Shock: Mail hack doesn't like you and your kind

simonaspinall

antfly wrote:

She was clearly riding an evil bike.

Still, I don`t see what`s to exaggerate, it either happened or it didn`t.

You're absolutely right. It's not like the Daily Mail Columnists to exaggerate what actually happened.

I mean, Saturday Kitchen's James Martin's account of his time spent on roads integrating well with cyclists was based on facts and the truth.

Absolutely.

No questions.

He definitely didn't make it up.

Definitely not.

antfly

The difference is her piece mentions a specific incident and identifies a person and she could be found out if she was lying, whereas his article was just a load of ranting, wannabee bollocks.

simonaspinall

antfly wrote:

The difference is her piece mentions a specific incident and identifies a person and she could be found out if she was lying, whereas his article was just a load of ranting, wannabee bollocks.

James Martin also mentioned a 'specific incident'

Her article doesn't identify a person.

We just have her middle england opinion the incident happened and that's enough to call for cyclists to be removed from the roads.

rhext

antfly wrote:

Nobody has bothered to condemn the cyclist who rode without lights, knocked an old woman down and didn`t stop so I would just like to say he is indeed a blott on the landscape.

Given the number of drivers who 'didn't see me' despite me being lit up like a Christmas tree, I'm a bit sceptical about the assumption that the cyclist definitely wasn't using lights. My guess (having seen it happen a lot) is that she didn't hear anything and stepped out without looking properly. Let's face it, there aren't many places in London dark enough that you can't see a cyclist who's just about to hit you..... So she probably wasn't looking before she got hit, would have had other things on her mind afterwards, and is maybe not that reliable when she states that the cyclist wasn't using lights.

Having said that, IMHO the cyclist should have stopped and checked she was OK.

antfly

simonaspinall wrote:

antfly wrote:

The difference is her piece mentions a specific incident and identifies a person and she could be found out if she was lying, whereas his article was just a load of ranting, wannabee bollocks.

James Martin also mentioned a 'specific incident'

Her article doesn't identify a person.

We just have her middle england opinion the incident happened and that's enough to call for cyclists to be removed from the roads.

Her mother, she`s a person.
I suppose we`ll never know if he/she had lights on or not, they certainly should have stopped, that`s reprehensible.

simonaspinall

antfly wrote:

simonaspinall wrote:

antfly wrote:

The difference is her piece mentions a specific incident and identifies a person and she could be found out if she was lying, whereas his article was just a load of ranting, wannabee bollocks.

James Martin also mentioned a 'specific incident'

Her article doesn't identify a person.

We just have her middle england opinion the incident happened and that's enough to call for cyclists to be removed from the roads.

Her mother, she`s a person.
I suppose we`ll never know if he/she had lights on or not, they certainly should have stopped, that`s reprehensible.

I definitely think such a trail of hard evidence should be used to write an article calling for the banning of bikes on the roads.

These people must be stopped! And then after that we shall have vigilante squads to track down those tharrrrr' asylum seekers. Cue banjo soundtrack, pitchforks and the boyz in the pick-up!

bails87

antfly wrote:

Nobody has bothered to condemn the cyclist who rode without lights, knocked an old woman down and didn`t stop so I would just like to say he is indeed a blott on the landscape.

Indeed.

And the situation would have panned out a whole lot better if he'd done it in a Range Rover....oh, wait.....

Agreed, if it happened exactly as stated, then yes, he's an idiot. However, there are idiots using all forms of transport. Did he RLJ or did the old woman step into the road without looking?

Porgy

AyrshireBacon wrote:

Find it difficult to take anything in that paper seriously.

Someone sent me a short list of 128 things that give you cancer, according to the Daily Mail.

Wouldn't mind so much, but some of these are mutually exclusive (FATHERHOOD and CHILDREN) and some of them make a menu (CHILLI, CHICKEN, RICE).

