Times article

User avatar
professorlandslide
Posts: 205
Joined: 16 Oct 2007, 11:16pm
Location: People's Republic of Kernow
Contact:

Post by professorlandslide »

He is a spanner. Also: "It’s not just the Lycra, though Heaven knows this atrocity alone should be a capital offence"

So is he Trinny or Suzanna? :D I think Gok Wan is on his way round to set fire to most of his wardrobe... :D
bugsburgess
Posts: 5
Joined: 27 Dec 2007, 5:44pm

M.Parris article

Post by bugsburgess »

Like many other members I have also tried to get a reply printed in the Times.So far without success, perhaps I should have signed it Jeremy Clarkson.
Assuming the editor of the Times would like to see a Brit win a CYCLING gold medal at the London olympics perhaps his paper should try to show more of the successes of our national squad instead of belittling their training rides as these cyclists referred to by M.Paris may well have been.
simon l6 and a bit

Post by simon l6 and a bit »

I think this is a serious matter. I've drafted a letter to the Borough Commander at Tower Hamlets and await the advice of the Chair.

The PCC has carefully circumscribed grounds for complaint. Incitement to violence isn't one of them.

There's a couple of threads on ACF which cover this pretty fully - to read one you'll need to register.

http://www.anothercyclingforum.com/inde ... ic=45080.0
peggy
Posts: 59
Joined: 25 Nov 2007, 6:55pm

Post by peggy »

no comment just read this article in an Italian motocycling magazine about a rider decapitated by barbed wire.
. . . which is a translated version of the italian original
User avatar
professorlandslide
Posts: 205
Joined: 16 Oct 2007, 11:16pm
Location: People's Republic of Kernow
Contact:

Post by professorlandslide »

What's interesting is that he is obviously anti 'anti-hate' legislation, as he opposes laws against inciting hatred of gay people, presumably on the grounds of freedom of speech. I guess if he's saying its ok for other people to call for him to be beheaded, at least he's consistent... :roll:

At least Clarksons quite funny... And Top Gear keeps featuring pretty good bike stunts.. :D (probably because Hamster & May are both cyclists...)
User avatar
megilleland
Posts: 293
Joined: 11 Aug 2007, 7:49pm
Location: Hereford

Post by megilleland »

"A festive custom we could do worse than foster would be stringing piano wire across country lanes to decapitate cyclists. It’s not just the Lycra, though Heaven knows this atrocity alone should be a capital offence; nor the helmets, though these ludicrous items of headgear are designed to protect the only part of a cyclist that is not usefully employed; nor the self-righteousness, though a small band of sports cyclists on winter’s morning emits more of that than a cathedral at evensong; nor even the brutish disregard for all other road users, though the lynching of a cyclist by a mob of mothers with pushchairs would be a joy to witness".

Can you say this and get away with it?

Reading the Press Complaints Commission "Editors’ Code of Practice" at:
http://www.pcc.org.uk/cop/practice.html
you have to write to the editor first then follow up with the PCC.

A section of interest may be the following referred to in the code:

The public interest
There may be exceptions to the clauses marked * where they can be
demonstrated to be in the public interest.
1. The public interest includes, but is not confined to:
i) Detecting or exposing crime or serious impropriety.
ii) Protecting public health and safety.
iii) Preventing the public from being misled by an action or statement of
an individual or organisation.

OR

Looking at the law

Incitement

The offence of incitement occurs when a person seeks to persuade another to commit a criminal offence. A person is guilty of incitement to commit an offence or offences if:

1. s/he incites another to do or cause to be done an act or acts which, if done, will involve the commission of an offence or offences by the other; and
2. s/he intends or believes that the other, if he acts as incited, shall or will do so with the fault required for the offence(s) (R v Claydon [2006] 1 Cr.App.R. 20) (see further Archbold 34-70).

It is not a defence to a charge of incitement that the other person, for whatever reason, does not commit the offence, or commits a different offence to that incited.


National Standards for Cautioning
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section3/chapter_k.html

The National Standards for Cautioning require that the following conditions are met before a caution may be administered by the police:

* there is a realistic prospect of conviction;
* the offender admits the offence;
* the offender (or appropriate adult) understands the significance of a caution and gives informed consent to being cautioned. (Prosecutors should note that the Divisional Court held that when police were prepared to caution a suspect, the suspect was entitled to disclosure of material necessary to enable his legal advisers to assess the prosecution case and give informed legal advice as to consent (Director of Public Prosecutions v Ara, TLR 16 July 2001).

You should refer a case to the police for a caution to be administered where the National Standards are satisfied. If the offender has not made a clear and reliable admission during the course of the police investigation, a caution cannot be administered and it would not, therefore, be appropriate to refer the case back to the police (R v The Metropolitan Police, ex parte Andre Anthony Thompson, TLR 18 December 1996). An admission obtained only during the administration of the cautioning procedure will not, in itself, be sufficient.

Whenever you are satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction, the public interest in bringing a conviction must be considered. The Code for Crown Prosecutors, elsewhere in this guidance explains the principles to be applied in balancing factors for and against prosecution. The public interest does not automatically require a prosecution.

OR


Public Order Act 1986

1986 CHAPTER 64

An Act to abolish the common law offences of riot, rout, unlawful assembly and affray and certain statutory offences relating to public order; to create new offences relating to public order; to control public processions and assemblies; to control the stirring up of racial hatred; to provide for the exclusion of certain offenders from sporting events; to create a new offence relating to the contamination of or interference with goods; to confer power to direct certain trespassers to leave land; to amend section 7 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875, section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, Part V of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 and the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc) Act 1985; to repeal certain obsolete or unnecessary enactments; and for connected purposes

[7th November 1986
]
BE IT ENACTED by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:–

[4A Intentional harassment, alarm or distress]

[(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

(2) An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the person who is harassed, alarmed or distressed is also inside that or another dwelling.

(3) It is a defence for the accused to prove—

(a) that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or

(b) that his conduct was reasonable.

(4) A constable may arrest without warrant anyone he reasonably suspects is committing an offence under this section.

(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both.]

NOTES

Amendment
Inserted by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, s 154.

5 Harassment, alarm or distress

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.

(2) An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling.

(3) It is a defence for the accused to prove—

(a) that he had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress, or

(b) that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or

(c) that his conduct was reasonable.

(4) A constable may arrest a person without warrant if—

(a) he engages in offensive conduct which [a] constable warns him to stop, and

(b) he engages in further offensive conduct immediately or shortly after the warning.

(5) In subsection (4) “offensive conduct” means conduct the constable reasonably suspects to constitute an offence under this section, and the conduct mentioned in paragraph (a) and the further conduct need not be of the same nature.

(6) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.


6 Mental element: miscellaneous

(1) A person is guilty of riot only if he intends to use violence or is aware that his conduct may be violent.

(2) A person is guilty of violent disorder or affray only if he intends to use or threaten violence or is aware that his conduct may be violent or threaten violence.

(3) A person is guilty of an offence under section 4 only if he intends his words or behaviour, or the writing, sign or other visible representation, to be threatening, abusive or insulting, or is aware that it may be threatening, abusive or insulting.

(4) A person is guilty of an offence under section 5 only if he intends his words or behaviour, or the writing, sign or other visible representation, to be threatening, abusive or insulting, or is aware that it may be threatening, abusive or insulting or (as the case may be) he intends his behaviour to be or is aware that it may be disorderly.

(5) For the purposes of this section a person whose awareness is impaired by intoxication shall be taken to be aware of that of which he would be aware if not intoxicated, unless he shows either that his intoxication was not self-induced or that it was caused solely by the taking or administration of a substance in the course of medical treatment.

(6) In subsection (5) “intoxication” means any intoxication, whether caused by drink, drugs or other means, or by a combination of means.

(7) Subsections (1) and (2) do not affect the determination for the purposes of riot or violent disorder of the number of persons who use or threaten violence.
rower40
Posts: 385
Joined: 12 Jan 2007, 5:44pm
Location: Somewhere on the NCN

Post by rower40 »

An Ex-MP, and until now respected Times Journalist wrote:A festive custom we could do worse than foster would be stringing piano wire across country lanes to decapitate cyclists.


:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

That article really scared me. I've read the 76 replies on The Times Online site, almost all critical of Mr Parris; they are able to put into words much better than me the repulsion I feel.

Do I now have to ride everywhere at 3mph, so that I can see these wires and stop in time? Or just stay on busy roads, making sure I'm following a vehicle taller than me?

I would use Bart Simpson's famous insult ("Get Bent"). But in Mr Parris' case, that's shutting the stable door... :wink:

megilleland wrote:Lots of excerpts from Acts of Parliament


Thanks for the letter of the law; does this mean there's a case against him, or not?
"Little Green Men Are Everywhere... ...But Mostly On Traffic Lights."
glueman
Posts: 4354
Joined: 16 Mar 2007, 1:22pm

Post by glueman »

Looking again it's clear Parris is grumpy about the new 'caring-sharing' freewheeling Tory party of David Cameron and Boris Johnson and yearns for the era of certainty when apparatchicks were whisked to and from their oak panneled rooms with perfect creases in their hand tailored suits by long black limo.

