BBC did the right thing with Jeremy Clarkson. Here’s why.

I wanted to add my tuppence worth to the controversial sacking of Jeremy Clarkson. Not much because I much like writing about this type of thing, and not that I have much authority of knowledge either. I want to try and understand the reason people (including myself at times) have reacted in such a shocking -and utterly ironic- way.

When the media (I can’t remember who) compared the sacking of Jeremy Clarkson to the Jimmy Savile case, I immediately reacted negatively. Let me say this:

The cases are completely different and there is a huge gap in their wrong doings. I am in no way comparing the two in this sense.

That established, I do want to understand how we as the public can in one instance cry and call out for people to speak out about wrong doings (I can remember speaking to multiple people about how terrible it was for the victims of Savile, and there was a public feeling of wanting to fix the problem by encouraging people to speak up). Then, in about two years, be the exact people stigmatizing (to put it lightly) someone standing up about wrongdoing.

Note: Jeremy was the first to report the incident, but Oison obviously continued it by telling the truth and standing up for his side of the story.

I read this today:

“Oisin Tymon, who was left with a bloodied lip after the 'fracas', spoke out on Wednesday about his involvement in the situation, which occurred after he failed to secure a hot meal for the 'Top Gear' star. (Huff post)

He was punched in the face, racially assaulted and left with blood running down his chin, and he had to walk himself to aid.

Try this tweet:

“Millions of people's Sunday evening viewing ruined, Oisin Tymon is a nobody and why isn't he dead yet!” (Tweet)

This is awful. But the thing is, I felt a small twinge of annoyance towards Oison when I first heard the news too. I didn’t take it anywhere near the moronic extreme’s some people have.

But why? How can we be the exact people we would have shamed in the Savile case? We are now the people shouting at the person speaking up.

I think the answer lies in emotional appeal. Aristotle came up with this model for persuasion, and I’d like to try and link it.

Aristotle said that persuasive people display all of the three elements above. Although, a recent study showed that the most persuasive people appeal to our EMOTION (pathos).

In fact, it said that you can have very little ethos and logos, and if your pathos is on point, people will like you and hear what you have to say.

I’m linking it like this: by becoming the nations ‘sweetheart’ by being his rowdy and jovial self (pathos)– Clarkson appealed to us hugely. He persuaded us over time to like him. It worked. It makes his argument massively more compelling and it means our sense of ‘fair’ logic is clouded.

Now when someone takes away that good emotion, we feel unhappy. There’s a gap in our emotion, which we want to have back… an so the uproar begins. We look for someone to take this out on. Guess who? Oison.

BUT we, together, have to realize accept that what our man Jeremy did was wrong. We’ve got to navigate our complicated human emotion and come out the other side saying something along the lines of…

I liked that guy. He was a good laugh. But what he did was wrong.

WHY IS THIS SO IMPORTANT?

Because as it says in the BBC statement:

“There cannot be one rule for one and one rule for another dictated by either rank, or public relations and commercial considerations.”

Translated into English, that means:

 If we create a culture of ‘oh it’s fine it’s just Jeremy, oh what’s he like’ what are we saying about bigger incidents. I think it’s about creating a culture of non-acceptance for acts like these.

The small ones (as this ‘fracas’ has been made out to be) are crucial because they set a tone for the big ones.

By hurling abuse at Oison all we’ve done is encourage people not to speak out about issues. Let’s change that. Pathos is a great tool but we have to understand how our emotion can cloud our judgment.

Oison made a bold move to stand up. Well-played sir. Equally, Jeremy will be missed by a lot of people, including myself, but he was wrong.

Your ambition won't make you successful.

If you’ve ever felt motivated, you’ll know the story.



THIS IS IT.

I’M ONTO A WINNER.

2015 IS MY YEAR.



I AM GOING TO WRITE 100 EMAILS RIGHT AFTER I SCROLL THROUGH FACEBOOK ONE MORE TIME. Damn it, it’s bedtime.



My doctrine for the next 3 minutes of your time: Your ambition and enthusiasm will not make you. What WILL make you, are your habits. What do you do, every single (swear word for emphasis) day?



Who cares how ambitious you are if you don’t do anything about it. Why do you think employers look for real experience and skip over your personal description of how you are a ‘highly ambitious XYZ student’?



A man’s life is a product of the activities that he most often repeats. Essentially, you become what your habits dictate. So if your habits aren’t driving value for your life’s purpose, then you’re doomed.



Sorry. But there is hope!

There’s a guy called Charles Duhigg who writes about this in his book ‘The Power of Habit’ I listened to this e-book on an app called ‘Blinkist’ (check it out if you want to get into reading) (it’s good for when you’re jogging) (really).



Duhigg says that it’s possible to train yourself to change your habits…



‘All habits compromise a cue-routine-reward loop, and the easiest way to change this is to substitute the routine for something else while keeping the cue and reward the same.’

The key to experiencing the same reward is believing in the change you make. Try swapping facebook for answering emails, and embrace the feeling of reward you get from sorting things out.

If that’s too big a change, how about starting with smaller habits. Such as making your bed, putting clothes away as you take them off, or reading 20 minutes before bed. Small changes snowball into bigger ones, just like small bad habits can cause serious harm.



Here’s the kicker: you can change your life and start chasing your ambition right now. Not wanting to get too philosophical, but we can only live in the now. The past and the future aren’t important because nothing ever occurs in them; things only happen in a continuous stream of present moments (just got too philosophical… blame Eckhart Tolle, the spiritual teacher who teaches ‘the power of now’).



For ambitious people, we need to think carefully about our actions. Is what I’m doing improving me or taking me towards my goal, and am I going to do anything about it NOW?



So we’ve come full circle. Whilst your ambition will never single-handedly make you – it might make you think about your actions, which could make you change them. Because if you can change your habits, you can change your life.



But you must do it now. Most people won’t. That’s precisely what makes high-flying people remarkable. They are able to implement change not here, not there, but now.





Be remarkable.