Clarkson lowered his 'Zeiss' Wehrmacht issue field glasses. His eyes narrowed against the sun. "Guardianistas" He spat. "Something must have spooked 'em"....
And yes, something has. Up until August 6th, Jodie Matthews was innocently conducting essential research into migrant groups in 19th c Britain, further to her role as Fellow at the University of Huddersfield's Academy for the Study of Britishness (no I'm not making it up). So far so good, you might think. Important cutting edge work, or at least what passes for it in modern academia, and an excellent use of research funds, which might otherwise be wasted on hard science or engineering. However, someone seems to have mentioned to Jodie, that some of these 'British' people that her academy is devoted to studying, sometimes mistakenly watch a TV program called ‘Top Gear’. This features three middle aged, hideously white bozos, messrs Clarkson, May and Hammond, who go around staging elaberate pranks on themselves and each other, driving extremely large, extremely expensive and extremely fast cars, and slagging off themselves, their audience, the cars, their guests, various national minorities and interest groups and anyone else who gets in their way, with the kind of gleeful abandon and freedom not seen on TV since, well... the 1970s probably.
In the course of some recent japes and tomfoolery, one of these characters, Richard Hammond, apparently, referred to himself as a 'Pikey, whilst driving a particularly ‘pikey’ looking car. Something stirred in Jodie's soul at this news. Weaker minds may have thought that a study of the 'Top Gear' phenomena, might help further define this queer concept of 'Britishness', but Jodie was quick to spot a subtle yet rich seam of anti-Gypsy racism in this seemingly casual quip. As she writes, she knew that "The audience is supposed to know what Hammond and Clarkson mean by the term, though the implications are vague." The subtle anti-pikey message was communicated via “a subtextual wink". It was all to redolent of George Smith of Coalville's "anti-Gypsy campaigns of the 1870s". Armed with these insights through her studies of 'Britishness', she would not let this rampant racism stand, especially in the week when Harriet Harman was doing her level best to lead the country in the paths of righteousness. The Guardian should hear of this outrage. And so they did:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/aug/06/top-gear
And so began a course of events that future generations may well (if I have anything to do with it) come to know as 'The Battle of Richard Hammond'. It doesnt quite stand with Dien Bien Phu as a turning point, and I doubt the Guardian's elite online comment moderators are falling back to their winebars in quite the shock and disorder that the battered German divisions of Army Group Centre fell back to East Prussia under Soviet hammer blows in 1944, but it may prove a high water mark for a certain kind of liberal hubris, a self realisation within the forces of darkness of the resilence and strength of those opposing them. There are nearly 900 comments here (at time of writing). The vast majority dismissing the notion that Hammond's comment was 'racist', indeed many querying the notion of 'racism', at least in this context. Read through the comments if you have the patience. They are instructive. Read through them especially if you are involved with the three major parties. Read them if you want to understand 'Britishness'.
The number you can see that have been withdrawn by the moderators is merely a fraction of those that are being pulled as most of them are going without a trace. I know, because a chum of mine and I submitted a number of brilliantly constructed bon mots to the thread and none have been published. Given the scope given to some of the detractors of Top Gear and it's presenters, I would contend that its extremely unlikely that any on those being removed were supporting Ms Matthews contention. Eventually, exasperated, disappointed and demoralised, I wrote to Georgina Henry, the Editor of the Guardian's Comment section, thus:
I think maybe I've misunderstood the scope of your moderators in online debates, particularly with regard to the above. A large percentage of the comments submitted have been pulled, some without a trace. I submitted the following at 10 am this morning, and it disappeared within 5 minutes. I wonder why the Guardian commissions pieces like the above and invites comments on them, if you cant cope with dissenting voices. I also note the story of the 'debate' on Ms Matthews piece is starting to leak into the blogosphere, where perhaps your stringent rules of censorship wont be applied
"I have no particular interest in cars other than as a means of transport. In a normal world, Clarkson would be a slightly boorish oaf on the periphery of my perception. But this isnt a normal world, it has people like Jodie Matthews in it, being paid to study "Britishness" while having less idea of what that means than Hitler did. And going by the number of comments that are being pulled, whatever Clarkson is and is not, he's certainly more capable of dealing with dissent than the Guardian. . " I'm sure you're very busy, but I'd be grateful for your thoughts
I did receive the courtesy of a fairly prompt reply, which I cant quote in full here, because it came with a tag saying that it isn’t to be reproduced or communicated on pain of legal assault by liberal lawyers, and as the Guardian’s media empire is bigger than mine, I will restrict myself to quoting my follow up email:
Thanks for taking the time to respond, but this is almost entirely disengenuous. My response was based on various 'ad hominem' attacks on Clarkson and the other Top Gear presenters.
RapidEddie: Yes, Clarkson has a perfect right to bring his non-PC brand of non-humour to the masses. And people have a perfect right to point out that he's a boring prick.
To this, one of your own moderators MattSeaton responded:
I think you have just about nailed it for me, RapidEddie: cool post.
Against that background my attempted post would seem to be rather polite against the general tone of the thread and you would appear to have no argument. Others have commented on the irony inherent in Ms Matthews academic post, and the percieved heavy handedness of your moderators. I kind of get the feeling that you've stirred up something you wish you hadnt with this, but I know you would sooner pull your own head off than admit it. Could you advise whether you've been able to reconsider your approach?
Unfortunately they couldn’t. However, the strength of the response they've provoked puts me in mind of Orwell's line in '1984', "The proles could rise up and shake off the party, like a horse shaking off flies". Of course, in his world they never did, but in ours, we have new cause for hope.
