That 'Top Gear' / Argentina / licence plate thing....

ballysmate

Aphorism wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Aphorism wrote:

The fact that it's being discussed is evidence JC uses to claim his extortionate salary each year. Was it a set up? Yes, it's Top Gear and every bit of it is scripted and set up. The multiple takes of a single scene, the cleverly placed cameras recording the critical parts of the plot, the nail-biting finishes to the race challenges. It's simple minded entertainment, and if you find it entertaining, you're probably simple minded.

Fair play, you watched it all.

No, just guessed based on previous hilarious, witty off-the-cuff episodes.

Was I right??

How many episodes did you watch before you realised you weren't simple minded?

finchy

Ballysmate wrote:

Thirty odd years ago Argentina, led by a military junta, launched an invasion of foreign territory and were forcibly removed by the British. This led to the removal of the junta who had shown scant regard for human rights.

I agree. The Falklands War was necessary and probably, with the subsequent collapse of military governments across Latin America, saved more lives than it cost. HOWEVER, if you're going to take the p1ss, target the government, don't go around the country gloating. A lot of the Argentinians who died in the Falklands were young conscripts forced to fight a war started by a government they didn't vote for. These TG pillocks (assuming it was deliberate) might have gone about in towns or villages with families who lost conscripted relatives and they should have shown a bit of sensitivity.

Ballysmate wrote:

Since then, some people here have felt the need to continually apologise to Argentina at every opportunity, regardless of the bullshit emanating from people like Kirchner.

Who are these people?

Ballysmate wrote:

Do you think Cleese agonised over The Germans episode of Faulty Towers, thirty years after the war? Perhaps he prostrated himself before Helmut Schmidt, begging forgiveness for causing offence? I doubt it.
I have no idea whether or not the reg no was spurious and quite frankly don't give a proverbial.

John Cleese wasn't making fun of Germans. He was making fun of British people who couldn't get over WW2.

Aphorism

Ballysmate wrote:

Aphorism wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Aphorism wrote:

The fact that it's being discussed is evidence JC uses to claim his extortionate salary each year. Was it a set up? Yes, it's Top Gear and every bit of it is scripted and set up. The multiple takes of a single scene, the cleverly placed cameras recording the critical parts of the plot, the nail-biting finishes to the race challenges. It's simple minded entertainment, and if you find it entertaining, you're probably simple minded.

Fair play, you watched it all.

No, just guessed based on previous hilarious, witty off-the-cuff episodes.

Was I right??

How many episodes did you watch before you realised you weren't simple minded?

At some point between it being a car programme and a hilarious entertainment format it became increasingly obvious that it was just a scripted series of comedy events, like a film. Some of the events are clearly filmed several times from different camera angles. Only a simple minded idiot would watch It and assume that the events happened as they are portrayed.

cubedean

Aphorism wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Aphorism wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Aphorism wrote:

The fact that it's being discussed is evidence JC uses to claim his extortionate salary each year. Was it a set up? Yes, it's Top Gear and every bit of it is scripted and set up. The multiple takes of a single scene, the cleverly placed cameras recording the critical parts of the plot, the nail-biting finishes to the race challenges. It's simple minded entertainment, and if you find it entertaining, you're probably simple minded.

Fair play, you watched it all.

No, just guessed based on previous hilarious, witty off-the-cuff episodes.

Was I right??

How many episodes did you watch before you realised you weren't simple minded?

At some point between it being a car programme and a hilarious entertainment format it became increasingly obvious that it was just a scripted series of comedy events, like a film. Some of the events are clearly filmed several times from different camera angles. Only a simple minded idiot would watch It and assume that the events happened as they are portrayed.

Whilst I partially agree, I also think most of it is filmed from all angles. Look at the size of the crew and equipment they had with them.

Aphorism

cubedean wrote:

Whilst I partially agree, I also think most of it is filmed from all angles. Look at the size of the crew and equipment they had with them.

Not quite what I meant. There was an episode about 3 years ago when they towed a train with a Jag (I think). Anyway, there were several scenes where a close up (from 3 feet away rather than a zoom lens) of hilarious Hammond dropping something then immediately cut to a long shot (from about 20 feet away) of the same hilarious incident. As a result, it must have been filmed twice otherwise the long shot would have had the cameraman from the close up in the shot. Similarly, there was a scene where a 4x4 was teetering on the edge of a road in imminent peril, but they filmed it at least 3 times, moving the cameras for each shoot. It doesn't look odd because we're used to seeing films or dramas (i.e. fictitious) where multiple camera angles add to the drama. However, in a portrayal of a real event, the use of multiple takes relies on the stupidity of the viewer.

Oh, and aren't the Mexicans lazy? Hilarious!

pblakeney

Top Gear is real?

Wow!

Yes, I get your point. I doubt anyone does think that it is real.

ballysmate

johnfinch wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Thirty odd years ago Argentina, led by a military junta, launched an invasion of foreign territory and were forcibly removed by the British. This led to the removal of the junta who had shown scant regard for human rights.

I agree. The Falklands War was necessary and probably, with the subsequent collapse of military governments across Latin America, saved more lives than it cost. HOWEVER, if you're going to take the p1ss, target the government, don't go around the country gloating. A lot of the Argentinians who died in the Falklands were young conscripts forced to fight a war started by a government they didn't vote for. These TG pillocks (assuming it was deliberate) might have gone about in towns or villages with families who lost conscripted relatives and they should have shown a bit of sensitivity.

Ballysmate wrote:

Since then, some people here have felt the need to continually apologise to Argentina at every opportunity, regardless of the bullshit emanating from people like Kirchner.

Who are these people?

Ballysmate wrote:

Do you think Cleese agonised over The Germans episode of Faulty Towers, thirty years after the war? Perhaps he prostrated himself before Helmut Schmidt, begging forgiveness for causing offence? I doubt it.
I have no idea whether or not the reg no was spurious and quite frankly don't give a proverbial.

John Cleese wasn't making fun of Germans. He was making fun of British people who couldn't get over WW2.

Agree that it was a sad loss of life on both sides but having watched the programme and accepting that it was edited, I don't recall any p1ss taking as the reg wasn't an issue til the end of the show. In fact one of the presenters remarked on the warmness of the people. I take it you are assuming the choice of plate to be deliberate. I have no idea if it was or not.

As I said, some people.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... ntina.html

There are more. Google is your friend. Even on this thread, Pina tries to lay some of the blame at the feet of Margaret Thatcher. (god bless her)

I take your point re Fawlty Towers. I picked that show because of the similar time interval passing.

mamba80

I wonder how the patriotic british would view the Scilly Isles/Isle of white belonging to say the Russians/chinese/US of A due to some historical freak incident a 150 years ago ?
to me, the falklands clearly belong to the Argentinians, the Spanish were the first to rule the place once they had colonised Argentinia, the british also took over before giving it back to the Spanish, before claiming the place in the mid 1800's, its a throw back to days of empire and nothing more, like Gibraltor, how the hell is that place British???

I think most historians agree that had Argentina waited a few more years the UK would have handed them back, the Argies invaded because they mis read the political situation and thatcher desparate to regain her popularity launched the invasion force, knowing that a 1st world power would win out over a conscripted 3rd world army.

What are the odds of JC/who ever - buying a car with that number plate, and due to run a programe in Argentina???

pblakeney

mamba80 wrote:

I wonder how the patriotic british would view the Scilly Isles/Isle of white belonging to say the Russians/chinese/US of A due to some historical freak incident a 150 years ago ?
to me, the falklands clearly belong to the Argentinians, the Spanish were the first to rule the place once they had colonised Argentinia, the british also took over before giving it back to the Spanish, before claiming the place in the mid 1800's, its a throw back to days of empire and nothing more, like Gibraltor, how the hell is that place British???

