# Apalling Times article



## Amanda P (27 Dec 2007)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article3097464.ece?Submitted=true

Leaves me speechless.


----------



## John the Monkey (27 Dec 2007)

Vile.

Stuff like this makes me not want to ride - a minority of drivers are quite hostile enough, without this sort of article fanning the flames.

The comment from the Ontarian chap (about the hostility Britons have towards anyone daring to delay them on the road) was interesting, I thought.


----------



## User482 (27 Dec 2007)

According to a thread on the CTC forum, the Times are deleting any critical responses to the article from their website.


----------



## piedwagtail91 (27 Dec 2007)

they didn't even put mine up , and i was quite restrained. i only mentioned incitement to kill once!


----------



## andy_wrx (27 Dec 2007)

Min'es not there either.

I called Parris a pillock and asked if he would have been happy to read something so ignorant and crass aimed at homosexuals.


----------



## wafflycat (27 Dec 2007)

This is what I submitted. It hasn't appeared on the Times site though.

_Change the word "cyclist" in your article, Mr Parris, to read "gay” or "black" and you'll see the article for the nasty, violence-inciting rant it is. For a man supposed to be a serious journalist, you have just joined the gutter press. Do you really think it funny to incite murder, Mr Parris? There are idiots out there who take words such as those you've written to justify their violence towards others. You are a fool of the highest order. In case you just haven't got it into your nasty brain just how bad your hatred is, two friends of mine could have been killed by sort of actions you incite. One was seriously injured by such a wire strung across a cycle path and it left a nasty wound round his neck. Another was pushed off his bike by the passenger of an overtaking car. My friend ended up in a ditch with crushed vertebrae in his neck. He was lucky not to be made a quadriplegic: or worse. No, Mr Parris, your article is not funny: it’s pathetic._


----------



## gavintc (27 Dec 2007)

I have complained to both the PCC and the Editor citing similar comments to those stated above. An incredibly stupid, insensitive, article.


----------



## Dave5N (27 Dec 2007)

Seems to me most of the responses are critical

I never had the slightest desire to get to know Mr Parris before. I'd really love to meet him now.

Can't the CTC or BCF or someone get the police involved for incitement?


----------



## Dave5N (27 Dec 2007)

And waffleycat, your response is first up.


----------



## wafflycat (27 Dec 2007)

So it is! That's new. Considering I submitted it ages ago, they must have a lot of responses they're working through..


----------



## Wobbly John (27 Dec 2007)

Dave5N said:


> Can't the CTC or BCF or someone get the police involved for incitement?



I understand that a CTC representative has started proceedings to involve the police.


----------



## simon l& and a half (27 Dec 2007)

this is an uphill struggle - but for what it's worth. I considered the PCC route, but it's not actually against the PCC code to incite violence. I'm going to remove this letter from the post tomorrow morning, and I'd hope that it wasn't quoted in the interim. If you write to the police then you should just do that and let them get on with it.


text removed..


----------



## Smokin Joe (27 Dec 2007)

Good letter, Simon.

I believe that if the police receive a complaint they are duty bound to investigate it, so even if no action is eventually taken Mr Parris's anal cheeks should twitch a little.

In my view he has committed a clear offence.


----------



## Twenty Inch (27 Dec 2007)

Nice one simon. Will be dropping Savill m own letter.

Let us know how you get on.


----------



## Sore Thumb (28 Dec 2007)

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/index.php?showtopic=17192


Singletrack

http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/read.php?f=2&i=3415823&t=3415823


Cycle Touring Club

http://forum.ctc.org.uk/viewtopic.php?t=9858



Another Cycling forum

http://www.anothercyclingforum.com/index.php?topic=45080.0

Bike Radar

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=14674445#14674445


----------



## mcd (28 Dec 2007)

For what it's worth I've followed the advice on CTC's newsnet email - which is to send an email to the editor James Harding ( james.harding@thetimes.co.uk )

I've just got an out of office reply - he's away until the 2nd of January. I wonder if he's going to have a full inbox by the time he gets back.


----------



## Saddle bum (29 Dec 2007)

_The Times_ is certainly restricting critical responses. There are some folk there with serious problems who agree with it.


----------



## Tony (29 Dec 2007)

And this response shows that the nutters from...elsewhere...have joined in:
"Brilliant article Matthew. Cyclists are the most selfish people in our society-taking and demanding more and more room on our roads yet not paying a penny in VED. Then we're expected to be grateful to them for "saving the planet" while they are swearing at pedestrians while riding on the footpath. Don't let me start on them jumping red traffic lights. There's an internet campaign running to discredit your writing and report you to the police for inciting murder, so stick to your guns.

Ravenbait, Scotland, UK"


----------



## Nortones2 (29 Dec 2007)

One would imagine all car drivers are law abiding, and there is no need therefore for APNR, red light cameras. speed cameras, courts. Or inquests after avoidable fatal incidents they cause. Witless.


----------



## jonesy (29 Dec 2007)

Tony said:


> And this response shows that the nutters from...elsewhere...have joined in:
> "Brilliant article Matthew. Cyclists are the most selfish people in our society-taking and demanding more and more room on our roads yet not paying a penny in VED. Then we're expected to be grateful to them for "saving the planet" while they are swearing at pedestrians while riding on the footpath. Don't let me start on them jumping red traffic lights. There's an internet campaign running to discredit your writing and report you to the police for inciting murder, so stick to your guns.
> 
> Ravenbait, Scotland, UK"



Paris would do well to take note of the kind of supporting messages he is getting and then consider whether that constituency is really the target audience he aspires to in his writing.


----------



## ufkacbln (29 Dec 2007)

Not "our" Ravenbait?


----------



## jonesy (29 Dec 2007)

Cunobelin said:


> Not "our" Ravenbait?



Pretty obviously not I would say- I thought that was the reason Tony thought the message had been posted by one of our 'friends' from another forum?


----------



## Tony (29 Dec 2007)

Not "ours", no. Trust me on that one. Someone is not happy...


----------



## simon l& and a half (29 Dec 2007)

http://drunkcyclist.com/wordpress/2007/12/27/1200/

Wafflycat's riposte to the evil Parris has now reached the Holy Grail of cycling websites!


----------



## wafflycat (30 Dec 2007)

Cruddy bell!


----------



## spindrift (30 Dec 2007)

The article gets hits for the website, Parris can then use them to negotiate a new contract. I guess, probably wrong. All journalists are toms, they tell stories that happened to other people and use their personal life as a gently comic tragedy, writing ruefully about their divorce and so on. That makes Parris worse, I think. He sat there and thought "What will get those emails flooding in", rather than "Is it wise to encourage assaults on minorities"?


----------



## alfablue (30 Dec 2007)

I emailed the editor:


> Dear Mr Harding
> 
> I was appalled to read the article by Matthew Parris entitled “What’s smug and deserves to be decapitated?“ in The Times and Times Online 27th December 2007.
> 
> ...




and I reported this to the Met Police as a hate crime, here.

I will report it to the PCC at the end of next week (PCC says wait a week for the editor to respond).


----------



## mickle (30 Dec 2007)

Nice one Alfa.


----------



## Pete (30 Dec 2007)

Well, this is my effort. Very different from the above, true, but I suppose the variability of the feedback ought to register with whoever gets to read the E-mails (and I'm sure there must be someone).


> Dear James Harding,
> May I urge you to consider removing this article (27th December) from your website and publishing a retraction under your own name? I accept that not much can be done about the copy which has already been printed, but there are measures you could take to limit the damage, which would be most welcome.
> 
> Alas, even if some of the article may have been published in jest (though it is hard to see the jokey aspect of it), it is the sort of text that may incite idiotic readers to perform idiotic actions. And although incidents of wiring across roads and paths are happily uncommon, they do occur, and I know cyclists who have had first-hand experience of such behaviour and have been lucky to escape serious injury. I myself - as a regular cyclist - have twice in my life suffered being deliberately assaulted by a car passenger: not quite the same as a 'wiring' assault, granted, but equally disconcerting and not something into which we want to incite people.
> ...


----------



## alfablue (30 Dec 2007)

Good letter, Pete!

Anyone else?


----------



## mcd (30 Dec 2007)

I went for something a bit more brief. I agree with Pete - hopefully variety will be as effective as volume. 



> Is there a competition between two of your columnists as to who can wind up the most cyclists? The latest offering from Mr Paris is more likely to result in cyclists winding up in hospital. It will be interesting to see how you report incidences such as this in the future: www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article686309.ece
> 
> In the spirit of balanced reporting are you going to publish an article inciting hatred against errant motorists with advice on how to drop bricks onto their windscreens while they are driving? An apology and a policy banning articles that incite hatred and violence would be better.
> 
> And safer.



Can you do better? Go on then: james.harding@thetimes.co.uk


----------



## freakhatz (30 Dec 2007)

It's a shameful article and FWIW I've used the contact addresses to give them my opinion. 

(Including first-hand information about what it is like to suffer a broken neck, altho' not due to Mr Paris's advice).


----------



## Pete (30 Dec 2007)

The last thing we want to do is offer up cut-and-paste jobs. They'll spot that sort of thing right away, after all, remember those guys are _journalists_, they know all about that sort of thing. So please, everybody, don't plagiarize what's already been posted on this or other forums, mine or others. Gather ideas, yes, but use your own words!

Oh, and thanks Alfa. Hope your fine effort, and MCDs, and all the others, also play a part in getting the message across. But who can tell?


----------



## Fab Foodie (30 Dec 2007)

With credit to Simon L3 from over the way, I thought this should be shared from quickrelease.tv...
*
Here’s the Parris piece but with the word ‘cyclist’ satirically replaced with ‘homosexual’, and other choice edits.*

A festive custom we could do worse than foster would be stringing piano wire at the entrances to gay bars to decapitate homosexuals.

It’s not just the good fashion sense, though Heaven knows this atrocity alone should be a capital offence; nor the fruity hairstyles, though these ludicrous items of headgear are designed to protect the only part of a gay man that is not usefully employed....

For more, scroll down, Simon L & 1/2 has the link...(it'll all make sense...read on).


----------



## Pete (30 Dec 2007)

I just noticed that his Wikipedia entry has a paragraph referring to the article. Don't know who added it (I don't really understand the inner workings of Wiki) but will be interesting to see if it remains.


----------



## simon l& and a half (30 Dec 2007)

http://quickrelease.tv/
they do need the hits, FF


----------



## simon l& and a half (30 Dec 2007)

Pete said:


> Don't know who added it .



there are Wiki contributors hereabouts


----------



## Fab Foodie (30 Dec 2007)

simon l& and a half said:


> http://quickrelease.tv/
> they do need the hits, FF



Apols old chap, wasn't aware of that....original post edited.


----------



## mcd (31 Dec 2007)

Pete said:


> I just noticed that his Wikipedia entry has a paragraph referring to the article.



Nice one!


----------



## Saddle bum (31 Dec 2007)

Pete said:


> I just noticed that his Wikipedia entry has a paragraph referring to the article. Don't know who added it (I don't really understand the inner workings of Wiki) but will be interesting to see if it remains.



That is very new, it wasn't there late Sunday PM.


----------



## Cycling Naturalist (31 Dec 2007)

Tony said:


> And this response shows that the nutters from...elsewhere...have joined in:
> "Brilliant article Matthew. Cyclists are the most selfish people in our society-taking and demanding more and more room on our roads yet not paying a penny in VED. Then we're expected to be grateful to them for "saving the planet" while they are swearing at pedestrians while riding on the footpath. Don't let me start on them jumping red traffic lights. There's an internet campaign running to discredit your writing and report you to the police for inciting murder, so stick to your guns.
> 
> Ravenbait, Scotland, UK"



 Good old Ravenbait - it's nice to know that she's still on form. I'm considering something along similar lines:

Dear Editor,

Please thank Matthew for his article. I've always hated cyclists, but never had the guts to do anything about it. I've now started stringing wire across the routes they use and although I haven't actually managed to decapitate one yet, I've killed two and managed to blind a third one.


----------



## Tony (31 Dec 2007)

Quiet and short little missive to the editor sent...


----------



## Tony (31 Dec 2007)

Patrick, that would be neat...


----------



## simon l& and a half (31 Dec 2007)

neater still to have taken out a couple of children on ponies.


----------



## piedwagtail91 (31 Dec 2007)

Dear Editor said:


> magic
> 
> 
> following on from patrick, and pinching part of his post,i've just sent this in
> ...


----------



## Pete (31 Dec 2007)

> Dear Sir,
> 
> I am a concert pianist. I number the _Hammerklavier, Islamey, Gaspard de la Nuit_, many others too, in my repertoire. It so happens my concert grand is urgently in need of re-stringing. Alas! all the piano wire in the country, so both Herr Steinway and Herr Bosendorfer affirm to me, has been snapped up by a group of utter musical illiterates, buffoons, people who cannot even tell their Ravel from their Ravioli, it appears they come into the shop muttering words like "Lykra" and "Lukozade" under their breath, and buy the entire stock! Now how am I going to get my pianoforte repaired so that I can practice? If this goes on I shall play a wrong note in my next performance Rachmaninov 3! Please help me!


How about this?


----------



## snorri (31 Dec 2007)

Pete said:


> How about this?



Juvenile


----------



## Pete (31 Dec 2007)

Hey, it was only a joke! I didn't _really _send that.


----------



## goo_mason (31 Dec 2007)

Pete said:


> How about this?



Genius !!


----------



## snorri (31 Dec 2007)

Pete said:


> Hey, it was only a joke! I didn't _really _send that.



OK


----------



## Pete (1 Jan 2008)

snorri said:


> Juvenile





Pete said:


> Hey, it was only a joke! I didn't _really _send that.





snorri said:


> OK


No problem, maybe my brand of satire is a bit too subtle for some. And good luck with your search for your Sense of Humour, it's bound to turn up, you probably mislaid it somewhere on the Forum.


----------



## Noodley (1 Jan 2008)

Would anyone mind if I was as direct as to just call him a cock?


----------



## simon l& and a half (1 Jan 2008)

With respect (and affection) to all of those contributing to this thread, and recognising the talent that's gone into some of the responses, I wouldn't like us to lose sight of the seriousness of this. I don't begrudge Parris his silly fantasy in which cyclists pop cans of Gatorade and throw them into hedgerows, nor do I mind much if he spreads it around. The real issue is that he advocates decapitating us, and that it's not beyond the bounds of possibility for his advocacy to reap results. Decapitation, lest we forget, is fatal.


----------



## Cycling Naturalist (1 Jan 2008)

Countryside Code

Rule 11

When engaged in decapitating cyclists with piano wire, please make sure that you dispose of the body and head in a tidy manner.


----------



## Pete (1 Jan 2008)

Patrick Stevens said:


> Countryside Code
> 
> Rule 11
> 
> When engaged in decapitating cyclists with piano wire, please make sure that you dispose of the body and head in a tidy manner.


... not necessarily in that order...

Valid point, Simon, but I think we need to display a bit of flippancy at times even when discussing this and similar grave topics. It's a sort of steam-valve, helping to ease people's blood-pressure. I don't see it as callousness.

Going back to the seriousness of this whole concept - yes, I now recollect a story of my mother's experience many years ago (in the 1950s). She then used to walk to work, partly along a lonely country footpath, often after dark (women walking unaccompanied were much less fearful in those days than they are now). Anyway, one evening just at dusk, she encountered a wire set at _*ankle*_ height: she saw it in time. When she got home she called out the police. I can't remember the outcome, I was only a kid after all. I hope it was taken seriously. Also I hope it wasn't kids I knew and used to go out and play with.


----------



## Twenty Inch (2 Jan 2008)

What can we make of the fact the the Times itself reported a similar wire incident? I'm going to email Harding again and quote his own newspaper at him and ask for a response. I suggest everyone else does the same.


----------



## alfablue (2 Jan 2008)

Yes, here is the article (*Cyclist left scarred for life by wire trap)* should you wish to quote it.


----------



## Saddle bum (2 Jan 2008)

Sent it to Harding with a short pithy message.


----------



## alfablue (2 Jan 2008)

Ah, the Times are WONDERFUL! I just got this response to my email to Harding!

Your message
To: Harding, James
Subject: Parris article / Cyclist left scarred for life!
Sent: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 10:34:27 -0000
was deleted without being read on Wed, 2 Jan 2008 11:33:07 -0000

They really like to add insult to injury!

I suggest you ask for a read receipt if you email them (as I did) so at least you will know if it is read!


----------



## Pete (2 Jan 2008)

alfablue said:


> Ah, the Times are WONDERFUL! I just got this response to my email to Harding!
> 
> Your message
> To: Harding, James
> ...


Bad luck, Alfa, sorry to hear that - Not had anything from The Times myself ... yet (just checked).

I wonder if it may be a mistake to set 'Read Receipt'? This often has the opposite effect to what is intended: it gives the recipient the chance to back off (when he gets the 'do you want to send the Read Receipt' prompt) and so he has a chance to delete the message without reading it. In fact it may put off such people as Harding or whoever opens E-mails on his behalf.

Anyway, I sent *without* the 'Read Receipt' option - something I very rarely use in any case. I advise others to do likewise.


----------



## wafflycat (2 Jan 2008)

A response from The Times's editor can be seen here:-

http://www.timetriallingforum.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=17192&pid=245308&st=105&#entry245308

Not good.


----------



## alfablue (2 Jan 2008)

Hi Pete (and others), well I retract, Janine (from JAmes Harding's office) just emailed me to say that she received a duplicate email which she deleted, I am assured that he will see my emails. That said, the feedback identified by Wafflycat is far from reassuring - guess we should all be splitting our sides over Parris's enhanced sense of humour, rather than thinking our throats will be split!!! 

Sorry, it aint funny!


----------



## Pete (2 Jan 2008)

Well, will be interesting to see if we all get cut'n'paste copies of same. I can state quite categorically that *none* of what I wrote was cut'n'paste - it was all my very own! 

Still no reply yet for me: I assume that this E-mail wasn't it, seeing as I 'deleted without reading'...


> oh my godness.. yourPenis is BELOW average size, add 2-3 inches with this ycoyjc... Wed 02 Jan 2008


----------



## domtyler (2 Jan 2008)

Pete said:


> Well, will be interesting to see if we all get cut'n'paste copies of same. I can state quite categorically that *none* of what I wrote was cut'n'paste - it was all my very own!
> 
> Still no reply yet for me: I assume that this E-mail wasn't it, seeing as I 'deleted without reading'...
> 
> ...



Ahem, I have emailed Shaun asking him to correct the Senior Member the appears above your avatar to Small Member.


----------



## alfablue (2 Jan 2008)

Pete said:


> Well, will be interesting to see if we all get cut'n'paste copies of same. I can state quite categorically that *none* of what I wrote was cut'n'paste - it was all my very own!
> 
> Still no reply yet for me: I assume that this E-mail wasn't it, seeing as I 'deleted without reading'...




Janine told me that the editor would be replying this afternoon - I wonder how many emails he has; I doubt if we will get personalised responses if there are hundreds of them.


----------



## Pete (2 Jan 2008)

domtyler said:


> Ahem, I have emailed Shaun asking him to correct the Senior Member the appears above your avatar to Small Member.




The delightful Janine hasn't finished with me yet! She has now (under yet another pseudonym) offered me an 'exclusive replica rolex' (presumably to strap around my undersized - ahem - 'member') ...


----------



## piedwagtail91 (2 Jan 2008)

well this is the reply i got.
i have to say i'm not very impressed.i have a sense of humour but still can't see anything funny about his remarks.​
Dear Mr ?????, ​
Thank you for taking the time to write to me about Matthew Parris's article (My Week, December 7). ​
As someone who regularly rides to work and who likes to go on cycling holidays, I shared your alarm, initially fearing that Matthew had it in for me too. But I think it was immediately clear that he was exaggerating for effect - and for a good cause: cyclists, as much as anyone else, must share his determination to protect the natural world from litter and pollution. ​
I have received many similar e-mails and take note of the heartfelt indignation. You may also have seen the piece that ran in the paper on Monday in defence of the cyclist. While I admire the passion of the cycling lobby and count myself one of their number, I think we do ourselves no favours when we lose our sense of humour and I hope that you, like me, will continue to enjoy Matthew Parris’s excellent writing. That said, two wheels good etc.​
Yours, ​
James Harding​


----------



## domtyler (2 Jan 2008)

Ho ho ho, he wants to chop off my head for the crime of cycling hee hee hee

Ficking pruck


----------



## Cycling Naturalist (2 Jan 2008)

alfablue said:


> Janine told me that the editor would be replying this afternoon - I wonder how many emails he has; I doubt if we will get personalised responses if there are hundreds of them.



I think we are all going to get £5 off on a new type of penis pump.


----------



## Lurker (2 Jan 2008)

Here's my missive, just sent to James Harding at the Times , james.harding@thetimes.co.uk


Subject: Matthew Parris hate-piece, The Times, 27 December 2007


Dear Mr Harding,

I'm writing to express my incredulity at the ignorant and disturbing rant produced in 'the Times' by Matthew Parris on 27 December 'What's smug and deserves to be decapitated?' (link below).

If this is Mr Parris' idea of a joke I am afraid he is sadly deluded. Regrettably, assaults on cyclists using the method he advocates in his article are not unknown in this country, and have indeed been reported in your own newspaper. Parris' incitement - which is what his article amounts to - contributes to a climate of opinion, led by the media, which regards people who choose to cycle as social inferiors, and hence fair game for both verbal and physical attack.

At a time when all of us as individuals and organisations (including newspapers such as 'the Times') need to encourage people to cycle, Mr Parris' article is likely to have the opposite effect. It's all the more puzzling given my understanding that your workplace is actively encouraging its own employees to cycle to work. Clearly, some of your colleagues have understood that cycling is good for individuals as well as the wider community.

I don't know if the concept of ethical journalism has any currency with the editorial staff at 'the Times'. Given the newspaper's distinguished history and the fact that it remains a paper of record, I very much hope so. I would have thought that, at the very least, an apology and retraction from Parris is called for.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours with disappointment etc.


----------



## Pete (2 Jan 2008)

Update: got my reply from Mr. Harding, and GUESS WHAT! 


> Dear Mr *********,
> 
> Thank you for taking the time to write to me about Matthew Parris's article (My Week, December 7).
> 
> ...


Ring any bells with anyone?


----------



## freakhatz (2 Jan 2008)

No, I'm beneath his radar, or should I say 'piano wire'.


----------



## Pete (2 Jan 2008)

freakhatz said:


> No, I'm beneath his radar, or should I say 'piano wire'.


If you sent an E-mail to him, you will get that exact reply, word-for-word, you mark my words!

Interesting to find out just *how many* E-mails he received, and 'replied' to in this way. Seems like that gorgeous Janine would know, wouldn't she, so there we have a lead, do we not? Who* volunteers to try and fix up a date with her?

*I'm too old, and the missus wouldn't be happy!


----------



## JamesHarding (2 Jan 2008)

Hi, it's me, your patronising cycling lobby chum.

Any volunteers to help brighten up my day by setting up that humorous piano-wire gag for me to cycle into?

I'd wish that Simon has more luck with his letter to the Old Bill, except as I obviously don't care, I wont.

Must go, Matthew - sorry "Mr Parris" - is calling me.


.


----------



## wafflycat (2 Jan 2008)

Matthew Parris apologises:-
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article3123486.ece

Right at the end he says, _"I offended many with my Christmas attack on cyclists. It was meant humorously but so many cyclists have taken it seriously that I plainly misjudged. I am sorry. "_


----------



## Fab Foodie (2 Jan 2008)

Perhaps we should have just bombarded him with bloodstained Piano wire...


----------



## Cab (2 Jan 2008)

wafflycat said:


> Matthew Parris apologises:-
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article3123486.ece
> 
> Right at the end he says, _"I offended many with my Christmas attack on cyclists. It was meant humorously but so many cyclists have taken it seriously that I plainly misjudged. I am sorry. "_



I see, he's SORRY. Well, thats allright then. An apology for incitement to murdrer, quietly snuck in right at the end of a column. That makes up for condoning an outlandisly wreckless way of endangering cyclists lives, one that some muppets need scant encouragement to actually get out there and do which, had the author bothered to look at articles covering cycling in his own newspaper, he'd have known.

Its good to know that one can get away with saying such things in the Times and then say 'sorry, I was joking'. I trust that 'quality' newspaper will now pander to the petty rantings of all kinds of other prejudiced morons, as long as they're all joking? It isn't just cyclists who can be treated like this I hope, it must now be open season on gay people and Tories?

Mr. Parris, I'm a better man than you. Not because I'm a cyclist, not because I'm straight, not because I'm not a Tory. I don't care about your sexuality, your politics or your mode of transport. I'm a better man than you for the simple reason that you, in having encouraged such murder as a response to your misguided impression that cyclists are somehow lobbing cans of energy drinks into headgerows, have shown to the world that you're an peanut.

I wouldn't wipe my backside on the Times if it was the only thing handy and I was suffering from dysentry. It would make me feel dirtier.


