A classic example of how if an interviewer bullies someone all the sympathy will go to the interviewee.
Burley is so thick that I'm sure in her own mind she thought all the viewers would be on her side, and that she was conducting a hard hitting interview.
She must know if the hospital, or relatives haven't issued a statement to say someone has lost a leg that the CEO she was interviewing couldn't possibly comment, but she clearly thought she was being really really clever putting him on the spot like that.
And in any accident there are always lessons that can be learnt- so you think everything is safe, then potentially something you have never considered possible happens, and as a result you add another layer of safety.
All that happened here was that I ended up with immense respect for the chap for not losing his cool with her (which is probably what she was hoping for), and it reconfirmed what an amateur hack Burley is.
Absolutely spot on.
Burley's on air conduct here was - not for the first time - lamentable.
She is a truly replusive woman. I can't think of a single good thing to say about her.
cant stand her, when she was interviewing on the april jones murder she was terrible,dont know why anyone would think she is a good interviewer,sky should sack her
cant stand her, when she was interviewing on the april jones murder she was terrible,dont know why anyone would think she is a good interviewer,sky should sack her
But they won't though, will they ? They've let go of decent news anchors in the past few years but Burley remains on air daily in a prominent slot despite an endless string of controversies. They probably don't mind her causing a bit of a stir, maybe encourage it even.
A well run news channel would not have allowed her to go on at him like that, someone would have told her in her ear to tone it down and stick to the agreed script.
But they won't though, will they ? They've let go of decent news anchors in the past few years but Burley remains on air daily in a prominent slot despite an endless string of controversies. They probably don't mind her causing a bit of a stir, maybe encourage it even.
A well run news channel would not have allowed her to go on at him like that, someone would have told her in her ear to tone it down and stick to the agreed script.
Part of me thinks she does what she likes regardless of the EP telling her in the ear to pack it in though.
Almost like a "Im Kay Burley, i can do what i like" attitude.
Part of me thinks she does what she likes regardless of the EP telling her in the ear to pack it in though.
Almost like a "Im Kay Burley, i can do what i like" attitude.
Probably. I bet most of her colleagues feel the same as we do and can't stand her. Case of putting up with her for the sake of the channel.
Dread to think what she's like to work with, when the cameras aren't on.
I'm sure 'she knows where the bodies are' is true as I went on a press trip with a Sky News reporter (who is still there) in 2008 and he told me some stories about Kay, and how she wasn't best liked by colleagues. So, it's certainly not a recent thing.
Not long before the trip, she'd been smacked in the face by a celeb (I forget who now) and apparently colleagues thought it was hilarious and long overdue.
But I do think that people higher up probably think she's great, and every bit of controversy is good for the channel.
Personally, I disagree. It might work for newspaper websites where all those outraged people that come on to post abuse are valuable clicks - but how does Sky really benefit? Nearly all of the times I watch what she's 'done now', it's a clip on YouTube or I'm reading it on social media/here.
Alton Towers are a despicable theme park company who clearly only care about money and profit as opposed to making sure their customers are safe. They're like InGen in the Jurassic Park franchise: all about what will encourage visitors to go to their park as opposed to whether it's right or not to introduce a rollercoaster as dangerous as the Smiler.
I hope they suffer from a drop in visitor numbers and go bankrupt over this (although the latter probably won't happen).
Alton Towers are a despicable theme park company who clearly only care about money and profit as opposed to making sure their customers are safe. They're like InGen in the Jurassic Park franchise: all about what will encourage visitors to go to their park as opposed to whether it's right or not to introduce a rollercoaster as dangerous as the Smiler.
I hope they suffer from a drop in visitor numbers and go bankrupt over this (although the latter probably won't happen).
LOL!!!!
They've had an excellent safety record so get a grip!
Alton Towers are a despicable theme park company who clearly only care about money and profit as opposed to making sure their customers are safe. They're like InGen in the Jurassic Park franchise: all about what will encourage visitors to go to their park as opposed to whether it's right or not to introduce a rollercoaster as dangerous as the Smiler.
I hope they suffer from a drop in visitor numbers and go bankrupt over this (although the latter probably won't happen).
Can you list how many accidents (serious and/or fatal) they've had over the years? I haven't the time to do the research, but you must know in quite some detail to say that.
They've had an excellent safety record so get a grip!
They also introduced a rollercoaster with 14 loops that was always going to end in disaster. I'm sure if Ian Malcolm from Jurassic Park was a real character, he'd agree.
They also introduced a rollercoaster with 14 loops that was always going to end in disaster. I'm sure if Ian Malcolm from Jurassic Park was a real character, he'd agree.
Oh dear.......
The total loops makes zero difference and you know it so stop!
Alton Towers are a despicable theme park company who clearly only care about money and profit as opposed to making sure their customers are safe. They're like InGen in the Jurassic Park franchise: all about what will encourage visitors to go to their park as opposed to whether it's right or not to introduce a rollercoaster as dangerous as the Smiler.
I hope they suffer from a drop in visitor numbers and go bankrupt over this (although the latter probably won't happen).
Or you could wait for any official reports and a well researched timeline of events, before acting as judge, juror, executioner, and armchair rollercoaster designer
Certainly Alton Towers'/their parent company's conduct has been textbook so far
Alton Towers are a despicable theme park company who clearly only care about money and profit as opposed to making sure their customers are safe. They're like InGen in the Jurassic Park franchise: all about what will encourage visitors to go to their park as opposed to whether it's right or not to introduce a rollercoaster as dangerous as the Smiler.
