Times Article

[Dominic]

Found this on the CTT website:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 097464.ece

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 097464.ece
[edit by marco to fix link]

Interesting to see what people's thoughts are? Might be worth a response from CW or some such paper. It has already been passed to CTC, BC, the Mayor and Cycling Plus.

[Rob C]

check out the reply from David Jones of Nottingham...

[Dominic]

Incitment to murder?

They have gone through the whole range of options on the thread on the CTT website. The best one IMHO is a person who said substitute cyclist for black or gay and we would be talking a whole different ball game.

But then we are only cyclists

[John the old'un]

Sent this off to The Times earlier.

The Editor,
Never before have I read such an ill thought-out diatribe as that written by Matthew Parris regarding cyclists.
It does your newspaper no credit whatsoever.
The article is factually incorrect on many counts, not least being the litter thrown into the hedgerows. As described, none of the items are those used by "lycra-clad" cyclists. More likely they have been thrown out by motorists either as being no longer required, or as missiles aimed at cyclists.
Shame on you.
The article is highly irresponsible, and could even possibly be construed as incitement to violence, something which is illegal in this Country.

John Lovell

[Will]

Try this law?

http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/UKlaw/oap1861/

[John the old'un]

Just found this on the CTC forum, and posted it on the TT forum::


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.

So come on you Legal Eagles out there.
Surely his article proves evidence of an offence.

[Phil L]

After googling him, it is obvious that he is a bright and educated man, with a respected sense of humour (or should I say had). He is also a keen marathon runner and would be fully aware of the types of hydration fluids endurance athletes would drink. So heavens knows what possessed him to make these remarks - either a very failed attempt at shock humour or may be he regularly encounters cyclists threatening to take his life and has some sort of vendetta. Was it seasonal good will that made him pick up a black bin liner, or was it community service ... he deserves more!!

He seems a bit confused ... he too is sensitive towards hate-incited views, as described in this [url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article2633530.ece]Times article[/url] of his. May be he thinks we are a bit "weedy" and therefore fair game. Well he's in for a shock, like the one he got when he was beaten up on Clapham Common - knocked on the wrong "cottage" door or something along those lines.

By the way, if you want to hire him as an additional speaker for the ACC Annual Dinner, then [url=http://www.gordonpoole.com/?artistID=794]click here[/url]. A mere snip at £5-10k a time.

Interestingly he has written a travel book on Peru - I wonder whether Alan has read it?

[Mike I]

Never liked him, or his paper.

Is there a Matthew Parris Suite at Selsdon Park, I wonder?

Right, I'm off to slip into something lycra and go home .

[Nick]

What a shame a guy like this doesn't want an interview with me because I could show him what a lycra wearing engery fuelled cyclist could do with him and his keyboard and PARKER pen.

[carl f]

Thats typical of the disgusting atitude towards cycling in this country
Surley a wind up?,or is this guy always as rude and smug as this
I just spent 6 days in Berlin and the attitude to cycling is completly different to here
Happy new year mr parris

[George]

great news guys, looks like the laws on our side all we need now is for a cyclist to get garotted

[Alan M]

This is a reply i received from his editor! Clearly he was just joking and exaggerating for effect. ha ha!

Dear Malarkey,

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

[John the old'un]

Funny that, look what I got.
My reply to his comes first.

Dear Mr Harding,
I find your reply to my letter quite disturbing, in that you indicate that you found Matthew Parris' article humorous, and feel that we cyclists do ouselves no favours when we lose our sense of humour.
It is no laughing matter to incite violence in any way, and given the parlous state of the Nation regarding compliance with the Law, then I consider his article to fall into the category of dangerous stupidity.
We see the law being contravened daily in every aspect of life today, and I cannot see how you can justify his appalling suggestions.
It was, and still is, illegal to incite violence, and his article does just that.
How can you possibly defend that?
Yours sincerely,
John Lovell
----- Original Message -----
From: Harding, James
To: john lovell
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 12:17 PM
Subject: [SPAM] RE: Matthew Parris


Dear Mr Lovell,



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

[adrian]

Man's an oaf. What's he on about, Spanish Catalonia? As opposed to...?

That's a bit like saying French Provence or English Cornwall.

[Will]

How could he initially fear that Matthew had it in for him yet it be immediately clear that Mattew was exaggerating?

Seems very fishy to me...