Greg from Not Another Teaching Blog sends this article for your consideration.
“How you see the BBC’s decision to remove the phenomenally popular presenter of its flagship worldwide show could very well depend on your view of the man in question. Those who support Clarkson see him as the last of dying breed of English TV personalities, the stubborn, old-school and humorous gentlemen who simply enjoys being himself while his detractors see him as obnoxious, offensive and unpleasant.
But let’s be clear: this was not a moral decision by the BBC management. To believe it was is to believe that a racial slur “slope” or a minor physical scuffle are greater crimes against humanity than covering up the sexual abuse of children committed by Jimmy Saville, for which nobody at the Beeb has been punished. The BBC’s firing of Clarkson was – or at least should have been – a business decision. That they have made the wrong one is a matter of delight for me, as it should be for anyone who admires Clarkson or appreciates a quality, politically neutral media service.
Realising the BBC has fallen from grace is a bit like realizing Santa Claus doesn’t exist: for some it’s obvious from the first moment, for others it’s a more slow gradual process. Either way, there comes the inevitable point where you wonder how you didn’t see it earlier. The doubt was eliminated years ago. The BBC themselves have commissioned investigations which confirmed they have a left wing bias (they neglected to investigate if grass is green or the sun is hot) ,MPs have addressed it, their own tweets scream it, their interviews reek of hubris and non-professionalism. In short, you’d be hard pressed to find any group of British society that didn’t sense the BBC has lost its way.
Undeclared bias is often a symptom of corruption and in case anyone forgot, the BBC is the institution that shielded its personnel from the Jimmy Saville abuse scandal. When its own documentary team exposed this, it seemed for one beautiful moment that a turning point had been reached, or perhaps we’d been wrong all along and the BBC were more open than we’d given them credit for. Those hopes evaporated when the documentary tea were ruthlessly punished for exposing the channel’s willingness to ignore and cover-up child abuse
But with the sacking of Clarkson comes hope. The BBC – like any politically corrupt organization- needs continued funding to exist. Any lapse in funding weakens its message which in turn, weakens its cause. In our modern age the public are swamped for choice of news channels, media outlets and political opinions, the BBC has absolutely no choice but to provide a quality product. What shows do we have that still win admiration and respect across the spectrum? Sherlock (3 episodes a year at most), Doctor Who (a recent victim of funding cuts) and Top Gear – the biggest earner – largely thanks to Clarkson as one million petitioners agree. Th
The solution then is simple: every one of those one million Clarkson or Top Gear fans needs to stop watching the BBC and, therefore, stop paying their license fee. One or two non-renewals wouldn’t hurt the BBC, one million non-renewals will hurt them. Any more than that will force them to take a long hard look at themselves.
There is no other solution. If academic studies of bias would change anything, the BBC would have already changed. If complaints changed anything, they would have changed. If public exposure could change the BBC, we wouldn’t have this problem. If an outspoken politician could achieve change at the Beeb, we’d be OK. Nothing can change bias of people in high places who truly believe they are right and look at dissent with contempt and a sneer.
The bottom line is the BBC management don’t care what you think. They don’t care how you feel or what you believe. There is one way and one way only to change that: don’t give them your money.”
The other factor at play here is that Clarkson, in particular, together with the programme itself and its subject matter is a target for anti-car, anti-personal transport, anti-oil, anti-speed and pro-Climate Change campaigners and their supporters.
It is amazing, in some ways, that a programme like this continues to be broadcast by the BBC. Perhaps, in a small way it is used and thought of by them as an example of their diversity or balance. Certainly they now have a problem over this. The writer’s solution is drastic but he is right in my view. It may be the only way to bring both the BBC and Parliament to their senses.
As May and Hammond are currently under contract at the BBC, I suppose the BBC will expect their support in any decision their top Comrades make…..But will it be as simple as that?….Will they resign too?
Good point. They probably have direct contracts as well, judging by their other programme appearances, or are they tied to production companies rather than to the BBC?
May is constantly Tweeting about being unemployed….https://twitter.com/mrjamesmay
And Hammond is being cryptic….https://twitter.com/RichardHammond/status/578123043177779200
May and Hammond’s contracts expire in a few weeks. They are leaving TopGear too.
Plenty of room for the BBC to replace all three with boring Asian, Muslim, ecomentalist cyclist women, and black lesbians and fill the items with Carbon based climate change rubbish!
The only vehicles on the Power Lap challenge will be eco-buses, and Jo Brand will be giving us PC earache from the passenger seat.
I’m guessing it will be the two “Brands”…Jo and Russell…Ably assisted by Frankie Boyle….
And if nobody watches other than Guardianistas?……Doesn’t matter….We’re still paying for it..
My guess, and it’s horrific for the new Top Gear presenter lineup:
Jeremy Clarkson > Lenny Henry
James May > Jo Brand
Richard Hammond > Graham Norton
That will tick all the BBC’s diversity charters, and then some.
I’d also imagine “The Stig” will either be female, or a Tranny.
“I’d also imagine “The Stig” will either be female, or a Tranny. ”
How do you know he isn’t?
‘Undeclared bias is often a symptom of corruption’
Often to a terminal degree.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/mar/25/bbc-pushes-back-after-mps-criticise-lack-of-coverage-of-committee
‘Corporation reminds MPs not to interfere with its independence’
Or what? Andrew Bridgen’s head in their beds?
‘Cash told Hall during his appearance earlier this month that the BBC’s coverage of the 2013 report was a “serious mistake”. Hall replied: “I don’t agree.”
And Mandy Rice Davies describes another revolution in surprise.
‘A BBC spokesman said: “As Lord Hall told the committee, we are and will be impartial in all matters concerning our coverage.’
That mostly anonymous ‘we’ does get about, doesn’t he?
Drivel from beginning to end.
“How you see the BBC’s decision to remove the phenomenally popular presenter of its flagship worldwide show could very well depend on your view of the man in question.”
Yes. Which makes this whole fuss rather boring: people who love him think he should be exonerated (whatever he did), while those who hate him shout loudly about the awful thing he did and that the only possible outcome is that he should be sacked.
“But let’s be clear: this was not a moral decision by the BBC management.”
Says somebody with precisely zero knowledge of the decision or how it was made.
“To believe it was is to believe that a racial slur “slope” or a minor physical scuffle are greater crimes against humanity than covering up the sexual abuse of children committed by Jimmy Saville, for which nobody at the Beeb has been punished.”
…he said, employing a moral-equivalence argument that might be used by a 12-year-old in the playground, but by nobody with a brain. Is it acceptable to punch an employee in your workplace, on the basis that it’s not as bad as some other crimes that have also gone unpunished? Try using that one in court.
“The BBC’s firing of Clarkson was – or at least should have been – a business decision.”
Really? In my business we sack staff for disciplinary reasons as well. It would be a strange company that ignored the conduct of a brilliant salesman who – for instance – defecated in the back office merely because it had to be a ‘business decision’ to sack him.
“If academic studies of bias would change anything, the BBC would have already changed.”
What a car crash of a sentence. If Not Another Teaching Blog is written by a teacher, I’m glad he’s not teaching my kids.
In my experience, those businesses that exist to provide excellent service to private customers would hate to lose a star performer over a silly squabble. They expect some of their stars to be mavericks. On the other hand, businesses that ‘attract’ a lot of government funding usually have to demonstrate a strong commitment to political correctness. They are more than happy to dismiss those that do not share ‘the values of the organisation’. ‘Values Based Recruitment’ seems the latest fad in HR recruiting.
so it’s ok to hit a work colleague then?
Depends what they’ve done
Yes. I have known many workplaces where a good punch in the face has been very beneficial.
Is it OK to bite someone?
If I hit my MD he’d hit me back. Then we’d laugh it off and go for a pint because we’re men and not PC robots.
In the heat of business where everything hangs on making your customers happy tempers do indeed get fraught. But we’re extremely loyal to each other and at the end of the day making the company money is priority one or none of us eat.
The BBC exists in an environment totally removed to this economic model so there’s no way will I ever let them preach at me about something they’ve absolutely no idea about.
In the work environment, No. Outside the work environment it’s another matter as it’s no longer a matter for the employer – other than the fact you’ll have staff that have animosity for each other. It then becomes a police/civil matter.
So – was Oision “working” when the assault happened? Who can say. If he was being paid for his time up to and including the point at which he received the earth shattering blow that split/bruised his lip then you could say it was an employment matter. If he wasn’t – if it was an “after work” altercation – the likes of which can be seen regularly on Friday nights in the City, then it wasn’t.
It seems that Oision was more concerned that he’d lost his job than the split lip – oddly his fears have proved right. Maybe he should stick to something a bit less pressurised, like Cbeebies or The One Show.
Hi Jeffyboy,
Thanks for the feedback. Please allow me to respond.
“Yes. Which makes this whole fuss rather boring: people who love him think he should be exonerated (whatever he did), while those who hate him shout loudly about the awful thing he did and that the only possible outcome is that he should be sacked.”
True enough, but that’s personal opinion and not a valid criticism.
“…he said, employing a moral-equivalence argument that might be used by a 12-year-old in the playground, but by nobody with a brain. Is it acceptable to punch an employee in your workplace, on the basis that it’s not as bad as some other crimes that have also gone unpunished? Try using that one in court.”
If we can assume – despite your warning that I have zero knowledge of how the decision was made – that the management responsible for firing Clarkson (assuming he does indeed get fired) are the same responsible for the punishment of the ‘Panorama’ documentary crew, then is it not fair to conclude their moral compass does not guide their decisions?
I see what you’re getting at in terms of logical fallacies but I’m not saying Clarkson himself is innocent or that his sacking is not technically correct, I’m saying morality was not the guiding factor. Can you see the difference?
“Really? In my business we sack staff for disciplinary reasons as well. It would be a strange company that ignored the conduct of a brilliant salesman who – for instance – defecated in the back office merely because it had to be a ‘business decision’ to sack him.”
I would think that defecating in any office would be bad for business. Point taken, though. Again, I’m working on the belief that the BBC management are beyond moralising, perhaps you have more faith in them.
“What a car crash of a sentence. If Not Another Teaching Blog is written by a teacher, I’m glad he’s not teaching my kids. ”
Rather harsh. I mistyped “would” instead of “could” before my first cup of tea of the day and we could debate the position of the adverb but if you see this as a car crash, then some of the things I see everyday you’d probably consider a pogrom.
Again, thanks for the feedback, it’s appreciated.
Much as I loathe the BBC it is impossible for any organisation to tolerate physical violence amongst the staff. I never did. That is the only thing in the BBC’s favour.
Clarkson and the BBC was always doomed. The BBC has been captured by a certain self perpetuating oligarchy and Clarkson just is not like that and never was. He will find a good new career and the BBC will continue on it’s merry way to fewer viewers and eventual irrelevance.
I make no bones about it. I want the BBC gone. Sold off whatever and the tax money returned to the pockets of the nation.
Dave S –
I agree. I like Clarkson and dislike the BBC, but if you punch a colleague in the face you should be sacked immediately. End of.
You spoilt that comment with the patronizing phrase, “end of”.
Really, Jeffy? And does your ‘company’ also sack people who refuse to do their jobs as well or do you just ignore idleness like the BBC?
The alleged ‘victim’ was an associate producer, the guy who is supposed to arrange the logistics on a shoot. If they need a panda, a Sherman tank and a guitar, it’s his job to arrange it. By his own account the crew was booked into a luxury hotel where the staff are paid to go the extra mile but he couldn’t be bothered to tell them they’d need a late dinner. And the BBC is OK with this?
An associate produce who can’t even stop the crew going hungry is like a footballer who can’t kick the ball, it’s a basic defect but the BBC is apparently fine with a non-producing producer. No problem whatsoever, just keep screwing around and the BBC will keep paying you. If the BBC wants to play the ‘business’ card, they need to explain why this arrogant tosser still has a job.
So it’s ok to hit a colleague?
Well its OK to bite one
http://order-order.com/2015/03/25/bbc-editor-who-bit-colleague-was-made-director-general/
That would appear to be the case.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/the-day-i-was-bitten-by-bbc-boss-7086208.html
Yes.
Your points might all be good support for why Clarkson had a right to be annoyed. They are not good support for his right to assault his subordinates. Now, we don’t know the full details of the incident, but if the fight was as one sided as all the coverage seems to imply then Clarkson has broken the law and should think himself lucky he has only lost his job and not found himself in front of the magistrate as well.
Fine, but the BBC should be consistent.
‘Gross misconduct’ covers a whole host of serious misdemeanours not just physical violence. So to my mind what Ross and Brand got up to with their filthy phone call was a sackable offence – and where are they now? Similarly anyone who helped cover up the Savile abuse.
Let’s not forget a) the BBC’s commitment to its ’28gate mates’ and b) the bile spewed about him by BBC ‘comedians’. Both lots hate Clarkson with a vengeance.
The whole thing stinks.
We don’t know the full facts or context of the ‘fracas’ and it’s hard to judge. I’m sure that Clarkson will voice his account soon and it will for sure involve criticism of the BBC throughout his period with Top Gear.
I can’t imagine a gagging order being successful!
I await with interest. Perhaps the Head of Radio 4 will now have a drop in her £200k pa salary to make up for the shortfall in Top Gear loss of earnings?? And along with many other BBC flour graders in their financial cocoons.
Chris Evans is tipped as a replacement. Good luck is all I can say!
..
BREAKING: Clarkson’s contract will not be renewed.
‘The victim took himself off to A&E… No blame on him… He will continue to….’
A Guy From Change.org Has Said That The Beeb Will BE SCRAP’D For Sacking Mr. Clarkson.
“The solution then is simple:”
Funny I’m kinda having this debate over at order-order and no its not.
Millions already don’t pay and it makes no difference to BBC they simple make up the shortfall by upping the license fee.
Worse they will use it as an excuse to pursue their stated aim of getting their snouts into the general taxation trough
Public pressure must be brought to force the BBC onto subscription
That is the only way to make them answerable
Greg it’s a good reason to abstain the TV license fee but I am sure its not that easy in practice to make that choice. Every new TV sold in the UK and every house move is monitored automatically for TV License evasion and produces an ‘automatic’ TV demand for occupant. On top of that the wording is such that it includes Radio, TV and (in part) Channel 4. Even if we watch, listen to none of these we have ‘Napoleons law’ where we are all presumed guilty and cannot expect any state legal aid even if we plead poverty. No Lawyer would take on the BBC (as the BBC pay ‘top lawyers’ ample fees to win the smallest cases that threaten the BBC dominance). We would need a ‘class action’ (USA style) and a complete town or village to commit to a down payment to ‘ban’ the BBC outright in town or village (which may in the complication of things, be termed illegal). Individually the BBC can pick us off and declare all our views are not in accordance with their directives (thinking Charter) but that is a misnomer as the BBC is commited to run along ‘Common Purpose’ lines as insidious as the Freemasons are in the Police. The TV license covers the fact that Saudi money sponsors pro Islam propaganda in the BBC as well as the EU multicultural policy in large amounts. It suits both the globalisation companies and left wing aspirations of ‘globa” power grabs. So the TV license is already redundant and we need more mainstream political clout as well as determination by individual MP’s to effectively privatise the BBC or make it entirely subscription – which Labour should have considerd on the previous BBC Charter ten years ago, they chose not to do so as it would reduce their power base and chances of re-election. Cameron made the same mistake in thinking he could change the BBC bias. But I am with you on intent if there was a PLEDGE to abort the BBC as a ‘class action’ then I would sign up today.
“Every new TV sold in the UK and every house move is monitored automatically for TV License evasion and produces an ‘automatic’ TV demand for occupant. ”
The reference to TV sales is no longer the case – the requirement for sales of TV receiving equipment to be reported to BBC/TV Licensing no longer applies (Since June 2013).
Nonetheless, the TV Licensing “enforcement” process is a disgraceful abuse of process. Check out this website and please join us:
http://www.tvlicenceresistance.info/forum/index.php
+1000
Can pay. Won’t pay.
What a load of wimps we have become, if we can not tolerate the occasional split lip, or black eye. All this no aggression rubbish is just left wing twaddle. It is all right to scare the life out of kids of Farage, but split the lip of a trendy lefty BBC bod, and you are out.
The problem is, if I watch no bbc ,I still have to pay for a licence or TV Tax…
I shop at Sainsbury’s but I fell it my duty to give the CO-OP £145.50. P.A. It’s the right thing.
Also considering sending British Leyland a similar amount even though I don’t even drive a car.
The bbc will agree with my logic I am sure.
Hopefully those million who signed that petition, will cancel their subscription. That would be easy if it was Sky, no punishment would be due from nice Mr Murdoch. But the realisation that these million cannot punish the BBC, by cancelling the subscription, even if they never watch the BBC again, will really help us to destroy this Stalinist method of funding the BBC.
You can just stop watching TV.
Period.
For the average person, if I recall the viewing hours per week correctly, it will turn their seven day week into an eight day week. That is something many people have been wanting for years!
Yentob’s weasel words on Clarkson’s Contract Non-Renewal-type Dismissal, when Eddie Mair skewered him with some pointed questions on PM last night, ought to result in sackfuls of mail arriving at the BBC calling for Alan Yentob to resign.
so the left are gloating at the sacking of jeremy clarkson,so lets remind these leftists of there own hypocrisy amongst there ranks.no 1. john prescott the deputy prime minister under blairs goverment punched and knocked out a protestor who threw a egg at him,was prescott sacked,nope, no2, eric joyce the labour mp has been involved and arrested by the police for his involment in 3 bar brawls so far including 1 in the house of commens bar,has he been sacked,nope,he is still a serving mp,see the hypocrisy and politacal bias here by the left when it comes to jeremy clarkson.
But it’s perfectly acceptable in the eyes of the BBC to employ that odious specimen Russell Brand who phoned up Andrew Sachs and told him I fucked your granddaughter then went ahead and broadcast it on radio 2
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/the-day-i-was-bitten-by-bbc-boss-7086208.html
What a shame Clarkson didn’t bite him. Then we could have swept the whole thing under the rug and got in with our lives.
From http://order-order.com
Which is it?-
Either
1.) “Alan Yentob says Clarkson’s departure ‘sad day for BBC'”
or
2.) “Alan Yentob’s non-departure from BBC ‘sad day for licencepayers'”
The greatest problem is that Danny Cohan is also still kicking around, and that spells trouble for the viewing public, unless they subscribe their views solely to the Guardian newspaper
Major gravitas on this story tonight; Emily Maitliss interviewed Alan Yentob on Newsnight. Clarkson was asked to produce some extra shows. Maybe this stressed him. ‘Did he receive enough support from the BBC?’ she asked. What a cliché. I wonder what Clarkson said as he watched that. He wasn’t looking for some tedious leftie counselling; he just wanted some nice hot steak and chips after a hard day.
I freely admit that I have never found Clarkson’s brand of boorishness particularly appealing, but up to now I have never thought that he should be banned just because I don’t like him. But hitting a work colleague is completely inexcusable by any civilised standards.
I would ask his supporters how they would feel if they were punched in the face by their boss, which is essentially what happens when the star of the show assaults an associate director.
At school we were regularly struck by our gaolers or ‘teachers’ as they are sometimes known; often for the slightest thing but then we ‘needed controlling’. It was character building apparently. At work I have had everything from verbal to physical abuse from stressed out managers, colleagues and subordinates. Allsorts of things have been thrown at allsorts of people. I soon learned that the best way to deal with it was to give as good as you get back. Bullies will always back down if it looks like they are going to lose. Naturally, thank God, not everyone is like me and many are unable to respond in kind. That’s life, unfortunately. Violence is unacceptable but it doesn’t always require severe penalties to stop it in its tracks. I have always believed that people should educated in the errors in their ways and only dismissed if they refuse to learn.
Certainly Clarkson should have been disciplined for his behaviour but you should note he was not sacked; they simply have not renewed his contract. He is currently still a BBC employee until the end of the month I believe. This leads me to believe that the evidence is less than exceptional and that the BBC are using the ‘fraca’ as an excuse to rid themselves of another ‘right-wing nut job’.
NB The BBC are very keen on understanding and excusing criminal behaviour but only where certain groups are concerned …
Call me old-fashioned, but I can’t help being fair-minded and good.
I will admit that, like Peter Hitchens, my conservatism is more traditional than petrolhead. I am somewhat equivocal, therefore, on whether Clarkson is a truly conservative figure.
Anyway, I think the BBC probably made the right choice in firing Clarkson. You can’t go around punching co-workers. The real issue is whether they treated him differently than they would treat others, because of his opinions. I think it likely they did treat him harsher than others because they don’t like his politics, and they would treat someone like Russell Brand more leniently because they like his politics.
Surely this debate should focus on how to make the bbc less biased. That’s what this website is all about. Whether or not you like Clarkson as a person is beside the point.
