Brunstrom is a twat

How about this for a disgustingly smug photo revelling in the
destruction of private property.

<http://www.hazelblears.co.uk/images/uploads/100004/8f19b826-5a73-0844-6179-94c47eb40fb6.jpg>


I'm not in favour of chavs being allowed to make a nuisance of
themselves in towns with mini motor bikes etc, but the summary
destruction of property is not an appropriate punishment. How can we
on the one hand expect them to treat other people's property and
public property with respect when the state takes powers to enable
*The Police* to destroy their own property out of hand ?

DG

 

I think the problem is though that old Bunghole didn't get permission
from the family.

I'm fine with people giving permission and the real "horror" of an
accident being displayed. But you have to respect the wishes of the
family first and get the publicity second.

I mean, how would you like a "Think! Don't rape" campaign, with a
picture of a the victim, still in an alleyway, beaten, clothes ripped,
and covered in blood and whatever else on posters or im magazines,
without the permission of the victim or their family (if they died)?

It is the same thing.
--
Carl Robson
Audio stream: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com:8000/samtest
Homepage: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com
Now Playing at home:Front Line Assembly-A Decade
http://www.myspace.com/theelderuk

 

Personally I was doing nothing, since our department had a long history
of obtaining informed consent.

However other researchers were hauled through the courts for such
terrible crimes as "retaining a pathlogy sample as reference material,
without express consent" or "retaining photographs of an autopsy without
consent." The police prosecuted them with glee, it's amusing to see that
in this case, which IMO is more serious than any of the police vs
medical researcher vulture fests of the 1990s, that the police are
failing to form an orderly queue of arresting officers outside
Brunstrom's office.

 

Not quite because, AIUI, the picture concerned wasn't for public
consumption. It's another pathetic little journo who's decided to create his
own story rather than deal with the issues.

 

No it's not. The rape victim is a victim. The biker (or druggie) isn't.

 

The press are members of the public and Brunstrom's use of the
photograph would have been questionable even had his audience been
exclusively police officers from his own force.

I'm puzzled to know how Brunstrom thought he could get away with it.
Standing instructions for police forces and other CCTV users with access
to motorway cameras expressly forbid the making of close-up images of
the deceased at the scene of an accident. Making such images and then
showing them to *anyone* outside the services concerned woul result in
instant dismissal.

Thre was a case (accident investigation) for making the image. There was
no case for showing that image to the press.

It's a rather pathetic little chief constable who decides to create his
own publicity rather than deal with the issues.

If Brunstrom doesn't want the press to report what he does, then he
should not invite the press to briefings.

 

They would have to send someone from the Home Office to serve a summons
on him.
It would be like Apocalypse Now, trying to reach him in the heart of
darkness which is North Wales.

 

See me response to this attitude elsewhere.

 

Quite so.

No, nothing to see here, move along now <whistles>

 

Are you sure you don't mean "Whoops Apocalypse"?

 

They are still a victim. They may be a perpatrator to, but they are
still a victim and idiot, criminal or just a plain **** they might be,
but you should give a little sympathy to the family. They might be a
****, but almost every **** is loved by their family, even if they
aren't even respected by them.
--
Carl Robson
Audio stream: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com:8000/samtest
Homepage: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com
Now Playing at home:Front Line Assembly-A Decade
http://www.myspace.com/theelderuk

 

Did that include a legally binding NDA (non-disclosure agreement)?
And WTF was the point of the press being invited, and names being given,
if the point wasn't to publish stories containing the names given.
--
Carl Robson
Audio stream: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com:8000/samtest
Homepage: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com
Now Playing at home:Front Line Assembly-A Decade
http://www.myspace.com/theelderuk

 

Brunstrom isn't a Divisional Press Liaison officer. One of those would
not make such a blatant **** up and then fail to fire fight it
adequatley.
--
Carl Robson
Audio stream: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com:8000/samtest
Homepage: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com
Now Playing at home:Front Line Assembly-A Decade
http://www.myspace.com/theelderuk

 

Never seem a more smug bunch of "publicly spirited" cunts in all my
life.
--
Carl Robson
Audio stream: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com:8000/samtest
Homepage: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com
Now Playing at home:Front Line Assembly-A Decade
http://www.myspace.com/theelderuk

 

So tell us what you would do about the kind of behaviour being targetted.

 

See my answer elsewhere.

You don't know anything about journalism, do you? Just a guess.

 

Anything with Hazel Blears, Margaret Beckett, Tony Blair or Tessa Jowell
in it can hardly fail to be disgusting and smug.

 

Victim of a road accident. Common useage and I'm surprised you haven't
heard it before.

 

How the hell is Brunston managing to remain in that position?

 

From what I understand, no permission had been granted from the
victims' relatives in this case for their pictures to be used.