Lost Login

It is up to the police, ACU, CoC to decide how much or how little information they want to release. On the other hand we have various parties masquerading as news organisations or journalists. There job is to report news without fear or favour, investigate etc. Those parties, in my opinion, should "publish" the news as and when they become aware of it unless they have received from official channels and there is some moratorium as to when it can be released. It seems to me that far to often the news organisations appear to forget that is what they are meant to be and just act like official mouth pieces of the organisations and simply wait until they can reprint a press release for fear of rocking the boat. That does not just apply to serious accidents at the TT/MGP. I note that several posters have stated with regard to the fatality on Sunday that it has been widely or fully reported. I am not sure I agree as all that seems to have happened is that the organisers fairly standard press release has been regurgitated. For the incident to be fully reported I would expect a news organisation to make further enquiries, interview eye witnesses and then to make its own decision as to what to publish but none appear to do that. There was that horrible incident at the Southern 100 which many witnessed and that would have included members of the press but except for the official announcements was anything reported by the press? Now many might argue I am being ghoulish or it is not my business, but much of what is published as news is not really my business e.g. virtually any offence that ends up before the court. To me it appears that the aim of the organisers assisted by the press is to give the impression that a fatality at the MGP or TT is little different from unexpectedly dying peacefully in your sleep. I think the reporting should be a little bit more truthful not least so that if you decide to go and watch or allow young kids to watch you are aware of the pretty traumatic things you might see, even if the possibility is low. I don't expect to see horrific close up pictures and I appreciate that there is a balance to be struck, but it seems at present there is a desperation to say as little as possible when a serious accident happens in the hope nobody notices and it it is quickly forgotten about. Fair enough that is the position of the organisers & supporters, but I don't that think that should be the position of the media.

I am about to but I want to get fucking permanently banned so I am not tempted to re-join later.

Cheers but sometimes I find JW to be so up his own backside

I am totally against speculation but I see nothing wrong with posting facts. If you witnessed a horrific accident and are posting accurately then what you are posting even if unpleasant and upsetting for some should be totally fine. People die in horrific accidents at the TT or suffer horrific injuries. Bodies get smashed to a pulp, badly burned, limbs are lost but we cannot be honest about it. Anything that would appear to suggest they did little more than pass away quietly in their sleep seems to be unacceptable.

Well I effing don't. I agree there are idiots who spoil the forum but generally the mods including John Wright just totally ignore. Some current or ex politicians get loads of personal abuse just because of who they are and posters don't like them not based on any decision they may or may not have made. Others who give every impression of being racist biggots are treated as if the sun shines out of their backside. We had a thread recently which was conjecture about whether the then Chief Minister was or had a homosexual affair with somebody they worked with, which I found particularly distasteful. Friends and families of riders who go splat at least know the risks that the rider takes and have the opportunity to dissuade, the family of the Chief Minister had no such opportunity yet despite, in my view, many of the posts being far more distasteful the mods/John Wright did diddly squat. Generally on this forum posters can be as abusive and offensive as they like and virtually nothing is done, but if you upset the personal sensitivities of JW over something relatively minor it is another matter. Nobody is forced to comment or read this forum so if people don't like what is posted don't read or if you don't like the rules that fuck off, as I will shortly be doing.

I think the mods/John Wright is just being a pompous arse, and not for the first time. OK getting splattered against a wall is not nice, to put it mildly, but if we are sensitive about it we should not let it happen rather going "oh that is not nice, please don't mention it". It seems utter bollocks to me that you can not discuss a person going splat, losing a limb, being disfigured or badly burned but actually supporting it happening is fine. I appreciate I did not say I would not post again, but if the mods will not permanently ban me when I have asked nicely then I might as well get banned for being an absolute cock. Flooding the forum with loads of new threads headed John Wright is an effing arsehole should probably do it!

Totally agree. So the IoM can host an event where we expect individuals to die and suffer horrific injuries. It is a private forum so the owners are free to make their own rules, good or bad, but I really struggle with the concept that events and the matter should not be discussed or commented. Putting on a public event where people put themselves at risk of smashing themselves up I would suggest is far more disgusting. As for point scoring. Well yeah, that tends to happen when people are discussing. If people don't like it then they don't have to read or participate, just like I will not be any longer as I feel this is yet another crass decision by John Wright to block or restrict a topic. We are forever told the riders know the risks and that their family and friends accept and are glad they did even though they smashed them selves up, yet apparently they such shrinking violets they may not be able to cope with some posts on a private forum the poor dears. That is probably a bit over the top, but the post and reasoning set out by JW comes across to me as supercilious nonsense John or another mod, could you please permanently ban me, so I am not tempted to post on this forum again.

OK, I'll bite. How many cyclists have been killed or left with life changing injuries over say the last 10 TT's. I think the answer is probably none. It is certainly way less than the number of competitors and spectators who have died or been seriously injured in the same period. Presumably you are in favour of the TT banned to stop this or is it a case that it is fine for TT competitors and spectators to undertake an activity where there is a proven risk of death or serious injury but not not for cyclists where the risk is considerably smaller.

I appreciate but it sounds crass every time I read especially when it relates "one of the worst things" not being the death, pain felt by family and friends, trauma of witnessing or dealing with but that people are talking about it on a forum. That is pretty immaterial in my opinion.

He has, but when posters continually refer to things other than the death or the horrific injuries as being one of the worst things about an incident I think he has a reasonable point. I presume when people stop posting that the worst about somebody being killed or maimed is something a lot more trivial Observer will stop making the same comment.

