Thursday, March 26, 2015


So, the BBC has finally sacked Jeremy Clarkson from Top Gear.

Given how much money the programme makes for the Beeb, I would say that decision might be described as "courageous".


Your humble Devil has sod all interest in cars*, but I did rather enjoy watching Top Gear. I think, basically, because it was three chaps—mercifully free from the aching right-on-ness of most people these days—arse-ing about in colossally brilliant machines built by very clever human beings.

It seems that the other May and Hammond—in a decent British show of solidarity with a mate—will probably not continue with the programme. Good for them.

So, the upshot is that I think that the BBC are totally wrong to sack Clarkson. Totally and utterly wrong.

Thank goodness that I can boycott their output, withhold my payments and cancel my contract. And that's why I am calling for a...

I'm sorry—what?

Prison? For not wanting to pay for a service that I not only don't want, but morally disagree with?



* I got banned some years ago, and have never bothered to apply for my licence back—despite the ban having expired two years ago (or more).


Mike Power said...

I stopped paying my licence fee over two years ago. When I got a threatening letter from Capita I called them and warned them that I would contact the police and make a formal complaint against them if they did it again. I got a letter a few days later apologising and assuring me I wouldn't hear from them for at least two years. I recently had a letter asking me to reconfirm that I still don't need a TV licence. I did it online. They claim that a "licensing officer" might turn up to "confirm" my details. I can't wait. I don't get many chances these days to have a damn good row. He's in for a treat.

The Nameless Libertarian said...

Personally I can't stand Clarkson and find his sense of humour boorish puerile and really rather crass. Top Gear bores me rigid. That said, as a believer in free speech I do think Clarkson has a right to say whatever he wants to say even if some (like me) find it utterly tedious and others (like most of his other detractors) find it offensive.

However that is not the point here. The reality is Clarkson assaulted someone who works with him in the de facto workplace. Now I have worked in some rough around the edges workplaces but it has always been the case that if you assault someone while at work, you face summary dismissal. And that's what caused Clarkson to not have his contract renewed. This isn't an issue of free speech or expression; it is a clear example of someone falling foul of the harm principle.

I thought when Clarkson eventually fell it would be an issue over free speech and I would be in that position where I have to defend someone whose views I don't agree with. In the end it wasn't, and I can honestly say I think it is right that Clarkson is now seeking alternative employment (and yes, I am fully aware he will get that alternative employment in a heartbeat if he so wishes.)