Is Clarkson paying the price?

Or, is this about trying to absolve the past?

I have always found Jeremy Clarkson to be the personification of an obnoxious loathsome git. He is the classic rude, boorish, sexist, Yorkshireman.

Because yes, dear reader, said arrogant egotistical 54-year-old boy is a similar age to me, comes from not very far away, and even trained as a journalist in Yorkshire. Shudder. Anyway, I never met him. There were plenty of other sexist, arrogant, obnoxious male Yorkshire journos to contend with.

He has been allowed to get away with sexism, homophobia, racism, environmental damage, and really whatever he has wanted.

Wiki has a long list of his ‘antics’ but I’ll pick possibly my favourite.

In November 2008, Clarkson attracted over 500 complaints to the BBC when he joked about lorry drivers murdering prostitutes.

The BBC stated the comment was a comic rebuttal of a common misconception about lorry drivers and was within the viewer’s expectation of Clarkson’s Top Gear persona.

Well clearly the BBC hadn’t been a woman living in Yorkshire in the late 70s, when the *Yorkshire Ripper who was a lorry driver murdered 13 women and attempted to murder 7 others.

I do not think all lorry drivers murder prostitutes because one did.

But one did, and he was a serial killer. And for Clarkson to make a joke about it, is beyond words. For those of you who don’t understand sexism, that is sexism at its finest.

Killing women is not funny.

Killing prostitutes is no different. This is not funny either.

But worse, this buys into the fact that because prostitutes sell sex, they value even less than non-prostitute women.

And making jokes about it is sick and grossly sexist to the point of misogynistic. What on earth is funny about someone being killed?

It is no way a ‘comic’ rebuttal. It is offensive and disrespectful to women who were killed and to their families.

Chris Mole, the Member of Parliament for Ipswich, where five prostitutes were murdered in 2006, wrote a “strongly worded” letter to BBC Director-General Mark Thompson, demanding that Clarkson be sacked.

Clarkson dismissed Mole’s comments in his Sunday Times column the following weekend, writing, “There are more important things to worry about than what some balding and irrelevant middle-aged man might have said on a crappy BBC2 motoring show.”

This is the irrelevant middle-aged man worth an approx £30 mill and who fronts a ‘crappy’ programme with a five mill viewing in the UK and sold all over the world? Very modest Jeremy. Very.

Andrew Tinkler, chief executive of the Eddie Stobart Group, a major trucking company, stated that “They were just having a laugh. It’s the 21st century, let’s get our sense of humour in line.”

This is the 21st century Andrew, let’s stop going back to our caves. Or at least if you do. Just. Stay. There. Preferably with Jeremy.

What’s wrong with this comment by Tinkler? It’s the classic defence to sexism.

It is funny to joke about lorry drivers murdering prostitutes. Really?

No. It is not. And please do not accuse anyone who doesn’t find it funny of lacking a sense of humour. Maybe you lack a little empathy for murdered women and their families. Truckman.

Another sexism quote at its finest. ‘Just having a laugh.’

But anyway, there are more of Clarkson’s Classics on wiki should you choose to read his oh-so-important views.

My real question here, is that, as he has now allegedly punched someone because he got a cold cheese platter instead of a red hot man’s meat meal, why is the BBC making such a fuss?

Of course Jeremy shouldn’t punch people – if he did – and of course the BBC shouldn’t condone it. But they’ve let all his other outbursts go with a gentle rap on those tough macho knuckles.

Or is this about finally catching up with the past? And putting today’s values, guilt and morals (or lack of) onto yesterday’s events.

Because, is Clarkson today’s Savile or Harris? Just using and abusing his powerful position to do whatever he wants. And say whatever he wants? I’m not for a minute saying he has raped and molested children and young people like the other two. So go away Clarkson lawyers. But, the BBC let these things go in the past. Or didn’t know. Or something. And in the case of Savile, not just the beeb, but the NHS and the police.

The bigger issue here, is how much power do famous people have, and how much does their bad, discriminatory, or illegal behaviour get overlooked?

