Nigel Farage and Jeremy Clarkson - 'Common assault' not 'common sense'

Right wing populists are rarely out of the news in Britain, but this week has been dominated by them much more than usual.

On one hand you have UKIP party leader Nigel Farage getting in to trouble for essentially calling for equality legislation to be scrapped in an interview

Whilst at the same time Jeremy Clarkson has been suspended for allegedly punching his producer on Top Gear.  For both of them the same pattern has emerged - those who like them will defend them to the teeth, those that dislike them call for their heads.

I know that sounds obvious, but it's still irritating.  As a Socialist I'm far on the left, so you can guess my opinion on Farage and Clarkson - I'm not exactly a fan.

But you soon realise that when you espouse an opinion about either of them that mocks them you are only playing to the choir, you will only have people respond who completely agree with you already.  It seems impossible to actually effect, let alone change, anyone's opinion on these two.

Same thing the other way round.  Clarkson has been accused of punching a colleague at work.  As such he has been suspended following an investigation.  Because of the suspension the BBC are considering cancelling the rest of the current series of Top Gear as he wouldn't be available to film and, frankly, it would be weird to just go ahead without him.

So far, so clear.  I think we all know that if you're accused of assaulting a colleague at work you will be, at best, suspended as the allegation is investigated.

And yet there is a (currently) 600,000 signatures strong petition calling for Jeremy Clarkson to be immediately reinstated.  WHAT??

There are many arguments that can made to suggest that Jeremy Clarkson shouldn't be on TV.  He has a rich history of controversy already.  But all that to one side for now, as it stands at this time, he has been accused of punching a colleague at work and so has been suspended.

WHAT IS THERE TO ARGUE AGAINST?  Without making comment about his guilt or otherwise, how can anyone argue against him being suspended?

And yet, here we are, with a petition signed by over 600,000 people who have decided, with no need for any form of evidence whatsoever, that Jeremy Clarkson should just be reinstated.  The reason why?  Because they think it is all a conspiracy.

Right wing blogger Guido Fawkes started the petition, and wrote in The Sun on Thursday explaining why.  Now, someone like Guido Fawkes is very hard to satirise because his language is so absurdly reactionary that he himself appear to be an ironic joke.  But he's not, he's very real.  To give you an example, he said he loved Clarkson for all the reasons:

"...a bunch of Left-wing pinkos at the BBC have been out to get him for ages"

Seriously, "left-wing pinkos"?  What is this, 1950's America?  McCarthyism on the march once again?  What a bizarrely archaic term.  But then this comes from the same lexicon in which Tory Ministers also pluck the term "pleb" from (allegedly/probably), so maybe not that surprising.

The BBC Trust meet to discuss Clarkson, yesterday

The point is they think Clarkson is subject to a conspiracy where the liberal-lefties at the BBC are out to get him.

Top Gear, in it's current form after being revamped in 2002, has been a massive success for the BBC.  The programme is estimated to have around 350 million views per week in 170 different countries.  Do we really believe that the BBC would want to kill off this cash cow?

Of course not.  Yes, Clarkson can cause them all manor of headaches, but the figures speak for themselves.

I suppose the reason they might have suspended him, and I don't know if I've mentioned this, is because he is accused of punching a colleague whilst at work!!

Meanwhile on the other side of the green in this village made up entirely of idiots lives Nigel Farage.  A man who is pure Marmite, both because he divides opinion but also because he is the by-product left over from a process, in this case mainstream politicians stoking up racism and anti-immigrant sentiments.

In an interview that has just come out with Trevor Phillips, the former head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Farage was questioned on his views regarding the existing Equalities legislation.  His response:

"I would argue that the law does need changing, and that if an employer wishes to chose, or you can use the word 'discriminate' if you want to, but wishes to chose to employ a British-born person, they should be allowed to do so.  I think you should be able to chose on the basis of nationality, yes.  I do."

So he suggests that discrimination in employment should be allowed.  Unsurprisingly, there are many who didn't take well the suggestion of rolling back legislation that we have had in place in one form or another since 1965.

Sadique Khan, Labour's shadow justice secretary, said:

"when my parents moved to London they frequently saw signs saying 'no blacks, no dogs, no irish' and what UKIP is suggesting would take us back to those days"

The bizarre thing is, that since the contents of the interview became public causing Nigel Farage to do some backtracking, he and others in UKIP have presented data in interviews that are indeed sympathetic to those suffering from racism.

One UKIP candidate interviewed on the radio gave the statistics about how much harder it was for young black men to find employment than young white men, but still went on to say that the equalities legislation was unnecessary because "people can just use common sense instead".

In practice they're saying is "we know that racism exists, but we think the best thing to do is just get rid of the legislation designed to stop it".

Now, I tried to find the exact details of that radio interview I heard, but it's impossible to find.  Trying to goggle phrases like 'UKIP candidate defends Farage' throws up so many stories from soooooooooooooooooo many gaffes, it is impossible to wade through.

