TSR Top Gear Society Watch

Olie
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#1481
Report 8 years ago
#1481
Yep that's right unfortuantly, the new series is back in January according to TG mag. Might mean we get no feature length trip at christmas Hope they at least do some kind of special at the end of the year.

Edit: They were spotted filming in Israel a month ago!
0
reply
The_Male_Melons
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1482
Report 8 years ago
#1482
(Original post by Olie)
Yep that's right unfortuantly, the new series is back in January according to TG mag. Might mean we get no feature length trip at christmas Hope they at least do some kind of special at the end of the year.

Edit: They were spotted filming in Israel a month ago!
Apparently due to the licence fee freeze and the government asking more of the BBC...there could be upto a 50% real terms cut...

Which suggests to me that maybe topgear might appear ever year with less and less episodes. They may even have to have a one off special every year instead of a series.

Blame Murdoch.
0
reply
Ethanamide
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1483
Report 8 years ago
#1483
(Original post by Olie)
Yep that's right unfortuantly, the new series is back in January according to TG mag. Might mean we get no feature length trip at christmas Hope they at least do some kind of special at the end of the year.

Edit: They were spotted filming in Israel a month ago!
No Top Gear til January?! How will we cope?

In Israel? That can only go as well as the filming in America did... LOL
0
reply
AnythingButChardonnay
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#1484
Report 8 years ago
#1484
(Original post by The_Male_Melons)
Apparently due to the licence fee freeze and the government asking more of the BBC...there could be upto a 50% real terms cut...

Which suggests to me that maybe topgear might appear ever year with less and less episodes. They may even have to have a one off special every year instead of a series.

Blame Murdoch.
Hardly Murdoch's fault. He runs an efficient and successful enterprise. Efficiency is a scary and totally alien concept to the BBC.

It would be so typical of them to cut the budget of one of their few decent and popular programmes, and not some load of ****e.

Once the digital switchover is finished it will be impossible to justify the licence fee. Time to scrap it and make the BBC subscription only.
0
reply
The_Male_Melons
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1485
Report 8 years ago
#1485
(Original post by AnythingButChardonnay)
Hardly Murdoch's fault. He runs an efficient and successful enterprise. Efficiency is a scary and totally alien concept to the BBC.

It would be so typical of them to cut the budget of one of their few decent and popular programmes, and not some load of ****e.

Once the digital switchover is finished it will be impossible to justify the licence fee. Time to scrap it and make the BBC subscription only.
Of course Murdoch runs an efficient enterprise. So does Richard Branson etc...
Murdoch goes further than most media companies and ensure he has a position in the cabinet as well. That guy is efficient and successful. He can scare an entire government into action. Who would think in a democracy, we would have a Media Mogul having a seat? A unelected seat at that.

BBC is actually efficient... I suppose you read the Daily Mail and take it as hard fact. How is the BBC bloated?

Why would the BBC axe on of their popular programmes? Top gear is a BBC invention.

Hard to justify the licence fee? Expand? Message though, don't want to create a random topic on the licence fee for a top gear thread.
I agree with you to an extent, the licence fee needs modernising to include internet, applications and such like.

Top Gear does cost a lot, so the BBC will be looking at decreasing the number of episodes etc... The BBC will not go and axe top gear on a whim.

The digital switchover has been done in certain areas. BBC still remains the most popular broadcaster. :s I know, what a ****ing joke? What kind of *******s watch, listen and use the BBC?
0
reply
AnythingButChardonnay
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#1486
Report 8 years ago
#1486
(Original post by The_Male_Melons)
Of course Murdoch runs an efficient enterprise. So does Richard Branson etc...
Murdoch goes further than most media companies and ensure he has a position in the cabinet as well. That guy is efficient and successful. He can scare an entire government into action. Who would think in a democracy, we would have a Media Mogul having a seat? A unelected seat at that.
He provides services that people want and choose to purchase. He competes with rival companies. Compare and contrast with the BBC where 'choice' and competition doesn't come into it.

I'm not going to discuss his influence on politicians. I don't particularly like the bloke, and am not defending him. But I think you will find politicians are influence by many sources

BBC is actually efficient... I suppose you read the Daily Mail and take it as hard fact. How is the BBC bloated?
Because it doesn't need to earn its revenue by competing with rivals it is inefficient. It wastes money like nobody's business, paying huge salaries to various people who would not earn a comparable salary elsewhere (Woss was notable, but by no means alone).
Has the BBC ever not needed to increase the licence fee, regardless of the rate of inflation?


