There may be a deeper conspiracy behind Jeremy Clarkson's suspension from the BBC than a "fracas" over a late dinner.

The story, as we know it, is that Clarkson took a swing at assistant producer Oisin Tymon over a "catering issue" - specifically, that after a long day of shooting, his dinner arrived late. But this doesn't seem remotely plausible. Consider some of the other things the producers have put him through over the years. When they told him he had to ride a motorcycle 1,000 miles from Saigon to Ha Long City, Vietnam, he simply said, "I can't do that." No punches. No heavily censored string of cuss words. Not even an insulting remark. All he said was that he can't do it. And then he proceeded to do it anyway - on a Vespa, of all bikes. Are we supposed to believe that the same man, who faced the very real risk of death and dismemberment on the streets of Vietnam with none but the most mild objection, would actually punch a producer for a late dinner? This is just one of numerous examples where the producers infuriated Clarkson, and yet, as much as he may have been understandably tempted, he failed to inflict bodily harm on any of them.

Similarly, why would the BBC suddenly kill off their cash cow? Sure, they could replace Clarkson, but without him, and, more importantly, without the Clarkson/Hammond/May chemistry, Top Gear becomes an entirely different show. Just look at the US, Australia, and all the other localized versions worldwide. Some may be good but they never measure up to the original. This isn't Doctor Who - you can't regenerate Clarkson and expect to carry on as before. Even Doctor Who fundamentally changes with a different actor at the TARDIS console.

Advertisement

To understand why this "fracas" happened, we need to look at the bigger picture, and episode 6 provides some clues. Clarkson explains how Porsche, Ferrari, and McLaren have imposed many conflicting conditions on a three-way test of the 918, LaFerrari, and P1 so as to make such a test impossible. He also assures viewers that they have not given up, and they will keep trying to make this test happen.

What if Clarkson found a way to pull this off? The right track, the right cars, and the right owner who doesn't care if Ferrari never offers him an exclusive insiders-only model again. Consider that in a race of three cars, there is one winner and two losers. That means that each car has a 2/3 chance of coming up short, being embarrassed on worldwide television, and losing sales, both in real life and in Gran Turismo fantasies. The three manufacturers may have teamed up to prevent this test from happening.

Advertisement

Also featured in this episode is Gillian Anderson as the Star in a Reasonably Priced Car. Perhaps choosing her, in particular, to appear in this specific episode was Clarkson's way of trying to tell viewers that an X-Files type of conspiracy was happening, and that "the truth is out there."

Perhaps Oisin Tymon was not simply unable to provide Clarkson with a warm meal. Perhaps he was convinced to make Clarkson's life more difficult through a sophisticated process known as "bribery." Tymon was responsible for making Clarkson's life difficult in many ways, at the persuasion of Porsche, Ferrari, and McLaren. Maybe this was the latest in a long line of humiliations, designed to provoke Clarkson into snapping like he did. Or maybe Clarkson's swing was in self defense from a far more violent attack. If this is the case, why has Clarkson remained silent about it? Well, to be perfectly honest, at this point, who would believe him?

Advertisement

Hopefully the BBC's investigation will reveal the truth behind the "fracas," clear Jeremy Clarkson of any wrongdoing, and expose the conspiracy of Porsche, Ferrari, and McLaren to prevent their cars from being tested together and depriving them of sales and bragging rights.

In other news, the moon landings were faked, George H. W. Bush personally assassinated JFK from the grassy knoll, and 9/11 was an inside job. In other words, this piece is 100% bullshit satire, and does not in any way claim to be true.