Trigger warning:

This site may, in fact always will contain images and information likely to cause consternation, conniptions, distress, along with moderate to severe bedwetting among statists, wimps, wusses, politicians, lefties, green fascists, and creatures of the state who can't bear the thought of anything that disagrees with their jaded view of the world.

Dec 17, 2010

Jeremy Clarkson’s farming venture.

H/t: IPA, Hey, what did I miss.

The later generations of the British have truly become adept at the European model of society to the point where they appear to be the most eager elements of that sorry region to accept the principle of; “Just relax and accept that the state knows what’s best for you."

The following could have been written for Englishmen, by Englishmen:

There's nobody who can better plan, monitor, supervise and assess your personal happiness than a well-meaning government official, sensitive to your and your loved ones' needs and fantasies. Happiness in general is a selfish, individualistic notion. Instead, we encourage everyone to cultivate the feeling of guilt. Guilt is a healthy sentiment that gives you the brazen strength of a martyr as you sacrifice your own happiness to the common good. – “The Politbureau” (CFK)
Occasionally though there is the odd one who has cracked the mold, although most of them have emigrated. Some of these have remained there for some reason and seem to have a special talent of seeing and ridiculing the flaws of the natural leaders of the command state who by their very nature condemn that institution to inertia. Jeremy Clarkson is one of these.

Here is an excerpt of his reflections on farm ownership:
Last week I bought a farm. Though financially speaking, it’s entirely possible I’ve bought the farm. But let’s look on the bright side. I can’t possibly make as much of a hash with the investment as the bankers made when they had the money.

Or can I? You might imagine it’s very easy to buy a farm. Unlike a house, you don’t need a surveyor to check on dry rot because a field cannot fall over, and rising damp is a good thing because it means free water. It turns out, however, that it’s actually very difficult, mostly because of the Georgians. Let me give you one example so you can see the scale of the problem.

There are a number of springs on the farm I’ve bought, one of which provides water to several properties in a nearby village. This arrangement was made when the land belonged to a fat man who had tea interests in India, and sealed in a document written with a quill, on bark.

Fine. But what if the water supply dries up, or the pipe breaks, or everyone in the village gets lead poisoning and grows two heads? Common sense dictates this would not be my problem, but under new Labour’s legal guidelines, all landowners are in the wrong at all times. Especially when a little old lady with two heads is in court, sobbing and waving around a piece of bark from 1742. …

I thought some sheep would be nice but it turns out Gordon Brown has an opinion on this. He reckons the number of animals I have per acre should be determined by how much nitrogen is in their excrement. I am consequently allowed only 0.6 of a sheep per acre, which means I may have only 75 of the damn things. …

One of the things I have accidentally bought is a Neolithic fort. It is, of course, no such thing. It is a slight ripple in an otherwise flat field, useful only as an exciting launch pad for the children’s quad bikes. But I feel fairly sure that if we use it for this purpose, Brown will make me apologise, in public, to Piltdown man.

Certainly I know he is using satellites to make sure that I plant the right crop in the right field. Also, he is employing men called Colin to come round regularly to make sure I don’t have too many sheep. Can you believe that? That your tax money is being spent to pay a man whose job is to count sheep. How the hell does he stay awake? …

What I want to do most of all is plant some game crop so that I can rear a few pheasants. But guess what? It turns out that Brown has an opinion on this as well, and it’s not allowed. He has an opinion on everything, it seems. There’s one field I thought would look nice if I grew some poppies and cornflowers. But that’s not allowed either.

Strangely, however, he will give me cash money if I promise to make a trout lake, and even more cash money if I don’t grow anything that could be turned into food. Quite how he squares this in his head when half the world is starving, I have no idea. And nor do I understand why the forms I have to fill in to get this cash money are longer and more complicated than the instruction manual for a nuclear power station.

I thought that farming would be easy. You plant seeds, weather happens and food grows. But I fear that as the seasons slide by, I will discover that I’m working my nuts off for less return than I got from those useless bastards at AIG. …
The whole article is here. There is much more to “Top Gear,” than fast cars, smooth chicks, and raw power.


  1. If you enjoyed that one I'd recommend reading this one too, in which Clarkson talks about some land he'd bought on the Isle of Man which turns out to be home to some very rare insects.

  2. Thanks for that Angry, I enjoyed it. He is an inimitable character.

    I have only been watching "Top Gear" for a couple of years as in the past I have generally found the motoring shows rather boring. These guys have certainly changed that. Now I wouldn't miss it.

  3. To be honest it's taken 9 a while to stop buggering up the best bits with carelessly placed ad breaks and I still think it's not being shown at it's best here, but such is life with commercial TV channels rather than Auntie Beeb extracting money for a TV licence from every household under threat of courts and fines. On the other hand when we still lived there Top Gear was one of those programs that made it seem almost worthwhile. The odd thing here though is hearing miles per hour and pounds all the time, occasionally on a car that isn't sold in Australia at all.

  4. Licence fees certainly brings back old memories. Probably the abolition of licence fees was the only intelligent move the Whitlam government ever made, although it really made little difference, we still paid for the ABC through taxes what we paid before for owning a radio or TV.

    Still, it got rid of those bastards who were employed to drive around looking for illicit radio or TV antenna. Well it probably meant they were given something more productive to do. Yes, I accept there is little that is productive in government employment.

    Oh, never mind.

  5. Yes, I'm not sure all the anti-licence fee folks in the UK appreciate that they do still have an option not to pay for the BBC if they decide to ditch the magic fish tank altogether, whereas someone here who doesn't own a TV will still contribute to the ABC. Despite the BBC being a very successful commercial organisation and well known brand I suspect the ABC model will be what they'll ask for if they're ever told the licence fee game is up.

  6. Neither has any particular virtue over the other, although as I said the inspectorate and all its snoops go out of business under our model.