Anyone read in the news on msn.co.uk that Transport 2000 are calling for Top Gear to be banned.

The group lead by none less than Micheal Palin particularly attack Clarkson

:inq:

Who the buggery are transport 2000 :confused:

Anyway.Ban those pillocks for being too PC

Long live Clarkson not pandering to anyone,having a laugh and making motoring journalism passionate and fun

****!

oh and this is transport 2000 http://www.transport2000.org.uk/

A transport pressure group yesterday demanded the end of the popular BBC2 programme

http://www.transport2000.org.uk/news/maintainNewsArticles.asp?NewsArticleID=239

for the text of their full report.

Bunch of loonies.

most of the cars on topgear you can have do lots of irrisposible driving in 3rd lol

Joel

In an infamous episode, Jeremy Clarkson tore up on camera information from Transport 2000

Must say it has really given me the urge to light up my tyres at every opportunity and also the need to put my car into 5th gear at twenty miles per hour to test my turbo lag (still don't know why they did that one with the mitsi )

In fact the proramme has made me into a crazy hooligan with a need for speed and the urge to sell my house and get an Aston DB9

Maybe banning all soaps would stop the country turning into manic depressives.I don't know.

Solid ideas then from a top quality think tank (is that the monty python Palin?) .Loonies the lot of them :P

What a load of rubbish! Surely Top Gear is a pure entertainment show, not public service broadcasting!

Maybe banning all soaps would stop the country turning into manic depressives.I don't know.

I agree with that 110%!!! Soaps wreck lives long as much as speed kills people.

For a guy who made a mockery of religion, his morals seem to lie rather confused

No third gear would be good, it's my most abused gear in the box...not too long and not so short as to be poppping the rev limiter...

Fine ban top gear, ban it. Then channel 5 can buy the rights and go hear to head with eurotrash and win I suspect.

Promote better driving umm lets see...nope last aware and good driver I came across was making progress like me in the excessively bunched up happy to follow a milk float on an nsl road..oh thats bad form isn't it...well I was using 3rd....

Poppy ****, as much as mr Palin entertains me, I do actually doubt ths is one of his personally, bit like the chancellor...sure he's an economic god, nothing to do with the thousands of advisors/real economists.

Are you sure it's not just Michael Palin having the craic(Monty Pytonesque)? Is transport2000 a legit organization?

Yes they are genuine , and serious

Anyone remember this show:

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

I thought it was great! Who cares about stopping every hour for a break? Just stop when you get tired or fall asleep. And the police in France make up the speeding fines for foreigners I'm sure of it. Something I did spot in that show though was the lack of use of headlight converters, I looked purely as I was looking to get some at that time.

Buzzword of the day at the moment seems to be that we are living in a "Nanny State" where the government is telling us exactly how to run our lives and what choices we must make to stay within social acceptability.

An example of this, but not a lone example, is that the government is considering placing a total ban on visible tobacco advertising on tv in any sport. This would effectively mean the end of a lot of tv coverage of many sports and would kill an awful lot of the sponsorship which the sports rely on in order to function, because, strangely enough, they are underfunded by the government. It's obvious to all but the few that tobacco is harmful, but as yet, tobacco is not illegal, and therefore, it is a consumer choice whether or not to smoke, and no amount of advertising or lack of it will stop the consumer making that choice.

Every parent wants to send their child off to school knowing that they are in safe hands and that they will be taken care of for the time they are away. Very few parents however, would deny their child the right to a game of conkers at playtime. Sports Days are now old fashioned at schools because they are "too competitive". School Trips are now so expensive to insure that many schools do not take their children on trips, or only take them on very low risk activities.

Up until everything went a bit loopy, if an accident happened, then it was an accident, and people stood up, dusted themselves off, glared at each other a bit, maybe exchanged a few words about stupidity and then shook hands and repaired the damage between them. One of them might say "Sorry, that was my fault" and the other would say "Dont worry, It happens". Now there must always be culpability, someone must be made to pay and compensate all the people adversely affected by the accident.

Can we go too far in protecting ourselves? Is the nanny state killing the sense of community across the country? Why does no-one seem concerned that no-one can ever trust anyone else and that we always need someone else to blame? Where is our sense of responsibility? Why does it cost

oh look... theres mobile numbers on the news article

Buzzword of the day at the moment seems to be that we are living in a "Nanny State" where the government is telling us exactly how to run our lives and what choices we must make to stay within social acceptability.

An example of this, but not a lone example, is that the government is considering placing a total ban on visible tobacco advertising on tv in any sport. This would effectively mean the end of a lot of tv coverage of many sports and would kill an awful lot of the sponsorship which the sports rely on in order to function, because, strangely enough, they are underfunded by the government. It's obvious to all but the few that tobacco is harmful, but as yet, tobacco is not illegal, and therefore, it is a consumer choice whether or not to smoke, and no amount of advertising or lack of it will stop the consumer making that choice.

Every parent wants to send their child off to school knowing that they are in safe hands and that they will be taken care of for the time they are away. Very few parents however, would deny their child the right to a game of conkers at playtime. Sports Days are now old fashioned at schools because they are "too competitive". School Trips are now so expensive to insure that many schools do not take their children on trips, or only take them on very low risk activities.

Up until everything went a bit loopy, if an accident happened, then it was an accident, and people stood up, dusted themselves off, glared at each other a bit, maybe exchanged a few words about stupidity and then shook hands and repaired the damage between them. One of them might say "Sorry, that was my fault" and the other would say "Dont worry, It happens". Now there must always be culpability, someone must be made to pay and compensate all the people adversely affected by the accident.

Can we go too far in protecting ourselves? Is the nanny state killing the sense of community across the country? Why does no-one seem concerned that no-one can ever trust anyone else and that we always need someone else to blame? Where is our sense of responsibility? Why does it cost

oh look... theres mobile numbers on the news article

So it does...................

I wonder if they like getting prank phone calls from 'supporters' at 10 o'clock at night

The car is a brilliant invention and no-one is going to give it up without a fight. We don't want to go backwards, once the wheel was invented that was it!

Also,notice how clean and new all buses and trains looked in those pictures on that transport site. Not like that in reality is it?

Public transport never goes where you want to go, when you want to go there. Last time we took our son to London on the train, we had to stand the whole way - just what you need before a sightseeing trip isn't it?

:rant:

Buzzword of the day at the moment seems to be that we are living in a "Nanny State" where the government is telling us exactly how to run our lives and what choices we must make to stay within social acceptability.

An example of this, but not a lone example, is that the government is considering placing a total ban on visible tobacco advertising on tv in any sport. This would effectively mean the end of a lot of tv coverage of many sports and would kill an awful lot of the sponsorship which the sports rely on in order to function, because, strangely enough, they are underfunded by the government. It's obvious to all but the few that tobacco is harmful, but as yet, tobacco is not illegal, and therefore, it is a consumer choice whether or not to smoke, and no amount of advertising or lack of it will stop the consumer making that choice.

Every parent wants to send their child off to school knowing that they are in safe hands and that they will be taken care of for the time they are away. Very few parents however, would deny their child the right to a game of conkers at playtime. Sports Days are now old fashioned at schools because they are "too competitive". School Trips are now so expensive to insure that many schools do not take their children on trips, or only take them on very low risk activities.

Up until everything went a bit loopy, if an accident happened, then it was an accident, and people stood up, dusted themselves off, glared at each other a bit, maybe exchanged a few words about stupidity and then shook hands and repaired the damage between them. One of them might say "Sorry, that was my fault" and the other would say "Dont worry, It happens". Now there must always be culpability, someone must be made to pay and compensate all the people adversely affected by the accident.

Can we go too far in protecting ourselves? Is the nanny state killing the sense of community across the country? Why does no-one seem concerned that no-one can ever trust anyone else and that we always need someone else to blame? Where is our sense of responsibility? Why does it cost

Sorry Hellfire' date=' im all for what your saying about the Nanny State, but smoking.................! Im afraid its also my right to not inhale your exhaled smoke. Its also my right to not have to fund the NHS in dealing with smoke related illnesses.

I agree with all the rest though

[/quote']

Aah, but he didn't mention banning smoking - he said tobacco advertising - being subjected to baccy ads doesn't harm your health now does it???

TBH it's pure conceit on the part of the government - if they were that bothered about the health issues, people's general welfare, right to a smoke-free environment and the burden on the NHS they would ban smoking completely... but then where would the tax revenue be scalped from???

PS I'm a non-smoker too! :-p

Aah' date=' but he didn't mention banning smoking - he said tobacco advertising - being subjected to baccy ads doesn't harm your health now does it???

TBH it's pure conceit on the part of the government - if they were that bothered about the health issues, people's general welfare, right to a smoke-free environment and the burden on the NHS they would ban smoking completely... but then where would the tax revenue be scalped from??? [/quote']

I was talking about the consumer choice aspect of Hellfire's arguement........its also my choice not to breathe in second hand smoke. Its also my choice to not fund their health care either from my taxes!

As for lost revenue from banning smoking - health care for smokers (its their right to smoke as long as its legal, sure, but its also our right not to have to fund their health care when they start complaining about lung cancer and emphaziema); not to mention the money that is wasted on trying to develop suitable treatments for those with lung cancer. If we stopped wasting money on stupidly high salaries for public service executives; if we stopped wasting money on governemt initiatives like ID CARDS - whats that all about...........now that is real Nanny State politics.

Your right about the lack of government input. However, up here in Scotland a smoking ban in public places come into effect shortly - that'll put pay to them.........LOL!

I have a real issue about this (as you can probably tell.......... ). I just fail to understand how people can defend smoking when they are more than aware of its ill effects and impact on society as a whole.

What would also help is to stop funding car giants like Rover considering their Directors have taken millions from the company in order to secure their own pension whilst their employees are told the company pension is millions in debt - shocking! Sorry to all the Rover fans out their (if there is any left!)

No offence to Hellfire on this one - everyone is entitled to their opinion!

Anyway, thats enough of a rant........better get some work done

Its also my choice to not fund their health care either from my taxes

How exactly can you choose where your taxes go? That would be nice, please let us all know, i'm sure selective taxation would be a great move

Just my 2p, and to get back to the thread.

It is obvious that transport2000 are missing the point of Top Gear, in exactly the same way the americans wanting to bomb the uk, coz their prize car was slated by the program.( previous thread ).

It is done for entertainment, we all know that if clarkeson wants to race public transport to a destination, that he is going to win ( despite the fact that if it was properly planned he wouldnt win )

How many of us look at the highly expensive cars and think , That would be nice ?

but a majority of us know that to do the "insane" things, we would need to be able to afford one AND a track.

Its time Transport 2000, looked @ the real world before opening the proverbial gob.

Steve