The million people who signed the petition probably didn’t all like Clarkson or Top Gear but saw him as a symbolic opposition to Cohen and the rest of the guardianistas running the bbc. Those signatories could form the basis of a mass movement of disobedience which refuses to pay the licence fee. Only such a movement will change the bbc, who don’t give a fig for the criticism they receive on here, especially when there is no evidence that even the Tories will seriously take on bbc left wing bias.
It is only natural to want the Jimmy Savile mess to be used as a cudgel against the BBC but I strongly suggest that you visit the Anna Racoon site before you judge Savile by the way he is being portrayed in the media. There us a worrying amount of disinformation and slack journalism over Savile and I am slowly coming to the conclusion that he is not as guilty as made out. A creepy man? Yes. A pervert? Not so sure.
Anna Racoon has gone through a good chunk of the NHS reports and there are, so far, only allegations with little or no evidence that Savile was present at the time of the allegation, often there is no record of him ever been there at all. Even if it turns out that some of the allegations are true the site is an expose of the way the paedo-scare has been blown out of all proportions and is a very worrying example of what happens when Justice is allowed to be side-lined in order to feather the nests of greedy lawyers, dishonest journalists and ‘charity’ advocates.
As always it is wise to read around the subject before trusting the MSN, especially the BBC.
I agree, I have read what she has written, and it is eye opening to say the least.
I was listening to a bit of Princess Nikki’s show this morning. One caller was someone involved in TV production, and he was trying to explain how one of these shoots works, and the logistics involved, but because he seemed to be supporting Clarkson, Nikki kept interrupting him, and eventually cut him off. He was the only interesting caller I heard, all the others seemed to be members of the Green Party brimming with self-righteous anger. Another typical programme from Nikki.
Clarkson has been a marked man for several years, evident by the awful lot of trouble someone went to sifting through hours of outtakes and cutting-room floor footage to find the “eeeny-meeny miny-mo” clip.
Just like Paul Daniels, Pete Murray, Bob Monkhouse, David Bellamy and Carol Thatcher before him the BBC will seek to marginalise anyone who doesn’t comply to the official BBC line, politically or otherwise.
Rumours abound Chris Evans was mooted to have been approached to fill in on the programme, but instantly declined –and in no uncertain terms.
Indeed, what self-respecting presenter with a healthy career wants to go down as the man who killed Top gear?
I spent much of my early life working on building sites. I never met a ganger who could not handle at least two fighting men.
New bbc Top Gear line up.
Jo Brand,
an EU racing driver (extolling the membership of the EU)
an Ethnic Eco warrior of a certain religion.
Features include a Star in a reasonably priced electric car.
What is the best vehicle for coming to the UK, past all the border controls.
The Taliban , IS who has the best vehicles (bbc does not want to upset a certain religion)
Agree entirely with the thrust of the above blog.
The BBC is all over the place-sponsoring the right kind of effnic market like Levenshulme in Manchester, bigging up the locally-sourced Gloucester Services-and all under the guise of “The Food Programme Awards”.
Tell me this-what the hell has the BBC got to do with promoting lifestyles it likes?
Always green, always multiculti, always on trend with its staff and their partners aspirations to fleece the drabs, and parade its f***in rainbow flag in pastel shades.
Ditto with its inflitration of the digital platforms-especially in schools, in coding and in stuffing local alternatives we might want to create.
And-worst of all to me-its perennial on the hoof displays of arrogance and ignorance 24/7.
Witness the Airbus disaster-to hear a Montague or Husein parleying with pilots and engineers as if they knew the first thing about planes-and then endlessly looping the loop in speculating about any titbit that might mean a scare story, more legislation or a chance to aerate about nothing but tittle tattle, is a bloody disgrace.
Experts are there-it all seems to be going well, and we shall learn-but the likes of Monty want a ski pass, duty free perks and a chance to emote over things they care nothing for, and know even less.
As we hear every time they open their fatuous mouths-ambulance chasing, shroud sniffing carrion who crave a BAFTA for trampling over the bodies before they`ve even been found.
The BBC have got to go.
“The biased BBC protected biting Mark Thompson but chewed off Jeremy Clarkson”
http://www.anorak.co.uk/416198/news/the-biased-bbc-protected-biting-mark-thompson-but-chewed-off-jeremy-clarkson.html/?