I hope they suffer from a drop in visitor numbers and go bankrupt over this (although the latter probably won't happen).
You are a complete fool, you really are.
Is the Dr Who forum finally sick of your delusional and repetitive rants that you are now branching out into other areas of the forum with your same nonsense. Lucky us.
It's obvious who is at blame. The theme park operator first and foremost and the entire business for deciding the Smiler was a good idea.
Doesn't it operate like any other rollercoaster? Indeed much like a railway, just with tracks that are somewhat bendier? The safety systems will be much the same, but if you can put them into manual mode to remove faulty cars or do testing then there's an element of risk that should be possible to manage quite safely.
Doesn't it operate like any other rollercoaster? Indeed much like a railway, just with tracks that are somewhat bendier? The safety systems will be much the same, but if you can put them into manual mode to remove faulty cars or do testing then there's an element of risk that should be possible to manage quite safely.
But it wasn't 'managed safely', was it?
And this hasn't been the only incident with the ride. It's also had wheels come off and a screw come loose.
As for this incident, no it wasn't managed safely and that's where the problems lie. Both in how someone could operate it in a manner that wasn't safe, and the way the incident was then handled and the emergency services notified - except even there, the level of training for the staff on site was apparently of a very high standard precisely because of the possible delay getting outside help in and to the correct location. I expect some people are getting outraged by things without fully understanding how things work, which is all too common these days.
All of this will come out, but effectively the company has held its hands up and admitted fault and I don't believe there's any risk for people who want to come to this, or any other, theme park.
As was said in some interviews, it is probably far more dangerous for people actually getting to or from the park.
Comments
Why is that? Their safety record before last week was fantastic and the way they have handled the last week has been admirable.
That's because the argument "well, there was this online petition you see...." will not stand up in an unfair dismissal hearing.
Burley's on air conduct here was - not for the first time - lamentable.
cant stand her, when she was interviewing on the april jones murder she was terrible,dont know why anyone would think she is a good interviewer,sky should sack her
A well run news channel would not have allowed her to go on at him like that, someone would have told her in her ear to tone it down and stick to the agreed script.
Part of me thinks she does what she likes regardless of the EP telling her in the ear to pack it in though.
Almost like a "Im Kay Burley, i can do what i like" attitude.
Dread to think what she's like to work with, when the cameras aren't on.
https://twitter.com/NotKayBurley/with_replies
Not long before the trip, she'd been smacked in the face by a celeb (I forget who now) and apparently colleagues thought it was hilarious and long overdue.
But I do think that people higher up probably think she's great, and every bit of controversy is good for the channel.
Personally, I disagree. It might work for newspaper websites where all those outraged people that come on to post abuse are valuable clicks - but how does Sky really benefit? Nearly all of the times I watch what she's 'done now', it's a clip on YouTube or I'm reading it on social media/here.
Alton Towers are a despicable theme park company who clearly only care about money and profit as opposed to making sure their customers are safe. They're like InGen in the Jurassic Park franchise: all about what will encourage visitors to go to their park as opposed to whether it's right or not to introduce a rollercoaster as dangerous as the Smiler.
I hope they suffer from a drop in visitor numbers and go bankrupt over this (although the latter probably won't happen).
LOL!!!!
They've had an excellent safety record so get a grip!
Can you list how many accidents (serious and/or fatal) they've had over the years? I haven't the time to do the research, but you must know in quite some detail to say that.
They also introduced a rollercoaster with 14 loops that was always going to end in disaster. I'm sure if Ian Malcolm from Jurassic Park was a real character, he'd agree.
Oh dear.......
The total loops makes zero difference and you know it so stop!
Or you could wait for any official reports and a well researched timeline of events, before acting as judge, juror, executioner, and armchair rollercoaster designer
Certainly Alton Towers'/their parent company's conduct has been textbook so far
Yes it does. It makes it more dangerous.
It's obvious who is at blame. The theme park operator first and foremost and the entire business for deciding the Smiler was a good idea.
If you say so, Kay.
You are a complete fool, you really are.
Is the Dr Who forum finally sick of your delusional and repetitive rants that you are now branching out into other areas of the forum with your same nonsense. Lucky us.
That's no way to talk to Kay.
We are lucky she has joined us.
Doesn't it operate like any other rollercoaster? Indeed much like a railway, just with tracks that are somewhat bendier? The safety systems will be much the same, but if you can put them into manual mode to remove faulty cars or do testing then there's an element of risk that should be possible to manage quite safely.
But it wasn't 'managed safely', was it?
And this hasn't been the only incident with the ride. It's also had wheels come off and a screw come loose.
Not the only one then.
As for this incident, no it wasn't managed safely and that's where the problems lie. Both in how someone could operate it in a manner that wasn't safe, and the way the incident was then handled and the emergency services notified - except even there, the level of training for the staff on site was apparently of a very high standard precisely because of the possible delay getting outside help in and to the correct location. I expect some people are getting outraged by things without fully understanding how things work, which is all too common these days.
All of this will come out, but effectively the company has held its hands up and admitted fault and I don't believe there's any risk for people who want to come to this, or any other, theme park.
As was said in some interviews, it is probably far more dangerous for people actually getting to or from the park.