And how much do we, the public, support it?

Could Clarkson end up paying the price for his own obnoxious behaviour? Or, with management’s hindsight, paying the price for that of his egotistical predecessors? There again, should Clarkson have been gone before?

Does the BBC finally think they need to stop letting their superstars rule the roost? Doubtful. As with everything, viewing figures, and more importantly, money, always rules.

For the record, I did like Rolf Harris. I didn’t like Savile. I may even have spoken to him on the phone once or twice as a reporter. Hardly my claim to fame.

*I’ll write about the Yorkshire Ripper from a personal perspective next. It might help to show why jokes about lorry drivers murdering prostitutes are not funny.

Advertisements

About roughseasinthemed

I write about my life as an English person living in Spain and Gibraltar, on Roughseas, subjects range from politics and current developments in Gib to book reviews, cooking and getting on with life. My views and thoughts on a variety of topics - depending on my mood of the day - can be found over on Clouds. A few pix are over on Everypic - although it is not a photoblog. And of course my dog had his own blog, but most of you knew that anyway. Pippadogblog etc
This entry was posted in feminism, journalism, media, news and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

49 Responses to Is Clarkson paying the price?

  1. violetwisp says:

    I can’t stand him either, and it annoys me profusely that he’s getting so much attention – and so much support from the public. You’re right about money ruling it all. If people are going to buy the product, tune into the programme, then the personality seems to become more important than their behaviour. The problem with Clarkson’s behaviour is that loads of people can relate to all the rotten things he says and does, and now this laddish punch-up nonsense has probably made him seem even cooler to the kind people who like him. Silly people.

    Like

    • I didn’t really want to write about him because he is so gittish. But, he is a good example of such a boor on every single count. Wouldn’t mind but Angela Rippon was the first presenter. Partner liked Tiff Needell who was the one before JC (appropriate huh?) but late 80s was prime laddish time …

      If you look at all his gross insulting speech and actions, he is a walking PR disaster. But apparently not. And that says everything, absolutely everything.

      Like

  2. Hariod Brawn says:

    I think it’s a shame, and a sign of the times, that the odious Clarkson is getting all this nationwide publicity whilst the British establishment and the BBC have their hands more than full trying to hush-up, what are in my view, more serious matters: http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5527/bbc-at-war-over-panorama-on-claims-of-vip-paedophile-network

    Like

    • Yes. And I’m adding to odious C’s publicity, but I am trying to give at least one example of why he should have been long gone. And I am also trying to say the BBC is struggling. Why don’t they get their fucking arse into gear?

      I read your link, and, is it not more of the same? My point is that money, power, = whatever you want. It’s not exactly new.

      Again, as I don’t want the heavy hand of mega bucks on my shoulder, this is merely my cynical opinion. But seems to me the BBC needs to have a rethink.

      Life was much easier when they weren’t commercial. Or was it? Is the beeb forced to use clarkson to earn money? Or use him as a scapegoat? Deservedly possibly, but, as you say, what about other issues?

      My post was merely to say the BBC has had some bad publicity of late in terms of possible complicity. So they need to look squeaky clean.

      We’ll see what happens with all of this. For what it matters. To some of us, it does.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Hariod Brawn says:

        “Why don’t they get their fucking arse into gear?”

        Who runs the place? – damned if I can work it out. They typically have a media savvy mouthpiece at the putative top, but it really seems to be run (if that’s the right term) by an amorphous committee, and Murdoch is pissing all over the lot of them. Who took the rap for the Beeb blowing £98,400,000 on a failed IT system? This is as close as it got: James Purnell, BBC’s director of strategy and digital – “We’ve messed up, we’re sorry”. That’s alright then. You say the BBC is ‘struggling’, but quite what is it struggling to do? Do you know? Because I don’t. Its current great successes seem to be a 1960’s spawned kids drama about a ‘Timelord’, to another rehash of a decades old ballroom dancing competition, through to ‘Top Gear’, about which, nuff said. What say they tried some journalism? After all, no one else is doing it, least of all Murdoch.

        Like

        • It’s ironic that the beeb is regularly accused of being leftist/PC given that they are so middle-of-the-road establishment. They have done some good programmes. For a while, I blipped under their radar and managed to watch it last year u too they pegged my ip wasn’t in the UK, so I did enjoy Happy Valley and a couple of crime progs, the Swedish and the Welsh ones. I think their strength has been in drama, satire, and documentaries but with people wanting to see costume crap (no I haven’t seen whatsit Abbey) and reality progs, what hope is there? I enjoyed the singing detective (Michael Gambon was even better seen live) and the monocled mutineer which was pretty controversial.

          It’s a fine balance for the beeb. They’ve had cutbacks over the years, have had to start looking at the money and viewing figures, so the inevitable result is more dross the public wants to watch. Not the good stuff.

          But, one could argue that’s always been the mentality. Why else allow stars, celebrity stars before their time, so much leeway? Like many of us, the beeb seems to be drifting loose, caught between one wind and another and no idea of direction. Rather like politicians …

          I couldn’t believe it when I heard about strictly ballroom or whatever it is. I used to loathe come dancing. Apart from the tango and rumba ones. Why did I watch it? My parents watched it. But just amazing that is reincarnation is popular. Sugar-coated saccharin rules.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Hariod Brawn says:

            Ah, now The Singing Detective was brilliant, and never mind Harry, give me Dennis Potter every time. I was going to add Bleasdale’s 1991 drama GBH, before checking and discovering that was on Channel 4 (memory fade). What else . . . um . . . well, there was The Wire, but that was HBO and only aired well after the event by the Beeb. No, I gave up on telly – not for the first time – a few years ago, and can’t ever see me giving it another go. I just can’t see where the Beeb has left to go; it can’t afford any sport other than Shove Ha’penny and Darts; it can’t compete with HBO et al in doing large-scale serious drama series, and it’s far too scared to do investigative journalism. Even The Archers is shit now. 😉 Never mind Top Gear, I think auntie is in reverse.

            Like

          • Singing Detective was extremely clever. Indeedly sheer brilliance. I don’t like Harry. Mind, I didn’t like Blackeyes and never watched it out.

            Loved GBH too, but I remembered it was ITV with the wonderful Foxy/Wolfie. Very clever drama. Struck me as all too real. I also liked Looking After JoJo with Hamish McBeth which was a nice bleak BBC offering. Didn’t like the dog being killed but the rest was ok. Missed The Wire.

            Never liked The Archers. Was too impatient for Listen with Mother to come on. I did like the ill-fated Citizens though.

            Shall we just sit down and discuss The Good Old Days (down at the old bull and bush, bush bush) while we watch auntie stall and flounder through the gears?

            Liked by 1 person

  3. curiosetta says:

    Jeremy Clarkson is probably a twit in real life but ‘Jeremy Clarkson’ on TV is just an act as contrived as any politician sitting earnestly is a local school classroom, only in reverse. He is *supposed* to be ‘outrageously un-PC’ because that’s good for ratings and newspaper sales.

    But rest assured as a stalwart of the BBC he will never say anything REALLY outrageous like “We shouldn’t be invading the middle east and committing genocide there” or “Climate change is just a massive scam to impose carbon taxes (taxes on breathing) and the BBC still sticking to the official lie despite all the lies and deceit that has been exposed or the fact that every prediction has been proven wrong for several decades in a row”.

    As a British comic once described him “….. that Jeremy Clarkson with his outrageous politically incorrect opinions which he has each week to a deadline in Sunday Times”

    Like

    • So you think because clarkson is supported by the BBC it is ok for him to be rascist, sexist, anti-environmentalist, anti-cyclist, derisory of british car manufacturing?

      Thanks for the lesson but I too know about newspaper sales, hence the mention of journalism.

      I’m not really sure what your point is? Just that he supports military intervention, decries environmentalism, and derides slopies, niggers, and whoever else?

      The point is that these terribly funny, ‘un-PC’, your words, are very damaging to other people. And they reinforce that disgraceful and insulting viewpoint.

      Thanks for the lesson about arsehole views sell though. I would never have worked it out.

      Oh, you don’t have a blog for me to visit. Any reason?

      Like

      • curiosetta says:

        Do you get offended when you see Alf Garnett on TV? Well Jeremy Clarkson is like that. A character. And his character is that of a ‘character’ (a harmless old man with bigoted views who is pitifully out of touch with the zeitgeist).

        It’s clear the show (top gear) is conceived by a highly skilled team with a large budget who are experts at contriving, or simply fabricating, minutely staged situations, and then presenting them as if they were the spontaneous escapades of three middle aged car buddies caught on camera.

        The whole Top Gear thing is so obviously conceived and scripted to appeal to/ offend certain specific demographics…… with his ability to offend some being part of his appeal to others.

        Clarkson is like Borat, minus the satire.

        As I hinted at previously, I’m sure Clarkson has pretty clear guidelines on what un-PC subjects he is and isn’t allowed (or even instructed) to talk about.

        Genuine real life ‘controversial’ figures don’t abide by guidelines and don’t plan out their bigoted remarks in advance in meetings with producers, editors or commissioners.

        The BBC is a criminal organisation on many levels, from how they fund themselves to the proven lies they pedal as truth to the unsavoury characters that work there (or perhaps ‘operate from’ is a better term) who are protected by a strict code of (dis)honour, reminiscent of some occult society.

        Clarkson does his job of generating fake controversy about ‘safe’ but emotive subjects (representing the views of a small minority of idiots nobody really cares about) and generally playing the fool in his denim jester’s outfit.

        This distracts/ entertains the public and gives them the opportunity to ‘have their say’ on a bunch of worn out topics that were mostly laid to rest in the 70’s………. and this stops them from thinking about or discussing topics that DO have relevance today – topics that the BBC and those who control it don’t want the public to discuss or even think about.

        Clarkson is establishment through-and-through. His job is to give the public their two minute hate ritual (as per Orwell’s 1984).

        Everybody’s forgotten that the BBC employs and protects pedophiles and suspected procurers of children for the establishment (why do you think this strange man was so well protected, and was able to move about so freely, confidently – and even arrogantly – clinking wine glasses with the upper echelons of society from royalty to prime ministers?). But instead of thinking too deeply on this and many other subjects everyone is now focused on the latest antics of Clarkson.

        From a public relations viewpoint, that’s a job well done. And Clarkson gets his fat salary, and everyone is happy.

        These kinds of techniques for steering public discourse and redirecting public attention to issues of no real importance are literally thousands of years old, going back as far as the entertainments put on by the Romans ad Greeks and beyond. A lot of the travelling plays were compulsory and even slaves had to attend, so everyone would get ‘updated’ with the latest officially sanctioned talking points and official propaganda.

        And paying to be fed BBC propaganda is also compulsory, and until recently (internet/ digital TV) they had a near monopoly on the public’s collective attention.

        As the media giants have lost their grip on our attention, they have resorted to ever more sensationalism in entertainment, ‘culture’ and ‘news’ to try and keep our attention fixed on them.

        What will it take for people to just switch off and stop validating this circus/ propaganda freak show?

        What crimes would the BBC need to commit before people finally said, “That’s it, I’m done with this”?

        Liked by 1 person

        • Thanks for the lengthy and thoughtful reply. I think reading that, we broadly agree.

          But, let me start at the beginning. Do I get offended watching Alf Garnett? Haven’t seen him for years. But I wasn’t offended as a child. Nor was my father, who empathised with him. My mother thought he was obnoxious, only slightly worse than Steptoe.

          However while the intellectual middle classes, or some of them, may consider these people characters, other people don’t. They consider them to be real people who voice what real people think. Nor are they a small minority of idiots and Clarkson’s asinine offensive comments and behaviour continue to reinforce and validate those views.

          And, when I wrote the post, I wanted to raise a number of issues, rather than is Clarkson a wanker? albeit an extremely rich wanker who would sell his soul for another mill more.

