How low can Brunstrom sink?
Discussion
From Paul Smith, not found anything here yet, so here goes....
"Brunstrom paraded pictures of a decapitated biker and the biker's T-shirt
which read: 'Piss off and catch some real criminals'. Clearly this is one biker
who firstly thought the Police's efforts laughable and secondly was not saved
by Mr Brunstrom's disastrous road safety policy."
Speechless...
This idiot must be kicked out...
"Brunstrom paraded pictures of a decapitated biker and the biker's T-shirt
which read: 'Piss off and catch some real criminals'. Clearly this is one biker
who firstly thought the Police's efforts laughable and secondly was not saved
by Mr Brunstrom's disastrous road safety policy."
Speechless...
This idiot must be kicked out...
7db said:
Family wasn't aware that he was using those photos - not good practice at all.
If that's the case then he should get the sack.
The man has shown that he is not fit to hold the job of Police Officer and is a disgrace to the profession. What does he have to do to get kicked out?
Edited by catso on Thursday 26th April 18:15
7db said:
And we have only his word that it was excess speed that caused the decapitation.
TBH, that is my only concern about this tactic. If it was all down to the biker and purely excessive speed, well, whilst it is still a dubious campaign, fair enough.
Somehow though, If it was found to be nothing of the sort, and the deceased biker was blameless, it wouldnt surprise me in the least.
percy flage said:
How the 
can his claim that his campaign has saved 53 lives since 2001 have any validity?
can his claim that his campaign has saved 53 lives since 2001 have any validity?It has no credibility at all, had he said it had save an estimated 50 lives then it would suggest a figure with some statistal support but it is clearly nonsense to quote exact figures
Using harsh images of road tragedies is a common tactic. This is only different in that normaly you will have family permission. Personaly If something makes people think about their driving standards and to consider consequences of actions then its got to be better than speed cameras. I prefer eduction to enforcement.
There is already a thread about this in General gassing, so I'll paste my reply to that thread in here too...
I've used photographs from fatal accidents as shock tactics preciously, but I've always, always had the permission of the deceased's family first. I've only ever used them on a one-to-one basis, when I've stopped a motorist for an offence and cautioned them, showing them what could happen in worst-case scenarios.
To use photographs in a publicity campaign, without the permission of the deceased's family is appalling in my view. Irrespective of who is at fault in an accident, the dead deserve respect, and any photographs taken by the Police at fatal accident scenes are for investigative and evidential purposes only. Using them in a presentation to the press is a gross misuse of the photographs, and further dents the already shaky level of trust between the Police and the motoring public.
I've a personal angle on this too - my sister was killed in a road accident many years ago, and I'd be horrified to find that the photographs were used in this way. I hope the families involved complain in the strongest possible way.
I've used photographs from fatal accidents as shock tactics preciously, but I've always, always had the permission of the deceased's family first. I've only ever used them on a one-to-one basis, when I've stopped a motorist for an offence and cautioned them, showing them what could happen in worst-case scenarios.
To use photographs in a publicity campaign, without the permission of the deceased's family is appalling in my view. Irrespective of who is at fault in an accident, the dead deserve respect, and any photographs taken by the Police at fatal accident scenes are for investigative and evidential purposes only. Using them in a presentation to the press is a gross misuse of the photographs, and further dents the already shaky level of trust between the Police and the motoring public.
I've a personal angle on this too - my sister was killed in a road accident many years ago, and I'd be horrified to find that the photographs were used in this way. I hope the families involved complain in the strongest possible way.
Edited by R_U_LOCAL on Thursday 26th April 20:03
R_U_LOCAL said:
There is already a thread about this in General gassing, so I'll paste my reply to that thread in here too...
I've used photographs from fatal accidents as shock tactics preciously, but I've always, always had the permission of the deceased's family first. I've only ever used them on a one-to-one basis, when I've stopped a motorist for an offence and cautioned them, showing them what could happen in worst-case scenarios.
To use photographs in a publicity campaign, without the permission of the deceased's family is appalling in my view. Irrespective of who is at fault in an accident, the dead deserve respect, and any photographs taken by the Police at fatal accident scenes are for investigative and evidential purposes only. Using them in a presentation to the press is a gross misuse of the photographs, and further dents the already shaky level of trust between the Police and the motoring public.
I've a personal angle on this too - my sister was killed in a road accident many years ago, and I'd be horrified to find that the photographs were used in this way. I hope the families involved complain in the strongest possible way.
I've used photographs from fatal accidents as shock tactics preciously, but I've always, always had the permission of the deceased's family first. I've only ever used them on a one-to-one basis, when I've stopped a motorist for an offence and cautioned them, showing them what could happen in worst-case scenarios.
To use photographs in a publicity campaign, without the permission of the deceased's family is appalling in my view. Irrespective of who is at fault in an accident, the dead deserve respect, and any photographs taken by the Police at fatal accident scenes are for investigative and evidential purposes only. Using them in a presentation to the press is a gross misuse of the photographs, and further dents the already shaky level of trust between the Police and the motoring public.
I've a personal angle on this too - my sister was killed in a road accident many years ago, and I'd be horrified to find that the photographs were used in this way. I hope the families involved complain in the strongest possible way.
