Don't judge Clarkson yet - either way

THE CLARKSON CONUNDRUM

I wouldn't exactly call it a major news story, but Jeremy Clarkson has once again been making the headlines for the wrong reasons.  This time he's been suspended by the BBC and his programme, Top Gear, won't be shown in the coming weeks.  In reaction to that the social media world has gone a bit crazy.  Again.  There's an on line petition called for his reinstatement, which has attracted hundreds of thousands of signatures.  And there are those saying he's finally getting what he deserves and about time too.  What is clear is that for the BBC to suspend one of their greatest cash cows someone must consider that whatever took place was of a very serious nature.

Neither mass reaction makes a great deal of sense to me.  For a start we have yet to hear a definitive account of the alleged incident which resulted in the BBC's action.  The story goes that the Top Gear team were filming on location, got back late to their hotel, and found that the chef had gone, but had left cold platters for them to eat.  Clarkson is said to have got into a temper about this, shouting that he wanted steak, and eventually punching a member of the team in the face.  The victim was a long time member of the team, albeit relatively junior in the hierarchy (but I'm guessing everyone is regarded as junior to Mr C).  A hotel manager is then said to have cooked some hot food to placate the irate star.

None of this has been officially confirmed to the general public.  And probably won't be until an investigation has been completed.  And only when that information is available does it make sense to take sides in the matter.  What does seem clear to me is that in most workplaces, if you punch a colleague, particularly someone you have a degree of power over, you would be automatically sent home and told not to come back in until the facts have been established.  And if the allegation proves to be true then you would be dismissed.  Is that so hard to understand?

So the reactions have had little to do with what may or may not have happened.  To those who see Clarkson as some kind of anti establishment hero he can do no wrong and is being vilely persecuted.  Others look at his long history of racism and bullying and immediately assume he's guilty in this case on the back of that.  Personally I've always thought he was an obnoxious, bigoted twat, but that's of little relevance, except that it gives me some understanding of where the anti-JC lobby is coming from, even if I don't agree with them on this one.

But I am mildly baffled by what the people who signed the petition thought they were saying by doing so.  I can only think of three reasons so far, none of them very palatable.  Maybe they feel that workplace bullying/violence shouldn't be taken seriously?  (But how would they react if their boss punched them for some perceived minor misdemeanour?)  Or they perhaps think that Clarkson's "star" status means he should be treated differently to others?  (Which sounds eerily like "One law for the rich and powerful, another for the rest of us....)  Or that this is all some BBC conspiracy to get rid of their hero?  (Ignoring the fact that they make millions of pounds out of his product.)

Or is there some other reason I don't know about?  Or have people, perish the thought, just jumped on a knee jerk bandwagon (sorry) without actually thinking through the implications of making their mark....?  In the unlikely event that any Free Clarkson signatory gets to read this I'd be fascinated to know what your motivation was.

Meanwhile, in other news, another gaffe-prone, privileged posh-boy has been putting his foot in his mouth again.  Farage came out in favour of allowing racial discrimination, to the surprise of few, and has since been furiously back pedalling to say that what he said wasn't what he meant.  Just how far into the past does this idiot want to drag our societal norms?