Cycling UK Forum

Phil Fouracre wrote:Fact or fiction? However it is peddled, it is for entertainment only, aimed at a particular audience. If you believe it or not is up to the individual, but, you can't assume that the 'presenters' believe it any more than you do. Perhaps my fact/fiction example wasn't ideal, but, trying to point out dangers of pointless stereotyping. Reminds me of stupid journalistic comments like 'people believe this' or, 'nobody does this' etc etc

I know what you're trying to say,I'm not wearing it!

To take it to the logical extreme some people sell class A drugs to children,and quieten their conscience by taking class A drugs.Think about it!

Phil Fouracre wrote:Fact or fiction? However it is peddled, it is for entertainment only, aimed at a particular audience. If you believe it or not is up to the individual, but, you can't assume that the 'presenters' believe it any more than you do. Perhaps my fact/fiction example wasn't ideal, but, trying to point out dangers of pointless stereotyping. Reminds me of stupid journalistic comments like 'people believe this' or, 'nobody does this' etc etc

Worth noting that the BBC classify the program in their "Factual" section (or rather their "Factual > Cars & Motors" section).

How you or I might interpret the content is a bit irrelevant. What is relevant is how those boy racers types interpret it all and how they respond to it. And that is where the problem resides.

Ian

As I type, my wife is in the next room watching a cookery programme with the podgy James Wotsisname. IIRC, It's not so long since he "joked" about his own bad driving near cyclists.

Phil Fouracre wrote:Fact or fiction? However it is peddled, it is for entertainment only, aimed at a particular audience. If you believe it or not is up to the individual, but, you can't assume that the 'presenters' believe it any more than you do. Perhaps my fact/fiction example wasn't ideal, but, trying to point out dangers of pointless stereotyping. Reminds me of stupid journalistic comments like 'people believe this' or, 'nobody does this' etc etc

That's all OK then. Let's bring back the Black & White Minstrel Show. Just a bit of harmless entertainment ruined by pointless stereotyping.

Psamathe wrote:

Phil Fouracre wrote:Fact or fiction? However it is peddled, it is for entertainment only, aimed at a particular audience. If you believe it or not is up to the individual, but, you can't assume that the 'presenters' believe it any more than you do. Perhaps my fact/fiction example wasn't ideal, but, trying to point out dangers of pointless stereotyping. Reminds me of stupid journalistic comments like 'people believe this' or, 'nobody does this' etc etc

Worth noting that the BBC classify the program in their "Factual" section (or rather their "Factual > Cars & Motors" section).

How you or I might interpret the content is a bit irrelevant. What is relevant is how those boy racers types interpret it all and how they respond to it. And that is where the problem resides.

Ian

And the 'clever boys*' who run and present the 'show' will use that well worn cop out ''we are only joking if that's not obvious then the people who watch it are deluded/thick/stupid.We can't be blamed for that now can we''
Yes they can!

*boys being a term used to describe immature Homo Sapiens of the male gender.

thirdcrank wrote:As I type, my wife is in the next room watching a cookery programme with the podgy James Wotsisname. IIRC, It's not so long since he "joked" about his own bad driving near cyclists.

In the absence being able to complain about about Jews,blacks,Asians,Gypsies,Muslims perhaps?

Cyclists in the UK are an unprotected(in more ways than one)minority and so 'fair game' for morons.
I wonder what kind of reaction he'd get if he used the same kind of joke on Dutch TV?

BTW if anyone is in doubt about how the UK treats cyclists and cycling take a look at Bedfordgate,all done with money earmarked for cycling 'facilities'.
That was a good joke too

reohn2 wrote:

Bonefishblues wrote:

reohn2 wrote:
No but the three stooges pedal bile,then try to act as if that's normal,it's them that talk crap! whilst picking up their ''hard earned'' as the rest of pay for it!(in more ways than one)

"Clarkson" as is was a creation of his then manager-wife a number of years ago. Hammond's decent sensitive family man, not the star-struck buffoon he appears. May's a bit of a geek (yep, that's pretty close!).

It's light entertainment, nonsense for the most part- and is taken as such by most.

ETA
People are more sophisticated than perhaps they are being given credit for.

Most people take it for what it is but as has been said elsewhere on another thread substitute black,Jew,gypsy,Asian,Muslim,etc,etc and it would never been aired,but you can off cyclists unitl you're hearts contend because,hey! were only joking.
It's the morons who haven't got the brains they were born with,watch such crap on TV and never read the Times that concern me.
They're more prevalent than some might realise and can do without encouragement from these clowns.
The kind of these people peddle does nothing only confirm what other bigoted moronic idiots think!Which is then played out on our roads.
The attitude is cheap,nasty,very negative,and what's worse I'm paying for it through my TV licence.
So please don't play the humour card it won't wash

Thinks... ....I'm probably just not sophisticated enough to appreciate the subtleties of their highly tuned sense of humour but more used to calling a spade a spade,it's probably my upbringing or some such.
Boy am I glad .

I'm playing no "card", I'm calling it as I see it, (calling a spade a spade as one might perhaps term it) and I would suggest the way the overwhelming majority of people see it, too.

There is of course no subtlety in what they do (except in terms of the sophistication of the concept), it's just silly slapstick nonsense for the most part which happens to have cars as a vague theme.

Just to really upset you, not only is Top Gear paid for by your licence fee (at least in part, since I think it's a JV with the production company - someone will correct me if I'm wrong), as a net contributor by virtue of being, IIRC, the BBC's most profitable programme it's actually helping to subsidise your licence fee.

Bonefishblues wrote:I'm playing no "card", I'm calling it as I see it, (calling a spade a spade as one might perhaps term it) and I would suggest the way the overwhelming majority of people see it, too.

I find the overwhelming majority of motorists courteous and with a good driving attitude toward me when I'm cycling.
That leaves a small percentage that are either driving without due care and attention or are deliberately driving dangerously.It's sometimes hard to distinguish between the two,sometimes it's obvious which is which,either way one mistake and It'll be me in A&E.
How much the goons(as term them)driving attitude and 'sense of humour' are massaged by TG I've no way of knowing but the program certainly doesn't help.
But hey! it's only a joke after all,so that's OK then .

There is of course no subtlety in what they do (except in terms of the sophistication of the concept), it's just silly slapstick nonsense for the most part which happens to have cars as a vague theme.

I was joking about the subtlety(honest)but If TG is a sophisticated concept I'm glad to be a bumkin .

Just to really upset you, not only is Top Gear paid for by your licence fee (at least in part, since I think it's a JV with the production company - someone will correct me if I'm wrong), as a net contributor by virtue of being, IIRC, the BBC's most profitable programme it's actually helping to subsidise your licence fee.

And you'll no doubt tell me how much we need such crap(amongst others) to subsidise the BBC and help reduce my outgoings.
Yeah right

I don't know how much Top Gear influences behaviour - I tend towards the nil or low end of the spectrum, you take a different position. Neither can prove or disprove the other's position I suspect, so there we are.

Yes, it's a sophisticated concept, executed very well I'd say. Andy Wilman's a very smart guy, taking a moribund brand and transforming it as he has. Again we'd have to differ on that.

I'll tell you nothing of the kind, of course. I don't mind the programme, I watch it if I remember, but if it means that the BBC can make some more of what one might term "quality" output, then I'll take that.

Bonefishblues wrote:I don't know how much Top Gear influences behaviour - I tend towards the nil or low end of the spectrum, you take a different position. Neither can prove or disprove the other's position I suspect, so there we are.

Yes, it's a sophisticated concept, executed very well I'd say. Andy Wilman's a very smart guy, taking a moribund brand and transforming it as he has. Again we'd have to differ on that.

We'll have to 'shake on it' and agree to differ .

I'll tell you nothing of the kind, of course. I don't mind the programme, I watch it if I remember, but if it means that the BBC can make some more of what one might term "quality" output, then I'll take that.

Again we'll have to agree to differ but I'd rather pay more TV licence(honestly) and see more quality than the dross currently being peddled as 'entertainment' TG is but a part of that,but TBH if you look at some of the inane 'reality' crap TV being shown,I've no doubt there must a fair number goons watching TV.

This is the Internet, shouldn't we be being gratuitously rude to each other?

I've recently posted that cyclists are (just about) the only people you can talk about in this way and dismiss it as humour. To be fair to the BBC they've shown me to be wrong in that it's been reported that they recently turned a blind eye to racism dressed up as humour by this professional buffoon (OK, to be precise they dressed that up as some sort of warning.)

The filthy lucre does seem to cloud some professional judgments in that quarter. Several of the BBC's big-money earners have recently been exposed as serial offenders. I openly admit to having been as taken in by Savile as much as anybody else, but the stuff being bandies about seems to suggest that plenty of people at the BBC knew what was going on and chose not to act. After all, you don't kill the goose that's laying the golden eggs. In the meantime, it may be a while before they can find an episode of TOTP2 that's safe to broadcast.

And if any bigwigs at the BBC are reading this, What's up? Have you no sense of humour?

Bonefishblues wrote:I don't know how much Top Gear influences behaviour - I tend towards the nil or low end of the spectrum, you take a different position. Neither can prove or disprove the other's position I suspect, so there we are.

On the rare occasions I ride on a busy road I think that if only 1% of cars passing me are not properly avoiding me, that actually makes the road (with all those cars) very dangerous. It only takes a low percentage to represent a horrendous threat to vulnerable road users.

And whatever the percentage, it does make such hooligan attitudes "socially acceptable". Instead of feeling that hooligan driving attitudes are something that should be "reconsidered", your boy racer feels their driving style is quite OK by society (after-all, there is a prime time factual TV program telling them so).

Ian

Bonefishblues wrote:This is the Internet, shouldn't we be being gratuitously rude to each other?

Only if you insist

PS,I'm only joking