Petitions and political correctness (Jeremy Clarkson)

Tell the BBC not to renew violent racist Jeremy Clarkson's contract.

Tell the BBC not to renew violent racist Jeremy Clarkson’s contract.

UPDATE #3: After being contacted by The Argus on 24th March, Facebook revised the reports of the post harassing me, and removed it in its entirety… Bittersweet.

UPDATE #2: Clarkson has reportedly threatened legal action for Jimmy Savile comparisons. “The presenter is said to be seeking a retraction of remarks from the “BBC source” which claim that politicians were ignoring Clarkson’s bad behaviour in the same way that people once did with Savile.”

It’s about the cover-up & mishandling of Savile’s vile criminal behaviour and absolutely boot all to do with Clarkson himself.


UPDATE #1: I’ve even been honoured with a post dedicated to me. It appears that “Jeremy Clarkson’s Army” is a hair-obsessed clan, and one that thinks laughter can cure cancer, among other things.

Feel free to laugh along with me here.

One of the great dividers of opinion, Jeremy Clarkson of Top Gear fame, was recently suspended for allegedly punching a producer. This suspension, which is in accordance with employment law, has caused somewhat of an outcry among the UK’s population, with a petition being launched demanding his reinstation.

In response to the petition, which as of this moment has gathered one million signatures, I set up my own, asking for him to be dismissed. I cannot fathom how the petition calling for his reinstatement has gained more traction than petitions such as those calling for the prevention of cuts to life-saving cancer drugs, which you can read all about here. I urge you to read that post.

This is not the first time Clarkson has been found to be violent – whatever your feelings towards Piers Morgan, Clarkson punched him, causing a scar. He has also been alleged (for the most part) to have made pejorative racist, homophobic, anti-workers’ rights and sexist remarks at various intervals. I do believe in freedom of speech but I do not agree that it should include hate speech. There are ways to disagree without marginalisation, bullying or incitement of hatred.

To those who started the petition and those signing – you are completely entitled to do so, and hold your opinions. I am exercising that same right. The UK government is trying to prevent a multitude of human rights granted by EU law, including our right to protest. The democracy we live in is a sham…but that’s for another blog.

Since discovering just how corrupt the BBC is, since the Jimmy Savile et al scandal, and the fact the coroporation has shown complete and utter political bias in recent months, I have found myself despairing (even more than usual) at the state of our corrupt media. Furthermore, it really does seem that entertainment is king, above all else.

My petition has thus far gathered 50,000 signatures. This may seem paltry by comparison, but it provides a little hope to me, that all is not lost. It’s not a numbers game. Thank you to everyone who has signed and shared it; your support is gratefully received. If you would like to sign, please do so here.

I will now share the tweets, email responses and private Facebook messages I have received from people who disagree with my stance. Obviously I have views on them, but they don’t require commentary – they speak for themselves. I have included all responses, not just those that are inflammatory or harassing, although there are only a handful that aren’t. Speaks volumes, doesn’t it? I have included names, real or otherwise – my identity is not secret, and I do not feel duty-bound to protect theirs. No doubt this post will open the floodgate for more abuse, but while that will not be tolerated, I welcome all opinions on this subject.


An Open Letter to Peter Tatchell

Dear Peter

Initially this letter came from a place of heightened disbelief and anger, but after some time and deliberation, and subsequent to reading the full article you wrote for the Daily Mail, it comes from a less fraught perspective.

You will no doubt be unsurprised to read that I am writing to you in response to your recent comments about Whitney Houston (RIP). When I first read your tribute, I was utterly incensed. Not because I was shocked by the knowledge Whitney Houston had previously enjoyed a relationship with a woman, but that you felt it necessary to mention it. As a person of sexual diversity, this news (although not wholly new to me) had little to no impact on my thoughts of Whitney.

Taken from, this is the comment I refer to: “Whitney Houston RIP. She was happiest and at her peak in the 1980s, when she was with her female partner. They were so loved up and joyful together.” He added: “It’s important to tell the truth about this aspect of her life. Colluding with the cover-up of her same-sex relationship is not right.”

Interestingly, I could no longer locate the original comment – I wonder if you have since removed it? If so, I’m eager to learn your reasoning.

I am one of many people who have challenged you on Twitter about this, and my tweet was “Whose truth? Just because you knew her once doesn’t mean you KNEW her. Even if it is true it doesn’t make it yours to tell.” This was in response to your insistence that all you have done is tell the truth. Admittedly, I hadn’t read the full article at the time of tweeting, but I still believe you should have omitted these comments.

You state that earlier sources had also ‘outed’ her, but I do not think this gives anyone free reign to continue – there’s a whole world out there, and masses of people who previously had not known this ‘truth’. You surely realise this? Moreover, the key point in all of this is that Whitney herself never made this information public. Do you really think it fair or just, to release such information mere days after her sad passing? You could have equally paid tribute without such comments, and without assigning blame for Whitney’s demise to homophobia and her own unhappiness about ‘concealing her sexuality’ – which you yourself say she hasn’t fully done, in dedicating albums to her former partner.

My opinion on your reason for making these comments is this – you wanted to highlight your own cause, which is indeed extremely worthy. You released the bite-size comment knowing full well the backlash you would receive, and subsequent dialogue regarding sexuality and homophobia. This is a shrewd move, but nonetheless, I find it callous. It may, of course, be that you hadn’t expected any such response, but as you are such an educated and intelligent person, I struggle to believe this is in any way down to naivety.

Can you honestly say you know completely that Whitney’s ‘destructive behaviour’ was down to ‘hiding her sexuality’ (again, you say she in part, didn’t)? Furthermore, do you think it appropriate to highlight her alleged sexuality so close to her untimely death? This, Peter, is what I have issue with, still. Regardless of truth, judgement or otherwise, there is no justification for releasing information of such a personal nature when it is not already common knowledge and without the express permission of the named person. I find it self-serving, insensitive and irrelevant, and to be frank, I believe that you of all people should know better. Of course there is nothing wrong with the fact itself, but its delivery is another matter. In fact, I believe it could be negative to your cause to have said these things.

I ask you this – would you ‘out’ someone who is still alive, simply because it’s true?

Yours faithfully

Nicole Healing (Miss)

Readers, you can read the article here and decide for yourself: