BY BRAD JAMES
Jeremy Clarkson led the way in ‘Grumpy Old Men’ chic. His unapologetically brash demeanour has served as an irascible barometer of so-called disenfranchised, old-fashioned opinion. Cutting a swathe through the BBC and contributing to The Sun newspaper, bridging the gap between two diametrically opposed institutions. He is an embodiment of the largely in control masses, middle-aged, middle-class, white, male and heterosexual. Right leaning, centrist politically. The football supporting, beer at lunch and a couple after work, holiday in Spain, slightly exasperated by teetering the tightrope of offence and sceptical of Climate Change at best, contemptuous of it at worst. It is this sleeping giant that the BBC stalwart’s suspension this week has awakened, as a petition calling for his reinstatement overtook the million signature mark.
The petition culminated in a delivery direct to the BBC, under direction of right-wing blogger, Guido Fawkes. Driven into Broadcasting House in a tank with Top Gear driver, the Stig riding atop, like a post Industrial Revolution, defeminised Britannia to rescue the knight of Britannia’s very own anachronistic values. However, examining this debacle a little more closely, why is a presenter’s job become such a bastion of people power and what does it indicate about our understanding of how our desire to see Jeremy Clarkson remain on telly may impact on our rights?
AD: Capeesh Restaurant
Jeremy Clarkson was already on a final warning. Two strikes marring an already damaged career, one where he had declared on a live TV show (BBC One’s The One Show) that unemployed should be taken out and shot. Where he had driven through Patagonia in Argentina during a Top Gear special in a car, sporting a number plate that seemed to imply a gloating message of how Britain triumphed over Argentina in the Falklands. Adding to his questionable ethics was the racism contained within a rhyme he sang during a Top Gear Special DVD, where Clarkson appeared to murmur ‘nigger’ on camera. It was this infraction which earned the presenter the final warning.
His suspension was finally earned when it emerged last week that he had swung a punch at producer Oisin Tymon, following an argument over lunch or steak, according to insider sources. The punishment comes with only three episodes of Top Gear left to produce for the series. In the aftermath of the suspension, public opinion has been divided, yet the loudest clamour has been borne by those most in favour of Clarkson’s reinstatement. Yet no show should be inferior in the face of it’s presenter, further petitions to the Clarkson reinstatement one included a campaign to hire Alan Partridge, alter ego of comedian and writer Steve Coogan, to take the job. Other rumours of a successor include Stephen Fry and perhaps even chef, Michel Roux Jr. Although a further rumour abounds that co-presenters Richard Hammond and James May are refusing to be part of the show without Jeremy Clarkson.
Yet Clarkson’s demise doesn’t spell the end of Top Gear. There are a several shows close to the public’s heart that have had multiple presenter changes and still survived. Going all the way back to Top of the Pops, for example. Original host, the vilely evil Jimmy Saville, was eventually replaced by Noel Edmunds. Similarly, Big Brother, during it’s switch from Channel 4 to Channel 5, dropped Davina McCall as presenter. The reality TV show remained a fan favourite even with Brian Dowling as Channel 5’s first presenter and possibly increased under the stewardship of Emma Willis. Additionally this was the case with The X Factor, very few people probably even recall that Kate Thornton presented the original three series’ before Dermot O’ Leary replaced her in Series 4. Despite Series 3’s winner becoming arguably the singing contest’s most successful applicant, aside from One Direction, Leona Lewis. Other shows have been forced to alter their presenter line up and no harm has come from it. A prime example here is Countdown’s stalwart, Richard Whiteley. The journalist fronted Channel 4’s flagship word and numbers quiz, Countdown, from it’s inception alongside Channel 4’s own in 1982 until his death in 2005. A swift change resulted in former Match of the Day presenter, Desmond Lynam feeling Whiteley’s seat, then Des O’ Connor, then Jeff Stelling and now Lord Alan Sugar’s The Apprentice right hand man, Nick Hewer. None of those multiple changes have resulted in the death of the show. Similarly for Match of the Day itself. Desmond Lynam’s departure hasn’t meant Gary Lineker hosts the round of Saturday’s matches to a smaller crowd. Finally, Sir Patrick Moore’s death hasn’t meant the end for his show The Sky At Night. The astronomical show remains the longest running TV programme in history.
AD: Oysterian Sea Food Restaurant And Bar
The aforementioned examples constitute ample evidence that a presenter is not bigger than the show. The success of a show does not diminish just because the usual presenter is changed. Top Gear can survive without Jeremy Clarkson, despite public outrage and their unwillingness to see another face behind a wheel as they spin a luxury car around a deserted airfield. A presenter not being bigger than the show is an aspect of the law itself. No one is above the law and exact proceedings in a work place were enacted to their correct extent in this instance. Deflate this debacle down to the everyman, every day working environment. Most employees now – like Clarkson – sign an employment contract. Now, this contract not only ensures your rights, but also, the rights of your peers and a caveat of that right is the golden rule (perhaps implied and not specified) “do unto others as you would have done unto you.” People exchange heated words in their jobs time and again (I know I have), yet one expects to be able to do so without the fear of violence or aggression against their person. So not only has Jeremy Clarkson breached employment contract regulations, but has also impinged on rules of harmonious consensus in the workplace and society in general. Why should a high-profile TV star get away with an action that would probably result in the dismissal of most of us from our jobs? Yet a million plus people (there are doubtlessly those who agree that failed to add their names to the campaign) think this man should be exempt? Who already was on a final warning.
The BBC are trying to also to be seen to be acting on ‘lessons learned’ here. Jeremy Clarkson’s misdemeanour is tiny when placed next to the monstrously horrific actions committed over the course of decades. Yet, there would be a slight stain of a similar culture, were Clarkson to retain his job at the BBC and his violence go unpunished. It would seem that certain people are afforded certain protections, no matter how abhorrent their behaviour, such acts that, if those actions were committed by others, they wouldn’t be allowed such preferential treatment.
RIDICULOUS PETITIONS TO SAVE CLARKSON
Moreover, an extra, societal question needs to be addressed here? Why have more than a million people added their name to a petition which would protect the job of a pompous, multi-millionaire TV presenter? Even if he is dismissed from Top Gear and the BBC, Clarkson’s popularity would ensure he was snapped up by another show and network, the same happened with Jonathan Ross following the furore over voice messages left to Fawlty Towers actor, Andrew Sachs. However, myriad campaigns online are aching for the swift, almost nonchalantly cursory clicks of the e-masses. Petitions that call for true social change and the application of actual social justice abound, yet they accrue a fraction of the signees that Jeremy Clarkson’s petition has. The same goes for a petition this week that has gathered 90,000 signatures, calling for Glastonbury organiser Emily Eavis to rethink the festival’s decision to appoint rapper Kanye West as a headliner. 100,000 signatures allows a petition to be discussed in Parliament, a stark impression to Ministers that this marks the extent of our interest. These are salient examples of the pointed political apathy that is wounding this nation. It is starkly and sinisterly obvious that the public are more interested in those that entertain us, as opposed to the attainment of national and global liberty and democracy.
Finally, a rather insidious undertone abounds to our tacit agreement that Jeremy Clarkson should be divested of the normal rules of appropriate behaviour that the rest of us must adhere to. Showing the amount of interest and desire to reinstate Jeremy Clarkson at the expense of contractual rights pertaining to himself and those of his colleagues, may infer to Parliament – a parliament where worker’s rights are being diminished under the rising tide of zero hour contracts – an inkling of perhaps how little we care about the protections such contracts in work afford us. This may act as a convenient incentive to bring some draconian rules diminishing our rights into effect. Russell Brand (who was dismissed by the BBC for an infraction not as bad as Clarkson’s physical violence, nonetheless) would beg us to ponder upon the question: “what are they distracting us from?” We may yet come to regret what our desire for Jeremy Clarkson to keep driving cars may drive us to suffer under another oppressive government…
AD: Heritage And Restaurant Lounge Bar
