blogger who thinks its funny to hit cyclists

craigdurkee

guys have a peak at this blog, read the few posts re cycling....

couldnt believe my eyes when reading this

http://ajafern.wordpress.com/2008/01/19 ... omment-610

and

http://ajafern.wordpress.com/2008/01/21 ... icyclists/

man what a nutter

if i was you i would hit her blog with your responses and commentts

Bikedevil

How do I describe someone thats already disappeared up their own arse??

Shadowduck

I'd actually say don't look at it - why give it the oxygen of publicity?

I don't think a sad, immature little blogger is going to do much in the way of shaping public opinion - we've got the likes of Clarkson and Parris to deal with!

dirk_van_gently

Talking of Parris
This is what I got back from the PCC.

---

As you may know, the PCC received a large number of complaints about the Matthew Parris article about which you recently raised concerns.
The Commission has now assessed whether the article in question, headlined “What’s smug and deserves to be decapitated”, breached the terms of the Code of Practice (which can be seen on our website at www.pcc.org.uk). While it acknowledged the deep concerns that many readers had about the piece, the Commission’s decision was that there was no breach of the Code and a full explanation is enclosed. Please let me know if you would like further clarification of the reasons for the Commission’s decision.
Although the Commission has come to this view, we will be writing to the editor of the Times to let him know the scale of complaints we received about Mr Parris’ column.
If you are dissatisfied with the way in which your complaint has been handled - as opposed to the Commission’s decision itself - you should write within one month to the independent Charter Commissioner, whose details can be found on our website.
Thank you for taking this matter up with us.

---

That's a very long winded way of saying F^&* off we don't care.

DavidTQ

Dirk Van Gently wrote:

Talking of Parris
This is what I got back from the PCC.

---

As you may know, the PCC received a large number of complaints about the Matthew Parris article about which you recently raised concerns.
The Commission has now assessed whether the article in question, headlined “What’s smug and deserves to be decapitated”, breached the terms of the Code of Practice (which can be seen on our website at www.pcc.org.uk). While it acknowledged the deep concerns that many readers had about the piece, the Commission’s decision was that there was no breach of the Code and a full explanation is enclosed. Please let me know if you would like further clarification of the reasons for the Commission’s decision.
Although the Commission has come to this view, we will be writing to the editor of the Times to let him know the scale of complaints we received about Mr Parris’ column.
If you are dissatisfied with the way in which your complaint has been handled - as opposed to the Commission’s decision itself - you should write within one month to the independent Charter Commissioner, whose details can be found on our website.
Thank you for taking this matter up with us.

---

That's a very long winded way of saying F^&* off we don't care.

I think its more because the PCC code doesnt outlaw dangerous bigotry, a read through their code shows why the piece didnt fall under their voluntary code.

Mog Uk

Typical American drivel...... Bicyclists, what the......?

alfablue

Yes, the PCC code doesn't preclude things like inciting hatred or murder, so I was always of the belief that my complaint would fail. The code does, however, contain a general duty for responsible journalism, 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 jurnalism, and has failed to protect the public. :twisted: