they’re going out of their way to make it SOUND like that’s what they’re saying but without, from a legal point of view, actually saying it!

          I wonder why that is?? Hmm.. could it be because the BBC knows that Clarkson DID NOT PUNCH Tymon? And what to just manipulate language (something they’re experts at) to try to make it seem as much as possible like Clarkson did without actually slipping into the territory of a libel suit?

        • Charles

          You’re playing with semantic details and ignoring the presented facts.

          You say “They weren’t able to find ONE witness that admitted it was a fight.” The report says “I interviewed a number of witnesses and others connected with the incident. Accounts were agreed.” and “Oisin Tymon was subject to an unprovoked physical and verbal attack by Jeremy Clarkson.”

          You keep repeating that no charges were filed. That’s true, but irrelevant. Clarkson physically attacked a coworker. Clarkson verbally attacked a coworker with “derogatory and abusive language” so loud that it “was audible in a hotel bedroom.” Those are grounds for firing.

          You are worrying about the difference between a punch versus a strike versus an attack. Nobody is claiming that Clarkson beat the shit out of Oisin. He gave him a bloody lip. Maybe he punched him, or slapped him, or tackled him. Whatever happened, it was enough that “a number of witnesses” agreed that it was a “physical attack.”

          You keep downplaying the attack as a minor incident. Clarkson apparently thought it was serious enough to apologize repeatedly by “text, email and in person.”

          The most concrete argument you’ve put forward so far is “Cohen doesn’t like Clarkson.” It’s a long way from there to “BBC’s Scotland boss released a dishonest report about an attack that never really even happened so that Clarkson would be fired.”

        • Kasimir Urbanski

          Yes, exactly: Clarkson apologized. He didn’t have to, he could have hung Tymon out to dry in fact, but he didn’t. He showed character by admitting full responsibility for a scuffle. One that neither man felt needed to go to any higher-ups. That’s where it should have ended.

          Tymon didn’t want Clarkson fired; no one did, except Danny Cohen and his elite metro-london progressive fellow-travelers.

          When I talked about “a fight”, what I mean to say is not one witness said that there were actually blows exchanged. Some when interviewed by the press, on the contrary, explicitly stated that no blows were exchange, only pushing.

          I’m not saying that Macquarrie is dishonest: I’m saying the ENTIRE BBC middle-management is dishonest. We KNOW they are institutionally dishonest: they hid and protected a rapist of underage girls for THIRTY YEARS, but spent the last several years trying to get Clarkson fired and Top Gear destroyed for ideological reasons.

        • Charles

          Ok, so this is literally a conspiracy theory. Let me see if I’ve got this right:

          You can’t present any evidence, because every single piece of so-called “evidence” is part of a carefully-constructed web of lies. It was all written by a shadowy cabal of master manipulators. We know that they always lie, because they work for a company that once had a cover-up. The culmination of this devious plan was the termination of the at-will contract of a sassy employee.

          Sounds legit.

        • Kasimir Urbanski

          No, you ass, this is the EXACT OPPOSITE of a “conspiracy theory”; there’s no “carefully constructed web of lies”, there’s a *blatantly transparent* bold-faced hatred of Jeremy Clarkson and determination to stop him and Top Gear and a half-baked effort to try to spin doctor a minor incident into something much more serious-sounding than it was to provide their flimsy justification for destroying the most popular non-fiction TV show on Earth (and the BBC’s top moneymaker) so that the Metropolitan Leftists who manage the BBC can feel satisfied that they’ve committed ideological purification.

        • Kasimir Urbanski

          You keep trying to somehow pretend that Danny Cohen, and leftist progressives in general, don’t hate Jeremy Clarkson and Top Gear. Why is that? Why not just admit it? And if you do, given that Cohen and all the people involved are of that ideological set, and they got to be judge, jury, and executioner, why do you keep insisting on trying to pretend like this was a decision they all did with tremendous reluctance rather than a gleeful political show-trial and the elimination of someone they see as a menace to their social engineering?

        • Charles

          I’m not pretending anything. At no point did I say the BBC was reluctant to let Clarkson go. I even acknowledged above that “Cohen hates Clarkson” is the one solid piece of evidence you’re put forward. What I’m saying is that the other 99% of your argument is partisan vitriol, not facts.

          Let’s walk through what you’re asking people to believe. Let’s further keep in mind that you have supported your claims with NOTHING except for “Cohen hates Clarkson,” and that I have yet to find a single news source that agrees with your theory.

          Cohen hates Clarkson. But Cohen also doesn’t have the power to fire Clarkson due to his popularity. So far, so good.

          You say the investigation was written to make Clarkson look guilty, when in fact he did nothing wrong. If that’s the case, I guess MacQuarrie must hate Clarkson too?

          The BBC’s Director-General met with both Clarkson and Oisin. He surely heard their side of the story. But the statement he released agreed with MacQuarrie’s investigation, so I guess he must also hate Clarkson?

          The political head of the BBC (Rona Fairhead?) knows that Clarkson is their biggest moneymaker, and knows that Cohen is out to get him. If she had talked to Clarkson or Oisin, she would certainly know the truth and put a stop to this whole charade. I guess she didn’t bother to look into it?

          As far as I can tell, nobody who was present has come forward to dispute with the investigation’s findings. Maybe BBC employees are complicit, but why have Clarkson and his cohosts remained silent?

