Be Excellent To Each Other

Her kids must have dreaded World Book Day.

Nice.

The Original Stig was interviewed by the BBC and he said it was the BBC making a meal out it.

He said all of this could have been dealt with quietly and internally and the show carry on as normal. They could have then taken action based on the findings if needs be.

Some elements in the BBC clearly have it in for him and I guess he bought that on himself, at the same time the BBC don't mind all the money he makes though!

He is a dick but he is far less offensive than say the Muslim Preachers who advocate violence and murder.

I, erm, what? Which ones of those have their own shows on the BBC?

Have you never seen Countryfile?

None of them yet

*snort*

Top punchbantz innit.

Yes, but only because they defended themselves by saying they weren't a factual programme.

Right. They just claimed to be entertaining liars. Deliberately misrepresenting the truth because it is amusing lol, even if it literally contributes to the destruction of the planet.

Sanctimonious hippy bollocks, lewie

So you think it's totally fine to lie about the performance of an electric car to an audience of millions, simply because you prefer petrol cars?

Their neanderthal attitudes towards renewable cars definitely has a knock on effect on the attitudes of their viewers.

By all means criticise an electric car, but do so based on facts.

"literally contributing to the destruction of the planet"? The net environmental effect of electric cars is not exactly much (if at all) better than a petrol or diesel car, so if a few people did happen to listen to Clarkson on that (although note he's subsequently got behind the idea with the BMW i8 or whatever it is) it's not actually contributed diddly.


By all means call the guy a cunt, but at least do so based on facts.

I've not checked the full court report, but the reason the BBC won was because, in the judge's words, "In my judgment, the words complained of are wholly incapable of conveying any meaning at all to the effect that the claimant [Tesla] misled anyone.

"This is because there is a contrast between the style of driving and the nature of the track as compared with the conditions on a public road […] are so great that no reasonable person could understand that the performance on the [Top Gear] track is capable of a direct comparison with a public road."

And the glorious, glorious McLaren.

Dear Lord, would I like one of them.

That is a very very pretty hunk of metal and plastic.

I just read it and that is pretty much the whole of it.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/152.html

Yay for speedreading! In your face Curio.

There is a funny bit where they say "because the ratio of telsa cars sold to Lotus else cars sold is low it proves damages. I dunno, an else is 28 large with a massive dealer network and a tesla is 90 large with about 4 dealers. Dicks"

I'm gonna read that tomorrow - bailii is my go to for skiving as it's technically CPD.

I play chips challenge as that is moving boxes

Sorry I should have used spoiler tags

Cunt.

20 years, and I still haven't finished it.

[citation needed]

Even for the mains electricity that is generated in fossil fuel plants is burnt more efficiently and can have better pollutant controls than petrol or diesel engines. But not all energy comes from there; renewables and nuclear are significant and growing, and likely to continue to grow in the coming decades. You can also get electricity from the place where it's made to the place where you use it a lot more efficiently than all that messing around with petrol trucks and the Exxon Valdez.

The batteries are rather unpleasant to manufacture, and if youre not charging them off nuclear power stations then they're not that great on co2 emissions. A quick Google gives http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19830232
You'd be doing better for the environment if you bought a second hand diesel, according to Quentin Wilson.

And nuclear isn't growing at all. Germany has mothballed all her plants post Fukushima, and France is cutting its reliance on nuclear down to 50%, and we can't get any new nukes without paying multiples of what they're worth, and Areva's designs are unsafe, so we still have crapped out oil and coal stations limping on and will do for the foreseeable.

I want alternatives to work, but right now they don't. The best thing we could do right now for the environment is give tax breaks to people who are still using the same car after 20 years.

Going on the dole?

Getting pregnant and/or winning the lottery

To be clear, my point is that lying about the performance of electric cars is harmful, not that electric cars are perfect.

It's spreading misinformation. Plain and simple.

But ultimately it doesn't matter to the environment if people aren't buying electric cars because of Clarkson's "misinformation" if electric cars *aren't* any better for the environment. So the "contributing to the destruction of the earth" stuff was hyperbolic bollocks. Or, if you like, lying.

Public perception of electric cars is absolutely a factor in their proliferation and development.