I think most historians agree that had Argentina waited a few more years the UK would have handed them back, the Argies invaded because they mis read the political situation and thatcher desparate to regain her popularity launched the invasion force, knowing that a 1st world power would win out over a conscripted 3rd world army.

They could have asked the inhabitants but they were not interested in doing so, merely trying to boost their own popularity.
Borders are decided primarily by force (like it or not), then diplomacy. Argentina have failed in both.

mamba80 wrote:

What are the odds of JC/who ever - buying a car with that number plate, and due to run a programe in Argentina???

Extremely remote I would think.

pinno

I think that if the Argentinians had not invaded, Maggie would have lost the following general election and perhaps we wouldn't have slid down the slippery slope into the hedonism and lack of community that we see today. Kinnock would have made a good Prime Minister and probably restored the Labour party. Instead we had Blair, exercising his own form of me me me and we are still in that vein. Britian is in a political and ideological mediocracy.
It was so convenient for Thatcher that the Falklands were invaded at that time.

Stevo_666

PBlakeney wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

I wonder how the patriotic british would view the Scilly Isles/Isle of white belonging to say the Russians/chinese/US of A due to some historical freak incident a 150 years ago ?
to me, the falklands clearly belong to the Argentinians, the Spanish were the first to rule the place once they had colonised Argentinia, the british also took over before giving it back to the Spanish, before claiming the place in the mid 1800's, its a throw back to days of empire and nothing more, like Gibraltor, how the hell is that place British???

I think most historians agree that had Argentina waited a few more years the UK would have handed them back, the Argies invaded because they mis read the political situation and thatcher desparate to regain her popularity launched the invasion force, knowing that a 1st world power would win out over a conscripted 3rd world army.

They could have asked the inhabitants but they were not interested in doing so, merely trying to boost their own popularity.
Borders are decided primarily by force (like it or not), then diplomacy. Argentina have failed in both.

When the Falkland Islanders were asked who they wanted to belong to, this was the result. Short of just telling the Argentine government to **** right off*, you can't get much clearer than that. As we're all good democratic types and believe in self determination, that's why the Falklands are still British.

(* Which we did quite emphatically in 1982).

alihisgreat

mamba80 wrote:

I wonder how the patriotic british would view the Scilly Isles/Isle of white belonging to say the Russians/chinese/US of A due to some historical freak incident a 150 years ago ?
to me, the falklands clearly belong to the Argentinians, the Spanish were the first to rule the place once they had colonised Argentinia, the british also took over before giving it back to the Spanish, before claiming the place in the mid 1800's, its a throw back to days of empire and nothing more, like Gibraltor, how the hell is that place British???

I think most historians agree that had Argentina waited a few more years the UK would have handed them back, the Argies invaded because they mis read the political situation and thatcher desparate to regain her popularity launched the invasion force, knowing that a 1st world power would win out over a conscripted 3rd world army.

What are the odds of JC/who ever - buying a car with that number plate, and due to run a programe in Argentina???

The Falklands are 400+ miles away from Argentina... Roughly the distance from the Isle of Wight to Edinburgh.

So i think its a little bit different to the Isle of Wight which is 4 miles off our coast :roll:

oh and your facts are all wrong... I suggest you read the Wikipedia page on the Falklands before trying to explain who owned what when.

ballysmate

pinarello001 wrote:

I think that if the Argentinians had not invaded, Maggie would have lost the following general election and perhaps we wouldn't have slid down the slippery slope into the hedonism and lack of community that we see today. Kinnock would have made a good Prime Minister and probably restored the Labour party. Instead we had Blair, exercising his own form of me me me and we are still in that vein. Britian is in a political and ideological mediocracy.
It was so convenient for Thatcher that the Falklands were invaded at that time.

Oh stop it! My poor aching ribs.

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

pinarello001 wrote:

I think that if the Argentinians had not invaded, Maggie would have lost the following general election and perhaps we wouldn't have slid down the slippery slope into the hedonism and lack of community that we see today. Kinnock would have made a good Prime Minister and probably restored the Labour party. Instead we had Blair, exercising his own form of me me me and we are still in that vein. Britian is in a political and ideological mediocracy.
It was so convenient for Thatcher that the Falklands were invaded at that time.

Oh stop it! My poor aching ribs.

That has to be some sort of test to see who is actually reading his posts.

pinno

If you honestly beleive that the current state of British Politics has nothing to do with Maggie and that having mediocre parties to choose from, so mediocre that UKIP are on the rise, then i'm laughing more than you.

..and if you blame the press, well...Who was it who got in bed with Murdoch?

pblakeney

pinarello001 wrote:

If you honestly beleive that the current state of British Politics has nothing to do with Maggie and that having mediocre parties to choose from, so mediocre that UKIP are on the rise, then i'm laughing more than you.

..and if you blame the press, well...Who was it who got in bed with Murdoch?

British politics is a reflection of British society.
We get the parliament that we deserve and a generalisation is that the public are selfish and greedy.
If the public felt otherwise, then they would vote otherwise.

Stevo_666

pinarello001 wrote:

If you honestly beleive that the current state of British Politics has nothing to do with Maggie and that having mediocre parties to choose from, so mediocre that UKIP are on the rise, then i'm laughing more than you.

..and if you blame the press, well...Who was it who got in bed with Murdoch?

Just for the record - do you honestly believe that Kinnock would have made a good Prime Minister?

I think even some of the lefties on here are ducking for cover at this point

slowmart

It's not just Maggie's legacy, add ineffectual leadership from Labour and an overhang from unions which grew too powerful which all came to a head with a loon called Arthur Scargill. Labour and the great British public all share the responsibility as to where we are today.


The quality of politicians is a low bar and most would struggle staying in a middle management role in private industry as the scrutiny by the media today does preclude more able and articulate individuals from stepping into the public spotlight. It just leaves people who create a perception but have no real life experience or depth of character to draw on.

Louise Mensch comes to mind……while opting to pick up her children from nursery rather then hammer Murdoch as part of the select committee enquiry and then refused to support the findings of the report that Murdoch was unfit to run an international business.oh MP's expenses and the continuing saga …..

And to provide balance, one local Tory MP has been arrested and bailed on a rape enquiry and the local Labour MP who I've met professionally was not exactly of the calibre of individual you would want in Parliament representing you. :shock:

pinno

Stevo 666 wrote:

pinarello001 wrote:

If you honestly beleive that the current state of British Politics has nothing to do with Maggie and that having mediocre parties to choose from, so mediocre that UKIP are on the rise, then i'm laughing more than you.

..and if you blame the press, well...Who was it who got in bed with Murdoch?

Just for the record - do you honestly believe that Kinnock would have made a good Prime Minister?

I think even some of the lefties on here are ducking for cover at this point

I have no idea but politics need counterbalance.

verylonglegs

PBlakeney wrote:

pinarello001 wrote:

If you honestly beleive that the current state of British Politics has nothing to do with Maggie and that having mediocre parties to choose from, so mediocre that UKIP are on the rise, then i'm laughing more than you.

..and if you blame the press, well...Who was it who got in bed with Murdoch?

British politics is a reflection of British society.
We get the parliament that we deserve and a generalisation is that the public are selfish and greedy.
If the public felt otherwise, then they would vote otherwise.

I have to agree, it's one of my bugbears when people absolve the electorate of any responsiblity for who's in charge. Thatcher would love to have been as powerful as you suggest Pina, or indeed any other politician, but they really aren't. Politics has gravitated to the benign middle ground because the majority are doing ok ta very much and much of the rest who would benefit from change can't be bothered to vote as they are too busy watching x-factor and taking selfies.

Thatcher didn't have anything to do with the internet and social media but that in my opinion is what has gone a long way to keeping people quiet and resulting in the kind of politics we have now.

arran77

Ballysmate wrote:

Aphorism wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Aphorism wrote:

The fact that it's being discussed is evidence JC uses to claim his extortionate salary each year. Was it a set up? Yes, it's Top Gear and every bit of it is scripted and set up. The multiple takes of a single scene, the cleverly placed cameras recording the critical parts of the plot, the nail-biting finishes to the race challenges. It's simple minded entertainment, and if you find it entertaining, you're probably simple minded.

Fair play, you watched it all.

No, just guessed based on previous hilarious, witty off-the-cuff episodes.

Was I right??

How many episodes did you watch before you realised you weren't simple minded?

He still hasn't realised

RDW

PBlakeney wrote:

British politics is a reflection of British society.
We get the parliament that we deserve and a generalisation is that the public are selfish and greedy.
If the public felt otherwise, then they would vote otherwise.

“It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see…”

“You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?”

“No,” said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, “nothing so simple. Nothing anything like to straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people.”

“Odd,” said Arthur, “I thought you said it was a democracy.”

“I did,” said ford. “It is.”

“So,” said Arthur, hoping he wasn’t sounding ridiculously obtuse, “why don’t the people get rid of the lizards?”

“It honestly doesn’t occur to them,” said Ford. “They’ve all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they’ve voted in more or less approximates to the government they want.”

“You mean they actually vote for the lizards?”

“Oh yes,” said Ford with a shrug, “of course.”

“But,” said Arthur, going for the big one again, “why?”

“Because if they didn’t vote for a lizard,” said Ford, “the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?”

tangled_metal

In bed with Murdoch? Anyone remember a BBC news 24 clip that got played only twice at the beginning of the news of the world/ Coulson phone tapping scandal? The one where Blair was visiting Murdoch's British newscorp hq. He was walking around a stairwell towards that redhead exec. When he spotted her he gave a little camp wave then walked around to give her a hug and kiss as his PR ppl frantically tried to get the cameras turned off. It got shown on news 24 twice before new Labour stopped it I guess and had moved it on through spin.

I only mention that because getting in bed with media is and has always been the politicians lot in the last century I guess. IIRC it was Blair's lot who set the benchmark for spin and media alliance that has not been bettered, probably never will.

We are in the level of mediocrity we deserve. This state would happen whether Thatcher, Kinnock, Smith or anyone had been at number 10.

ballysmate

arran77 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Aphorism wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Aphorism wrote:

The fact that it's being discussed is evidence JC uses to claim his extortionate salary each year. Was it a set up? Yes, it's Top Gear and every bit of it is scripted and set up. The multiple takes of a single scene, the cleverly placed cameras recording the critical parts of the plot, the nail-biting finishes to the race challenges. It's simple minded entertainment, and if you find it entertaining, you're probably simple minded.

Fair play, you watched it all.

No, just guessed based on previous hilarious, witty off-the-cuff episodes.

Was I right??

How many episodes did you watch before you realised you weren't simple minded?

He still hasn't realised

Perhaps he's watching the reruns on Dave?

markhewitt1978

The DVLA did confirm that H982 FKL was the original car number plate.

pottssteve

This was shown over here a couple of days ago. Most of the show was dull and seemed to be the usual planned stunts like "getting lost" in the desert after having a "race". James May apparently strayed off script when he fell off the horse.

Seeing them huddled in the hotel room, unshaven, lardy, tired and a bit scared I actually felt a bit sorry for the multimillionaire presenters. Top Gear is now like a faithful old labrador that's on its last legs and that lies, farting and snoring in the corner. It really should be put gently to sleep but of course this won't happen as it still makes sh!t-loads of money for Aunty Beeb.

markhewitt1978

pottssteve wrote:

This was shown over here a couple of days ago. Most of the show was dull and seemed to be the usual planned stunts like "getting lost" in the desert after having a "race". James May apparently strayed off script when he fell off the horse.

Yeah they do like the focus on the specials and the likes. But for me the best ones were always the 'races' which were usually car vs public transport. According to the producers these were always set up such that if everything goes to plan they will arrive at the destination at the same time; everything that happens is as it happens. But they seem to prefer the scripted stuff which is a shame.

Top Gear as it stands has been going a long time, almost as long as the 'original' Top Gear. I've thought for a long time it needs a major change.

pottssteve

markhewitt1978 wrote:

pottssteve wrote:

This was shown over here a couple of days ago. Most of the show was dull and seemed to be the usual planned stunts like "getting lost" in the desert after having a "race". James May apparently strayed off script when he fell off the horse.

Yeah they do like the focus on the specials and the likes. But for me the best ones were always the 'races' which were usually car vs public transport. According to the producers these were always set up such that if everything goes to plan they will arrive at the destination at the same time; everything that happens is as it happens. But they seem to prefer the scripted stuff which is a shame.

Top Gear as it stands has been going a long time, almost as long as the 'original' Top Gear. I've thought for a long time it needs a major change.

The bit where they went around and around in circles in the desert was an apposite metaphor for the whole show....

awavey

markhewitt1978 wrote:

pottssteve wrote:

This was shown over here a couple of days ago. Most of the show was dull and seemed to be the usual planned stunts like "getting lost" in the desert after having a "race". James May apparently strayed off script when he fell off the horse.

Yeah they do like the focus on the specials and the likes. But for me the best ones were always the 'races' which were usually car vs public transport. According to the producers these were always set up such that if everything goes to plan they will arrive at the destination at the same time; everything that happens is as it happens. But they seem to prefer the scripted stuff which is a shame.

the keyword there being "set up" back when the first inklings of it being slightly less non-fictional than it was appearing, there was a website that dug into the background planning on some of those races and showed the Top Gear team weren't racing each other.

it was the one to the ski resort car vs trains, May & Hammond should have won that by several hours had they done the exact same route,but caught the next available train at each stop and it was comfortably possible we arent talking about 5mins to run to the next train, instead they seemed from their timings to be deliberately picking the train after often wasting 60-90mins as a result.

Obviously because it makes better tv drama if you can contrive both groups to arrive at the destination within a few minutes of each other, but its not exactly a race if you are deliberately scripting the gaps.

I think the only difference now is the scripting is more obvious.

adamfo

mamba80 wrote:

I wonder how the patriotic british would view the Scilly Isles/Isle of white belonging to say the Russians/chinese/US of A due to some historical freak incident a 150 years ago ?
to me, the falklands clearly belong to the Argentinians, the Spanish were the first to rule the place once they had colonised Argentinia, the british also took over before giving it back to the Spanish, before claiming the place in the mid 1800's, its a throw back to days of empire and nothing more, like Gibraltor, how the hell is that place British???

I think most historians agree that had Argentina waited a few more years the UK would have handed them back, the Argies invaded because they mis read the political situation and thatcher desparate to regain her popularity launched the invasion force, knowing that a 1st world power would win out over a conscripted 3rd world army.

What are the odds of JC/who ever - buying a car with that number plate, and due to run a programe in Argentina???

The British claim to the Falklands dates from 1697 when the Viscount Falkland expedition mapped the islands and found no indigenous population. Argentina didn't come into existence till more than a 100 years latter. Britain has never given the islands to Spain as you say.
The Argentinian army had a professional core, which in some cases, was rather better equipped than the British Army. Plenty of foreign military analysts at the time were saying the islands could not be retaken. I'm old enough to remember reading such articles. In a sense the history doesn't matter. The people there are covered under the UN charter to the right of self determination having lived there for over a 100 years. Some families go back 6 generations.

The show featured elderly V8s within a relatively low price point. There was only one dealer advertised 928 GT for sale when they bought it. 928s are relatively common but they went shopping for that particular variant with the rare manual gearbox and more powerful engine. The other 928 GT was at a breakers and needed some work doing, therefore the odds were 100% they would pick that car.

The cars registration details are here. It has been running around for more than 14 years with that plate. Indeed it is the original year 'H' prefix plate as issued in 1991. The FLK part is the area code of the original licensing office in Suffolk.

https://www.instantcarcheck.co.uk/Report/h982fkl/lboyl