Parris apologises

top_bhoy

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/7168530.stm

mmm...a few lines from Matthew Parris and it looks a very grudged one at that. I'd say it was probably the bare minimum he and The Times can consider they can get away with. I wonder if the PCC will take a different view.

ddraver

no they won't mate...we re lucky to have gotten that

at least he knows he was being a bit of a w*nker.....

mea00csf

strangely after having read that article i would have intinctively thought the comments were taken out of context/twisted/deliberately removed from the part where the humour lies but the quotes taken are pretty much spot on to the tone of article, vicious and idiotic

campagchris

A decision is being taken next week to see if his article has broken the PCC's code of practice,according to the after thought in the comic.

alfablue

campagchris wrote:

A decision is being taken next week to see if his article has broken the PCC's code of practice,according to the after thought in the comic.

My bet is that it won't have broken the code, none of the clauses seem to fit. I argued with the PCC that it flouted the general requirement of the code "All members of the press have a duty to maintain the highest professional standards". The code seems a bit lame in that it doesn't preclude hate based journalism or journalism that incites crime.

We'll see.

richardjallen

If he had spoken those words would it constitute inciting violence?

wallabyhunter

Congratulations to evryone involved in cycling in the UK. To the people who did write in even more, but at least the pityfull appology printed shows that if enough people make enough [of the right sort] noise then things will change.

Once again, well done
gb

StevieO

I think the cycling community have overeacted a little...Matthew Parris was just joking

alfablue

StevieO wrote:

I think the cycling community have overeacted a little...Matthew Parris was just joking

Thank you for joining our forum in order to make that point, but I'm sorry mate, there is nothing humerous in that article.

StevieO

alfablue wrote:

StevieO wrote:

I think the cycling community have overeacted a little...Matthew Parris was just joking

Thank you for joining our forum in order to make that point, but I'm sorry mate, there is nothing humerous in that article.

Everyone goes a bit over the top sometimes, that's what he did. I am sure he is not swerving at bikes though

alfablue

StevieO wrote:

alfablue wrote:

StevieO wrote:

I think the cycling community have overeacted a little...Matthew Parris was just joking

Thank you for joining our forum in order to make that point, but I'm sorry mate, there is nothing humerous in that article.

Everyone goes a bit over the top sometimes, that's what he did. I am sure he is not swerving at bikes though

but some of his readers that do may now feel they have some support!

clanton

StevieO I don't find anything at all humurous about his article. If it had been entitled "what wears hoods and derserves to be poisoned" and was about chavs drinking white ligntning I think there would have been an even bigger outcry and I would have found it equally unamusing.
As others have pointed out the excuse "I'm sorry, I didn't really mena what I said" is a kindergarten ploy.

grayo59

clanton wrote:

StevieO I don't find anything at all humurous about his article. If it had been entitled "what wears hoods and derserves to be poisoned" and was about chavs drinking white ligntning I think there would have been an even bigger outcry and I would have found it equally unamusing.
As others have pointed out the excuse "I'm sorry, I didn't really mena what I said" is a kindergarten ploy.

If the article had been about chavs entitled "what(sic)wears hoods and deserves to be poisoned(?)" I'd have found it quite amusing.

cougie

I see the complaint has been rejected ? He's still an idiot though.

johnnyhotdog

hardly surprising when the pcc are made up of a number of newspapers, including the sunday times.

conflict of interests?

spen666

johnnyhotdog wrote:

hardly surprising when the pcc are made up of a number of newspapers, including the sunday times.

conflict of interests?

so which partof the PCC code did it breach?

Ordo you want to ban people expressing opinions you don't agree with.

The PCC decision was correct . I said this article did not breach the code when it first came out

johnnyhotdog

1. Accuracy.

it contained inaccurate, misleading and distorted information.

unfortunately, the pcc seems to think that advocating the habitual garroting of a group of people is ok as long as it's not because of race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability.

regardless of what the pcc says, it was an irresponsible article.

there is still surely, a conflict of interests.

dennisn

Just a guess but I would think that this Parris guy and his newspaper are loving
all this publicity and you can probably expect more of the same type of journalism
in the future. As long as people keep getting "involved" in this discussion and the
newspaper keeps selling papers you're going to see more of these type of people
doing whatever it takes to sell those papers.

Dennis Noward

spen666

johnnyhotdog wrote:

1. Accuracy.

it contained inaccurate, misleading and distorted information.

unfortunately, the pcc seems to think that advocating the habitual garroting of a group of people is ok as long as it's not because of race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability.

regardless of what the pcc says, it was an irresponsible article.

there is still surely, a conflict of interests.

Irresponsible aerticle maybe

Unpleasant maybe

But that does not make it in breach of the PCC Code. The PCC can only find an article in breach of the code if it does breach the code.

alfablue

Yes, the PCC code doesn't prohibit things like inciting hatred or murder, so I was always of the belief that my complaint would fail. The code does, however, have a general duty for editors, saying that they "have a duty to maintain the highest professional standards" and states that "It is essential that an agreed code be honoured not only to the letter but in the full spirit." , the latter point implying there was latitude beyond the specific clauses stated, and I argued that this is where the breach fell.

The upshot is, the PCC code is a total waste of time with regards to this dreadful piece of journalism, and has failed to protect the public, not surprised really, self-regulation was never going to work.

As for the argument that our rants are fuelling the oxygen of publicity, to the benefit of the publishers, well, true or not, its too bad, I don't think we should just turn the other cheek, these people need to get the feedback and learn that there are consequences. At a different level entirely, but I don't think the Sun was ever pleased about the notoriety they enjoyed concerning their Hillsborough coverage.

top_bhoy

I agree with Alphablue wholeheartedly.

Going by the PCC code, an article about the garroting of gay journalists would fail the PCC code and in a joking kind of way, thats what should maybe happen to Parris (to let him see the effects upon others of his cras comments), an article about the garroting of gay cyclists would fail the PCC code, but funny enough ?(or not), an article about the garroting of cyclists in general, as has been adjudged, wouldn't fail the PCC code. Maybe they should explain the differences and tell us how they are morally different.