@zookeeper - Quite! Also they have just cherry picked the names from Wikipedia:
"Apart from German and other governments and the Pope, famous owners of the 600 include numerous celebrities (Hugh Hefner, Elizabeth Taylor, John Lennon, Jason Kay, Aristotle Onassis, Jack Nicholson, Simon Spies, Bob Jane, Elvis Presley, Rowan Atkinson), Communist rulers (Nicolae Ceausescu, Josip Broz-Tito, Mao Zedong, Leonid Brezhnev,[2] Kim il Sung), African revolutionaries (Idi Amin Dada, Jomo Kenyatta) and motoring journalist Jeremy Clarkson."
So lazy to boot!
Edited by Billy Whizz on 11/03/2008 at 12:00
|
Is it me, or is the photo too good?
At 70mph, surely the trees in the background, and the blue car that has overtaken JC would be blurred?
Looks more likely that he is stuck in a traffic jam - not justifiable for using a phone - but certainly not the headline grabbing 70mph that the Mirror is claiming.
|
Besides which, what is more distracting; using a phone in a traffic jam; or having your girlfriend rummage around in the car to try to find a camera in order to take a photo of a celebrity?
Just imagine the explanation to the police :
"sorry officer, I crashed the car because my girlfriend was trying to lean across me to photograph Jeremy Clarkson"
|
to try to find a camera in order to take a photo of a celebrity?
She probably used her own mobile to take the picture so wouldn't have had to rummage.
|
|
|
|
Car looks stationary to me too. To freeze motion at that speed you'd need at least 1/250th shutter speed or even 1/500th which is unlikely for a mobile phone. Doesn't really even look like clarkson to me. I'd say they had a shot but it was totally un-recognisable so the mirror mocked something up to look similar. The reflections in the windows are so bad you really can't identify the driver properly.
|
|
|
|
Wonder what's more dangerous - Clarkson using mobile or walkie talkie or random "mirror reader" hanging out of his window with camera at 70mph and trying to take picture of a celeb while undertaking...
|
As his car is left hand drive, that photo was either taken from the drivers's seat or the girlfriend was sitting in the back.
|
As his car is left hand drive, that photo was either taken from the drivers's seat or the girlfriend was sitting in the back.
OK, Sherlock, but you forgot one other option - the picture was taken by a passenger who, just like BigC, was in a LHD car too.
|
|
|
Agreed - not to the usual fuzzy/taken from 100yds away/paparazzi type shot is it!
Thinks.. How much did they get for this really important, front page, national disgrace, photo.
|
|
Unlike the rest of us, Jeremy Clarkson is a supremely capable driver - with his ability, he should be allowed to use his mobile phone whilst on the move if he wants to.
|
|
|
A very experienced driver driving a superior car at a moderate speed on a safe road, with a mobile in his ear. Do me a favour.
A couple of snivelling sanctimonious little carphounds trying to recognise famous people and photograph them as they drive around, then lecture everyone on their victim's behaviour.
A disgusting yellow rag willing to publish this carp, really useful only for wiping excrement off impoverished fundaments.
What's the big deal? Bog standard Britain on a Tuesday morning. Yawn.
|
He shouldnt have really done it and he should be able to afford a hands free kit too, but I dont really believe anything that is found in the Mirror.
He is just a rather big target.
|
|
|
|
I seem to remember an accound, by LJK Setright I think, of a stirring lap or two of Silverstone in a 600 driven by Stirling Moss. Setright (if it was he) was very impressed by Moss's laid-back, precise close-quarters driving in this very large machine at improbable speeds.
Edited by Lud on 11/03/2008 at 14:28
|
|
He probably drives (as I do) better while on a phone, than many do not on a phone, so which is factually worse? I have seen some really terrible OAPs today, some don't be able to see more than 12' in front of them.
|
|
I agree with another poster there is no way the scenery is passing at 70 MPH. I hope the Mirror did not pay too much for theshot and they checked it out first. I do not condone using a phone at all, but I await a Liable Case from JC. Regards Peter
|
|
|
drives (as I do) better while on a phone than many do not on a phone
Same goes for a couple of pints of beer, or so, so that's OK too, isn't it.
|
|
Yeah, and best not to wear your seat belt in case you get trapped in the car and it catches fire
|
|
The Mirror newspaper has never forgiven Jeremy Clarkson for refusing to jump ship from the Sun newspaper to write a column for them. Its an ongoing feud dating from the days when the odious Piers Morgan was the editor.
|
Come on guys - the Mirror is a trustworthy, well established paragon of the British press. They would never publish photos that they had not established were the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
www.guardian.co.uk/gall/0,,1208623,00.html
And if you can't be bothered with the link:-
"May 21 2004: The Mirror pictures said to show the violation of Iraqi prisoners by British soldiers were determined last week to be fakes. Here we list the objections previously raised by the Ministry of Defence and by Simon Treselyan. "
|
If you really do drive better after a couple of pints FT, I don't think you should give it a second thought. Don't overdo it though.
:o}
|
"If you really do drive better after a couple of pints FT, I don't think you should give it a second thought."
May I be permitted to change (correct ????) the above post?
"If you really do think that you drive better after a couple of pints FT, I do think you should give it a second thought."
|
show me a perfect human being and i'll show you a liar...
yes he shouldn't have done it (if true), yes, he should know better being in the public eye on a motoring programme
and yes it makes him human........there's people dying in the world for goodness sake, what a non story and a sorry little rag the Mirror is
|
He ought to know better. Disqualification? (assuming the pics are genuine, that is)
The latest Top Gear magazine cover boasts testing 'supercars on ice'. That's like Which? magazine testing washing machines to see which is best for making concrete in.
Edited by Sofa Spud on 12/03/2008 at 12:00
|
The car was a present from his wife.
If he was doing 70mph, then the background would have been blurred unless the shutter speed was very fast. And it was a crummy mobile phone camera which will have a limited shutter speed range. So my guess is that he is stuck in traffic and someone is trying it on.
|
It does not matter whether he was stuck in traffic or not
It does not matter whether he was actually talking or not
It does not matter if his phone was switched off !
It does not matter if his battery was dead
what DOES matter is that he was holding the phone !
whilst "driving" which includes being in a queue.
So he should take the 3 Points & the £60 fine and
ask Santa for s hands Free and ps
No whinging Clarkson !
|
I know what the law says but anyone who is worried about someone using a phone while stationary in a traffic queue seriously needs to get a life.
Whether it's Clarkson or anyone else I have never felt in danger when a driver beside me in a stationary queue is on the phone.
|
I know what the law says but anyone who is worried about someone using a phone while stationary in a traffic queue seriously needs to get a life. Whether it's Clarkson or anyone else I have never felt in danger when a driver beside me in a stationary queue is on the phone.
I quite agree. It might be illegal, but not dangerous per se,
|
I know what the law says but anyone who is worried about someone using a phone while stationary in a traffic queue seriously needs to get a life. Whether it's Clarkson or anyone else I have never felt in danger when a driver beside me in a stationary queue is on the phone.
I totally agree; I think I remarked on a previous thread on this site, that the current mobile phone law would have been fine, had it stated that drivers could use a mobile in traffic jam siuation, ie: under 10 mph.
|
It does not matter whether he was stuck in traffic or not It does not matter whether he was actually talking or not It does not matter if his phone was switched off ! It does not matter if his battery was dead what DOES matter is that he was holding the phone ! whilst "driving" which includes being in a queue. So he should take the 3 Points & the £60 fine
No, what DOES matter was that he wasn't caught by a policeman so he should get no points.
|
Quote >>>>I know what the law says but anyone who is worried about someone using a phone while stationary in a traffic queue seriously needs to get a life.
Does that include the guy I saw last week stopped at a green traffic light with traffic behind hooting as he talked on his hand-held mobile?
|
Does that include the guy I saw last week stopped at a green traffic light with traffic behind hooting as he talked on his hand-held mobile?
If he had traffic stationary in front of him he was in a queue - no problem but if he was at the head of the queue he was a muppet but not any more dangerous than that. If you get 3 points for being a muppet there's a lot worse out there.
|
I dislike mobile phone use whilst driving, but no one likes a grass and I hope that this couple have crocodiles for children. I wonder how many times they've broken the law by speeding, jumping red lights, using bus lanes.....or even god forbid, used their mobile phone for just a few seconds whilst driving.
I just think that they are pinch faced, anally retentive, hypocritical & joyless and a symptom of much that is wrong with this country.
If JC was on the dog whilst in his jam jar, more fool him too for being so daft to think that some pinch faced, anally retentive, hypocritical & joyless couple wouldn't take a snap of him doing it to take the silver shilling from Judas.
|
So I take it you don't like them !
Seriously Sir Ronnie "I left the RUC/PSI in good order" Flannegen promotes this as the way ahead for the future of British Policing. Bands of roving Neighbourhood Watch patrols grassing on their neighbours. How very Soviet.
|
|
Being investigated by Thames Valley Police now, according to the BBC.
|
Being investigated by Thames Valley Police now according to the BBC.
Yep. tinyurl.com/yr4has (link to thisisoxfordshire.co.uk)
|
Two excerpts from that report
POLICE have launched an investigation
and
I can confirm that Thames Valley Police have been passed copies of the photographs that appeared in today's Daily Mirror, and will look into the matter."
Dare I say it these are two different extremes and I feel that the second is the most likely and, hopefully, will result in "we looked into it and did not have enough evidence so dropped the investigation 30 secs later"
|
|
Remember that you're reading press reports, suitably polished for their respective target audiences. The truth is there somewhere !
|
An bigger picture is on the Auto Trader website:
www.autotrader.co.uk/EDITORIAL/common/slideshows/4...p
Perhaps he isn't on the phone - he could be shaving, or shaking his TicTacs to hear how many are left. It does look as though his seatbelt isn't on.
It's probably too much hassle for a prosecution to take place. Those who earned a few quid from the paper will also have to hope there aren't any incriminating reflections that show the picture being taken dangerously, or a metatag showing it came from the driver's phone (though they would probably only get a warning as well).
|
Clearly wearing a seat belt you can see it running from the top buckle to his shoulder. Reckon he's stationary as well.
Oh this is so sad!
|
|
Its a damning indictment of a number of parties. Complete waste of time and money. That could be anyone. It'll fail the most basic of identification tests.
|
|
'Who, me? Nah mate. There are millions of six foot six guys with immaculate Merc 600s, on my life...'
|
|
I look forward to reading Clarkson's next newspaper columns, will he drop himself in it and get tore into the do-gooders, or be advised to not mention it!
|
It does look as though his seatbelt isn't on.
It's a classic car and probably falls into the category of being optional rather than compulsory to wear them.
|
|
Only for pre '65 cars, and if it's fitted you must wear it.
|
|
I guess the price of fame is that you get dipsticks trying to line their pockets at your expense. No doubt the 'photographer' got a handsome payment. So, no incentive to lie then. That bigger photo makes it clear that he is stationary. Still, that is probably enough to nick the poor chap. Not than I am a big fan, but it's not fair IMO.
|
It does not matter whether he was stuck in traffic or not It does not matter whether he was actually talking or not It does not matter if his phone was switched off ! It does not matter if his battery was dead
I believe the offence is "using" so if it is off, or no charge on battery it is not a phone, it is just a piece of dead electronics and no offence.
Police might check the time on the photo record against Clarkson's phone records and movements though! ! ! ! !
|
|
Given that he was stationary and would probably be willing to pay for the right kind of legal representation I can't see the police taking this any further.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
