Imagine that I had punched my colleague. Imagine if I were to punch my boss. It would be perfectly reasonable to expect that I would be suspended from my job. Now imagine, if you will, a petition delivered by tank, signed by over one million people, being delivered to my employers demanding my immediate reinstatement. If you think that seems a little bizarre, I agree with you.

I do appreciate that Jeremy Clarkson's profile is significantly higher than that of the hypothetical me in this situation. Undeniably his work presenting Top Gear has created a genuine connection with the millions who watch the show. A fundamental point about the above comparison still stands, however, and this is something which the online petition to overturn his suspension seems largely to have overlooked. Jeremy Clarkson was suspended, and eventually sacked, not on the grounds of his controversial opinions, which some, especially those censorious lefty BBC bigwigs, may have found questionable, but rather because he was found to have assaulted a co-worker.

Ah yes, I hear you say it: ultimately, this is showbusiness, the way it's always been. The entertainment world is naturally and even necessarily a hotbed of 'characters', tensions and warring opinions far more turbulent than any you might find in your average desk job. I would agree – the high-profile nature of a programme like Top Gear might make this sort of behaviour more likely. On the other hand, while I must admit to having no background in law, I'm fairly certain that those who work in the entertainment business are subject to the same employment law as everybody else. It is rare that an explanation will also automatically serve as a justification.

This central event, the alleged punch, was strangely absent from the petition, save for a few conspiracy theories involving those shady, cardigan-wearing BBC executives. Plenty of arguments in favour of signing the 'BBC reinstate Jeremy Clarkson' petition on change.org, set up by the notorious political blogger Guido Fawkes, have already been given – many of which are variants on that offered by a certain Mr Prince from London, who says he signed "because the far bigger evil is censorship via political correctness which the BBC have been indulging in for far too long". Another demands that the BBC "let people speak their mind and exercise their right to offend". The censorious demon of 'political correctness' has long been a rallying cry for the right, but now the Clarkson scandal plays into a much fiercer mainstream debate on free speech, sparked by numerous think-pieces on no-platforming and safe spaces in university communities.

But Clarkson was not suspended for muttering the n-word, nor for referring to an Asian man just out of earshot as a 'slope'. He was not suspended for claiming that London cabs driven by foreigners smell of sick, nor for stating that public sector workers on strike should be "shot in front of their families". If the BBC is 'obsessed' with political correctness, it seems their censorship department is slacking somewhat. I'd say feeding them a good hot meal, perhaps a steak, would do wonders for productivity but I understand that it's a bit of a sensitive issue at the moment.

Of course, I don't want to write off the very real possibility that there are other factors which have led to Clarkson's suspension. Perhaps the BBC were only worried about what would happen when they'd run out of South American ambassadors to apologise to. I personally find it highly depressing that a campaign to reinstate a hugely wealthy, powerful man (who, regardless of his current situation, retains many spheres of influence and channels of communication to a wide audience through, for example, his column in the Sun) gained over a million supporters in under a fortnight while the petition to pay cleaners in John Lewis stores the living wage, set up over a year ago, has just over 100,000 signatures. The petition to end the forced detention of female asylum seekers in Yarl's Wood has fewer.

Yes, it might be unfair of me, especially in the privileged position my education affords me, to pontificate about what I think people should care about. It seems that many who signed the Clarkson petition are motivated by a very real sense of anger, a sense that the BBC, a corporation they are forced to fund if they wish to watch TV, has an agenda that reflects neither their politics nor their predilections for light entertainment. In a way, you could argue that petitioning culture is being used here in a very valid way: people attempting to get their voices heard by an unrepresentative organisation. However, the bottom line is that regardless of whether or not you think that Clarkson is entertaining (I don't), that his controversial humour is harmless (I don't) or that the BBC has a personal axe to grind (potentially, but I could probably sympathise), the man still assaulted his colleague. And that is something which clearly deserves dismissal.