Did the Boston authorities overreact?

The real issue isn't the advertising or the method of advertising, but the City's COMPLETE inability to acyrately asses the true nature and level of the threat before them!

There has to be some accountability for this. A city cannot reacts this way to every potential threat, especialy ones that were "blinking" around the city for two weeks! A list of real potential threats the city ignores every day:
Abandoned cars
Parked Cars
Trash cans
Mail boxes

All these things could be planted with explosives and cause real descruction. Why don't the cities deal with these threats?

 

All that commotion for what was essentially a version of a 1970's kids Lite-Brite toy? :huh:

http://www.giftgeek.com/asp/GiftIdeas/GiftIdeasKids.asp

Yikes! It's a good thing they didn't use the Battleship game . . .


http://www.gamesmuseum.uwaterloo.ca/Virtua...tery/index.html

. . . If they did, Boston may have had to call the military for reinforcements. :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JackDodge @ Feb 1 2007, 03:33 PM) [snapback]383990[/snapback]</div>

I agree here but I understand the pressure. I had been on calls of "suspicious" thinkgs and , while I wanted to just toss it in the trash, in the back of my mind I knew if I did, and the caller complained, I would get the "always ere on the side of caution" thing.

Taking reasonable risks is what public safety does......and that means on occasion, they goof. LIVE WITH IT!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Feb 1 2007, 05:05 PM) [snapback]384120[/snapback]</div>

Actually, many years ago in London, all litter bins (trash cans) were removed from public streets and underground stations in response to the IRA bombings. You literally had nowhere to throw your trash so it just ended up in the street. I don't know about now, but I was there in 2000, and there still weren't any public trash cans.

What I heard about the Boston incident was that it was reported by someone who spotted one of these devices on the side of a bridge while traveling in a train or bus. He/she probably couldn't see what was on the front -- just saw the wires and circuit board. Maybe nobody had said anything for two weeks because they could see what they were.

However, it probably SHOULD be illegal to hang any type of device from a public structure without prior approval. Who's to say that it couldn't have been an IED disguised as a cartoon billboard? After all, we are constantly being warned to report any suspicious activity or any unaccompanied bags or packages left on trains.

 

I was actually in boston at the time, visiting my cousin, and with all of the sketchy-ness going on in england, i would have expected the reaction that the boston officials correlated. I believe the officials handled this incident the right way. Like someone said, what if they under-reacted?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Feb 1 2007, 05:22 PM) [snapback]384131[/snapback]</div>

This just in: Department of Homeland Security now prohibiting Etch-A-Sketches at airports.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(PriusRos @ Feb 1 2007, 02:43 PM) [snapback]384141[/snapback]</div>

It's not "Joe Six-Packs" reaction to the device that I have the problem with. If a mom of two on a train saw a device and thought it suspiscious and reported it to authorities, yeah I understand that. What I don't understand is why it took all day (after the deveices had been on public display for a couple of weeks) for the "highly" trained first responders to determine that these were nothing more than lite-brites!

Also, It is generally a violation of signage laws to hang a singn without a permit.

 

As I understand it, these toy thingies were placed in 10 cities around the country.

Only Beantown went apes**t, and embarrassed themselves in front of the whole world.

Way to go, Boston!

Harry

 

I think it's about time someone got arrested for advertising. There's too much of it as it is, that's why they have to start thinking up these goofy ideas to get some attention.

 

Now I know why they are called "Massholes". The AG is now just playing into their hands. They couldn't have bought this much publicity.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Feb 1 2007, 02:14 PM) [snapback]384020[/snapback]</div>

Well, they have to charge someone. You can't put a corporation in jail so there's no point in going after Turner, the parent company of the Cartoon network. The marketing firm was doing what they were contracted to do and the artists were doing what they were hired to do.

Yep, you can jail a person but you can only "fine" a corporation. (So why should they have equal status as a 'person' under the constitution?That's the first thing *I'd* fix....)

So do we decide that the Boston Police were stupid to over-react, or the police in all of the other cities were stupid to ignore this for weeks? Whichever way you go, Homeland Security is a black hole we keep throwing money into to no effect. Perhaps we need to instigate more stringent standards and testing to make Homeland Security accountable? No Agent Left Behind. If they don't improve they can switch to another government agency. Like Treasury. Or Agriculture.

No, this does not come under the definition of hoax as there was no intent. But they can be convicted and jailed because what they made was interpreted (by a moron) as a bomb. That said, it was a *really* stupid idea and the marketing company should have to pay for proposing and carrying out such a stupid advertising campaign and whoever was in charge at the Cartoon network and/or Turner should be demoted for approving anything so stupid.

And you can't really discuss hair of the 70s without spending a lot of time on Farrah Fawcett. She was extremely influential. Many a woman attempted that gypsy cut mane with less than stellar results. In rebellion those who could not grown their hair or keep it curled embraced the short and simple cut of Dorothy Hamill.

 

Of course you can already get the shirt.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Feb 2 2007, 01:41 AM) [snapback]384290[/snapback]</div>

What do you use a Men's 5X for? Tent? Car cover?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Feb 1 2007, 10:41 PM) [snapback]384290[/snapback]</div>

They need to come out with a version which says . . .

“BOSTON IS #1â€

:lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Feb 1 2007, 08:32 PM) [snapback]384266[/snapback]</div>

Already fixed. Dang that's an efficient govt. atta boy George. . .

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Feb 2 2007, 02:23 AM) [snapback]384302[/snapback]</div>

5X? Five years from now, in the U.S. that will be considered a Medium.

 

I think Florence Henderson (Mrs. Brady) had pretty good 70's hair. Had that little flip in the back.

No one has mentioned mullets. Or is that more of an 80's hair thing?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Feb 1 2007, 11:32 PM) [snapback]384266[/snapback]</div>

Looks like Turner is not going to let this thing drag on - reports say they are going to reimburse Boston for its costs associated with this thing. Only means they thought they were going to be on the losing end of either or both the legal battle and PR battle

Several points:
1. the ding dongs yesterday did nothing but hurt their cause with their performance during their news conference. If they had acted less like arrogant a** holes and more contrite things could have been different.
2. reports state that the above mentioned ding dongs and their accomplices were well aware of all the on goings in Boston and did nothing to stop it or alert the authorities.
3. apparently ding dong #1 with the hair is here in the US from Bellarus or however its spelled on politcal assylum (my spelling) - I wonder if he was kicked out of his first country only to land here - just what we need here - another village idiot.