* Mail has paid trolls in asylum?

2

Comments

  • spam02
    spam02 Posts: 178
    weekendcyclingfan wrote:
    SPaM02 wrote:
    weekendcyclingfan wrote:
    SPaM02 wrote:
    weekendcyclingfan wrote:
    I think you could be right. The Daily Mail has decided that owning both the UK and US online and paper markets with a continued growth that they need to find new areas which to expand. One area they zeroed in on was the sport of cycling. They saw the newspaper could expand in untold ways especially if they were able to capture two online forums in English, CyclingNews and BikeRadar. The strategy was agreed at a board level meeting, signed off by Jonathan Harold Esmond Vere Harmsworth, 4th Viscount Rothermere and implemented by paying two guys in India $2.34 per day to write anti-Sky posts.

    Have to say guys, as far as conspiracy tinfoilism, this thread tops the top. This forum is becoming every bit like the asylum you claim other forums to be, IMHO.

    Truth be told, the Clinic looks fairly dead, apart from the Armstrong and Moto threads.

    I think you'll find it is not anti-Sky, but anti-cycling posts they are being paid to write :)

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... louts.html

    This is fairly typical of the Daily Mail's view of cycling in general - feel free to look through the site for further examples. It's full of every anti-cycling cliché under the sun and is so bad I originally thought it was a spoof.
    You wonder why people on here can't take anything they write seriously. Feel free to read the comments below to get an idea of the type of people that read the Mail. You identify with them?


    Sure, just like the Telegraph; "War declared on the Lycra louts on wheels" - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/r ... heels.html

    or the Guardian; "Why are London cyclists so white, male and middle-class?" - https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/dav ... ddle-class

    Then you have a pro article in the Mail about the spate of deaths upon cyclists;

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... te-26.html

    Its what's known as "balance" in news media reporting, providing alternate views for the readership rather than pandering to a single, binary thought process. Its a rather important part of our democracy and free speech in the media.

    Probably why The Daily Mail has the highest female readership in the UK, over 50%;
    The Daily Mail was the first to provide features especially for women and in the second half of 2013 had a 54.77% female readership, the only British newspaper whose female readers constitute more than 50% of its demographic.

    My sense is this forum tends to over emphasis on articles which agree with their one sided point of views and ignores all others.

    Key word, "balance", which from my point of view the Daily Mail is providing.
    l

    When you say 'Pro' cycling article, do you mean the factual news article? Where is the balanced 'opinion' piece? Is it the one saying that wire should be stung across roads to decapitate cyclists? I don't see any of the other media sources you quote condoning murdering cyclists. Still, if you think they are balanced........

    Interesting view point you have, you've basically had to make up a lie to present your point. No where in the original Mail article did it suggest that wire should be stung across the road to decapitate a cyclist. What we did see though was a cyclist punching the crap out of a bus driver.

    I don't support the article as a cyclist myself but the media has to present both sides of the argument, that's balanced reporting.

    No im quoting another DM anti cycling piece that rightfully got the author some flak. Balanced indeed.....
  • weekendcyclingfan
    weekendcyclingfan Posts: 980
    Good for you, perhaps you could link it?
  • weekendcyclingfan
    weekendcyclingfan Posts: 980
    weekendcyclingfan wrote:
    Good for you, perhaps you could link it?

    Don't worry mate, there never was a link :roll:
  • spam02
    spam02 Posts: 178
    weekendcyclingfan wrote:
    weekendcyclingfan wrote:
    Good for you, perhaps you could link it?

    Don't worry mate, there never was a link :roll:

    Yeah sure!!
    Google Mathew Parrish and cyclists if you can be ars*d. DM has been anti cycling for as long as I've been riding a bike - which is a long time.
    Anyway, sorry for derailing this thread.
  • Ber Nard
    Ber Nard Posts: 827
    weekendcyclingfan wrote:
    Ber Nard wrote:
    weekendcyclingfan wrote:
    this one from today I thought very insightful:
    'I was in complete denial': Casualty star Sunetra Sarker reveals she was ashamed of her Indian roots and spent her childhood striving to be British - and secretly drinking Bovril!

    Actress Sunetra Sarker, 43, traces her family history to Calcutta, India, in show Who Do You Think You Are?
    Best known for playing Dr Zoe Hanna in Casualty for almost 10 years

    Admits she used to rebel against her heritage and now regrets ignoring it

    Discovers her great-grandfather's sister was a political activist and forged a friendship with Mahatma Gandhi, leader of the Indian Independence Movement

    Breaks down in tears on BBC's Who Do You Think You Are?

    So not a DM story, then.

    Well, yes it is. They are expanding on the upcoming BBC show - you know writing their own story about a story. Straight from the sidebar.

    If you want to provide any proof to the contrary, please do but thus far you've just been rambling. I think most here agree with me when I say, you're not doing a very good job at making your point truth be told.

    But quoting from an upcoming BBC program is hardly investigative journalism. Repeating what someone else said doesn't mean it's true, or "insightful", does it? The BBC could run a story about the sky being green and grass being blue. If the DM copied it for their femail section, would it be true?

    Oh, and I haven't commented on one of your threads before so I don't think most here agree with you about me because I don't think they care; why would they?

    Anyway, you've got the reaction you want. You're not a troll, you're a bot AICMFP.
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,430
    SPaM02 wrote:
    weekendcyclingfan wrote:
    weekendcyclingfan wrote:
    Good for you, perhaps you could link it?

    Don't worry mate, there never was a link :roll:

    Yeah sure!!
    Google Mathew Parrish and cyclists if you can be ars*d. DM has been anti cycling for as long as I've been riding a bike - which is a long time.
    Anyway, sorry for derailing this thread.

    The Matthew Parris article was in the TImes

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/c ... 044185.ece
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • Moonbiker
    Moonbiker Posts: 1,706
    I saw someone in my cycle club purchasing the daily mail :cry:
  • Rodrego Hernandez
    Rodrego Hernandez Posts: 1,436
    Blazing Saddles wrote:
    weekendcyclingfan wrote:
    Truth be told, the Clinic looks fairly dead, apart from the Armstrong and Moto threads.

    Have to agree.
    Credit, where credit is due, hog.

    It's interesting to look at the clinic now compared to what it was a year or so ago. Over-zealous moderation has removed most enlightened posters and the core group of idiots had remained. I did hear that when sky came into cycling sponsorship, they were looking at engaging with the most vocal cycling forum users in order to 'get them on side.' I can't help but wonder if that partly explains the demise of the clinic. Even though, any journalist wanting the scoop on sky could have read about their cortisone abuse years ago and the bullying culture has also been covered.
  • spam02
    spam02 Posts: 178
    TailWindHome wrote:
    SPaM02 wrote:
    weekendcyclingfan wrote:
    weekendcyclingfan wrote:
    Good for you, perhaps you could link it?

    Don't worry mate, there never was a link :roll:

    Yeah sure!!
    Google Mathew Parrish and cyclists if you can be ars*d. DM has been anti cycling for as long as I've been riding a bike - which is a long time.
    Anyway, sorry for derailing this thread.

    The Matthew Parris article was in the TImes

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/c ... 044185.ece

    Apologies, mixed it up with the James Martin article in the Mail.
  • yorkshireraw
    yorkshireraw Posts: 1,632
    Fat tw4t James Martin did write a car review in the Mail that advocate running cyclists over. He didn't apologise for the content, merely for offense caused.

    http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/t ... cle-23227/
  • spam02
    spam02 Posts: 178
    YorkshireRaw wrote:
    Fat tw4t James Martin did write a car review in the Mail that advocate running cyclists over. He didn't apologise for the content, merely for offense caused.

    http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/t ... cle-23227/

    That's the one. I complained to P.C. about both that and MP articles - complete waste of time. I don't bother any more.
    Also decided it's best to avoid reading Road CC website as that is like the Daily Mail for cyclists :D
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,107
    TailWindHome wrote:
    SPaM02 wrote:
    weekendcyclingfan wrote:
    weekendcyclingfan wrote:
    Good for you, perhaps you could link it?

