by John the old'un » Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:06 pm
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