Cycling UK Forum

fastpedaller wrote:

The utility cyclist wrote:I've written to Ch5 to desist from broadcasting on the basis that it breaches the OFCOM code in at least two sections, I've cc'd in the head of OFCOM and also Jeremy Wright the secretary of state for Media, Culture etc etc.

What codes does it breach - I've looked and (without having seen the programme), I can't see any references to "headline, title or similar"?

Yes! Let's ban programmes that we haven't seen yet because they might say things we don't like.

fastpedaller wrote:

The utility cyclist wrote:I've written to Ch5 to desist from broadcasting on the basis that it breaches the OFCOM code in at least two sections, I've cc'd in the head of OFCOM and also Jeremy Wright the secretary of state for Media, Culture etc etc.

What codes does it breach - I've looked and (without having seen the programme), I can't see any references to "headline, title or similar"?

Three and Five, inciting hatred and also accuracy, the first one is obvious, the second is that they've ignored all the government facts which show us that people on bikes do less harm than pedestrians 'on our streets', ergo the question was already answered IF they would have been using accurate facts, they will not, ergo there is a breach. The programme is socially irresponsible as it will cause more harm toward a vulnerable group that we know is already targeted on the streets themselves, are killed and maimed by criminals AND have hate speech directed toward them regularly in the media, this programme will only exacerbate that.

Oldjohnw wrote:

fastpedaller wrote:

The utility cyclist wrote:I've written to Ch5 to desist from broadcasting on the basis that it breaches the OFCOM code in at least two sections, I've cc'd in the head of OFCOM and also Jeremy Wright the secretary of state for Media, Culture etc etc.

What codes does it breach - I've looked and (without having seen the programme), I can't see any references to "headline, title or similar"?

Yes! Let's ban programmes that we haven't seen yet because they might say things we don't like.

No, let's banprogrammes that incite hatred and harm towards a vulnerable group and by definition of the title will be inaccurate.

'Black men, scourge of our streets', how does that sound, what about 'Muslim men, scourge of the nursery playground', Roman Catholic persists, scourge of the church', all legit programmes/programme titles right given the evidence?

You forgot the question mark which changes the meaning of the title somewhat.

reohn2 wrote:You forgot the question mark which changes the meaning of the title somewhat.

Asking the question as I said when the answer to that question was answered by government last year in their discriminatory paper compiled by someone with a vested interest to attack people on bikes. Despite her obvious blindness to the facts even she could not dispute the facts and had to produce them in the review.(albeit as a footnote) This proved without a shadow of a doubt that people on bikes are not the scourge of our streets, in fact it was proof that people on cycles are actually less of a scourge than pedestrians/people on foot.

But fine, wait until the programme airs, it will be inaccurate, incite hatred and be socially irresponsible, OFCOM will do nothing as per however.

The utility cyclist wrote:

reohn2 wrote:You forgot the question mark which changes the meaning of the title somewhat.

Asking the question as I said when the answer to that question was answered by government last year in their discriminatory paper compiled by someone with a vested interest to attack people on bikes. Despite her obvious blindness to the facts even she could not dispute the facts and had to produce them in the review.(albeit as a footnote) This proved without a shadow of a doubt that people on bikes are not the scourge of our streets, in fact it was proof that people on cycles are actually less of a scourge than pedestrians/people on foot.

But fine, wait until the programme airs, it will be inaccurate, incite hatred and be socially irresponsible, OFCOM will do nothing as per however.

Whilst I agree with you that cyclists arent "the scourge of the streets",and have been proven not to be.I confess I'm not aware of the government's discriminatory paper or it's footnote.

Though you maybe right about the program,lacking a crystal ball,I won't judge it before watching it.

reohn2 wrote:You forgot the question mark which changes the meaning of the title somewhat.

Does it really? That's a pretty generous interpretation.

Ch5 have a track record for this sort of crap - I see no reason at all to give them the benefit of the doubt.

reohn2 wrote:

The utility cyclist wrote:

reohn2 wrote:You forgot the question mark which changes the meaning of the title somewhat.

