It is official. My website is closed.

[Ext User(Spooky)]

Well, I should have expected it. I have been officially directed
to remove my website. I'm flabbergasted to say the least. It has
been running for over ten years now, as a hobby, as a tool, as a
non profitable contribution (in my own way) to a safer roads campaign.

Yesterday, I received the final report which in short reads:-
"...............(to final paragraph).....The site as described by
you and viewed by myself has potential and could be viewed as a
good tool for defensive driving. However, in its current form it appears
to leave the Police Service open to both criticism and litigation, should a
person complain about the contents of your site."

Very disappointing.

Spooky

[Ext User(tonymy01)]

"Spooky" <spooky24042@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%vVIe.73001$oJ.2348@news-server.bigpond.net.au
> Well, I should have expected it. I have been officially directed
> to remove my website. I'm flabbergasted to say the least. It has
> been running for over ten years now, as a hobby, as a tool, as a
> non profitable contribution (in my own way) to a safer roads campaign.

What can you expect from moron pen pushers. They just want it to be
"US=police" "THEM=every other potential revenue raiser" rather than as a
"WE=harmonious Police+Community". "WE" doesn't give them any revenue..

What if you remove the pics of people wrapped around poles, will they allow
you site then?
Bad luck spooks.

[Ext User(OzOne)]

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 02:46:19 GMT, "Spooky" <spooky24042@hotmail.com>
scribbled thusly:

>Well, I should have expected it. I have been officially directed
>to remove my website. I'm flabbergasted to say the least. It has
>been running for over ten years now, as a hobby, as a tool, as a
>non profitable contribution (in my own way) to a safer roads campaign.
>
>Yesterday, I received the final report which in short reads:-
>"...............(to final paragraph).....The site as described by
>you and viewed by myself has potential and could be viewed as a
>good tool for defensive driving. However, in its current form it appears
>to leave the Police Service open to both criticism and litigation, should a
>person complain about the contents of your site."
>
>Very disappointing.
>
>Spooky
>

There ya go, the old head in the sand trick.

I wonder when the powers will realise that making Police accessible
and human is well worth the risk, or even the cost of any possible
litigation.


Oz1...of the 3 twins.

I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you.

[Ext User(Spooky)]

"tonymy01" <tony_h@*remove*bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:XCVIe.73009$oJ.41238@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> "Spooky" <spooky24042@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%vVIe.73001$oJ.2348@news-server.bigpond.net.au
>> Well, I should have expected it. I have been officially directed
>> to remove my website. I'm flabbergasted to say the least. It has
>> been running for over ten years now, as a hobby, as a tool, as a
>> non profitable contribution (in my own way) to a safer roads campaign.
>
> What can you expect from moron pen pushers. They just want it to be
> "US=police" "THEM=every other potential revenue raiser" rather than as a
> "WE=harmonious Police+Community". "WE" doesn't give them any revenue..
>
> What if you remove the pics of people wrapped around poles, will they
> allow you site then?

Nope. They even had issues with the fact that Police cars can be seen
in some of the pictures. They had issues with the graphic nature of the
crashes, my descriptions, my referral to the locations, and the (supposed)
inference that it is a "Police Site".
I can't win, unless I produce a sugar coated site that doesn't show, or
mention
the graphic nature of motor vehicle crashes.

> Bad luck spooks.

Oh well......ta.

Spooky

[Ext User(Gonz)]

Maybe they will setup a faulty webcamera and fine us for going there

<grin>

[Ext User(Bobby)]

Spooky wrote:
> Well, I should have expected it. I have been officially directed
> to remove my website. I'm flabbergasted to say the least. It has
> been running for over ten years now, as a hobby, as a tool, as a
> non profitable contribution (in my own way) to a safer roads campaign.
>
> Yesterday, I received the final report which in short reads:-
> "...............(to final paragraph).....The site as described by
> you and viewed by myself has potential and could be viewed as a
> good tool for defensive driving. However, in its current form it appears
> to leave the Police Service open to both criticism and litigation, should
> a
> person complain about the contents of your site."
>
> Very disappointing.

That sucks Spooky,

I've seen this site a few times and found it to be a very useful educational
tool and just goes to show when your careless what can happen.

This is the kind of site that should be shown to secondary school student's
and yet the "senior pen pushers" who know nothing about the culture amongst
driver's today suggest closing it.

Shame shame shame.

--

Regards
Bobby Cerny

[Ext User(veritas)]

Spooky wrote:
> Well, I should have expected it. I have been officially directed
> to remove my website. I'm flabbergasted to say the least. It has
> been running for over ten years now, as a hobby, as a tool, as a
> non profitable contribution (in my own way) to a safer roads campaign.
>
> Yesterday, I received the final report which in short reads:-
> "...............(to final paragraph).....The site as described by
> you and viewed by myself has potential and could be viewed as a
> good tool for defensive driving. However, in its current form it appears
> to leave the Police Service open to both criticism and litigation, should a
> person complain about the contents of your site."
>
> Very disappointing.
>
> Spooky
>
>

It's called the "umbrella" principle. Put up the umbrella to protect your own arse at all cost - and don't be concerned
if it happens to be at the expense of others.....

Unfortunately, it seems that commissioned rank practice this behaviour as a polished art!

[Ext User(Mark jb)]

> Yesterday, I received the final report which in short reads:-
> "...............(to final paragraph).....The site as described by
> you and viewed by myself has potential and could be viewed as a
> good tool for defensive driving. However, in its current form it appears
> to leave the Police Service open to both criticism and litigation, should
a
> person complain about the contents of your site."

Just wait until you are not allowed to fraternise with anyone over public
mediums without adding "the views of myself are not those of the nsw police
service" at the end of every sentance. Just for being a cop.

Oh well. Price of petrol these days, you're going to have a lot less work to
do.

-mark

[Ext User(TheTaipan)]

Sorry to hear that Spooky, while you and I disagree in the method, we both
agree on the fact that lives need saving.

I admire the fact that you have the guts and determination to attempt to
make a difference - considering the naff attitude of the multitude, you
deserve encouragement not silencing...

A Police Service which is afraid of "criticism and litigation" is not really
a Police service at all. The nature of the duties required of a Police
service leave it open to criticism and that is a healthy thing. Litigation
isn't always healthy, but as an officer of the law - I'm not sure that you
need to be that afraid of the law... but I do understand with legal issues
influencing my work increasingly all of the time, we could end up spending
more time dealing with documentation than our clients if our legal advisors
ran our departments.

There is a degree of common sense - I haven't visited your site in a while,
but my recollection of it, there was ample warning that the site contains
content which may be offensive. The obvious covering of licence plates was
attended for identification purposes. Without criticism, a site like that,
is not hard enough...

Ah well, I guess you'll have to think of some cute little saying, like "slow
down, or you might wear a frown" to appease the experts on road safety huh?

Simon.


"Spooky" <spooky24042@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%vVIe.73001$oJ.2348@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Well, I should have expected it. I have been officially directed
> to remove my website. I'm flabbergasted to say the least. It has
> been running for over ten years now, as a hobby, as a tool, as a
> non profitable contribution (in my own way) to a safer roads campaign.
>
> Yesterday, I received the final report which in short reads:-
> "...............(to final paragraph).....The site as described by
> you and viewed by myself has potential and could be viewed as a
> good tool for defensive driving. However, in its current form it appears
> to leave the Police Service open to both criticism and litigation, should
> a
> person complain about the contents of your site."
>
> Very disappointing.
>
> Spooky
>

[Ext User(Patrick Young)]

Spooky wrote:

> Yesterday, I received the final report which in short reads:-
> "...............(to final paragraph).....The site as described by
> you and viewed by myself has potential and could be viewed as a
> good tool for defensive driving. However, in its current form it appears
> to leave the Police Service open to both criticism and litigation, should a
> person complain about the contents of your site."
>
> Very disappointing.

Just what the feck does Australia have to hide in this dept?!?!?!?
We have Motorway Patrol and the Absolutely brilliant SCU (Serious
Crash Unit) from NZ, and not only can AU not produce such a show
(though we can with somewhat more personal medical stuff) now this.

Sheesh. Something reeks about that.

>
> Spooky
>
>


--

--------------------------------------------
4x4 Hilux Auto Service Centre,
BP 106 Timbuktu,
Mali (West Africa)
Tel: 292 91 52
Specialising in turbo diesel and R290 aircon

[Ext User(Feral)]

Spooky wrote:
> Well, I should have expected it. I have been officially directed
> to remove my website. I'm flabbergasted to say the least. It has
> been running for over ten years now, as a hobby, as a tool, as a
> non profitable contribution (in my own way) to a safer roads campaign.
>
> Yesterday, I received the final report which in short reads:-
> "...............(to final paragraph).....The site as described by
> you and viewed by myself has potential and could be viewed as a
> good tool for defensive driving. However, in its current form it appears
> to leave the Police Service open to both criticism and litigation, should a
> person complain about the contents of your site."
>
> Very disappointing.
>
> Spooky
>
>
I don't know whether this will take any of the bitterness away or not, but:

IMHO what you were attempting to do, singlehandedly, was just about as
improbable as trying to rid the country of every bad species of flora
and fauna that has been introduced.

Not totally futile, but the demands of cost, the stress and time might
be better steered to another area. PCYC organised days for P Platers or
something (show most of them how good they're really not).
Now don't get on you're wagons P Platers, we've been there and done that.

But then again Rob, you could always go fishin'. ;-)

--
Take Care.
Feral

[Ext User(Toby Ponsenby)]

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 02:46:19 GMT, Spooky wrote:

> Well, I should have expected it. I have been officially directed
> to remove my website. I'm flabbergasted to say the least. It has
> been running for over ten years now, as a hobby, as a tool, as a
> non profitable contribution (in my own way) to a safer roads campaign.
>
> Yesterday, I received the final report which in short reads:-
> "...............(to final paragraph).....The site as described by
> you and viewed by myself has potential and could be viewed as a
> good tool for defensive driving. However, in its current form it appears
> to leave the Police Service open to both criticism and litigation, should a
> person complain about the contents of your site."
>
> Very disappointing.
>
> Spooky

Hmmm - 'Litigation'

Insurance shysters - 1
Spooky - 0

Sickening that the insurance shyster bastards get to influence
anything at all anytime at all, anywhere at all.
Their corporate profit motive is beginning to run society.

Nationalise the turds, I say.
What?
They own the politicians?
They won't?
Surprise surprise:-)







--
Toby.
quidquid latine dictum
sit, altum viditur

[Ext User(Scotty)]

"Spooky" <spooky24042@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%vVIe.73001$oJ.2348@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Well, I should have expected it. I have been officially directed
> to remove my website.

(snipped)

> Very disappointing.
>
> Spooky
>


Whats the go when someone else offers to host your, ah, umm , a, website
that just happens to have photos from several crash scenes of simmilar to
those of your old sites? And people from around the country can add thier
own photos with licence plates covered up etc.

How many Megs you after?

[Ext User(hippo)]

veritas wrote:

>Spooky wrote:
>> Well, I should have expected it. I have been officially directed
>> to remove my website. I'm flabbergasted to say the least. It has
>> been running for over ten years now, as a hobby, as a tool, as a
>> non profitable contribution (in my own way) to a safer roads campaign.
>>
>> Yesterday, I received the final report which in short reads:-
>> "...............(to final paragraph).....The site as described by
>> you and viewed by myself has potential and could be viewed as a
>> good tool for defensive driving. However, in its current form it
appears
>> to leave the Police Service open to both criticism and litigation,
should a
>> person complain about the contents of your site."
>>
>> Very disappointing.
>>
>> Spooky
>>
>>

>It's called the "umbrella" principle. Put up the umbrella to protect
your
>own arse at all cost - and don't be concerned
>if it happens to be at the expense of others.....

>Unfortunately, it seems that commissioned rank practice this behaviour
as
>a polished art!

Given the positive comments on the site's potential, have they offered
*any* sugegstions as to how it could be structured so as to fulfil its
current useful purpose whilst avoiding potential litigation? Didn't think
so!

Maybe they should put the umbrella up their own arse and then open it.
Their eyes would be watering too much to let them exercise their
shortsighted views!

I suppose it was a good run under the circumstances & at least no-one can
say you didn't try. Thanks

[Ext User(Patrick Young)]

Scotty wrote:

> Whats the go when someone else offers to host your, ah, umm , a, website
> that just happens to have photos from several crash scenes of simmilar to
> those of your old sites? And people from around the country can add thier
> own photos with licence plates covered up etc.

Very good point. I could do this (industrial strength network and
boxen behind it), and would very much like to ...

It would very much have to be arranged through the powers that be and
the correct dept. though. I'm not saying impossible, but not plausible.
The legal aspects are fairly strong.

--

--------------------------------------------
4x4 Hilux Auto Service Centre,
BP 106 Timbuktu,
Mali (West Africa)
Tel: 292 91 52
Specialising in turbo diesel and R290 aircon

[Ext User(Smee R1100s)]

Spooky wrote:
> "tonymy01" <tony_h@*remove*bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
> news:XCVIe.73009$oJ.41238@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>>"Spooky" <spooky24042@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:%vVIe.73001$oJ.2348@news-server.bigpond.net.au
>>
>>>Well, I should have expected it. I have been officially directed
>>>to remove my website. I'm flabbergasted to say the least. It has
>>>been running for over ten years now, as a hobby, as a tool, as a
>>>non profitable contribution (in my own way) to a safer roads campaign.
>>
>>What can you expect from moron pen pushers. They just want it to be
>>"US=police" "THEM=every other potential revenue raiser" rather than as a
>>"WE=harmonious Police+Community". "WE" doesn't give them any revenue..
>>
>>What if you remove the pics of people wrapped around poles, will they
>>allow you site then?
>
>
> Nope. They even had issues with the fact that Police cars can be seen
> in some of the pictures. They had issues with the graphic nature of the
> crashes, my descriptions, my referral to the locations, and the (supposed)
> inference that it is a "Police Site".
> I can't win, unless I produce a sugar coated site that doesn't show, or
> mention
> the graphic nature of motor vehicle crashes.
>
>
>>Bad luck spooks.
>
>
> Oh well......ta.
>
> Spooky
>
>
have you directed them to rotten.com?
you think your site had graphic pictures.!

[Ext User(Marty)]

Scared of litigation and critisism?
Why, did it show aboriginanals or sumfin?

"Spooky" <spooky24042@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%vVIe.73001$oJ.2348@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Well, I should have expected it. I have been officially directed
> to remove my website. I'm flabbergasted to say the least. It has
> been running for over ten years now, as a hobby, as a tool, as a
> non profitable contribution (in my own way) to a safer roads campaign.
>
> Yesterday, I received the final report which in short reads:-
> "...............(to final paragraph).....The site as described by
> you and viewed by myself has potential and could be viewed as a
> good tool for defensive driving. However, in its current form it appears
> to leave the Police Service open to both criticism and litigation, should
a
> person complain about the contents of your site."
>
> Very disappointing.
>
> Spooky
>
>

[Ext User(veritas)]

hippo wrote:
> veritas wrote:
>
>
>>Spooky wrote:
>>
>>>Well, I should have expected it. I have been officially directed
>>>to remove my website. I'm flabbergasted to say the least. It has
>>>been running for over ten years now, as a hobby, as a tool, as a
>>>non profitable contribution (in my own way) to a safer roads campaign.
>>>
>>>Yesterday, I received the final report which in short reads:-
>>>"...............(to final paragraph).....The site as described by
>>>you and viewed by myself has potential and could be viewed as a
>>>good tool for defensive driving. However, in its current form it
>
> appears
>
>>>to leave the Police Service open to both criticism and litigation,
>
> should a
>
>>>person complain about the contents of your site."
>>>
>>>Very disappointing.
>>>
>>>Spooky
>>>
>>>
>
>
>>It's called the "umbrella" principle. Put up the umbrella to protect
>
> your
>
>>own arse at all cost - and don't be concerned
>>if it happens to be at the expense of others.....
>
>
>>Unfortunately, it seems that commissioned rank practice this behaviour
>
> as
>
>>a polished art!
>
>
> Given the positive comments on the site's potential, have they offered
> *any* sugegstions as to how it could be structured so as to fulfil its
> current useful purpose whilst avoiding potential litigation? Didn't think
> so!
>
> Maybe they should put the umbrella up their own arse and then open it.
> Their eyes would be watering too much to let them exercise their
> shortsighted views!
>
> I suppose it was a good run under the circumstances & at least no-one can
> say you didn't try. Thanks
>

IAWY - Spooky and I (like others) have had running "difference of opinion" discussions during which it become clear that
neither he, or I, would have agreed -- BUT -- I would never dispute that *he* believed that his argument was well
intended and correct AND by the same token, I would never dispute that his site was anything other than having been
produced in good taste, respect and with an earnest attempt to reduce preventable road trauma. I understand that he
sought permission from the victims before publishing images that affected them - which is more than the media is
required to do OR for that matter, official police press releases.

While I have little time for the various state police services and many of their members (in general), I never saw
Spooky as being in that category. It seems that the NSW police service has justified my poor opinion of it - this time
they have chosen one of their own to kick arse - an easy target who can't fight back. The NSW police service might
better spend its time by identifying the lying pricks that have been recipients of legitimate complaints from the public
and responding to that appropriately.

The 'lying pricks' referred to above (in my opinion) are the profile of cops that might make commissioner within just 16
years of service!

[Ext User(Knobdoodle)]

"Spooky" <spooky24042@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Very disappointing.
>
Yeah I had a look and I thought it was pretty disappointing too.
--
Knob

[Ext User(John McKenzie)]

Spooky wrote:
>
>
> Very disappointing.

For all of us.

p.s. - I never heard back about where to send a letter of support?


--
John McKenzie

tosspam@aol.com abuse@aol.com abuse@yahoo.com abuse@hotmail.com
abuse@msn.com abuse@sprint.com abuse@earthlink.com fraudinfo@psinet.com
sweep.day@accc.gov.au uce@ftc.gov admin@loopback $LOGIN@localhost
$LOGNAME@localhost $USER@localhost $USER@$HOST -h1024@localhost
root@mailloop.com president@whitehouse.gov vice.president@whitehouse.gov
abuse@iprimus.com.au abuse@cia.gov abuse@fbi.gov abuse@asio.gov.au
abuse@federalpolice.gov.au