Top Gear could be heading for more trouble after communications watchdog Ofcom confirmed it was investigating a complaint over the use of the word "pikey".
A representative of the Traveller Movement complained after a scene in which the show's now ex-host Jeremy Clarkson was seen holding a placard with the words 'Pikey's Peak' while Richard Hammond drove a car up a mountain.
It comes after a similar complaint was lodged with the BBC but eventually not upheld.
Oh wait why Am I not surprised you jumped in with this drivel.
It will be Top Gear that will take the hit if OFCOM rules in favour of the Travellers.
Which may or may not influence the direction of thinking relating to the future of the programme. It's drivel to you but the travellers and OFCOM's decision don't appear to agree with you.
Why ? It will come out of your pocket via the licensing fee and as for "Travellers" don't get me started !
Why? To show that this isn't just all about Clarkson and show that he is just the scapegoat for many things the BBC should have taken responsibility for.
All this "Oh what could we do" and "poor us" from the BBC was just an OTT knee-jerk reaction after Savile to make themselves out to be the total innocent party.
So the programme made some things they shouldn't have? Well that was the BBC's responsibility not to broadcast them. But so far the BBC have tried to absolve themselves of all responsibility to save their own necks and cost them a show.
I have no support for the law breaking hypocrite Travellers but if it exposes and forces the BBC to admit that they failed in their responsibility as a broadcaster, it shows that it wasn't all down to just one person.
And as the BROADCASTER the BBC are FULLY and TOTALLY and UTTERLY responsible for the compliance of what they broadcast.
Just a small point the Executive Producer would have signed off the programme on behalf the BBC....and that person you claim who is "FULLY and TOTALLY and UTTERLY responsible..." is none other than Andy Wilman, close friend and business buddy of Jeremy Clarkson.
Just a small point the Executive Producer would have signed off the programme on behalf the BBC....and that person you claim who is "FULLY and TOTALLY and UTTERLY responsible..." is none other than Andy Wilman, close friend and business buddy of Jeremy Clarkson.
But he hasn't been sacked or not had his contract renewed or anything.
Plus, if things were going wrong (and let's face it, there have been a number of 'events' that the terminally stupid have complained about, over the years) then there are producers and directors and heads of stupidity all above Wilman.
So if someone higher that Wilman thinks that something is going wrong or that Wilman is incapable of doing his job to the BBC standard, then it is/was their job to step in.
This is the excuse and buck passing that will hopefully get address and FINALY the heads of the BBC called into question when it is found that they are indeed responsible and have just used Clarkson as a scapegoat hoping that their involvement or inaction is covered up.
This is the excuse and buck passing that will hopefully get address and FINALY the heads of the BBC called into question when it is found that they are indeed responsible and have just used Clarkson as a scapegoat hoping that their involvement or inaction is covered up.
I'd say 'don't hold your breath', but y'know, if you feel like it...
It will be Top Gear that will take the hit if OFCOM rules in favour of the Travellers.
Which may or may not influence the direction of thinking relating to the future of the programme. It's drivel to you but the travellers and OFCOM's decision don't appear to agree with you.
Farage is Clarkson,Clegg is Hammond and Milliband is May......
I'd have thought May would Clegg in that too soft to stand up to the bullying of the others and Hammond is Miliband on the basis he's the odd looking one you go "awww, bless" when he cocks things up (which he often does)?
There's defo a potential Newzoids sketch in that though, lets hope one of their team has the same thought also!
If Dermot O'Leary wants to 'crack' America, and has left the X-Factor, and the BBC are hoping to maintain Top Gear's success in America... Is it possible he'll become the new main host of the show?
If Dermot O'Leary wants to 'crack' America, and has left the X-Factor, and the BBC are hoping to maintain Top Gear's success in America... Is it possible he'll become the new main host of the show?
How is hiring someone who is virtually unknown in America going to maintain Top Gear's success in America? There's plenty for O'Leary to like in that deal but almost no benefit to the BBC.
We still haven't got apparently got past the point that just hiring the flavour of the month and sticking them in a Lamborghini is not going to continue Top Gear's success. O'Leary may be a name in the UK but.. let me put it this way, how many people do you think watch BOTH Top Gear and X-Factor?
How is hiring someone who is virtually unknown in America going to maintain Top Gear's success in America?
Because there's no presenter the BBC can realistically hire who will be an instant attraction to the US audience.
This means that, whatever happens, the show will have to 'start again' both here and in the US. Just like Doctor Who actors, and they seem to manage it.
If Dermot O'Leary really wants to break America (again) and the BBC see him as a safe pair of hands after Clarkson (can you imagine him ever saying a controversial word?), believing him to stand a chance in America, they both have a good reason to work together on this. I'm certain the 'new' Top Gear will be a reboot, not just a bunch of drop-in replacement presenters.
By the way, I dread the thought of him working on the show, I'm just pondering a potential outcome that has, occurred to me.
Because there's no presenter the BBC can realistically hire who will be an instant attraction to the US audience.
This means that, whatever happens, the show will have to 'start again' both here and in the US. Just like Doctor Who actors, and they seem to manage it.
Yes, because Doctor Who and Top Gear are exactly the same in all regards and what works for one will obviously work for the other. *sigh*.
If they're going for a reboot why bother hiring someone who has existing presence who they have to pay more for? Why not get someone in who is actually new they can get much cheaper? I really still don't see in what way hiring O'Leary benefits the BBC. They get someone who is an established name in the UK (expensive) who has next to no immediate appeal in Top Gear's current UK audience (No crossover with anything he's done before) and who has no international value at all. They're going to pay far more than they have to for a presenter who brings nothing extra to the table. What's the point of that?
If Dermot O'Leary really wants to break America (again)
Bluntly : Why should the BBC give a flying one for what Dermot O'Leary wants?
and the BBC see him as a safe pair of hands after Clarkson (can you imagine him ever saying a controversial word?)
No, but then I can't imagine him ever saying an interesting one either. Without going for the 'all TG viewers are like me' fallacy, it doesn't suggest he's born for the job does it?
believing him to stand a chance in America,
And this belief appears on the basis of....
they both have a good reason to work together on this.
He has lots of reasons (mostly with $ signs on them) to want it. They have no good reason to give it to him.
I'm certain the 'new' Top Gear will be a reboot, not just a bunch of drop-in replacement presenters.
Agreed, but your arguments as to why O'Leary should be involved are quite weak. If they're rebooting, go find new people with relevant skills who could create some level of credibility within the audience. Not some rentaface presenter they paid a fortune to poach from ITV that nobody who watches the show gives a toss about.
Comments
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc/11573874/Top-Gear-reunited-Clarkson-Hammond-and-May-in-top-secret-Goodwood-talks.html
Oh wait why Am I not surprised you jumped in with this drivel.
It will be Top Gear that will take the hit if OFCOM rules in favour of the Travellers.
Which may or may not influence the direction of thinking relating to the future of the programme. It's drivel to you but the travellers and OFCOM's decision don't appear to agree with you.
The Travellers not agreeing with the original verdict? Surprise surprise. Who would have imagined that eh?
And as the BROADCASTER the BBC are FULLY and TOTALLY and UTTERLY responsible for the compliance of what they broadcast.
So wonderful news that FINALLY the BBC dereliction of duty and their part in that is being fully investigated.
I do hope they get a massive fine and media interest to show that the 'innocent of everything' BBC is not what they make it out to be.
Why ? It will come out of your pocket via the licensing fee and as for "Travellers" don't get me started !
Why? To show that this isn't just all about Clarkson and show that he is just the scapegoat for many things the BBC should have taken responsibility for.
All this "Oh what could we do" and "poor us" from the BBC was just an OTT knee-jerk reaction after Savile to make themselves out to be the total innocent party.
So the programme made some things they shouldn't have? Well that was the BBC's responsibility not to broadcast them. But so far the BBC have tried to absolve themselves of all responsibility to save their own necks and cost them a show.
I have no support for the law breaking hypocrite Travellers but if it exposes and forces the BBC to admit that they failed in their responsibility as a broadcaster, it shows that it wasn't all down to just one person.
Just a small point the Executive Producer would have signed off the programme on behalf the BBC....and that person you claim who is "FULLY and TOTALLY and UTTERLY responsible..." is none other than Andy Wilman, close friend and business buddy of Jeremy Clarkson.
But he hasn't been sacked or not had his contract renewed or anything.
Plus, if things were going wrong (and let's face it, there have been a number of 'events' that the terminally stupid have complained about, over the years) then there are producers and directors and heads of stupidity all above Wilman.
So if someone higher that Wilman thinks that something is going wrong or that Wilman is incapable of doing his job to the BBC standard, then it is/was their job to step in.
This is the excuse and buck passing that will hopefully get address and FINALY the heads of the BBC called into question when it is found that they are indeed responsible and have just used Clarkson as a scapegoat hoping that their involvement or inaction is covered up.
Surely you mean pikeys!!
Like it !
Oh yes thanks for the info
The Mark X Factor, more likely Schofield's Top Gear with..
I'd have thought May would Clegg in that too soft to stand up to the bullying of the others and Hammond is Miliband on the basis he's the odd looking one you go "awww, bless" when he cocks things up (which he often does)?
There's defo a potential Newzoids sketch in that though, lets hope one of their team has the same thought also!
We still haven't got apparently got past the point that just hiring the flavour of the month and sticking them in a Lamborghini is not going to continue Top Gear's success. O'Leary may be a name in the UK but.. let me put it this way, how many people do you think watch BOTH Top Gear and X-Factor?
"And on that bombshell its time to go for a commercial break"
lol
Because there's no presenter the BBC can realistically hire who will be an instant attraction to the US audience.
This means that, whatever happens, the show will have to 'start again' both here and in the US. Just like Doctor Who actors, and they seem to manage it.
If Dermot O'Leary really wants to break America (again) and the BBC see him as a safe pair of hands after Clarkson (can you imagine him ever saying a controversial word?), believing him to stand a chance in America, they both have a good reason to work together on this. I'm certain the 'new' Top Gear will be a reboot, not just a bunch of drop-in replacement presenters.
By the way, I dread the thought of him working on the show, I'm just pondering a potential outcome that has, occurred to me.
If they're going for a reboot why bother hiring someone who has existing presence who they have to pay more for? Why not get someone in who is actually new they can get much cheaper? I really still don't see in what way hiring O'Leary benefits the BBC. They get someone who is an established name in the UK (expensive) who has next to no immediate appeal in Top Gear's current UK audience (No crossover with anything he's done before) and who has no international value at all. They're going to pay far more than they have to for a presenter who brings nothing extra to the table. What's the point of that?
Bluntly : Why should the BBC give a flying one for what Dermot O'Leary wants?
No, but then I can't imagine him ever saying an interesting one either. Without going for the 'all TG viewers are like me' fallacy, it doesn't suggest he's born for the job does it?
And this belief appears on the basis of....
He has lots of reasons (mostly with $ signs on them) to want it. They have no good reason to give it to him.
Agreed, but your arguments as to why O'Leary should be involved are quite weak. If they're rebooting, go find new people with relevant skills who could create some level of credibility within the audience. Not some rentaface presenter they paid a fortune to poach from ITV that nobody who watches the show gives a toss about.