    Don't worry mate, there never was a link :roll:

    Yeah sure!!
    Google Mathew Parrish and cyclists if you can be ars*d. DM has been anti cycling for as long as I've been riding a bike - which is a long time.
    Anyway, sorry for derailing this thread.

    The Matthew Parris article was in the TImes

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/c ... 044185.ece

    I generally like Matthew Parris' writing, but that was so badly misjudged. If only because cyclists don't generally drink cans of energy drink do they? If there should have been a target of his ire, it should have been spread between drivers and cyclists.
  • weekendcyclingfan
    weekendcyclingfan Posts: 980
    Rodrego Hernandez wrote:
    Blazing Saddles wrote:
    weekendcyclingfan wrote:
    Truth be told, the Clinic looks fairly dead, apart from the Armstrong and Moto threads.

    Have to agree.
    Credit, where credit is due, Jeff.

    It's interesting to look at the clinic now compared to what it was a year or so ago. Over-zealous moderation has removed most enlightened posters and the core group of idiots had remained. I did hear that when sky came into cycling sponsorship, they were looking at engaging with the most vocal cycling forum users in order to 'get them on side.' I can't help but wonder if that partly explains the demise of the clinic. Even though, any journalist wanting the scoop on sky could have read about their cortisone abuse years ago and the bullying culture has also been covered.


    Wow, you take this very seriously!? :roll:
  • weekendcyclingfan
    weekendcyclingfan Posts: 980
    Speaking or paid trolls, sounds like the trolls at British Cycling were doing a great job of covering up internal reports to UK Sport.

    This story was in the Guardian, so we all need to ban them as well? :lol:
    British Cycling’s reputation faces the prospect of another battering after it was accused of misleading UK Sport, the body that provides it with millions of pounds of public money each year, by covering up allegations of bullying in an internal report after London 2012.

    Liz Nicholl, the chief executive of UK Sport, said British Cycling had displayed “a complete lack of transparency” by giving UK Sport a summary of an internal performance review conducted by its former CEO Peter King which did not accurately reflect the facts of the report.

    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/ ... are_btn_tw

    You get the feeling that there's been a cataclysmic disaster, managment wise at British Cycling. A complete overhaul looks in order.

    The question on everyone's lips : What of Brian Cookson, who presided over this mess?
  • Rodrego Hernandez
    Rodrego Hernandez Posts: 1,436
    weekendcyclingfan wrote:
    Rodrego Hernandez wrote:
    Blazing Saddles wrote:
    weekendcyclingfan wrote:
    Truth be told, the Clinic looks fairly dead, apart from the Armstrong and Moto threads.

    Have to agree.
    Credit, where credit is due, Jeff.

    It's interesting to look at the clinic now compared to what it was a year or so ago. Over-zealous moderation has removed most enlightened posters and the core group of idiots had remained. I did hear that when sky came into cycling sponsorship, they were looking at engaging with the most vocal cycling forum users in order to 'get them on side.' I can't help but wonder if that partly explains the demise of the clinic. Even though, any journalist wanting the scoop on sky could have read about their cortisone abuse years ago and the bullying culture has also been covered.


    Wow, you take this very seriously!? :roll:

    Not sure what you're going on about there. Then again, I doubt you are either.
  • Rodrego Hernandez
    Rodrego Hernandez Posts: 1,436
    weekendcyclingfan wrote:
    Speaking or paid trolls, sounds like the trolls at British Cycling were doing a great job of covering up internal reports to UK Sport.

    This story was in the Guardian, so we all need to ban them as well? :lol:
    British Cycling’s reputation faces the prospect of another battering after it was accused of misleading UK Sport, the body that provides it with millions of pounds of public money each year, by covering up allegations of bullying in an internal report after London 2012.

