Simoncelli down

[ogden]

The spare bikes (in the premier class) are used for flag-to-flag bike changes when it starts bucketing down, and the weather was rather changeable at Valencia this weekend so they'd have wanted to keep those bikes in tip-top condition.

The winners of the Moto2 and MotoGP championships might have already been decided but the 125s hadn't, and even if first place has gone there are other riders competing for the remaining places. Pedrosa and Dovizioso were fighting over third in the MotoGP, Crutchlow and Abraham were fighting for Rookie of the Year, and everyone else was scrapping for their own personal achievement.

And a win is a win - even if the championship's gone, a podium is still a podium, a prize is still a prize, a race is still a race.

[andrewsmith]

Very fitting tribute to Marco
Also running Loris running 58 and taking it to a finish and retiring (Loris and 58 ) was a good tribute

[Daveog]

Originally Posted by andrewsmith

Very fitting tribute to Marco
Also running Loris running 58 and taking it to a finish and retiring (Loris and 58 ) was a good tribute

+1

Response from press complaints commission...


Further to our previous correspondence, the Commission has now considered your complaint about an article in Daily Mail. It has decided that it is not possible, in the circumstances, to examine your complaint further under the Editors’ Code of Practice.

As we have made clear previously, the Commission generally deals only with complaints from those directly involved. On this occasion, it did not consider that it could waive its rules and investigate your third party complaint further. Its decision on this matter is below.

Although the Commissioners have come to this view, they have asked me to send a copy of your complaint to the editor so that they are aware of your concerns.

If you are dissatisfied with the way in which your complaint has been handled you should write within one month to the Independent Reviewer, whose details can be found in our How to Complain leaflet or on the PCC website at the following link:

http://www.pcc.org.uk/about/whoswho/...entreview.html

We are grateful to you for giving us the opportunity to consider your concerns.

Yours sincerely




Chris Paget
chris.paget@pcc.org.uk

Commission’s decision in the case of

Various v Daily Mail/Daily Mirror

The Commission received 11 complaints regarding the coverage of the death of the Moto GP driver Marco Simoncelli in the Malaysian Grand Prix in October 2011. The complainants considered that the publication of photographs which showed close up images of the accident which led to Mr Simoncelli’s death and the subsequent reactions of Mr Simoncelli’s family were tasteless, distressing, insensitive and overly graphic. It was the position of the complainants that the televising of live sport created the opportunity for tragedy to be aired, however, unlike live television broadcasts, newspapers had a choice about whether, and in what detail, a story should be covered. The newspapers’ coverage of the death of Mr Simoncelli was a case-in-point; it necessitated a more sensitive and tasteful approach to publication.

The Commission made clear that while it considers all complaints from members of the public, many complaints from parties who are not directly affected by the matters about which they are complaining, and especially those that are framed under the terms of Clause 5, pose substantial difficulties. Under the terms of Clause 5 (Intrusion into grief or shock), the press, in cases of personal grief and shock must ensure that approaches or enquires are made with sympathy and discretion and any publication must be handled sensitively.

The Commission considered that, in this instance, it could not pursue the matter further without the involvement of the directly affected parties. Mr Simoncelli’s family or their personal representatives were the correct parties to complain about the coverage. The Commission made clear that this was for reasons of co-operation, information and consent: often it will not be possible to come to a view under the Code without the input of a first party. In addition, any remedial action as a result of the complaint – or any decision issued by the Commission – would require consent. In this case, the Commission had contacted the family via the Moto GP in order to establish whether they wished to complain about the coverage. The Moto GP had made clear that the family did not wish to complain.

The Commission understood the position outlined by the complainants; however, it had to decide whether it was able to pursue the matter without the consent and co-operation of Mr Simoncelli’s family. It decided that it was unable to do so: it was for the family to complain about the coverage. It was not able to engage with the newspaper – or arrange for any remedial action – without the family’s consent. Ultimately, the Commission considered that it was unable to take the matter forward. However, it wished to take the opportunity of its decision to bring the matter to the newspapers’ attention.

In addition, one complainant considered that it was misleading to state that Mr Simoncelli had crashed at 150 miles per hour. Under the terms of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Code, newspapers must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information. Given the article reported a fatality following a high-speed motorcycle accident, the Commission did not consider that the reference to crash happening at a 150 miles per hour could be misleading in such a way as to constitute a breach of the Code. Furthermore, it could not be said that the reference to the speed at which Mr Simoncelli crashed at, if indeed inaccurate, would be deemed significant enough to engage the terms of Clause 1 (ii), which state that a significant inaccuracy must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence. The Commission did not establish a breach of the Code on this aspect of the complaint.

Reference Nos. 120242/120252

Chris Paget
Complaints Officer

Press Complaints Commission
Halton House
20/23 Holborn
London EC1N 2JD

I was looking at this thread earlier today - still gutted.

I didn't see the daily mail coverage but from reading the above I'm glad I didn't.

The PCC is a total waste of time. Even if it'd come out on your side, it has no actual power to do anything. If it had been set up with some teeth, we wouldn't have got to the situation we have now with the Levenson Enquiry, because none of the hacking and other intrusion would have been allowed to get that far.

[ogden]

Originally Posted by DJFridge

The PCC is a total waste of time. Even if it'd come out on your side, it has no actual power to do anything. If it had been set up with some teeth, we wouldn't have got to the situation we have now with the Levenson Enquiry

It has teeth. The problem is that by design it's encumbered with such a huge conflict of interest that it never bites.

The "we only take complaints from the family" angle was used in response to Jan Moir's article about Stephen Gately, which was far, far, far more sinister than the Mail splashing stills from Sic's crash on their web site.

But that's for another (Leveson-related) thread. Sic's gone, I'm rather at a loss as to who to wave a flag for next season. So I'll be wearing my Simoncelli tshirt to Silverstone in June regardless, same as I did at Brno and Misano last year.

[andrewsmith]

Originally Posted by ogden

It has teeth. The problem is that by design it's encumbered with such a huge conflict of interest that it never bites.

The "we only take complaints from the family" angle was used in response to Jan Moir's article about Stephen Gately, which was far, far, far more sinister than the Mail splashing stills from Sic's crash on their web site.

But that's for another (Leveson-related) thread. Sic's gone, I'm rather at a loss as to who to wave a flag for next season. So I'll be wearing my Simoncelli tshirt to Silverstone in June regardless, same as I did at Brno and Misano last year.

This