/ Parents bill RNLI after they rescue their child
I know, I know...it's The Sun, but even with a good pinch of salt to counter the sensationalism I assume the basic facts are true. What on Earth are they thinking? Who on Earth thinks that is a reasonable reaction to having your child saved from being swept out to sea? What on Earth have they been smoking?
I sincerely wish there were some mechanism for the RNLI to pass on the rescue costs to the ungrateful pillocks.
An anecdote from the 80's apparently: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/parents-rnli-rescue-bill-lilo-porthleven-cornwall-a9056006.html
Maritime and Coastguard Agency
Yesterday at 16:41 ·
We're aware that there is a story going around on social media today claiming that a family made a claim against a Coastguard helicopter base for the loss of an inflatable following an incident.
We'd like to point out we've never had a helicopter known as Coastguard 771 & we have no record of anyone contacting any of our bases to claim any money for an inflatable lost at sea.
We do however urge people not to use inflatable toys at the coast as they are not designed to be used in the sea and can actually be very dangerous to use them there.
We will always answer the 999 call when we are needed and we will always respond in a maritime emergency, without counting the cost. #AlwaysOnCall <<
Fascinating. I don't put much trust in the crap papers, but it seems I made the mistake of assuming they at least wouldn't publish works of pure fiction.
Incredible. What a messed up country (/world) we live in. IPSO complaint made.
You’ve read something in ‘The Sun’ and discussed how disgusted you are with your peers.
Unsurprisingly It turned out to be untrue.
A great example of the reason the populous seem so eager to make bad decisions, based on some nonsense that popped up on their timeline.
I erroneously assumed that, behind the sensationalist crap that such papers print, there had to be some basic element of fact behind any story published. Morally if not legally - you can't just go round and fabricate stories and missell them as fact. You'd think. Apparently that isn't the case.
Accordingly, I've now made a complaint to IPSO and would urge other people to do the same when such blatent misinformation is published by news outlets.
As long as the rumour exists somewhere else, then the tabloid is allowed to report on it, and it’s up to them how much the fact check or massage the truth. The only way they will retract a story if they are sued by named persons for libel.
Essentially any paper can be lax with fact checking or the truth, they simply rely on their reputation to assure their readers that what they’re getting is as close to the truth as possible.
Essentially ‘news’ doesn’t legally have to be true, and we have a duty to only share news from sources we trust, in the same way we wouldn’t share a fact our 6 year old son told us with our friends, we may however share something from a teacher or person of a trustworthy position.
> I erroneously assumed that, behind the sensationalist crap that such papers print, there had to be some basic element of fact behind any story published. Morally if not legally.........
I suppose the good thing to come out of this old tale is that it's been a while since we reminded people that inflatables and offshore winds don't mix.
When I was little we had a whole lot of TV public service announcements on such matters. I remember one demonstrated the way to fill in your pond to avoid drowned toddlers, and of course who could forget the fabulous "Charlie says" series.
Sounds like a made up callsign, reversing 177
There should be a regulation that if it can be shown that a paper has made something up then they should give their entire front page to a retraction and apology under the headline "The Sun has lied to you"
If they had to do it retrospectively you'd never see a Sun front page again.
> There should be a regulation that if it can be shown that a paper has made something up then they should give their entire front page to a retraction and apology under the headline "The GAUNIARD has lied to you"
Think you'll find they also reported it
I took a 60ft fall on Tryfan in April this year, it was a rather large rescue mission undertaken by OVMRT to get me off the hill; I was still high up and on technical ground in winter conditions, 4.5 hours before anybody got to me and 7.5 hours total. Broke my back in 2 places and shattered my coccyx, pretty gnarly head wound too.
The Liverpool Echo contacted my sister via Facebook asking for an interview (they obviously monitor OVMRT's feed)... when she told them no, they decided to write a wholly fictional account including seeing angels from above!! Using a fake name allowed them to print whatever the hell they liked. I was gobsmacked and don't trust anything that I read in the papers now! So this, not exactly surprising.
I'm afraid they do publish pieces that are entirely fabricated. And not just the tabloids.
> Sounds like a made up callsign, reversing 177
771 Sqn Fleet Air Arm operated Sea King SAR until 1 Jan 2016 out of Culdrose. Those were the grey and red aircraft with the ace of clubs logo. During the period of their provision of SAR service, four George Medals were awarded to rearcrew at 771. 771 was the first naval squadron to operate helicopters in February 1945 and the first British unit other than training schools.
177 on the other hand, was indeed connected with Fleet Air Arm SAR, being the primary callsign for the other FAA SAR flight at HMS Gannet, Prestwick, during the same period.
Thank you very much for that clarification! Just shows that you really can learn something new every day. 177 was often seen in the Lakes I think
Sorry to Culdrose for my mistake ...
771 when the helicopter is flying forwards...177 when the helicopter is flying backwards...?
It's not just making things up, they will alter and edit the truth to print the most sensational story they can.
As an example a relative of mine was arrested for flashing, the Yorkshire evening post ran a full page story about how a gray haired pervert was flashing in a school district.
The reality was yes he was flashing but it was proven to be due to hyper sexuality and a lowering of inhibitions caused by his parkinsons medication, the nearest school was a few miles away. No mention was ever made in the paper about the parkinsons or the new medication and when he went back to court for the hearing and was found to be innocent they printed about 4 lines buried in the middle of the paper rather than the full front page with a half page head shot.
Lightning struck a 15 metre high metal cross that marks the summit of Poland's Giewont summit with an elevation of 1,894m. Initial reports on the BBC website and other media outlets suggest that at least 3 people have been...