Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Fuss about nothing... two American presenters were

> driving round London and creating a racket for a

> TV show. They'd probably never even heard of the

> Cenotaph. Apologies have been made and the footage

> won't get used. End of.


American presenters never heard of the cenotaph? Really? The BBC should know, so you'd hope they might mention it. Twaterry in its purest form

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Fuss about nothing... two American presenters were

> driving round London and creating a racket for a

> TV show. They'd probably never even heard of the

> Cenotaph. Apologies have been made and the footage

> won't get used. End of.


Agreed. I don't see what the fuss is about. They drove a car through central London. That said, it's a tedious show. People who obsess about their car seem weird to me.

The Cenotaph happened to be in the background (they weren't even all that close) while pulling doughnuts along Whitehall. All very banal, and I can see why some would consider it inappropriate. The producers probably should have stopped it. But honestly - barely newsworthy.

They drove down Whitehall that's all. Yes, they were driving like Tw8ts but apparently that's what people who watch Top Gear get exctited about. The fact that they passed a war memorial doesn't seem like reason to get upset to me. It wasn't as though the cenotaph was the focus of the 'stunt', it was incidental.


There is so much more about this incident which is in bad taste. For example, the more general issue of making an 'entertainment' programme that glorifies hooning it round the streets of London doing donuts.

Permission to get notable areas of the city closed down is usually tied to alleged benefit to UK PLC, hence Top Gear - with its massive overseas audience - has some clout.


That's why Bond films always scoop top city locations.


That said, I'm sad to say that even Top Gear beats the utterly dire 'Spectre'.

This made me chuckle http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/arts-entertainment/right-wing-dad-fails-to-see-irony-of-top-gear-cenotaph-stunt-20160315107152


"Estate agent and father-of-two Hobbs felt that American Matt LeBlanc driving near the Cenotaph was ?a step too far?, despite loving it when Clarkson went to foreign countries in big cars and antagonised them as much as legally possible.....?I blame that American ? when celebrities travel they should take time to learn about local culture and history before attempting to make so-called ?jokes? that could hurt people?s feelings.?


Hobbs, who laughed like a drain when Top Gear pissed off Mexicans, Romanians and Argentinians, added: ?This kind of crass, insensitive stunt is not funny and panders to utter morons. That LeBlanc is just a cocky millionaire posing as a maverick outsider.?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Surprised at how many people take the 'oooh it's great it got approved, something is better than nothing' view. This is exactly Southwark council's approach, pandering to greedy developers for the absolute bare minimum of social and affordable housing. It's exactly why, under their leadership, only a fraction of social and affordable housing has been built in the borough - weirdly Mccash chose to highlight their own failures in his 'near unprecedented' (yet unbiased 😆) submission. All the objectors i have met support redevelopment, to benefit those in need of homes and the community - not change it forever. The council could and should be bolder, demand twice the social and affordable housing in these schemes, and not concede to 8 storeys of unneeded student bedsits. If it is a question of viability, publically disclose the business plan to prove how impossible it might be to turn a profit. Once the thing is built these sites can never be used for social or affordable housing. The council blows every opportunity, every time. Its pathetic. Developers admitted the scale was, in this instance, not required for viability. The student movements data seemed completely made up. The claim that 'students are taking up private rentals' was backed up with no data. There is empty student housing on denmark hill, needs to be fixed up but it's there already built. The council allows developers years to build cosy relationships with planners such that the final decision is a formality - substantiated objections are dismissed with wooly words and BS. Key meetings and consultations are scheduled deliberately to garner minimal engagement or objection. Local councillors, who we fund, ignore their constituents concerns. Those councillors that dare waiver in the predetermination are slapped down. Not very democratic. They've removed management and accountability by having no nomination agreement with any of the 'many london universities needing accommodation' - these direct lets MAKE MORE MONEY. A privately run firm will supposedly ensure everyone that those living there is actually a student and adheres to any conduct guidelines. There's no separation to residents - especially to ones on their own development. Could go on... We'll see how many of the 53 social/affordable units that we're all so happy to have approved actually get built. 
    • I am looking for 1 unit which is working for £50 cash. Thank you
    • Can’t recommend the company enough, great service. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...