AGE
AIR POLLUTION
AIR TRAVEL
ALCOHOL
ALLERGIES
ARTIFICIAL FLAVOURS
ARTIFICIAL LIGHT
ASBESTOS
ASPIRIN
BABIES
BABY BOTTLES
BABY FOOD
BACON
BARBEQUES
BEEF
BEER
BEING A BLACK PERSON
BEING A WOMAN
BEING A MAN
BEING SOUTHERN
BISCUITS
BRAS
BREAD
BREAST FEEDING
BREAST IMPLANTS
BROKEN HEARTS
BUBBLE BATH
BURGERS
CAFFIENE
CALCIUM
CANDLE-LIT DINNERS
CANNED FOOD
CARBOHYDRATES
CARS
CEREAL
CHEESE
CHICKEN
CHILDLESSNESS
CHILDREN
CHILDREN’S FOOD
CHILLIS
CHINESE MEDICINE
CHIPS
CHLORINE
CHOCLATE
CITY LIVING
CLIMATE CHANGE
COCA COLA
COD LIVER OIL
COFFEE
CONSTAPATION
CONTRACEPTIVE PILLS
COOKING
CORDLESS PHONES
CRAYONS
CURRY
DEODRANT
DIETING
DOGS
EGGS
ELECTRICITY
ENGLISH BREAKFAST
FACEBOOK
FALSE NAILS
FATHERHOOD
FIBRE
FISH
FLIP FLOPS
FLY SPRAY
FRUIT
GARDENS
GRAPEFRUIT
HAIR DYE
HAM
HEIGHT
HONEY
HOT DRINKS
HRT
INTERNET
IVF
KIDNEY TRANSPLANTS
LAMB
LARGE HEADS
LEFT-HANDEDNESS
LIPSTICK
LIVER TRANSPLANTS
MENOPAUSE
MENSTRUATION
METAL
MILK
MOBILE PHONES
MODERN LIVING
MONEY
MORPHINE
MOUTHWASH
NUCLEAR POWER
OBESITY
OESTROGEN
OLDER FATHERs
PASTRY
PEANUT BUTTER
PERFUME
PICKLES
PIZZA
PLASTIC BAGS
PORK
POTATOES
POVERTY
PREGNANCY
RADIOACTIVITY
RICE
SAUSAGES
RETIREMENT
SEX
SHAVING
SKIING
SOUP
SPACE TRAVEL
SUN CREAM
TALCUM POWDER
TEA
TEEN SEX
VITAMINS
WATER
WI-FI
WORCESTERSHIRE SAUCE
WORKING
X-RAYS

Missed one - newspapers give you cancer - funny that they've not reported this.
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/4952426/description.html

antfly

This is just being used as another excuse to attack the daily mail, no-one is bothered about the old lady or the scumbag cyclist.

simonaspinall

antfly wrote:

This is just being used as another excuse to attack the daily mail, no-one is bothered about the old lady or the scumbag cyclist.

Well it's not as if they don't give the ammunition day after day!

rhext

antfly wrote:

This is just being used as another excuse to attack the daily mail, no-one is bothered about the old lady or the scumbag cyclist.

But that's because the old lady/scumbag cyclist are only incidental players in the story. For all we know neither of them exist. But even if they do, the thing which bothers me is not 'pedestrian and cyclist have minor collision, cyclist doesn't stop to check all is OK'. The thing which bothers me is that someone with privileged access to the public attention then uses that incident as an excuse to launch into yet another unbalanced, vitriolic, ill-thought-out, devoid of fact or logic rant about evil cyclists and how they should be legislated out of existence. Which adds another shovelful to the heap of public animosity which we already have to face every day.

'Excuse to attack the Daily Mail'....forgive me, but the Daily Mail seems to go out of its way to identify minority groups and then to try to find ways to make life worse for them than it already is! I hold them in utter contempt and don't need an excuse to attack them.

Porgy

I've been in several different minorities attacked by the Mail over the years, and so has my wife.

rake

its an idiot with no lights. whats that got to do with cycling or cycle clothing. my legs arent spindly anyway. ive seen cars with no lights on. its time to get out of our cars. time the postie stopped delivering the letters by bike as well.

antfly

Porgy wrote:

I've been in several different minorities attacked by the Mail over the years, and so has my wife.

Maybe you have a persecution complex.

Porgy

antfly wrote:

Porgy wrote:

I've been in several different minorities attacked by the Mail over the years, and so has my wife.

Maybe you have a persecution complex.

Nope. I do not feel persecuted. I have been in several different minorities attacked by the Mail - it's a statement of fact.

antfly

You don`t look like a minority, at least not ethnically.

Porgy

antfly wrote:

You don`t look like a minority, at least not ethnically.

Ehtnically I am not a minority unless you count the fact that I look like a "dago" (and was called as such last time I was in Edinburgh) thanks to having some spanish ancestors.

But I have been many other things that the Daily disapproves of.

BTW - when did you see me?

antfly

I think I saw your pic on your blog once a while back.

Porgy

OK - that's cool

I think I saw you in an episode of Seinfeld yesterday. You got banned from the fruit shop for complaining about a peach.

antfly

I remember that, that fruit was bad. I didn`t know it was on TV at the moment or were you watching a DVD?.

Porgy

yep - season 5 on DVD. 8)

fast as fupp

'HURRAH FOR THE BLACKSHIRTS"

Daily Heil 1934

all you need to know about that reactionary rag

Porgy

all my shirts are black.

fast as fupp

"HURRAH FOR PORGY"

fast as fupp 2010


all you need to know about porgy

Porgy

fast as fupp wrote:

all you need to know about porgy

has tendencies towards the Goth.

It's true :oops:

GiantMike

I just posted this reply to the story...

Petronella. As a cyclist, I thank you for tarring me with the same brush as all other cyclists. From your ditty, you admitted to being a poor cyclist who rode around shouting obscenities at the general public before falling off your bike. You were one of those 99% who didn't complete the Cycling Proficiency Test (I did, by the way). And now you're writing this tosh because your 'frail and elderly' mum, who was out on her own after dark in dangerous London, 'apparently' stepped out in front of a bike which didn't stop. And as a result you say Urban England is not suited to bikes, in a typical knee-jerk hysterical rant because you're a bit upset. Please re-read your article and try to remember why you got into journalism in the first place. I'm sure it wasn't to pick on minorities within society, accuse them ALL of the same crimes and call for them to be removed. Oh, hang on, you write for the Mail. That's exactly what you're supposed to do isn't it?

I doubt it'll get past their 'moderator. tw@ts!

rhext

Oooohhh, how do you post replies to the article. I couldn't see!

rake

round here theres no age limit to driving a car. a lady in her 90's damaged several cars in one go and it was only luck no one got under her wheels. should we all have to hang up the car keys. only 1 person dies about every 4 years from cycle collisions and its usualy when they step into the road without looking.

mercsport

fast as fupp wrote:

'HURRAH FOR THE BLACKSHIRTS"

Daily Heil 1934

all you need to know about that reactionary rag

So far as I can recall, the DM was one of the very few papers that consistently were against ALL the warmongering enterprises by the ever so pious Tony Blair of this parish. From Kosovo to Afghanistan and Iraq in between. No good was ever done by that murderous bugger, and the DM said it. The broadsheets, by and large (aside from the DT, maybe), tacitly went along with everything that gurning wretch said.

What I mean is, the DM were onto that fraudster from the off, not 'on second thoughts', when all the broadsheets quietly joined in the consensus that TB was the deluded, bonkers idiot that he so manifestly is, together with the shame that he's burdened us all with.

Aside from all the rabid anti-DM tripe spouted on this thread, few of you have acknowledged that Petronella might have a point with regard to the aggressiveness of some of our kind. I witness it often enough and it makes me cringe. I see it now, on this thread. Naturally she'd just been winded by the close shave her mum had had. But, no, some of you are questioning her veracity and possibly making it up, to make some crap copy for her deadline. Difficult to remain non-judgemental, and, I really don't want to say it - but I will - GROW UP! :roll:

fast as fupp

mercsport wrote:

fast as fupp wrote:

'HURRAH FOR THE BLACKSHIRTS"

Daily Heil 1934

all you need to know about that reactionary rag

So far as I can recall, the DM was one of the very few papers that consistently were against ALL the warmongering enterprises by the ever so pious Tony Blair of this parish. From Kosovo to Afghanistan and Iraq in between. No good was ever done by that murderous bugger, and the DM said it. The broadsheets, by and large (aside from the DT, maybe), tacitly went along with everything that gurning wretch said.

What I mean is, the DM were onto that fraudster from the off, not 'on second thoughts', when all the broadsheets quietly joined in the consensus that TB was the deluded, bonkers idiot that he so manifestly is, together with the shame that he's burdened us all with.

Aside from all the rabid anti-DM tripe spouted on this thread, few of you have acknowledged that Petronella might have a point with regard to the aggressiveness of some of our kind. I witness it often enough and it makes me cringe. I see it now, on this thread. Naturally she'd just been winded by the close shave her mum had had. But, no, some of you are questioning her veracity and possibly making it up, to make some crap copy for her deadline. Difficult to remain non-judgemental, and, I really don't want to say it - but I will - GROW UP! :roll:

i read your words but all i hear is WAH! WAH! WAH!