Apalling Times article

[Fab Foodie]

Perhaps we should have just bombarded him with bloodstained Piano wire...

 

[Cab]

Matthew Parris apologises:-
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article3123486.ece

Right at the end he says, "I offended many with my Christmas attack on cyclists. It was meant humorously but so many cyclists have taken it seriously that I plainly misjudged. I am sorry. "

I see, he's SORRY. Well, thats allright then. An apology for incitement to murdrer, quietly snuck in right at the end of a column. That makes up for condoning an outlandisly wreckless way of endangering cyclists lives, one that some muppets need scant encouragement to actually get out there and do which, had the author bothered to look at articles covering cycling in his own newspaper, he'd have known.

Its good to know that one can get away with saying such things in the Times and then say 'sorry, I was joking'. I trust that 'quality' newspaper will now pander to the petty rantings of all kinds of other prejudiced morons, as long as they're all joking? It isn't just cyclists who can be treated like this I hope, it must now be open season on gay people and Tories?

Mr. Parris, I'm a better man than you. Not because I'm a cyclist, not because I'm straight, not because I'm not a Tory. I don't care about your sexuality, your politics or your mode of transport. I'm a better man than you for the simple reason that you, in having encouraged such murder as a response to your misguided impression that cyclists are somehow lobbing cans of energy drinks into headgerows, have shown to the world that you're an peanut.

I wouldn't wipe my backside on the Times if it was the only thing handy and I was suffering from dysentry. It would make me feel dirtier.

 

[snorri]

Like many others, I will be reminded of his rant everytime I see or hear him or his writings for some considerable time to come. Nevertheless, it is rare indeed to see a clear admission of wrong doing and these three words "I am sorry" from anyone in public life. As several people have said on this forum, that particular rant did seem out of character, and I am sure Parriss has learned something from this sad saga.
He comes out of it better than his editor who failed to censor the article in the first place and appears to continue with the pathetic claim of cyclists lacking a sense of humour.

 

[Pete]

It would be comforting to think that Parris was 'sorry' because Harding told him to say 'sorry'; and that Harding told him to say 'sorry' because we, en masse, told Harding to tell Parris to say 'sorry'. If so, considering the weight of correspondence which Harding must surely have received, one's faith in the power of democracy is restored - a little. Certainly Hoggart never 'apologised' for all his idiocy, in my recollection.

So: Harding has sent off his identical mailshot to all and sundry, he must feel his hands are now clean and time to move on. Meanwhile, there is the small matter of the Police investigation, if there is to be one. Or should it be the CPS? One has to establish, whether a crime has been committed, and whether it is 'in the public interest' to prosecute. My feeling, in answer to both these questions, is 'yes'.

 

[Pete]

Hi, it's me, your patronising cycling lobby chum....
------------------------
-= 'bentrideronjersey =-

I doubt if the real Mr. Harding knows what a 'bent is!
Unless it's his way of referring to Mr. Parris, of course!

 

[wafflycat]

The apology, whilst short, is a rare thing to see. At least it is contained within his regular column as opposed to tucked away in the small print at the bottom of page 93 so to speak. So for the fact it is there at all, I am appreciative. How do I take it? At face value. Everyone makes mistakes and I'm taking it, unless it is shown otherwise, that Parris made a genuine mistake of judgment, now knows it, and that the apology is genuinely meant.

 

[abchandler]

I suspect he was forced into the apology after being carpeted by his newly promoted editor after said editor had publicly tried to placate the thronging hordes with his email. Externally placid, internally livid. Purely my own opinion, no basis in fact

 

[Lurker]

The following extract on 'the Times', from Campbell's 2006 article in British Journalism Review, seems relevant...

"No responsibility

But the pre-eminence of The Times was earned when it still prided itself on being a paper of record � indeed the paper of record. Sadly, since its acquisition by Rupert Murdoch in 1981, this has steadily ceased to be the case. Murdoch frankly admits that his papers are in the entertainment business. The Times targets a different market from The Sun, but today it feels no more responsibility to print full and comprehensive information than its red-top stablemate. This may make it a livelier read for the impatient modern consumer, who is assumed to get his or her basic news from radio and television; the emphasis now is on comment and polemic, with a heavy preponderance of lifestyle features and pop culture. But this will be of limited use to historians in 50 or 100 years."

John Campbell
Papers of record are history
British Journalism Review
Vol. 17, No. 2, 2006, pages 59-64

www.bjr.org.uk/data/2006/no2_campbell.htm

 

[Pete]

BBC news now. More on the whole affair here.

I am glad that this sorry business is getting into the spotlight for the right reasons.

It is also noteworthy that the news article carries photos of the four victims of Abergele.

 

[spindrift]

This is tremendously encouraging, I think.

 

[domtyler]

BBC news now. More on the whole affair here.

I am glad that this sorry business is getting into the spotlight for the right reasons.

It is also noteworthy that the news article carries photos of the four victims of Abergele.

Noteworthy, but only because of its lack of relevance. What have they got to do with this article apart from the loosest of associations?

 

[Pete]

Noteworthy, but only because of its lack of relevance. What have they got to do with this article apart from the loosest of associations?

If Rhyl CC, and CTC Cymru, are taking it upon themselves to spearhead the action in response to The Times' article, well that's fine by me and no cycling-related body could be more worthy in the cause. Good luck to them!

In that sense, in my view, the linkage between the worst tragedy to afflict cycling in recent years, and the most appalling libel perpetrated upon cyclists in recent years, is indeed relevant.

 

[spindrift]

Wot Pete said.

Parris's sh1te dehumanises cyclists.

Pictures of cyclists killed by the same crass stupidity Parris advocates goes some way toward reminding people that cyclists are flesh and bone.

 

[freakhatz]

Noteworthy, but only because of its lack of relevance. What have they got to do with this article apart from the loosest of associations?

Maybe it is because the deaths of cyclists are in any case taken too lightly as epitomised by the attitude of this articles foolish author.

 

[byegad]

Noteworthy, but only because of its lack of relevance. What have they got to do with this article apart from the loosest of associations?

I think the relevance is that it's BBC Wales publishing the article and the CTC Cymru spokesman mentions the deaths.