No doubt the Clarkson thing has long become tedious but then again:
1. New tidbits come out every so often;
2. The Beeb itself and how it operates now appears to be on the line.
This has implications now for the Beeb and PC land, it’s going to blow open. In a three-way discussion with Chuckles and haiku, the former wrote:
The moots will come down to why the BBC acted before any investigation, and why they cancelled the shows immediately, and why the punished viewers by cancelling the broadcast of already recorded programmes. i.e. pure ‘erasing from history’ in good communist fashion.
In fact, what we have here is the Beeb set-up, system of operation and luvvie law on the line and licence payers are therefore involved.
Consider that Clarkson had previous. Haiku wrote:
Given that I have seen similar belligerent behaviour [from him] on-screen I would not be surprised if he attempted to bully the others with statements like “Do you know who I am” and “Be reasonable; do it my way”.
Yes he did – he was a known beast, it was well known what would provoke him most to do something stupid, he was provoked, he went through the apology the next day and reported himself in when they got back so he could give his version and let bygones be bygones, thinking to ride it out but most significant is that the producer did no reporting of him at all.
This is how much is confirmed. Other things like the steak are also fact but the order of events is still speculation. And of course, how does it end up? Cancelled programmes and Clarkson facing The Grand Tribunal. The full-on theatre.
And who’s on that tribunal, sitting in judgment? The very man who wants him gone – Cohen.
We saw this in one of Archer’s books where the Scottish MP was brought before his local branch and deselected. It was not done as a round table, with coffee. It was like the old witch trials – the Labour bigwigs sat at a bench, as a panel, as a tribunal and the MP stood before them as an errant schoolboy.
Similar in real life was Boris who appeared at a Labour dominated meeting [on youtube] and they were over there – sternfaced harridans and a few men and Boris was arraigned before them, cap in hand. They opened with: “These are very serious matters.”
This is not what Boris had gone to. He’d gone to a “meeting”. This is how they do it in leftland. Boris said it was like a court, got up and walked out.
I myself was asked, two years ago, to see my parole officer of the time [on the work scheme] about remarks I’d made. My understanding was that when I was asked could I stay back a few minutes, that something I’d done that day was to be discussed, as I did sail close to the wind at times and thought it best to clear the air.
I walked in on a full-on tribunal, with them sitting in a line over there, including high-ups I didn’t know, plus my supervisor who hadn’t even been there, as it concerned a course I’d been sent on. I was on a single chair in open space, before them.
And the one who opened was [let’s call her] Big Mama, with very grave language. “Mr. Higham, it’s come to my notice,” and then: “You do understand this is a very serious matter.”
It became apparent that she had zero interest in hearing what I had to say but thankfully for me she was making procedural error after procedural error.
I wasn’t having that any more than Boris, so I asked who’d made the charge of racist/sexist language. She wouldn’t say. “Never you mind.” They were the exact words.
“Oh but I mind very much. I’ll not sit here answering any charge when I don’t know who it was and what I’m meant to have said.”
“Never you mind. It’s so, it’s been confirmed by a witness.” And she thought this was due process?
It ended, that afternoon, up in the air because I simply refused to accept false charges which she would not specify.
I soon, in the next few days, latched onto who the original little madam had been on the course, plus the one who’d rushed it to the brass who’d been awaiting an opportunity to “bring me down a peg or two”. That was the guy taking the course. They had not bothered asking the men sitting around me – fellow coursees. Natch.
I was lucky, as my personal supervisor and I were close, too close according to Big Mama and I knew it would not have been her behind it. So I approached her, she was quite embarrassed and that told me she’d been dragged along on Big Mama’s hearsay. I told her that I’d now investigated and simply gave her the most likely scenario, the most blindingly obvious, to see what she’d say.
Lucky again – that’s precisely how it had been. One of them, Big Mama, the one who had run the tribunal, had wanted to clip my wings for a long time or at least have a hold over me. My supervisor did not betray her but she let enough slip and I think that had been intentional too.
Now Big Mama and her section were going to be up on charges from me, both as to the unlawful and unprofessional way it had been handled, in other words, this was defamation, a most serious charge, plus the failure to protect those in their charge. I’d sought legal advice [through CAB actually] and was considering whether to press charges. How did I know all this?
“I know it was XXXX who took that to your boss …” and I went into his background on him which I’d explored. Very juicy.
My supervisor sighed as I started on the original girl they were protecting, she had a history of extorting thousands of pounds out of schools where she’d taught on claims of harassment and discrimination and was herself on disciplinary proceedings with this office for non-attendance. The silly little female [bovine] had been boasting about to us at a course we’d been on.
“I want to say one more thing. You’re not in this, not part of it. I would never mention you in any way. You’re not who I’m gunning for. You’ve always been professional and fair with me.”
My supervisor said nothing but then realized she had to say something. “Oh well, it’s all sorted out now,” to which I said, “No it isn’t. Something has been placed on my record by your boss and it’s not what I’m telling you now, it’s XXXX’s [the Big Mama’s] version from the tribunal.”
My supervisor would take care of that. Now could we get onto current business?
Whether it was ever done is moot, as I’m now here and they’re there. But that is the danger in this country. Very great danger. PCists and luvvies jump to the tribunal and punishment as quickly as possible.
I’d been lucky this time, as the facts had been so ludicrously one-sided in this poor stitch-up, though I do remember one remark of mine, among my thousands, which might have been interpreted the way they wanted and they’d seemingly missed that one. Hell, look at what I write on blogs for a start.
That’s why, I believe, it’s all happened as it has with Clarkson and even now, I don’t think Jeremy Clarkson has any true idea what snakes in the grass leftist PCists are, how they seize on, misinterpret, construct cases in secret conference and then spring it on the miscreant.
My mate said at the time of my issue that it was all to do with power, no more, no less. Pathetic lives as nobodies, wanting to wield power – the whole Common Purpose mentality.
IMHO, Clarkson is walking into an ambush.
We could now get onto what will happen next for the Beeb but others can write on that. I’m more concerned to warn the Clarksons of the world that if you’re going to motormouth, you have to first take certain precautions:
1. Never make hostile remarks in private. Do it in public, with witnesses, e.g. on a blog and never conduct email fights.
2. Keep all emails ever sent and file them, in case someone tries to cherry pick things you’ve written. Every hostile letter ever written me is on file on a separate hard disk.
3. Just as Nigel is doing now that he’s got wise[r], choose the words carefully. For example, what I revealed above I had to first think if it was legal. Sad we’ve come to this impasse but we’re dealing with snakes here.
4. They WILL take you down if they can. I know it creates a siege mentality but the rule today is that if you shoot your mouth off and throw the weight about, you MUST have back-up. You can’t make any remark with impunity any more, especially on blogs. You must assume someone is going to use what they can from what you’ve said and done.
I’m not sure Jeremy Clarkson understands this and I’m not sure many on what we might call the unreconstructed right understand it either.