Pray to fuck you're never involved in a fatal RTA in north Wales

[bluestreak]

personally i couldn't care less. i reckon the motorcyclist deserved it. fucking cretin.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

um..

Captain Gatso, for one. Then, there is the "lobby group" Safe Speed, and pretty much any motorcycle magazine you choose to pick up off the shelf.

so safe speed is a "Boy Racer" lobby group is it?

captian gatso is a "Boy Racer" lobby group is he?

magazines about motorcycles are a "Boy Racer" lobby group are they?

so they activities of actively lobbing for the "Boy Racer" community are well documented and evidenced so will be easy for evidence to be found right ...

off you go...

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

personally i couldn't care less. i reckon the motorcyclist deserved it. fucking cretin.

maybe but the issue is his famliy didn't ...

 

[bluestreak]

tough shit.

the guy was a wanker. unlicensed, illegal vehichle, going too fast, severely injures someone else, thinks he isn't a criminal. greade a tosser. his family are probably jsut pissed off that now everyone knows they're related to this fucking moron. tough luck to them.

 

[agricola]

so safe speed is a "Boy Racer" lobby group is it?

captian gatso is a "Boy Racer" lobby group is he?

magazines about motorcycles are a "Boy Racer" lobby group are they?

so they activities of actively lobbing for the "Boy Racer" community are well documented and evidenced so will be easy for evidence to be found right ...

off you go...

are you being deliberately obtuse?

oh wait, you are garfield, so of course you are.

 

[Stanley Edwards]

Anyone who rides/drives on public roads without insurance is a complete and utter cunt IMO. If you don't give a shit about other road users don't expect us to give a shit about you once you've killed yourself.

 

[Gixxer1000]

tough shit.

the guy was a wanker. unlicensed, illegal vehichle, going too fast, severely injures someone else, thinks he isn't a criminal. greade a tosser. his family are probably jsut pissed off that now everyone knows they're related to this fucking moron. tough luck to them.

Is the right answer.

 

[Gixxer1000]

And, yes, since no pictures have been (afaik) published, the family have nothing to complain about: and indeed I see no reports that the family have complained. The "controversy" is all down to Clarksonettes demanding their right to kill.

"Eileen Burke, the partner of one of the victims, also criticised North Wales Police for failing to ask her permission before showing horrific images of her dead partner Mark Gibney.

One image showed the headless torso of Liverpool motorcyclist Mr Gibney, while another showed his decapitated head with the eyes still open on a grass verge....."

 

[pembrokestephen]

"Eileen Burke, the partner of one of the victims, also criticised North Wales Police for failing to ask her permission before showing horrific images of her dead partner Mark Gibney.

One image showed the headless torso of Liverpool motorcyclist Mr Gibney, while another showed his decapitated head with the eyes still open on a grass verge....."

I'm just not convinced that the benefits (whatever they are) of flashing around pics of mutilated RTA casualties could possibly outweigh the disadvantages: I still feel that a police force going in for shock tactics like this are in danger of being seen as ghoulish, or prepared to go to extreme lengths to further their agenda. The fact that it's that Brunstrom bloke, who has a bit of a reputation for going right out on a limb in any case, makes it seem worse, too.

 

[Radar]

personally i couldn't care less. i reckon the motorcyclist deserved it. fucking cretin.

Nice one

I assume you have no problems with your corpse (or that of an immediate family member) being treated with the same disrespect ?? How about journos pissing themselves at pictures of your favourite gran wrapped around a lamp post with her head in the gutter ??

Come on.. It's fucking barbaric

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

tough shit.

the guy was a wanker. unlicensed, illegal vehichle, going too fast, severely injures someone else, thinks he isn't a criminal. greade a tosser. his family are probably jsut pissed off that now everyone knows they're related to this fucking moron. tough luck to them.

some might say a tad hardline...

he lived as he died like a cunt which is all well and good but you can't penalise his famliy for summit he did.

as for agricola's comment sorry but if you think back street heros or motor cycle news, safe speed or captain gatso are "boy racer" lobby groups names some of the documented issues they have sucessfully or unsucessfully lobbied for and where it say's that is their banner...

or are we to start calling operation black vote a gangsta rap lobby group by the same (mentalist) parameters....

laptop whinges bitterly about the sensationalist media taking their direction from this supposed lobby group and yet thus far we've seen nothing to back up his sensationalism of the (unnamed by them) supposed lobby group...

Lobbying is a concerted effort designed to achieve some result, typically from government authorities and elected officials. It can consist of the private cajoling of legislative members, public actions (e.g. mass demonstrations), or combinations of both public and private actions (e.g. encouraging constituents to contact their legislative representatives).

so what efforts have the unnamed unsourced "Boy Racer" lobby group put into incoraging people to contact their elected officals to have some as yet unstated aim changed.

what's the aim?

what purpsoe does it serve?

What action has has it taken?

and as a seperate issue, laptop why is your sensationalism better than the mails?

deleiberatly obtuse, you reckon... or just not willing to suffer ranting, agenda ridden, nutjobs who use rank hypocrasy and lies to make their points...

 

[agricola]

deleiberatly obtuse, you reckon... or just not willing to suffer ranting, agenda ridden, nutjobs who use rank hypocrasy and lies to make their points...

Garfield, if you cannot see that there is a wide spectrum of the motorcycling press out to get Brunstrom (and using any incident, however ludicrous, to do so), backed up by the usual "its political correctness gone mad!!!!" national media, then trying to debate with you is even less worthwhile than it usually is.

But, for anyone else, here is MCN's take on the "gaff", and here is the Brunstrom bit of the ABD, and finally here is a job-lot of Google links. Do you need more?

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Garfield, if you cannot see that there is a wide spectrum of the motorcycling press out to get Brunstrom (and using any incident, however ludicrous, to do so), backed up by the usual "its political correctness gone mad!!!!" national media, then trying to debate with you is even less worthwhile than it usually is.

But, for anyone else, here is MCN's take on the "gaff", and here is the Brunstrom bit of the ABD, and finally here is a job-lot of Google links. Do you need more?

seriously though this isn't evidence of a boy racer lobby is it...

it's certainly evidence of an agenda based attack on an out spoken copper whose decided to make headlines with riddiclious and divsiory comments about anyone who drives, along with a number of other stupid comments along the way.

(particularlly it's evidence yet again the mail has some kind of fucked agenda against the police in general ie anyone who decides to speak out in manner which they don't approve of and is against the policing agenda they wish to set...)

but it's not evidence of a boy racer lobby, if anything comments such as boy racer lobby are as daft as political correctness gone mad type statements not least for their generaliseation and sterotyping of anyone who obejcts as being part of some group against the 'common sensiblity'...

you can't define one set of bollocks generaliseations with another equally bollocks set of generaliseations...

and again i ask you to provide hard evidence of a real not assumed or generalised lobby group for boy racers, there isn't one not one... it's a fucking dishonest argument to make. also to cast people who object as part of a fictious group with a them and us agenda against your ideas is a fuckign weak argument...

now i'll ask again where's the evidence for this unsubstatiated fact free looney lobby group for undefined boy racers...

if you please...

E2A

none of which of the traditional motorist bashing urban is now famous for escapes the plain simple fact it isn't a issue of who drove what but why didn't the police gain the permission to use photographs of a mans death for publicity purposes and sensationalism with out firs tseeking the permission of the dead mans family...

it has fuck all to do with motoring lobbies of any kind it has to do with common deceny now if you can't argue you case on this level but have to obfistacte and flip flop to the deafult postition of motorist = bad then all your doing is pushing your won agenda...

so take your fucking obsiquious comments of obtuse and stick up em up your arse....

 

[agricola]

seriously though this isn't evidence of a boy racer lobby is it...

it's certainly evidence of an agenda based attack on an out spoken copper whose decided to make headlines with riddiclious and divsiory comments about anyone who drives, along with a number of other stupid comments along the way.

