alpha
Member
It's apparently been known for a while amongst those who compete in higher levels of motorsport in the UK that Ben Collins is in fact the Stig. Some newspapers have also known about it but decided to keep quiet about it:
The Times, in a follow-up article, stated that the "identity of the white-suited Stig ... has been an open secret within the motoring world for some years, with newspapers refraining from publishing his name, to uphold the spirit of the programme.
I understand if the boys are disappointed that they can, in the spirit of a great TV show, keep the British tabloids silent but someone whom they consider a friend and that has worked towards the same goal (creating a great TV show) for eight years lets the cat out of the bag. The BBC didn't drop the ball, Ben decided to publish a book. Getting accused of being the Stig isn't harassment, it's an honor. What they did agree on is in the contract, which I don't think has become public so it's all guesswork. It didn't hold up in court though.
Keeping a contract-agreed secret isn't violation of freedom of speech. Should all retired generals be allowed to talk about secrets regarding national security? Should former Secret Service agents be allowed to write books about how the president is guarded? Please keep in mind that Ben wasn't even remotely close to creating anything Stig-like. There are hundreds of other talented race-drivers that could have done the job instead. He was actually lucky to get the job and I don't feel sorry for him a single second. He knew perfectly well what the concept was and that keeping the Stig a secret was important. The BBC has put a lot of money and effort into Top Gear and "The Stig" and deserve to keep its property. Analogie: Shouldn't Coca Cola be allowed to keep the recipe for their soda a secret, or can former employees that know what's in it be allowed to write "Coca Cola cook-books"? Just like Ben they didn't create anything, they just got the job.
Sure the boys has made a ton of money on Top Gear. And I'm sure that Ben (and his company Collins Motorsport, which has done lots of things for Top Gear like driving the Mercedes that a parachuter landed in (season 3), driving a Lancer Evo VII and a Bowler Wildcat vs a snowboarder (season 4), drove in the Toyota Aygo football match (season 6), and so on and so forth) has also earned a lot. That's not a bad thing. If you create one of the biggest TV-shows on the planet and have the opportunity to franchise it out, create live shows, sell DVDs, et cetera, why not do it? Like making money is a bad thing. They did it by doing what they do best, create a show and deserve what they earn. They didn't destroy a concept someone else has made, just to sell a book.
The Times, in a follow-up article, stated that the "identity of the white-suited Stig ... has been an open secret within the motoring world for some years, with newspapers refraining from publishing his name, to uphold the spirit of the programme.
I understand if the boys are disappointed that they can, in the spirit of a great TV show, keep the British tabloids silent but someone whom they consider a friend and that has worked towards the same goal (creating a great TV show) for eight years lets the cat out of the bag. The BBC didn't drop the ball, Ben decided to publish a book. Getting accused of being the Stig isn't harassment, it's an honor. What they did agree on is in the contract, which I don't think has become public so it's all guesswork. It didn't hold up in court though.
Keeping a contract-agreed secret isn't violation of freedom of speech. Should all retired generals be allowed to talk about secrets regarding national security? Should former Secret Service agents be allowed to write books about how the president is guarded? Please keep in mind that Ben wasn't even remotely close to creating anything Stig-like. There are hundreds of other talented race-drivers that could have done the job instead. He was actually lucky to get the job and I don't feel sorry for him a single second. He knew perfectly well what the concept was and that keeping the Stig a secret was important. The BBC has put a lot of money and effort into Top Gear and "The Stig" and deserve to keep its property. Analogie: Shouldn't Coca Cola be allowed to keep the recipe for their soda a secret, or can former employees that know what's in it be allowed to write "Coca Cola cook-books"? Just like Ben they didn't create anything, they just got the job.
Sure the boys has made a ton of money on Top Gear. And I'm sure that Ben (and his company Collins Motorsport, which has done lots of things for Top Gear like driving the Mercedes that a parachuter landed in (season 3), driving a Lancer Evo VII and a Bowler Wildcat vs a snowboarder (season 4), drove in the Toyota Aygo football match (season 6), and so on and so forth) has also earned a lot. That's not a bad thing. If you create one of the biggest TV-shows on the planet and have the opportunity to franchise it out, create live shows, sell DVDs, et cetera, why not do it? Like making money is a bad thing. They did it by doing what they do best, create a show and deserve what they earn. They didn't destroy a concept someone else has made, just to sell a book.