Tannhauser

You do know it's a spoof, right?

Jeez.

I'll take your word for it on the 'tens of complaints.' I think Top Gear's regular viewers are unlikely to complain, because that's what many of them watch it for. As for everybody else,there's a big difference between thinking its unacceptable and actually registering feelings about it (say with OFCOM). By the way, for those who think that the Mexicans would take it as good-natured fun, apparently not all of them did. This from The Economist:

I think for every genuinely ridiculous PC-gone-mad incident - and there are some - there are ten that are misrepresented by mischief-makers. The Mail for example, seem to have a team of hacks that do nothing but do this. The stories about 'banning Christmas' or 'Baa baa rainbow sheep' or whatever push people's buttons so much that very few actually check out the truth behind the claims. Often, they are little more than urban myths. As I say, I'm not denying that it ever happens, but there's a lot of straw men.

The problem is that if something is wrong, it's wrong, it doesn't matter if it affects me personally or not. If we only ever react to things right in front of our own noses, what sort of world is that? Yes, I think there are many things that are worse on TV. I think how harmful stereotypes are depend on the particular history of the groups involved. So 'stupid American' is nowhere near as damaging as 'lazy African' (which was the stereotype years ago) or 'lazy Mexican', because...well, I don't really need to spell it out, it ought to be obvious. There's a spectrum between 'screechingly offended by everything' and 'utterly complacent and desensitised to human suffering'. We're all on that spectrum somewhere. I think that huge numbers of people in the UK would see the TG remarks as unacceptable, and wouldn't see protesting about them as oversensitive. For me, it comes down to the difference between the public arena and private one. As I said before, personally I think there's a massive difference between what one might say with mates or colleagues and what is broadcast internationally.

When you say "1!", what do you mean by that? I'm not outraged, but I am upset that you haven't made any claims regarding your putative godhood lately.

Interesting post and as I think I would probably be accused as one of 'you people', I'll reply. Firstly, like most on here, you're throwing around the word 'outraged'. Those people who think Top Gear are in the wrong haven't done so. The 'outrage' all seems to been on the part of those defending it. They seem very angry about any sort of criticism of their ickle heroes. Likewise, the accusation that I'm personally offended by it is based on what? There's a difference between recognising that content is unpleasant, perhaps avoiding it as a result, and regarding it as a personal affront. The idea that I'm living in a dream world is based on what? That I think it's wrong to use 1930s stereotypes in 2011? Secondly, I agree with you that in the scheme of things, their comments are trivial compared to - say - entire nations starving. As it happens, I am aware of more global problems such as distribution of wealth. Rather than worrying about it, however, I do what I can. Your accusation would be better levelled at the non-softies. There's at least one of them who would be happy to see the world's poor starve to death; a real Social Darwinist. The 'what you can and can't say' has been dealt with elsewhere on the thread. They did say it, they weren't banned from saying it, there was no suggestion of banning anything. The presenters made a joke that was calculated to get the troglodytes rubbing themselves off in delight, and some people objected to it. Thanks for pointing out that it was a joke. The whole thread, since the very start, has been about what's appropriate for broadcast. As has been pointed out many, many, many times, there are probably plenty of things you wouldn't think were acceptable to be broadcast on a top-flight BBC prime-time show. How about if the joke had been about buggering a child? Still OK? No one got hurt, right? The question is where that boundary lies. I don't watch TG anyway, but I'm surprised at how many people think they shouldn't get called on their comments.

After ten pages, I think I've learned quite a lot from this thread. 1. First and foremost, if you think something is morally wrong, do nothing You should just turn over and watch something else. You shouldn't complain or voice your opinion on it. That would be pointless. You shouldn't even ask the question about who else might be watching it. e.g. 2. There is no difference between what you say with a few mates and what a programme with an audience of tens of millions says. Apparently, you need put no more thought into comments made to a vast international audience than those made to an audience of, say, five. The two have an equal impact and import. There's no difference to what we say in the public arena to the private arena. e.g. 3. Stereotypes are true! This was the biggest surprise to me. For example, I was thought that the stereotype of a 'thick Irishman' was itself a bit thick (Jonathon Swift, Sean O'Casey, James Joyce, Samuel Beckett, Oscar Wilde etc etc etc etc). But No! For example: This post also contained a helpful definition. 4. You're never going to stop stereotyping anyway, so it's pointless to protest about it. Again, this is a surprise for anyone who remembers the 1970s. That means that it's still widely believed that gay people are mostly paedophiles, want to be women and all talk like John Inman. (Actually, I sort of agree, there will always be stereotypes, but that doesn't mean we should just roll over and accept them, especially when they are offensive). 5. There is no difference between comic effect based on hair colour and one based on ethnic or national stereotypes This is because the way in which stereotypes are used worldwide to justify inflicting untold misery is equivalent to playground teasing. Also, like playground teasing, it's childish to make a fuss about it 6. Disagreeing with xenophobic presenters on top rank BBC programmes is part of a systematic campaign to stop you thinking anything or doing anything Far from just disagreeing with presenters using crude racial slurs, this is part of a campaign, orchestrated by a tiny minority on the Looney Left, to stop you doing anything. Very few people except a 'PC brigade' find racial stereotyping unacceptable. Evidence for this is on this BBS, which represents the views of most everyone in the UK. It's more than about rudeness. This is a symbolic struggle. Being deliberately offensive to someone on the basis of their nationality is our inalienable God given right. The only confusion I have with this is that 'human rights' are normally not acknowledged by many of the posters on this thread. 7. Opposing views to those expressed in 1-6 are signs of irrational thinking Crikey.

I think there's a big difference though, isn't there? Thought experiment: what if, as a result of being ginger, your parents and grandparents had been beaten, murdered and tortured and no one did a blind thing to help them? Perhaps they had been enslaved, treated like cattle, or subhumans. Maybe as a result of being ginger, you couldn't get a working wage, you were pretty much confined to poverty, and your kids were likely to be too. Your life expectancy would be lower than non-gingers. There would have been a long history of ginger routines, in which gingers were portrayed as - maybe - lazy or stupid figures of fun, and the authors of all their own problems. Meanwhile, all around you, gingers were working themselves to death. In the past, humour has been used as a way for avoiding seeing that there is actually any problem, a way of defusing it. In this scenario, if you laugh at the ginger jokes and grit your teeth and maybe make a few ginger jokes yourself, people will call you a good sport. Maybe you can make some jokes about non-gingers, then everyone can pretend you're 'giving as good as you get'. The non-gingers would use their humour as a justification for business as usual. Can you honestly say that with that history, you would still think his anti-ginger routine was funny? That's the difference. Now, I'm NOT saying that this is the experience of Mexicans - though parts of it are probably true. But in general divisions based on national or ethnic stereotypes have historically been a way in which one group behaves abominably to another group. That's why a lot of people don't want to hear them used so flippantly as they used to. I'm sure you're right, they wouldn't. And as Scott says, it's deliberate lowest-common-denominator material. It's a lazy and somewhat desperate way of stirring up controversy for a flagging show.

Trolling for a reaction?

Splitting one's shins longitudinally with a chisel? Levering off kneecaps with a crowbar? Sawing off top of head and lowering self, exposed brain first, into a pan of boiling water? All in my new book, '50 things to do on a Sunday night'

That crack about lorry drivers murdering prostitutes. I think it was pretty close to the date when some girls had been killed, unless I just dreamed that up. I'm not commenting on the rights or wrongs of making the joke, but personally I can't see any difference between that and Stewart Lee making jokes about Hammond getting killed. Which, as you know, was his point. In terms of worrying or not worrying about offending people, it's at the same level, IMO.

Crikey, so that's what I meant.

I absolutely agree, there are some offended too easily by negative comments about Top Gear. Oh, and Stewart Lee's banter.

Edited: totally missed the point of what you said first time around. I actually haven't made any comments about any xenophobia or racism on the program. I also haven't said you can or can't have banter at someone else's expense. I'm saying that personally, it doesn't suit me because it now seems targeted at A Certain Sort of Person Who Isn't Necessarily From Essex (- how's that?). I'm sure plenty of people outside that demographic watch it too.

How about murdering prostitutes? Is that different?

Here There was more to it than this, but one part was this: Clarkson is shown on the track in the Tesla. Going from memory, he says something like 'oh, what's going on?' making concerned faces. The music winds down on the soundtrack. Next shot is the car coming to a stop. Next shot is them pushing the Tesla back into the garage.The message they were showing was crystal clear: the Tesla ran out of juice on the track. Except it didn't,and they were forced to admit that it didn't. Top Gear maintained that it would have done, but iirc, Tesla disputed that. Now, I'm fine with them staging long distance races or challenges, but here they are staging a track test. And then had the gall to try to justify it. So I find it hard to trust anything they say, even about cars.

Yes, I've tried that, but...I don't know. Ever since they got caught lying about the Tesla - I know I can't even trust the track tests or commentary. The races and stunts are just situation comedy pieces. So the only point in watching is to look at video footage of cars. Even there, the editing is so ADHD it does my head in. Then there's the thought that I'm watching a program where the presenters mislead about big social issues as well -it sort of makes my skin crawl. If they would cut out all the yukking it up and trying to be outrageous and made it into a motoring program - instead of some sitcom/magazine aimed at Essex Man - I'd watch it again. I'd be happy with a less lame version of Fifth Gear.

To be fair, he could have made things a bit easier by wearing a hat that lit up every time he made a comedic point. Or perhaps gone the 90s American route of saying 'NOT!', to help with identifying that pesky irony. "He didn't seem to tell one joke", FFS, that's comedy gold in itself. I'm not a great fan of Stewart Lee, but I think he got that one spot on. I won't be watching Top Gear. Shame, I love the cars., but it's not really about them anymore, is it?

I'm considering applying as a hobbyist on here, selling discount pitchforks and wicker men. ...Also custom gloves to protect vulnerable knuckles from ground-related friction.

I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusion, but if we're sticking to 'the facts', no single study conclusively proves anything. Science doesn't work like that. Its key feature is replicability: to be a robust effect, it has to be shown consistently. As for the punishment of the kid, I don't really understand the logic behind it. Society adopts different rules for kids on the basis that they're not fully developed. For example, there's an age of consent because kids can't really understand the implications of sexual behaviour. You can't drive a car until you're 17 even though you're physically capable of it some years before. Society recognises that something happens between age eleven - or thirteen - and 16-18. It recognises that, in general, during that time you change from someone who cannot be trusted to make correct decisions to someone who can. We restrict behaviours that we think kids can't be trusted to do. So it seems strange to me that the law is now saying that someone aged eleven is sufficiently grown-up to be punished for the rest of their life (if that's indeed what the sentence is, I haven't read the case). Kids are kids - if we don't treat them as adults in any other way, it seems inconsistent to punish them as adults.

Me too. Terrific place. Edit to add: Just found this pic. I don't look very pleased to be there at all. Or maybe I'd just watched Don't Look Now

Come blooming youths, as you pass by , And on these lines do cast an eye. As you are now, so once was I; As I am now, so must you be; Prepare for death and follow me. This is a famous one, but I saw something similar in a graveyard in Madeley (?) - somewhere up near Stoke. Brrrr.

That not only dates you, it carbon-dates you. Same goes for Nic.