That may be the case but this is current news and there is a fair chance it will hit the headlines around the world that they misidentified who died and the majority of people will have the same horrified reaction. They won't be sitting there thinking lets wait until they release the full circumstances before I form a view. In making the announcement they should have given an explanation as to why it happened together with a fulsome apology.

It does make you wonder the state each of the two individuals were in if they could not readily be identified. I am amazed that competitors do not have to have some form of ID etc on them as seem to be required in other sports which are deemed to be risky. Compete on a horse in a cross country event and it is obligatory to wear an arm band with various details on it including I think blood group.

The BBC report is about 17 minutes in here https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m00184sc/north-west-tonight-evening-news-07062022 And how does Rob Callister start? "It has been a brilliant first week. We are just about to go into the second week of racing. So yeah long may it continue for the rest of the week". I appreciate that the full interview will be edited but as others have said it does seem particularly crass and tone deaf to go on TV and describe a week where 3 competitors have died as a brilliant week and to hope it continues.

I would like to know more of the facts. It is one thing going for a ride the wrong way knowing that and that cyclists were not allowed. It is another if cycling along the tracks, they became aware of a temporary closure and thought I will nip quickly 200 meters along here as a short cut. I appreciate neither is right. One thing I had never thought of is that if I saw a roads closed sign, except if it was for a specific event, I would not be able to walk or cycle beyond the sign. Plenty of time I have walked etc on roads that have been closed, if only to play in the snow.

Thanks. I have never done anything where I would think that it was so great that I would accept that there was a real possibility of serious injury or an early death as the cost of doing what I enjoyed. I simply can not comprehend enjoying something so much that I would be prepared to accept that level of risk. As I said I would simply compute and think that I would mitigate the risk and that it would not happen to me until it did. When I hear the phrase "they knew the risks" possibly incorrectly, I think did they really think they applied to them or just it was something that happens to others. It is therefore very informative to ask the question to somebody who unfortunately been through it. The rest of us really have no idea if told the outcome of doing X is Y whether we would still want to do X or find something else. I am also sure it is important to have a very positive attitude after an incident as if I had a family member who had died it would give a certain level of solace to think that they would do it all over again even if they knew what would happen because of the enjoyment they got rather than to think they would never have done it had they known

I can understand that but would you do it all over again if you knew you would incur the same outcome or that you would do so many years earlier? There is plenty of talk about the affects of concussion resulting in early dementia from sports such as rugby, NFL and to an extent football. It would have been great to play one of these sports professionally and if I was given the choice I might have traded the downside of the dementia if they came on when I was in my 60's having had a great time at the top of the sport for a good few years. I would less inclined if I was a journeyman pro or got it in my mid late thirties. I have been involved in sporting and other activities all my life either directly or via my family. Potentially in those sports or activities I or my family could have been injured, potentially quite severely, and I have seen others get badly injured. In the past I was basically happy to give almost anything a go. The potential risks never stopped me doing as whilst I was aware there was a risk I always rationalised that I new what the risks were and that it would not happen to me. If I thought when, to coin a phrase, I stepped over the white wash that there was any risk there is no way I could have done what I did. Now older and wiser I realise at times I was bloody lucky and it was not a case that I knew and accepted the risks but simply believed they would not happen to me.

But as I said I think that applies to very few firms. I would be interested to learn if that was not the case.

So you are not in favour of people having their freedom to do something restricted as long as it does not affect others but your definition others is restricted to those participating in the event.

I don't that is correct. I am not aware of any professional firm who give you the Manx holidays and take back a couple of UK days. Some may require you to work one or both but generally you get another day in lieu.

I don't think you are not right about that not being wrong

Highlight away but again, as I read your argument, you are basically in favour of anybody having the freedom to do whatever they want provided it does not affect/involve others. I disagree at the extreme as, in my view rightly, society prevents certain actions to protect people from themselves. Specifically in respect of the TT though this this is not an event that does not involve others. It affects virtually the whole population of the IoM. It is also a high risk event promoted and hosted by a Govt to make money which makes it pretty unique as generally the states role is to discourage rather than encourage activities where there is deemed to be a reasonably high health risk. I am not against people undertaking high risk activities if they want to do privately with minimal involvement of others. Go free rock climbing, race motorcycles, base jump etc if you want but to me there is a difference between doing it privately and the state encouraging/sponsoring. I think free diving competitions are nuts. I really struggle to see that encouraging participants to get close to asphyxiating themselves during a competition is a good idea. Free diving as an activity fine but I do question the morality of allowing competitions and I would be totally against the idea of a Government organising a competition in the name of tourism if it left competitors dead or in a vegetable state.

I have countered your argument which was as I understood it, in the main, about freedom of choice for the riders to be able to do what they choose. I don't believe that freedom of choice is all encompassing and gave you an extreme example of why.

That may apply to some, but lawyers, accountants, fiduciaries etc charge for time lose a day of chargeable time.

I totally understand that. Parts of it I love but I cannot support an event where competitors are expected to die or end up with life changing injuries. I struggle to think of any other event where post the event, race or practice it is a matter of routine to ask or be asked did anybody die and debate the number of fatalities. It is the fact that death and life changing injuries are simply treated as being routine and part of the event that makes it different. I also cannot really comprehend the phrase "they know the risks". I believe, possibly incorrectly, like most activities where there may be an element of risk most believe it will not happen to them for whatever reason. I am being careful, I don't push it etc. When I see appeals to support bereaved families or riders who are badly injured and their families i just think if they truly knew the risks and believed they applied to them then they would make suitable arrangements for them and their families in the event of a serious accident

I never made a reference to woke I also did not talk about "wanking at children". My reference was to being observed by. However I am not the one who apparently does not believe that out freedoms should not be curtailed which would mean such actions, which I would find abhorrent, are acceptable.