We all know that people are sheep, and that they follow immediatly everything that they see done on TV. I, for one, have been unable to restrain myself from buying Porsches for under a grand and driving them to Brighton. Also, last week, I found myself up a hill in Scotland in a Land Rover, because I saw Clarkson do it and thought, well, if he does it, I have to as well.

Stupid nannying bastards.

“We want to see Top Gear taken off the screens,” says Steve Hounsham, of Transport 2000.

“It is irresponsible, out-dated television designed to give comfort to boy racers, ‘petrolheads’ and those from the ‘get out of my way’ school of driving.

“This is not about censorship or having a poor sense of humour, it’s about what is in the public interest. You can provide entertainment without it being mindless and irresponsible.”

Mate, this is about censorship, it’s about you wanting to decide what us proles should be watching, and it’s about you being outdated. Outdated and out, geographicially. I think you belong somewhere north of the Urals in the late fourties.

Let’s look at the Transport 2000 statement, shall we?

While recognising that Top Gear is seen by many of its viewers as entertaining, campaigners argue that it has a number of key faults:

Sorry, you meant to say “While we recognise that the people are too stupid to realise that this program has no merits, we are intelligent enough to make the decision for them. Silly people, they need someone else to think for them. Here are the reasons this silly program interferes with our utopian ideals:”

… It glamorises speed and fails to make the connection with danger on the roads.

The Olympics must be banned! They promote “Faster, Higher, Stronger”, with no regard for the damage that people moving quickly can do! And those javelins are damn dangerous.
Never mind that the entirety of human development has been driven by the basic human need to improve, and that ‘more speed’ is an improvement over ‘less speed’.

… It encourages an obsession with unnecessarily powerful and therefore heavily polluting cars.

Dude, the public is obsessed with perfectly necessary powerful cars. And, lest we forget, the most powerful car now is less polluting than one of the fucking buses that you’re in love with.

… Through use of Jeremy Clarkson as presenter, with his distinctive image, it is in danger of encouraging a ?yobbish? attitude on the road.

“Clarkson must be outlawed, for he insists on being mean about our beards!”
People, I hate to break it to you, but it is entirely possible that Clarkson is such a big celeb because people agree with him, and not with you. And how can one person be responsable for the yobbish attitude on the road, when your entire committee, in all it’s learned glory, cannot convince sheeple that their cars are bad? A little case of penis envy, or something?

… It does not focus enough, if at all, on responsible driving, ?greener? cars, road safety or the need to cut car journeys and use alternatives where possible.

Well, they don’t go on about the “need to cut car journeys and use alternatives” because, possibly, they don’t agree with it? And they do feature responsible driving, as is shown by their only driving cars really fast on things like tracks, the Isle of Mann (where there are no limits) and French motorways (which is just funny).

… Through its recurring ?macho? themes of speed and power, it fails to include the interests of most women in its programmes.

Isn’t that an awful stereotypical view of women, there? Do you remember that one of the most speed-hungry presenters on the old TG was Vicky B-H? Or that a large number of the studio audience are women? Or that some women like fast cars and driving fast? Hell, me own ma is a fan of fast cars, and the only review she takes seriously is a Clarkson one (although this may be because he liked the last car she had…)

Spokesperson for Transport 2000 Steve Hounsham said: ?Everyone is talking about how to reduce car use, cut climate change emissions and make the roads safer but, to quote in perhaps its own language, Top Gear effectively sticks up its fingers to this.

No, mate. Hippies are busy talking compost about how to reduce car use. Top Gear, like the majority of the British, Irish and every-ish public, is busy buying more cars and telling hippies to piss the fuck off.

?There is a strong danger that it encourages irresponsible motorist behaviour and it therefore has no place in public service broadcasting. We want to see Top Gear taken off the screens. It is irresponsible, out-dated television designed to give comfort to boy racers, ?petrolheads? and those from the ?get out of my way? school of driving. We would like to see it replaced with a new programme ? perhaps called Third Gear ? that promotes sensible driving in sensible vehicles.

“There is a strong danger” that you’d get the gearstick shoved up your arse if you really tried that, mate. In all seriousness, who would really watch a show about responsible motoring? “And, once the rev counter reaches 2,500 rpm, we shift up, providing we have permission from Transport 2000 to go at the potential speed in the higher gear….”

And some bits at the end of T-2000’s statement:

Some things Top Gear is famous for:

… Following complaints made to the BBC, the programme team was sent back to Oxford twice to refilm a piece about the closure of the High Street to through traffic because it failed to present a balanced view of the scheme.

Well, it was a stupid scheme, as are all these closures. And your point?

… To test the claims made for a 4×4, the programme really did try to take the vehicle to the top of a mountain in Scotland, through a sensitive peat bog causing substantial ecological damage.

OK, so there was damage in the form of two tracks, each eight inches wide, up the side of a hill. The existance of Transport 2000 has caused damage in the form of increased blood pressure in my body, which may well result in a decrease in my life expectancy. Can I get Transport 2000 shut down for causing this, please?

… In an infamous episode, Jeremy Clarkson tore up on camera information from Transport 2000?s website presenting the dangers of speed.

“Bwaaaaaaaa! The nasty man tore up my homework! Then he made fun of my beard!”

… In a race against colleagues using public transport and plane, Clarkson drove a Ferrari more or less non-stop from London to Switzerland and was stopped by police for speeding on the way.

Ha. And a very good segment it was too.
Sorry, that was supposed to be a Bad Thing, wasn’t it? It’s so difficult to see the negatives, here…

… Jeremy Clarkson deliberately drove a car into a tree in a car park in Somerset to test the strength of the car in a crash. The programme ended up apologising and paying compensation to the local parish council for the damage caused.

Yes, you read that correctly. He hurt a tree. What can you say to someone who’s case is built on a bit of broken bark?

In related news, Top Gear is back on our screens on the 22nd of May. Mark the date in your calendars, please. We want record audiences watching.

5 thoughts on “Nannyisms

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>