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

[agricola]

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

Except that is not the case. As said above, the media have focused on this use of pictures to the conclusion of everything else mentioned at that briefing, for the reason that any story that Brunstrom is even remotely linked to ends up being an attack on him, at in some papers - as this story proves. Have you heard anything about the meeting aside from this? Thought not.

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.

So we should just do nothing? How can you take a moral position about anything?

Besides, as I have said the target group for these accidents are, in the main, not resident within the North Wales area - so the Welsh BikeSafe campaigns dont tend to reach them, nor does it solve the problem of familiarity with the roads and what speed is appropriate.

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 !!

Thats because the Met does not suffer from this kind of problem - non-resident summer bikers with more power than sense, who do not know the roads concerned and are not used to that environment. That said, Sir Ian Blair is second only to Brunstrom in terms of demonized Police chiefs whose mere existence pretty much ensure that the story ends up about them rather than the story.

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.

Its not dodgy ground for the papers that publish pictures without consent on a daily basis, and the goal more than justifies the means used, especially given the private nature of the showing. Besides, this did happen, there is no point putting your head in the sand.

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.

As D-B says, it would if it was so serious a problem that you were seeing the level of needless death we are seeing in North Wales, and if repeated and various attempts had been taken in order to solve the problem.

 

[Radar]

The girl who allegedly ODed in Devon was Rachel Whitear, I believe her picture was released with the explicit agreement of her family. I wasn't too impressed with the parents decision to publish at the time, but I have to accept that she was their daughter, they were probably her next of kin and if it were anyones decision to make, it was theirs.

I'd expect any images of violence victims to be released only with their agreement too (or that of their next of kin if not currently conscious or competent) Surely you'd be making their situation worse by publishing against their express wishes.

Does anyone know if this is the case ??

 

[pembrokestephen]

The girl who allegedly ODed in Devon was Rachel Whitear, I believe her picture was released with the explicit agreement of her family. I wasn't too impressed with the parents decision to publish at the time, but I have to accept that she was their daughter, they were probably her next of kin and if it were anyones decision to make, it was theirs.

I'd expect any images of violence victims to be released only with their agreement too (or that of their next of kin if not currently conscious or competent) Surely you'd be making their situation worse by publishing against their express wishes.

Does anyone know if this is the case ??

Whitear or Whiteread?

As I recall, that one backfired, too, didn't it? Wasn't there all kinds of controversy about whether the situation was really as it was presented?

 

[Radar]

Have you heard anything about the meeting aside from this? Thought not.

I already knew about the problem of non-locals killing themselves on bikes in N Wales. Any informed biker with his eyes and ears knows that. What more is there to know ? I already assume everyone else on the road is trying to kill me, whether I'm in N Wales or not

Face it. Brunstrom is his own worst enemy. If he had got permission from the net of kin, if the pictures had been edited as to make them totally unidentifiable, or if he'd used less contentious images in the first place then what could anyone have said ? His message would have got out loud and clear.

Instead he used controversial and tainted imagry in support of his pet hobby-horse and now the father of the dead biker wants his ass on a plate. By his behaviour he has allowed the reporting of his own actions to overshadow that of the campaign he's supposed to be pushing. He has become the story and once that happens how can he be effective in the future ?

So we should just do nothing? How can you take a moral position about anything?

Sometimes that's all you can realisticly do. You can not get through to people who do not want to listen (I'm starting to get that feeling myself )

If your Road Safety message hasn't got through after 10 years of repetition, might that be a suggestion to try alternative avenues of delivery ?? (not more gore pr0n though )

 

[laptop]

his pet hobby-horse

Hmm. Brunstrom's hobby-horse. Yours. Brunstrom's a cop. All the same, I'll go with the cop. Sounds like a much nicer person to share a spliff with.



Meanwhile, people have been tagging along with the controversy manufactured by the let-us-race lobby.

What harm has been done to the parents of the dead biker? It's not as though they've opened the paper in the morning to see a graphic reminder that their son won a Darwin Award. They've merely opened the paper to see a written reminder that someone else has seen the scene they've presumably had nightmares about.

Meanwhile: if seeking permission before displaying graphic images of the results of stupidity is such a matter of high principle...

Shouldn't the dead biker have sought permission of this family:

Chief Superintendent Geraint Anwyl explained that ...a young family was trapped inside the car, into which the headless torso was embedded, for 90 minutes.

Yes, I think he should have got written permission before doing that to them...