Why would the BBC axe on of their popular programmes? Top gear is a BBC invention.
I didn't say they would?

Hard to justify the licence fee? Expand? Message though, don't want to create a random topic on the licence fee for a top gear thread.
I agree with you to an extent, the licence fee needs modernising to include internet, applications and such like.
You're the one who mentioned Murdoch... which is related to Top Gear how exactly?

Simple. I choose to pay for Sky/Virgin. I choose whether I want my mobile on Orange or on Vodafone or O2. I do not choose to fund the BBC. By virtue of owning a television I am required to pay the licence fee, regardless of whether I approve of or watch BBC content. If Orange started to give me poor service I could ditch them, whereas I can't ditch the BBC. That is why it is wrong. The licence fee belongs firmly in the era where there was only one television channel.

Once analogue is switched off there is absolutely no justification for the licence fee. Everyone will have digital of some sort, so everyone would be able to choose whether they wanted to pay a subscription to the BBC or not.

Top Gear does cost a lot, so the BBC will be looking at decreasing the number of episodes etc... The BBC will not go and axe top gear on a whim.
Err, again I didn't say they would?

The digital switchover has been done in certain areas. BBC still remains the most popular broadcaster. :s I know, what a ****ing joke? What kind of *******s watch the BBC?
The same poor *******s who are forced to pay for it.
0
reply
The_Male_Melons
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1487
Report 8 years ago
#1487
(Original post by AnythingButChardonnay)
He provides services that people want and choose to purchase. He competes with rival companies. Compare and contrast with the BBC where 'choice' and competition doesn't come into it.

I'm not going to discuss his influence on politicians. I don't particularly like the bloke, and am not defending him. But I think you will find politicians are influence by many sources
Of course, he provides a service and choice. I like Sky. I do read The Times. I don't agree with a lot of what Murdoch does. I don't particularly like the idea of a media mogul having the size of influence, he has.

I am not saying anything different. You have a choice with the BBC, you either own a tv or don't. We are not the only country in the world that has a licence fee. Are you outraged by Channel 4 having taxpayer's money?
We have several public broadcasters- BBC, ITV, Channel 4...

Of course politicians are influenced by many other sources as well. Do we need Murdoch in an unelected seat? Do we need Murdoch going through the back door at number 10?


(Original post by AnythingButChardonnay)
Because it doesn't need to earn its revenue by competing with rivals it is inefficient. It wastes money like nobody's business, paying huge salaries to various people who would not earn a comparable salary elsewhere (Woss was notable, but by no means alone).
Has the BBC ever not needed to increase the licence fee, regardless of the rate of inflation?
Waste money, how? Salary, blame the market, not the BBC. If you expect the best, you pay for the best. The BBC actually pay 20% less than the market rate, anyway.
Half the time, most people working in the BBC aren't even paid above £30-40 grand a year.


(Original post by AnythingButChardonnay)
I didn't say they would?
k.

(Original post by AnythingButChardonnay)
You're the one who mentioned Murdoch... which is related to Top Gear how exactly?
I just think that this government like previous governments have systematically weakened the BBC to please Murdoch. So if there is less episodes of top gear, the blame should be at Murdoch's feet. It seems everyone wants to ass lick the guy.

(Original post by AnythingButChardonnay)
Simple. I choose to pay for Sky/Virgin. I choose whether I want my mobile on Orange or on Vodafone or O2. I do not choose to fund the BBC. By virtue of owning a television I am required to pay the licence fee, regardless of whether I approve of or watch BBC content. If Orange started to give me poor service I could ditch them, whereas I can't ditch the BBC. That is why it is wrong. The licence fee belongs firmly in the era where there was only one television channel.
I am required to pay for a lot of things. Why should I pay for the NHS so layabouts getting drunk on Fridays nights can use it? Why should I pay for a library in Cornwall when I live in up North? You still continue to have an outdated belief...

(Original post by AnythingButChardonnay)
Once analogue is switched off there is absolutely no justification for the licence fee. Everyone will have digital of some sort, so everyone would be able to choose whether they wanted to pay a subscription to the BBC or not.
Yet the BBC is the popular broadcaster today. I see a justification for licence fee. I think you need to realise, the UK isn't America. Frankly, it is just another country in Europe. Taking the BBC away isn't going to help ITV, Ch4 or even improve tv. If anything, makes it worse.