          You’ve highlighted the BBC management issues and alleged cover-ups, which is why I wondered if someone has decided Clarkson should take the fall to prove the beeb has changed. Child-friendly Savile and Harris weren’t exactly good publicity.

          Part of my gripe is that he gets a bit of a warning for muttering nigger, but something more serious for allegedly punching someone. So the BBC condones verbal hatred against just about everyone but decides to draw the line at physical abuse. For whatever reason.

          Top Gear isn’t Men Behaving Badly (even though they do) or Grumpy Old Men (even though they are/will be). Or Alf Garnett or Steptoe or Benny Hill. It is still ostensibly a car programme. Not humour or satire. And that’s the problem.

          Easy to say, it was funny at the time and now is different. Now is no different at all. Now is just as sexist, racist and homophobic.

          And these subliminal messages continue to maintain the status quo.

          Liked by 2 people

          • curiosetta says:

            > Nor are they a small minority of idiots and Clarkson’s asinine offensive comments and behaviour continue to reinforce and validate those views.

            But I don’t think anybody is unaware he is a ‘controversial’ and ‘politically incorrect’ figure who is passionately and loudly challenged, condemned and vilified for what he says by significant proportion of the population – probably the majority.

            I mean, you could argue that every time he voices a bigoted opinion he helps destroy that very bigotry by tossing it up in the air to be shot down by a barrage of (usually) rational arguments and facts… but then again most of what he says seems to just be his subjective feelings (I don’t like caravans or cyclists) followed by a kind of pub-banter flourish “…..Yeah, and I think they should be banned, or better yet lined up and shot against a wall … heh, heh!”

            “…which is why I wondered if someone has decided Clarkson should take the fall to prove the beeb has changed. …”

            Possibly…. Or it could be a Murdoch-esque bait and switch routine. Sack him for an incident that his fans will forgive him for (and even respect him for), and in doing so provoke them into starting a massive campaign to have him put back on the telly. Then eventually cave into public pressure. Result = tons of free exposure, loads of extra hits of websites/ newspaper sales, a re-galvanising of his fan base, and revitalising of a brand / formula that must surely be reaching the end of its shelf life by now.

            Or another hypothetical scenario (completely off the top of my head) ….. suppose his contract was up for renegotiation and there was a rumour he was going to quit and do something else with Sky or some other channel, or retire, or give up TV altogether…. Sacking him in this way would (as you say) be a useful publicity stunt by the BBC wanting to prove they aren’t a boys’ club for hooligans and criminals any more.

            Who knows? But AFAIC it’s all a soap opera. Like the NoTW ‘scandal’ where Murdoch purchased the Sun on Sunday website address just before the ‘scandal’ hit the headlines, suggesting it was his intention all along to shut down the NoTW and replace it. And when did this ‘scandal’ which dominated the front pages for nearly a week occur? Right across the anniversary of 7/7 with several interesting developments (all of which challenged the official narrative) being knocked off the front pages and replaced by this dubious ‘scandal’. Just a coincidence right…

            > So the BBC condones verbal hatred

            As I’ve said already I am the furthest thing from a fan of the BBC or Clarkson, but in that instance he was guilty of nothing except being human. Anyone over 25 grew up with that ‘Eeny meeny’ rhyme thing as part of their childhood. To me the offensive part was everybody being ‘outraged’ by it which just stirred up a load of unnecessary up hatred and division. Clarkson did the linguistic equivalent of accidentally and innocently treading on someone’s toe on the bus… and it was as if the whole bus stood up menacingly and said “ARE YOU STARTING SOMETHING MATE!?”

            Sit down. Chill out. Take a deep breath… Jeez….

            > It is still ostensibly a car programme.

            I would call it entertainment, with a car based, lad-based (or rather middle aged bloke based) theme.

            There are very few magazine style programs catering to blokes on the telly. And while I think Clarkson and his sidekicks are idiots, I think it’s unfair on ordinary ‘blokey’ men (the ones who drive vans and fix boilers, build offices, lay cables and generally keep modern civilisation ticking along) that they are effectively kept out of the media and culture as a whole – and only allowed to occasionally voice their opinions on sports…. but never on life, politics, family, their experiences, their emotions or any interesting idea they might have.