Asking the question as I said when the answer to that question was answered by government last year in their discriminatory paper compiled by someone with a vested interest to attack people on bikes. Despite her obvious blindness to the facts even she could not dispute the facts and had to produce them in the review.(albeit as a footnote) This proved without a shadow of a doubt that people on bikes are not the scourge of our streets, in fact it was proof that people on cycles are actually less of a scourge than pedestrians/people on foot.

But fine, wait until the programme airs, it will be inaccurate, incite hatred and be socially irresponsible, OFCOM will do nothing as per however.

Whilst I agree with you that cyclists arent "the scourge of the streets",and have been proven not to be.I confess I'm not aware of the government's discriminatory paper or it's footnote.

Though you maybe right about the program,lacking a crystal ball,I won't judge it before watching it.

You haven't read this absolute bilge, short on facts and hefty in anecdote and the authors own bias and discrimination ... by the bucket load? https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ety-review. When it came to it, the author had no other option but to put the facts in, did so in a tiny footnote which proved without a shadow of a doubt that people on cycles are not the problem, not even when comparing to pedestrians.

Given your familiarity with the independent legal report to which you have referred perhaps you might tell me what it is which is bilge, bias or discrimination? As opposed to something we high you merely disagree with.

Someone in a Facebook group I'm in shared this TV listing. To my reading it doesn't sound like it is a hatchet job on cyclists. Like reohn2 I think I'll reserve judgement until I know what they are actually saying.

mattheus wrote:

reohn2 wrote:You forgot the question mark which changes the meaning of the title somewhat.

Does it really? That's a pretty generous interpretation.

Ch5 have a track record for this sort of crap - I see no reason at all to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Suit yourself,I'll reserve judgement until I've seen it thanks,and if after viewing it I think it's one sided crap I'll say,so until then......

Oldjohnw wrote:

fastpedaller wrote:

The utility cyclist wrote:I've written to Ch5 to desist from broadcasting on the basis that it breaches the OFCOM code in at least two sections, I've cc'd in the head of OFCOM and also Jeremy Wright the secretary of state for Media, Culture etc etc.

What codes does it breach - I've looked and (without having seen the programme), I can't see any references to "headline, title or similar"?

Yes! Let's ban programmes that we haven't seen yet because they might say things we don't like.

BAN, NO PLATFORM, REJECT .... all we know nothing about.
Utility Cyclist, < I advise caution > ....
May i suggest you watch the programme before starting YOUR campaign < SNIP > .

You do not speak for me ...

On a slightly different tack ... I've just got in from the Chemists at Ravenfield ... at the cross roads the lights where on red.
I spotted 2 Cyclists, all the gear, plastic spaceships, powering towards the cross roads directly opposite me ..... on the footpath !!
The lights turned to green as they passed the pedestrian crossing ... and they dropped onto the road in front of a black SUV causing the driver to brake hard to avoid them... they then turned right across the junction causing the car in front of me to brake sharply.
No signals from either cyclist ... well why would they ...
Both riders where smiling, they knew what they had done and found it funny.
If any of the drivers had hit them there would have been the usual "All drivers are ba*ta*ds " cries of support for them from the usual suspects ..

We are often our own worst enemies, most often ! ..

landsurfer wrote:We are often our own worst enemies, most often ! ..

Don't you mean: some cyclists (also drivers/pedestrian) are idiots?

By saying "we" you are including me in a group to which I don't belong.

Whilst I shall also reserve judgement until I've seen the programme, I thought the title (even with the question mark) was inflamatory.
If the following quoted by The utility cyclist were indeed programme titles (with or without question marks) I suspect there would by uproar!
Someone tell me I'm wrong

The utility cyclist wrote:'Black men, scourge of our streets', how does that sound, what about 'Muslim men, scourge of the nursery playground', Roman Catholic persists, scourge of the church', all legit programmes/programme titles right given the evidence?