----------



## snorri (3 Jan 2008)

Like many others, I will be reminded of his rant everytime I see or hear him or his writings for some considerable time to come. Nevertheless, it is rare indeed to see a clear admission of wrong doing and these three words "I am sorry" from anyone in public life. As several people have said on this forum, that particular rant did seem out of character, and I am sure Parriss has learned something from this sad saga.
He comes out of it better than his editor who failed to censor the article in the first place and appears to continue with the pathetic claim of cyclists lacking a sense of humour.


----------



## Pete (3 Jan 2008)

It would be comforting to think that Parris was 'sorry' because Harding *told* him to say 'sorry'; and that Harding told him to say 'sorry' because we, _en masse_, told Harding to tell Parris to say 'sorry'. If so, considering the weight of correspondence which Harding must surely have received, one's faith in the power of democracy is restored - a _little_. Certainly Hoggart never 'apologised' for all his idiocy, in my recollection.

So: Harding has sent off his identical mailshot to all and sundry, he must feel his hands are now clean and time to move on. Meanwhile, there is the small matter of the Police investigation, if there is to be one. Or should it be the CPS? One has to establish, whether a crime has been committed, and whether it is 'in the public interest' to prosecute. My feeling, in answer to both these questions, is 'yes'.


----------



## Pete (3 Jan 2008)

JamesHarding said:


> Hi, it's me, your patronising cycling lobby chum....
> ------------------------
> -= 'bentrideronjersey =-


I doubt if the real Mr. Harding knows what a 'bent is! 
Unless it's his way of referring to Mr. Parris, of course!


----------



## wafflycat (3 Jan 2008)

The apology, whilst short, is a rare thing to see. At least it is contained within his regular column as opposed to tucked away in the small print at the bottom of page 93 so to speak. So for the fact it is there at all, I am appreciative. How do I take it? At face value. Everyone makes mistakes and I'm taking it, unless it is shown otherwise, that Parris made a genuine mistake of judgment, now knows it, and that the apology is genuinely meant.


----------



## abchandler (3 Jan 2008)

I suspect he was forced into the apology after being carpeted by his newly promoted editor after said editor had publicly tried to placate the thronging hordes with his email. Externally placid, internally livid. Purely my own opinion, no basis in fact


----------



## Lurker (3 Jan 2008)

The following extract on 'the Times', from Campbell's 2006 article in British Journalism Review, seems relevant...

"No responsibility

But the pre-eminence of The Times was earned when it still prided itself on being a paper of record � indeed the paper of record. Sadly, since its acquisition by Rupert Murdoch in 1981, this has steadily ceased to be the case. Murdoch frankly admits that his papers are in the entertainment business. The Times targets a different market from The Sun, but today it feels no more responsibility to print full and comprehensive information than its red-top stablemate. This may make it a livelier read for the impatient modern consumer, who is assumed to get his or her basic news from radio and television; the emphasis now is on comment and polemic, with a heavy preponderance of lifestyle features and pop culture. But this will be of limited use to historians in 50 or 100 years."

John Campbell
Papers of record are history
British Journalism Review
Vol. 17, No. 2, 2006, pages 59-64

www.bjr.org.uk/data/2006/no2_campbell.htm


----------



## Pete (3 Jan 2008)

BBC news now. More on the whole affair here.

I am glad that this sorry business is getting into the spotlight for the *right* reasons.

It is also noteworthy that the news article carries photos of the four victims of Abergele.


----------



## spindrift (3 Jan 2008)

This is tremendously encouraging, I think.


----------



## domtyler (3 Jan 2008)

Pete said:


> BBC news now. More on the whole affair here.
> 
> I am glad that this sorry business is getting into the spotlight for the *right* reasons.
> 
> *It is also noteworthy that the news article carries photos of the four victims of Abergele.*



Noteworthy, but only because of its lack of relevance. What have they got to do with this article apart from the loosest of associations?


----------



## Pete (3 Jan 2008)

domtyler said:


> Noteworthy, but only because of its lack of relevance. What have they got to do with this article apart from the loosest of associations?


If Rhyl CC, and CTC Cymru, are taking it upon themselves to spearhead the action in response to _The Times_' article, well that's fine by me and no cycling-related body could be more worthy in the cause. Good luck to them!

In that sense, in my view, the linkage between the worst tragedy to afflict cycling in recent years, and the most appalling libel perpetrated upon cyclists in recent years, is indeed relevant.


----------



## spindrift (3 Jan 2008)

Wot Pete said.

Parris's sh1te dehumanises cyclists.

Pictures of cyclists killed by the same crass stupidity Parris advocates goes some way toward reminding people that cyclists are flesh and bone.


----------



## freakhatz (3 Jan 2008)

domtyler said:


> Noteworthy, but only because of its lack of relevance. What have they got to do with this article apart from the loosest of associations?



Maybe it is because the deaths of cyclists are in any case taken too lightly as epitomised by the attitude of this articles foolish author.


----------



## byegad (3 Jan 2008)

domtyler said:


> Noteworthy, but only because of its lack of relevance. What have they got to do with this article apart from the loosest of associations?



I think the relevance is that it's BBC Wales publishing the article and the CTC Cymru spokesman mentions the deaths.


----------



## Cathryn (3 Jan 2008)

Lurker said:


> The following extract on 'the Times', from Campbell's 2006 article in British Journalism Review, seems relevant...
> 
> "No responsibility
> 
> ...



It's an interesting point here...you can't have failed to notice that the Times has dumbed down considerably over the past 10 years or so. So....political leanings apart, which paper would you say IS the best at recording the news and political comment etc?


----------



## simon l& and a half (3 Jan 2008)

the FT


----------



## Abitrary (3 Jan 2008)

Cathryn said:


> It's an interesting point here...you can't have failed to notice that *the Times has dumbed down* considerably over the past 10 years or so. So....*political leanings apart*, which paper would you say IS the best at recording the news and political comment etc?



I think that The Times has *expanded* rather than dumbed down, in that it has more bits in it this days.

With regard to the political leanings, apart from columists with an obvious leaning, I would defy anyone to detect political bias in the day to day news of any of the broadsheets.

I read the mirror during the week and the Times at the weekend.

Read for entertainment. Write letters if you are political


----------



## Pete (4 Jan 2008)

While we're on the subject of the Press in general, this in the _Guardian _(from Matt Seaton) on the same subject. The comments beneath it are depressing though.

One of the reasons that I originally took up joining of cycling forums a few years ago, was because I felt that '_something must be done_' about public perception of cyclists - even after making allowance for the existence of RLJs and the like. I would like to see the same general attitude towards cyclists as there is towards - say - teenagers: 'most are OK' sort of stuff. It seems that we are no nearer that goal now, than we were then.


----------



## Fab Foodie (4 Jan 2008)

Pete said:


> While we're on the subject of the Press in general, this in the _Guardian _(from Matt Seaton) on the same subject. The comments beneath it are depressing though.
> 
> One of the reasons that I originally took up joining of cycling forums a few years ago, was because I felt that '_something must be done_' about public perception of cyclists - even after making allowance for the existence of RLJs and the like. I would like to see the same general attitude towards cyclists as there is towards - say - teenagers: 'most are OK' sort of stuff. It seems that we are no nearer that goal now, than we were then.



Pete, do me a favour and remind me to quote the comments to that article next time we have a debate about cyclists jumping red lights...

Cyclists seemingly are hated by many, it's a sad fact.


----------



## spindrift (4 Jan 2008)

_Cyclists seemingly are hated by many, it's a sad fact._

Not really. The comments on the Guardian article probably come from safespeeding or ABD members- they have a habit of flooding newspaper letter pages and forums with ignorant anti-cyclist rants, like the one below Seaton's article that compares cyclists with The Taliban. That person's probably mentally ill, or a safespeeding member, same difference.


----------



## Twenty Inch (4 Jan 2008)

Excellent response to Seaton's article:

"I too feel slightly ashamed at posting here, but I do object to cyclists being :
* so professional about it all
* having writing and vivid logoes all over their lycra clad torsoes (or is it torsos and logos?)
* wearing those amusing plastic things on their heads

and would like to see in 2008:
* more cyclists wearing three-piece suits and floral frocks
* more cyclists with a wicker basket in front carrying a terrier
* less bloody equipment and the return of the Sturmey-Archer

Cyclists don't have to be visually offensive. But we don't need capital punishment while there are ASBO(e)s. "


----------



## spindrift (4 Jan 2008)

I don't see many cyclists in lycra, probably less than half in London.

A girl near tate Modern had those lycra tights cut off at the ankle and she looked splendid.


----------



## Pete (4 Jan 2008)

Twenty Inch said:


> Excellent response to Seaton's article:


I noticed those remarks too - perhaps they need answering individually?



> * so professional about it all


Don't know what writer means by 'professional' ... certainly cycling costs me a certain amount of money, as it does all cyclists ... less than the same mileage would by car or public transport, though . And I don't get a penny of extra income for it...



> * having writing and vivid logoes all over their lycra clad torsoes (or is it torsos and logos?)


Which reminds me - how are we coming along with the CC jerseys?



> * wearing those amusing plastic things on their heads


Well, if the *100% cotton* floppy hat which I've taken to wearing to ward off sun and rain, appears as 'amusing plastic' to someone, this is obviously a new meaning of the word.



> * more cyclists wearing three-piece suits and floral frocks


It's possible I may have cycled in a suit in the dim and distant past, I don't remember. Certainly I'm not a 'suit' nowadays. And - I fear - me turning out in a floral frock might not have the desirable effect ...



> * more cyclists with a wicker basket in front carrying a terrier


As in - pit-bull ...? 



> * less bloody equipment and the return of the Sturmey-Archer


Having dismantled a Sturmey Archer in the past, I can assure you that it is 'equipment' in the full sense of the word.



> Cyclists don't have to be visually offensive. But we don't need capital punishment while there are ASBO(e)s. "


Talking of which - this Parris bloke has conveniently fled the country has he not... But when he returns ...


----------



## piedwagtail91 (4 Jan 2008)

just got this reply from the pcc, no reply from the cops yet.

Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding a Matthew Parris column in the Times headlined ‘What’s smug and deserves to be decapitated?’. The Commission has received a high volume of complaints about this piece.

