Wednesday, March 11, 2015


It is incomprehensible that the major media organisation in the UK is being petitioned to re-instate an employee who has a public serial 'offending' profile evidenced on film many times. On the basis of the latest incident alleged to have been perpetrated on a member of staff, Clarkson, a presenter of the BBC 'Top Gear' car reviewing programme, has been suspended. 

We know the Top Gear programme has been a best seller worldwide and makes millions of pounds for the BBC. Irrespective of this, What does the petition to re-instate Clarkson say about the audience profile for the Top Gear programme? 

There was a clear case at an earlier time to halt the cavalier, loose canon behaviour, which has been exhibited. Money and profit seems to have been the overriding consideration in the faulty decision-making process, which allowed Clarkson free reign with his disinhibition to continue to offend, apparently bully and physically assault others at work. His arrogance and insubordination has been allowed grow, Clarkson has had no boundaries. Has he now hit the buffers?

The BBC should not be in a quandary about actions to pursue. Their history in protecting staff from sexual harassment, offence and assaults has been seriously faulty.  

Now is the time for the Corporation to demonstrate a different policy from the old one, where suppression was encouraged.  Now, the Corporation must very publicly demonstrate a different moral code that, offensive behaviour and abuse of staff will not be tolerated. Will it; or, will the cult of personality and money-making override, yet again, the corporate moral compass?


Anonymous said...

Clarkson always strikes me as a petulant child who's never grown up.
Sadly the BBC seems to unwilling to do the right thing any more as this incident shows. Flighty xx

Jenny said...

This is the last of a line of public gaffes he has made and he seems to think he can get away with anything. He should definitely go, but of course, money is the overriding concern here, as always . I am disgusted, but sadly not surprised, at the degree of support for him to stay. We are a sad society.

ZACL said...

Hi Mr F,

Arrested development is one polite description of one facet of this ******* character.

ZACL said...

Hello Jennyta,

I do hope you are right that this is the last of Clarkson's gaffes.

The BBC have a poor record of managing the huge egos of their 'stars' and caring for staff well-being. Also, they regularly demonstrate disdain and arrogance for the concerns of the public, their licence payers.

Yes, it is sad that so many in our society enjoy the disgraceful and low tactics that Clarkson employs.


Vincent said...

Whilst I would never wish to watch this programme, I deplore the PC condemnation of his antics. He offends those who want to be offended, who in fact enjoy being offended, and probably watch the programme avidly for that very purpose.

You will remember Mary Whitehouse, and her Viewers and Listeners Association, who looked for offence in exactly the same way.

Her enemies in those days were the progressives who wanted to extend the old-fashioned prudish boundaries which had dominated the BBC.

Now the boundaries have been tightened in another direction. Sometimes I watch old sitcoms etc on DVD and reflect that they could not be broadcast today, merely because of certain terms used which have become taboo for slender & dubious reasons, & spuriously deemed racist.

I don't support Nigel Farage either, but he's another who speaks for the non-Guardian-reading people, and remembers how it was possible to speak more freely without censoring every word.

ZACL said...

Hi Vincent,

I am not sure what you are really advocating here, Vincent.

The days of imperial offensiveness and insensitivity were rightly challenged. Remember, suffragettes were maltreated and ridiculed as has been any campaigner, or campaigning group that raise awareness of issues that are uncomfortable to face up to.

You do not seem to me to be someone who supports the re-instatement group, the petitioners who ask that someone who 'throws a punch' as it has been put, at a work colleague is to be allowed to continue with impunity?

Clarkson's gross behaviour is symptomatic of many things, one being an organisation whose morals and ethics have been dubious allowing this man free reign to do as he will. It is a worldwide role model for the UK, which makes me squirm.

These abusive traits bear similarities to those perpetrated by others that have gone unchecked and hurt numerous people.

Vincent said...

Oh, I'm not advocating anything, merely opposing your analysis, dear ZACL, on the assumption that you were open to debate on the matter. As I tried to point out, I'm not in a position to defend the man, but also see no reason to join a chorus against him. I've read the news but never seen more than 5 minutes of his programme.

It appears that his popularity extends beyond those who are enthusiastic about cars. I suspect it is because he unashamedly represents points of view and emotional attitudes that, in your view, "were rightly challenged".

I was at first surprised that you mentioned imperialism and suffragettes, because I don't think those attitudes are in question in the present case.

Could it be that the connection in your mind is this, that the progressives are by definition right in every case, and that once they have had their way, dissent is to be suppressed?

For indeed what currently reigns is a dictatorship of the right-thinking, the virtuous progressives, who can not only change laws, but try to impose total censorship of expression of thought too, with any offenders being pilloried.

The result is as we see, that clowns like Farage & Clarkson, who defy such censorship, are more popular than they deserve to be. And I don't mean "clowns" as a term of abuse, either, but sympathy & appreciation.

ZACL said...

Debate on the issues is fine Vincent. Having mores, ethics, principles, is not, and should not be based solely on what existed in our youth. We live in today's world where thinking has moved on in a range of ways. I can agree that not all change works, however, when modified best practice may result. On the other hand, it may not. I hate the fact that there has to be a lot of hurt, pain and even death before our shortcomings can be faced. Even then, benign neglect often results....till the next time. Ideally, there should not be a next time. My concern is that analysis will lead to paralysis.

Years ago, I cannot remember how many, I watched Top Gear, when it was a programme that held some interest for me. Clarkson put me off, big time.

There has been too much minimisation of events that have been very hurtful and painful for far too long. Traits exhibited by Clarkson, demonstrate many of the features we have seen in others who offend, who have believed themselves to be too powerful to touch.

Snowbird said...

Oh, I really dislike the man, and never watch his show. Like many so called celebs, their egos become a force in themselves, how dare his assault anyone, he should be prosecuted, you or I would!xxx

ZACL said...

Hi Snowbird,

Being a friend of the P. M. Is no reference is it. Look at which other friends they have on their party circuit and the friends they have in common.

The boundaries have neen allowed to be breached too often. It is unacceptable. What a sad state this society is in when we have a so-called role model who demonstrates so many gross inadequacies.

Snowbird said...

Well said....yes, having friends in the right places is an atrocity in itself!xxx