Debbie Dorling, whose husband Brian was killed by a lorry at Bow Roundabout in London while riding his bike to work in October 2011, has challenged Jeremy Clarkson and James May to look her in the eye over their piece about cycle safety in Sunday evening’s edition of the BBC TV show, Top Gear.
Mrs Dorling told road.cc that the programme “totally missed the point of cycle safety”, and that she found one sequence particularly “distressing”, when vegetables were dropped from height onto a hard floor, with a bike following.
“What’s it meant to be?” asked May. “It’s a cyclist after an accident,” explained Clarkson.
The episode of the show, which is watched by millions of viewers in the UK and around the world, saw Clarkson and May present a series of cycle safety videos to a panel of experts including former world and Olympic champion Chris Boardman, now policy advisor at British Cycling.
It quickly became apparent that there was no intention of addressing the subject seriously, as the segment descended into a litany of well-worn stereotypes about cyclists being red light jumpers who can’t afford a car.
Serious issues were barely touched upon, and the danger posed by lorries — which make up 4 per cent of London's traffic, but are involved in more than half of cyclist fatalities — not mentioned at all.
In the comments to our article and on our Facebook page, many pointed out that as a light entertainment show, no-one should have expected anything different. People were told to lighten up and enjoy the jokes.
But others wondered how you might feel if someone who had lost a loved one while cycling were watching the programme, and saw the subject being treated with such triviality.
As it happened, Mrs Dorling was watching it with her daughter. She told us: “I have a sense of humour, so does my daughter. We were laughing then the laughing stopped because it went too far.”
Mrs Dorling, posting as Brians Wife, made a comment to our article on the programme, in which she said:
I sat and watched TG with my daughter as it is one of our favourite programmes. However after the initial laughter at the cycling piece we were both shocked and sickened by the content. Sorry guys, this was not good TV for a family whose cyclist husband and father was killed by a lorry. This missed so many opportunities and I am quite saddened by what went on air, had I realised I would not have watched.
Her husband Brian, an experienced cyclist who rode around 200 miles a week, was killed at Bow Roundabout in October 2011 on his way from his home in Hounslow to work as a surveyor at the Olympic Park.
Since then, the family has had to endure not only their grief at his loss, but also a criminal court case in which the driver of the lorry involved was sentenced to 24 weeks’ imprisonment, suspended for a year.
They also sat through an inquest in which the coroner was highly critical of the Cycle Superhighway Mr Dorling was riding on, which she said gave cyclists “a false sense of security”.

























66 thoughts on “Top Gear: Cyclist’s widow tells Jeremy Clarkson: ‘Look me in the eye’”
Whilst I have every sympathy
Whilst I have every sympathy for the bereaved, and can totally see their point, for me it was actually a somewhat positive thing to see cycling feature prominently on such a popular TV show, even one as comical/irresponsible as Top Gear. All part of the normalisation of cycling which IMO is the true key to increasing awareness, safety and fair treatment of cyclists. They definitely could have handled parts of it more sensitively, though – the vegetables were pretty tasteless. And having commuted by bike in London for over a decade, I agree that dump trucks are way scarier than buses. Shame they didn’t have any near misses with those.
It has had its moments and I
It has had its moments and I wasn’t wound up as you had to expect nothing else, but I did think this would offen victims of bike accidents.
The producers know controversy creates conversation which in turn promotes Top Gear. The format is tired, the content very dull and repetitive, and the presenters utter c*c*s who’s ego’s are fed solely by an audience of tabloid reading idiots.
All you have to do is look at the audience on the show. They clearly place the ‘attractive’ girl at the front to dissuade the tv audience that it isn’t full of a load of middle aged men wishing they were the stig who otherwise would be at home locked in their mums bathroom with the screwfix catalogue power tool section.
Next week – something about an expensive car and how great it is and yet at the end they will say its crap, joke about hammonds height/teeth/hair, joke about the floppy haired twat whose names eludes me, staged race/challenge, some bloke promoting a film comes on and drives a car, something about an indian car……and Clarkson looking more and more like a saggy leather cushion furnished in denim ….repeat for another 20 series.
Simmo72 wrote:It has had its
My sentiments entirely.
Sadly the unholy trinity of tg presenters are in the very privileged position of being paid a fortune to churn out this drivel!
I think we are all used to
I think we are all used to and expect Top Gear’s blend of lazy oafish humour, but some of the imagery on Sunday evening crossed a line.
