Does the Daily Mail hates Cyclists?

spindrift

On Jun 17, 11:20*am, Mark McNeill <markonnewsgro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Response to Mark
>
> > >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.
>
> The Daily Mail story, last updated at 10.39 this morning, now makes no
> reference to the cyclist having left the scene.
>
> --
> Mark, UK
> "The trade of governing has always been monopolized by the most ignorant
> and the most rascally individuals of mankind."

Google cache still has the previous version:


Quote:
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 1:26 PM on 16th June 2008

Millie Harrop, 5, was left for dead after being hit by a cyclist
A mother has told of her horror after watching her five-year-old
daughter being knocked down by a cyclist and left for dead.
Millie Harrop lay fighting for her life on the pavement on St Paul's
St South after the hit and run accident.

Squashme

On 17 Jun, 12:11, spindrift <newty...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 17, 11:20 am, Mark McNeill <markonnewsgro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Response to Mark
>
> > > >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.
>
> > The Daily Mail story, last updated at 10.39 this morning, now makes no
> > reference to the cyclist having left the scene.
>
> > --
> > Mark, UK
> > "The trade of governing has always been monopolized by the most ignorant
> > and the most rascally individuals of mankind."
>
> Google cache still has the previous version:
>
> Quote:
> By Daily Mail Reporter
> Last updated at 1:26 PM on 16th June 2008
>
> Millie Harrop, 5, was left for dead after being hit by a cyclist
> A mother has told of her horror after watching her five-year-old
> daughter being knocked down by a cyclist and left for dead.
> Millie Harrop lay fighting for her life on the pavement on St Paul's
> St South after the hit and run accident.

I know that the Daily Mail is not the Government (they know better
than that), but this seems apposite, again:-

"The memory hole, as in the phrase "Going down the memory hole,"
refers to a small incinerator chute used for censorship in George
Orwell's novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four:

In the walls of the cubicle there were three orifices. To the
right of the speakwrite, a small pneumatic tube for written messages,
to the left, a larger one for newspapers; and in the side wall, within
easy reach of Winston's arm, a large oblong slit protected by a wire
grating. This last was for the disposal of waste paper. Similar slits
existed in thousands or tens of thousands throughout the building, not
only in every room but at short intervals in every corridor. For some
reason they were nicknamed memory holes. When one knew that any
document was due for destruction, or even when one saw a scrap of
waste paper lying about, it was an automatic action to lift the flap
of the nearest memory hole and drop it in, whereupon it would be
whirled away on a current of warm air to the enormous furnaces which
were hidden somewhere in the recesses of the building.(pp. 34-35)

In the novel, the memory hole is a slot into which government
officials deposit politically inconvenient documents and records to be
destroyed. Nineteen Eighty-Four's protagonist Winston Smith, who works
in the Ministry of Truth, is routinely assigned the task of revising
old newspaper articles in order to serve the propaganda interests of
the government. For example, if the government had pledged that the
chocolate ration would not fall below the current 30 grams per week,
but in fact the ration is reduced to 20 grams per week, the historical
record (e.g. an article from a back issue of the Times newspaper) is
revised to contain an announcement that a reduction to 20 grams might
soon prove necessary, or that the ration, then 15 grams, would soon be
increased to that number. The original copies of the historical record
are deposited into the memory hole. A document placed in the memory
hole is supposedly transported to an incinerator from which "not even
the ash remains".

The term now generally refers to the alteration or outright
disappearance of inconvenient or embarrassing documents, photographs,
transcripts, or other records, such as from a web site or other
archive. The term is the name of one website (The Memory Hole)."

(thanks to Wikipedia)

Mind you, by altering the article, the Mail makes its commenting
readers look even bigger arses, than they already were. Should someone
point this out to them? Would it appear? Sniff, sniff, do I smell
burning?