(particularlly it's evidence yet again the mail has some kind of fucked agenda against the police in general ie anyone who decides to speak out in manner which they don't approve of and is against the policing agenda they wish to set...)

but it's not evidence of a boy racer lobby, if anything comments such as boy racer lobby are as daft as political correctness gone mad type statements not least for their generaliseation and sterotyping of anyone who obejcts as being part of some group against the 'common sensiblity'...

you can't define one set of bollocks generaliseations with another equally bollocks set of generaliseations...

and again i ask you to provide hard evidence of a real not assumed or generalised lobby group for boy racers, there isn't one not one... it's a fucking dishonest argument to make. also to cast people who object as part of a fictious group with a them and us agenda against your ideas is a fuckign weak argument...

now i'll ask again where's the evidence for this unsubstatiated fact free looney lobby group for undefined boy racers...

if you please...

E2A

none of which of the traditional motorist bashing urban is now famous for escapes the plain simple fact it isn't a issue of who drove what but why didn't the police gain the permission to use photographs of a mans death for publicity purposes and sensationalism with out firs tseeking the permission of the dead mans family...

it has fuck all to do with motoring lobbies of any kind it has to do with common deceny now if you can't argue you case on this level but have to obfistacte and flip flop to the deafult postition of motorist = bad then all your doing is pushing your won agenda...

so take your fucking obsiquious comments of obtuse and stick up em up your arse....

Garfield,

Thats an awful lot of words to defend your own straw-man, where you have picked up on one phrase, which (from his post before that, and has been obvious to everyone except for yourself) laptop did not mean as an actual, registered, defined "boy racer lobby", but rather as (as you yourself indicate) a group of the Mail-type papers, together with the motorcycling press, railing against this particular Chief Constable. Are you trying to make this argument about yourself now?

Also:

none of which of the traditional motorist bashing urban is now famous for escapes the plain simple fact it isn't a issue of who drove what but why didn't the police gain the permission to use photographs of a mans death for publicity purposes and sensationalism with out firs tseeking the permission of the dead mans family...

They didnt use it "for publicity purposes and sensationalism", they used it at a private briefing where the invited journos span a story, not out of how bad it was that so many motorcyclists were dying on the roads of North Wales, but how evil Brunstrom had used a picture of a dead motorcyclist without the families permission (as if that was required, when there was no name given (the journos guessed it because of the t-shirt), and no permission for it to be used publicly).

it has fuck all to do with motoring lobbies of any kind it has to do with common deceny now if you can't argue you case on this level but have to obfistacte and flip flop to the deafult postition of motorist = bad then all your doing is pushing your won agenda...

For the reasons above, it doesnt. The family would not have known that the pictures had been used in the private briefing if the journos had not informed them in order to make a story out of fuck all. Besides, where have I made the "deafult position" of motorist = bad?

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Garfield,

Thats an awful lot of words to defend your own straw-man, where you have picked up on one phrase, which (from his post before that, and has been obvious to everyone except for yourself) laptop did not mean as an actual, registered, defined "boy racer lobby", but rather as (as you yourself indicate) a group of the Mail-type papers, together with the motorcycling press, railing against this particular Chief Constable. Are you trying to make this argument about yourself now?

the words used were boy racer lobby ... I'd suggest you cease attempting to provide flak cover for laptop and let them fight their own battles and defend their own words eh?

moreover it has nothing to do with the actions of the cheif being out of line... or conceeds the hurt/pain/ anguish unnecessarly caused by doing so in order to stand up and say this is a problem...

is the issue not great enough with out needing to resort to carival tricks and rabbits out of hats?

They didnt use it "for publicity purposes and sensationalism", they used it at a private briefing where the invited journos span a story, not out of how bad it was that so many motorcyclists were dying on the roads of North Wales, but how evil Brunstrom had used a picture of a dead motorcyclist without the families permission (as if that was required, when there was no name given (the journos guessed it because of the t-shirt), and no permission for it to be used publicly).

regardless of the statements these aren't for public consumption the audience regardless of the invites the jornos were show images of a person who'd died with out the famlies permission...

this isn't the cheif showing them to a collugegue during the corse of an investigation this isn't them beign shown in court this isn't even having a jorno round for tea nd showing them idlely as a discussion between peers it's a police organised event where there was an intended impact and as your own link says...

Brunstrom said: “We did it to serve a purpose. The images are there to make an impact today.”

so it was done for publicity purposes and sensationalism straight from the horses mouth.

to do so with out the famlies permission is reprehenseable...

For the reasons above, it doesnt. The family would not have known that the pictures had been used in the private briefing if the journos had not informed them in order to make a story out of fuck all.

there should have been no story at all becuase it's not up to the police to go around handing out pictures of people with out their or in this case their famlies permission. They simply don't have this right in this circumstance, particualltr as i have cited this was done to seek greater publicity...

Besides, where have I made the "deafult position" of motorist = bad?

ok need to read that again i said urbans default postition not yours, guilty concence or summit ??

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

putting it simply should the police hand out photos of people who have died with out the families permission no. never. particularlly not if the reason for doing it has no direct releation to their cause of death.

if some one shot a copper and then weeks later the image of the dead lifeless copper was handed out in any meeting to serve another purpose and jornos were invited to that meeting there'd be outrage... rightly so...

 

[agricola]

...and I thought you were being deliberately obtuse before:

ok need to read that again i said urbans default postition not yours, guilty concence or summit ??

whereas, in your own words:

it has fuck all to do with motoring lobbies of any kind it has to do with common deceny now if you can't argue you case on this level but have to obfistacte and flip flop to the deafult postition of motorist = bad then all your doing is pushing your won agenda...

Given that these are your own words, its fairly bad that you claim not to have said them and try and say "No, I was talking about Urban".

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

...and I thought you were being deliberately obtuse before:



whereas, in your own words:



Given that these are your own words, its fairly bad that you claim not to have said them and try and say "No, I was talking about Urban".

and it's context dear read it in context...

so i'll thank you not to selectively quote me in order to portray me as having said summit i haven't...

none of which of the traditional motorist bashing urban is now famous for escapes the plain simple fact it isn't a issue of who drove what but why didn't the police gain the permission to use photographs of a mans death for publicity purposes and sensationalism with out firs tseeking the permission of the dead mans family...

it has fuck all to do with motoring lobbies of any kind it has to do with common deceny now if you can't argue you case on this level but have to obfistacte and flip flop to the deafult postition of motorist = bad then all your doing is pushing your won agenda...

all of which is of course more wriggling isn't it anything to hide the fact that on the level at which this is being argued as in the police have no rights moral or otherwise to use picutres of people deaths with out the famlies permission....

why is it that you will twist what i have said in an attempt to reduce this to ad homenin attacks and personal point scoring but won't address the central tennat of the thread...

is it becuase you'd have to admit it's pretty bad form...

 

[Citizen66]

At approximately five minutes to two in the morning Garfield was still arguing about boy racers.

I bet yer a right laugh in the pub!

 

[agricola]

all of which is of course more wriggling isn't it anything to hide the fact that on the level at which this is being argued as in the police have no rights moral or otherwise to use picutres of people deaths with out the famlies permission....

why is it that you will twist what i have said in an attempt to reduce this to ad homenin attacks and personal point scoring but won't address the central tennat of the thread...

is it becuase you'd have to admit it's pretty bad form...

Sigh. Its obvious to anyone who can read what you said, and how different it is to what you claim you said now (which, given that this is a forum where people can easily see what you said, is strange to say the least).

Its also clear that you have picked up on a throwaway phrase from Laptop and shrilly demanded evidence for that, turning it into your usual strawman-type argument and ignoring all the evidence, even when its provided to you, unless it fits your self-defined criteria (which given that you claim your own statements do not mean what they clearly state, is probably impossible).

This was a private briefing to journalists and road safety professionals, at which shocking images were used, the images were designed to show the truth to those people of the consequences of dangerous riding (which is endemic in North Wales), the images were specifically prohibited both in writing and verbally from being redistributed, and no name was given of the person whose dead body was shown. It was certain journalists who decided to use the story to attack one of their favourite targets, by identifying the biker concerned and informing the family in order to generate the story.

As for whether the Police have the right to use Police photographs in a private briefing, would Garfield like to point out the piece of the law that says they cannot?

 

[detective-boy]

... to further their agenda.

To be fair their "agenda" in this case is very much a public safety one, and aimed at the potential victims. Extreme riding in North Wales has been a problem for years - it's not just (or even mainly) a question of speed - it's out and out dangerous riding (I know, I've seen enough of it). Lots of different approachs have been tried and do not appear to have succeeded. You know my attitude to blanket, robotic enforcement of speed offences, but this is different and I think it remains the duty of the police to try and tackle the problem by whatever means they can come up with - some work (a bit, or for a time), most don't, some are distasteful.

(In relation to this tactic, it has been tried elsewhere previously ... but it is a massive fuck-up not to have the family on-side.)

 

[jæd]

They seem to have decided to do this precisely in order to exploit the family's possible distress at having the fact the pictures exist splashed all over the media.

Linky-link...?

 

[agricola]

(In relation to this tactic, it has been tried elsewhere previously ... but it is a massive fuck-up not to have the family on-side.)

TBH they were probably a bit naive in thinking that the journos wouldnt do what they have done, but I still dont think they needed to speak to the family unless they were going to go public with this.

 

[pembrokestephen]

As for whether the Police have the right to use Police photographs in a private briefing, would Garfield like to point out the piece of the law that says they cannot?

Hmm, I wonder when the "obscenity" line gets reached.

However, I don't think it's a matter of law, but of public credibility. I think many people will find the idea of their local police force glorifying in mutilation to be extremely distasteful. No matter what many might think, our police forces cannot operate effectively without a very high level of public goodwill, and my fear would be that N Wales Police, by so often getting hairs up their arse about "issues", and showing apparently little restraint in pursuing those "issues", are going to alienate various groups of people as they thrash around.

I think anyone who roars around on an uninsured bike, harming and injuring other people as he goes, is a cunt. I think that having a nasty accident that kills him is, to some extent, poetic justice (though I'd hate to think I might wish such an accident on him). But I think that publishing photographs of the carnage is something I'd expect of some vile grebo who took a few unofficial photos on his mobile and uploaded them to rotten.com or something: I wouldn't expect the chief of a police force to be taking official police photos of such carnage and flashing them around at a press briefing.

If he were the police chief of my local police force, I think I would be feeling quite uneasy right about now.

 

[detective-boy]

Hmm, I wonder when the "obscenity" line gets reached.

Nowhere near, not in this day and age.

Public display could stray into the common law area of outraging public decency, but I doubt that too, if it has a specific, legitimate aim.

I would have thought the most likely problem would come from the Human Rights Act or Data Protection Act - in both cases Brunstrom would have to demonstrate some lawful purpose and that it was a proportionate breach of privacy.

 

[pembrokestephen]

To be fair their "agenda" in this case is very much a public safety one, and aimed at the potential victims. Extreme riding in North Wales has been a problem for years - it's not just (or even mainly) a question of speed - it's out and out dangerous riding (I know, I've seen enough of it). Lots of different approachs have been tried and do not appear to have succeeded. You know my attitude to blanket, robotic enforcement of speed offences, but this is different and I think it remains the duty of the police to try and tackle the problem by whatever means they can come up with - some work (a bit, or for a time), most don't, some are distasteful.

(In relation to this tactic, it has been tried elsewhere previously ... but it is a massive fuck-up not to have the family on-side.)

*nods*

Maybe the kind of people who rode around like this man did might only respond to that kind of material (though I'd want to see a pretty sound justification for it), but yes - giving the family a legitimate reason to say "This is disgusting" is downright foolish, and a major footbullet. I think I'd still have reservations if they HAD asked the family, but then I'm not the sort of person who's going to go blazing around public roads at 100-plus on an uninsured motorbike...

I'm just suspicious because this seems to fit the knee-jerk law enforcement attitude of "if it doesn't work, try it bigger, harder, better".

ETA: does anyone actually know why it is North Wales has so much of a problem with this kind of thing? I did notice, when we driving to/from Llandudno, that there did seem to be quite a lot of bikes zooming around the place - is this just one of these Sunday Biker Speedfest things, like what used to go on down at Box Hill, or something worse?

 

[Radar]

*nods*

Maybe the kind of people who rode around like this man did might only respond to that kind of material (though I'd want to see a pretty sound justification for it), but yes - giving the family a legitimate reason to say "This is disgusting" is downright foolish, and a major footbullet. I think I'd still have reservations if they HAD asked the family, but then I'm not the sort of person who's going to go blazing around public roads at 100-plus on an uninsured motorbike...

I'm just suspicious because this seems to fit the knee-jerk law enforcement attitude of "if it doesn't work, try it bigger, harder, better".

TBH I doubt the pricks that would ride uninsured would take note of any publicity campaign in the first place. if your that much of a crim that the potential penalties of riding uninsured doesn't disuade you, then I doubt a newspaper column will.

Or looking at it another way, if you're that psychopathic that you don't give a fuck about anyone elses welfare on the road, why would the spectacle of the druid whoring himself to the press again make you change your mind ?? Are we seriously saying NWP believe journos need accident pr0n to be brought 'on message' ??

If anything, I could see this being interpreted as a ratcheting up of the stakes, reinforcing any preceived "us v them" attitude in that part of the country.

Hardy the stuff successful road safety campaigns are made of.

I wonder what the various police unions would make of a photo of one of their members killed in a gory manner being used as part of a safety campaign. Say an m/c officer walked into a helicopter's tail rotor and his head ended up severed from his body.

Would they appreciate traceable photos of his head and torso put on display at a press conference held by the CAA to illustrate say the dangers of rotary wing aircraft in an urban S&R scenario ? Oh and the icing on the cake is that they didn't even ask the next of kin for permission.

Ah well, its ultimately down to the good denizens of North Wales to make their wishes felt.

 

[agricola]

TBH I doubt the pricks that would ride uninsured would take note of any publicity campaign in the first place. if your that much of a crim that the potential penalties of riding uninsured doesn't disuade you, then I doubt a newspaper column will.

Or looking at it another way, if you're that psychopathic that you don't give a fuck about anyone elses welfare on the road, why would the spectacle of the druid whoring himself to the press again make you change your mind ?? Are we seriously saying NWP believe journos need accident pr0n to be brought 'on message' ??

If anything, I could see this being interpreted as a ratcheting up of the stakes, reinforcing any preceived "us v them" attitude in that part of the country.

Hardy the stuff successful road safety campaigns are made of.

I wonder what the various police unions would make of a photo of one of their members killed in a gory manner being used as part of a safety campaign. Say an m/c officer walked into a helicopter's tail rotor and his head ended up severed from his body.

Would they appreciate traceable photos of his head and torso put on display at a press conference held by the CAA to illustrate say the dangers of rotary wing aircraft in an urban S&R scenario ? Oh and the icing on the cake is that they didn't even ask the next of kin for permission.

Ah well, its ultimately down to the good denizens of North Wales to make their wishes felt.

For a start, the problem is riders coming into North Wales from Birmingham / Manchester / Liverpool over the weekend, most of whom are not like Gibney was and who have a licence / insurance but who still ride in a profoundly unsafe manner - they dont know the roads, have little experience of country riding and (admittedly this is a generalization) usually have far too powerful bikes for their skill.

