Times article

tjfs · Post by **tjfs** » 26 Dec 2007, 11:26pm

Anyone else feel like complaining about this?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 097464.ece

I realise cyclists come in for quite a bit of abuse in the media but this seems to be going too far. If it were directed against any other racial, religious group or nationality it would be unacceptable in a national newspaper.

Tim

Tom Richardson · Post by **Tom Richardson** » 27 Dec 2007, 8:23am

I don't think that you need to complain, his article speaks for itself (it says 'attention seeking crackpot'). He's relying on the the first rule of poor journalism: never let the facts spoil a story.

Mind you, he suggests a couple of interesting points:
all unecessary journeys should be banned (you will need to check with me to determine what is necessary and what isn't)
and any mode of transport that takes up the with of more than one person shouldn't be allowed on the public road

byegad · Post by **byegad** » 27 Dec 2007, 9:33am

We need to wait for the next wiring of a path and pass this clot's views to the police. With luck they'll do him for incitement to murder.

julk · Post by **julk** » 27 Dec 2007, 10:06am

I tried posting a critical response to this hate cyclists article by Parris, using the have your say facility on the Times page.

Surprise, surprise, the response does not show, and in fact the number of responses fell from 10 to 9 whilst I was looking to see my response added.

Looks like someone is editing out the critical responses...

George Riches · Post by **George Riches** » 27 Dec 2007, 10:36am

I think most of the points have been made. What particularly caught my attention was the the analogy made to the behaviour of gay men in woods (Parris is famous for being a gay ex-MP).

And disturbingly, this from Australia:

I totally agree Mathew. While it's ludicrous to expect bicycles to coexist on the same road as cars and trucks it's also outrageous to expect pedestrians to put up with lunatic cyclist charging down the pavement. Dedicated cycle paths may be the answer but who's willing to pay for them? Far cheaper to just ban bikes.

First ban cycling without helmets, then ban all cycling?

al_yrpal · Post by **al_yrpal** » 27 Dec 2007, 11:43am

I think the CTC and Jon Snow in particular should take this twerp to task for this dangerous misinformed nonsense. I too tried to comment but it never appeared. So much for free speech!

glueman · Post by **glueman** » 27 Dec 2007, 11:47am

"What’s smug and deserves to be decapitated?"

Thatcher worshipping, shrub cruising, media spivs? Still following the line of most reaction, eh Parris?

Tom Richardson · Post by **Tom Richardson** » 27 Dec 2007, 11:49am

The guy can go in two directions when he's compiling an article:

he could have written a researched review into the circumstances that lead to the increasing tendency to find the countryside littered with orange plastic pop bottles and possibly win the respect of a few quiet and decent people but the research would have taken him a few days,

or else write up an opinion that they have all been put there by cyclists and throw in a few other misguided and contradictory conclusions as well thereby whipping up a frenzy of response with hundreds of extra hits on the times website, prompting discussion on other web forums, increasing interest in his articles and the payoff that he gets for them all without wasting any time on research at all.

The second option is nonesense but it seems to work

George Riches · Post by **George Riches** » 27 Dec 2007, 12:35pm

Tom Richardson wrote:[...] throw in a few other misguided and contradictory conclusions as well thereby whipping up a frenzy of response with hundreds of extra hits on the times website, prompting discussion on other web forums, increasing interest in his articles and the payoff that he gets for them all without wasting any time on research at all.

While damaging his image of "caring conservatism" - The Times has become little more than a posh version of the Daily Mail, with all the familiar bullying of those groups thought to be easy meat.

peggy · Post by **peggy** » 27 Dec 2007, 1:00pm

Bent as a butcher's hook.

He's in the pink news.

He's just out to make money.

Does not care who he offends.

Just like a few more out there.

We really need writers to help rather than hinder.

byegad · Post by **byegad** » 27 Dec 2007, 1:39pm

removed

peggy · Post by **peggy** » 27 Dec 2007, 2:05pm

He is

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-2354.html
Matthew Parris: married on a Thursday- from Pink News- all the latest gay news from the gay community - Pink News

Sgt Pluck · Post by **Sgt Pluck** » 27 Dec 2007, 2:09pm

This is the worst sort of irresponsible journalism and deserves a considered letter to the editor from someone in the CTC who knows the issues better than I do. Who knows, there may be scope for legal action - it is clear incitement to violence and the Times is out of line in printing it.

Incidentally very disappointed to see so many homophobic comments in the replies to this post. Matthew Parris may be an idiot but the fact that he's gay is completely beside the point. You're not in a position to criticise his prejudices if you show yourself up as a narrowminded bigot in the same sentence

byegad · Post by **byegad** » 27 Dec 2007, 3:18pm

I hope no one takes my remarks as anti anybody. It was mentioned he is gay and I used that issue as an example of unacceptable behaviour. I could have equally used racism as an example. The fact that I used one rather than the other does not represent any support for any unacceptable behaviour or incitement.

piedwagtail91 · Post by **piedwagtail91** » 27 Dec 2007, 4:46pm

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.

Cycling UK Forum

Times article

Times article

Matthew Parris's rant

mathew parris