Indeed it is. Is it a good thing that people mistakenly think they are more environmentally friendly than they actually are?

But they didn't.

I want an electric car to test my hypothesis that cats use visual systems to judge distance.

Interesting that this piece about the popularity of Top Gear showed up on the BBC yesterday.

It would now appear that they were late back from filming to the hotel (which is a good one) in the Yorkshire Dales and oddly at 8.30pm the chef had gone home

That's an odd time to end food service more so when you have the Top Gear cheque book to draw from.

So Clarkson went ape shit at the producer and there was some heating discussion and pushing but no punch, the producer never complained and Clarkson apologised and it was seen as "what goes on tour stays on tour" and they moved on.

As it was just a heated row in a high pressure environment and there looks to have been no assault not sure there is much to this

It looks more like Danny Cohen the head of BBC TV wants him out so is making a meal of it (excuse the pun)

700,000 on the petition now and even Cameron has waded in saying it should be sorted out without sacking him.

BBC also have compensation bills pending as they have not delivered all the Top Gear episodes as contracted and Clarkson can just walk away at the end of the month as his contract is up.

So look like the BBC have made another arse of things

Also, there is talk of the BBC needing to pay out to the countries that syndicate the show, as by cancelling the episode (and the following ones) they have broken contract. That won't be cheap, it's shown in something like 200 countries I think!

Yes just added that to my post! They are saying millions, also as Clarkson is out of contract at the end of the month he can probably not cooperate in finishing them off!

How odd.

It's right that it was investigated, but before I pulled the suspension trigger I'd have phoned up the other guy involved and say "Someone said Clarkson hit you. Did Clarkson hit you? No? Oh, okay, thanks." and carry on with the investigation without, you know, suspending anybody.

If he did punch the dude and was suspended, there's no way on Earth I'd pull the remaining episodes of Top Gear, as that's just admitting that they can't do the show without him (when of course they could - it's only the "live" bits that needed doing, and Hammond and May would have had a grand old time taking the piss, and then Clarkson could have come back with boxing gloves on or something).

What a farce.

Odd that Clarkson blamed the producer, though, but I guess I don't know how touring with a film crew works. Or there's lots more we don't know yet.

"I want you to fly in some lobster, NOW!"
"That's too expensive. Bugger off and have a sandwich like the rest"
PUNCH

It's like I was there.

No, fracas.

"It's a piazza, Charlie!"

Apparently (according to the BBC radio 2 for old people) the reason this took time to come to light was because it wasn't the producer that reported the incident.

It was Clarkson, who had gone in to complain about the producer not having his tea ready, and when asked to relay events included that he punched him (probably not having the human common sense to realise that this was outrageous).

So, yes, Clarkson blamed the producer, to the point where the next week he felt that he was the one hard done by, the producer seems to have just confirmed events.

Sort of funny.

As far as I can see, the only people that are saying there was a punch, are the media. Everyone who was actually involved and has said something have confirmed there wasn't a punch, just an argument and "handbags".

Who knows, the reporting is so woolly and each place says something different. The BBC were reporting a punch in one of teh stories posted earlier. Here's another story that suggests it was Clarkson that brought the store to light and that the producer did not make a complaint: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-31869967

The thing that miffs me, however, is Dave at 10, expressing not only solidarity due to friendship but also a desire that it not go any further. What?

Why does his friendship with this buffoon have anything to do with whether or not he should be punished for hitting a co-worker (if that is what happened?) If you are chums with the PM does that mean that it's ok for you to wallop your colleagues?

Also, he said he 'hoped the incident could be "sorted out".'

"It's a great programme and he's a great talent," he said.

Why should his talent or the merits of the show have anything to do with the judgement as to whether his conduct and behaviour were acceptable?

Jimmy Saville raised loads of money for charity, but can you imagine the establishment turning a blind eye to any wrong-doing whilst the PM praised his talents because he was a good friends of establishment. Oh, yes, wait...

Surely he's got better things to do with his time, like breaking the NHS apart one service at a time. Twit.

Yes, I imagine he has, but someone asked him so he answered. Blame the person asking the questions if you don't think it was suitable.

Also, what he actually said was which seems fair enough.