The who have Top Gear insulted this week thread

This is getting so out of control. Yes, what was said may have been a bit too much...but have any of these media people seen how often, say, the Americans are insulted on Top Gear? It's like people are chiming in now because this incident got a bit more media coverage, and they feel they need to say something to keep up their own profile. Apologies have been made...get over it, people, move on!

Either that, or some other celebrity say something to tick off the masses, so the heat can be on someone else. ;)
 
Chances are high that people who now -- several weeks after -- blame Richard Hammond for his words, have actually never seen the episode and just have been pointed to it by somebody else. Otherwise they would have reacted faster.

It's like holding a microphone into the face of Brigitte Bardot, asking "Have you heard that XYZ has said that baby seals would make a nice substitute for whale meat?" and then catch her reaction to get a fancy headline.
 
The DailyFail fails again!

I don't see what the problem with un-PC TV is. As long as no one gets physically hurt, its all in good fun.
 
I had to rewatch the news section to get that joke. I think it's very funny, especially when you see her pink mobile. :lol:

People who publically act that way, deserve such jokes.
 
MacGuffin said:
It's like holding a microphone into the face of Brigitte Bardot, asking "Have you heard that XYZ has said that baby seals would make a nice substitute for whale meat?" and then catch her reaction to get a fancy headline.
Click to expand...

But...but..they could! I mean, if you're going to use the fur, why let perfectly good meat go to waste?

:p
 
Oi whore's box?
Honni soit qui mal y pense.
Somebody tried very, very hard to be offended. Sadly tho it only resulted in a brain fart.
 
Daily Mail.

Top Gear still won't put a brake on swearing... and it's driving viewers up the wall

he BBC has promised to curb bad language in its programmes, but it seems that Top Gear is exempt.
The popular BBC2 show is broadcast at 8pm ? an hour before the watershed ? and is now widely regarded as family entertainment rather than a car show for ?lads?.
But on Sunday night?s programme, one guest used the word b******s and the word t***** was sprayed across a car.

In another segment, the F-word had to be bleeped out seven times in five minutes, while the word s*** was censored so badly it was clear what was being said.Irate viewers took to Twitter to question why such language was necessary. One said: ?Come on BBC! Why so much swearing in a family show??

Another said: ?Some words are bleeped out but others aren?t. Younger viewers may be watching so either screen it after 9pm or cut out the swearing.?
The BBC is well aware that Top Gear is popular with younger teens and children ? its commercial arm makes millions from merchandise relating to the show.

It even launched a dedicated magazine encouraging young people to collect trading cards each week, though this has now closed.
A report into children?s viewing habits also suggests that they often ?bore little relation? to the timing of the watershed - with more than half of 11 to 15-year-olds watching until 10pm or later.
Most of the bad language related to a sketch in the show, in which hosts Jeremy Clarkson and Richard Hammond attempted to choreograph a car chase in the style of The Sweeney.
The sketch director Nick Love, who has made the forthcoming film version of the classic 1970s cop show, is shown becoming increasingly infuriated and using increasingly bad language because of their bizarre plans for the car chase.
Love and Ray Winstone, who stars in the new film, appeared on the show to promote the production.
The corporation said it would cut back on offensive language in 2009 after a survey of more than 2,000 viewers found that even young people were concerned about its proliferation.
A BBC spokesman declined to comment.
Click to expand...



Fail


Popular: Top Gear is now regarded as a family show the Daily Mail has never spoken the truth, until now. :(
 
Been reading through this thread, and I must say, the Piers Morgan v. Ed Byrne is indicative of the issues at hand.

A couple of small minded selfish fuck-heads attempting to force their way of life on everyone else.
I don't give a flying shit if you hate Dubai because they have outlawed being a homosexual, the Isle of Man has the same fucking law. Why doesn't paddy boy rail on the Manx men? (maybe because they have guns?) Who cares if the Arabs don't care about being green? If you don't like Arabs, don't go to their countries.

Now, the complaints from the Romanians, Mexicans, Gays, Borats, and the like are the mewlings of a bunch of mentally deficient big girls blouses. This planet, and all on it, would benefit greatly from the singlemost selfless act these complainers can do...

Cease to breathe, stop using our air, and resources. You are incapable of comprehending the notion of "free will" and have taken it as your personal quest to force others through insults, and legislation, to conform to your way of existence. You are using food and space that would be better suited to those who are able to live their lives and let their neighbors live theirs. Love your neighbor, don't try to make them copies of you. (Remember The End of Time? The Master made everyone copies of himself. Fuckwits like Morgan would love the ability to do that.)

What is wrong with people having their own beliefs? So what if someone tells a joke that may or may not be based on a stereotype? The way I see it, stereotypes exist for damn good reasons.
You can either act in ways that reinforce them, or act in ways that show they do not apply to you.

For example, I am American, I live in the country (Texas no less), I am of Swedish descent (along with Scot, and Irish, and Austrian), but I live my life in such a way that you really can't insult me by insulting my heritage. You can try, but I have a good sense of humor. So call me a squarehead, call me OCD, call me a "whiskey swizzling, potato boiling, skirt wearing, sheep chaser." I will simply smile, or laugh, and correct you in that I have never raised sheep, we prefer goats.

But, since I am a Middle Class White Man, I am supposed to feel apologetic for slavery, for the living conditions of the poor, for the baby seals, and for the rain forests. Bullshit. Anytime a random black guy starts ranting about "whitey keepin my down" I simply ask him if he has ever heard me disparage the Italians. I usually get a blank look, I then get to explain that the Romans invaded the land of my ancestors, forced a different way of life upon them, and forced many of them into slavery. Since I had nothing to do with any of it, and it happened a long time ago, I don't hold a grudge. How can I be angry about that? That is the problem today. Too many people feel that they have the right to bitch about things that have NO FUCKING SIGNIFICANCE! Spike Lee said it best through Ed Norton in '24th Hour' "Move the fuck on!"

Why can we not simply agree to have our own unique viewpoints, and allow each other to live our own lives?
I do not care if you are homosexual, don't push it on me (how do you know your not gay if you never tried it?), and I won't break your face. (how do know you don't like being stabbed if you never tried it?)
I do not care if you want to save the whales, or abolish fur, don't throw shit at me, or on my truck, and I won't break your face.
Leave me to my beliefs, and I will leave you to yours, all I ask is that you act as a civilized human, and RESPECT me for mine, as I do for yours.

The human species has a lot of growing up to do.

We are all a part of the same creation, part of the same creator, regardless of what name you ascribe to it. Can we not act like it?

[/rant]
 
Last edited:
Best. Rant.Evar.

:clap: and :+1:
 
I prefer VW Beetles, like silt and twigs in my beer, put cheese on everything, and am a colonial.

You wont hear my complain about the things the TG guys say.
 
I simply ask him if he has ever heard me disparage the Italians. I usually get a blank look, I then get to explain that the Romans invaded the land of my ancestors, forced a different way of life upon them, and forced many of them into slavery.
Click to expand...

Don't ever try this one on a historian. They might wonder when the Romans ever invaded Sweden, Scotland and Ireland (I'll give you Austria, though). And it's unlikely that modern Italians are direct descendants of the Romans anyway and, even if they were, many would be themselves descended from slaves. The Romans were conquered in Italy by the Visigoths (Germans - sort of) in the fifth century and, anyway, European history is just a big catalogue of various races popping in and out of eachothers' countries and leaving their DNA all over the place.

Pedant mode *off*

Big smile..:D
 
Amie8 said:
Don't ever try this one on a historian. They might wonder when the Romans ever invaded Sweden, Scotland and Ireland (I'll give you Austria, though). And it's unlikely that modern Italians are direct descendants of the Romans anyway and, even if they were, many would be themselves descended from slaves. The Romans were conquered in Italy by the Visigoths (Germans - sort of) in the fifth century and, anyway, European history is just a big catalogue of various races popping in and out of eachothers' countries and leaving their DNA all over the place.

Pedant mode *off*

Big smile..:D
Click to expand...


Good eyes. :D Not too many notice the inaccuracy.

Think though, how many peoples CAN make that claim...

I am able to take pride in that my ancestors (Celts) sacked Rome, and ransomed them, before they managed to become a power. As well as there is a rather good reason why The Wall was built, and the fact that no one ever fucks with the Swedes (not Celts).
 
I frowned about the Romans remark but got the message. So I didn't want to be too German :p

Otherwise a really good rant. What I miss, though, is a small sentence about we not being accountable for our ancestors's deeds but we are responsible for not letting it happen again.

I recently dug into the history of Europe after the Roman Empire fell (and it didn't simply fall with a bang but faded out over centuries) and it is absolutly stupid to have any prejudices based on race, ancestry or genes in Europe. Half of all Spanish or Latino descendants all over the world still are genetically partly Arabian due to the Islamic occupation of Spain (which was actually a very civilized period).

I also recommend studying the part of European history, that is called the Migration Period. A lot of things happened since the end of the Ancient World and we are all a mixture of each other.
 
Last edited:
Amie8 said:
Don't ever try this one on a historian. They might wonder when the Romans ever invaded Sweden, Scotland and Ireland (I'll give you Austria, though). And it's unlikely that modern Italians are direct descendants of the Romans anyway and, even if they were, many would be themselves descended from slaves. The Romans were conquered in Italy by the Visigoths (Germans - sort of) in the fifth century and, anyway, European history is just a big catalogue of various races popping in and out of eachothers' countries and leaving their DNA all over the place.

Pedant mode *off*

Big smile..:D
Click to expand...

The Romans did invade (and occasionally hold) southern Scotland throughout the first and second centuries AD, but everything else is spot-on.
 
buggin said:
and the fact that no one ever fucks with the Swedes (not Celts).
Click to expand...

Because the swedes are "Neutral" and just let troops pass through it to invade other countries :p
 
A: The Moorish occupation of Europe was the Golden Age of the Arabs (far as I'm concerned). They may not have been perfect gentlemen about how they invaded, but humanity as a whole was given some rather amazing things as a result.

B: Yes, the Romans did try (several times) to invade and subdue the Northern Tribes, and finally gave up on the idea. Problem was, the Picts and Scotti had already taken a disliking to the Romans, and were not likely to just leave them be. So the wall was built.

C: Your from Norway. I'd rather ask a Dane. Your biased... :D
There is a good reason why no one sticks around to try and take over Sweden. Other than the current Muslim invasion, we usually don't get invaded, we usually do the invading. :lol:
Poland tried back in the 1500's, but it didn't go well.

But see... Good natured ribbing, across boarders, and no one is getting butt hurt.
The UN could learn a good deal from us lot.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top