I might as well have goggled 'pieces of hay that look like needles'.

But again, there are so many that will jump to his defence even though the position seems indefensible, and they will say it's 'common sense' whilst they do it.  That's the most egotistical thing of the populist right.  I can argue my politics quite vigorously, but I still realise that I am putting across a certain political point of view.

They believe that they are not merely arguing a position, but that what they say is what 'everyone is thinking'... it's common sense.  How egotistical is that?

When asked about his views after that interview Nigel Farage said that UKIP as a party was 'colour blind'.  As they are still arguing that jobs shouldn't go to foreigners, can we call that 'blind prejudice'?

At least he doesn't wear jeans and a jacket...

As a caveat to this piece I suppose I should point out that Nigel Farage has not himself signed the petition to reinstate Jeremy Clarkson.  When asked about it he said:

"It seems to me that as boss of Ukip, if I punched one of our press office – it’s tempting at times, I have to say – but I’d be in very, very hot water indeed and I would without doubt be suspended for a period of time pending a disciplinary hearing.

So I think people signing up online saying Clarkson should be re-employed are doing so really without any knowledge of what went on or whether there’s any history there, so as far as I’m concerned the jury’s out, but I’m not going to worry too much for Jeremy Clarkson."

So to everyone who has signed the petition calling for Jeremy Clarkson to be reinstated, you are potentially being more reactionary then Nigel Farage.  That should be a sobering thought for you, but I don't suppose it is unfortunately.

Rotherham, and why we shouldn't listen to the racists.

So what next for this stand-up comedians lighted hearted blog posts?  A post about the Rotherham recent child abuse scandal?  Well, that is bound to be a wheeze.  Ho, ho, ho, strap in comedy lovers...

Well, maybe not.  Yes, I am covering that subject, but I must admit that a report uncovering the sexual exploitation and abuse of over 1400 children in Rotheram isn't exactly a giggle fest.  Still, as with any major news story, there are plenty of contradictions at play.

First was watching the BBC news two mornings ago which included an interview with the group "Parents Against Child Sexual Exploitation".  It twisted my mind as to why such a group existed.  After all, who would be against that group?

The other issue is the groups name.  Why "parents" against child sexual exploitation and not just "people"?  I don't have children myself, but does that mean they think I would be in some way neutral on the issue?  Would I be expected to complain to the BBC, demanding to know why they hadn't invited on a pro-paedophile spokesperson to provide balance?  No, I will be happily maintaining my license fee payments for the foreseeable future.

Of course a big issue with this case is the impact of race and racism, as the perpetrators here were mostly men from a Pakistani background.  With the ongoing rumblings of Investigation Yewtree turning up historical abuse cases involving mostly white male celebrities, you might be fooled in to thinking that overall race isn't really a factor.  But that's not going to hold the right wing press back.

Reading The Sun on Thursday, unsurprisingly, warmed my urine to a rolling boil.  A particular highlight being columnist Trevor Kavanagh's take on the issue, where he blames:

'mostly white, mostly Labour politicians and police... (who) represent a political class, backed by the BBC, who waved in millions of migrants during 13 years of Labour government under the discredited flag of multiculturalism.  Their avowed objective was to change the face of Britain which they deemed to be "too white"'

Of course!!  How stupid of me not to realise that the problem all along was caused by Labour, the BBC and multiculturalism!  Case solved, thanks Trev.

Aside from rantings by columnists such as Kavangh, the general argument is that the police in Rotherham, backed by Labour, didn't investigate the claims out of a fear of being seen as racist.  It would be easy to write off this argument as barking mad, because it is.  For a start, the police not wanting to be racist???  My, my, how times change.

Scarily though, you cannot just ignore this argument, because it is one that is seated well and truly in the mainstream.  The Sun are not alone in turning this horrific story about child abuse in to one for their own agenda attacking Labour and multiculturalism.

In reality, the real problem in this case is precisely the same problem as there was in the case against Jimmy Saville.  Victims and their families were blamed for the abuse, and ignored.

£60k salary v. honour.  Salary wins!

Police in Rotherham ignored the complaints because they saw the girls as complicit in their own abuse.  "If you hang around with that kind of crowd, what do you expect to happen", was their position.  In reality, where girls in any way "chose" to spend time with their abusers, that was as a result of grooming.  That's how it works, and that is why there is an age of consent.  They are children, not consenting adults, and they need protecting.

Perhaps there is some cultural aspect as to why a minority of Pakistani men thought it was acceptable to abuse young girls (and not exclusively white girls either, like the media often suggests).  But then, there is a cultural explanation as to why older white celebrities thought it was ok to do exactly the same.

As much as I mocked the name of "Parents Against Child Sexual Exploitation" before, one thing you can say is that they don't make any issue of race.  They, and anyone who is genuinely concerned with helping put a stop to child abuse in this way, say that the real issue is to put a stop to victim blaming, and for the police to take complaints seriously.