The One Where I Publicly Thank Jeremy Clarkson For Proving My Point

Who knew there’d actually be a day when I’d have to thank Jeremy Clarkson for anything? He is a misogynistic arsewipe of epic proportions whose “opinions” are merely abusive and arrogant twaddle. Why he’s given a public platform for anything is beyond me. Nor do I get the obsession with cars in general. Yes, they are useful for travelling with small children and assorted paraphernalia, moving furniture and lugging groceries. Other than that, they are pretty much environmentally destructive and, frequently, unnecessary status symbols; especially the penis replacement versions favoured by Clarkson.

But, Clarkson has proved useful in one area. He’s just withdrawn an injunction he took out against a former spouse preventing her from publishing statements about their marriage. Now, this is the self-aggrandising shite with which Clarkson came out as a “defence” for withdrawing the complaint: 

“I’ve overturned my own injunction – how cool is that? Injunctions don’t work, they’re completely pointless and unbelievably expensive. And due to a new interpretation of the law you might have to go to trial if you take an injunction out and that’s even more expensive.
“I thought ‘Just let her run about saying what she wants to say’ and people can say ‘I believe that or I don’t believe it’. Either way it makes no difference to me, it’s as simple as that. Frankly I’ve got more important things to worry about than a woman I was married to for five minutes 30 years ago. So now I have no stress of an injunction and I can look Ian Hislop in the eye.” 

The one thing Clarkson has never been and never will be is cool but I think I can let that particular delusion of his stand. But, let’s be honest here, he only withdrew it because social media has made injunctions and superinjunctions pointless. Whilst I am firmly on the right to privacy, I believe that injunctions [and confidentiality agreements] only protect those with power; usually that requires a penis. I don’t believe that we can expand the current laws on privacy and free speech  to protect women. We need to completely eradicate and rebuild the legal system so that those who aren’t white men are given equal protection without caveat or exclusion from the creation of the law rather than writing clauses to cover those excluded the first time round.

After all, does anyone really believe that Clarkson’s ex-wife would have been granted an injunction to prevent Clarkson speaking about her publicly? I sure don’t.

Leave a Reply