The images of crushed bikes alongside slogans suggesting that the rider would have been alive had they behaved differently (not being poor, or not being self righteous) were quite offensive and I can understand how Mrs Dorling feels.
It may have been received better if TG had countered the offensive stuff with some real positive messages to help cyclists, but they didn’t bother.
Slightly changing the subject
Slightly changing the subject here but i’ve just sat through prime ministers questions (sad i know) and it was brought up about the sentencing for death by dangerous / careless driving.
Cameron, as usual, spouted a complete load of rubbish and said the relevant minister would look at it – next question please.
What hope is there when they cant even be bothered to give at least a decent answer.
What do you expect from a
What do you expect from a bloke who chains his bike to a bollard?
The Top Gear message is that on the road, the motorist is top of the pecking order. So watch out you uppity cyclists, we’re going to run over you.
People are far too easily
People are far too easily offended these days. Ooh, my feelings were hurt. Please.
redmeat wrote:People are far
I honestly hope your comment was about the show in general and not about this ladies very sad loss.
/
/
redmeat wrote:People are far
Seriously.
Try reading who has complained in the article above.
Seriously.
redmeat wrote:People are far
Only 6 comments from this user, don’t feed the troll guys.
notfastenough wrote:redmeat
Correctamundo =D>
redmeat wrote:People are far
I wonder how you would feel to have the demise of a close family member ridiculed by oafs?!
gb901 wrote:redmeat
My father died of a heart attack. Am I offended every time Jimmy Carr/Frankie Boyle/whoever makes a comment about someone dying from a heart attack? No. Should I be? No.
Stop being so terminally offended.
redmeat wrote:gb901
My father died of a heart attack. Am I offended every time Jimmy Carr/Frankie Boyle/whoever makes a comment about someone dying from a heart attack? No. Should I be? No.
Stop being so terminally offended.— redmeat
Was your dad’s heart attack caused by someone else’s inattention?
Or, their rush to get from A to B despite whoever was in their way?
Perhaps, his heart attack was caused by someone texting and driving at the same time.
redmeat wrote:My father died
If your dad’s heart attack had been directly and unnaturally caused by someone else’s negligence – say, a drug incorrectly administered by an incompetent doctor working in an inadequately regulated hospital – and then you saw a prime-time TV programme promoting maverick medicine laughing and applauding at people who’d been killed in that way, would you not be bothered?
I mean, maybe you’re fine with that, in which case fair play. But don’t try to pretend that dying of a fundamentally non-eradicable illness is anything like being completely unnecessarily killed by a piece of machinery operated by another person.
redmeat wrote:gb901
My father died of a heart attack. Am I offended every time Jimmy Carr/Frankie Boyle/whoever makes a comment about someone dying from a heart attack? No. Should I be? No.
Stop being so terminally offended.— redmeat
A Heart Attack is different – No secondary participant
A cycling accident like this could be and can be avoided if people were more self aware on the roads (Cars and Cyclists alike). The cause of this families loss could be prevented by better education. The mass market opportunity to do this was not taken and could potentially cause more accidents because of the triviality and the audience it touched.
I don’t get offended by anything at all and I watch comedy that test the limits and the more offensive the better.
If I watch Jimmy Carr/Frankie Boyle I know what I am going to get, Top Gear is a publically funded BBC show that has responsibilities as well as being light hearted. To highlight injured cyclists as vegetables is not particularly intelligent on a show broadcasted at this time and to an influenced viewer.
Your comments are also not particularly intelligent on a forum like this.
Know your audience.
redmeat wrote:My father died
Pretty much sums up my feelings. Yes comedy will offend people, but luckily those people aren’t being held at gunpoint and can choose not to watch it.
Clarkson is still nowhere near a Frankie Boyle.
mtm_01 wrote:redmeat wrote:My
Pretty much sums up my feelings. Yes comedy will offend people, but luckily those people aren’t being held at gunpoint and can choose not to watch it.
Clarkson is still nowhere near a Frankie Boyle.— redmeat
Nor are people held at gunpoint and forced to listen to people protesting at the offensive remarks. Stop telling people how they should feel.
What I find ironic is how thin-skinned so many Clarkson fans are. Criticise their hero and they come out in their defensive droves.
You ARE kidding right?
Being
You ARE kidding right?
Being ‘killed’ by a heart attack is NOT the same as being killed by a neglectful driver.
What a stupid way to view it. Did you even think this response through?
redmeat wrote:gb901
My father died of a heart attack. Am I offended every time Jimmy Carr/Frankie Boyle/whoever makes a comment about someone dying from a heart attack? No. Should I be? No.
Stop being so terminally offended.— redmeat
Death from natural causes or killed whilst cycling by a nobber-driver.
Do you eat chalk and pickle sandwiches by any chance?
Looking at the comments on
Looking at the comments on the original piece, what strikes me is how ridiculous some of the comments on this site are becoming. In amongst the 122 others (and counting), Mrs Dorling posted what has to be the most significant comment of the lot, but it was hardly noticed amid a din of shouts and insults by people accusing each other of all sorts just because they don’t agree.
If you found it offensive
If you found it offensive tell the BBC.
workhard wrote:If you found
I have. I particularly enjoyed the “work harder ********” abuse from the passenger of a hot hatch that overtook me on my way home yesterday. That was a predictable result of this piece of BBC public disservice broadcasting.
I think the portrayal of injured cyclists as vegetables crossed the line, too.
a.jumper wrote:I particularly
It was probably a comment at how slow you were going from another cyclist 😉
a.jumper wrote:workhard
Yep. That’s what I told them too.
maybe clarkson could take a
maybe clarkson could take a biscuit tin full of fruit and drop a microwave on it to hilariously illustrate what can happen to a car and its occupants if it is smashed to bits by an HGV.
I mean it would be their fault after all, not driving the biggest thing on the road wouldn’t it?
Top Gear at one point was my
Top Gear at one point was my fave show. That was when it was about cars, development, technology, consumer information about faults and road tests, etc. Occasional slapstick made it entertaining and the balance was right.
I dont watch the show at all now. Basically because the presenters have turned into a bunch of c**ts who need to retire. The show actually needs to die too, that would be a good thing.
Poor lady, the very fact she
Poor lady, the very fact she could see the funny side of any of their piece is pretty admirable in itself. I agree that no-one expected anything less than the usual from the TG team, but echo the sentiment that it was a completely missed opportunity to get a worthy message across. It’s all very well carrying on with the piss taking, and most of us can take a joke, but you then have a responsibility to balance this when you are dealing with a matter which is as serious as it is. Can you imagine them running a similar piece joking about car crash victims or motorsport deaths? I just don’t think they would.
Completely understand the
Completely understand the feelings of the bereaved in watching this. A missed opportunity, as I’ve already posted
However, as annoying and insensitive as Clarkson can be, he’s just making entertainment programmes, and has no remit for education or to strive to improve safety. The government and justice system does, however. They are the one’s failing the victims of accidents.
But if you think other road users are immune from insensitive generalisations by Clarkson, then think again; bus users, motorcyclists, lorry drivers, the Welsh.. ! All have been targeted, I really don’t think it’s anything sinister he just thrives on controversial comedy that’s all.
700c wrote:But if you think
Can Clarkson be prosecuted for incitement or conspiracy to road rage yet?
700c wrote:But if you think
Remind me which of those generalisations were made through the use of a realistic image intended to portray a fatality for humorous purposes?
I don’t even recall any news articles about the deaths of 120-odd innocent Welsh people a year due to them simply being Welsh. Maybe I’ve not been paying attention.
I can see a fairly clear
I can see a fairly clear difference between someone dying of a heart attack and someone being killed by someone else.
I’m relieved to hear that I
I’m relieved to hear that I didn’t misjudge this piece, then.
https://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2014/03/03/lolz/
I thought much the same. It made me laugh. But then it crossed a line where I just wondered how anyone who’d actually been bereaved could look at that imagery, and see the crass handling of it, and still laugh.
I like Top Gear, I never expected it to handle the subject constructively and I see no problem with that, and I hate to find common ground with people who get offended by anything and everything, but it was pretty shameful for Clarkson to stand up and wave victoriously at a jeering audience for displaying an image of death as a joke.
Ah, so I see editing a reply
Ah, so I see editing a reply sends it to the bottom of the thread and makes it look stupid and out of place. Arse 🙂
I have much sympathy for the
I have much sympathy for the lady in the article, however……… I am sure there have been many motorists who have been killed while Top Gear is doing a piece where they laugh at a car. Wouldn’t it be a very sad thing if TV was to become a laugh free zone, because nothing funny for the majority of people was made.
It is almost impossible to be
It is almost impossible to be killed while encased in a car… It is seriously worrying that you don’t know that.
I had hoped – silly of me in
I had hoped – silly of me in hindsight – that at the end of the sketch when they got on the wrong side of the buses that they actually might push a serious point. More chance of Kim Jong-un holding an open day in North Korea.
I watched this on Sunday and
I watched this on Sunday and was wondering: “Is Top Gear taking the piss out of itself, or is it taking the piss out of cyclists?”
I genuinely don’t know. Which either makes it high-art or utter shite…
Either way, making jokes about people being killed is not really funny, and I’m not surprised it upset people such as Mrs Dorling. She has every right to be offended.
I think Stuart Lee said it
I think Stuart Lee said it best:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7CnMQ4L9Pc
“I hate Jeremy Clarkson more than anybody who has ever lived, including fictional characters”
Albert Square wrote:I think
Says it all really. Thanks Albert. Richard Hammond though but the ‘It’s only a joke!!’ Is just perfect.
It was boring. Must’ve been
It was boring. Must’ve been worse for the bootcut car fans with no bike interest.
Actually, one interesting thing in the show was the safety avoidance thing in the Golf GTI, mentioned but not discussed.
Clarkson and Co are just
Clarkson and Co are just paradies of themselves. Top Gear lacks its original sparkle and appeal and is on its way out. What was fun to begin with is now exceedingly tedious. They are one excoriating comedy parady away from them being consigned to the scrap heap of uncool.
They’ll be able to hold pictures of themselves up and plant them at the end of their ratings board. Don’t stress yourselves
Not surprised at all about
Not surprised at all about the feature. Disappointed though, as it was an opportunity to do some good, talk about everyone as road users and admit that cyclists also drive.
That Clarkson’s wealth pyramid is based on a show we pay for makes it even more frustrating.
That a small groups of morons have just had all their prejudices re-enforced is the main problem whether you found the piece funny or not. It’s not enough to shrug and say ‘get a sense of humour’. Top Gear needs to get a sense of perspective and look at the whole picture rather than playing stereotypes for laughs.
Completely forgot about this
Completely forgot about this TG cycle piece but caught a clip as I was changing a DVD over. Realised it was going to wind me up and quickly went back to the boxset.
JC can come and speak to me about the idiot who nearly squeezed me into a line of parked cars last night and, when I protested, got in front of me and rammed his brakes on. Only just stopped in time and his excuse was, “there were cars coming the other way”! Had to make some detours from my normal route as I reckoned he was looking to park up and have another go at me.
they should expect this
they should expect this response after coming out with such a disgusting piece of television. I was appalled by it personally. The BBC should be held accountable.
I’ve changed my
I’ve changed my mind!initially I thought what’s the fuss? It’s meant to be funny and did make a valid point that a bike on the road is one less car. On reflection however the veg piece was a step too far given the cycling deaths all over the UK, not just London.
There is life north of Watford…….
Clarkson a humourous
Clarkson a humourous oaf!
Problem is its gotta be so difficult to say anything in public without potentially offending someone about something they may find offensive.
Anyone can die of a
Anyone can die of a heart-attack. Its not a form of death that uniquely affects a minority and that is in very often down to the behaviour of members of a majority. A comic joking about heart attacks is doing so knowing full well they might themselves go that way.
This is more akin to, say, a scandal about poor care in an NHS hospital resulting in many unnecessary deaths…and then a senior NHS doctor makes a public joke about those deaths. Callous barely covers it.
FluffyKittenofTindalos
No – that’s an overreaction and a poor comparison, IMO – how is Clarkson responsible for road safety, or the injury and death of people on the roads, in the same way that a senior NHS Manager is responsible for poor care in his hospital?
Or is he to blame because he’s one of those nasty evil car drivers?!
I think those bereaved may have a point about being offended about the portrayal in the section about dead cyclists as fruit and veg (it was insensitive but attempting to be funny and failing), but the subject of this piece is more about the missed opportunity to promote safety – a shame, but nothing more, IMO.
I thought the piece was poor, unfunny and a missed opportunity. But this is an entertainment show and people over-reacting like this and being offended on others’ behalf is depressing. And if taken to it’s extreme conclusion, could result in excessive censorship – and people being scared to attempt any kind of comedy on TV. This is the kind of reaction that Clarkson thrives on, BTW – surely people know this?
700c wrote:being offended on
What if it’s inherently on behalf of people who are dead and cannot thus be offended themselves?
But, as I say, it’s not about being offended. It’s about poisoning a debate. I’m against Page 3 and I’d support campaigns against it, but I’m not a woman. Does that make my view “depressing”?.
I’m not “offended” by Page 3: I’m just bothered that it promotes a social attitude that is detrimental to women, and I’ll gladly say so.
And I’m not “offended” by the Top Gear piece: I’m just bothered that it promotes a social attitude that is detrimental to people who ride bicycles, and I’ll gladly say so.
700c
No – that’s an overreaction and a poor comparison, IMO – how is Clarkson responsible for road safety, or the injury and death of people on the roads, in the same way that a senior NHS Manager is responsible for poor care in his hospital?
Or is he to blame because he’s one of those nasty evil car drivers?!
I think those bereaved may have a point about being offended about the portrayal in the section about dead cyclists as fruit and veg (it was insensitive but attempting to be funny and failing), but the subject of this piece is more about the missed opportunity to promote safety – a shame, but nothing more, IMO.
I thought the piece was poor, unfunny and a missed opportunity. But this is an entertainment show and people over-reacting like this and being offended on others’ behalf is depressing. And if taken to it’s extreme conclusion, could result in excessive censorship – and people being scared to attempt any kind of comedy on TV. This is the kind of reaction that Clarkson thrives on, BTW – surely people know this?— FluffyKittenofTindalos
He’s a lot more than being just ‘one of those car drivers’. In case you hadn’t noticed he appears on TV and in the papers quite a lot, generally in a context directly related to driving and driving culture.
You also seem to have changed my analogy even as you objected to it. I said nothing about being a doctor with direct power over the hypothetical hospital involved. Just being part of that wider peer group would be enough to make such a joke deplorable.
I get weary of people insisting nobody is allowed to express disgust over bullying and poor morals.
We have freedom of speech do we not? Is it OK for people to point out they find many of Clarkson’s attitudes and statements to be loathesome and irresponsible? Or should that be banned in your view?
It’s TG what do you expect?
It’s TG what do you expect? Clarkson and his stooges are arses.
My television has an off
My television has an off switch, I believe many others do too, if you are offended by something anyone can use this handy facility to stop being offended!
freespirit1 wrote:
My
Super daft comment, really. If you switch it off after you’ve been offended, you’ve already been offended. Switch it off before … what, are you bloody precognitive?
freespirit1 wrote:My
Why do people recycle this ridiculous notion?
So – to fly perilously close to Godwin’s law – if the Jews had objected to the Nuremberg rallies they should have just turned the radio off and it would have been fine?
If you’re going to criticise something, it helps to know what you’re criticising, right?
This isn’t about causing offence. Personally, I am a huge fan of offending people, in constructive manners.
This is about reinforcing prejudices, about propagating a false dichotomy, about making political discussions more difficult, and about feeding a media mill with grist that turns all of those things into vicious circles.
This is about goading an audience to cheer at images that reflect real deaths that occur every three days as a direct result of the use of vehicles that the audience is there to celebrate.
It’s not high art. It’s not thought-provoking wit. It’s not constructive offence. It’s playing to bigotry and – albeit hardly on anything like the scale of the above analogy – hampering the progression of people’s basic right not to get killed.
It is easy to understand
It is easy to understand that, taken literally, the scene in question would understandably disgust and hurt those who grieve for a loved one killed by a lorry driver. (It wasn’t the lorry). However, the piece was ironic. I don’t understand how many cannot seem to grasp this. They play the fool. The piece satirised those who hold the views portrayed by Clarkson et al. Conclusion; if you hold those views, then you are a fool.
The scene highlighted in the article then becomes an inditement on the trivialising of these killings by the CPS, the legal system, the impotent law, and the politicians. The purpose of these institutions is to protect the vulnerable. They become abhorrent to other vulnerable road users in their failure.
The closing vignette qualified this. The tone was positive; implying that the motor user bore the burden of responsibility and should be thankful for one less car on the road.
I think people are crediting
I think people are crediting Top Gear with too much influence and power here. Those who have bad attitudes towards cyclists will have them regardless of what Clarkson says.
Just in the same way that people who dislike Clarkson will dislike him regardless of what he says.
And in fact, if you look back at the episode, he was advocating cycle safety – in his own, crap, missing-most-of-the-point way! so ‘poisoning the debate’ is far fetched. He just didn’t say what you wanted him to say, that’s all!
Oh and a tip: if you get the ‘work harder’ line, or similar, from some yoof in a hot hatch, a good reply could be ‘my bike’s worth more than your car you ******* chav!’* **
*I’m not actually advocating this as it may contribute to conflict between road users, it was an attempt at comedy.
**But it has worked for me and does give some satisfaction in the face or moronic abuse!
700c wrote:
Oh and a tip: if
No need to qualify it- haven’t you been paying attention? You can say anything you like, as long as you then claim you were just being ironic, or that it was a ‘piece of satire’. That means that if anyone has a problem with what you said it’s because they’re thick, or a boring fun sponge or something.
700c wrote:I think people are
Actually the “work harder” line is very much of a piece with the (I’m pretty sure apocryphal) comment attributed to Thatcher that “anyone who rides the bus after the age of 30 has failed in life” (sometimes given in the even more un-Thatcher-like form of “only losers take the bus”).
Its an unpleasant remark on many levels, regardless of the cost of one’s bike.
Plus I’d say the real tagline is “be more selfish and irresponsible – drive a car”. (Though, then, not being a professional troll, I’d have to acknowledge that for many people driving a car doesn’t feel like a choice, and its a collective organisational problem much more than an individual one).
Also, its absurd to say those who dislike Clarkson would do so whatever he said. Its what he says that makes me dislike him! What he says is his defining characteristic – he’s a presenter and a columnist. Its not his hairstyle that determines my opinion of him! (Though I do hate his hair as well). If he said different things I’d have a different attitude to him.
And finally, its silly to think that just because a general attitude already exists that a high profile person perpetuating and encouraging it is of no consequence. Where else do such attitudes come from?
I really wonder if a lot of people who aren’t real petrolhead types don’t minimise or excuse Clarkson and try desperately to interpret him positively (“its irony”) because getting angry just feels undignified or makes one uncomfortably aware how little power one has over these things.
Did I even reply to the right
Did I even reply to the right post?
It was desperately unfunny
It was desperately unfunny and wholly insensitive. Time and time again the tiresome trio knowingly tease and mock anyone not using a car hiding behind the ‘it’s just a joke’ excuse. It’s quite obvious that a percentage of motorists believe in the guff they spout and this latest piece simply reinforces dangerous attitudes.
The vegetable references are not a mistake, the entire TG production crew should go visit brain injured patients and stand there making their jokes. They wouldn’t have the audacity and disrespect but somehow on an isolated TV show its just fine.
Quite how this show continually escapes authoritative intervention defies me. The work harder reference is horrendous, does this also apply when I drive my car and pass someone in a cheaper one? Can I hurl abuse and adopt some kind of moral superiority over them or is that different because cars are involved?
If was nothing but another dig at a vulnerable group of people designed purely to take the p$$$ out of us all and mock serious injury and death. Clarkson is a callous self serving cretin who should be forced to break the news to a devastated family that one of his dim petrol head disciples has just stolen a life. See how funny it really is.
When I am annoyed by BBC TV,
When I am annoyed by BBC TV, I complain to them. It’s very easy to do it online. Only takes 2 minutes. I get a reply from them defending themselves, but at least I’ve registered my opinion with them.
I complained several weeks ago. You know the sort of TV where the presenter is driving somewhere and he or she is constantly taking their eyes off the road to talk to the camera they have installed on the passenger seat.
I also complained about this Top Gear episode.
guyz2010. Clarkson is just an
guyz2010. Clarkson is just an oaf. Period.
I cannot understand how the
I cannot understand how the BBC deserves the TV licence fee.
They can do what they like, knowing their revenue is protected, and that they will always have enough to pay ridiculously high salaries to JC and the scum like him.
He has offended many times, and surely the question must be asked – “When is enough enough ?”.
I think a campaign to abolish the TV license fee would not be out-of-place. It would make the gravy-train quasi civil servants reflect on what they allow to come out.
PS How DO you spell licence, or license ?
JC is annoying but makes
JC is annoying but makes profit for the beeb (I’d rather he didn’t and they had nothing to do with him, but your argument that he costs us cash is flawed). The beeb plays a role in offsetting the Fox News tone of some other private tv coverage, it is said. Unless you are quite far right of centre, you should be wary of rightwing attempts to diminish it.
Re licence / license, you can remember it by thinking of advice / advise. Or try replacing the licence/license with “card”. If card fits, go with “licence” and you’ll mostly be right.