(Original post by AnythingButChardonnay)
The same poor *******s who are forced to pay for it.
Refer to my above point. Until everyone in the country stop using the BBC services, I will stand by you. Until then, I will continue to watch, listen and use BBC like EVERYONE ELSE.

It says in your profile, your a Conservative MP. I suppose your like Daniel Hannan.

Like every other Conservative supporter, I can say, I never liked Daniel Hannan and it seems to me, you both share similar views.
0
reply
AnythingButChardonnay
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#1488
Report 8 years ago
#1488
(Original post by The_Male_Melons)
Of course, he provides a service and choice. I like Sky. I do read The Times. I don't agree with a lot of what Murdoch does. I don't particularly like the idea of a media mogul having the size of influence, he has.
The reason he does have influence is because people choose to buy his products. In some ways one could say that is democracy! If people didn't use the Times/Sun/Sky then no politician would give a rat's arse about him.

I am not saying anything different. You have a choice with the BBC, you either own a tv or don't.
Haha! So the BBC have a divine right to money from TV-owners, yet Sky/Virgin/ITV etc have to go to some effort to earn it. Right...

Are you outraged by Channel 4 having taxpayer's money?
Yes.

Of course politicians are influenced by many other sources as well. Do we need Murdoch in an unelected seat? Do we need Murdoch going through the back door at number 10?
You understand that he doesn't literally have a cabinet seat, don't you? Your opinion is one shared by many, and is valid.

Waste money, how? Salary, blame the market, not the BBC. If you expect the best, you pay for the best. The BBC actually pay 20% less than the market rate, anyway.
Half the time, most people working in the BBC aren't even paid above £30-40 grand a year.
Except as far as the BBC is concerned, where you pay the best regardless of whether they provide the beset.

On the salary front I think you'll find most organisations are set-up that way. Cleaners and support staff tend not to earn x million, despite that fact that, in my view, they are more deserving of it than Woss.

I just think that this government like previous governments have systematically weakened the BBC to please Murdoch. So if there is less episodes of top gear, the blame should be at Murdoch's feet. It seems everyone wants to ass lick the guy.
Weakened the BBC? By allowing it to increase the licence fee every single year?

If the BBC is weak it's because it's badly run. The management is not getting value for money, at least partly because there is no incentive to.


I am required to pay for a lot of things. Why should I pay for the NHS so layabouts getting drunk on Fridays nights can use it? Why should I pay for a library in Cornwall when I live in up North? You still continue to have an outdated belief...
I never said either of those things were right. As they clearly bother you, why doesn't the licence fee?


Yet the BBC is the popular broadcaster today. I see a justification for licence fee. I think you need to realise, the UK isn't America. Frankly, it is just another country in Europe. Taking the BBC away isn't going to help ITV, Ch4 or even improve tv. If anything, makes it worse.

Refer to my above point. Until everyone in the country stop using the BBC services, I will stand by you. Until then, I will continue to watch, listen and use BBC like EVERYONE ELSE.

It says in your profile, your a Conservative MP. I suppose your like Daniel Hannan.

Like every other Conservative supporter, I can say, I never liked Daniel Hannan and it seems to me, you both share similar views.
To sum up your argument, you are saying that we should all be forced to pay for a service until we all decide we don't want to? I hope you realise just how ridiculous that argument is.

Daniel Hannan is an interesting bloke who speaks his mind. He is also democratically elected. Do I agree with him on everything? No, not that I need to justify it to you.
0
reply
The_Male_Melons
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1489
Report 8 years ago
#1489
(Original post by AnythingButChardonnay)
The reason he does have influence is because people choose to buy his products. In some ways one could say that is democracy! If people didn't use the Times/Sun/Sky then no politician would give a rat's arse about him.
Murdoch did not get into that position by magic. He had help. I am not saying he should be stopped from providing services etc… He is threatening plurality within the media.
He is not satisfied with the BBC, just recently his newspaper are attacking ITV and Channel 4.
It is isn’t just the BBC, nearly every other organisation has voiced concern.
(Original post by AnythingButChardonnay)
You understand that he doesn't literally have a cabinet seat, don't you? Your opinion is one shared by many, and is valid. .
I know he does not a cabinet seat. It was commented during the Blair era, Murdoch was influential. So much so, Cabinet members were more concerned with what the Murdoch press will say. How can you govern under that?
(Original post by AnythingButChardonnay)
Except as far as the BBC is concerned, where you pay the best regardless of whether they provide the beset. .
While we all have opinion of what we like. We both like top gear. I think it is worth the licence fee. I would be happy pay extra. Other people hate top gear. We all have opinions.
(Original post by AnythingButChardonnay)
On the salary front I think you'll find most organisations are set-up that way. Cleaners and support staff tend not to earn x million, despite that fact that, in my view, they are more deserving of it than Woss. .
Ross’s pay- blame the market rate, not the BBC. Other factors also need to be taken into considerations, he owns a company that works with the BBC.
The BBC is now full of cleaners and support staff, really .
Cleaners are deserving of a higher wage, agreed.
(Original post by AnythingButChardonnay)
Weakened the BBC? By allowing it to increase the licence fee every single year? .
The Licence fee has not increased every single year. An exaggeration.

(Original post by AnythingButChardonnay)
If the BBC is weak it's because it's badly run. The management is not getting value for money, at least partly because there is no incentive to. .
How do you know the BBC is badly run?
(Original post by AnythingButChardonnay)
I never said either of those things were right. As they clearly bother you, why doesn't the licence fee? .
I am glad of the NHS, and the BBC evidently so. With the NHS, I was highlighting the abuse. Do you think it is right that NHS gets all this money yet BUPA can’t make a business in health? I am for the NHS.

(Original post by AnythingButChardonnay)
To sum up your argument, you are saying that we should all be forced to pay for a service until we all decide we don't want to? I hope you realise just how ridiculous that argument is. .
You claimed that the BBC was outdated. I said, if it was outdated, why is it so popular? It must be doing something right.

(Original post by AnythingButChardonnay)
Daniel Hannan is an interesting bloke who speaks his mind. He is also democratically elected. Do I agree with him on everything? No, not that I need to justify it to you.
I wonder how long he will remain MEP for?
0
reply
Champagne Supernova
Badges: 20
#1490
Report 8 years ago
#1490
The leadership for this soc is up for grabs for anybody who would like it. All it requires is accepting join requests and managing any associated threads.

Please quote me if interested.
reply
Champagne Supernova
Badges: 20
#1491
Report 8 years ago
#1491
Okie doke, well seeing as I've been a member of the soc for a little while, I hope nobody minds if I take up the leadership role?
reply
Olie
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#1492
Report 8 years ago
#1492
Details on the Three Wise Men Christmas Special, Boxing Day 9pm, literally cannot wait

http://transmission.blogs.topgear.co...-more-details/
0
reply
Student2806
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#1493
Report 8 years ago
#1493
(Original post by Olie)
Details on the Three Wise Men Christmas Special, Boxing Day 9pm, literally cannot wait

http://transmission.blogs.topgear.co...-more-details/
8pm
And a new episode before that on December 21st :holmes:

My Christmas has been made
0
reply
S-man10
Badges: 18
#1494
Report 8 years ago
#1494
The special looks good...
reply
The Stig
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#1495
Report 8 years ago
#1495
Both specials look awesome! Then the new season starts soon after
0
reply
Luceria
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#1496
Report 8 years ago
#1496
Specials? Nice. The new series starts in January?

I love Top Gear! It's one of my favourite shows.
Such a shame I can't see their live shows in Oslo, which is in March. When I found out they were coming to Oslo, my first thought was "how random". But Top Gear is very popular here.
0
reply
Champagne Supernova
Badges: 20
#1497
Report 8 years ago
#1497
Two specials: http://www.topgear.com/uk/photos/ser...-tv-2010-12-17

I think the new series starts in the new year? Only going by what I've heard though.
reply
blatchcorn
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#1498
Report 8 years ago
#1498
Seriously cannot wait!
0
reply
The Stig
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#1499
Report 8 years ago
#1499
(Original post by Champagne Supernova)
I think the new series starts in the new year? Only going by what I've heard though.
:yep:

The pertinent point remains: two new shows coming up, the first on Tuesday (that’s TUESDAY, not Sunday) 21 December at 8pm on BBC2, the second on Boxing Day at 8pm on BBC2. Then we’ve got the new series proper starting early in the New Year.
http://transmission.blogs.topgear.co...
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you chained to your phone?

Yes (78)
19.26%
Yes, but I'm trying to cut back (164)
40.49%
Nope, not that interesting (163)
40.25%

Watched Threads

View All