 

[pembrokestephen]

Hmm. Brunstrom's hobby-horse. Yours. Brunstrom's a cop. All the same, I'll go with the cop. Sounds like a much nicer person to share a spliff with.

In any event...http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/6606005.stm

Probably a wise move, in the circumstances.

 

[agricola]

I already knew about the problem of non-locals killing themselves on bikes in N Wales. Any informed biker with his eyes and ears knows that. What more is there to know ? I already assume everyone else on the road is trying to kill me, whether I'm in N Wales or not

Face it. Brunstrom is his own worst enemy. If he had got permission from the net of kin, if the pictures had been edited as to make them totally unidentifiable, or if he'd used less contentious images in the first place then what could anyone have said ? His message would have got out loud and clear.

Which misses the point - regarding this briefing, you are no more the wiser about what was said, what they are planning to do, because what was said has been wholly submerged by the tidal wave of hypocrisy spewing from the media. As for Brunstrom, he could have done everything suggested here by anyone and more, and he still would have been vilified by someone in the media. If he didnt, he would be vilified for doing nothing.

I also dont think editing the pictures would have done much - the impact of them would have been reduced. Like it or not, Gibney was decapitated, his body was embedded in a car, the young family were stuck in that car for ninety minutes. We should not try and be all coy and pretend these things dont happen.

Instead he used controversial and tainted imagry in support of his pet hobby-horse and now the father of the dead biker wants his ass on a plate. By his behaviour he has allowed the reporting of his own actions to overshadow that of the campaign he's supposed to be pushing. He has become the story and once that happens how can he be effective in the future ?

No, the father has been stirred up by some frankly outrageous media reporting. I remind you that they identified him (they werent given the name), they informed the family and they have been hyping the story all weekend. I note that photos of two other individuals were shown, no doubt journalists who were at the meeting are as we type furiously searching through Coroners records in order to inform their families, as well

The only thing Brunstrom has been guilty of is being naive to think that the media would not keep the pictures confidental and not use them as a stick to beat him with. He would have become the story irrespective of the circumstances, just how he became part of the story of two sixteen year old girls in Rhyl getting a ticket in the NOTW.

Sometimes that's all you can realisticly do. You can not get through to people who do not want to listen (I'm starting to get that feeling myself )

Do you really think the Police should just say "It always happens, lets do nothing?" Again, how on earth can you claim any kind of moral high ground when you let a known problem carry on year-on-year?

If your Road Safety message hasn't got through after 10 years of repetition, might that be a suggestion to try alternative avenues of delivery ?? (not more gore pr0n though )

Which is what they were doing, except they thought the audience of invited journalists and road safety types would be adults, instead of turning this into another "Lets get Brunstrom" festival.

 

[agricola]

In any event...http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/6606005.stm

Probably a wise move, in the circumstances.

Oh it is. I note from the apology:

"North Wales Police have written to the family of Mark Gibney to apologise for the distress caused by the publicity that followed the Arrive Alive closed seminar on Thursday 26th April 2007.

"North Wales Police accepts and regrets that it made a mistake in believing that description of pictures shown to this invited audience would remain confidential.

"We are very sorry for the distress that has evidently been caused."

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

<snip laod of bolliocks which still can't answer the principal point and is yet another deliberate attempt to derailt eh tread in to personal slangging match when you can answer the question then there's summit to debate dear...>

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?

i don't think that common fuckign decency and empathy towards the family of any berived should need legis-fucking-lation ....

as i siad what would be your reaction to a the body of a dead copper being show moments after death to a group of invited journos would this be acceptable?

if the answer is no then why is it in this case?

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Whitear or Whiteread?

As I recall, that one backfired, too, didn't it? Wasn't there all kinds of controversy about whether the situation was really as it was presented?

yes i beleive it's going through corut atm as to whether or not she was actually murdered...

 

[agricola]

i don't think that common fuckign decency and empathy towards the family of any berived should need legis-fucking-lation ....

as i siad what would be your reaction to a the body of a dead copper being show moments after death to a group of invited journos would this be acceptable?

if the answer is no then why is it in this case?

I already said, in Radar's example, that it would be. Do try and keep up.

Do you think the journalists concerned in informing this mans family and spreading the grisly details of the mans death across the national media should ask themselves whether it was appropriate to do so, solely in order to generate a story?

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

I already said, in Radar's example, that it would be. Do try and keep up.

Do you think the journalists concerned in informing this mans family and spreading the grisly details of the mans death across the national media should ask themselves whether it was appropriate to do so, solely in order to generate a story?

yeah sorry it's definately the reports fault i mean they had a planned the police conference provided the images asked the famlies permission before hand and had nformed consent handed out the senstationalist photos made out spoken comments to further their own career didn't the they .... oh no wait ... that was the police wasn't it... shit and they could be arsed to get permission for their happy snaps horror show photos...

yeah we should be asking the media why they felt it was necessary to report a forces who said fuck the public we want a big showpiece when they couldn't be asked to speak to the family to gain their permission...

yeah it's definately the medias fault ... those bastards....

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

btw why asnwer radars example bnut not mine which was asked previously can you please actually do that instead of your continious selective answering seeing as you have decided to take the ball and run with it do make a good job off it eh love...

 

[agricola]

yeah sorry it's definately the reports fault i mean they had a planned the police conference provided the images asked the famlies permission before hand and had nformed consent handed out the senstationalist photos made out spoken comments to further their own career didn't the they .... oh no wait ... that was the police wasn't it... shit and they could be arsed to get permission for their happy snaps horror show photos...

yeah we should be asking the media why they felt it was necessary to report a forces who said fuck the public we want a big showpiece when they couldn't be asked to speak to the family to gain their permission...

yeah it's definately the medias fault ... those bastards....

What a big pile of shite. Its the Police's fault for not realising that the media would not keep this confidential (as they were asked to) and instead use it as a stick to beat Brunstrom with, again. It is the media's fault for everything else.

btw why asnwer radars example bnut not mine which was asked previously can you please actually do that instead of your continious selective answering seeing as you have decided to take the ball and run with it do make a good job off it eh love...

Mainly its because he makes sensible points and can be debated with, as opposed to a certain poster who is fond of strawmanning, who likes to deny the clear meaning of their own statements, and who generally jabbers on with little or nothing of relevance to say.

 

[Radar]

Yes, I think he should have got written permission before doing that to them...

Well, actually I don't think he should have done it at all. Don't you ??

And for what its worth I'd doubt I'd want to share a spliff with you either (great debating point btw, you must be so proud )

Anyhow, as PS mentioned, it looks like an apology has been issued. Perhaps the next time somebody wants publicity on the back of another family's grief, they'll pause to think first. Or at least their boss or PR department will.

 

[detective-boy]

Re- the apology ... compo culture strikes (it was only a matter of time) as one of the guys relatives said the apology was no good as "everyone knows now" so they're going to sue ...

... and how, exactly, is a load of dosh going to make things better seeing as, after that, everyone and his fucking wife will know ...

(Before GarfieldLeChat goes off on one, I have no problem with the principle of suing in recompense for any damage suffered ... it's the fuckwit's logic which defeates me ...)

 

[Cobbles]

(in Gibney's case, the Coroner said his riding was "reprehensible", and he had no licence, no insurance and was using false plates)

In which case using a picture of the decapitated head in a press conference that was all about trumpeting the "success" of speed cameras was an abject fraud.

In such cases, there's no chance of the miscreant being caught by a camera - that would actually require someone in a patrol car, rather than a bunch of robots merely deployed to generate yet another stealth tax.

 

[agricola]

In which case using a picture of the decapitated head in a press conference that was all about trumpeting the "success" of speed cameras was an abject fraud.

In such cases, there's no chance of the miscreant being caught by a camera - that would actually require someone in a patrol car, rather than a bunch of robots merely deployed to generate yet another stealth tax.

Except that it wasnt about "trumpeting the success of speed cameras" (rather it was apparently about the seasonal rider deaths on the roads of North Wales), and as for them being a "stealth tax", it is a tax that is remarkably easy to get out of.

Re- the apology ... compo culture strikes (it was only a matter of time) as one of the guys relatives said the apology was no good as "everyone knows now" so they're going to sue ...

... and how, exactly, is a load of dosh going to make things better seeing as, after that, everyone and his fucking wife will know ...

(Before GarfieldLeChat goes off on one, I have no problem with the principle of suing in recompense for any damage suffered ... it's the fuckwit's logic which defeates me ...)

One would have thought there is very little chance of success for them to sue the Police, but one cannot help but think that the people who ignored a request to keep the pictures confidential, and published the facts nationally, would have rather more to worry about.

 

[Cobbles]

They didnt use it "for publicity purposes and sensationalism", they used it at a private briefing

A private briefing designed to prop up Brunstrom's "scameras work" fantasy - exactly the kind of technology that'll do nothing to prevent uninsured nutters on doctored plates from riding around. It was a grubby bit of theatre and he deserves to get a kicking.

Brunstrom probably realises that he's never going to rise any higher in the police so a nice chair in a scamera partnership with a company car'll be fine - he's been working on the publicity for ages. It's just a pity that he hasn't been able to devote any of his time to real policing.

 

[dirtyfruit]

MMWM - MOAN! MOAN! WINGE! MOAN!

If one is foolish enough to remove oneself from existence through reskless abandonment of common sense then one deserves to be shown as an example to others.

 

[pembrokestephen]

Except that it wasnt about "trumpeting the success of speed cameras" (rather it was apparently about the seasonal rider deaths on the roads of North Wales), and as for them being a "stealth tax", it is a tax that is remarkably easy to get out of.



One would have thought there is very little chance of success for them to sue the Police, but one cannot help but think that the people who ignored a request to keep the pictures confidential, and published the facts nationally, would have rather more to worry about.

The trouble with this purely legalistic attitude is that it takes us further down the compensation culture road that everyone is so keen to decry.

My issue with these pics is that they could never have done anything to foster goodwill between NWP (I should probably call them HGC ) and the people they're trying to do something about. Most policing is about goodwill, and most bikers (most PEOPLE) aren't the kind of sociopathic arsehole that the deceased guy was. I think that most people would be appalled to some degree at the idea that the police were touting around photos of someone who'd died very messily, no matter what a shit he might have been, and no matter what distress he'd caused in the process. It's why we don't have public hangings, drawing, and quarterings, even of criminals - it's distasteful to most of us, thank goodness.

Brunstrom has his good points - it's nice to see a senior copper thinking out of the box a bit, given that police forces have generally tended to be bastions of reactionary conservatism (is that changing? It seems as if it might be...). But he's a bit of a loose cannon, I think: his obsessive end-justifies-the-means speed camera offensive is another example of where he's selling public goodwill down the river for a benefit which we're not even sure exists (a lot of the stats regarding safety improvements due to cameras are now looking very shaky, because of the whole "regression to the mean" issue).

I don't know the whole story on the Gog-Bikers-On-Asses situation, but I suspect this lunatic who died wasn't typical: most of them are probably just guys who take stupid risks. Yes, some of them might well be persuaded by the idea that you get decapitated if you crash at 100+, but my guess is that most of them probably already know that to some extent - you don't hang around with biking types for long without starting to hear about the body count, after all. And nutcases like this guy are - like the people who don't get fined for speedng because they're unregistered, unlicensed, uninsured - a little bit further beyond the pale, and probably the LAST ones to be horrified by the idea of dead biker porn floating around police briefing rooms.

Meanwhile, Brunstrom comes across a little more like someone who won't stop at anything to get what he wants. Maybe what he wants is good - not stopping at anything isn't. If I were him, I'd hire a good PR copper, and LISTEN TO HIM. But carry on having the bright ideas.

 

[Radar]

Fantastic post PS.. You've pretty much summed my thoughts up to a T.

And put it more eloquently than I ever could. 10/10

 

[pembrokestephen]

Fantastic post PS.. You've pretty much summed my thoughts up to a T.

And put it more eloquently than I ever could. 10/10

*bows*

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Re- the apology ... compo culture strikes (it was only a matter of time) as one of the guys relatives said the apology was no good as "everyone knows now" so they're going to sue ...

... and how, exactly, is a load of dosh going to make things better seeing as, after that, everyone and his fucking wife will know ...

(Before GarfieldLeChat goes off on one, I have no problem with the principle of suing in recompense for any damage suffered ... it's the fuckwit's logic which defeates me ...)

nope oddly you might think i don't think the compo culture is a good thing and i don't think they deserve cash for this unless it can be proved that it's cause an embolism or heart attack or some such (whcih i doubt) getting upset isn't a compensation ticket in my book... regardless of the fact they should have been upset in the first place...

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

What a big pile of shite. Its the Police's fault for not realising that the media would not keep this confidential (as they were asked to) and instead use it as a stick to beat Brunstrom with, again. It is the media's fault for everything else.

are you mental?

seriously?

did the polcie invite themedia in or did themedia invite the police in?

who called who?

ergo who was in control of the situation?

was it the media?

no it wasn't.

therefore how can they be at fault for the actions taken by the police.

Had the cheif had the permission to use the image there'd have been no need for the cloak and dagger approach had it even been a legitiamate tactic there'd have been no need to swear the reporters to secrecy, in some horrific pastiche of don't tell your mother about this i'm going to show you something sectrect between you and me manner...

if the subjet matter was so sordid why invite the media in on it?

do you honestly think that the cheif is that naive?

Mainly its because he makes sensible points and can be debated with, as opposed to a certain poster who is fond of strawmanning, who likes to deny the clear meaning of their own statements, and who generally jabbers on with little or nothing of relevance to say.

yet you can still enguage to moan about my psotings but not to asnwer the question?

everyone on this thread but you has said it was a bad thing wot was dun... can you not conceed that in this case regardless of the medias motiviations the cheif had no right to use an image of a dead man with out the families permission or do you wish to leave this thread with you looking like a morally bankrupt cunt...

your choice really...

 

[agricola]

are you mental?

seriously?

did the polcie invite themedia in or did themedia invite the police in?

who called who?

ergo who was in control of the situation?

was it the media?

no it wasn't.

therefore how can they be at fault for the actions taken by the police.

Because, and this is quite easy to understand, they told the media at least twice that the images were confidential. The media decided to make the story (they could quite easily have not spread the story nationally) for no other reason than to have another go at Brunstrom.

This is probably wasted upon you, of course, but I hope everyone else can realise that this (for the media at least) is not about this dead biker, or his families rights, but rather about their obsession with getting at an (to them at least) unpopular senior Police officer.

Had the cheif had the permission to use the image there'd have been no need for the cloak and dagger approach had it even been a legitiamate tactic there'd have been no need to swear the reporters to secrecy, in some horrific pastiche of don't tell your mother about this i'm going to show you something sectrect between you and me manner...

if the subjet matter was so sordid why invite the media in on it?

do you honestly think that the cheif is that naive?

He was naive to think that the media might be more concerned with helping to reduce the seasonal total of motorbike riders killing themselves in North Wales, yes.

As for "permission to use the images", can you please point to the part of legislation that says the Police cannot use their own accident photographs to use in their own road safety briefings? And please, dont try and pretend you are morally outraged, you just come across as a pre-spellchecked Daily Mail editorial when you do.

yet you can still enguage to moan about my psotings but not to asnwer the question?

everyone on this thread but you has said it was a bad thing wot was dun...
can you not conceed that in this case regardless of the medias motiviations the cheif had no right to use an image of a dead man with out the families permission or do you wish to leave this thread with you looking like a morally bankrupt cunt... your choice really...

Garfield, trying to respond to you is a waste of effort in the main, because you generally seize on one random phrase, irrespective of the context it was in (in this instance, laptop's "boy racer lobby), and then build a straw-man around that one phrase, excluding anything which does not meet your exact definition, irrespective of how relevant it is (as was pointed out). You then combine this with statements that are usually utter tripe, if not outright factually wrong, even when these are directly contradicted by your own previous statements - of which the most recent is:

everyone on this thread but you has said it was a bad thing wot was dun...

laptop didnt, stanley edwards didnt, gixxer1000 didnt, bluestreak didnt...

 

[pembrokestephen]

This is probably wasted upon you, of course, but I hope everyone else can realise that this (for the media at least) is not about this dead biker, or his families rights, but rather about their obsession with getting at an (to them at least) unpopular senior Police officer.

Top prize for being able to read everybody's minds and decide what they're thinking.

This has been a regular theme in your posts on this thread - but I wonder if you REALLY think that it's as simple as a big gang of media getting together on some kind of "I hate Brunstrom" platform for no reason whatsoever.

It doesn't matter if the police told the media the pics were confidential. It doesn't even matter if the media hate Brunstrom. He did something which - clearly - a lot of people think was unethical and nasty, and he's got a bit of a track record in charging round the place being controversial.

He was naive to think that the media might be more concerned with helping to reduce the seasonal total of motorbike riders killing themselves in North Wales, yes.

No. He was naive to think that he could up the "shock tactics" antics to the nth degree and not find himself being criticised for it. I don't know what your beef with this evil "media" is, or why you have to paint Brunstrom as the blameless victim of media oppression, but your whole position on this seems to be premised on the idea that Brunstrom hasn't given anyone cause to be angry, and that all of his ideas - including the idea of flashing around a few casualty porn pics - must work, simply because they're his ideas.

