Clarkson - More Twitter Faux-Outrage

I was going to blog about what I felt was motivating the massive over reaction on Twitter to Jeremy Clarkson's One Show comments on the strikers, but felt I'd rather added to the whole over reaction myself by spouting out several tweets, one of which was re-tweeted over 70 times (although thanks for those that did RT - much appreciated).

However, the main point I wanted to make has been made very succinctly by Toby Young on the Today programme so I'll just link to it here.

Basically, most of the "outrage" was affected by those on the left, not because what he said (about the strikers at least) was offensive, but because, taken out of context of the broader joke, the comment offended their political sensitivities on a big day for them. Arguably, what he said about suicides was more offensive given the recent Gary Speed news story.

The broader joke being that his first comment was supportive of the strike because it meant London was empty and he could "whiz around" but, this being the BBC and them having a (mostly totally ignored) requirement for political balance, he added a totally over the top counter point that actually he'd have them all shot. You may or may not find it funny but it's not offensive and it is certainly not illegal. So Unison can stop spending their members' (and no doubt indirectly tax payers') money on legal advice.

Top Gear Riot

Evidence emerged today, in The Times, that Jeremy Clarkson may have been involved in this week's rioting...

Guilt By Press Association?

Is this another blow for Cameron? Jeremy Clarkson, who was at a party attended by the evil James Murdoch, Rebekah Brooks and the Camerons (yes, even the fragrant SamCam is involved in this tawdry affair), reveals all that happened in today's Sunday Times...

We began with a cocktail made from crushed socialists and after we’d discussed how the trade union movement could be smashed and how News Corp should be allowed to take control of the BBC, Rupert Murdoch joined us on a live video feed from his private volcano, stroking a white cat.

Later, I remember vividly, a policeman knocked at the door and Rebekah gave him a wad of cash. Cameron tapped the side of his nose knowingly and went back to his main course — a delicious roast fox.

Sadly, well sadly for any Guardian readers out there, this wasn't the case. It turns out conversation was fairly mundane, including discussion of such things as sausage rolls and the environment (James Murdoch taking issue with Jeremy Clarkson, apparently).

Of course, the very idea that Cameron was friendly enough with the News Corp execs to attend a party with them (and the even more reviled Clarkson and his neighbours) is enough to send the left into spasms of conspiracy fits. It won't be explanation enough to point out that most of them live close to each other and are friends. But, there's certainly a question to be asked about Cameron's judgement in maintaining friendships with people who have clouds hanging over them. But I judge someone by their actions. And, had Vince Cable not compromised himself in an attempt to impress two young ladies (sent by the evil Telegraph to "illegally*" expose what an egotistical coalition malcontent he was), Cameron was all set to allow the Murdoch hating octogenarian (I don't mean in age but in number of times he's predicted recessions in the past 10 years) to make the final decision on the BSkyB takeover by News Corp.  Surely that would be the last thing the "puppet master" Murdoch would have "allowed".

As it happens, there's very little evidence that the values and opinions of the right-wing press (News International owned or not) have had much, if any, influence on Cameron's government, much to the dismay of many of its Conservative supporters.

But guilt by association is the name of the game for Cameron's opponents currently. Let's hope the general public see through the flimsy attempts to link the phone hacking scandal to Cameron personally and they judge the proponents of these self-serving arguments harshly while demanding they look more closely at what really matters - press ethics, police corruption and oh, yes, the small matters of massive government debt, an unreformed NHS, education, etc etc...


* It's not illegal to use subterfuge to gain information if it's in the public interest. However, this particular rule looks like it may have had its day. And how pleased many dodgy MPs, judges, medical charlatans etc will be about that.