Article in the The Times

Lucky Luke

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

Dismayed at how such an article should be allowed to be published in a supposedly responsible newspaper .

spen666

I think a referral to the Press Complaints Council is needed.

Get writing those who are appaled at such behaviour

passout

I posted my thoughts on their website but I guess the press complaints council is the only way forward. This journalist is a Moron. In Lancaster wire was recently placed across a cycle lane & I'm sure that it can't be the only place. Attacks are commonplace. The litter tirade is bogus too. You'd think he'd do just a little research wouldn't you?

Brains

All journalists should be lynched, on the basis that a few of them cause problems, ban the lot of them

gavintc

I have just complained to the PCC and the Times editor. Stunningly bad reporting.

hugo 1st

What action would be taken against a journalist who suggested hurling bricks off motorway bridges onto traffic passing below?

el_presidente

According to wikipedia Parris was once suffered a homophobic attack. WIth that in his past you think he would be more careful about encouraging violence against minority groups.

spen666

el_presidente wrote:

According to wikipedia Parris was once suffered a homophobic attack. WIth that in his past you think he would be more careful about encouraging violence against minority groups.

Do you think my article cqalling for the decapitation of gays will be published in the Times?

Wonder why not?


Its offensive I hear people say-


What about the one calling for the decapitation of muslims?


But its ok to write such offensive sh*t about cyclists?

ademort

It,s beyond belief that anybody could write this.Let alone somebody who you would expect to be well informed and educated. Maybe in the future somebody (with a possible grudge) might just go and do this as a lesson to somebody, and if caught, refer to this article as to where they got the idea from.Have never heard of Mattew Parris my guess is he is a 60 fags and 5 pints a day man who is grossly overweight and who,s only form of excercise is to tense up those muscles you need when going for a shit. Judging by this column he certainly writes enough of it. Greetings to all forum members and a happy new year Ademort

cougie

What a tosser.

I've complained - please others do so too. He's normally a clever man and was himself a victim of a hate crime just for being gay. Mad.

Anonymous

ademort wrote:

It,s beyond belief that anybody could write this.Let alone somebody who you would expect to be well informed and educated. Maybe in the future somebody (with a possible grudge) might just go and do this as a lesson to somebody, and if caught, refer to this article as to where they got the idea from.Have never heard of Mattew Parris my guess is he is a 60 fags and 5 pints a day man who is grossly overweight and who,s only form of excercise is to tense up those muscles you need when going for a shoot. Judging by this column he certainly writes enough of it. Greetings to all forum members and a happy new year Ademort

Probably nearer the truth than you imagined; depending on your definition of fag.

Captain Fagor

Very poor show. Incredible that a disgraceful article like that gets published.

Another complaint winging its way to the PCC and the online editor.

megilleland

"A festive custom we could do worse than foster would be stringing piano wire across country lanes to decapitate cyclists. It’s not just the Lycra, though Heaven knows this atrocity alone should be a capital offence; nor the helmets, though these ludicrous items of headgear are designed to protect the only part of a cyclist that is not usefully employed; nor the self-righteousness, though a small band of sports cyclists on winter’s morning emits more of that than a cathedral at evensong; nor even the brutish disregard for all other road users, though the lynching of a cyclist by a mob of mothers with pushchairs would be a joy to witness".

Can you say this and get away with it?

Reading the Press Complaints Commission "Editors’ Code of Practice" at:
http://www.pcc.org.uk/cop/practice.html
you have to write to the editor first then follow up with the PCC.

A section of interest may be the following referred to in the code:

The public interest
There may be exceptions to the clauses marked * where they can be
demonstrated to be in the public interest.
1. The public interest includes, but is not confined to:
i) Detecting or exposing crime or serious impropriety.
ii) Protecting public health and safety.
iii) Preventing the public from being misled by an action or statement of
an individual or organisation.

OR

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.


National Standards for Cautioning
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section3/chapter_k.html

The National Standards for Cautioning require that the following conditions are met before a caution may be administered by the police:

* there is a realistic prospect of conviction;
* the offender admits the offence;
* the offender (or appropriate adult) understands the significance of a caution and gives informed consent to being cautioned. (Prosecutors should note that the Divisional Court held that when police were prepared to caution a suspect, the suspect was entitled to disclosure of material necessary to enable his legal advisers to assess the prosecution case and give informed legal advice as to consent (Director of Public Prosecutions v Ara, TLR 16 July 2001).

You should refer a case to the police for a caution to be administered where the National Standards are satisfied. If the offender has not made a clear and reliable admission during the course of the police investigation, a caution cannot be administered and it would not, therefore, be appropriate to refer the case back to the police (R v The Metropolitan Police, ex parte Andre Anthony Thompson, TLR 18 December 1996). An admission obtained only during the administration of the cautioning procedure will not, in itself, be sufficient.

Whenever you are satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction, the public interest in bringing a conviction must be considered. The Code for Crown Prosecutors, elsewhere in this guidance explains the principles to be applied in balancing factors for and against prosecution. The public interest does not automatically require a prosecution.

OR


Public Order Act 1986

1986 CHAPTER 64

An Act to abolish the common law offences of riot, rout, unlawful assembly and affray and certain statutory offences relating to public order; to create new offences relating to public order; to control public processions and assemblies; to control the stirring up of racial hatred; to provide for the exclusion of certain offenders from sporting events; to create a new offence relating to the contamination of or interference with goods; to confer power to direct certain trespassers to leave land; to amend section 7 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875, section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, Part V of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 and the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc) Act 1985; to repeal certain obsolete or unnecessary enactments; and for connected purposes

[7th November 1986
]
BE IT ENACTED by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:–

[4A Intentional harassment, alarm or distress]

[(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

(2) An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the person who is harassed, alarmed or distressed is also inside that or another dwelling.

(3) It is a defence for the accused to prove—

(a) that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or

(b) that his conduct was reasonable.

(4) A constable may arrest without warrant anyone he reasonably suspects is committing an offence under this section.

(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both.]

NOTES

Amendment
Inserted by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, s 154.

5 Harassment, alarm or distress

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.

(2) An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling.

(3) It is a defence for the accused to prove—

(a) that he had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress, or

(b) that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or

(c) that his conduct was reasonable.

(4) A constable may arrest a person without warrant if—

(a) he engages in offensive conduct which [a] constable warns him to stop, and

(b) he engages in further offensive conduct immediately or shortly after the warning.

(5) In subsection (4) “offensive conduct” means conduct the constable reasonably suspects to constitute an offence under this section, and the conduct mentioned in paragraph (a) and the further conduct need not be of the same nature.

(6) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.


6 Mental element: miscellaneous

(1) A person is guilty of riot only if he intends to use violence or is aware that his conduct may be violent.

(2) A person is guilty of violent disorder or affray only if he intends to use or threaten violence or is aware that his conduct may be violent or threaten violence.

(3) A person is guilty of an offence under section 4 only if he intends his words or behaviour, or the writing, sign or other visible representation, to be threatening, abusive or insulting, or is aware that it may be threatening, abusive or insulting.

(4) A person is guilty of an offence under section 5 only if he intends his words or behaviour, or the writing, sign or other visible representation, to be threatening, abusive or insulting, or is aware that it may be threatening, abusive or insulting or (as the case may be) he intends his behaviour to be or is aware that it may be disorderly.

(5) For the purposes of this section a person whose awareness is impaired by intoxication shall be taken to be aware of that of which he would be aware if not intoxicated, unless he shows either that his intoxication was not self-induced or that it was caused solely by the taking or administration of a substance in the course of medical treatment.

(6) In subsection (5) “intoxication” means any intoxication, whether caused by drink, drugs or other means, or by a combination of means.

(7) Subsections (1) and (2) do not affect the determination for the purposes of riot or violent disorder of the number of persons who use or threaten violence.

megilleland

(5) For the purposes of this section a person whose awareness is impaired by intoxication shall be taken to be aware of that of which he would be aware if not intoxicated, unless he shows either that his intoxication was not self-induced or that it was caused solely by the taking or administration of a substance in the course of medical treatment.

I would think this gets most journalists off the hook!

spen666

megilleland wrote:

...
Can you say this and get away with it?

Reading the Press Complaints Commission "Editors’ Code of Practice" at:
http://www.pcc.org.uk/cop/practice.html
you have to write to the editor first then follow up with the PCC.

A section of interest may be the following referred to in the code:

The public interest
There may be exceptions to the clauses marked * where they can be
demonstrated to be in the public interest.
1. The public interest includes, but is not confined to:
i) Detecting or exposing crime or serious impropriety.
ii) Protecting public health and safety.
iii) Preventing the public from being misled by an action or statement of
an individual or organisation.

....

Not sure what you are trying to prove by quoting this extract of the PCC code of practice out of context.
You are quoting it in such a way as to make it appear to be saying the opposite of what it is actually saying.

The code sets out several matters and then says there may be a public interest defence and give the examples you quote as being examples of when something may be in the public interest.

Tom Butcher

Agreed - I had a scan through it and there didn't appear to be anything in the code that Parris could be decapitated for.

alfablue

I have written to the editor.

dsmiff

Have complained to PCC.

Copied this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/6950033.stm

Fed up with the general attitude of people towards cyclists, they all jump red lights etc; this article just goes a bit further.

It will only re-enforce peoples misguided prejudices against cyclists– What have we done to cause such intimidation?

alfablue

dsmiff wrote:

Have complained to PCC.

Copied this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/6950033.stm

Fed up with the general attitude of people towards cyclists, they all jump red lights etc; this article just goes a bit further.

It will only re-enforce peoples misguided prejudices against cyclists– What have we done to cause such intimidation?

Having read the PCC code it seems that things like "Inciting Murder" are not covered! I will complain to the PCC too, but I think going by the code, the only grounds are "accuracy" (in terms of the various allegations about cyclists). I thought maybe the harassment section might cover it, but that is a long shot, its really about journalists harassing individuals.

Maybe there is some latitude; the preamble of the code states

All members of the press have a duty to maintain the highest professional standards. The Code, which includes this preamble ...

...It is essential that an agreed code be honoured not only to the letter but in the full spirit.

so I am hoping the article will offend under this general statement.

Please write to the editor as well (the PCC actually say that you should complain to them if there is no satisfaction from the editor after a week). I am sure there is no harm complaining to the PCC now though, maybe they will have a pile of complaints by the time the week is out.

I asked the Times to publish a retraction and an apology, and some positive journalism on cycling.

clanton

Have emailed the online editor.

el_presidente

They have at least printed a letter today

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 100711.ece

Piano wire menace
Decapitating cyclists is not a helpful suggestion
Sir, Matthew Parris (My Week, Dec 27 ) is no doubt intending humorous exaggeration in calling for piano wire to be strung across country lanes in order to decapitate cyclists.

Forgive me if I fail to see the joke. My son is an enthusiastic cyclist, and is also very responsible and courteous. Last year while cycling on a cycle path he struck piano wire that had been deliberately stretched across the path at head height.

Only the fact that he hit the wire with his helmet prevented his injuries being more serious. Had he been riding in a more upright position he could well have been severely injured.

There is enough random violence in society today without someone like Mr Parris making sickening and grossly irresponsible suggestions.

Malley Terry

Droitwich, Worcs

cougie

The Times do have a cycling column in their Sunday gear supplement - wonder if they will make mention of it.

sore thumb

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/ind ... opic=17192


Singletrack

http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/r ... &t=3415823


Cycle Touring Club

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


Cycle Chat

http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=6948


Another Cycling forum

http://www.anothercyclingforum.com/inde ... ic=45080.0

Sundaycyclist

I am still reeling from reading the article.

I have also written to the editor. I have yet to write to the PCC but I have made an official complaint to the police as this constitutes a hate crime and not least because it incites murder AND provides instructions on how to achive it.

If you feel the same way then pop a mail off to the police as well as the PCC.

Mr Parris is going to regret this article for a long time I hope.

alfablue

Great stuff - keep those complaints going in - you can report hate crimes to the Met Police here

Mettan

Be interesting to see the response of the various UK Cycling organisations - no doubt they're aware of this article by now?? - Mr Parris has clearly overstepped the mark from a "jealous rant..........", to inciting increased venom from motorists towards cyclists - strange article, coming from a generally "liberal" thinking man.

Simon L2

I've written to the Borough Commander of the Tower Hamlets division of the Met. Parris lives and works in Tower Hamlets.

I considered the PCC route, but there is nothing in the code that says you can't incite murder.

I don't anticipate an answer from the Borough Commander anytime soon - I'll give it a couple of weeks, and drop a note to say that I'd like to know where his deliberations have lead him.

One can but hope.

And, for those of you who don't know, I'm the Councillor for London on the CTC Council

pneumatic

Give us the addresses, please.

the editor can be found at:

online.editor@timesonline.co.uk

what about the PCC and relevant Police?

Sadly , I couldn't contain my rage to write sensibly to the editor, but with any luck there are folk out there with more emotional intelligence than I who can make a point that will strike home.

Sundaycyclist

Times Editor:

james.harding@thetimes.co.uk

Tourist Tony

Just to add to the above, Mettan, Simon is a CTC councillor and has written, as far as I read it, in that capacity, so the biggest organisation HAS slapped back.
If I am wrong, Simon, you can spank me. But not too hard.

bryanm

I think it's been removed,

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... ew_parris/