I was all prepared to have a right old rant about something and now I can’t really be bothered expending all that energy on something that won’t make any difference anyway!

So instead I’ll just lay down the simple facts.

On Wednesday I was in the car most of the day and was listening to Radio 1 - not normally a bad thing, but their coverage of a news story really got my back up.  Every hour they would lead with a small snippet of a story which sounded as if it was pretty bad, but then later on they played a longer version which essentially took away the bad element and made it all understandable and effectively made their story null and void.

I’ll explain.

The soundbite played on the news reports came from Richard Brunstrom who is the police chief of North Wales, in which he claimed that taking an aspirin was more dangerous than taken an ecstacy tablet.

Now that’s the kind of thing which is always going to be taken down and used against you when said in public and seems a stupid thing for someone in a position such as his to be saying.  Naturally enough it provoked the usual response from listeners who were calling and texting in to either say what an idiot he was, or to agree wholeheartedly with his every word.  Spot the drug takers among that lot, it shouldn’t be too hard.

Knowing that this can’t have been the only sentence he uttered, that this must have been cut from a longer speech or interview, made it impossible to make an informed judgement on what the man had really meant to say.

At lunchtime, in their extended news programme, they played further clips which explained what he had actually been doing.  What he had been trying to say was that although drugs are bad there are other things like alcohol, tobacco, etc which are just as bad if not worse, but which are legal.  This doesn’t make sense to him, so he was making the point that if one is as bad as the other then they should either both be illegal or both be legalised.

The aspirin comparison came about because his figures showed that more deaths are recorded with aspirin mentioned than with ecstacy mentioned - although just because something is mentioned on a death certificate it doesn’t always follow that it was the actual cause of death.

Other countries such as Portugal have legalised drugs so I would imagine governments around the globe are watching to see how they fare, and if it’s a success then there’s a good chance we will see a slow slide in the direction of legalisation - which is really all Mr Brunstrom was trying to say.  He wasn’t advocating an immediate rush to legalise drugs, in fact he said he thought it wouldn’t happen in 10 months, but he could see it being the case in 10 years.

I’m not a big advocate of drugs and it’s not something I would consider doing, but just because I don’t want to it doesn’t mean it’s automatically the wrong thing.

Families of people killed from circumstances in which drugs are involved will be rightly upset at a top policeman coming out with something like this, but is it right that he takes the full blame?

Yes he said that sentence, it was there on the radio and he can’t and hasn’t denied saying it.

But he also said a lot more, which the radio decided to cut out as it didn’t suit the angle of the story they wished to portray.  Surely that is wrong and they must take a share of the blame for any anguish caused?

It’s impossible to expect them to always play any interviews in full, but they do have a responsibility to take the contents of the interview and provide us with a summary of what the interview contained rather than to take just one item from the interview and build up a story around that one snippet.

To me, it was the reporter who was the most irresponsible person of the lot.