Does the Daily Mail hates Cyclists?

POHB

On 16 Jun, 19:22, Steve C <sc9...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Would it be possible that the Daily Mail has
> some (hidden) agenda against cyclists and are exploiting stories like
> this for some perverse reason?

The Daily Mail's agenda seems to be to frighten and outrage it's
readers about everything, they don't just pick on cyclists.

"The ideal Daily Mail story should leave you hating someone or
something" - former Mail Journalist. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis.../20/mydailyhell

spindrift

On Jun 17, 9:33*am, POHB <goo...@hayward.uk.net> wrote:
> On 16 Jun, 19:22, Steve C <sc9...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > Would it be possible that the Daily Mail has
> > some (hidden) agenda against cyclists and are exploiting stories like
> > this for some perverse reason?
>
> The Daily Mail's agenda seems to be to frighten and outrage it's
> readers about everything, they don't just pick on cyclists.
>
> "The ideal Daily Mail story should leave you hating someone or
> something" - former Mail Journalist. *http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis.../20/mydailyhell

Luke Salkeld of The daily Mail is the reporter who lied about what
happened, the This Is Gloucester website has the real story.

Squashme

On 17 Jun, 09:33, POHB <goo...@hayward.uk.net> wrote:
> On 16 Jun, 19:22, Steve C <sc9...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > Would it be possible that the Daily Mail has
> > some (hidden) agenda against cyclists and are exploiting stories like
> > this for some perverse reason?
>
> The Daily Mail's agenda seems to be to frighten and outrage it's
> readers about everything, they don't just pick on cyclists.
>
> "The ideal Daily Mail story should leave you hating someone or
> something" - former Mail Journalist. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis.../20/mydailyhell

Looking at the photo I don't see enough room for a child and a workman
fixing the doorbell to stand on the pavement. If the cyclist actually
could have managed to hurtle along that pavement, she would have
surely hit said workman too? Still, going fast in that road with
bollards and a bend would seem to have been wrong.

CJ

On 17 Jun, 08:55, "PK" <p...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> "Alan Braggins" <a...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:slrng5eq7u.ro1.armb@chiark.greenend.org.uk...
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <HPydnWMyXZm9UcvVnZ2dnUVZ8vKdn...@bt.com>, PK wrote:
> >>"Andy Leighton" <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote in message
> >>news:slrng5die7.rb1.andyl@azaal.plus.com...
>
> >>> Well we don't know what the Daily Wail means by speeding. *We don't know
> >>> if it was a pavement with some magic white paint OR a pedestrian only
> >>> pavement
>
> >>I think the photograph of pavement, door and bollard in the article go
> >>some
> >>way to answering those:
>
> >>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-tells-terrifyi...
>
> > If the cyclist was really on that very narrow pavement, why take a photo
> > of the bollard in the road?
>
> Maybe because that is the bollard the child's head hit after falling from
> the very narrow pavement after being hit by the cyclist?
>
> pk- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Since the Daily Mail apparently is in error about the cyclist leaving
the scene, I'm not inclined to believe them about the "pavement"
either.

Look at the photo. The row of bollards apparently closes that part of
the road to motor traffic. I cannot see any reason for a cyclist to
ride on that narrow, rough footway when they have a traffic-free road
available. At the same time, the lack of motor traffic immediately
outside their house is likely to make the occupants less careful about
stepping into the road.

Whatever, this report is far short of the circumspect "man was in
collision with" manner of reporting the regrettably common ocurrence
of cars running down pedestrians. In those reports "speeding" is never
alledged in advance of the police report, even when it seems most
likely that a legal speed limit was actually being broken, which
cannot be the case here. Different journalistic standards clearly
apply to reporting cycle accidents!

I've never bought the Daily Mail in my life, and never will.

Mark

On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 19:22:43 +0100, Steve C <sc99cs@googlemail.com>
wrote:

>A five year old was knocked over in Cheltenham and badly injured by a
>person on a bike. I first saw the story on the Daily Mail's web site -
>(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ad-cyclist.html)
>relevant bit to this post being "The female cyclist did not even stop".
>However on reading about the incident on Cheltenham's local paper's web
>site -
>(http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co...il/article.html)
>the article states "The cyclist involved has been interviewed by CID
>after remaining at the scene and contacting the police."

When have newspapers ever let the truth get in the way of a "good"
story?

>My full symphathies towards the little girl and I hope she recovers soon
>but in terms of this post did the woman on the bike stay or did she
>cycle off? Each story paints completely different pictures of the
>incident and the comments in the Daily Mail are of the typical tax, fine
> and ban cyclists vein. Would it be possible that the Daily Mail has
>some (hidden) agenda against cyclists and are exploiting stories like
>this for some perverse reason?

My full sympathy goes out to the little girl and her family too.

I can't comment on the Daily Mail - I only know of it by reputation.

I can comment on the Gloucestershire Echo and it is definitely of the
ban, tax and fine brigade.

I doubt we'll ever hear the full truth of this event, unless it goes
to court.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

Mark

On 17 Jun 2008 08:34:22 +0100 (BST), armb@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan
Braggins) wrote:

>In article <HPydnWMyXZm9UcvVnZ2dnUVZ8vKdnZ2d@bt.com>, PK wrote:
>>"Andy Leighton" <andyl@azaal.plus.com> wrote in message
>>news:slrng5die7.rb1.andyl@azaal.plus.com...
>>
>>> Well we don't know what the Daily Wail means by speeding. We don't know
>>> if it was a pavement with some magic white paint OR a pedestrian only
>>> pavement
>>
>>I think the photograph of pavement, door and bollard in the article go some
>>way to answering those:
>>
>>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ad-cyclist.html
>
>If the cyclist was really on that very narrow pavement, why take a photo
>of the bollard in the road?

And since the road is closed to through traffic by bollards, what was
a cyclist doing on the narrow pavement?

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

Dan Gregory

PK wrote:

> The key issue, is whether the cyclist was on the pavement.
If it was on the pavement why is the photographer on the pavement taking
photos of the accident scene on the road??

didds

On Jun 17, 10:03*am, Squashme <squas...@gmail.com> wrote:
Still, going fast in that road with
> bollards and a bend would seem to have been wrong.

How fast in reality would an adult on a bike actually have to be
travelling in order to knock a small child "flying" ?

Would such a speed be generally and otherwise regarded as "fast"?

If it was a runner would the story be reported the same?

didds

Squashme

On 17 Jun, 09:48, spindrift <newty...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 17, 9:33 am, POHB <goo...@hayward.uk.net> wrote:
>
> > On 16 Jun, 19:22, Steve C <sc9...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Would it be possible that the Daily Mail has
> > > some (hidden) agenda against cyclists and are exploiting stories like
> > > this for some perverse reason?
>
> > The Daily Mail's agenda seems to be to frighten and outrage it's
> > readers about everything, they don't just pick on cyclists.
>
> > "The ideal Daily Mail story should leave you hating someone or
> > something" - former Mail Journalist. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis.../20/mydailyhell
>
> Luke Salkeld of The daily Mail is the reporter who lied about what
> happened, the This Is Gloucester website has the real story.


Come now, Mr Salkeld is a tribune of the people, a new George Orwell!

A partial and biased set of headlines from his work:-


The father who had to pick which of his twins to save when their canoe
capsized

Headmaster blamed for death of pupil in playground fall wins appeal
against conviction

Fears of suicide pact between doting couple who couldn't bear being
parted

Couple held over hotel fire deaths

Newlyweds who could not afford a home or honeymoon get BOTH after
changing their Lottery numbers to their wedding date

How man's best friend can cost you an unfriendly £90,000

Mercy for carer who tried to strangle chronically-ill husband with
dressing gown cord

'Dawn milk mob' who terrorised milkman every day for SIX years face
jail

Judge lifts thug's curfew - so he can go on a golfing holiday

Wales now has more NHS patients than people as English flock over the
border for free prescriptions

Former Tory minister arrested for doorstep attack on party's own
canvasser

Pictured: Pensioner who hasn't had a crash in 76 years writes off TWO
Porsches in just seconds - with his old Fiesta

Police stop pensioners from illegal gathering on bowling green

Asbo for man who kept neighbours awake with cockerels that crowed 420
times an hour

First pictures of BBC set designer who hanged himself and the son he
killed after custody battle torment

Dentist-phobia girl wasted away after refusing to open her mouth for a
month

12-stone woman refused job as bus driver 'because she is too fat'

Race watchdog bid to block pub named after 'slave trader' Royal Navy
hero

Council spies stalked family for THREE weeks to check they lived in
school's catchment area

Mother devastated after gate-crashers at her son's party trash home in
two hours

The ex-dairy farmer who switched from milking cows to hosting swingers
in the sex club that used to be a barn


It's not just cyclists. It's broad-spectrum.
Where would we be without these guys?

Colin Reed

"didds" <didds2@excite.com> wrote in message
news:df7768e8-8d07-4ebc-864c-5a8db1d43847@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 17, 10:03 am, Squashme <squas...@gmail.com> wrote:
Still, going fast in that road with
> bollards and a bend would seem to have been wrong.
>
>How fast in reality would an adult on a bike actually have to be
>travelling in order to knock a small child "flying" ?
>
>Would such a speed be generally and otherwise regarded as "fast"?
>
>If it was a runner would the story be reported the same?
>
>didds

"Jogging thug kicks 5 year old in head - leaves her for dead whilst
listening to IPod"

Yeah, pretty much the same I'd say!

Colin

Dave Larrington

In news:57525589-aa52-4951-808f-a8ae8f87032c@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com,
POHB <google@hayward.uk.net> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
> On 16 Jun, 19:22, Steve C <sc9...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Would it be possible that the Daily Mail has
>> some (hidden) agenda against cyclists and are exploiting stories like
>> this for some perverse reason?
>
> The Daily Mail's agenda seems to be to frighten and outrage it's
> readers about everything, they don't just pick on cyclists.
>
> "The ideal Daily Mail story should leave you hating someone or
> something" - former Mail Journalist.
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis.../20/mydailyhell

http://www.qwghlm.co.uk/toys/dailymail/

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Three blind mice, see how they run. Is this /really/ the best
way to test shampoo?

Mark

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 02:05:58 -0700 (PDT), CJ <chris.juden@ctc.org.uk>
wrote:

>On 17 Jun, 08:55, "PK" <p...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> "Alan Braggins" <a...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
>>
>> news:slrng5eq7u.ro1.armb@chiark.greenend.org.uk...
>>
>> > In article <HPydnWMyXZm9UcvVnZ2dnUVZ8vKdn...@bt.com>, PK wrote:
>> >>"Andy Leighton" <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote in message
>> >>news:slrng5die7.rb1.andyl@azaal.plus.com...
>>
>> >>> Well we don't know what the Daily Wail means by speeding. *We don't know
>> >>> if it was a pavement with some magic white paint OR a pedestrian only
>> >>> pavement
>>
>> >>I think the photograph of pavement, door and bollard in the article go
>> >>some
>> >>way to answering those:
>>
>> >>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-tells-terrifyi...
>>
>> > If the cyclist was really on that very narrow pavement, why take a photo
>> > of the bollard in the road?
>>
>> Maybe because that is the bollard the child's head hit after falling from
>> the very narrow pavement after being hit by the cyclist?
>>
>
>Since the Daily Mail apparently is in error about the cyclist leaving
>the scene, I'm not inclined to believe them about the "pavement"
>either.

The Gloucestershire Echo also orginally reported that the cyclist had
left the scene.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

Squashme

On 16 Jun, 19:22, Steve C <sc9...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> A five year old was knocked over in Cheltenham and badly injured by a
> person on a bike. I first saw the story on the Daily Mail's web site -
> (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-tells-terrifyi...)
> relevant bit to this post being "The female cyclist did not even stop".
> However on reading about the incident on Cheltenham's local paper's web
> site -
> (http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co...7pm-Police-appe...)
> the article states "The cyclist involved has been interviewed by CID
> after remaining at the scene and contacting the police."
>
> My full symphathies towards the little girl and I hope she recovers soon
> but in terms of this post did the woman on the bike stay or did she
> cycle off? Each story paints completely different pictures of the
> incident and the comments in the Daily Mail are of the typical tax, fine
> and ban cyclists vein. Would it be possible that the Daily Mail has
> some (hidden) agenda against cyclists and are exploiting stories like
> this for some perverse reason?
>
> Steve C

The Mail seems to have updated the article very recently this morning,
but not the readers' comments (since yesterday?). The initial story
will already be implanted in most readers' minds. "Hit and run cyclist
on pavement."

Sorry. "readers'" "minds", I meant.

spindrift

On Jun 17, 10:55*am, Squashme <squas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 16 Jun, 19:22, Steve C <sc9...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > A five year old was knocked over in Cheltenham and badly injured by a
> > person on a bike. I first saw the story on the Daily Mail's web site -
> > (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-tells-terrifyi....)
> > relevant bit to this post being "The female cyclist did not even stop".
> > However on reading about the incident on Cheltenham's local paper's web
> > site -
> > (http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co...7pm-Police-appe....)
> > the article states "The cyclist involved has been interviewed by CID
> > after remaining at the scene and contacting the police."
>
> > My full symphathies towards the little girl and I hope she recovers soon
> > but in terms of this post did the woman on the bike stay or did she
> > cycle off? Each story paints completely different pictures of the
> > incident and the comments in the Daily Mail are of the typical tax, fine
> > * and ban cyclists vein. Would it be possible that the Daily Mail has
> > some (hidden) agenda against cyclists and are exploiting stories like
> > this for some perverse reason?
>
> > Steve C
>
> The Mail seems to have updated the article very recently this morning,
> but not the readers' comments (since yesterday?). The initial story
> will already be implanted in most readers' minds. "Hit and run cyclist
> on pavement."
>
> Sorry. "readers'" "minds", I meant.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

they've editted the story, no comments have appeared.