« On anti-discrimination laws | Main | "We'll have to look at the data" »

March 13, 2015


Dave Timoney

Wouldn't it be safer if he just twatted himself?


Huge fan of Clarkson and his show, and of course Morgan is a pillock.

But in any working environment, in any company I have worked for or would consider working for, if you hit someone you get fired.

He will not starve in the gutter


An interesting choice of analogy, since the more obvious one is that Clarkson is 'too big to fail' when it comes to the income of the BBC. Yet, like the banks and investment, it appears difficult to get Clarkson to punch the 'right people' (e.g. green investment bank/climate change deniers).

Luis Enrique

In clarksons case the rule is punch sideways

Steven Clarke

I think Clarkson should apply Scott Sumner's idea to twatting Piers Morgan.

Let's say (conservatively) he should twat Piers Morgan once a year.

However, he's only done it once, ever. So to make up for all those years he hasn't done it, he'll need to twat him, say, 15 times next year.

Nick Rowe

Chris: I am so pleased! You link to me and Scott Sumner in a post on Jeremy Clarkson as central banker!

This is right up there with Chuck Norris as central banker: http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2011/10/monetary-policy-as-a-threat-strategy.html

Patrick R. Sullivan

H.L. Mencken once proposed that citizens should be allowed to assault government employees who'd done them wrong. You could be arrested and tried for so doing, but it would be a valid defense to assert that they deserved it.

'I propose that it shall be no longer malum in se for a citizen to pummel, cowhide, kick, gouge, cut, wound, bruise, maim, burn, club, bastinado, flay, or even lynch a [government] jobholder, and that it shall be malum prohibitum only to the extent that the punishment exceeds the jobholder’s deserts. The amount of this excess, if any, may be determined very conveniently by a petit jury, as other questions of guilt are now determined. The flogged judge, or Congressman, or other jobholder, on being discharged from hospital — or his chief heir, in case he has perished — goes before a grand jury and makes a complaint, and, if a true bill is found, a petit jury is empaneled and all the evidence is put before it. If it decides that the jobholder deserves the punishment inflicted upon him, the citizen who inflicted it is acquitted with honor. If, on the contrary, it decides that this punishment was excessive, then the citizen is adjudged guilty of assault, mayhem, murder, or whatever it is, in a degree apportioned to the difference between what the jobholder deserved and what he got, and punishment for that excess follows in the usual course.'

"The Malevolent Jobholder," The American Mercury (June 1924), p. 156


As Redpesto says, the fitting analogy would seem to be that Clarkson is "Too big to fail".

It is quite remarkable the number of people who, in one way or another, are saying that they will have difficulty in coping without Clarkson on Top Gear and have difficulty in coming to terms with the fact that, if they are deprived of him on their TV in future, it will be Clarkson himself who will have deprived them of that pleasure.



The irony is that the BBC may have been in this position before, re. William Hartnell as Doctor Who (if the drama An Adventure In Space and Time is any guide).

Unfortunately, however, getting Clarkson to 'regenerate' (i.e. casting someone else) is proving difficult.

The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Blog powered by Typepad