It would seem that the radio distress call made by Andrew McAuley has been released to the media, following a request through the NZ equivalent of a freedom of information-type piece of legislation. (If you want to read more click here - this does not link through to the recording)
I can only begin to imagine how terrible Andrew's position was when he made this call, and I hope I never find myself in this position. But I don't think I need to hear it to gain further clarity over the position, and I can't understand why it needed to be released.
I suppose there's two issues here: firstly, people's morbid curiosity, and secondly, is this what was intended when this legislation was passed?
I must admit, I do enjoy watching the TV shows, showing dramatic rescues, but then only in the understanding that in the end it all worked out well. I don't see the fascination in hearing the last words of someone who dies.
As for using the legislation in the way, well I have no real knowledge of the NZ system, but I frequently get annoyed by what the UK press uses our 'Freedom of Information Act' legislation for. It certainly isn't what was intended in many cases.
I suppose there is possibly some legitimate value in the tape being released - to clarify the need for the massive SAR operation, for instance - but one suspects that morbid curiosity is probably a factor too.
Good point Mark, though it niggles me that SAR operations have to be justified to the 'wider' public.
It seems all too easy for people to critise the expenditure when it's not their loved ones involved.
I seem to recall that the rescue of Tony Bullimore which involved the diversion of an australian naval frigate came under scrutiny by the wider public.
From my perspective, 'we' employ experts to make judgement calls about all sorts of things, SAR is just one of them and we should let them get on with it (subject to appropriate scrutiny by qualified bodies).
Subscribe to RSS Feed
2 Comments:
March 12, 2007 4:48 PM
It seems all too easy for people to critise the expenditure when it's not their loved ones involved.
I seem to recall that the rescue of Tony Bullimore which involved the diversion of an australian naval frigate came under scrutiny by the wider public.
From my perspective, 'we' employ experts to make judgement calls about all sorts of things, SAR is just one of them and we should let them get on with it (subject to appropriate scrutiny by qualified bodies).
Anyway, I digress..
March 13, 2007 9:44 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home