Those people should respond to the kind of message North Wales Police wanted to send out, admittedly that message has not been sent because the Press have chosen to attack one of their usual targets instead, which is something that really should cause concern.

As for the helicopter analogy, well I would support that if we had spent the last five to ten years seeing four or five police officers walking into rotors some fortnights in an individual force area. Of course, we havent, and its a daft analogy to draw. As for the use of the pictures, as has been repeatedly stated they do not and should not need the permission of the individual persons or their dependants when they are showing what are Police pictures at a private briefing for journalists and some others, especially when they take reasonable steps to ensure that they do not get into the public domain (one of course notes the deep hypocrisy in the media when it comes to using pictures without the consent of the person in the image).

As myself and others have said, this is something that has been going on for at least the last ten years, it is a profound and utterly needless waste of lives. It needs to be solved, and previous Road Safety campaigns have not stopped it - indeed they have led to much bitching in the motorcycling press.

As for the residents of North Wales, in my experience they prefer a Chief Constable who takes the time to and is proud of the fact he learnt Welsh, who clearly loves the area and who is looking to deal with their problems, rather than do what the national media wants and sack someone simply on their say-so.

 

[Radar]

For a start, the problem is riders coming into North Wales from Birmingham / Manchester / Liverpool over the weekend, most of whom are not like Gibney was and who have a licence / insurance but who still ride in a profoundly unsafe manner - they dont know the roads, have little experience of country riding and (admittedly this is a generalization) usually have far too powerful bikes for their skill.

I agree, I even posted this yesterday.

So let us look at the problem. What has Brunstrom's actions of the last few days done to address this, other than alienating more bikers who now also think the man's an utter cock

Those people should respond to the kind of message North Wales Police wanted to send out, admittedly that message has not been sent because the Press have chosen to attack one of their usual targets instead, which is something that really should cause concern.

What ?? Come on.. NW police and the rest of the countries forces have been banging on about MC road safety for donkeys years. It's been all over the papers, TV, cinemas, even at bike races & track days.

Anyone who is vaguely amenable to the message has already heard it and taken it onboard.

I don't recall the Met managing to alienate so many bikers whilst trying to get a simple road safety message across. I 've never noticed a lynch mob outside Alperton garage or, when I've worked with MAG at the old Ally Pally road race show, at the Met's road safety stand they had there !!

As for the use of the pictures, as has been repeatedly stated they do not and should not need the permission of the individual persons or their dependants when they are showing what are Police pictures at a private briefing for journalists and some others, especially when they take reasonable steps to ensure that they do not get into the public domain (one of course notes the deep hypocrisy in the media when it comes to using pictures without the consent of the person in the image).

Legally, I don't know. Morally, well dodgy ground. And it seems others agree with me. Hardly seems likely to make his message more widely accepted.

As for the helicopter analogy, well I would support that if we had spent the last five to ten years seeing four or five police officers walking into rotors some fortnights in an individual force area. Of course, we havent, and its a daft analogy to draw.

So how many coppers would need to become one with the rotor before it would be acceptable to use photos of dead coppers in a similar fashion ?? Because I'm interpreting your reply as saying it's OK in principle, we just need to establish the threshold at which such a policy becomes neccessary.

I repeat that I certainly don't believe that the various UK police unions would go along with such an inhumane policy if it were applied to their own members.

 

[detective-boy]

Because I'm interpreting your reply as saying it's OK in principle, we just need to establish the threshold at which such a policy becomes neccessary.

I think the wider principle has been established.

There are "thresholds" at which the media would get away with showing more gory photographs of death and injury. The police and the media work together to show pictures of the dead and injured involved in knife and gun violence (there was another one just this weekend, pictured on life support shortly before he died) or in the misuse of controlled drugs (remember the picture of the girl slumped dead on the floor of her squalid room in Devon or somewhere, syringe in arm?).

I am aware that the wrecked vehicles in which people have died have been used before and I'm sure I recall seeing dead and injured too, though whether that was in the UK or elsewhere I can't remember.