Eyewitness Accounts - And Privacy

[Chinahand]

I understand the issues why Amadeus posted this in the Thread about the accident at the Senior Race, but I wonder if there is a broader debate to be had.

 

A tragic end to a great TT - Thoughts go out to those involved....

 

As usual: Please DO NOT post any further information / details before the same have been made public !

 

Serious question: does this prohibition include an eyewitness account?

 

Obviously such an account should not disclose names or similar, and respect the privacy of vicitims, but to assume that any/all eyewitness accounts should be excluded seems extreme.

 

As a Forum which wants to encourage people to share their experiences and provide information beyond the impersonality of a news report we do need to have some rules about to handle this sort of thing.

 

Any ideas?

[andrew]

Firstly, if anyone did witness this tragic incident, can they please get in touch with the Police and give a statement to help piece together exactly what happened.

 

The problem is that if you say "post away", that someone will hear something from Aunty Betty who heard it from Milly the Hairdresser who heard it from Ethel who's second grandson says he was there, post it on the forum and the old chinese wispers will have made it completely different that what originally happened.

 

Also, there will be 3 inquests that need to take place when the full facts of the incident will be made public, so until then, it is probably best not to try and disect it from all the little pieces of information/rumours that are floating about already.

[Frances]

whilst I agree with some of the sentiments re 'chinese whispers' this does not stop news organisations posting eye-witness accounts of events long before the official inquiry gets underway (eg have we heard any more re the inquest of the biker who was killed by the rope at quarterbridge many months ago ?) - obviously some discretion on the part of the poster and moderators is called for - with the now universal ownership of camera phones I would be amazed if images of the incident are not already spread worldwide.

[Sarah]

if its as bad as it sounds with eye witnesses being bused off the mountain then serious wud you think theyd like to post there eye witness account of this tragic incident......

[Amadeus]

The thought behind what we consider a voluntary restriction is simply so relatives don't hear the news or stories from an Internet forum before they have been contacted by the relevant authorities.

 

No names have been released yet, and there's a reason for that - this reason extends to here, and before something hasn't been officially made public, it shouldn't be discussed on here - simple. Once the information has been released, it can obviously be discussed, at least to a certain extend or in a certain manner.

[Theodolite]

whilst I agree with some of the sentiments re 'chinese whispers' this does not stop news organisations posting eye-witness accounts of events long before the official inquiry gets underway (eg have we heard any more re the inquest of the biker who was killed by the rope at quarterbridge many months ago ?) - obviously some discretion on the part of the poster and moderators is called for - with the now universal ownership of camera phones I would be amazed if images of the incident are not already spread worldwide.

 

There has been a court case about that one. It would seem the result was "no case to answer".

 

There are things which the Isle of Man authorities prefer not to be discussed, especially on internet forums, and that does include road accidents where deaths have occurred.

 

So, lest we forget:- the forums on manx.net (RIP) and manxonline.com (RIP) for example.

 

Discussion regarding the rope across the road incident was curtailed on iomtt.com.

 

Sometimes them that runs our Island really do know what is best and what is not best to be discussed publicly.

[Albert Tatlock]

whilst I agree with some of the sentiments re 'chinese whispers' this does not stop news organisations posting eye-witness accounts of events long before the official inquiry gets underway (eg have we heard any more re the inquest of the biker who was killed by the rope at quarterbridge many months ago ?) - obviously some discretion on the part of the poster and moderators is called for - with the now universal ownership of camera phones I would be amazed if images of the incident are not already spread worldwide.

I agree.

 

Eyewitness accounts do not just cover the TT, they could include any accident, fire, arrest, and many other events. Some people seem to be effectively suggesting here that if anyone dies then issues should not be discussed, but in the case of today's TT accident it is being discussed by the media - as that is how many of us found out about it.

 

I have nothing against eyewitness accounts, but agree that before people have been officially named eyewitness accounts should not include names, addresses or race numbers etc. that would effectively identify someone. If such posts do occur then we have moderators perfectly capable of editing out any such identifying statements. To me the rules for an eyewitness account are simple: 1. no names before official identification and 2. no names and the presumption of innnocence before guilt.

 

Then of course there are the 'eyewitness accounts' regarding misdeeds and accusations, which can lead to also sorts of libellous statements etc. I would never post an accusation unless I was certain of it first hand, and would take personal responsibility for any such statement. This is the greyist of all the areas, which if handled incorrectly can put the entire forum at risk. In my view, if an accusation is serious enough then the relevant authority should be informed - and any eyewitness account of that on the forum not identify the person accused until they have been officially named. I would say that such issues should be discussed with the sites owners first - who have the right to make a risk assessment, as they could be personally affected - and a judgement made as to whether to post or not.

 

IMO, freedom of speech needs to be balanced with the sensitivities of others, never more so when someone has died. All of these people are likely to have relatives and children etc. who have the first right to be informed about their relatives through professional people such as the police etc. who are trained to break such news. However, IMO that should not restrict people posting eyewitness accounts, provided they miss out identifying details.

[Chinahand]

... the Police and the other emergency services should be left to do their jobs (which they do with total professionalism).

 

Totally agree with you here, and with Andrew's comment that relevent information should be provided to the police.

 

But these are separate and parallel to what I am trying to discuss here, as is, to a lesser extent, the issue of Chinese whispers - as long as what is being posted is a genuine eyewitness account.

 

I am not attempting or encouraging people to post lurid details, I'm asking what should be the way a forum handles it.

 

Beyond the police reports and the investigation there are issues of providing witness to an event, giving context etc. There are also elements of people wanting to share an experience - I wouldn't discount the advantages of being able to tell people about it who are disconnected from the events.

 

I think assuming that any and all posting is unacceptable is far too extreme.

[Lost Login]

I have thought long and hard whilst mowing the grass whether to post on this thread as I know my thoughts will be seen by some to be insensitive but I think that many are being over sensitive on the issue. I have read many of the forums and what comes across on many seems to be as much a concern that the TT is not seen in a bad light wrapped up with in request to have sympathy for the rider.

 

I agree there is no room for lurid tales and vitriol but equally there should be room for discsussion, questioning and eye witness reporting. Presently this appears to being stifled just as Chris Kinley did not want the more unsaviory elements discussed prior to the TT. I am sorry but all arears should be available for discussion both good and bad.

 

In this case I have sympathy for the family as I would have for any body who dies or is badly injured in the TT. But as we have been told numerous times this past fortnight the riders etc know the risk and accept them and nobody is forcing them to ride. The position with regard to the others is less clear as no information has been released if they were spectators marshalls etc etc. On that basis any discussion is presumably about a very unfortunate event which the rider had already weighed up and accepted the risks of happening. It does not make the accident any more acceptable to me but it should be acceptable to discuss as it is an event that is not exactly unforseen even if the specifics are a bit unusual.

 

Finally just t be a bit crass just as the riders know the risks of the course, I am sure relatives and friends are aware of them and in this difficult time also aware of the risks that people on open forums might post items that they might not wish to read. As such whilst I would not want to post anything that would be thought offensive, it would not stop me posting things that they might prefer not to read as I if it was me in such circumstances I would be staying away from forums such as these or news media where I might hear or read things that I would prefer not to.

 

In this case therefore I think it perfectly reasonable to the accident and possible ramifications on the TT. To my mind they are potentially serious as I have posted on several occasions that it was a possible event involving specators that could severly damage the TT as much as anything. Presently much is speculation but if it was purely a tragic accident involving specators with nodody to blame it could have serious consequences with regard to insurance costs for the event and where people are allowed to spectate from in future.

 

 

I am not attempting or encouraging people to post lurid details, I'm asking what should be the way a forum handles it.

 

I see where you're coming from but I'm suggesting, particularly given the way certain DJ's got upset on other TT related posts, that this is a time to encourage people to post their respects, and their condolenses and leave the eyewitness reports to where they are needed - with the emergency services. No amount of speculation or eye witness reports will bring any of these people back and the police and other investigators are the people who really need to know what happened at this stage. Not any of us.

[keyboarder]

if it was purely a tragic accident involving specators with nodody to blame it could have serious consequences with regard to insurance costs for the event and where people are allowed to spectate from in future.

 

Insurance costs? Are you trying to say this event is insured? And if so, for what exactly? Surely no sane underwriter would go near the TT. They would have to be completely unaware of how close the spectators actually get to the track. It's a miracle that todays sort of incident doesn't occur on a regular basis it seems to me. And that it doesn't certainly isn't down to the organisation.

[WilDDog]

Insurance costs? Are you trying to say this event is insured? And if so, for what exactly? Surely no sane underwriter would go near the TT. They would have to be completely unaware of how close the spectators actually get to the track. It's a miracle that todays sort of incident doesn't occur on a regular basis it seems to me. And that it doesn't certainly isn't down to the organisation.

 

Instead of spouting off sarcastically on a public forum why don't you ring up the Manx Motorcycle club with your questions then come back and tell us the answers.

[Lost Login]

Yes it is insured. It is required for the riders and I am sure that there is public liability insurance involved. In addition many of those that offer public vantage points will also have PI cover

 

Without such insurance I do not believe the event could go ahead. We live in a litigous world and there are many who could be at risk to being sued. The obvious are the organisors and the marshalls but if you let somebody stand in your garden or field and they get injured can you be potentially held to be liable. The day that cover goes either the IoM Govt covers the costs or the TT will go.

 

 

Insurance costs? Are you trying to say this event is insured? And if so, for what exactly? Surely no sane underwriter would go near the TT. They would have to be completely unaware of how close the spectators actually get to the track. It's a miracle that todays sort of incident doesn't occur on a regular basis it seems to me. And that it doesn't certainly isn't down to the organisation.

[keyboarder]

Yes it is insured. It is required for the riders and I am sure that there is public liability insurance involved. In addition many of those that offer public vantage points will also have PI cover

 

Without such insurance I do not believe the event could go ahead. We live in a litigous world and there are many who could be at risk to being sued. The obvious are the organisors and the marshalls but if you let somebody stand in your garden or field and they get injured can you be potentially held to be liable. The day that cover goes either the IoM Govt covers the costs or the TT will go.

 

Oh I see. I must say I'm amazed - I was always under the impression that it was impossible for anyone in motorsport to get any sort of insurance. Maybe that's just life insurance. I'm guessing one would have to prove incompetence on the part of the organisers to have any chance of a claim though.

[Dalton]

Yes it is insured. It is required for the riders and I am sure that there is public liability insurance involved. In addition many of those that offer public vantage points will also have PI cover

 

Without such insurance I do not believe the event could go ahead. We live in a litigous world and there are many who could be at risk to being sued. The obvious are the organisors and the marshalls but if you let somebody stand in your garden or field and they get injured can you be potentially held to be liable. The day that cover goes either the IoM Govt covers the costs or the TT will go.

 

Oh I see. I must say I'm amazed - I was always under the impression that it was impossible for anyone in motorsport to get any sort of insurance. Maybe that's just life insurance. I'm guessing one would have to prove incompetence on the part of the organisers to have any chance of a claim though.

 

If the riders couldn't get insurance they wouldn't be able to race and the organisers have to have public liability insurance.

[Lost Login]

I am not a lawyer or an insurance expert but I would guess that the test is much less than just incompetance. Look at claims for tripping over uneven paving stones, whip lash injuries when in a car accident or my favourite the claim when a lady sued having hurt herself when her chair tipped over at a dinner party. I believe it is called having a duty of care but I may be wrong.

 

Either way the problem may be that in future depending on the reason, cause etc of this accident that it must be envisaged such an accident could incur again. This may be seen as a new risk and therefore higher premiums or as now there is knowledge of such accidents there may be a duty to prevent the chance of a repitition. Will this mean spectators will say be kept back from the course. Banned from sitting at some of the more popular places. I have no idea this is pure conjecture but as I have posted many times before it is unforseen events such as this and the consequences that are cause greater threat to the continuation of the TT rather than getting people to ride it or watch it.

 

 

 

Oh I see. I must say I'm amazed - I was always under the impression that it was impossible for anyone in motorsport to get any sort of insurance. Maybe that's just life insurance. I'm guessing one would have to prove incompetence on the part of the organisers to have any chance of a claim though.