What value a qualified apology?

The public sector strike was in full swing. I have been in two unions in my working life, NUPE which amalgamated with others to become UNISON, and AMMA which is now ATL. Both of them came out on strike on Wednesday. And I can understand why. It's tough to have your contribution to the economy rubbished (even though a day's strike apparently could cost £1/2 billion), and to hear yourself talked about as though you are not a tax-payer yourself. And it's tough to have the pension you've paid for all your working life shrink at a stroke.

Jeremy Clarkson, employed by the licence payer via the BBC, proceeded that evening at 7 o'clock to pontificate in his satirical way both about the strikes and oddly, in a week which had begun with the tragic suicide of the universally liked Welsh football manager, Gary Speed, he quipped about trains not stopping when someone commits suicide in front of them.

The press of course made a lot of his comments about shooting the strikers, which were in dubious taste but fairly characteristic Clarkson-babble. As often, he needlessly overegged the pudding, with adding "in front of their families", which demonstrated a juvenile lack of empathy in one so close to the establishment. When questioned about it the following afternoon, his response was typically bullish: "The BBC are not going to sack me and I am not going to apologise. What do you think I have done wrong?"

As complaints continued to flood in to the BBC, he was "persuaded" to make a statement of apology - which he did, sort of: "If the BBC and I have caused any offence, I am quite happy to apologise for it alongside them." But he insisted in his statement: "I didn't for a moment intend these remarks to be taken seriously - as I believe is clear if they're seen in context." I gather the wording was his, and, you'll notice it's one of those sorts of apology which implicitly puts the blame back on the person offended. This is a conditional apology using the word "if". A genuine apology is unconditional. "I apologise for the offence that my remarks caused." No "ifs" and no "buts". Just, "I'm sorry." The trouble is those words are usually blocked by our pride. Not only does Clarkson's apology contain an "if" and an implied "but", it also has another shifting of the blame, "If the BBC and I". I've puzzled over this. Is he saying that his remarks were scripted and editorially approved? Is he implying he was reading them off the autocue? It's hard to believe, but might possibly be the case. Perhaps he was referring to the sycophantic studio laughter that greeted his remarks. Otherwise it sounds rather like an errant schoolboy whining, "It wasn't just me, you know." 

However, I actually found his remarks about suicide even more disturbing. As someone commented on Facebook: "I too found his comments on the strikers bad enough, but it was compounded by his terrible comments about people who may have committed suicide by being knocked down by a train. His attitude was, 'Why should the train stop for that? Why should I be put out?!' His appalling attitude reflects the worship of self above everything else. It's sad to see a man with ability demean himself in such a way for some cheap laugh!" I felt strongly enough to send a complaint to the BBC, which I've done only once before.


"In the week of the highly publicised suicide of Gary Speed, Mr Clarkson's comments about trains not stopping when desperate people step in front of them showed an unbelievable level of crassness and insensitivity. Even if, as he seems to suggest, the context was jocular, there was simply no excuse for his comment. Suicide is always a tragic event, for the person who was sufficiently depressed to take their own life AND for their family and friends. To make light of it is inexcusable; to make light of it this week and on prime-time television on an all-age magazine show was beyond comprehension. I was glad that an apology was made on the show by Matt Baker. As far as I'm aware, Mr Clarkson, whilst half apologising for his remarks about the strikers, has issued no apology to those bereaved by suicide or to those who have attempted it or to the train-drivers often traumatised by the experience of contributing to the death of another human being. As a licence payer who, I understand, contributes to his 7-figure salary, I'd ask the BBC to consider Mr Clarkson's position, as I suspect he won't do it for himself. The BBC is bigger than Top Gear. The very least the management should insist on is an UNQUALIFIED (i.e. no 'ifs' and 'buts') apology. Thank you."


Maybe it was an overreaction. Someone else commented: "WHY TAKE CLARKSON SERIOUSLY? HE IS JUST A BIG OVER-EXCITED KID , AND NOTHING MUCH HE SAYS IS WORTH COMMENT. PERHAPS IT IS LOOK-AT-ME PUBLICITY." I'm sure it was an attempt to get publicity. But actually he's a bit older than a kid, and he ought to have known better. More than 21,000 people thought so too. 


Jane tells me to ignore him and deny him the oxygen of publicity - and she's right of course - but I feel better to have got it off my chest! 

For three things and four...

This is not a grumble, you understand. Just some observations!

Why do broadcasters (eg. on BBC Radio 5 Live) say, "See you same time tomorrow", or "in 14 minutes", in the case of a recent trailer? No, you won't, Mr Campbell, Mr Livesey. That's just stupid. You won't see us. We might hear you. You could say, "I'll be back...," or, if you insist in being more chatty, "Till tomorrow, same time." We need an equivalent of the German "Auf wiederhören".

Why do some radio forecasters emphasise odd unimportant words? "Winds gusting TO forty miles an hour in the South AND West..."

And why do so many journalists persist in demonstrating their paucity of vocabulary by using the word "iconic" - even after I mentioned it before on this blog? I was once told that people used bad language because they were too lazy to find a more vivid or accurate word. I'm inclined to think that "iconic" is the new swear word. "That's an iconic Torres goal!"

I suppose I'd better mention the Top Gear Mexican fiasco. Not that I watched it. I must say I have to agree with Steve Coogan's verdict on the lads' uncouth racial insults. 'There is a strong ethical dimension to the best comedy. Not only does it avoid reinforcing prejudices, it actively challenges them. Put simply, in comedy, as in life, we ought to think before we speak. This wasn't one of those occasions. In fact, the comments were about as funny as a cold sweat followed by shooting pains down the left arm. In fact, if I can borrow from the Wildean wit of Richard Hammond, the comic approach was "lazy", "feckless" and "flatulent".' Steve Coogan on Top Gear

Talking of cars, which Top Gear is supposed to be about, I see I could get some shares in our local Formula 1 team, Williams F1, on 2nd March. I'm not sure how good a short-term investment it would be, but at some point it must come good, surely...?

Approaching the New Year

My quote for the end of the year: "I have learned that keeping relationships and friendships in good repair is the best defence against trouble; and that planning and organising fun is the best antidote to regret, discontent, and boredom" (John Milnes, my best man).


My quote for the beginning of next year: "Can it be that there is not enough space for man in this beautiful world, under those immeasurable, starry heavens? Is it possible that man's heart can harbour, amid such ravishing natural beauty, feelings of hatred, vengeance, or the desire to destroy his fellows? All the evil in man, one would think, should disappear in contact with Nature, the most spontaneous expression of beauty and goodness" (Leo Tolstoy, The Raid, 1853).


Over the past few days I finished the book of Tolstoy short stories given me by my favourite journalist. It gave rise to a fascinating exchange among the family about the realism of Christian anarchism as a way of life. He probably is over-optimistic about the possibility of goodness without redemption and inspiration, but I think he's right about the inherent sinfulness of human hierarchies, of which the tower of Babel is the archetype, to be reborn as Babylon. I liked the parable-like stories, especially The Two Old Men. His theme often seems to be "Faith without works is dead". 


What I like about my first quotation is John's positivity, which I shall try to emulate. And I agree with Tolstoy's view of the dissonance between the beauty of the natural world and the ugliness of much human behaviour. So I am going to try to avoid adding to that ugliness in my 2011 blogging. It seems to me that the blogosphere is where "feelings of hatred, vengeance and the desire to destroy one's fellow" run rampant. Although the results may not be physically so bloody as in The Raid, there's no doubt they are at least equally pernicious. And so I will avoid commenting on the so-called Top Gear Christmas Special, and try gratefully to recollect instead the number of good and helpful programmes the BBC put on specially for Christmas.


http://www.penguin.co.uk/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9780140445060,00.html#

Big week

Hello, I'm just multi-tasking and listening to 'Top Gear' - and the three members of the TG mutual admiration society are laying into Wayne Rooney again. Cheap laughs, boys. Your script-writers can do better. It's easy to make negative jokes.

So we've entered the week of the launch of I Choose Everything. A number of friends from round the country have said they'll be coming. Cornerstone, my favourite café in Grove, is the venue. I hope that by now Jozanne will have received her copy. It seems to have been taking ages to reach her.

In case you've forgotten and would like to come, it's Saturday from 2 to 4 o'clock - OX12 0PT, if you're using a satnav...