    Liz Nicholl, the chief executive of UK Sport, said British Cycling had displayed “a complete lack of transparency” by giving UK Sport a summary of an internal performance review conducted by its former CEO Peter King which did not accurately reflect the facts of the report.

    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/ ... are_btn_tw

    You get the feeling that there's been a cataclysmic disaster, managment wise at British Cycling. A complete overhaul looks in order.

    The question on everyone's lips : What of Brian Cookson, who presided over this mess?

    Are you having a conversation with yourself again?

    Brian Cookson is the UCI president. Surely even you could have found that out.
  • weekendcyclingfan
    weekendcyclingfan Posts: 980
    Rodrego Hernandez wrote:
    weekendcyclingfan wrote:
    Speaking or paid trolls, sounds like the trolls at British Cycling were doing a great job of covering up internal reports to UK Sport.

    This story was in the Guardian, so we all need to ban them as well? :lol:
    British Cycling’s reputation faces the prospect of another battering after it was accused of misleading UK Sport, the body that provides it with millions of pounds of public money each year, by covering up allegations of bullying in an internal report after London 2012.

    Liz Nicholl, the chief executive of UK Sport, said British Cycling had displayed “a complete lack of transparency” by giving UK Sport a summary of an internal performance review conducted by its former CEO Peter King which did not accurately reflect the facts of the report.

    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/ ... are_btn_tw

    You get the feeling that there's been a cataclysmic disaster, managment wise at British Cycling. A complete overhaul looks in order.

    The question on everyone's lips : What of Brian Cookson, who presided over this mess?

    Are you having a conversation with yourself again?

    Brian Cookson is the UCI president. Surely even you could have found that out.

    You are indeed a very slow person at times.

    Brian Cookson was head of British Cycling at the time of the cover up to UK Sport. Sounds to be that's what he is good at, covering up. Looking at the way he dealt with the Menchov passport case, Cookson has continued his legacy.
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,430
    weekendcyclingfan wrote:
    Speaking or paid trolls, sounds like the trolls at British Cycling were doing a great job of covering up internal reports to UK Sport.

    This story was in the Guardian, so we all need to ban them as well? :lol:
    British Cycling’s reputation faces the prospect of another battering after it was accused of misleading UK Sport, the body that provides it with millions of pounds of public money each year, by covering up allegations of bullying in an internal report after London 2012.

    Liz Nicholl, the chief executive of UK Sport, said British Cycling had displayed “a complete lack of transparency” by giving UK Sport a summary of an internal performance review conducted by its former CEO Peter King which did not accurately reflect the facts of the report.

    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/ ... are_btn_tw

    You get the feeling that there's been a cataclysmic disaster, managment wise at British Cycling. A complete overhaul looks in order.

    The question on everyone's lips : What of Brian Cookson, who presided over this mess?

    UK Sport seem to be covering their own arses there.
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • weekendcyclingfan
    weekendcyclingfan Posts: 980
    TailWindHome wrote:
    weekendcyclingfan wrote:
    Speaking or paid trolls, sounds like the trolls at British Cycling were doing a great job of covering up internal reports to UK Sport.

    This story was in the Guardian, so we all need to ban them as well? :lol:
    British Cycling’s reputation faces the prospect of another battering after it was accused of misleading UK Sport, the body that provides it with millions of pounds of public money each year, by covering up allegations of bullying in an internal report after London 2012.

    Liz Nicholl, the chief executive of UK Sport, said British Cycling had displayed “a complete lack of transparency” by giving UK Sport a summary of an internal performance review conducted by its former CEO Peter King which did not accurately reflect the facts of the report.

    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/ ... are_btn_tw

    You get the feeling that there's been a cataclysmic disaster, managment wise at British Cycling. A complete overhaul looks in order.

    The question on everyone's lips : What of Brian Cookson, who presided over this mess?

    UK Sport seem to be covering their own arses there.

    What would be your expectation? That UK Sport covered up the cover up and said it was there fault that British Cycling willfully withheld information from them?

    UK Sport provide the money, they are the pay master. The longer this saga goes on, the more Brailsford is looking like Bruyneel.
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,430
    weekendcyclingfan wrote:
    TailWindHome wrote:
    weekendcyclingfan wrote:
    Speaking or paid trolls, sounds like the trolls at British Cycling were doing a great job of covering up internal reports to UK Sport.

    This story was in the Guardian, so we all need to ban them as well? :lol:
    British Cycling’s reputation faces the prospect of another battering after it was accused of misleading UK Sport, the body that provides it with millions of pounds of public money each year, by covering up allegations of bullying in an internal report after London 2012.

    Liz Nicholl, the chief executive of UK Sport, said British Cycling had displayed “a complete lack of transparency” by giving UK Sport a summary of an internal performance review conducted by its former CEO Peter King which did not accurately reflect the facts of the report.

    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/ ... are_btn_tw

    You get the feeling that there's been a cataclysmic disaster, managment wise at British Cycling. A complete overhaul looks in order.

    The question on everyone's lips : What of Brian Cookson, who presided over this mess?

    UK Sport seem to be covering their own arses there.

    What would be your expectation? That UK Sport covered up the cover up and said it was there fault that British Cycling willfully withheld information from them?

    UK Sport provide the money, they are the pay master. The longer this saga goes on, the more Brailsford is looking like Bruyneel.

    **** off troll
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,252
    TailWindHome wrote:

    UK Sport seem to be covering their own arses there.
    Yep. They're complaining they weren't given the full report. But did they ask for it? Or did they just not care about reading it until four years later when it became relevant?

    If there's one thing I'm an expert in it's lazy civil servant arse covering
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • weekendcyclingfan
    weekendcyclingfan Posts: 980
    RichN95 wrote:
    TailWindHome wrote:

    UK Sport seem to be covering their own arses there.
    Yep. They're complaining they weren't given the full report. But did they ask for it? Or did they just not care about reading it until four years later when it became relevant?

    If there's one thing I'm an expert in it's lazy civil servant ars* covering

    Yes, those lazy civil servants who pay the wages of Brailsford and his cronies didn't ask for the full report because SDB withheld it from them not telling them that there was a full report. UK Sport should have guessed Brailsford was trying to shaft them.

    You guys are unbelievable at times.... and so much for this blowing over by Christmas eh Rich? :lol:
  • weekendcyclingfan
    weekendcyclingfan Posts: 980
    TailWindHome wrote:
    weekendcyclingfan wrote:
    TailWindHome wrote:
    weekendcyclingfan wrote:
    Speaking or paid trolls, sounds like the trolls at British Cycling were doing a great job of covering up internal reports to UK Sport.

    This story was in the Guardian, so we all need to ban them as well? :lol:
    British Cycling’s reputation faces the prospect of another battering after it was accused of misleading UK Sport, the body that provides it with millions of pounds of public money each year, by covering up allegations of bullying in an internal report after London 2012.

    Liz Nicholl, the chief executive of UK Sport, said British Cycling had displayed “a complete lack of transparency” by giving UK Sport a summary of an internal performance review conducted by its former CEO Peter King which did not accurately reflect the facts of the report.

    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/ ... are_btn_tw

    You get the feeling that there's been a cataclysmic disaster, managment wise at British Cycling. A complete overhaul looks in order.

    The question on everyone's lips : What of Brian Cookson, who presided over this mess?

    UK Sport seem to be covering their own arses there.

    What would be your expectation? That UK Sport covered up the cover up and said it was there fault that British Cycling willfully withheld information from them?

    UK Sport provide the money, they are the pay master. The longer this saga goes on, the more Brailsford is looking like Bruyneel.

    **** off troll


    Charming. Perhaps respond to the post rather than attempted bullying, it really shows you have little to no critical reasoning skills.
  • blazing_saddles
    blazing_saddles Posts: 22,725
    weekendcyclingfan wrote:
    RichN95 wrote:
    TailWindHome wrote:

    UK Sport seem to be covering their own arses there.
    Yep. They're complaining they weren't given the full report. But did they ask for it? Or did they just not care about reading it until four years later when it became relevant?

    If there's one thing I'm an expert in it's lazy civil servant ars* covering

    Yes, those lazy civil servants who pay the wages of Brailsford and his cronies didn't ask for the full report because SDB withheld it from them not telling them that there was a full report. UK Sport should have guessed Brailsford was trying to shaft them.

    You guys are unbelievable at times.... and so much for this blowing over by Christmas eh Rich? :lol:

    Good to see you supporting UK Sport, since they've just slapped another lengthy delay on the current report you so eagerly await.
    So much for February 22nd being the day all your "questions" got answered.
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,430
    weekendcyclingfan wrote:
    TailWindHome wrote:
    weekendcyclingfan wrote:
    TailWindHome wrote:
    weekendcyclingfan wrote:
    Speaking or paid trolls, sounds like the trolls at British Cycling were doing a great job of covering up internal reports to UK Sport.

    This story was in the Guardian, so we all need to ban them as well? :lol:
    British Cycling’s reputation faces the prospect of another battering after it was accused of misleading UK Sport, the body that provides it with millions of pounds of public money each year, by covering up allegations of bullying in an internal report after London 2012.

    Liz Nicholl, the chief executive of UK Sport, said British Cycling had displayed “a complete lack of transparency” by giving UK Sport a summary of an internal performance review conducted by its former CEO Peter King which did not accurately reflect the facts of the report.

    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/ ... are_btn_tw

    You get the feeling that there's been a cataclysmic disaster, managment wise at British Cycling. A complete overhaul looks in order.

    The question on everyone's lips : What of Brian Cookson, who presided over this mess?

    UK Sport seem to be covering their own arses there.

    What would be your expectation? That UK Sport covered up the cover up and said it was there fault that British Cycling willfully withheld information from them?

    UK Sport provide the money, they are the pay master. The longer this saga goes on, the more Brailsford is looking like Bruyneel.

    **** off troll


    Charming. Perhaps respond to the post rather than attempted bullying, it really shows you have little to no critical reasoning skills.

    **** off troll
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • weekendcyclingfan
    weekendcyclingfan Posts: 980
    Blazing Saddles wrote:
    weekendcyclingfan wrote:
    RichN95 wrote:
    TailWindHome wrote:

    UK Sport seem to be covering their own arses there.
    Yep. They're complaining they weren't given the full report. But did they ask for it? Or did they just not care about reading it until four years later when it became relevant?

    If there's one thing I'm an expert in it's lazy civil servant ars* covering

    Yes, those lazy civil servants who pay the wages of Brailsford and his cronies didn't ask for the full report because SDB withheld it from them not telling them that there was a full report. UK Sport should have guessed Brailsford was trying to shaft them.

    You guys are unbelievable at times.... and so much for this blowing over by Christmas eh Rich? :lol:

    Good to see you supporting UK Sport, since they've just slapped another lengthy delay on the current report you so eagerly await.
    So much for February 22nd being the day all your "questions" got answered.

    I support the truth not any entity, you know that Saddles.

    The CMS hearing is scheduled for next week as UKAD need another week to collate their evidence. Nothing to do with UK Sport. I really wish you'd keep yourself informed of the developments rather than me having to continually educate you. Tiring to say the least.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    rqvos9.png
    _
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,252
    TailWindHome wrote:

    **** off troll
    Just put him on block. I have. Unless someone quotes his post I'm blissfully unaware of anything he says.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,430
    Who said that?
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,107
    RichN95 wrote:
    TailWindHome wrote:

    **** off troll
    Just put him on block. I have. Unless someone quotes his post I'm blissfully unaware of anything he says.

    Likewise. I'm assuming if anything new comes out, I'll hear about it from an unbiased source. It's quite liberating.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories