TT 2022 ??

[Happier diner]

11 hours ago, Annoymouse said:

A child watches a dangerous motorsport, an accident occurs, parents blame everyone but themselves for the child witnessing said accident, that’s fairly typical of modern life isn’t it? parents taking zero responsibility.

Are you saying then that children should not watch the TT?

[Annoymouse]

9 hours ago, hissingsid said:

How do you know someone got it wrong the story going around is no one is to blame there was a mix up of dog tags …..swapped for good luck apparently, I have heard this from different sources and it would explain the wrong identification.  This story may be complete fiction and not fact but it is going around .   It is not right to speculate but it is also unfair to blame officials responsible until the full facts are known.

 

If your dog tags theory is correct then why wasn’t this information released straightaway? 

[John Wright]

3 minutes ago, Annoymouse said:

If your dog tags theory is correct then why wasn’t this information released straightaway? 

Because the coroner has asked that nothing be release until the enquiry is complete?

[Newbie]

4 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Because the coroner has asked that nothing be release until the enquiry is complete?

It was slightly stronger than 'asked' in terms of both the content and timing of statements released by the organisers.

[John Wright]

15 minutes ago, Newbie said:

It was slightly stronger than 'asked' in terms of both the content and timing of statements released by the organisers.

Please tell us of the wording. I’d like to know. I’ve previously posted the Chief Coroners guidance.

The reason is easy to understand. The coroner, if they’ve made the request, doesn’t want the recollection of witnesses contaminated by rumour and speculation. 

It’s a sensitive matter.

[Newbie]

20 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Please tell us of the wording. I’d like to know. I’ve previously posted the Chief Coroners guidance.

The reason is easy to understand. The coroner, if they’ve made the request, doesn’t want the recollection of witnesses contaminated by rumour and speculation. 

It’s a sensitive matter.

It is, as you say, a sensitive matter. The situation has highlighted a conflict between the interests of the Coroner, and maintaining the integrity of the Coronial Inquiry, and the interests of the surviving competitor in this circumstance. A further consideration is that the event organisers require (and indeed have) a very good working relationship with the Coroner. The Coroner allows the event organisers considerable latitude when dealing with fatalities that occur during racing/practicing.

In this particular circumstance, the event organisers had, through their own investigative process, been able to establish that there was some doubt about the identification which had previously been established through the normal procedures, and had been thought to be definitive. As soon as these came to light (on Tues 7th June) these doubts were relayed to the Coroner, and to Walton Hospital, where the surviving competitor was receiving treatment. 

Following the receipt of further information from Walton Hospital, later on the Tuesday, confirming their suspicions, the event organisers were able to inform the competitors families of the exact situation. It had been the intention of the event organisers to issue a statement at that time, announcing the misidentification, and giving some background as to how it had occurred. However, working with the Coroner, and on her instructions, they agreed to withhold that statement, largely in order to preserve the integrity of the subsequent inquiry. It was only the following day, when it became apparent that rumours were rife both in the paddock and on Social Media (and there was the belief among many people that both competitors had died), that the Coroner agreed to the release of a statement. The wording of that statement was agreed with the Coroner, being a form of words that she felt would not hamper her subsequent investigations.

[0bserver]

3 minutes ago, Newbie said:

It is, as you say, a sensitive matter. The situation has highlighted a conflict between the interests of the Coroner, and maintaining the integrity of the Coronial Inquiry, and the interests of the surviving competitor in this circumstance. A further consideration is that the event organisers require (and indeed have) a very good working relationship with the Coroner. The Coroner allows the event organisers considerable latitude when dealing with fatalities that occur during racing/practicing.

In this particular circumstance, the event organisers had, through their own investigative process, been able to establish that there was some doubt about the identification which had previously been established through the normal procedures, and had been thought to be definitive. As soon as these came to light (on Tues 7th June) these doubts were relayed to the Coroner, and to Walton Hospital, where the surviving competitor was receiving treatment. 

Following the receipt of further information from Walton Hospital, later on the Tuesday, confirming their suspicions, the event organisers were able to inform the competitors families of the exact situation. It had been the intention of the event organisers to issue a statement at that time, announcing the misidentification, and giving some background as to how it had occurred. However, working with the Coroner, and on her instructions, they agreed to withhold that statement, largely in order to preserve the integrity of the subsequent inquiry. It was only the following day, when it became apparent that rumours were rife both in the paddock and on Social Media (and there was the belief among many people that both competitors had died), that the Coroner agreed to the release of a statement. The wording of that statement was agreed with the Coroner, being a form of words that she felt would not hamper her subsequent investigations.

Marking their own homework. 

[Newbie]

7 minutes ago, 0bserver said:

Marking their own homework. 

Or to put it another way, investigating any incidents that occur as you would expect them to. Who do you think should be marking their homework?

[Kopek]

Surely the misidentification would not affect the Coroners Inquiry? Witnesses would not be aware of the names of those involved, perhaps they would refer to the one in the garden? The competitors could be 'x and y' in the immediate aftermath and witnesses 'a,b,c' etc. Statements could be matched up later?

Medical care would have been the first priority.

[Newbie]

18 minutes ago, Kopek said:

Surely the misidentification would not affect the Coroners Inquiry? Witnesses would not be aware of the names of those involved, perhaps they would refer to the one in the garden? The competitors could be 'x and y' in the immediate aftermath and witnesses 'a,b,c' etc. Statements could be matched up later?

Medical care would have been the first priority.

Medical care will always be the first priority, as it was in this case. Beyond that, what might or might not be important to a Coronial Inquiry is difficult to know at the outset.

From a purely practical point of view, the event organisers telling the Coroner what is important to her inquiry, and acting accordingly, is unlikely to end well.

[0bserver]

1 hour ago, Newbie said:

Or to put it another way, investigating any incidents that occur as you would expect them to. Who do you think should be marking their homework?

There shouldn't be such a seemingly cosy relationship between the organisers and the Coroner's Office, if this is how it works. 

They should be investigated independently without fear or favour. 

[Ghost Ship]

10 hours ago, Newsdesk said:

Or unless even the dental records were impossible to match on one side. 

Wouldn't it only be a problem if both sets of records didn't match?  If you've got two people and two sets of records, if you can't match one set (for whatever reason) that wouldn't prevent you from identifying the person who did match, and therefore also identifying the second person.  (Unless - as I said - both sets of records either got mixed up or at least one of the two sets of records wasn't for either of the individuals you are trying to identify?)

[John Wright]

Just now, Ghost Ship said:

Wouldn't it only be a problem if both sets of records didn't match?  If you've got two people and two sets of records, if you can't match one set (for whatever reason) that wouldn't prevent you from identifying the person who did match, and therefore also identifying the second person.  (Unless - as I said - both sets of records either got mixed up or at least one of the two sets of records wasn't for either of the individuals you are trying to identify?)

You know it’s not like US cop series. Nobles didn’t hold dental records for either of them. Neither did Aintree. Nobles, or Aintree, can’t log into each other’s records. And certainly not into the records of any unidentified dental practice in a foreign country. These things take time,

[John Wright]

7 minutes ago, 0bserver said:

There shouldn't be such a seemingly cosy relationship between the organisers and the Coroner's Office, if this is how it works. 

They should be investigated independently without fear or favour. 

It isn’t a cosy relationship. It’s a pragmatic working relationship.

I don’t think it’ll be any different to the pragmatic working relationship between organisers of other large scale sporting events and stadium events and their local coroner.

[quilp]

2 spectators received injuries at Ago's. Not that it changes anything...

https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/two-tt-spectators-involved-in-sidecar-incident-at-agos-leap/