Edited by R_U_LOCAL on Thursday 26th April 20:03
The voice of common sense and common decency
Brunstrom gives all the signs of being over-promoted: he lacks judgement, adopts dodgy practices (automated signatures on forms - Courts said NO), makes daft statements about drifting over the speed limit being similar to drifting knives into people, lacks courtesy, members of his police authority and the WA think he's a barmy form of incompetent political correctness on wheels, he wastes police resources investigating non-crimes, his force is appalling at clearing up anything other than the remains of road users who have been let down by his ineffective roads policing, and yet still draws a fat salary and looks forward to a pension. Because...???
mr_annie_vxr said:
Using harsh images of road tragedies is a common tactic.
This is only different in that normaly you will have family permission.
This is only different in that normaly you will have family permission.
Ja.. und the family can be hounded if they refuse. I speak from own experience with BRAKE. They did ask me if they could use photos of scars on my "body which curve beautifully even after kittens" (ist another reason why I have nickname
) I refused of course as they wanted to use in "speed campaign". However, had they said they wanted to use in campaign to make people think twice about a drive if they really feel as ill as ST .. then I might have felt differently about it all .. :rolleyesL But only the bereaved und the recovering from wounds have the right to say "yay or nay" to use of harsh photos showing the outcome of a foolish act.
mr-annie_vxr said:
Personaly If something makes people think about their driving standards and to consider consequences of actions then its got to be better than speed cameras. I prefer eduction to enforcement.
Surrey used this tactic .. still do - on Speed Aware course ? I do not know for sure ... They claimed at time it worked better than scams ... But I think they then went down scam route und are perhaps reaping some corpses instead ..
of the seeds of safety they tried to sow. Personally .. I think trying to establish pride in driving WELL und striving to always improve..ist right course of action.
As for the poor biker..
Condolences to his family. He obviously enjoyed his life und his thrills... but I can think of better thrills to die for if I am honest. I suppose .. if he was my son und drove or rode like that (I hasten to add .. the kittens who do drive cars in this family have a lot more sense und whilst they do have many things to learn und will naturally make some silly mistakes from which they will live und learn ...they do not blat around und I have to say .. I think they make me a proud Mama more often than a Wild ONE
They are now young PH-ers who do not want to admit they have a completely "crazy cat" for a Mama
But I digress .. yet again.
If he were my son ..und he drove like that.. all of me would grieve und regret und be forever sad at the loss of his potential promised achievements .. at whatever level he worked at... his smell .. his laugh.. sense of humour .. voice.. touch.. filial kisses .. my special relationship with my son as his Mama...
I would grieve.. perhaps think I should have taught him to behave better.. perhaps blame myself.. und feel angry with myself for not teaching und insisting on safety led ethics strongly enough.. und then feel angry perhaps with him for not taking heed ,. und may even say when I light a candle for him that I actually "told him so"
But this would be my grief as his close relative.. MINE! Shared with other family members.
I would be deeply.. deeply .. deeeply und seriously offended .. und if a weaker person perhaps .. fall into severe traumatised depression if a police officer used an image of my son.. my pride und joy.. some one I loved .. whatever his faults .. whatever he did.. whatever silly act.. und whilst I would still feel anger at his stupidity as well .. I would still be grieving for him und missing him ..
But I could never ever condone or support something which ist aimed
just to score a point of "this ist what you deserve if you wear a T-shirt like this und dare criticise my speed cameras .. which did not save very many lives in reality .. but fined a lot of safe blippers just before the speed limit change "
Und if my son had worn such a T-shirt when he died.. I would know his feelings und passion. This does not mean I would ever condone .. nor try to steer his wild trait to a tamer und more self disciplined course.. but it would reflect my child's passion und I would then regard such a tactless display as disrespect to myself as a bereaved person und disrespect to the dead man.. who may have brought about his own demise.. und will have to answer to St Peter und Our Lord for his action at those pearly gates
.. but Brainstorm still does not have the right to intrude on a family's grief .. nor does he have the right to show contempt for a dead man .. however stupidly he managed to die. He should have approached that family. Explained that he understood their deep grief .. but that he wanted others to learn from their child's mistake.. und then asked if he could use the horror .. the sheer horror of how he died.. to try to get across a message that we can enjoy a ride or drive at a highly skilled level und that the fun ist in the skill und not the speed necessarily.. that speed buzz ist achieved on track ..und that Germans will allow decent spirit .. but only if person ist insured or proven capable via stringent test of IAM standard for their basic licence qualification
Ja.. I agree that weirdest one in Wales sink to sickest levels. If he had permission to use the image.. then fair enough. If not .. he show what he ist.. an ill-mannered .. opiniated.. self-obsessed oik!
Like morbid messages and images on fag packets etc it won't work anyway. Those who think it might happen to them, they already operate due care, those who think it will never happen to them will ignore it. It's a refuge for those lacking any idea about what else to do that might work. Like link road traffic laws and their enforcement with road safety once again, rather than making safe behaviour illegal and then targeting it.
frazer guest said:
turbobloke said:
Brunstrom still draws a fat salary and looks forward to a pension. Because...???
he is a deluded idiot, who has his head firmly up blairs arse?
I think you might have a point there.
What does showing a gory photo actually do apart from induce nausea if, as others have pointed out, it didn't arise through a cause-and-effect link with speed, and if it could happen to you anyway just by driving along carefully minding your own business only to find fate and the grim reaper have your name on their to-do list? And if, like speed limits and cameras, those who obey limits don't need cameras, while those who don't obey limits know cameras are there and carry on driving safely anyway
Pointless but media appealing, which signs and seals its useless warrant. Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff