I can just see the tail of the Kipper going down the plug hole..
10-15% would be an excellent result for UKIP compared to the previous GE. Many people were suggesting they would poll low single digits by now.
Hows that majority working out for you?
What about 7% - that's on the card now. A three MP irrelevance whilst Eck has 17 times that number. How's the people's army majority in 2020 looking from there ?
You mean he's moving networks and making a boatload more money?
Poor chap.
I suppose the BBC will now be looking to the public to make up the tens of millions they are going to lose every year.
F**k em. They should be made to run as a paid subscription service. Then they would actually have to take some responsibility for the money they spend.
The BBC should not be a broadcasting organisation. There is an argument that there should be some public money set aside to commission programmes that would not otherwise be made: perhaps some education or arts programming.
But it is inconceivable to me that a government organisation should be competing with private sector ones to supply a service that the market is quite capable of providing on its own.
And don't give me that "oh, but we need Radio 4" shit. If there is a demand for it, the market will provide it.
Inconceivable? Er, switch on your TV. Look! - there's the BBC broadcasting away.
I am litng to do, put me imuch else to justify their six figure salaries.
What has him punching someone in a hotel got to do with his ability to present one of the most popular shoes on the BBC?
Oh please, what nonsense. People are not supposed to punch other people in the workplace - cue comments about how normal and unproblematic it is - and he was already on thin ice. It undermines organisations if they are purported, by Clarkson as it happens, to have said they will fire someone for another incident and then don't. Hence why they clearly did not want to fire him!! That's what's so crazy about this, people seem to be acting as though the BBC has been wanting to do this for years, and thank the gods Clarkson finally gave them an excuse. No, it's just that he finally did something that demanded action, even for a big star, and they reluctantly did so.
You mean he's moving networks and making a boatload more money?
Poor chap.
Quite. He.
Thed in the financial aspect.
I am sure there are parts of the BBC that are, especially given how many times he's been let off before due to being a big name. I find it hard to accept they are not 'remotely interested' in such things. They wouldn't have kept him all this time were that the case.
Honestly, I like Clarkson, and I even appreciate how in contrast to the usual celeb in these situations going silent he's continued to crack gags and the like, but the clamouring of some on the right to frothing levels of conspiracies and rage, and using it as a stick to beat the BBC with when there are much easier things to use as sticks, has been nothing short of insufferable.
Well said although I can't agree about liking him.
I'm a fan of his un-PC style, his brashness. He's a pretty funny, entertaining guy in my book, I look forward to seeing him do other things. But this 'Oh, what's punching got to do with presenting a TV programme?' stuff is just bullcrap. Yes, stars get away with that and worse in reality, but in most cases it's because it is kept quiet, or not reported at all. Clarkson reported this one for christ's sake, maybe this was how he wanted to go out? Certainly if he wants to transition into something else he'll have even more offers than he would have before.
David Cameron heckled by pensioners at Age UK rally Watch the Prime Minister get heckled as he tries to answer questions on the NHS at Age UK's General Election rally.
[snip]
Cameron dead in the water? What these pensioners are saying is that the polls are so wrong it's unbelievable.
This post has rendered the site almost unreadable on mobile devices. Long links screw the page formatting.
Please use url shorteners or anchor tags.
Mods. Surely the site config can be tweaked to fix this?
Which mobile device are you using? It doesn't cause an issue on my iPhone. You can always browse the comments from http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussions but you have to live with newest comment at bottom format.
Be good if we could select oldest first / newest first as it would save me ages trying to load wads of comments to get to the 1st post on each thread so I can then read I chronological order. Other sites manage it so it should be possible?
Oldest first, view the comments on the vanillaforums website, newest first, view it on pb.com, simples!
Thanks but Vanilla forums website? Where that? I tried the obvious but it just wants to sell me a membership??
I'm now fairly confident the Tories will poll 35-35% on polling day, but I'll eat my hat if Labour clock 35%. I just don't think they'll turn out for Ed.
Con - 36%, Lab - 32%, LD - 9%, UKIP - 13%, Others - 10% is my guess.
"55% of voters back the PM over his third term revaltion against just 18% who say he has made a gaffe"
Unbelievable that such complete trivia should even be polled. I'd guess that if people were being honest and didn't feel they had to make a reply 100% would say they couldn't care less.
How do you become a producer at the BBC? Oisin Tymon looks like a gap-year student who's just rolled out of bed.
BBC have killed their golden goose. Plonkers.
He was the one who reported the incident apparently - what were the BBC supposed to do, given his own comments about 'one more thing and I'm fired' previously? Seriously, what were they supposed to do? Short of going back in time and 'better managing their talent' (a suggestion I've seen), I am genuinely confused what the BBC have actually done that is objectionable in any way. The phrase 'felt they had no choice' seems peppered throughout the piece and is hard to dispute, so as much as some people hate the BBC for all sorts of reasons, I don't even see how this plays into those reasons. It's not even one of those times where if someone doesn't like the BBC it makes sense to blame them for X situation.
The 'better management' is exactly what they should have done. There is a school of thought within the BBC that hated Clarkson no matter how much money he bought in for them and who wanted him out. The prick Danny Cohen is one of them. As such they have been looking at every turn for opportunities to dump him and of course he was daft enough to give them the chance.
Of course they are now going to say they regret what the 'have' to do. But they are the ones who have orchestrated this over the last few years.
Ah yes, it was all a conspiracy. How silly of me to think otherwise. That's a lot more credible than 'Person with history of incidents commits one too many incidents'.
David Cameron heckled by pensioners at Age UK rally Watch the Prime Minister get heckled as he tries to answer questions on the NHS at Age UK's General Election rally.
[snip]
Cameron dead in the water? What these pensioners are saying is that the polls are so wrong it's unbelievable.
This post has rendered the site almost unreadable on mobile devices. Long links screw the page formatting.
Please use url shorteners or anchor tags.
Mods. Surely the site config can be tweaked to fix this?
Which mobile device are you using? It doesn't cause an issue on my iPhone. You can always browse the comments from http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussions but you have to live with newest comment at bottom format.
Be good if we could select oldest first / newest first as it would save me ages trying to load wads of comments to get to the 1st post on each thread so I can then read I chronological order. Other sites manage it so it should be possible?
Oldest first, view the comments on the vanillaforums website, newest first, view it on pb.com, simples!
Thanks but Vanilla forums website? Where that? I tried the obvious but it just wants to sell me a membership??
"I think the BBC are savvy enough to realise this will have political implications for them and their future, if the Tories are re-elected. "
Garbage. Top Gear is a pin prick to the BBC. What's more the chances are that Top Gear 2 will be more popular than the original. Never underestimate the talent at the BBC. Almost everything they have ever touched has turned to gold. Quite simply as a broadcaster thy're in a class of their own
Til Death Us Do Part was good!
They were in a class of their own for covering up paedophiles but lots of Labour councils seem to be quite proficient too.
You mean he's moving networks and making a boatload more money?
Poor chap.
I suppose the BBC will now be looking to the public to make up the tens of millions they are going to lose every year.
F**k em. They should be made to run as a paid subscription service. Then they would actually have to take some responsibility for the money they spend.
The BBC should not be a broadcasting organisation. There is an argument that there should be some public money set aside to commission programmes that would not otherwise be made: perhaps some education or arts programming.
But it is inconceivable to me that a government organisation should be competing with private sector ones to supply a service that the market is quite capable of providing on its own.
And don't give me that "oh, but we need Radio 4" shit. If there is a demand for it, the market will provide it.
I agree. I haven't seen TimB's comments before tonight about PBS in the States but will have to look at that.
But in the end the BBC should compete in the open market with the rest of the broadcast media. Yes I agree there should be a public service support but why that should go to the BBC alone I have no idea.
Frankly other stations do better - or at least just as good - programmes these days.
I'm now fairly confident the Tories will poll 35-35% on polling day, but I'll eat my hat if Labour clock 35%. I just don't think they'll turn out for Ed.
Con - 36%, Lab - 32%, LD - 9%, UKIP - 13%, Others - 10% is my guess.
"I think the BBC are savvy enough to realise this will have political implications for them and their future, if the Tories are re-elected. "
Garbage. Top Gear is a pin prick to the BBC. What's more the chances are that Top Gear 2 will be more popular than the original. Never underestimate the talent at the BBC. Almost everything they have ever touched has turned to gold. Quite simply as a broadcaster thy're in a class of their own
How do you become a producer at the BBC? Oisin Tymon looks like a gap-year student who's just rolled out of bed.
BBC have killed their golden goose. Plonkers.
He was the one who reported the incident apparently - what were the BBC supposed to do, given his own comments about 'one more thing and I'm fired' previously? Seriously, what were they supposed to do? Short of going back in time and 'better managing their talent' (a suggestion I've seen), I am genuinely confused what the BBC have actually done that is objectionable in any way. The phrase 'felt they had no choice' seems peppered throughout the piece and is hard to dispute, so as much as some people hate the BBC for all sorts of reasons, I don't even see how this plays into those reasons. It's not even one of those times where if someone doesn't like the BBC it makes sense to blame them for X situation.
"what were they supposed to do?"
Make him apologise for his behaviour and put it right with the producer somehow.
Send him on a Respect In The Workplace course.
Send him on a Respect In The Workplace course.
I was sent on one of those once. They are pure fuckwit flypaper if you keep the pisstaking subtle.
As an aside, I very much doubt Clarkson will be going to ITV or Sky.
My money is on Amazon with Netflix as my second favourite. Amazon has more money than god and they really, really, really want you to put one of their excellent Fire TV boxes in your home. A few hundred million on Clarkson and New Gear would be a small price to pay.
"I think the BBC are savvy enough to realise this will have political implications for them and their future, if the Tories are re-elected. "
Garbage. Top Gear is a pin prick to the BBC. What's more the chances are that Top Gear 2 will be more popular than the original. Never underestimate the talent at the BBC. Almost everything they have ever touched has turned to gold. Quite simply as a broadcaster thy're in a class of their own
How do you become a producer at the BBC? Oisin Tymon looks like a gap-year student who's just rolled out of bed.
BBC have killed their golden goose. Plonkers.
He was the one who reported the incident apparently - what were the BBC supposed to do, given his own comments about 'one more thing and I'm fired' previously? Seriously, what were they supposed to do? Short of going back in time and 'better managing their talent' (a suggestion I've seen), I am genuinely confused what the BBC have actually done that is objectionable in any way. The phrase 'felt they had no choice' seems peppered throughout the piece and is hard to dispute, so as much as some people hate the BBC for all sorts of reasons, I don't even see how this plays into those reasons. It's not even one of those times where if someone doesn't like the BBC it makes sense to blame them for X situation.
"what were they supposed to do?"
Make him apologise for his behaviour and put it right with the producer somehow.
Send him on a Respect In The Workplace course.
And I am sure they would have (didn't the producer in question not even report it?) - were it not for his previous comments about one more incident being his last, painting them into a corner. Not one it would have been impossible to extricate themselves from, granted, but even if we concede they could have managed him better (I'm sure they could have), Clarkson will move on to something else, perhaps virtually identical somewhere else, and so the fans suffer a minor inconvenience at best and the only people losing out are the BBC - yet another reason the conspiracy theorists make no sense except in the universe where people just hate the sight of Clarkson so much they lose all reason in their efforts to very slowly undermine him (through mind controlling him, apparently).
So there's no need to get mad at the BBC - they will already suffer, and that even if people don't follow through with the 'I'll stop paying licence fee' threats, which some may well do too.
Honestly, being angry at the BBC for not being impartial enough (sides differ on how much they try, of course) seems a much better reason to get angry than this Clarkson business. The same with the 'unfair advantage' argument against the BBC. Even with Clarkson being a right wing figure in a lefty organisation, it is stunning how political and partisan this mess has become.
I'm now fairly confident the Tories will poll 35-35% on polling day, but I'll eat my hat if Labour clock 35%. I just don't think they'll turn out for Ed.
Con - 36%, Lab - 32%, LD - 9%, UKIP - 13%, Others - 10% is my guess.
EICIPM
Baxter say's Con 13 short of a majority... Add in the Irish and a bit of first term Con incumbency and they would be close to keeping the show on the road...
"But it is inconceivable to me that a government organisation should be competing with private sector ones to supply a service that the market is quite capable of providing on its own."
If you had any idea how much talent comes out of the BBC for which there can be no other training ground you would realize the philistinism of that post. The French have a nationalized film industry and it's one of the reasons the French have a culture that is so far in advance of ours. Not everything in life is about getting rich
I'm now fairly confident the Tories will poll 35-35% on polling day, but I'll eat my hat if Labour clock 35%. I just don't think they'll turn out for Ed.
Con - 36%, Lab - 32%, LD - 9%, UKIP - 13%, Others - 10% is my guess.
How do you become a producer at the BBC? Oisin Tymon looks like a gap-year student who's just rolled out of bed.
Do the BBC still have their Irish National positive discrimination in recruitment? I remember back in the 90s and it was something like 5% for the Graduate Journalism scheme.
YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour and Tories still tied: CON 35%, LAB 35%, LD 8%, UKIP 12%, GRN 6%
Fascinating. This is becoming a stalemate - both sides are mobilising and rallying, but despite several assaults, neither can decisively penetrate the defences on the political Western Front.
It needs one side to run out of reserves, and then for that to be quickly exploited with new weaponry, in a final coordinated combined arms assault.
The stalemate ended because only one side was able and willing to fight on by July. The Germans were surrendering in droves by then, afflicted by defeatism.
You mean he's moving networks and making a boatload more money?
Poor chap.
I suppose the BBC will now be looking to the public to make up the tens of millions they are going to lose every year.
F**k em. They should be made to run as a paid subscription service. Then they would actually have to take some responsibility for the money they spend.
The BBC should not be a broadcasting organisation. There is an argument that there should be some public money set aside to commission programmes that would not otherwise be made: perhaps some education or arts programming.
But it is inconceivable to me that a government organisation should be competing with private sector ones to supply a service that the market is quite capable of providing on its own.
And don't give me that "oh, but we need Radio 4" shit. If there is a demand for it, the market will provide it.
Frankly other stations do better - or at least just as good - programmes these days.
That I cannot argue with. For one thing, the americans are leaving us all in the dust anyway. So much better stuff.
YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour and Tories still tied: CON 35%, LAB 35%, LD 8%, UKIP 12%, GRN 6%
Fascinating. This is becoming a stalemate - both sides are mobilising and rallying, but despite several assaults, neither can decisively penetrate the defences on the political Western Front.
It needs one side to run out of reserves, and then for that to be quickly exploited with new weaponry, in a final coordinated combined arms assault.
I've been arguing for some months that what's happened is basically that both sides have fallen back on their core votes, almost none of whom are willing to switch, so the usual swingback isn't happening. The recent development seems to be a certain concentraiton on the big 2, and rather more in the Ashcroft marginals. Certainty to vote is very high for both major parties, much lower for the LibDems.
The reserves in your sense are the remaining smaller party votes, and they're probably all a bit further squeezable in the marginals. End result 36-37% each?
You mean he's moving networks and making a boatload more money?
Poor chap.
I suppose the BBC will now be looking to the public to make up the tens of millions they are going to lose every year.
F**k em. They should be made to run as a paid subscription service. Then they would actually have to take some responsibility for the money they spend.
The BBC should not be a broadcasting organisation. There is an argument that there should be some public money set aside to commission programmes that would not otherwise be made: perhaps some education or arts programming.
But it is inconceivable to me that a government organisation should be competing with private sector ones to supply a service that the market is quite capable of providing on its own.
And don't give me that "oh, but we need Radio 4" shit. If there is a demand for it, the market will provide it.
Inconceivable? Er, switch on your TV. Look! - there's the BBC broadcasting away.
Is there a 3 for 2 offer on stupid pills at your local Boots at the moment? You really are excelling yourself today.
"I think the BBC are savvy enough to realise this will have political implications for them and their future, if the Tories are re-elected. "
Garbage. Top Gear is a pin prick to the BBC. What's more the chances are that Top Gear 2 will be more popular than the original. Never underestimate the talent at the BBC. Almost everything they have ever touched has turned to gold. Quite simply as a broadcaster thy're in a class of their own
This explains why the highpoint of your career was producing tampon commercials, whereas some of us - I NAME NO NAMES - have actually created serious piece of fiction, film, whatever
YOU HAVEN'T GOT A CLUE, YOU FAT DELUDED MODERATED.
Curious, I went over to the Guardian expecting to see a tsunami of indignation about the racist, sexist and downright barmy tweets by parliamentary candidate John Clarke, but: silence. On the BBC website: silence.
Ah yes, it was all a conspiracy. How silly of me to think otherwise. That's a lot more credible than 'Person with history of incidents commits one too many incidents'.
Don't fucking thick Kle. It doesn't have to be a conspiracy. All it needs is the sort of mindset you have in the BBC to fail to manage their talent. This is cock up not conspiracy.
When Brand and Ross did their stupid phone call everyone was happily condemning them (and rightly so just as Clarkson should be condemned for punching someone) but no one asked what the hell the Producer was doing - the bloke who is actually supposed to be in charge - letting them get to the point where they actually managed to broadcast the insults.
You expect these people to push the boundaries and that is why they are big money earners. The public like it. But then you have Producers who are supposed to make sure it doesn't get out of hand. The BBC like to benefit from the outrageous behaviour and then when it goes too far because they have not maintained some form of control they happily wash their hands and say it is all the fault of the talent.
It is a moronic way to run a business and they keep getting away with it - at the public's cost. .
"I think the BBC are savvy enough to realise this will have political implications for them and their future, if the Tories are re-elected. "
Garbage. Top Gear is a pin prick to the BBC. What's more the chances are that Top Gear 2 will be more popular than the original. Never underestimate the talent at the BBC. Almost everything they have ever touched has turned to gold. Quite simply as a broadcaster thy're in a class of their own
The BBC is like any other corporation, sometimes it makes things people want and sometimes it doesn't.
Am i the only one here who actually likes the BBC? I hate/despise its metropolitican liberal left view of the world, and its attempts to enforce a set of quite vile and alien values throughout the organisation. I would rather not pay £130 a year or whatever it is, but for that £130 you really do get a lot of value.
My b*tch with them isnt how they are funded, its their relentless desire to impose their values on me. They have rolled back quite a lot from the quite blatant playing for the labour party, they kind of fell out following Iraq, and now they hold the same values they held, they just wont play it for Labour in a way they used to.
As an aside, I very much doubt Clarkson will be going to ITV or Sky.
My money is on Amazon with Netflix as my second favourite. Amazon has more money than god and they really, really, really want you to put one of their excellent Fire TV boxes in your home. A few hundred million on Clarkson and New Gear would be a small price to pay.
The problem is that how many people watch Fire TV or Netfix in the UK as a share of the total audience, they may have tons of money but do the have the viewers?
Giving Clarkson tons of money might be ok but if not many people can watch it then Clarkson the TV star would lose his reputation.
YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour and Tories still tied: CON 35%, LAB 35%, LD 8%, UKIP 12%, GRN 6%
Fascinating. This is becoming a stalemate - both sides are mobilising and rallying, but despite several assaults, neither can decisively penetrate the defences on the political Western Front.
It needs one side to run out of reserves, and then for that to be quickly exploited with new weaponry, in a final coordinated combined arms assault.
The stalemate ended because only one side was able and willing to fight on by July. The Germans were surrendering in droves by then, afflicted by defeatism.
I can just see the tail of the Kipper going down the plug hole..
10-15% would be an excellent result for UKIP compared to the previous GE. Many people were suggesting they would poll low single digits by now.
Hows that majority working out for you?
What about 7% - that's on the card now. A three MP irrelevance whilst Eck has 17 times that number. How's the people's army majority in 2020 looking from there ?
A waste of energy asking no doubt, but what price under/over7%?
Reading that I do hope Evans says no. Not sure it would be a sound career move to be seen to be taking over in those circumstances.
It'll be dependent if Captain Slow and the Hamster stay or not.
I said I hope Evans doesn't take it because I like him and don't want to see him fail. And fail he will - particularly if Hammond and May stay. The whole dynamic will be wrong. Top Gear as it stands is dead on the BBC if Clarkson is gone. They can keep the name and relaunch it as another car programme but it will certainly not be the programme it was and I suspect (or at least hope) the Terrible Trio will be making that programme for some other broadcaster.
If Hammond and May stay the BBC management will impose a female co-presenter regardless of how that destroys the dynamic. I'm not sure why anyone speculating on possibilities considers any male.
I like Rupert Murdoch on Twitter. He seems to enjoy stirring the pot in all sorts of directions. I hope he is very active during the campaign, if he will be permitted to do so by his team.
"I think the BBC are savvy enough to realise this will have political implications for them and their future, if the Tories are re-elected. "
Garbage. Top Gear is a pin prick to the BBC. What's more the chances are that Top Gear 2 will be more popular than the original. Never underestimate the talent at the BBC. Almost everything they have ever touched has turned to gold. Quite simply as a broadcaster thy're in a class of their own
It's their most popular program, sold to over 200 countries. This IS Top Gear 2 - the original folded and they all went to another network and became Fifth Gear.
BBC America gets minuscule ratings. Hardly 'turned to gold'. But I'm pleased that the loss of significant revenue is a 'pinprick'. Good business thinking.
Why am I left thinking that you are hardly neutral about the BBC?
YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour and Tories still tied: CON 35%, LAB 35%, LD 8%, UKIP 12%, GRN 6%
Fascinating. This is becoming a stalemate - both sides are mobilising and rallying, but despite several assaults, neither can decisively penetrate the defences on the political Western Front.
It needs one side to run out of reserves, and then for that to be quickly exploited with new weaponry, in a final coordinated combined arms assault.
The stalemate ended because only one side was able and willing to fight on by July. The Germans were surrendering in droves by then, afflicted by defeatism.
Which side does that remind you of?
I couldn't possibly comment! Right, I really must hit the sack; long day tomorrow.
The reserves in your sense are the remaining smaller party votes, and they're probably all a bit further squeezable in the marginals. End result 36-37% each?
Wouldn't that be ironic given all the talk about the growth of minor parties and disenchantment with the big 2 parties?
Your numbers would mean Con + Lab in the range 72 to 74 - compared to 67 last time (GB only).
Cam's words are irrelevant to this GE, it just means that should he stay in... after the EU referendum the media is going to have only one topic of conversation. Ask Tony !
As an aside, I very much doubt Clarkson will be going to ITV or Sky.
My money is on Amazon with Netflix as my second favourite. Amazon has more money than god and they really, really, really want you to put one of their excellent Fire TV boxes in your home. A few hundred million on Clarkson and New Gear would be a small price to pay.
The problem is that how many people watch Fire TV or Netfix in the UK as a share of the total audience, they may have tons of money but do the have the viewers?
Netflix has 40 million subscribers in the USA, Amazon has the same. If it happened there, it will happen here. It aint about the big TV, its about the portable devices.
Tell you what will really set the cat amongst the pigeons is the first report of a non-star having punched someone and been sent on an anger management course and given some penalty that does not involve being sacked. That is what happens with almost every other big (and small) organisation because they are frightened of litigation. I would reckon there are bound to be cases inside the BBC.
"I think the BBC are savvy enough to realise this will have political implications for them and their future, if the Tories are re-elected. "
Garbage. Top Gear is a pin prick to the BBC. What's more the chances are that Top Gear 2 will be more popular than the original. Never underestimate the talent at the BBC. Almost everything they have ever touched has turned to gold. Quite simply as a broadcaster thy're in a class of their own
This explains why the highpoint of your career was producing tampon commercials, whereas some of us - I NAME NO NAMES - have actually created serious piece of fiction, film, whatever
YOU HAVEN'T GOT A CLUE, YOU FAT DELUDED MODERATED.
Thankyou moderator. You actually made that more amusing than my original, overly-vituperative remark.
Roger is still a clueless, hapless, talentless old twit, of course, a kind of oiled, incontinent seagull of creativity, who never even left the beach on which he was born, then choked on a tampon.
But he earns more than you, he said the other day. And whoever would have foreseen the day when "earns more than SeanT" would supplant "as rich as creases" as the PB benchmark for unlimited wealth?
Reading that I do hope Evans says no. Not sure it would be a sound career move to be seen to be taking over in those circumstances.
It'll be dependent if Captain Slow and the Hamster stay or not.
I said I hope Evans doesn't take it because I like him and don't want to see him fail. And fail he will - particularly if Hammond and May stay. The whole dynamic will be wrong. Top Gear as it stands is dead on the BBC if Clarkson is gone. They can keep the name and relaunch it as another car programme but it will certainly not be the programme it was and I suspect (or at least hope) the Terrible Trio will be making that programme for some other broadcaster.
If Hammond and May stay the BBC management will impose a female co-presenter regardless of how that destroys the dynamic. I'm not sure why anyone speculating on possibilities considers any male.
I can just see the tail of the Kipper going down the plug hole..
10-15% would be an excellent result for UKIP compared to the previous GE. Many people were suggesting they would poll low single digits by now.
Hows that majority working out for you?
What about 7% - that's on the card now. A three MP irrelevance whilst Eck has 17 times that number. How's the people's army majority in 2020 looking from there ?
A waste of energy asking no doubt, but what price under/over7%?
MikeK and I are betting on 17% - same bet to you if you like. Also we are on LDs vs Kippers which is coming back in play.
I like Rupert Murdoch on Twitter. He seems to enjoy stirring the pot in all sorts of directions. I hope he is very active during the campaign, if he will be permitted to do so by his team.
I was told by someone that, Rupert really pissed off the Sunday Times during the Indyref when he tweeted about that YouGov poll.
They had an exclusive planned and he destroyed their exclusive.
Rumour has it, that he isn't getting any more polls from his staff.
"I think the BBC are savvy enough to realise this will have political implications for them and their future, if the Tories are re-elected. "
Garbage. Top Gear is a pin prick to the BBC. What's more the chances are that Top Gear 2 will be more popular than the original. Never underestimate the talent at the BBC. Almost everything they have ever touched has turned to gold. Quite simply as a broadcaster thy're in a class of their own
The BBC are a joke. Management have hollowed out the business, disposing of or dumping all the useful bits, that is everything from costumes, post production, play out, studios and outside broadcast. If they need filming space it has to be rented back, either from Peel at Salford or the same owners at Pinewood/Shepperton. The same firm now own TVC too. Money has been lost left right and centre on Broadcasting House, digital platforms, ill fated engineering projects, moves north and a hundred and one other disaster zones. Meanwhile, suits on six figure salaries sit back in W1 and pretend that all is hunky dory. It's not.
As an aside, I very much doubt Clarkson will be going to ITV or Sky.
My money is on Amazon with Netflix as my second favourite. Amazon has more money than god and they really, really, really want you to put one of their excellent Fire TV boxes in your home. A few hundred million on Clarkson and New Gear would be a small price to pay.
Also note that Amazon have been pushing their Prime multi-way play...free shipping, free streaming tv episodes / movies (including origin content) and ability to "borrow" ebooks.
Although they do have some origin content, they don't have any huge, a must see...Netflix now have a number of shows like House of Cards. Amazon certainly have the money to throw at it, but it would certainly be seriously reducing your audience for the Top Gear crew.
One thing to also note...Chris Moyles was the biggest star on Radio 1, he left / got the shove, turned down lots of good opportunities and now all he manages to do is to get a few 1000's view of his "week in a life" [of a washed up former radio star] YouTube Channel.
Ah yes, it was all a conspiracy. How silly of me to think otherwise. That's a lot more credible than 'Person with history of incidents commits one too many incidents'.
Don't fucking thick Kle. It doesn't have to be a conspiracy. All it needs is the sort of mindset you have in the BBC to fail to manage their talent. This is cock up not conspiracy.
When Brand and Ross did their stupid phone call everyone was happily condemning them (and rightly so just as Clarkson should be condemned for punching someone) but no one asked what the hell the Producer was doing - the bloke who is actually supposed to be in charge - letting them get to the point where they actually managed to broadcast the insults.
You expect these people to push the boundaries and that is why they are big money earners. The public like it. But then you have Producers who are supposed to make sure it doesn't get out of hand. The BBC like to benefit from the outrageous behaviour and then when it goes too far because they have not maintained some form of control they happily wash their hands and say it is all the fault of the talent.
It is a moronic way to run a business and they keep getting away with it - at the public's cost. .
I call it a conspiracy if peoples' descriptions of what they think has been going on matches a conspiracy (specifically a 'conspiracy theory' in the negative connotation sense, as in fact we all know conspiracies do occur sometimes), an improbable years long coordination of people acting against their interests and their organisations' interests for bizarre reasoning. Calling for better management, and expecting it should have been place, is all very reasonable, but rather irrelevant to actual events as they occured. If I stand on someone's foot, even deliberately, they are still more at fault if they react by punching me in the face.
"I think the BBC are savvy enough to realise this will have political implications for them and their future, if the Tories are re-elected. "
Garbage. Top Gear is a pin prick to the BBC. What's more the chances are that Top Gear 2 will be more popular than the original. Never underestimate the talent at the BBC. Almost everything they have ever touched has turned to gold. Quite simply as a broadcaster thy're in a class of their own
This explains why the highpoint of your career was producing tampon commercials, whereas some of us - I NAME NO NAMES - have actually created serious piece of fiction, film, whatever
YOU HAVEN'T GOT A CLUE, YOU FAT DELUDED MODERATED.
Thankyou moderator. You actually made that more amusing than my original, overly-vituperative remark.
Roger is still a clueless, hapless, talentless old twit, of course, a kind of oiled, incontinent seagull of creativity, who never even left the beach on which he was born, then choked on a tampon.
Curious, I went over to the Guardian expecting to see a tsunami of indignation about the racist, sexist and downright barmy tweets by parliamentary candidate John Clarke, but: silence. On the BBC website: silence.
Why would that be, do you think?
Because this is Labour sexist, racist behaviour and the ends justify the means?????
BEN -am I wrong or are you happy to defend this behaviour??
"But it is inconceivable to me that a government organisation should be competing with private sector ones to supply a service that the market is quite capable of providing on its own."
If you had any idea how much talent comes out of the BBC for which there can be no other training ground you would realize the philistinism of that post. The French have a nationalized film industry and it's one of the reasons the French have a culture that is so far in advance of ours. Not everything in life is about getting rich
Nationalised ...just something else I have to pay for under the threat of the law to satisfy some leftie extremist policy and mantra.
As for the French film industry what was there last blockbuster? Don't see any here really
Tell you what will really set the cat amongst the pigeons is the first report of a non-star having punched someone and been sent on an anger management course and given some penalty that does not involve being sacked. That is what happens with almost every other big (and small) organisation because they are frightened of litigation. I would reckon there are bound to be cases inside the BBC.
I could tell you of one I know of as it involved two mates of mine, it was about 25 years ago though
I can just see the tail of the Kipper going down the plug hole..
10-15% would be an excellent result for UKIP compared to the previous GE. Many people were suggesting they would poll low single digits by now.
Hows that majority working out for you?
What about 7% - that's on the card now. A three MP irrelevance whilst Eck has 17 times that number. How's the people's army majority in 2020 looking from there ?
A waste of energy asking no doubt, but what price under/over7%?
MikeK and I are betting on 17% - same bet to you if you like. Also we are on LDs vs Kippers which is coming back in play.
I am on under 6% with HL for £20 plus a bottle of single malt.
I have written it off a while back, but did hedge it a bit.
I can just see the tail of the Kipper going down the plug hole..
10-15% would be an excellent result for UKIP compared to the previous GE. Many people were suggesting they would poll low single digits by now.
Hows that majority working out for you?
What about 7% - that's on the card now. A three MP irrelevance whilst Eck has 17 times that number. How's the people's army majority in 2020 looking from there ?
A waste of energy asking no doubt, but what price under/over7%?
MikeK and I are betting on 17% - same bet to you if you like. Also we are on LDs vs Kippers which is coming back in play.
So you say 7% is likely but want to bet on 17%? Righto
Want to make our £50 bet on Ukip v lib dem £100? £500? £1000? I'm game
I'll even give you improved odds.. You can have 6/5
The reserves in your sense are the remaining smaller party votes, and they're probably all a bit further squeezable in the marginals. End result 36-37% each?
Wouldn't that be ironic given all the talk about the growth of minor parties and disenchantment with the big 2 parties?
Your numbers would mean Con + Lab in the range 72 to 74 - compared to 67 last time (GB only).
Labour is going to be weighing the vote in some of it's London constituencies just as badly as the Tories are in the shires. Tooting, South Islington and Finsbury are two where the Labour vote will become far less efficient for a starter for 10.
The only person who could replace Clarkson is Guy Martin.
If I were the Beeb I would be paying him whatever he wanted.....
Could they afford the payouts for the cars and bikes he would wreck in a season :-) He even managed to get up enough speed to wreck a car with no engine.
I like Rupert Murdoch on Twitter. He seems to enjoy stirring the pot in all sorts of directions. I hope he is very active during the campaign, if he will be permitted to do so by his team.
I was told by someone that, Rupert really pissed off the Sunday Times during the Indyref when he tweeted about that YouGov poll.
They had an exclusive planned and he destroyed their exclusive.
Rumour has it, that he isn't getting any more polls from his staff.
I understand the times is entirely operationally and editorially independent of Murdoch.
Sheffield Central is another seat that was close last time where it won't be this time. Nowhere near. OTOH it looks as if the Conservatives could hold onto alot of seats in Kent, Essex by ~ 5% or so. If they don't LOSE them it's very good for the efficiency.
"I think the BBC are savvy enough to realise this will have political implications for them and their future, if the Tories are re-elected. "
Garbage. Top Gear is a pin prick to the BBC. What's more the chances are that Top Gear 2 will be more popular than the original. Never underestimate the talent at the BBC. Almost everything they have ever touched has turned to gold. Quite simply as a broadcaster thy're in a class of their own
Tell you what will really set the cat amongst the pigeons is the first report of a non-star having punched someone and been sent on an anger management course and given some penalty that does not involve being sacked. That is what happens with almost every other big (and small) organisation because they are frightened of litigation. I would reckon there are bound to be cases inside the BBC.
Seems likely in an organisation that size. Could be some quite senior people too, particularly if the incidents are historic.
Actually, what would be hilarious is a 'Clarkson' protest among BBC staffers, going out and punching someone in the office tomorrow. "Sack him and you have to sack all of us!"
In that situation I would not be as irritated at the story continuing on.
Speaking of the BBC having everything it touches turn to gold, BBC America has recently started running a truly wretched show called Mud, Sweat and Gears.
As an aside, I very much doubt Clarkson will be going to ITV or Sky.
My money is on Amazon with Netflix as my second favourite. Amazon has more money than god and they really, really, really want you to put one of their excellent Fire TV boxes in your home. A few hundred million on Clarkson and New Gear would be a small price to pay.
The problem is that how many people watch Fire TV or Netfix in the UK as a share of the total audience, they may have tons of money but do the have the viewers?
Giving Clarkson tons of money might be ok but if not many people can watch it then Clarkson the TV star would lose his reputation.
'Dave' as in TV station, might run a show. TG is on there all the time anyway. As it is, Clarkson was doing very nicely out of DVDs etc in the interregnum. He has done very nicely out of TG while it lasted. He has or ought to have enough money in the bank to be comfortable. Clarkson is the last person the BBC would want to employ anyway, no matter how much money he 'made' for them. Lets not forget all the money they will not now make is not list to 'them', its lost to the licence payer. So as it all comes out in the wash it means poorer programmes. If there was any comparable justice the lost income would be taken from the payments to all the other rubbish 'talent' they employ.
As an aside, I very much doubt Clarkson will be going to ITV or Sky.
My money is on Amazon with Netflix as my second favourite. Amazon has more money than god and they really, really, really want you to put one of their excellent Fire TV boxes in your home. A few hundred million on Clarkson and New Gear would be a small price to pay.
The problem is that how many people watch Fire TV or Netfix in the UK as a share of the total audience, they may have tons of money but do the have the viewers?
Giving Clarkson tons of money might be ok but if not many people can watch it then Clarkson the TV star would lose his reputation.
'Dave' as in TV station, might run a show. TG is on there all the time anyway.
Dave is part owned by the BBC...I think that could be interesting circle to square.
If anyone asks what I would have done with Clarkson if I was on the BBC's place, I would have cut his salary+compensation to the producer+forcing him to wear a hat with a large D and sit in a corner of the Top Gear studio for the rest of the season.
"I think the BBC are savvy enough to realise this will have political implications for them and their future, if the Tories are re-elected. "
Garbage. Top Gear is a pin prick to the BBC. What's more the chances are that Top Gear 2 will be more popular than the original. Never underestimate the talent at the BBC. Almost everything they have ever touched has turned to gold. Quite simply as a broadcaster thy're in a class of their own
The BBC is like any other corporation, sometimes it makes things people want and sometimes it doesn't.
Am i the only one here who actually likes the BBC? I hate/despise its metropolitican liberal left view of the world, and its attempts to enforce a set of quite vile and alien values throughout the organisation. I would rather not pay £130 a year or whatever it is, but for that £130 you really do get a lot of value.
My b*tch with them isnt how they are funded, its their relentless desire to impose their values on me. They have rolled back quite a lot from the quite blatant playing for the labour party, they kind of fell out following Iraq, and now they hold the same values they held, they just wont play it for Labour in a way they used to.
That's the problem. I agree with you that the BBC as a public service broadcaster regularly does offer something quite unique to British culture and the vast majority of the time this is positive and beneficial.
But it has been increasingly infiltrated by the loony left till you have todays BBC with "put an unfunny woman on the panel show because" and "sack Clarkson" and cancelling popular drama to "try new things".
The problem isn't the BBC, it's not how the BBC is funded, it's how it's run.
"But it is inconceivable to me that a government organisation should be competing with private sector ones to supply a service that the market is quite capable of providing on its own."
If you had any idea how much talent comes out of the BBC for which there can be no other training ground you would realize the philistinism of that post. The French have a nationalized film industry and it's one of the reasons the French have a culture that is so far in advance of ours. Not everything in life is about getting rich
Nationalised ...just something else I have to pay for under the threat of the law to satisfy some leftie extremist policy and mantra.
As for the French film industry what was there last blockbuster? Don't see any here really
As an aside, I very much doubt Clarkson will be going to ITV or Sky.
My money is on Amazon with Netflix as my second favourite. Amazon has more money than god and they really, really, really want you to put one of their excellent Fire TV boxes in your home. A few hundred million on Clarkson and New Gear would be a small price to pay.
The problem is that how many people watch Fire TV or Netfix in the UK as a share of the total audience, they may have tons of money but do the have the viewers?
Giving Clarkson tons of money might be ok but if not many people can watch it then Clarkson the TV star would lose his reputation.
'Dave' as in TV station, might run a show. TG is on there all the time anyway.
Dave is part owned by the BBC...I think that could be interesting circle to square.
Well it's an interesting way for the BBC to have and to not have Top Gear if they gave it to a subsidiary station which they only part own, therefore they can take the money and plausibly not have any relation with it. And since everyone has Freeview everyone can watch Top Gear on Dave(they sorta do already) much like everyone can watch it on BBC2.
"I think the BBC are savvy enough to realise this will have political implications for them and their future, if the Tories are re-elected. "
Garbage. Top Gear is a pin prick to the BBC. What's more the chances are that Top Gear 2 will be more popular than the original. Never underestimate the talent at the BBC. Almost everything they have ever touched has turned to gold. Quite simply as a broadcaster thy're in a class of their own
The BBC is like any other corporation, sometimes it makes things people want and sometimes it doesn't.
Am i the only one here who actually likes the BBC? I hate/despise its metropolitican liberal left view of the world, and its attempts to enforce a set of quite vile and alien values throughout the organisation. I would rather not pay £130 a year or whatever it is, but for that £130 you really do get a lot of value.
My b*tch with them isnt how they are funded, its their relentless desire to impose their values on me. They have rolled back quite a lot from the quite blatant playing for the labour party, they kind of fell out following Iraq, and now they hold the same values they held, they just wont play it for Labour in a way they used to.
That's the problem. I agree with you that the BBC as a public service broadcaster regularly does offer something quite unique to British culture and the vast majority of the time this is positive and beneficial.
But it has been increasingly infiltrated by the loony left till you have todays BBC with "put an unfunny woman on the panel show because" and "sack Clarkson" and cancelling popular drama to "try new things".
The problem isn't the BBC, it's not how the BBC is funded, it's how it's run.
On that we agree. My other shudder as well, is if the BBC has a problem, the solution isnt ITV.
It is possible to think of a future of public sector broadcasting, with the BBC, or what replaces it, being a commissioning organisation rather than just a channel. When the BBC puts its mind to it can create superb TV. Its always at a disadvantage if it tries to compete with some of the US shows. It just does not have the budget or the skills to produce something of the calibre of House of Cards (I know, the irony), or Breaking Bad. But it has a good stab at stuff.
If anyone asks what I would have done with Clarkson if I was on the BBC's place, I would have cut his salary+compensation to the producer+forcing him to wear a hat with a large D and sit in a corner of the Top Gear studio for the rest of the season.
And do you know what? He would have taken that, we would have taken that. The other two would have taken the piss out of him continuously and it would have been great creative TV.
Why are you not running the BBC. Your solutions are so much better than theirs.
"I think the BBC are savvy enough to realise this will have political implications for them and their future, if the Tories are re-elected. "
Garbage. Top Gear is a pin prick to the BBC. What's more the chances are that Top Gear 2 will be more popular than the original. Never underestimate the talent at the BBC. Almost everything they have ever touched has turned to gold. Quite simply as a broadcaster thy're in a class of their own
This explains why the highpoint of your career was producing tampon commercials, whereas some of us - I NAME NO NAMES - have actually created serious piece of fiction, film, whatever
YOU HAVEN'T GOT A CLUE, YOU FAT DELUDED MODERATED.
Thankyou moderator. You actually made that more amusing than my original, overly-vituperative remark.
Roger is still a clueless, hapless, talentless old twit, of course, a kind of oiled, incontinent seagull of creativity, who never even left the beach on which he was born, then choked on a tampon.
But he earns more than you, he said the other day. And whoever would have foreseen the day when "earns more than SeanT" would supplant "as rich as creases" as the PB benchmark for unlimited wealth?
Hint: he doesn't earn more than me. Not now.
Go on, slap it on the table and get the tape measure out!
I greet the news of Clarkson's sacking with contradictory emotions. He insulted a producer for 30 minutes, called him a "lazy Irish c**t", then punched him, so of course he was going to be deservedly sacked. But I was hoping that some compromise could be found. Who knows: maybe it still will...
Anyhoo, not what I came here to say. My question is "what are the boundaries?". BBC owns the rights to Top Gear, so if, say, Sky transmit a program called "New Gear" in which they review cars and have race challenges, then BBC can sue and would win. If they transmitted a program called "Clarkson, May and Hammond" in which they cook meals and have challenges not involving cars, then BBC may see but would lose. So my question is: what is the boundary? How different from Top Gear does the program have to be for it to not fall within BBC's rights
If they do bring in Evans....kinda of ironic..Evans sacked by the BBC in 1997 for gross misconduct to replace Clarkson, sacked for gross misconduct in 2015...Another few years and the BBC can rehire Clarkson for Radio 2.
The question is with contracts expiring will Hammond and May stay?
"I think the BBC are savvy enough to realise this will have political implications for them and their future, if the Tories are re-elected. "
Garbage. Top Gear is a pin prick to the BBC. What's more the chances are that Top Gear 2 will be more popular than the original. Never underestimate the talent at the BBC. Almost everything they have ever touched has turned to gold. Quite simply as a broadcaster thy're in a class of their own
The BBC is like any other corporation, sometimes it makes things people want and sometimes it doesn't.
I agree with you about Outcasts, which was a shame since the scenario of planet colony facing an unknown danger is a typical but none the less classic SF. Having said that it makes you wonder about the dynamics of how it ever got made and the casting, since there was little appealing about the characters, and the story despite the opportunities seemed a bit turgid. But frankly BBC drama has to be miserable and about miserable people if it is ever going to get made.
If they do bring in Evans....kinda of ironic..Evans sacked by the BBC in 1997 for gross misconduct to replace Clarkson, sacked for gross misconduct in 2015...Another few years and the BBC can rehire Clarkson for Radio 2.
The question is with contracts expiring will Hammond and May stay?
Better for all of them to stick together I would have thought - a stronger brand together than apart.
I greet the news of Clarkson's sacking with contradictory emotions. He insulted a producer for 30 minutes, called him a "lazy Irish c**t", then punched him, so of course he was going to be deservedly sacked. But I was hoping that some compromise could be found. Who knows: maybe it still will...
Anyhoo, not what I came here to say. My question is "what are the boundaries?". BBC owns the rights to Top Gear, so if, say, Sky transmit a program called "New Gear" in which they review cars and have race challenges, then BBC can sue and would win. If they transmitted a program called "Clarkson, May and Hammond" in which they cook meals and have challenges not involving cars, then BBC may see but would lose. So my question is: what is the boundary? How different from Top Gear does the program have to be for it to not fall within BBC's rights
Given the program format, I would think all BBC can protect is the name and the segments like "Star in a Reasonably Priced Car"...Other than that, I don't think you can protect, 3 middle aged men go on a road trip. It isn't like Who Wants to be a Millionaire, where the format is clear, formulaic and repeated each episode.
If anyone asks what I would have done with Clarkson if I was on the BBC's place, I would have cut his salary+compensation to the producer+forcing him to wear a hat with a large D and sit in a corner of the Top Gear studio for the rest of the season.
And do you know what? He would have taken that, we would have taken that. The other two would have taken the piss out of him continuously and it would have been great creative TV.
Why are you not running the BBC. Your solutions are so much better than theirs.
You are not the first one to ask and not only for that public function, but since it's a public company I don't have the necessary political connections.
There is a Top Gear format show produced in both Australia and the USA, (and bizarrely in the US it's on the History Channel). UK Top Gear is on BBC America.
They all have three hosts.
Neither of the other programs works as well as the UK one, even though they have many of the same challenges and adventures.
What makes UK Top Gear work is the chemistry between the presenters -the big mouthed iconoclast, the long haired intellectual, and the cheeky chappie.
The other series don't work nearly as well because there simply isn't the chemistry. It's obvious that Clarkson etc really like each other and spark off each other. Take any of the three away and the show doesn't work any more.
There is a Top Gear format show produced in both Australia and the USA, (and bizarrely in the US it's on the History Channel). UK Top Gear is on BBC America.
They all have three hosts.
Neither of the other programs works as well as the UK one, even though they have many of the same challenges and adventures.
What makes UK Top Gear work is the chemistry between the presenters -the big mouthed iconoclast, the long haired intellectual, and the cheeky chappie.
The other series don't work nearly as well because there simply isn't the chemistry. It's obvious that Clarkson etc really like each other and spark off each other. Take any of the three away and the show doesn't work any more.
Top Gear USA is ranges from passable to [most of the time] bloody awful.
"I think the BBC are savvy enough to realise this will have political implications for them and their future, if the Tories are re-elected. "
Garbage. Top Gear is a pin prick to the BBC. What's more the chances are that Top Gear 2 will be more popular than the original. Never underestimate the talent at the BBC. Almost everything they have ever touched has turned to gold. Quite simply as a broadcaster thy're in a class of their own
The BBC is like any other corporation, sometimes it makes things people want and sometimes it doesn't.
I agree with you about Outcasts, which was a shame since the scenario of planet colony facing an unknown danger is a typical but none the less classic SF. Having said that it makes you wonder about the dynamics of how it ever got made and the casting, since there was little appealing about the characters, and the story despite the opportunities seemed a bit turgid. But frankly BBC drama has to be miserable and about miserable people if it is ever going to get made.
The trouble with the BBC these days is that even though they once in a while produce something good - Wolf Hall being the most recent example - as a rule they are now being matched or bettered by so many other companies both here and in the US. UK comedy was long ago eclipsed by the US and in recent years they have done the same with drama. The BBC in its current form is old, tired and needs taking round the back of the shed and putting down.
The other thing that the BBC have been amateur about is to take days and days and days to sort this out/allow Clarkson to negotiate a better deal with whoever is out there....
Comments
Probably 43%!!
All about the 1983!!!
Con - 36%, Lab - 32%, LD - 9%, UKIP - 13%, Others - 10% is my guess.
Unbelievable that such complete trivia should even be polled. I'd guess that if people were being honest and didn't feel they had to make a reply 100% would say they couldn't care less.
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussions
then click on the discussion you want to view the comments for. The newest discussions should be at the top (opposite to the comment order!)
This includes a huge proportion of Lib Dems but also many Ukip and even some Labour supporters.
They were in a class of their own for covering up paedophiles but lots of Labour councils seem to be quite proficient too.
But in the end the BBC should compete in the open market with the rest of the broadcast media. Yes I agree there should be a public service support but why that should go to the BBC alone I have no idea.
Frankly other stations do better - or at least just as good - programmes these days.
I was sent on one of those once.
They are pure fuckwit flypaper if you keep the pisstaking subtle.
My money is on Amazon with Netflix as my second favourite. Amazon has more money than god and they really, really, really want you to put one of their excellent Fire TV boxes in your home. A few hundred million on Clarkson and New Gear would be a small price to pay.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outcasts_(TV_series)
The BBC is like any other corporation, sometimes it makes things people want and sometimes it doesn't.
So there's no need to get mad at the BBC - they will already suffer, and that even if people don't follow through with the 'I'll stop paying licence fee' threats, which some may well do too.
Honestly, being angry at the BBC for not being impartial enough (sides differ on how much they try, of course) seems a much better reason to get angry than this Clarkson business. The same with the 'unfair advantage' argument against the BBC. Even with Clarkson being a right wing figure in a lefty organisation, it is stunning how political and partisan this mess has become.
"But it is inconceivable to me that a government organisation should be competing with private sector ones to supply a service that the market is quite capable of providing on its own."
If you had any idea how much talent comes out of the BBC for which there can be no other training ground you would realize the philistinism of that post. The French have a nationalized film industry and it's one of the reasons the French have a culture that is so far in advance of ours. Not everything in life is about getting rich
Which side does that remind you of?
The reserves in your sense are the remaining smaller party votes, and they're probably all a bit further squeezable in the marginals. End result 36-37% each?
The bubble need to listen to PB tories more often!
Why would that be, do you think?
When Brand and Ross did their stupid phone call everyone was happily condemning them (and rightly so just as Clarkson should be condemned for punching someone) but no one asked what the hell the Producer was doing - the bloke who is actually supposed to be in charge - letting them get to the point where they actually managed to broadcast the insults.
You expect these people to push the boundaries and that is why they are big money earners. The public like it. But then you have Producers who are supposed to make sure it doesn't get out of hand. The BBC like to benefit from the outrageous behaviour and then when it goes too far because they have not maintained some form of control they happily wash their hands and say it is all the fault of the talent.
It is a moronic way to run a business and they keep getting away with it - at the public's cost. .
I would rather not pay £130 a year or whatever it is, but for that £130 you really do get a lot of value.
My b*tch with them isnt how they are funded, its their relentless desire to impose their values on me. They have rolled back quite a lot from the quite blatant playing for the labour party, they kind of fell out following Iraq, and now they hold the same values they held, they just wont play it for Labour in a way they used to.
Giving Clarkson tons of money might be ok but if not many people can watch it then Clarkson the TV star would lose his reputation.
BBC America gets minuscule ratings. Hardly 'turned to gold'. But I'm pleased that the loss of significant revenue is a 'pinprick'. Good business thinking.
Why am I left thinking that you are hardly neutral about the BBC?
Your numbers would mean Con + Lab in the range 72 to 74 - compared to 67 last time (GB only).
They had an exclusive planned and he destroyed their exclusive.
Rumour has it, that he isn't getting any more polls from his staff.
Ok, so Murdoch is the one with the opening bid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNybjT8D7uE
Although they do have some origin content, they don't have any huge, a must see...Netflix now have a number of shows like House of Cards. Amazon certainly have the money to throw at it, but it would certainly be seriously reducing your audience for the Top Gear crew.
One thing to also note...Chris Moyles was the biggest star on Radio 1, he left / got the shove, turned down lots of good opportunities and now all he manages to do is to get a few 1000's view of his "week in a life" [of a washed up former radio star] YouTube Channel.
Lab 1.1% lead
There is no need to be unpleasant.
BEN -am I wrong or are you happy to defend this behaviour??
As for the French film industry what was there last blockbuster? Don't see any here really
http://www.timeout.com/paris/en/film/100-best-french-films
If I were the Beeb I would be paying him whatever he wanted.....
I have written it off a while back, but did hedge it a bit.
So fome on Nigel, do something seriously stupid!
Want to make our £50 bet on Ukip v lib dem £100? £500? £1000? I'm game
I'll even give you improved odds.. You can have 6/5
In the Flesh and Ripper Street being two very glaring examples from the past 12 months.
Actually, what would be hilarious is a 'Clarkson' protest among BBC staffers, going out and punching someone in the office tomorrow. "Sack him and you have to sack all of us!"
In that situation I would not be as irritated at the story continuing on.
As it is, Clarkson was doing very nicely out of DVDs etc in the interregnum. He has done very nicely out of TG while it lasted. He has or ought to have enough money in the bank to be comfortable. Clarkson is the last person the BBC would want to employ anyway, no matter how much money he 'made' for them. Lets not forget all the money they will not now make is not list to 'them', its lost to the licence payer. So as it all comes out in the wash it means poorer programmes. If there was any comparable justice the lost income would be taken from the payments to all the other rubbish 'talent' they employ.
"Labour should hold Edinburgh South and Edinburgh South West barring a complete meltdown."
Oh !
I wonder if all those joyless victorian tycoons and austere american robber barons had similar fun.
Had dinner with a few today, and they were gutted that I was planning on voting Con.
If they can't get me, a Socially Liberal, One Nation Tory to vote tactically for the Lib Dems, then they're are ducked.
But it has been increasingly infiltrated by the loony left till you have todays BBC with "put an unfunny woman on the panel show because" and "sack Clarkson" and cancelling popular drama to "try new things".
The problem isn't the BBC, it's not how the BBC is funded, it's how it's run.
And since everyone has Freeview everyone can watch Top Gear on Dave(they sorta do already) much like everyone can watch it on BBC2.
It is possible to think of a future of public sector broadcasting, with the BBC, or what replaces it, being a commissioning organisation rather than just a channel. When the BBC puts its mind to it can create superb TV. Its always at a disadvantage if it tries to compete with some of the US shows. It just does not have the budget or the skills to produce something of the calibre of House of Cards (I know, the irony), or Breaking Bad. But it has a good stab at stuff.
Why are you not running the BBC. Your solutions are so much better than theirs.
Anyhoo, not what I came here to say. My question is "what are the boundaries?". BBC owns the rights to Top Gear, so if, say, Sky transmit a program called "New Gear" in which they review cars and have race challenges, then BBC can sue and would win. If they transmitted a program called "Clarkson, May and Hammond" in which they cook meals and have challenges not involving cars, then BBC may see but would lose. So my question is: what is the boundary? How different from Top Gear does the program have to be for it to not fall within BBC's rights
The question is with contracts expiring will Hammond and May stay?
But frankly BBC drama has to be miserable and about miserable people if it is ever going to get made.
They all have three hosts.
Neither of the other programs works as well as the UK one, even though they have many of the same challenges and adventures.
What makes UK Top Gear work is the chemistry between the presenters -the big mouthed iconoclast, the long haired intellectual, and the cheeky chappie.
The other series don't work nearly as well because there simply isn't the chemistry. It's obvious that Clarkson etc really like each other and spark off each other. Take any of the three away and the show doesn't work any more.
So Netflix/Amazon/Sky get a hit new show, Not Top Gear becomes a better programme, and the BBC loses millions. This is actually great news.