View previous topic | View next topic

The Clarkson Controversy

Page 61 of 63
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 60, 61, 62, 63  Next


Which do you think?:
Yes, the word is too offensive to tolerate regardless of context or intent and so Clarkson deserves the pillorying
4%
 4%  [ 1 ]
No, it was clearly accidental an was never broadcast, so the ones who should be censured are those who stole and published the edited material to further another agenda
96%
 96%  [ 24 ]
Total Votes : 25

Jenny
1183070.  Sun Mar 20, 2016 12:02 pm Reply with quote

That's a good point PDR made - has there been a complaint from the authorities responsible for allowing the road to be closed for the filming? Who has, in fact, complained about it?

 
barbados
1183074.  Sun Mar 20, 2016 12:54 pm Reply with quote

Nobody of any importance has complained, however the Westminster film unit have said that had they been fully aware, they would not have given the permission.

The web site doesn't really give too much information on what is and isn't acceptable procedure, and I have moved since I last had any dealings with the them. But even for photography, there are some quite explicit details on what is required, and the council could quite easily have found a way to decline the application had they felt so inclined, then the team would have had to find somewhere else.

 
Jenny
1183077.  Sun Mar 20, 2016 1:06 pm Reply with quote

barbados wrote:
Nobody of any importance has complained, however the Westminster film unit have said that had they been fully aware, they would not have given the permission.


Well that's very easy to say after the event, in order to avoid upsetting those who have complained.

 
barbados
1183078.  Sun Mar 20, 2016 1:08 pm Reply with quote

True, but it would have been easier to answer had they been aware to start with though wouldn't it.

 
dr.bob
1183189.  Mon Mar 21, 2016 10:49 am Reply with quote

barbados wrote:
But even for photography, there are some quite explicit details on what is required, and the council could quite easily have found a way to decline the application had they felt so inclined, then the team would have had to find somewhere else.


And yet they didn't.

Which brings us back to my earlier point: this was a stunt arranged to be screened on Top Gear, starring a souped up Ford Mustang driven by a professional rally driver. Clearly this was going to involve a lot of noise, revving of engines, and driving very fast.

I think it's a bit daft for whoever gave permission for the filming to say "yeah, we were fine with all that kind of thing, but smoking tyres crosses the line and is too disrespectful."

I think Jenny's right and they're just trying to cover their collective arses after the event.

 
barbados
1183202.  Mon Mar 21, 2016 12:46 pm Reply with quote

They didn't decline the permission because they were told the car "would drive along Whitehall, then move on to another location."

Given the information they were supplied there would be no reason to refuse, had they had all of the information then they say they would have refused.

As I said, I have no problem with the stunts - the location doesn't bother me, the problem that I have is why didn't the Top Gear production team disclose what they intended to do - and the only reasonable explanation is they didn't think that the stunts intended would be appropriate, and permission would have been refused.

 
PDR
1183218.  Mon Mar 21, 2016 1:29 pm Reply with quote

barbados wrote:
the only reasonable explanation is they didn't think that the stunts intended would be appropriate, and permission would have been refused.


Not the only one. Another reasonable explanation is that as they were only talking to the authority who closes the roads both they an the authority believed that what they actually DID while the road was closed was irrelevant to the application - a belief they sustained until it turned into a tabloid shitstorm that would make even Mr Disturbed of Tunbridge Wells feel embarrassed.

Again, you are confusing your assumptions with facts. Other assumptions are available.

PDR

 
barbados
1183221.  Mon Mar 21, 2016 1:45 pm Reply with quote

That would be an explanation. It wouldn't be a reasonable one, because that would imply that all that is involved was the production team just ask for the road to be closed. Due to the location they would have had to given all details of what was planned.

There is no confusion on my part, and the only assumption being made is the one that the response given in the report linked came from the council. I've no reason to doubt a source that says a spokesman from the council said something. What are you basing your assumption on?

 
PDR
1183228.  Mon Mar 21, 2016 3:02 pm Reply with quote

barbados wrote:
That would be an explanation. It wouldn't be a reasonable one, because that would imply that all that is involved was the production team just ask for the road to be closed.


Yes, because as far as I have been able to establish that is the limit of the remit of the authorities whose permission needed to be sought.

Quote:
Due to the location they would have had to given all details of what was planned.


Really? Under what provision of what law or bylaw does it specify this? I know that the tabloids have made many remarks of this nature, but they don't appear to have any basis in fact. Previous film and television shoots have seen these roads closed to film car chases, robberies, murders, explosions, alien invasions and even overt acts of a cycling nature involving children. I fail to see why they are suddenly getting so precious about a few doughnuts.

PDR

 
barbados
1183229.  Mon Mar 21, 2016 3:23 pm Reply with quote

I;m basing my assumption on my previous dealings with the film unit from Westminster Council. Granted they aren't as militant as the management of Canary Wharf, but even still they do like to know what will be happening during the event. They especially want to know when something is being planned - it allows them to brief the police (who they work very closely to) in the event of things like buses being blown up by Jackie Chan and speed boats involved in gun fights involving Daniel Craig. But I guess you must be right, they wouldn't care what is going on in the middle of a bunch of offices where nothing important happens at all.

 
'yorz
1183231.  Mon Mar 21, 2016 3:42 pm Reply with quote

Doffcock: the words 'film unit' reminded me of a lovely day out I had with friends in the mid-1970s. We went to visit Giethoorn, a small village known as Dutch Venice.
There are no streets, just narrow canals (wide ditches, rather) where you transport yourself by boat/canoe etc. Very touristic and pittoresque.
The day we were there, there was a bit of a commotion as a film crew from India (INDIA!) had landed there to film a boat chase that was supposed to take place in the real Venice. It was much cheaper to film it in Cloggieland, and who in India would be able to tell the difference anyway....
Most bizarre.

 
PDR
1183235.  Mon Mar 21, 2016 4:06 pm Reply with quote

I'm basing my views on a thorough perusal of the relevant guidance for filming in London (a good starting point is here) which makes it clear that the reasons for refusing permission include excessive disruption to traffic, inadequate insurance, inadequate skilled people for crowd/traffic control, inadequate notice, infringement of private property and failure to pay the appropriate fees. It makes clear that there is no legal right to prevent filming the exterior of buildings and monuments from public places and nowhere in ANY of the guidance does it mention any requirement for tests of "respect, taste or decency" for places and monuments. Nor is there any mention of such a right in the enabling legislation (The London Local Authorities (LLA) and Transport for London (TfL) Act 2008, as amended).

There is no provision for specifying that certain types of filming or event must be more that <x> distance from certain types of monument or memorial, or that certain types of filming must ensure that certain types of monument or memorial are not included in the shot. There is no provision under which any official can rule that drive-bys are acceptable but doughnuts are not provided the appropriate risk assessment is undertaken and documented. Any official attempting to *assert* such a right could probably expect to be challenged in a court, and then banned for life from working in the public sector for being such an authoritarian oik (I may have made that last bit up).

So I ask again - under what provision of what act or bylaw does it support your assertiuon that "Due to the location they would have had to given all details of what was planned"?

This would appear to be an assumption on your part.

PDR

 
barbados
1183239.  Mon Mar 21, 2016 4:22 pm Reply with quote

The assumption, as I have said, is based on Westmister Council film unit saying had the team informed them of the details, they would have declined the request. And they would have got away with it based on the proximity of the stunt to the buildings that surround the area, not the monument that was 300 metres away, the buildings that line the street.
How could they get away with that? Well it is a very loud vehicle, and that could be used to cover the sound of something untoward.

 
PDR
1183244.  Mon Mar 21, 2016 4:43 pm Reply with quote

The TG crew obtained and paid for a license to close the road - there is no provision in the act for the license to be denied for a short-term noise nuisance unless it's SO loud it's actually a health hazard. So refusing the license on those grounds would have been overturned by a court as well. Much, much louder things have been filmed on the embankment - pyrotechnics and explosions of all kinds. Also marches (anti-war protestors have been allowed to parade past the Cenotaph - if anything could be banned for disrespect that would have been it), bands, parades, river parties etc..

But even if they had the power I doubt they wouldn't have turned it down. The London authority want to *promote* filming in London both to promote tourism and as a useful source of income.

In this case some boring old farts have raised a lynch mob on utterly spurious grounds, and the officials are running away rather than telling them to get lost. It's embarrassing.

PDR

 
barbados
1183259.  Mon Mar 21, 2016 5:34 pm Reply with quote

PDR wrote:


But even if they had the power I doubt they wouldn't have turned it down. The London authority want to *promote* filming in London both to promote tourism and as a useful source of income.


PDR


You doubt they wouldn't turn it down?
Where is the doubt? you've already claimed they most definitely wouldn't turn it down because the decision would have been overturned in a court if they had (although the procedure is arbitration not litigation, which would have been based on what is acceptable to both parties, a court case would be too costly and too lengthy to fit in with the vehicle being available)

 

Page 61 of 63
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 60, 61, 62, 63  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group