The BBC has suspended Jeremy Clarkson. No one is quite sure what he has done this time. And so why do I think it matters enough to comment in it?
Simply because they have suspended him.
And taken his immensely popular programme, that makes them a massive amount of money, off air.
That's important precisely because the message is that however big an ago might be and however much it's overstated significance might generate in income and however much taaking action may upset people there comes a point where conduct is unacceptable.
Many might think that this point had already been reached in Clarkson's case. But the important point is that it appears it has been. And that message is incredibly important because what it says is that power does require accountability. The two are not, after all, unrelated.
HSBC directors please note.
BBC trustees pleas one.
The Establishment please note.
There are limits.
And if Clarkson helps demonstrate that fact then that's important. And welcome , even if he just shuffles off to another channel, as he inevitably will. The point will still be made that actions can have consequences and it is overdue that some appreciated this.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
We are all affected by this. The income from the Topgear show will now be lost. Sky will again do well, they will make money from the show. I can see the licence fee ending and the whole financing of the BBC changing as a result of Topgeargate.
I suspect there is far too much to contractually prevent the whole thing moving to sky
And the record of channel moving is very poor
Although entirely coincidental that this blog should appear immediately above (after)”The Untouchable”, Richard, it may well illustrate that accountability is a concept and action which is largely restricted to public sector employees* or publicly funded organisations. Perhaps that’s because they can’t spend huge amounts of money on the services of reputation management consultants (as I suspect HSBC has been doing), and they generally don’t have large advertising budgets that can be used for “leverage” either.
*Not including ministers or senior civil servants who are now equally unaccountable and/or untouchable, unless they fall out with each other.
But how can J Clarkson be suspended?
He surely would have to be a BBC employee to be suspened?
It has oft been reported that the BBC does not employ him; a company he controls receive payments from the BBC and his company provides his services.
This was reported at the time of the hooha over BBC stars high pay. It was said that IF JC had been an employee his pay would be one of the highest.
Since the bbc have been intending to bring the show to a “soft ending” for a while, while retaining its popularity (worldwide, some 315 million viewers), and seem to have cancelled the remaining three shows viwing, it seems likely that it will end in its current format. It may well be that it will return in a new format, featuring environmentally clean cars, and veggie presenters who vote green. In which case it will bomb.
Contractually, there is nothing preventing a move….nothing that money cannot solve; and sky have big pockets, and owned politicians that will lean on the bbc. Plus, of course, the long intended ending of the tv licence (I watch bbc content without a licence….as it is not being broadcast “live”)
Oh maybe, if the price is right
But I think that would be a very high price indeed
And if it was maybe the BBC would be right to take it
In many ways I find Clarkson amusing – always have. And I used to watch TG before it started doing these silly and expensive middle-aged men living out their childhood fantasy escapades when you just wanted to see a review of a car. However, I loved the broadcast where they revealed The Stig was none other than Michael Schumacher – I mean that was hilarious.
But his outspokeness – in other words his tendency to allow his own inner feelings about other issues to leak out beyond his petrol-head enthusiasms has got right up my nose.
I watched the Agentina programme and others more recently and I’m amazed that in so-called days of austerity that we find money being wasted on childish escapades like that. The whole ‘crisis’ was manufactured – it needn’t have happened. And when I saw the size of his entourage over there and looked at all those jobs doing ‘what’ in particular I then reflected on the many jobs I’ve seen cut in the public sector that were actually achieving something. I could not reconcile the two.
I would just like to see the programme go back to basics – more reviews of everyday cars and less about petrol guzzling performance cars that the majority of us will never be able to own (especially if permanent austerity is introduced by the next Tory government bless them). And no more expensive crap.
As you say, there seems to be tipping point for everything but I have less confidence than you I feel in this because if he goes he will no-doubt reappear somewhere else and be even more popular than he was before. So then you have to ask – what are the consequences for him – if any? Our global warming disbelieving society will sid with Clarkson.
We live in strange times where morality is much more loose than ever before and where good and bad facts can be twisted and made acceptable or unacceptable.
I thought it interesting during the HSBC hearings one MP mentioned (as echoed here) that public sector officials take accountability for things on their watch and resign. Not sure that is quite the case – can think of cases where they didn’t do so willingly and only after particular public pressure…
Clarkson owns the rights to the show. I’m told the bbc rights end at this series end.
I understood it was the other way round
To understand Clarkson’s significance (and I applaud Richard for making him the subject of a blog) we have to see, in my view, what he represents as a ‘cultural’ force (in the broadest sense!).
Clarkson is the same age as me (and almost you, Richard!) and emerged in the 80’s as a sort of ex public school boy thug voicing his version of the Thatcherian ‘greed is good’ and deliberately breaking as many of the taboos of political correctness as he could as a snubb to the perceived left wing culture that was loosing it’s ties with a ‘working class. This felt liberating to many (not me!) and was then paraded as the representation of ‘common sense’without revealing the politics that lies behind it: He represented:
1) Line-yer-wallet
2) Sod the environment at the very time in history when this attitudinising was least needed.
3) Anyone who uses public services is a looser ( a sort of ‘mild’ eugenics!)