I think your attempt to somehow suggest that anyone who takes exception to the way he's handled this is in some way opposed to "helping to reduce the seasonal total of motorbike riders killing themselves in North Wales" is more than a little disingenuous, too: if you had a strong enough argument, you wouldn't need to be resorting to this sort of tactic.

As for "permission to use the images", can you please point to the part of legislation that says the Police cannot use their own accident photographs to use in their own road safety briefings? And please, dont try and pretend you are morally outraged, you just come across as a pre-spellchecked Daily Mail editorial when you do.

Actually, speaking for myself, I am morally outraged. Not particularly at the idea that pictures like that might get into circulation, but at the idea that, of all people, a senior police officer could have the appalling judgement to think it was a good idea. What next? Pictures of the bodies of abducted children to ensure that parents make sure they're safe?

FWIW, I don't think Garfield's particularly helping his cause with the debating tactics he's using, but...two wrongs don't make a right, you know.

 

[agricola]

Top prize for being able to read everybody's minds and decide what they're thinking.

Did I say that? I said "I hope everyone can realise that...", not suggesting what everyone was thinking, as is obvious.

This has been a regular theme in your posts on this thread - but I wonder if you REALLY think that it's as simple as a big gang of media getting together on some kind of "I hate Brunstrom" platform for no reason whatsoever.

It doesn't matter if the police told the media the pics were confidential. It doesn't even matter if the media hate Brunstrom. He did something which - clearly - a lot of people think was unethical and nasty, and he's got a bit of a track record in charging round the place being controversial.

Controversy which has been generated by elements of the media - over his views on drugs, his views on speed cameras, and now this. As for "it doesnt matter whether the police told the media...", of course it does - the media did not have to spread this story and its lurid details across the national news. They did so, and they did so without any of the context or the message that HGC was trying to get across, and in order to get Brunstrom. The reason why I keep mentioning this is because it is demonstrably true.

As for this being "unethical and nasty", this accident did happen, HGC have tried for ages to deal with this problem using a wide variety of tactics, the problem keeps on reoccuring every summer and they should be - indeed, the public should be demanding that they should be - looking at new ways in which to solve it.

I do not agree that we should just hold up our hands and accept these deaths and serious injuries that happen every year - it is a needless waste, and it is strange that so many people consider that the Police acted unethically, or nastily, in doing this. Would people rather stick their head in the sand?

No. He was naive to think that he could up the "shock tactics" antics to the nth degree and not find himself being criticised for it. I don't know what your beef with this evil "media" is, or why you have to paint Brunstrom as the blameless victim of media oppression, but your whole position on this seems to be premised on the idea that Brunstrom hasn't given anyone cause to be angry, and that all of his ideas - including the idea of flashing around a few casualty porn pics - must work, simply because they're his ideas.

I think your attempt to somehow suggest that anyone who takes exception to the way he's handled this is in some way opposed to "helping to reduce the seasonal total of motorbike riders killing themselves in North Wales" is more than a little disingenuous, too: if you had a strong enough argument, you wouldn't need to be resorting to this sort of tactic.

Which is nonsense. I am not saying that this conference would work simply because its Brunstroms - indeed, we have not heard what HGC are doing this year about the problem because it has been drowned out by the hypocritical media reaction to "a few casualty porn pics".

I oppose those people (such as yourself) who seem determined to back the media in spite of the clear axe to grind which some of them wield for Brunstrom, without appreciating the context with which these pictures were used, and who seem to absolve the media of their own responsibility for broadcasting the details of these pictures to the nation at large. Strawmanning this will help you no more than it helped Garfield.

I repeat myself here, but they did not have to publish the existence of these pictures. Did any of them ask themselves whether it was justifiable to do so?

Actually, speaking for myself, I am morally outraged. Not particularly at the idea that pictures like that might get into circulation, but at the idea that, of all people, a senior police officer could have the appalling judgement to think it was a good idea. What next? Pictures of the bodies of abducted children to ensure that parents make sure they're safe?

If ten kids or more were being abducted and killed every year in North Wales then, to be honest, I would expect him to be devoting all his energies to solving that problem.

 

[Sunray]

I don't think the guy who got pictured cares, being dead.

 

[pembrokestephen]

I don't think the guy who got pictured cares, being dead.

I don't really think that's the point, though.

But I won't retread the stuff I already said pretty clearly in earlier posts.

Suffice it to say that it's about ethics and integrity, not a stupid dead motorcyclist.