Rte did a piece about a year ago,where the reporter was being filmed in a car which was moving ,and she had no seatbelt on.
I complained ,but they gave some excuse ,like we were compliant with health and safety blah blah the car was going very slow blah blah..
Must see if I still have their email and post it...
Not if it helps them to focus on the safety of their staff in the future.Did you seriously complain? Is that not just a case of wasting yours and their time.
Not if it helps them to focus on the safety of their staff in the future.
Maybe - depends on how it was phrased, who it was emailed to, what kind of follow up their was, etc etc.Do you think an email of complaint would have that affect?
Maybe - depends on how it was phrased, who it was emailed to, what kind of follow up their was, etc etc.
The one thing you can be absolutely certain about is that NOT sending a complaint will definitely NOT have any effect.
I guess my point being that being a busy body can have an effect, just not necessarily a good one i.e you could affect someones day by wasting their time with nit picky emails and likewise wasting your own time by writing them.
But on the other hand if the model was injured in the making of the ad and everyone says if only we had though of this or somebody had brought it to our attention we might have done something about it. A young person watching the ad might think its cool to drive a car without a seat belt. I've heard friends say one of the reasons they took up smoking years ago because they thought people looked 'cool' when smoking
I've heard friends say one of the reasons they took up smoking years ago because they thought people looked 'cool' when smoking
I guess it all depends on whether you consider highlighting a life-threatening safety issue to be 'busy body' and 'nit picky'. I don't.I guess my point being that being a busy body can have an effect, just not necessarily a good one i.e you could affect someones day by wasting their time with nit picky emails and likewise wasting your own time by writing them.
I guess it all depends on whether you consider highlighting a life-threatening safety issue to be 'busy body' and 'nit picky'. I don't.
I guess it all depends on whether you consider highlighting a life-threatening safety issue to be 'busy body' and 'nit picky'. I don't.
We all get defensive when we get negative feedback. It is a natural reaction. If we want to be professional, we need to put this defensiveness aside and see how things can be improved for the future.
I guess we're not going to agree on this, so we should probably just agree to differ. Many Irish people have stayed quiet for too long about a lot of things, including bad service and bad safety. If you think that wearing a seat belt isn't life threatening, go ask Diana and Dodi about it.Some people enjoy picking holes in others work and complaining about it, but it is not a quality that really adds to society, it just drives most reasonable people mad.
I guess we're not going to agree on this, so we should probably just agree to differ. Many Irish people have stayed quiet for too long about a lot of things, including bad service and bad safety. If you think that wearing a seat belt isn't life threatening, go ask Diana and Dodi about it.
The law doesn't differentiate between these two scenarios (in terms of obligation to wear seat belts).My problem is when people can't differentiate between a slow driving piece for Tv and a mad dash through a tunnel at speed whilst in pursuit by paparazzi. If you think the two represent the same probable outcome then thats up to you.
The law doesn't differentiate between these two scenarios (in terms of obligation to wear seat belts).
Since when do you get to decide what 'we' are talking about? I'm talking about the national broadcaster showing one of their staff breaking the law. This is not for dramatic effect. The programme would have been just as effective if the interviewee was belted up.We are talking about common sense not the law.
Because it makes the world a better place, i.e. reduces the risk of other reporters making the same stupid mistake in future.We are also talking about why people feel the need to interfere and complain.
Since when do you get to decide what 'we' are talking about? I'm talking about the national broadcaster showing one of their staff breaking the law. This is not for dramatic effect. The programme would have been just as effective if the interviewee was belted up.
Because it makes the world a better place, i.e. reduces the risk of other reporters making the same stupid mistake in future.
There is no provision within the Road Traffic Acts to get 'permission' to break the law (unless they are a member of the Gardai on duty). I'd have thought it was a fairly safe bet to assume that the RTE reporter is not a serving member of the Gardai.'Allegedly' breaking the law, you don't know what permission they had when running the program.
I didn't say the reporter was stupid. I said the mistake was stupid. There is a big difference between labelling an action and labelling a person (you might like to give some consideration this distinction). I've no idea whether I'm 'smarter' than the reporter or not, and I don't really care. This is not about being smart.If you consider the reporter to be stupid, be inference you regard yourself as a smarter person and that kind of brings us back to my original thought, that people who nit pick and complain about such minor incidents are simply busybodies.
There is no provision within the Road Traffic Acts to get 'permission' to break the law (unless they are a member of the Gardai on duty). I'd have thought it was a fairly safe bet to assume that the RTE reporter is not a serving member of the Gardai.
I didn't say the reporter was stupid. I said the mistake was stupid. There is a big difference between labelling an action and labelling a person (you might like to give some consideration this distinction). I've no idea whether I'm 'smarter' than the reporter or not, and I don't really care. This is not about being smart.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?