            In this supposed culture where men dominate, ordinary everyday working men (ie the vast majority of men) actually have no voice at all… anywhere.

            Meanwhile women get to spill their desires, needs, wants, thoughts, opinions onto the TV for hours every day…. and in front of the UN.

            This one single program aimed squarely at blokes seems to be designed to cater to blokes BUT in a way that plays right into the hands of the left, feminists, and the politically correct squad.

            Like Alf Garnet, it is presenting such an absurd caricature of the middle aged blokey bloke that one wonders (if you are like me!) whether it is in fact just another veiled attack on men and manhood.

            As much as I hate Top Gear, the BBC and television in general (I rarely watch it) I can understand why millions of blokes are very upset at losing their only island of ‘blokyness’ in a vast ocean of feminist/ metrosexual/ politically correct/ left leaning programming that makes up the rest of the BBC. schedule.

            Sorry to ramble on, most of this only occurred as I was writing… I find analysing TV more enjoyable than watching it.

            > And these subliminal messages continue to maintain the status quo.

            But they are not subliminal – surely?

            Everything from Benny Hill to Top Gear is completely in-your-face laddishness and smutty/ schoolboy titillation and un-PC banter.

            That’s kind of what I was just saying, it’s all made to be an easy target for criticism. None of the sexism, or un-PC stuff is subtle or subliminal or multi layered. I find magazine programs fronted by female presenters much more subliminal and ‘sneaky’ than Top Gear which does pretty much what it says on the tin.

            Of course now I’m starting to sound like a fan of the program, so I’ll shut up!

            Liked by 1 person

          • There are very few magazine style programs catering to blokes on the telly. And while I think Clarkson and his sidekicks are idiots, I think it’s unfair on ordinary ‘blokey’ men (the ones who drive vans and fix boilers, build offices, lay cables and generally keep modern civilisation ticking along) that they are effectively kept out of the media and culture as a whole – and only allowed to occasionally voice their opinions on sports…. but never on life, politics, family, their experiences, their emotions or any interesting idea they might have.

            Whoa, by ‘blokey’ men, do you mean working class tradesmen and labourers? Drivers, plumbers, electricians/telecoms/fibreoptic people etc? Because that sounds rather like these extremely valuable people (who don’t get paid commensurately which is a different issue) are stereotypically only interested in cars, sport and pints down the pub with their mates.

            ‘Any interesting idea they might have’? Gosh. Do working class tradesmen have them? Oh, quick, lets pop over and listen to this quirk of humanity!

            And by suggesting that middle-aged men behaving disgracefully is ok for the lower classes to let off steam, that does sound very much like an endorsement/excuse for crass views and actions.

            As for niggers. Just because we all grew up with it years ago doesn’t mean we should remain entrenched in the past. This is now. That was then.

            Like

          • curiosetta says:

            “…Whoa, by ‘blokey’ men, do you mean working class tradesmen and labourers? Drivers, plumbers, electricians/telecoms/fibreoptic people etc? …”

            I mean men who have an actual identity – as men – which does not revolve around the needs, wants, tastes and opinions of women. You could add brain surgeon, stunt pilot, ballet dancer, hotel manager, art dealer or architect to you r list – provided they fitted the criteria I just listed.

            > Because that sounds rather like these extremely valuable people (who don’t get paid commensurately which is a different issue) are stereotypically only interested in cars, sport and pints down the pub with their mates.

            Yes that is how the TV/ media generally depicts them…. either you are a metrosexual feminist man …. or you are a moronic, sexist, beer swilling, racist, smelly neanderthal man (who watches programs like Top Gear with that awful Clarkson man in it). Those are the two basic pigeon holes the modern man exists in, as far as the media is concerned.

            > This is now. That was then.

            Quite.

            I’m not glorifying the past, but just as an example, in the days of black and white TV ordinary working men did actually appear on the TV quite a lot and they were allowed to be themselves, without being either patronised, demonised or ridiculed. And they got to show off and explain their lifestyle/ skills/ experiences as fishermen or whatever, which actually made for fascinating TV…… a lot more fascinating than the kind of vacuous ‘banter’ which the typical male TV presenter spouts these days… whether it is PC or un-PC.

            Like

  4. disperser says:

    I’ve caught the show on and off (last time a few years ago) but the novelty quickly wore off.

    I assume to appreciate the show one has to:
    1) be really interested in automobiles hardly anyone can afford
    2) be prepared to make fun of automobiles people can afford
    3) enjoy hearing what passes for humor (a.k.a. British humour) in the form of an obnoxious person make fun of people who can’t afford cars that hardly anyone can afford.
    4) have an interest in automobiles that goes beyond getting from point A to point B safe and sound (why I drive big SUVs that could easily demolish them effete ‘sport’ cars.)

    I did enjoy some of the stunts and I did like The Stig.

    Like

    • It used to be better. Ie before Clarkson joined in the late 80s. It used to be about cars and not presenters. A bit like news programmes were about what was happening and not what some airhead thought was going on and telling us all their personal opinion of it.

      Not all British people find that funny. But those who don’t are unlikely to watch.

      And we drive Land Rovers. If they don’t get to point B we can sleep in the back with a modicum of comfort.

      Liked by 1 person

      • (Wait. Not in UK, so please tolerate confusion.) There are new Top Gun shows? All I’ve ever seen here are some really old ones…we thought they were really just done for silly entertainment – so much old stereotype high school macho guy stuff. It was rather funny when they were dropped off in some far of place and they had to try to keep their junker cars running through the jungle, mud, mountains and stuff. They were only on occasionally here.
        I am totally unfamiliar with Clarkson’s complete ranges of “antics.” Sounds like a pretty unpleasant guy.
        We have some gross, rude mean radio morning shows here. Didn’t think they were cute or funny when I was younger and that style of mean ugly broadcast still isn’t funny to me today. Yet people listen, stations hire them, and advertisers support them…so what sort of people are the ones who constantly listen and go along with that sort?
        Clarkson sounds those who laugh at stalked women and think they probably brought it on themselves – and stalking’s/murdering/domestic abuse are not serious problems at all…Laughs it all off and just ignore stalkers/violent abusive people? RIght. Obvious never had to deal with one/had family in danger.
        Media in any form is all about the money. They’ll tolerate and excuse behavior as long as it brings in the money.
        Informative post and comments
        (but some of the BBC shows we get are good ones)

        Like

        • Top Gun, Top Gear? Little difference, still macho posturing.

          And my brain’s obv been fried in Spain, in EVOO of course, as all I can think of to say to the rest of your comment, is, well, yes, of course.

          Like

          • Actually saw Top Gear listed in tv schedule shortly after your post – it was an old one. Another drag poor cars across some country or something. Always assumed it was strictly for entertainment. It started out a a show with real info, but wimped out for “easy” laughs? That seems to happen here, too.
            Finally sun today (sneezes with super oak pollen season) Tomorrow the German and Molly plan to rip up the backyard grass for play activities – hey, dirt is so much more fun to roll in, tight?) WIth luck we can all go to the beach instead. Hope the ankle is dealing with spring ( all meanings) well there. Paw waves to Snowy and Pippa

            Like

          • Yeah, what’s new?

            Woo hoo play time. Hello German 🙂 go with that dirt. Snowy was so pleased to dig up those borage seeds and get a dirty nose 🙂

            Don’t mention the flipping ankle. I’m already planning the anniversary post …

            Liked by 1 person

  5. Top Gear is broadcast on BBC America over in my neck of the woods. I have to admit that before I heard about Clarkson getting sacked, I wasn’t aware of anything he’d done off-camera. If I was, I wouldn’t feel comfortable watching the show. Since I found out about him getting fired, I haven’t watched a show with him on it since.

    That he’s a celebrity getting excused by the public is something quite familiar in the U.S., and the issues you’re bringing up are really good ones. I don’t think celebrity ought to be misused and serve as a shield for sexism or any other dehumanizing idea for that matter. It’s bad enough that it can happen unintentionally, and I can’t fathom it happening on purpose.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Suspended not sacked. He’s often been in the UK news but obv not important enough to make US news until now 😀

      I’d like to blame celebrity cult status on America’s relatively recent obsession with it, but sadly, the truth is, it’s been going on for years on both sides of the Atlantic.

      Liked by 2 people

      • He’s just suspended? This reminds me of an American football player who only got suspended after he was accused of raping a woman in Georgia (the state, not the country). Because he and his teammates would vacation there, the town got a lot of income from their antics. So…he got to plea to a misdemeanor assault charge, the woman got to be vilified in the press, and he still gets to make millions in the NFL.

        There is no excuse for this. And the biggest problem is that it tells kids that if you’re famous enough, the rules don’t apply to you. Not to mention, if you’re a little girl, it means that famous guys can do whatever they want to you. It’s disgusting.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Yup, suspended during the investigation and while awaiting the outcome this week. Innocent until proved guilty 😉 well, of this one allegation anyway. Guilty of lots of other issues but … who cares?

          And yes, to your comments about messages. Maurice below posted a link to Canada’s Ghomeshi. I’d not heard of it. Same story, different clothes, same—lack of—values.

          Liked by 1 person

  6. Sonel says:

    I only watch Top Gear when hubby is watching it or when someone mentions it, but I won’t go out of my way to watch it every day. I’d rather watch Vampire Diaries or Supernatural. 😆

    As for Clarkson – he should be fired for that statement. Does he think he is so above everyone else just because he is famous? He should be an example and in this case, should be made an example of.

    Like

    • I only watched when I was interested in the cars, ie Lamborghini or Land Rover and ehen Clarkson wasn’t on. So, not very often.

      He should have been fired years ago for what he’s said, but curiosetta (above) made some interesting comments.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Sonel says:

        Read that and interesting indeed and she made some great points there for sure. After all, it’s media and everything goes. I never take anything too serious but I don’t like people like him and I’m no fan either.

        How are the boys doing and how are you? To hell with these bozo’s. I’m more interested in what you and the boys are doing. 😀

        Please give them lots of ♥ Hugs and Kisses ♥ from me. xxx

        Like

  7. cobbies69 says:

    I will say i agree with more or less all of what you say,, I do not like him either, over rated arrogant self centered and any other that one wishes to call him… not forget overpaid. I am surprised he has got away with what he has for so long. Maybe the authorities are waiting for him to die….I smile at my own comment…

    Like

  8. I’ll keep this brief because I’m waiting on line at a Fed. Gov. Office and using the phone but I found myself nodding assent and finding remarkable parallels with a story that broke here in Canada late last year. Yes, the same stuff that is happening in Britain is also alive and well in its so-called “culturally advanced” former colonies. http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/jian-ghomeshi-how-he-got-away-with-it/

    Liked by 1 person

  9. makagutu says:

    The total number of shows I have watched are not more than 5. I can’t comment on his character maybe because I don’t pay attention to what he is saying or have always been interested in the cars. But since he was suspended I have read a bit to conclude he is as you describe him.

    Like

    • The car programmes were good. But when, like much TV, it started becoming more about presenters and less about cars, it was on the way down from a logical perspective. Although seemingly not from a moronic and financial one.

      Like

  10. EllaDee says:

    Sometimes that we are of the same species of these embarrassments to it just appalls me. I wish I could quite justifiably simply comment “dickheads” about them all, and move on. But they -BBC, JC and too many others of the same ilk- are in the public-entertainment-media sphere and are not without influence. There are some sorry examples of humanity amongst them who just don’t get that it’s not ok, never was. But the times of “the emperors with no clothes” not being outed are fast coming to an end.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Pingback: Just another ripping post into women … | Clouds moving in

I appreciate any comments you leave, so long as they are relatively polite. And thanks for reading.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s