4) Nothing is really serious and being serious isn’t cool
5) Anti-intellectualism- being an idiot is great!
6) Put-down humour which indulges in stereotyping and defining what is cool and what isn’t
Behind this ‘front’ I think Clarkson knows what he is doing and what he represents. He’s rather similar to the gross windbag, Boris Johnson whose verbal flatulence (inverted anatomical engineering!) evinces a similar value system. As Nick Duffel put it in his book ‘Wounded Leaders’which deals with power and those from public school backgrounds:
‘The broadcaster, Jeremy Clarkson, whose boarding career, ironically, was financed by his parents marketing a stuffed toy of the childrens’ fictional character Paddington bear, is someone who has made a living out of being a politically non-correct, reactionary Peter Pan-so closely did he seem to speak for a John Bullish heartland of ‘hang’em and flog’em and drink plenty of beer’ opinion.’
He represents where our ‘culture’ is and why so many of the public accept themselves as underlings in the face of the wallet-lining world of celebrity finance-capitalism. If you critisise the 1% you are seen as a party-pooper or envious because you are a failure. Clarkson has propagated this stuff and its popularity is so great because it is easier to live in a self-referential, one dimensional world without real issues worth taking seriously. His show is largely watched by the white middle class who are comfortable enough to buy into it and guffaw at inanity as a gospel-like truth.
I suspect that Clarkson will be re-instated under the usual umbrella excuse that ‘it was all a good-natured joke’; his street cred will increase because he exemplifies the crude, thug-like culture we live in. I’m afraid he represents what much of western culture has become.
Simon, as a long time viewer of Top Gear, and thus of the emergence and development of Clarkson, this is a superb analysis, with the historical aspect of particular importance – particularly to those who didn’t live through the 1980s. And drawing the parallel with Boris Johnson is spot on. Whether or not Clarkson remains with Top Gear – or the show even continues – is an irrelevance really, as his significance as a “hidden” political asset to the neoliberal project will morph into something else (on Sky presumably) and thus unfortunately continue.
I think that you’ve really touched on something here but I would also add that his popularity is down to what I would call ‘affluenza’ – that is the stuff the show talks about and promotes is a lifestyle that too many of us aspire to – we want to be able to afford the expensve cars, rub shoulders with the rich and famous and have the whole world stop and focus on us when we open our mouths – all around the common factor – the love of motoring.
As for the others I prefer James May over Mr Hammond (the latter is someone whom I find it hard to see how he has got where he has). Having said that – come back Quentin Wilson!
“it may well illustrate that accountability is a concept and action which is largely restricted to public sector employees* or publicly funded organisations.”
What nonsense. If someone had aimed a punch at a colleague in the private sector it would probably have been grounds for summary dismissal, let alone suspension. A person in the private sector who had made the remarks Clarkson has over the years would have likely been sacked years ago. That is not to say that one cannot enjoy Clarkson, his style or his programmes, but merely to point out the facts.
Clarkson is not an employee
It is a LOT easier to get rid of a self-employed subcontractor. The BBC should have got rid of Clarkson before he became bigger than the show
Douglas, two points. First, at the time I made my comment it was not being alleged that Clarkson had punched anyone, it was reported as a “fracas” which could be anything from shouting and pushing, to grappling on the ground (a fracas is actually defined as a noisy disturbance or quarrel). And I’ve known plenty of instances over the years of people involved in fracas (of varying severity) in both the public and private sector walking away with nothing more that a talking to by their line manager (at worst).
Second, and more importantly, it’s clear from my comment that I’m drawing a contrast between the action taken against a powerful, high profile individual working for a public body, and the (lack of) action taken against a powerful, high profile individual who used to work in the private sector. But not just any old private sector – banking – where, as we all know, action taken against pretty much anyone in authority for a whole string of wrongful/illegal actions is almost totally invisible.
Action taken against an influential individual was the subject Richard’s blog, which contrasted with the subject of a previous blog, and that was the thread I was picking up on.
“Second, and more importantly, it’s clear from my comment that I’m drawing a contrast between the action taken against a powerful, high profile individual working for a public body, and the (lack of) action taken against a powerful, high profile individual who used to work in the private sector. But not just any old private sector — banking — where, as we all know, action taken against pretty much anyone in authority for a whole string of wrongful/illegal actions is almost totally invisible.”
I still don’t think your point is valid. Clarkson has a history of, shall we call them “incidents” and he is still, as I write and despite his suspension, in post at the BBC. It therefore seems an odd example to choose of the public sector holding people to account given his past.
And I still believe that anyone swinging or actually connecting a punch at another person in front of witnesses would be summarily dismissed in any private company.
He is a contractor
Maybe he shouldn’t, but nothing excuses a punch if it happens, but it does change disciplinary processes, for example
Are you aware of that, or just wasting time with your comments?
“He is a contractor .. but it does change disciplinary processes, for example”
If he is a contractor then it would actually be easier to summarily dismiss him as you wouldn’t have the barrier of employment law. Which makes Ivan’s argument all the more bizarre.
All that is bizarre is your failure to comprehend the complexity of reality
I can find Clarkson amusing,especially as a journalist and good also as a one time pop. science program presenter,but could not agree more with the “I would just like to see the programme go back to basics — more reviews of everyday cars and less about petrol guzzling performance cars that the majority of us will never be able to own” comment above.
But I suspect he deliberately courts publicity by being offensive,even to his colleagues – which I find unpleasant and literally a complete turn off. “Captain Slow” would suit me much better,and I could probably put up with the puppy like enthusiasm of Richard Hammond!
Money will talk however – Clarkson will return I suspect.
Tend to agree
My sons l;ike Top Gear – but at least as much if not more for May and Hammond
According to Radio 4 News this evening Clarkson sold his interest in Top Gear for several millions. This makes me think that he deliberately engineered his sacking so that he can make a profitable move – and leave the BBC with a worthless shell.
Carol, have you noticed how this non-story is all over (most) of the press, conveniently displacing all the negative coverage Cameron was getting for trying to avoid the election debates? Given that Clarkson is a close personal friend of Cameron, and as we’ve seen the only skill Cameron possesses is his manipulation of the press (if only to avoid negative headlines concerning this government’s many failures), I rather suspect that this is all a manufactured row cooked up by the two of them.
After all, we’re approaching an election in which Cameron’s job is on the line, and I don’t think it’s to hard to guess who Clarkson wants to win it.
I disagree that it is a non-story. Mr Clarkson is one of the few non-left-liberal voices at the BBC and it is vital that he stays to counter the groupthink there.
I don’t know how far to the right you have to be to make such a comment, buyt let me assure you, it is very far right indeed
The BBC is totally dominated by neoliberal thinking
Anyone would be hard put to name another popular right-wing ‘comedian’ to replace Clarkson (Johnson – please don’t call him ‘Boris’ – excepted).
No! 🙂
It is quite unbelievable that there are still those claiming that the BBC is left-wing.
Jeremy Clarkson is but the tip of a grim neo-liberal iceberg, on which our hard won welfare state will one day founder and capsize.
Not just him; look at BBC “Comedy”, News, Radio 6 and so on. Even Stricty if you think about it, and baking shows (winner takes all).
Top Gear should be renamed as “What I Can Have But You Can’t (Unless You See Your Soul)”.
Not catchy, but I think accurate.
Oh,
Right on Deidre – summed up really well.
As we probably all know by now he is alleged to have punched someone.
I for one applaud the BBC for taking this bold action and suspending him, apparently he has already had his final written warning. It is a rare example of justice and clear statement from the BBC they have had enough and to hell with the massive revenue he helps generate for them.
Apparently his solicitors are now negotiating with senior execs at BBC, I just pray they have the courage to stand firm and don’t back down.
The latest I’ve heard is that Clarkson may have manufactured the whole thing as an exit strategy. Perhaps bigger cash lies over the horizon? As someone who does not subscribe to Sky etc., I will not miss him.
No surprise -Clarkson’s skill(!) lies in always positing himself as the common sense man-a sort of representative of ‘well-off-enough’ Britain that chat in pubs (3.50 a pint!) and talk unadulterated bullshit and admire anyone who plays the system to their gain, especially to the extent of ultra net high worth.
It’s all in the same vain as Cameron’s thugish, “calm down dear” or Johnson’s accusation that the city of Liverpool was wallowing in “victim status” over the murder of Ken Bigley and the 1989 Hillsborough football stadium disaster.
These people get away with because of the sclerotisation of human sensibilities over the last 35 years where displaying callous indifference to real concerns and showing how much of a bully you are are badges of honour -polls still show about 34% of voters support the Tories despite the lies, manipulation, increased inequality, crude victimisation of the need- all part of the same picture.
The really sad thing is that this crass stance with its continuous humour and piss-take mentallity is a giant self-defence mechanism-the hiding of vulnerability. My own theory is that it started with Monty Python where humour(!) was expropriated by the public school brigade where mockery without vulnerability was the name of the game -Clarkson’s part of this legacy.
The one thing that has not been mentioned (or did I miss it) is Jeremy Clarkson”s tax status. In todays Guardian, Marina Hyde tells us that he owns property on The Isle of Man. If this is the case, has this property been purchased for the purposes of reducing his tax bill? It would be nice to know. We should then ask the question, “should the BBC be employing anyone, individual or company. who is a putting money and assets offshore to reduce tax?” I for one would not be happy if I found that my licence money was going to a tax cheat.
I am not sure the BBC can be that selective, yet
I propose active procurement vetting but this far may be difficult
My understanding is that his wife or ex wife. Certainly the mother of his children was born on the Isle of Man. My understanding is that his marriage has had some issues. I am not sure he still controls or has access to that property.
I don’t think buying a property on the Isle of Man would affect Clarkson’s tax bill. He’s UK tax resident and is taxed in the UK on his world-wide income.
I have never heard claim that Clarkson uses the IoM for tax
I am well aware he has the proprty and has upset some people in the IoM
I think its fair to point out that he appears to have shouted at someone and not hit them. That’s the latest reports, some of the comments on here are a little more violent.