          If Oisin saw that this whole thing had turned into a witch hunt, why did he not say anything? BBC can’t exactly fire the guy who just got his lip split!

          Furthermore, if the BBC is making a concerted effort to socially engineer Clarkson off of TV, why didn’t they do it in a smart way? Clarkson has gotten tons of publicity for this. In six months he’ll have a new show, likely with a bigger paycheck.

          I know you love to rail against the big bad left and its social engineering, but your argument here is sorely lacking.

        • Kasimir Urbanski

          The people who have a lack of evidence are the one’s claiming that Clarkson ‘beat the crap’ out of Tymon.
          The BBC middle-managers (led by Danny Cohen) made sure to create a media situation that would have led to unbelievable outrage if the (Conservative Party) government faction were to stop the firing. This didn’t start with the massive overblowing of this incident either, it started by a consistent pattern of creating an ongoing and building media impression of “Clarkson is out of control!!” (which of course the news media were only too happy to comply with, because it sells). That includes leaking a two-year old unused film footage of Clarkson’s to create controversy and providing little to no support to the Top Gear crew in Argentina, potentially endangering lives at the hands of Argentine fanatics, in the hopes that this could come back to Clarkson in some way.

          Finally, I’m quite willing to acknowledge that for his part, I don’t think Clarkson really cared to fight this anymore. I think he was likely sick of it all, sick of the BBC, and if there was one time for Clarkson to give Danny Cohen his wish it would be right now, when his co-hosts would not be contractually bound and all three of them could walk away at the same time (as you say, to a new show in the private sector with a much bigger paycheck).

          The reason Cohen and company don’t give a crap about that happening is that it’s not part of what matters to them: that clarkson will continue to be popular with the viewing public on a private network is something they’ll be able to bandy about in their London dinner parties as “proof” of how horrible the British viewing public are, and how “awful” private corporate media are, and how terribly evil western civilization is, and how wonderful and noble they all were for not putting up with this horrible person and the terrible things he stands for. Like I said, when their “new, more ideologically correct Top Gear” inevitably crashes and burns, that too will only serve as “proof” to them of the terrible nastiness of the hoi poloi and their own personal “superiority”.

        • Charles

          Clarkson is widely known (and loved) for being a charismatic asshole. He got drunk at a party and did something unusually asshole-y. He crossed the line and got himself fired.

          Privately, Clarkson has apologized. Publicly, he had kept his head down. He has not disputed what happened. He also has not engaged with those trying to overblow the situation.

          Let the man take responsibility for his actions. He’ll be fine. He doesn’t need you to make up excuses for him.

        • Kasimir Urbanski

          No excuses are being made for him. There’s no question that Clarkson engaged in some bad behavior.

          The BBC self-styled ‘elites’ are guilty of MUCH WORSE behavior.

        • HeidiHoNeighbor

          The problem is he didn’t hit the guy. The guy said Jeremy never punched him. That’s the problem. Secondly, Danny Cohen has been trying to shut down Top Gear & Clarkson for years. This isn’t anything new.

      • Patrick

        97.8 + 3.2 = 101.
        For a spot on article, I wouldn’t play his RPGs because simple math errors take all the fun out of games.
        The rest of his analysis is again:spot on.

        • Kasimir Urbanski

          The extra one percent… is called the Stig.

        • Kasimir Urbanski

          No, seriously though, I had like 40 minutes to write this thing. Its amusing that I screwed up the subtraction but I don’t think I ever wrote something this good this fast in my life.

      • sonnesun

        I agree with all of this. This was the real reason why I cancelled my TV license as soon as the sacking was confirmed. It was more than just a car show, but my license cancellation wasn’t just about that. As the blogger mentioned there is a serious far-leftist dull & witless socio-political agenda at work here (I’m middle-left btw). Scrap the license fee.

      • TruthBeTold

        When the BBC started in radio, one of their goals was to raise the quality of spoken English. They created what is known as BBC English as heard by BBC announcers.

        A noble effort (?) but it backfired.

        Everyone with their own dialect mocked BBC English and dismissed it as hoity toity.

        The BBC was elitist from the inception.

      • Emelio Lizardo

        Don’t forget the BBC’s unrelenting devotion to gender Marxism (Feminism).

      • AmeriKKKaisAlQaeda

        First-Worlders watch too much television. They are addicted to Zio-media.

      • Adrian

        If you assault (i.e. punch) someone in at work it is usually
        considered to be “gross misconduct” in English law and merits instant
        dismissal. Why should anyone be immune from this sanction just because of their
        status or earning power? It is also surprising to see the BBC described as “almost
        always Leftist, always Collectivist” when their news output is frequently seen
        as being conservative – supportive of the dominant ideology, which you would
        expect of a state-run broadcaster, and
        which is currently favouring the right-wing, privately educated elite. Top Gear
        is indeed an anomaly, but its humour is puerile rather than political, unless you
        are watching it from the perspective of a social science academic.

        • Kasimir Urbanski

          I’m not sure in which way it is “favoring the right-wing”: its reporting has been pretty consistently pro-europe, pro-multiculturalism, pro-immigration, pro-palestine (and anti-israel), pro-islamist, anti-austerity, pro-welfare-state, anti-family, anti-business, anti-American, anti-English, etc. etc.
          Yeah, that sounds really right-wing.

      Be Sociable, Share!