Consequently, the Commission is shortly to consider whether the article breached this Code of Practice (http://www.pcc.org.uk/cop/practice.html). We will endeavour to revert to you with the outcome of the Commission’s assessment just as soon as possible.

Do let us know if you have any queries in the meantime.

Yours sincerely



Patrick Evenden
patrick.evenden@pcc.org.uk


----------



## Cab (4 Jan 2008)

So... If we were to start a petition to ask for Parris to be dismissed from his little column on the Times, where would be the place?


----------



## Pete (4 Jan 2008)

The problem with the PCC is that it is so restricted in its remit.

Looking through the above link, the only clause which might apply here is:


> *1. Accuracy*
> 
> i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.
> 
> ...


It was clearly inaccurate to accuse all cyclists of


> chucking their empty cans of hi-energy drinks into hedgerows as they pass.


etc. etc.

But why, oh why, isn't there a clause on 'incitement to violence, criminal acts, racial hatred' etc.? Is it just because these are already adequately covered by _criminal_ code? Over to the Met, it seems.


----------



## Lurker (4 Jan 2008)

Standard response from Times Editor duly received to my earlier missive - here's my response to that (thanks to others for ideas and inspiration)... this could run and run:



Dear Mr Harding,

Thank you for your stock response to my email concerning Mr Parris' rant against 'cyclists' as a group.

My reading of your response and of Parris' apology is that you really don't understand the significance and potential for harm of what you have published. Please understand that it's not *cyclists'* sense of humour that is primarily at issue here. My main concern is that your columnist will have incited people who take his article at face value to carry out his suggested 'remedy'.

I'm not sure of the relevance of your comments about the environment, since they don't address Mr Parris' unsubstantiated assertion that cyclists are significant agents in spoiling our environment. In my own experience (and I imagine yours too, since you ride a bicycle), motorists routinely throw litter out of car windows. But apparently these individuals' behaviour doesn't 'count' and therefore doesn't require any sanction; that would seem to be the logic of Parris' twisted metrics.

It's also not clear why Mr Parris chose to single out cyclists for his vitriol since surely, as a consequence of their trips to Spain, he and his family are directly responsible for significant environmental pollution - or does this environmental impact also not count?

Your implication that cyclists are to blame for 'los[ing] our sense of humour' is offensive and is the typical mantra of the playground bully when challenged. Following your logic, I'd expect to read in 'the Times' a similarly headed article by a writer who objects to traffic noise encouraging people to throw bricks onto passing cars from motorway bridges... would you also be surprised that people wouldn't find that suggestion remotely amusing? I can't imagine that Mr Parris would have dared to test the 'sense of humour' of (for instance) Muslims, Jews or gay people in a similar fashion, and rightly so.

I very much hope that the criminal justice system will deal appropriately with Mr Parris. It's a great shame that, from the evidence of this article, the editor of 'the Times' appears willing to allow such bigotry to be given free rein and, further, seeks to defend such vicious writing.

I remain yours in disappointment etc.


----------



## roshi chris (4 Jan 2008)

My twopenneth - 



> Mr Harding
> 
> I would imagine you have had many emails and letters recently regarding Mr Matthew Parris, specifically regarding his article regarding cyclists, printed in your paper on I believe the 27th December. The article has me rather worried, as it appears to incite hatred and violence toward my family and myself.
> 
> ...




OTT?


----------



## andy_wrx (4 Jan 2008)

Is this Ravenbait thing someone trolling I wonder ?

(how many Ravenbaits are there in Scotland ?)


----------



## roshi chris (4 Jan 2008)

It could be 'our' ravenbait drumming up some controversy. I thought about a similar post to the Times website, wholeheartedly agreeing with mr Parris before moving onto other minorities, the classic (and while we're at it, whats with them jews/blacks/polish/gays etc etc), but its not my style .


----------



## Tony (2 Feb 2008)

roshi chris said:


> *It could be 'our' ravenbait* drumming up some controversy. I thought about a similar post to the Times website, wholeheartedly agreeing with mr Parris before moving onto other minorities, the classic (and while we're at it, whats with them jews/blacks/polish/gays etc etc), but its not my style .


It isn't, to the best of my info...


----------



## Cycling Naturalist (4 Feb 2008)

roshi chris said:


> It could be 'our' ravenbait drumming up some controversy. I thought about a similar post to the Times website, wholeheartedly agreeing with mr Parris before moving onto other minorities, the classic (and while we're at it, whats with them jews/blacks/polish/gays etc etc), but its not my style .



You could have pointed out that they're all cyclists.


----------



## simoncc (7 Feb 2008)

The author is obviously a miserable git of a motorist. I find motorists OK. Indeed, many of them give me a cheery peep-peep on their horns to send me on my way as I cycle through red lights.


----------



## atbman (11 Feb 2008)

http://www.theage.com.au/news/natio...pianowire-prank/2008/02/11/1202578642487.html

What larks, eh?

Have added this to Matthew Parris's timesonline page


----------



## gavintc (11 Mar 2008)

Admittedly a motor cycle - but still shocking. 

http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/Biker-lucky-to-be-alive.3863793.jp


----------

