What an absolute spanner. Incoherent nonsense as a pretence for facts. The rich landowners are an embarrassment. They cannot debate with reality so it is sophistry all the way. And those ignorant fall for it over and over.
“So it’s not about you, it’s not about your farm and the fact you bought a farm to avoid inheritance tax?”@vicderbyshire speaks to Jeremy Clarkson at the farmers’ protest in Westminster where thousands of farmers are protesting the government’s inheritance tax plans. pic.twitter.com/9KwoiEbImz
— BBC Newsnight (@BBCNewsnight) November 19, 2024
A Long History Of Bigotry
Jeremy Clarkson has built a career on a combustible mix of sharp wit, abrasive humour, and unapologetic opinions. Yet beneath the veneer of his larger-than-life persona lies a troubling legacy of remarks and actions that many have deemed as bigoted, insensitive, and deeply harmful. While Clarkson has consistently defended his provocations as harmless banter or satire, his repeated reliance on stereotypes, inflammatory rhetoric, and outright offensive comments paints a different picture. His behaviour has sparked widespread criticism, raising serious questions about the role of media figures in perpetuating harmful ideologies and the limits of accountability in public life.
Clarkson’s tendency to weaponise national and racial stereotypes has been a recurring theme in his career, particularly during his tenure on Top Gear. Though the show was ostensibly about cars, it often veered into the realm of cheap cultural jabs, with Clarkson at the helm. In one infamous instance, he referred to a Toyota Prius as “a car built in a country where they still eat dogs,” a clear swipe at South Korean culinary traditions. Such remarks, thinly veiled as humour, are deeply rooted in reductive, xenophobic stereotypes. By framing these as jokes, Clarkson normalised a mode of discourse that reduces entire cultures to caricatures.
Another example of Clarkson’s racially insensitive language occurred in a leaked clip from Top Gear in which he was caught mumbling a racial slur while reciting the children’s rhyme “Eeny, meeny, miny, moe.” Although the segment was never aired, the incident sparked outrage when the footage surfaced. Clarkson issued a carefully worded apology, claiming he had tried to avoid using the offensive term. However, the mere inclusion of such language, even in an unaired segment, points to a troubling disregard for the gravity of racial slurs. It reinforced perceptions of Clarkson as someone willing to flirt with overt racism under the guise of irreverence.
Perhaps one of the most glaring examples of Clarkson’s bigotry occurred during the filming of a Top Gear Christmas special in Burma in 2014. In one segment, Clarkson and his co-hosts crossed a makeshift bridge, at which point Clarkson remarked, “That is a proud moment, but there’s a slope on it.” The term “slope” is a derogatory slur used to describe people of Asian descent. This comment drew immediate criticism from viewers and advocacy groups, who pointed out its blatant offensiveness. While the show’s producers later apologised, Clarkson himself remained largely unrepentant, insisting the remark was a coincidence; a defence that rang hollow given the term’s explicit connotations.
Clarkson’s history of sexism further compounds his reputation for bigotry. His comments about women often straddle the line between outdated paternalism and outright misogyny. A particularly egregious example came in a 2022 column for The Sun, where he unleashed a vitriolic attack on Meghan Markle. In it, Clarkson wrote that he “hates [her] on a cellular level” and fantasised about seeing her paraded through the streets naked while people threw excrement at her. This grotesque imagery, reminiscent of medieval public shaming, drew immediate and widespread condemnation, including from prominent public figures and advocacy groups. Many critics argued that Clarkson’s column was not just an attack on Markle personally but emblematic of a broader pattern of misogynistic and racially charged rhetoric directed at women of colour in public life.
While Clarkson’s defenders often claim that his provocations are meant in jest, his consistent targeting of marginalised groups suggests a deeper problem. His humour frequently punches down, mocking those with less power or societal privilege. This pattern extends beyond race and gender to include the disabled community. In 2011, Clarkson was criticised for mocking people with facial disfigurements during a segment on Top Gear, where he compared the appearance of a Japanese car to individuals with disabilities. Such remarks reinforce harmful stereotypes and perpetuate stigma, a reality that Clarkson has repeatedly refused to acknowledge.
Clarkson’s defenders often point to his immense popularity and claim that his humour is an essential antidote to political correctness. However, this argument overlooks the significant harm caused by normalising bigoted language and attitudes in mass media. Clarkson’s platform is enormous, and his words carry weight, shaping public perceptions in ways that can reinforce prejudice. By framing his remarks as edgy or rebellious, he provides cover for those who wish to dismiss legitimate concerns about racism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination as mere oversensitivity.
The impact of Clarkson’s behaviour is perhaps most troubling when viewed through the lens of his influence on younger audiences. His tenure on Top Gear, a show that transcended its niche as a motoring programme to become a global phenomenon, meant that his attitudes reached millions of viewers worldwide. For many, Clarkson’s brand of humour became synonymous with British irreverence, blurring the line between satire and normalisation of harmful stereotypes. The extent to which his rhetoric influenced public attitudes is difficult to quantify, but it is clear that he played a role in shaping a media culture where bigotry could be dismissed as harmless banter.
Clarkson’s legacy is a cautionary tale about the power of unchecked privilege in media. Despite repeated controversies, he has faced relatively few lasting consequences for his behaviour. His dismissal from the BBC in 2015 following the assault on a Top Gear producer was framed more as a clash of egos than a moment of reckoning for his broader history of offensive conduct. Even after losing his BBC contract, Clarkson quickly rebounded, securing lucrative deals with Amazon and continuing to write high-profile columns. This resilience underscores a troubling double standard: while marginalised figures in media often face disproportionate backlash for minor transgressions, powerful figures like Clarkson are frequently given the benefit of the doubt, allowed to reframe their actions as part of a larger-than-life persona.
To understand the enduring appeal of Clarkson despite his bigotry, one must examine the cultural dynamics that enable figures like him to thrive. Clarkson’s shtick, blunt, irreverent, and unapologetically offensive, resonates with those who feel alienated by shifting social norms. For some, his provocations are a form of catharsis, a way to push back against what they perceive as the stifling encroachment of political correctness. Yet this defence ignores the deeper implications of Clarkson’s behaviour. By privileging the comfort of those who enjoy his humour over the dignity of those he targets, his apologists reveal a willingness to excuse harm in the name of entertainment. They become complicit bullies.
Clarkson’s career is emblematic of a broader reckoning within media and culture about the boundaries of free expression. While humour and satire are essential components of a healthy public discourse, they lose their value when wielded to entrench prejudice. Clarkson’s repeated reliance on bigoted tropes, whether intentional or otherwise, demonstrates a failure to use his platform responsibly. His defenders may argue that his provocations are harmless, but the cumulative impact of his words tells a different story. Bigotry, even when cloaked in humour, perpetuates harm, alienates communities, and undermines efforts to build a more inclusive society.
As Clarkson continues to provoke, the question remains whether his audience will begin to hold him accountable. While his antics have long been excused as part of his “brand,” the growing demand for accountability in media may ultimately catch up with him. Whether or not Clarkson evolves in response to this shifting landscape, his career serves as a stark reminder of the dangers of normalising bigotry under the guise of entertainment.