Dave

"Geoff Lane" <geoff@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9AC082EB0525Ageoffnospam097akdsh@138.199.67.64...
> Mark McNeill <markonnewsgroups@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:MPG.22c1a032b4e0c5b7989ae8@news.nildram.co.uk:
>
>> The Daily Mail story, last updated at 10.39 this morning, now makes no
>> reference to the cyclist having left the scene.
>
> Neither does it now accuse the cyclist of riding on the pavement. The only
> suggestions now that the cyclist did anything wrong are the reader
> comments
> now hanging orphaned of fact, the emotive phrase "mown down", and the
> claim
> that Millie merely stepped out of the door.
>
> A more likely scenario IMO is that the cyclist was riding in the road and
> riding slowly to negotiate the bollards. Millie probably wasn't expecting
> traffic because the road is bollarded. Because the worker who was mending
> the doorbell obscured their view, she didn't see the cyclist - and vice
> versa. So she walked/skipped/ran into the cyclist and bounced back into
> the
> bollard.
>

At the end of the day unless you know the area nobody is really in a
position to really have much idea what happened.

I have had a look on overhead photos and cannot figure out exacly where it
happened.

From the published photo you can see a narrow pavement, you can also see
bollards.

What we cannot see is whether the bollards are all the way across the road
to block motor traffic, whether indeed there are any restrictions or whether
the bollards are just part way in order to protect parking spaces.

> I hope that Millie makes a quick and complete recovery, but it was just an
> unfortunate incident, and hardly the fault of the cyclist.
>

I agree about the poor girl but possibly about the cyclist - we do not know
the facts
..
> However, the way The Mail has used this incident without bothering to
> check
> the veracity of their story cannot be excused.

Totally agree. That happens far too often.

Dave

spindrift

On Jun 17, 1:12*pm, "Dave" <dave.barwic...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> "Geoff Lane" <ge...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>
> news:Xns9AC082EB0525Ageoffnospam097akdsh@138.199.67.64...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Mark McNeill <markonnewsgro...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> >news:MPG.22c1a032b4e0c5b7989ae8@news.nildram.co.uk:
>
> >> The Daily Mail story, last updated at 10.39 this morning, now makes no
> >> reference to the cyclist having left the scene.
>
> > Neither does it now accuse the cyclist of riding on the pavement. The only
> > suggestions now that the cyclist did anything wrong are the reader
> > comments
> > now hanging orphaned of fact, the emotive phrase "mown down", and the
> > claim
> > that Millie merely stepped out of the door.
>
> > A more likely scenario IMO is that the cyclist was riding in the road and
> > riding slowly to negotiate the bollards. Millie probably wasn't expecting
> > traffic because the road is bollarded. Because the worker who was mending
> > the doorbell obscured their view, she didn't see the cyclist - and vice
> > versa. So she walked/skipped/ran into the cyclist and bounced back into
> > the
> > bollard.
>
> At the end of the day unless you know the area nobody is really in a
> position to really have much idea what happened.
>
> I have had a look on overhead photos and cannot figure out exacly where it
> happened.
>
> From the published photo you can see a narrow pavement, you can also see
> bollards.
>
> What we cannot see is whether the bollards are all the way across the road
> to block motor traffic, whether indeed there are any restrictions or whether
> the bollards are just part way in order to protect parking spaces.
>
> > I hope that Millie makes a quick and complete recovery, but it was just an
> > unfortunate incident, and hardly the fault of the cyclist.
>
> I agree about the poor girl but possibly about the cyclist - we do *not know
> the facts
> .
>
> > However, the way The Mail has used this incident without bothering to
> > check
> > the veracity of their story cannot be excused.
>
> Totally agree. That happens far too often.
>
> Dave- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The story reads very strangely now The Mail have editted out all their
dishonesty, it's a baffling report now, but still as noted with the
phrase "mown down".


It's a shame police don't treat cyclists' deaths as a "serious crime
scene".

Roger Merriman

JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:

> Martin wrote:
> >
> > JNugent wrote:
> >> Daniel Barlow wrote:
> >>
> >>> "PK" <pgk2@hotmail.co.uk> writes:
> >>
> >>>> Whether cyclist stopped or not, the first Para of the first report is
> >>>> the most telling:
> >>
> >>>> "A girl of five was left fighting for her life after she was mown down
> >>>> by a speeding cyclist on the *pavement* outside her home."
> >>
> >>> You're right, but it's not telling me what I think you think it's
> >>> telling you. If they're not correct that the cyclist left the scene,
> >>> it's entirely probable that the cyclist wasn't speeding *or* sporting
> >>> lawnmower blades on the front of her bike either.
> >>
> >> *Any* speed along the footway is excessive.
> >
> > Indeed. Anyone cycling along this footway is incredibly foolish. I
> > guestimate the width to be about 2feet.
> >
> >>> What this tells me
> >>> mostly is that the Daily Mail uses other peoples misery to sell
> >>> newspapers (or to draw visitors to their web site, whatever)
> >>
> >> *All* newspapers use whatever it is they choose to report in order to
> >> sell copies. They are businesses, and they all try to appeal to a
> >> particular demographic.
> >
> > Indeed. I had the unfortunate experience of flicking through a copy of
> > the daily mail at work the other day.
> > The mails demography seems to be for people who like to moan about
> > anything they can, and gossip about celebrities.
>
> That describes around 50% of the national dailies. As it happens, the
> Daily Mail is far from being the worst offender in either respect.

no but it does tend to live up to it's daily hate quite well.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

David Hansen

On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 19:22:43 +0100 someone who may be Steve C
<sc99cs@googlemail.com> wrote this:-

>Would it be possible that the Daily Mail has
>some (hidden) agenda against cyclists and are exploiting stories like
>this for some perverse reason?

They presumably think their readers will like the angle.

Nobody has mentioned that the usual suspects are not exploiting this
case to promote the "advantages" of pedestrian helmets. If just one
life is saved, think of the children, only a bad mother would allow
her child out without a helmet.




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

leandr42@googlemail.com

On Jun 17, 1:12*pm, "Dave" <dave.barwic...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> I have had a look on overhead photos and cannot figure out exacly where it
> happened.
>
> From the published photo you can see a narrow pavement, you can also see
> bollards.

I'm pleased to hear that Millie seems to be recovering well.

I used to cycle down Cheltenham lower High Street regularly (I've now
found a better route). I'm fairly sure the incident must have happened
right at the south end of St Paul's St South where it meets the High
Street. I believe the photograph is looking north, and the accident
happened on the east of St Paul's St. Aerial views show a short narrow
stretch at the south and then it widening, which is consistent with
the double yellow lines in the photograph. Google Maps show no
connection between St Paul's St and the High Street.

If the cyclist was coming down St Paul's St, there would be no reason
to be on the pavement uneless something was blocking the route through
the bollards. If the cyclist was on the pavement, it would be almost
impossible to speed because there is a _very_ sharp turn into the High
Street coming up. Same constraint applies if she was entering the St
Paul's St - she would be less than 10 yds from a sharp turn, and
couldn't have been going that fast.

My guess is she was cycling between the bollards and the little girl
didn't expect it. A good cyclist should have been watching out for the
child and been able to stop or her avoid her in this situation. But
from the reporting, it seems entirely possible that the cyclist didn't
actually hit the child at all, and she just fell back on to the
bollard because she thought she needed to get out of the way quickly.

Final thought: don't make assumptions about the type of cyclist.
Cheltenham has a good proportion of women of mature years who, if not
actually riding Pashleys, look as if they ought to be. They travel at
very sedate speeds, mainly in the gutter.

Rob

David Hansen

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 06:25:54 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be
leandr42@googlemail.com wrote this:-

>Final thought: don't make assumptions about the type of cyclist.

It has been mildly amusing to watch some of the usual suspects
express their prejudices.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Squashme

On 17 Jun, 14:31, David Hansen <SENDdavidNOhS...@spidacom.co.uk>
wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 06:25:54 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be
> leand...@googlemail.com wrote this:-
>
> >Final thought: don't make assumptions about the type of cyclist.
>
> It has been mildly amusing to watch some of the usual suspects
> express their prejudices.
>
> --
> David Hansen, Edinburgh
> I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
> http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Name them and shame them.

leandr42@googlemail.com

On Jun 16, 7:22*pm, 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."

Juxtaposition of the Daily Wail and Gloucestshire Echo rang bells.
Then I remembered why I don't buy the Gloucestershire Echo - it's
owned by the Dail Mail.

http://www.whoownswho.org/daily_mail.htm

"Company Name: Daily Mail and General Trust
Companies with interests:
Main source of data: Corporate website
Data last verified: May 2003
Companies / Brands within group:
Associated New Media, who own
Daily Mail
Mail On Sunday
Evening Standard
Metro
Femail
This is London
This is Money
This is Travel

Northcliffe newspaper group, who publish
Aberdeen Evening Express Aberdeen Press & Journal Bath Chronicle
Bristol Evening Post Derby Evening Telegraph Exeter Express & Echo
Gloucester Citizen Gloucestershire Echo..."

The Echo isn't as bad as the Wail, but it still does it's bit to
peddle hatred of various groups.

My guess is the story started as a casual bit of local newspaper
journalism. The Mail reporter then spoke to the local reporter on the
phone to produce an almost fact-free report. If ICBA, I'll drop by a
newsagent on the way home and look at how (or if) the story appears in
today's paper. (I could buy the paper on scan the story in for others
to read, but that would involve giving money to the Daily Mail group,
which I'm not prepared to do.)

Rob

Dave

<leandr42@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:1a62e22b-a1bb-41a8-a55d-350a75147100@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 17, 1:12 pm, "Dave" <dave.barwic...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> I have had a look on overhead photos and cannot figure out exacly where it
> happened.
>
> From the published photo you can see a narrow pavement, you can also see
> bollards.

I'm pleased to hear that Millie seems to be recovering well.

I used to cycle down Cheltenham lower High Street regularly (I've now
found a better route). I'm fairly sure the incident must have happened
right at the south end of St Paul's St South where it meets the High
Street. I believe the photograph is looking north, and the accident
happened on the east of St Paul's St. Aerial views show a short narrow
stretch at the south and then it widening, which is consistent with
the double yellow lines in the photograph. Google Maps show no
connection between St Paul's St and the High Street.

If the cyclist was coming down St Paul's St, there would be no reason
to be on the pavement uneless something was blocking the route through
the bollards. If the cyclist was on the pavement, it would be almost
impossible to speed because there is a _very_ sharp turn into the High
Street coming up. Same constraint applies if she was entering the St
Paul's St - she would be less than 10 yds from a sharp turn, and
couldn't have been going that fast.

My guess is she was cycling between the bollards and the little girl
didn't expect it. A good cyclist should have been watching out for the
child and been able to stop or her avoid her in this situation. But
from the reporting, it seems entirely possible that the cyclist didn't
actually hit the child at all, and she just fell back on to the
bollard because she thought she needed to get out of the way quickly.

Final thought: don't make assumptions about the type of cyclist.
Cheltenham has a good proportion of women of mature years who, if not
actually riding Pashleys, look as if they ought to be. They travel at
very sedate speeds, mainly in the gutter.

Rob

Having now seen the Police web site where it does confirm that the incident
happened at the junction of Lower High Street and St Pauls St and now found
it on the overhead pics it does indeed look like the street has bollards all
the way across to stop some traffic.

The report obviously does not mention anything about which direction the
cyclist was travelling etc so we can only guess what happened - as you say
there could be quite a few explanations. It could have been a dog that made
her jump then fall into the bollard - it just happens to have been a cyclist
so she has been demonised by some reports.

Dave

David Hansen

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 06:39:19 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be Squashme
<squashme@gmail.com> wrote this:-

>> >Final thought: don't make assumptions about the type of cyclist.
>>
>> It has been mildly amusing to watch some of the usual suspects
>> express their prejudices.
>
>Name them and shame them.

That could be considered a personal attack.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

NewRiderPS

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."
>
>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

What is the possibility that the cyclist did not 'hit' the child at
all? Sounds like all the injuries were caused by the fall onto the
bollard.

In addition the mother adds information that is unnecessary to the
story, invoking the comment about someone fixing the doorbell.

>Mrs Kent said Millie had simply stepped on to the pavement while
>a workman was fixing the front door's buzzer before the cyclist
>crashed into her.

In my experience, when someone adds info not related to the incident
they are lying, or assuaging their own guilt/involvement.

Sounds to me like the mother allowed the child out on her own, when
she should not have (thus the extraneous comment), the child then
skipped or ran out into the street/road and when she saw the cyclist
coming, jumped back and tripped.

I'd suggest they examine the child for injuries related to the 'hit'
by the cyclist. If no abrasions or cuts or bruises are found then I'd
suspect the cyclist didn't hit anybody, but was just in the proximity.
Of course that can't happen b/c the mother would have no one to blame.

JNugent

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?

Perhaps it has blood and other forensic evidence on it?