notwell Posted April 13, 2017 Share Posted April 13, 2017 I don't actually know where he did it, I'm just going on the original post. If that's inaccurate then I'm wrong as well. The original post doesn't say Cretney says that risks should be hidden. I don't understand your point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La Colombe Posted April 13, 2017 Share Posted April 13, 2017 If the original post is accurate, and I don't know if it is or not, Mr Cretney is saying the consequences should be hidden. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notwell Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 Not really. He is rightly questioning how graphic reporting of a bike accident is relevant, necessary and adds any value. It isn't about covering up things. You don't see car death details published graphically in the local reports? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La Colombe Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 He is rightly questioning how graphic reporting of a bike accident is relevant, necessary and adds any value. He is questioning it, which is my point. The Devon and Cornwall police obviously feel that there is value in such graphic reporting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notwell Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 Yes but your angle is that Cretney wants to hide bike accidents related to bike riding or racing . Which he doesn't Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La Colombe Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 How could he do that? It's the consequences of the accidents he doesn't want in the public domain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackCarter Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 Yes but your angle is that Cretney wants to hide bike accidents related to bike riding or racing . Which he doesn't Have you spoken to him about that or is that statement just more bullshit you've made up because you haven't got a clue? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notwell Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 Er... well on the basis he isn't trying to cover anything up then it's a fact surely? I know you struggle with this sort of thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La Colombe Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 Er... well on the basis he isn't trying to cover anything up then it's a fact surely? But he is. In this case not only trying, but apparently succeeding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notwell Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 What did he cover up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La Colombe Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 I'm only going on the OP from which I gather that he was instrumental in getting the BBC to edit the news report in order to remove mention of decapitation. If that's wrong then so am I. It seems be correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notwell Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 Yes but he isn't covering up an accident or the death is he? It's irrelevant information. The reporting of the inquest should focus on why someone died. I.e what caused the accident. It is unnecessary information and serves no purpose other than to upset probably friends and family. There is an inquest going on into the death of a young lady up north a few months ago from a car accident at lezayre. It has gone as far to say that the cause of death was no seat belt and the impact sent her out through the back window. That's enough. Would we expect a report to say 'oh and by the way she then xxxxxxxxxx etc'? Cretney was spot on here. He's not trying to cover up an accident or fatality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La Colombe Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 He's not trying to cover up an accident or fatality. He wouldn't even be able to do that. His issue seems to have been with the accurate reporting of severe injuries, the nature of which were subsequently edited out of the BBC report. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notwell Posted April 15, 2017 Share Posted April 15, 2017 The police want people to know the risks and Mr Cretney appears to want people to not know the risks. This waa what you said originally. Again, Cretneys actions were not designed to stop people knowing the risks of riding a bike. (Be that road racing or otherwise). This is what you are saying but it isn't true. If that was the case then he would actually be looking to surpress all reporting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La Colombe Posted April 15, 2017 Share Posted April 15, 2017 When you race motorcycles you are at risk of your head coming off if you happen to crash. We know that because the recent report on the BBC informed us of it. If the op is correct, and I don't know if it is or not, Mr Cretney appears to not want people to know that, and was instrumental in having those details edited out of the report. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.