Wednesday, 25 March 2015
The sliding scale of entitlement.
Not for breaching some politically correct unwritten rule as some may think.
The sort of people who read a headline and fail to reach the end of it.
No. It wasn't that at all.
It wasn't because he let slip nigger, or slanty eyed whatever, or because he thought working people striking deserved to be shot as it inconvenienced him.
Nope. It was none of those things.
Instead his contract was not renewed as he assaulted a colleague.
I will say that again.
His contract was not renewed because he assaulted a colleague.
That probably needed repeating as on social media the majority of people commenting seem to have missed that.
His contract was not renewed because - and he accepts this as to be true - he verbally harangued a colleague for twenty minutes and then physically assaulted him.
Is that sinking in yet?
He wasn't sacked and he was guilty of an incident involving a workplace assault.
So in reality he is the abusive bully with entitlement issues that most sane people thought he was.
Not the loveable salt of the earth mate in the pub that some would claim.
Unless of course you are David Cameron popping out for a pint in your Chipping Norton local.
Or maybe Farage.
I have already seen a comment stating that the producer deserved it.
A guy doing his job deserved to have someone scream in his face - and part of that screaming was to make some dodgy comments about his country of birth - and deserved to have his lip split requiring a visit to accident and emergency?
That's funny because in the world I live in that's not really something that is considered acceptable.
Strange that so many think it is.
When anyone does this in a workplace then I sort of assumed that they could expect that a P45 will be hovering on the horizon and they could very well expect a visit from the boys in blue to.
The people who claim it is no big deal are simply willing to set aside what is right and wrong because they like him and the show.
I doubt they would be so supportive if it was their wife, husband, son or daughter who was verbally and physically abused.
Nor would they be too chuffed about an employer who did little about the incident.
So in this instance the BBC have called it correctly.
Well partially correct as he should have been sacked.
A suspension, an investigation and a semi fair outcome I suppose because no matter what anyone thinks it is Clarkson at fault here.
Not the BBC, or the producer.
He alone has to shoulder the responsibility for his actions.
And this leads me to the point of writing this.
The Clarkson incident in itself is a simple one.
He was in the wrong.
Similarly the cases we have seen where football players have abused young woman are simple issues of right and wrong..
The same again with the abuse cases that the establishment are dragging their heels to address.
What they all have in common is that they are people who - while blatantly in the wrong - enjoy some insulation from their actions due to the money they have and their position in society.
They exploit a two tier system of justice, and they do this because apart from the cash and power, they have they also have the support of a portion of the public.
This is no longer acceptable.
We are all equal.
There should be no sliding scale of responsibility applied.
So if you are in the position of supporting Clarkson then get a grip and open your eyes.
The point is not about whether someone likes Top Gear or not.
It's about equality.