Blatant attempt to get their name in the media - and we all fell for it
I am sympathetic to their cause and I haven't seen that bit of the episode, but even so I am 99% sure that the whole thing was a dig at silly media speculation about his condition in the first place.
As for them implying you can survive high speed crashes without getting brain injuries, err, Mr Hamster appears to have demonstrated that is the case - I bet they said he was a lucky barsteward which seems to be a fair analysis of the event to me!
Has it reached the stage were every statement made by any person is to be littered with caveats and footnotes?
E.g. "I drove to ASDA today, bought a pie and came home."
becomes:
"I drove [driving is bad for the environment and your health; walking is better for both, though you should take care when walking alone, especially at night; we cannot be held responsible for any injuries sustained as a result of walking to the shops based on this advice; remember only cross at marked crossings, wait for the safe crossing signal; note, just because the safe crossing signal is lit does not mean it is safe to cross; use at own risk] to ASDA [other pie outlets are available] today, bought a pie [pies may be bad for your health, especially if you don't already have a balanced diet, though not all pies are as bad as one another and you are advised to read the information label; if you cannot read, you should enlist the services of a professional label reader; if you cannot afford a label reader ask your local council to help] and came home [in no way does this imply that owning or renting a home is required to eat pies; homeless people are entitled to eat pies too]."
Yawn.
Robin
