Jeremy Clarkson and the Political Correctness of the Right

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
Jeremy Clarkson and the Political Correctness of the Right

One of the many delusions of the Right is the myth of conservative robustness. Conservatives don’t play the victim card, they say. They tell it like it is, and don’t care who knows it. They stand on their own two feet, and take it on the chin. They have guts and backbone too.

It’s easy to mock the anatomical clichés, but middle-class leftists should worry. Millions of people are about to vote for Ukip, in part because they resent a modern version of Victorian prudery that has stopped robust debate, and allowed sharp-eared heresy hunters to patrol the nation’s language.

If fellow citizens are prejudiced, then there is indeed a case for fighting them. But most people resent political correctness, not because they want to criminalise homosexuality or send women back to the kitchen, but because of the trickery that comes with it.

The politically correct damn you for raising your voice to ask relevant questions. Wonder if, for instance, the pay gap can be explained by women taking career breaks for child birth, and the facts are pushed aside and you are a sexist. Your critics turn a wider truth – that misogyny still flourishes – into a reason to suppress specific arguments.



12

Their condemnations reek of conspiracy theory. You are only raising this subject because you are sexist/racist/homophobic. Your supposedly honest inquiries and relevant questions are not what they seem. They are masks that hide your true motives.

The pervasive cult of victimhood completes this sanctimonious trinity. The put upon and discriminated are survivors of abuse. You cannot expect them to engage in vigorous argument or accept the consequences of their actions, but must treat them as children instead. If you do not, your cruelty reinforces the case for the prosecution.

The desire to play the victim and divert attention is hardly confined to the Left. Match-fixers can be found across the board, as the supposedly robust British Right are demonstrating to excess in their wails about the sacking of Jeremy Clarkson.

The relevant facts are these. Clarkson turned on his producer because there wasn’t a hot dinner waiting for him at the crew’s hotel. (Today’s celebrities, like yesterday’s aristocrats, expect their servants to anticipate their every appetite.)

He called Oisin Tymon a “lazy, Irish c***”. The abuse went on for 20 minutes, according to witnesses. Clarkson couldn’t stop, couldn’t leave Tymon alone. Finally he attacked him, and split his lip with a punch that left the 36-year-old with blood running down his face and needing treatment in A&E. The BBC inquiry suggested that Clarkson would have kept on hitting him, if onlookers had not intervened.

Most people – well, most men anyway – would have let the matter rest if Tymon had smacked Clarkson back. They would have been square, and that would have been that. However strong my impulse would have been to hold his coat, how could Tymon throw a punch? He was the subordinate and Clarkson was the aristocratic star. Tymon was too low down the light entertainment hierarchy to think about defending himself. According to the BBC report, Clarkson left Tymon thinking his career was over and he had “lost his job,” as if it was he who had been at fault.

Forgive me. I realise I shouldn’t go on about mere facts. The last thing the right-on PC Right wants you to do is concentrate on what happened. Instead, its propagandists say you should dismiss the evidence and head off into conspiracy theory.

The dispute was a “fracas” says Rod Liddle of this parish. “Whatever the rights and wrongs” of it, the real story is that the “liberal fascists” of the BBC wanted Clarkson out. Now I have always rubbed along well enough with Liddle. The next time I see him I’ll ask if he would ever dream of excusing a leftish celebrity if he had hit a subordinate with the same “whatever the rights and wrongs of it” reasoning.

Meanwhile Brendan O’Neill popped up to tell readers of the Telegraph that what Clarkson did to his producer was irrelevant. No one cares if bosses beat up workers, and Clarkson’s enemies were hiding their true motives. All they were concerned about was Clarkson’s right-wing politics.

The focus hasn’t been on what he allegedly [sic] did with his fists in that hotel, but on what he does with his brain and his mouth the rest of the time: agitate the PC; annoy the eco-friendly; spout values that we — as in that infinitesimally small number of people who work in politics and the media — consider to be toxic and wicked.

Notice how, like magicians manipulating their audiences, Clarkson’s defenders move your eye away from the scene of the crime.

Once again, you mark yourself as prejudiced, if you concentrate on the evidence. But instead of being damned as a sexist, misogynist or racist, the Right will damn you as a “Guardianista” who inhabits “fashionable Shoreditch salons,” as Richard Littlejohn put it in the Mail.

Once again, legitimate questions become masks that hide true motives. Once again a wider truth – there are liberals who could not stand Clarkson – is used to prevent discussion of a specific event.

And once again the politically correct invoke the cult of the sacred victim. Except this time the victim is Clarkson and all who love him. He was “too white, too male and too damned British” for the BBC according to the Mail. White British men and everyone else who does not share the values of the “liberal fascists” are victims as well, because the fascists have ensured that their opinions will no longer be represented on BBC television.

Thus the infantilising left is matched by the infantilising right. No one on either side of the culture wars is responsible for their actions. They are the victims of a conspiracy by enemies with hidden agendas.

Can I say how pathetic I find this?

Ah, I find I can’t.

First I must issue a trigger warning.

Here it is.

Trigger Warning: This paragraph contains words and/or sentiments that survivors of Toryphobic abuse may find triggering.

You are a shower. You are a disgrace. You are girly men in big girls’ blouses. You are gutless, spineless, gaggle of hypocritical bed-wetting, comfort-blanket-hugging cry-babies. For God’s sake pull yourself together, and stop your bloody whining.

Jeremy Clarkson and the Political Correctness of the Right - Spectator Blogs
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,429
1,668
113
The Spectator is yet another British institution which is being taken over by a cabal of Left-wingers. The Telegraph (once known as Torygraph but now has so many infantile Left-wingers that it's looking more like the Graun) is also going the same way.

Mr Clarkson was sacked not because he punched somebody, but because of his non-PC, non-metropolitan views.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,429
1,668
113
Do we care?


Yes. I do.

He called Oisin Tymon a “lazy, Irish c***”.
I wonder if Tymon would have been sacked by Al-Bibisiyah had he called some member of the Top Gear crew a “lazy, English c***”.

In fact, I don't wonder. I know the answer already.


Paul Staines of Guido Fawkes on the BBC axing Jeremy Clarkson:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=AWmR9Jl67bI

 
Last edited:

Curious Cdn

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 22, 2015
37,070
6
36
Most normal human beings do not subscribed to the excesses of either political "wing". A pox on both of your houses. The only practical place to be is hovering around the political center where negotiation, compromise and fair deals can be made. It's not a sign of weakness to look for compromise and an acceptable middle ground. It is a measure of evolved civilization. Those with extremist political views will remain frustrated, angry and outside of the machine.

Tango Sierra, I sez.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,429
1,668
113
The real reason Jeremy Clarkson’s gone? The BBC loathed his politics


700 comments
Rod Liddle
25 March 2015
The Spectator



I still don’t know which way John Humphrys votes and I’ve been a friend of the chap for more than a quarter of a century. Hell, we’ve been on holiday together, twice. I have very few friends in mediaville, but John is certainly one, and the oldest friend within that milieu, at that. But I still couldn’t tell you what way he votes. That fact alone might well signal to you that he tends to the Right; liberals are so unstintingly forthcoming about their fatuous opinions, so ready to declaim and shriek and disparage anyone who might dare gainsay them. But even then I wouldn’t be too sure. It’s probably a class thing – Humphrys, unusually and close to uniquely within the big upmarket stars of the BBC, is from a working class background. People from such a background tend to be less gobbily obsessive about their own inviolable politics.

I was thinking about this today after I heard that Jeremy Clarkson had been sacked by the public-school educated Lord Hall, the current DG. I labour the point, chippily, sure – the BBC is still run by the white, liberal, upper middle classes. Not that Clarkson is a horny-handed son of toil, of course, either. But it did occur to me that the BBC has pretty much nothing left which could be considered, uh, Right. Clarkson was an exceptionally brilliant presenter (and will continue to be so elsewhere, one suspects), but whatever the rights or wrongs of this latest ‘fracas’, the BBC was uncomfortable with him. It wanted him out. It was torn a little by the fact that – again almost uniquely for a BBC star – he was genuinely popular, and popular with a section of the audience the BBC normally fails to reach – ie British people who are not PC neurotics. Yes, millions and millions and millions of people. But collectively it loathed his politics. And that is really why he has gone. And so who is left at the BBC who isn’t left?


The real reason Jeremy Clarkson's gone? The BBC loathed his politics - Spectator Blogs

Is Rupert Murdoch eyeing up Jeremy Clarkson now the ‘stupid’ BBC has fired him?

85 comments
25 March 2015
Steerpike
The Spectator



Last week Mr S reported how Jeremy Clarkson took to the stage at a charity event and called the BBC a bunch of ‘f—ing b—–ds’. He may well be uttering those words again today after Lord Hall released a statement saying that the BBC will not be requiring the Top Gear host’s services any more following Clarkson’s ‘fracas’ with one of the show producers.

The BBC Director-General says that it is ‘with great regret’ that the corporation will not be keeping Clarkson on as a Top Gear host:
‘It is with great regret that I have told Jeremy Clarkson today that the BBC will not be renewing his contract. It is not a decision I have taken lightly. I have done so only after a very careful consideration of the facts and after personally meeting both Jeremy and Oisin Tymon.’
In anticipation of a backlash from the public, the BBC are publishing the findings of their inquiry into the incident to try and justify their decision. ‘I am only making them public so people can better understand the background,’ Hall says. ‘I know how popular the programme is and I also know that this decision will divide opinion.’

However, it may turn out to be the BBC who suffer the greatest loss. Mr S hears that alternative television offers have already been flooding in for Clarkson. Even Rupert Murdoch has been eyeing him up. Could there be new Sky programmes ahead for Clarkson?

Update: Clarkson’s comrade James May could be headed for the exit too. The Top Gear co-host has changed his Twitter bio to describe himself as a ‘former TV presenter’. In an interview with Sky News, May has suggested that the Top Gear trio are a package deal. Is he trying to tell Murdoch something?



Is Rupert Murdoch eyeing up Jeremy Clarkson now the 'stupid' BBC has fired him? - Spectator Blogs