By Gabriel Princewill
The news that Jeremy Clarkson has called in lawyers over a comparison made between him and Jimmy Saville is likely to achieve nothing. The comment made by a BBC executive was in response to an implicit statement by the Prime Minister for Clarkson to be re-instated because he is talented. In response to that comment, a BBC executive was reported to suggest that if you replaced his Clarkson’s name with Jimmy Saville, it is like saying Jimmy Saville is talented.
Clarkson can only have legal grounds to sue with respect to defamation of character if something untrue has been said about him that could lower his esteem in the sight of a reasonable person. However, when put in perspective, the point being made was that if talent is to form the basis of re-instating offenders of the law and constituted the basis of bypassing the commission of an offence, then the legendary pervert, Jimmy Saville might as well have been worthy of calls for forgiveness, had he been alive when his heinous and despicable crimes were publicly known. Quite understandably, the way it was presented by the BBC executive in question was badly worded, but the principle underlying his comments is avowedly pertinent to the situation at hand. Offences overlooked in the name of talent must be uniformly applied.
Clarkson’s unarguable shortcomings are in no way comparable with the demonic and warped mindset that motivated Saville for decades to commit atrocious crimes with impunity. Nevertheless, the principle that manifestly underlies the inapt comparison is that the virtues of talent must never take precedence over decency and moral codes of conduct in a civil society. All truth is parallel, and if it is alright for one person to escape punishment on the subjective basis of talent, then the same rule must apply to all talented individuals who transgress the law. This is a reasonable point to make, but it was nott articulated clearly by whoever alluded to Saville when criticising David Cameron’s support for Clarkson. One of our writers poignantly hit the nail on the head in her article yesterday,when pointing out that our Prime Minister, David Cameron was undoubtedly mistaken in his judgement that just because an individual manifests talent in his or her line of work , this should have some bearing in mitigating the levity of an offence they commit. Such flawed recommendation can be viewed to inadvertently endorse malpractice and promote inequality of treatment in a society that stands for natural justice and all it represents. In the absence of any unreserved apology that expresses remorse for a behavior that was not only inexcusable, but also demonstrated a flagrant disregard for the law, the veteran presenter should get the axe just like anybody else would. Talent is not synonymous with wisdom. A wise man without talent is better than a talented man who acts foolishly. Jeremy Clarke is a journalist who excited several car enthusiasts about cars, but it is now time for someone else to take his place.
We have had enough of powerful people who think they are untouchable behaving just as they like just because they know there are powerful people on their side.
No doubt, many of Clarkson’s fans will lament the idea of him being displaced by a new face, but it is more important for individuals to understand that they are not indispensable no matter the exalted positions they occupy. He is truly an engaging presenter who is knowledgeable in his field, but unfortunately this is not good enough. Most regular people would have lost their jobs had they done exactly the same thing, and would also have been charged by now, Why should he be treated differently. Jeremy Clarkson recently thanked all those who have supported him and called for his reinstatement in a tweeter message. He certainly won’t be thanking us. A BBC spokesperson said ” the BBC will not be making any further comments in relation to this issue until next week when a press release will be made. We wait in anticipation for that press release.
