Is it April already?
A government body? Common sense prevailing? Surely it's April 1st?
Ofcom has ruled that Top Gear presenter Jeremy Clarkson was not in breach of the broadcasting code for a quip he made on the show alluding to lorry drivers murdering prostitutes. Clarkson, 48, was "taking part in a lorry-driving task" during the 2 November pre-watershed show when he said: "Change gear, change gear, check …
Is it possible?
Has sanity, balance, and common sense returned to the world of broadcasting?
Nope, I see that JR hasn't yet been reinstated (no, not the one from the crap yank soap, the funny one who ranks *cough* highly)
(I know the title doesn't contain only question marks, but is should, however, owing to an apparent bug in el Reg's comment system, the string "???" was not apparently recognised as a title)
I'm no lawyer but surely Clarkson can only have been found not guilty because lorry drivers DO kill prostitutes?
They pick them up in lay-bys and service stations and murder them - is this the message the BBC are sending out?!
Well if you live in London then just think the next time you pick a loaf of bread off a supermarket shelf that it was probably delivered in a lorry from the north. And while YOUR loaf was sitting there in the back of a cold lorry parked up around the back of the Watford Gap, a prostitite might have been getting herself murdered by the lorry driver in the front! I hope that bread tastes nice for you because it sure cost a lot more than £1.10.
Sorry, but if that is true I'll stop watching.
FFS, that's what makes the man so funny. It's programs like Have I Got News and Top Gear that still abhor the Politically Correct wave that has infested all other BBC programming, and their continued popularity demonstrates that there is still an intelligent audience left.
I suggest the program should be preceded with a warning:
Warning this program is broadcast after the watershed. If your nature cannot handle anything more than child level or you lack an operable sense of humour, your opportunity to change channel is now.
I must add this is different from the Brand/Ross row. There is a difference between joking and being quite simply grossly offensive. There is still such a thing as decency.
I heard on the Beeb that apparently the Road Hauliers' Association and Eddie Stobart have also been dismissive of the complaints against Jezza. This is on a completely different scale and context to "Manuelgate", but just goes to prove you can't please all the people all the time - and some of those who aren't pleased will inevitably file a complaint...
Still can't see the IT angle though...
There's hope yet in the world.
Any way I thought there where only two reasons to watch Top Gear
1) To be offended by Clarkson
2) Watch the producers try and kill Richard Hammond.
I believe there is an other presenter but for some reason my mind drops into a stupor when he appears and I can't remember his name.
It was derogatory about TRUCKERS, not women. It didn't intimate in any possible form that truckers are allowed to murder women. So I never understood why it was "it's an insult to women" and "Hurtful to those who lost loved ones". If it had been a bunch of truckers or a trucker union complaining that their members were being maligned, I could understand.
Icon for obvious reasons.
Charlie Brookers Screenwipe had a great bit about this.
He said that the moronic public had become so accustomed to controlling TV shows with phone votes, thanks to pretty much every show having phone polls now, that they feel that all TV is under their control.
And after the Ross/Brand fiasco the phone gimps just couldn't wait to exercise some more power over the gogglebox and try and influence a show.
Charlie then said that we should have a counter-vote system. Everyone who phones up and says "i wasn't offended" cancels out a moan from the mouth-breathers.
...Clarkson is different to Russel Brand.
Clarkson has the image and humour to tell a joke that is mildly offensive, but obviously a joke.
Brand on the other hand is just a talentless git who couldn't tell a joke to save his career.
Mines the one with the Clarkson DVDs and books in the pocket.
Compared to what your average car driver has to say about Lorry drivers- Clarkson was being very kind.
I think Lorrys should be banned from overtaking each other - clogging up the overtaking lane for 5 minutes in the process - only to travel exactly the same speed before overtaking.
Lorry drivers should be banned from UK trains - let's move goods with trains and small vans - and let's not give Lorry drivers an excuse for existing.
Ban Lorrys from overtaking.
Double the fuel tax on HGV.
Use Airships to deliver goods instead and let the car driver have carte blanch on the road.
I went to check a number that always bothered me yesterday and this is as good a car related article to rant at as any.
Remember the claim that there is an 80% survival chance for a collision between pedestrian and car at 30mph, but only 10% survival at 40mph?
(Source Ashton and Mackay 1979)
It comes from a study from 1979, there's something flawed going on here revealed by this FOI request:
Notice the graph on page 3, notice that the MAJORITY OF ACCIDENTS HAPPEN AT LOW SPEEDS.
PR = Probability of accident being fatal
NF = Number of fatal accidents at a given speed
NT = Total number of accidents at a given speed
PR = NF/NT
You are given the impression that as speed goes up, NF, the number of fatal accidents increases dramatically, but that is not true, as speed goes up NT, the *total* number of accidents DECREASES dramatically. The real data shows NF hardly changes, it's the total number of accidents that changes.
AS A RATIO the probability of an accident being fatal increases, but actually the probability of accidents decreases as speeds increase.
Obviously the faster roads are in places with fewer pedestrians and so have fewer accidents making the deaths as a ratio of speed increase dramatically. It is not that forcing drivers to slow down to 30mph reduces deaths from 80% to 10%, it does not. It increases the number of non fatal accidents because there are more pedestrians in slower speed limit zones!
The info shows the way to reduce traffic accidents is to keep cars and people separated, e.g. railing at crossings, cul-de-sacs, designated crossing, cycleways separate from roads, etc. but this government want the lower speed limit as the fix, so they misrepresent the numbers and instead we have speed cams (make you look out for the cameras and at your speedo, rather than the road) and speed humps (a jolt to distract you from pedestrians) and traffic calming (my pet hate, you CANNOT see the road ahead because it swerves left and right with parked cars alternately left and right to block the view ahead, and children can't see the oncoming cars for the same reason = lots more blind corners created by these zig-zag layouts).
The end result of this bullshit? A slight increase in road deaths the last two years.
I got Bumped into!... as apposed to Bumped OFF! by Steve Write.
(he was driving that purple mondeo at the time)
]:) he needed a new front bumper after ramming me on a pedestrian crossing. TOWBAR 4 The Win! :)
hehehe i even got his address details in Ipswich :)
as soon as he'd sorted out the paperwork and the excuses that his misses would KILL! him
(if she found out he was back in Norwich),
he was off trawling the local kerb krawling hotspots for girls....
Funny, i didn't see that girl on the streets again, that he was chatting to ;p
looks like it was a close shave for me ;)
339 people complained. 5,999,661 didn't (based on 6m viewing figures).
If such a small minority could cause havoc by complaining when the vast majority were in favour then it would have said something about the future of mankind. With this decision, there is at least some hope.
When JC becomes PM, at least.
So let me get this straight. Slower speeds equal more accidents, higher speeds equal less.
A 70mph speed limit outside my son's nursery would therefore be a better thing than the traffic calming measures that are there now. Then all the idiot drivers can have their extra 5 minutes in bed on a morning, safe in the knowledge that the faster they go the less likely they are to kill anyone. Excellent, problem solved.
"It is not that forcing drivers to slow down to 30mph reduces deaths from 80% to 10%, it does not. It increases the number of non fatal accidents because there are more pedestrians in slower speed limit zones!"
Maybe it increases the number of non fatal accidents because less pedestrians are killed.
As for keeping cars and people separated, I've always thought a better solution is to keep idiots separated from their cars.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019