So, Top Gear's man of mystery, the Stig, has unmasked himself in order to sell his book. The BBC is objecting to the publication of the book on the grounds that it breaches contractual and confidentiality agreements.
HarperCollins, the would-be publishers of the book, have issued a press release in which they say that they "are disappointed that the BBC has chosen to spend licence fee payers' money to suppress this book".
Remind me again who owns HarperCollins, and why they might want to make political capital at the BBC's expense in the run-up to the renegotiation of the BBC charter, and possible abolition of the license fee.
It's interesting that you ask "is it reasonable that be be bound indefinitely by his consent?"
I hadn't assumed that the NDA with the BBC was indefinite, just that it persisted for the duration of his contract with the Beeb (that is, he's free to reveal all after he ceases to be on the show, but that the identity of the Stig-that-is-currently-on-the-show remains secret).
Frankly, while the BBC funds something a horrific as that, I'm all for this (or anything else) being used at their expense. The BBC should be a fine organisation, a cornerstone of Britishness and a benchmark of quality. It isn't.
Horrific? Really? Genocide's horrific. Top Gear's just pathetic, saddening lads-maggery.
Edited at 2010-08-24 08:29 am (UTC)
However, by judging the BBC - all of the BBC - through a single show, you're playing into the hands of those who would like to see the BBC usurped.
BSkyB is a New Corporation company (as is HarperCollins), and I'm sure that Murdoch would like nothing more to see an emasculated BBC. I'm also sure that our new masters in Whitehall would like to see more a subservient BBC (never minding that our previous masters wanted the same), but I don't think that ousting the BBC from their position as the news broadcaster of note and replacing them with Fox News will serve the UK at all well. In terms of revenue, BSkyB already outperforms the BBC (2009 revenue of roughly £5.5B, compared to £4.5B for the BBC).
The BBC *is* a fine organisation and a benchmark of quality, but by harping on about a single show, you're in danger of making the converse a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Sure, Top Gear is purile, but it's hardly the end of civilisation.
I think HC suck for trying to tuse his non-event it to drum up publicity, but the BBC suck more for trying to block the guys book. If he's breaking the contract, just sack him, it's not a big deal. I don't buy the whole News Corp consipracy theory thing, nobody really cares, except you lot apparently.
PS I saw the previous guy (Perry Macarthy [sp]) at some trade show. He was teaching fat geeks how to drive a F1 simulator, shilling for a company that sells datacentre equipment. The whole biography thing didn't really work out for him.
Clarkson reminds me of Julie Burchill; having the knack of making people want to rip the newspaper in half or punch the TV screen is good for sales and publicity. the homophobia is distateful - remember when they painted gay slogans over one of the cars while they were driving through the deep south and staged a stoning. but yes, the whole thing is very like fox hunting (the unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible) and a waste of brain cells.
It took the piss out of sub-masondixie bigots, and I guess that's a well worn stereotype, but having been to Georgia I can assure you that it's based on reality.