Dumbest news quote ever?

Dis86 said:
How would the train driver of a high speed passenger train sneak up on 3 men?
Click to expand...

Presumably the driver would get out of the train first, perhaps jump out of a hedge?

"jokes" aside, i imagine it would be hard to, procedures broke down at a guess and now people are dead.
 
Dis86 said:
It wouldn't make a difference. That's why you have a spotter.
Click to expand...

And yet they're dead. The headline from the BBC is a paraphrasing of a statement from the police who have stated that they believe the accident came about because the men couldn't hear the train as a result of wearing ear protection. So how does reporting the current working police theory constitute moronic writing? If anything if you're assuming you're right and the police leading the investigation are wrong then it's moronic police work?
 
FortuitousFluke said:
A direct qoute implying that not hearing the train was the main cause of the accident, as opposed to the workers being incapacitated, or negligent, or the train driver acting inappropriately for instance. Do people really need the subtext spelling out for them? Learn to read between the lines.
Click to expand...
The quote is, literally: “may not have heard the train”. Yes, the article goes on about the persons wearing ear defenders, but the headline is poorly written (and therefore amusing) because quite obviously, either (a) they didn’t hear the train that they were hit by it, or (b) they heard it and were hit anyway because they couldn’t do anything about it. Either way, the headline it utterly, utterly redundant / meaningless in isolation.

It’s akin to saying, in respect of an aircrash: “the pilots may have lost control of the plane”. Well, again, d’ya think? :o :p And don’t be a smart ass about them both deliberately crashing the plane (although that is of course covered off by the use of ‘may’) :p
 
Last edited:
Nitefly said:
The quote is, literally: “may not have heard the train”. Yes, the article goes on about the persons wearing ear defenders, but the headline is poorly written (and therefore amusing) because quite obviously, either (a) they didn’t hear the train that they were hit by it, or (b) they heard it and were hit anyway because they couldn’t do anything about it. Either way, the headline it utterly, utterly redundant / meaningless in isolation.

:o
Click to expand...

They were reporting on a police statement, the bulk of which was the fact that the main cause of the accident was not hearing the train, as opposed to for instance being trapped or negligent. What should they have led with?

I somewhat get the argument around the use of the word may but this is pretty standard practice for ongoing investigations.
 
FortuitousFluke said:
They were reporting on a police statement, the bulk of which was the fact that the main cause of the accident was not hearing the train, as opposed to for instance being trapped or negligent. What should they have led with?

I somewhat get the argument around the use of the word may but this is pretty standard practice for ongoing investigations.
Click to expand...
”Railworkers may not have heard train due to ear defenders” - that’ll do.
 
Any Daily Mail article about some drunk yanking on the handle of a plane door at 35,000ft will be stuffed with quotes from passengers who thought it might actually open. The fault is with the media for reporting the views of people who don't know what they're talking about.

Dis86 said:
It's...mind blowing tbh! You're right in that that may well be an even worse statement.
Click to expand...
If her sentiment was particularly stupid or obvious, people wouldn't moan constantly about deaths on the road or rail networks causing delays.
 
Nitefly said:
”Railworkers may not have heard train due to ear defenders” - that’ll do.
Click to expand...

Seems a bit pedantic to me, the headline is designed to draw you in, the extra info about the ear defenders was in the main article. Each to their own I guess.

I should probably have quoted dis86 in my original post, I'm not arguing that the headline isn't amusing, it's just not moronic, personal preference aside it does the job perfectly well.
 
FortuitousFluke said:
Seems a bit pedantic to me, the headline is designed to draw you in, the extra info about the ear defenders was in the main article. Each to their own I guess.

I should probably have quoted dis86 in my original post, I'm not arguing that the headline isn't amusing, it's just not moronic, personal preference aside it does the job perfectly well.
Click to expand...
I think we had better all go to be bed tbh, surely better things for us to be ‘debating’. The headline made me ‘lol’, ‘twas all :)
 
Reminds me when I put my foot in it once :s though I can't remember now exactly what I said - was ribbing some people about turning up late and whatever it was I said it couldn't have been less appropriately worded for the situation - turned out they were late due to someone jumping infront of a train and being killed right before their eyes in a gory fashion :(
 
RIP to the two guys is all that really needs to be said at this stage. As a retired railwayman I can be certain a massive enquiry is already under way find out exactly what went wrong.

As regards the news reporting and accounts from people on the train, you just have to realise these people have little to no understanding of how things work on the railway, let alone knowledge of rules and regulations, safe system of work etc.
 
Dis86 said:
Upon hearing the train she was on killed 2 men and injured another.

Killing 2 men is a bit of an experience really, also wasn't aware trains turning over was a likely outcome!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-48854010

Can we throw this Auriel under a train please and maybe spare a railway worker?
Click to expand...

I don't think her words are any more insensitive or "dumb" than yours, TBH. Kill someone because they said something? :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom