Sunday, May 15, 2011

Open letter to Jeremy Clarkson


Dear Mr Clarkson

I read your robust defence of celebrity injunctions in today's Sunday Times with interest. It appears you were upset that for two days your name was being tarnished by false allegations of a relationship with Jemima Khan.

Could you explain why you did not deny you had any injunctions or were party to any injunctions during this time? Was it because the publicity was good for you and enhances your earning potential? Or was it because you already have an injunction out as reported on the internet? Perhaps it is because you wanted to wait so you could write your paid column for the Sunday Times?

It seems you want your cake and to eat it. Your rise to fame came off the back of being a presenter on BBC's Top Gear. BBC employees are civil servants as the BBC is a public broadcaster funded by the tax and licence payers. You have a duty of care in your work. If you do not like being a civil servant then why not work elsewhere? If you had been a Sky employee then I think you would have a stronger case for keeping private injunctions in place.

We have no idea if you have injunctions out. In times pre Human Rights Act, anyone who blackmailed you would call the police and take them to court. This is what happens in other countries where there is no censorship.

Our gripe is not with you, but the fact you have the ability to censor the media. The media pays your way and yet you want it to play by your rules.

Censorship is wrong. As Volataire said "I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write."

Yours

@superinjunct

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.