The trouble is, of course, he's lobbed a grenade and we're tossing it between us while the choirboy has moved onto other things. Best thing is for our gay members to bitch slap him good and proper if they see him and move on. For a persecuted minority he behaves entirely like a member of the establishment, which of course he is.
simon l6 and a bit

Post by simon l6 and a bit »

a letter has gone to the Tower Hamlets Met Police Borough Commander.
Eric the Red
Posts: 33
Joined: 28 Dec 2007, 3:17pm

Post by Eric the Red »

piedwagtail91 wrote:there's a thread on the timetrialling forum with a link to the pcc, i've sent a complaint off though i doubt they'll do anything.

Yes. I started the thread on the timetrialling site! I have also asked the CTC to prosecute the Times and Parris for incitement to commit murder.
User avatar
piedwagtail91
Posts: 258
Joined: 23 Jan 2007, 9:18pm

Post by piedwagtail91 »

i tried to post a comment on the times /parris article mentioning incitement to kill/commit murder but they didn't add it for some reason!!

i've done the pcc complaint emailed red ken and emailed the met. police but to be honest i feel he's either going to get off with it or get a minor telling off.
cyclist's lives are cheap, just a dirty mark to be washed off the car at the end of the journey.
Lawrie9
Posts: 1011
Joined: 4 Oct 2007, 11:23am
Location: Powys, Wales, UK

Post by Lawrie9 »

Mr parris is entitled to his opinion as much as the rest of us and he does have a case. Yes we do see the country lanes strewn with gel wrappers and plastic drink bottles discarded by cyclists and yes many cyclists dress and behave in a lunatic and inconsiderate fashion. I have always found Paris entertaining over the years especially when he was on Talk Radio in his shock jock days.
He did a programme looking at the welfare state a few years ago which sort of ties in with the obesity epidemic we are seeing today. One thing he pointed out was that great swathes of the population are on medictaion and antidepressants of one sort or another which is costing the country a fortune.
If all these people got on their bikes we wouldn't have these problems to the same extent.
To understand Paris, Clarkson, Littlejohn and many others we have to understand the media age we live in and the need to be outrageous.. If you stopped Parris in the street he would hardly remember the offending article let alone comment on it..we should therefore take it with a pinch of salt
Graham O
Posts: 643
Joined: 27 Jan 2007, 7:54am

Post by Graham O »

Lawrie9 wrote:and yes many cyclists dress and behave in a lunatic and inconsiderate fashion.


The bit about behaviour I understand, but "dress in a lunatic and inconsiderate fashion!????? Is lycra offensive to young ladies of a gentle disposition or not the sort of thing a gentleman would wear? My God sir, lycra louts are cads and bounders! :twisted:
User avatar
piedwagtail91
Posts: 258
Joined: 23 Jan 2007, 9:18pm

Post by piedwagtail91 »

Lawrie9 wrote:Mr parris is entitled to his opinion as much as the rest of us and he does have a case. Yes we do see the country lanes strewn with gel wrappers and plastic drink bottles discarded by cyclists and yes many cyclists dress and behave in a lunatic and inconsiderate fashion. I have always found Paris entertaining over the years especially when he was on Talk Radio in his shock jock days.
He did a programme looking at the welfare state a few years ago which sort of ties in with the obesity epidemic we are seeing today. One thing he pointed out was that great swathes of the population are on medictaion and antidepressants of one sort or another which is costing the country a fortune.
If all these people got on their bikes we wouldn't have these problems to the same extent.
To understand Paris, Clarkson, Littlejohn and many others we have to understand the media age we live in and the need to be outrageous.. If you stopped Parris in the street he would hardly remember the offending article let alone comment on it..we should therefore take it with a pinch of salt


parris is entitled to his opinion, what he is not entitled to do is put cyclists at risk by avocating the use of piano wire as a means of punisnment.

i'm on antidepressants and have been for many years, i also do a fair amount of bike riding. should i have two piano wires?
Last edited by piedwagtail91 on 28 Dec 2007, 9:24pm, edited 1 time in total.
sore thumb
Posts: 223
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 10:27am

Post by sore thumb »

This issue is been discussed everywhere.

It looks like there are now a number of cyclists making forum complaints to the Police.



Time Trialling Forum

http://www.timetriallingforum.co.uk/...howtopic=17192


Singletrack

http://www.singletrackworld.com/foru...5823&t=3415823



Another Cycling forum

http://www.anothercyclingforum.com/i...?topic=45080.0


Bike Radar

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/view...74445#14674445


Cycle Chat

http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showt ... 948&page=2
Post Reply