Matthew Parris apologises



On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 23:05:49 -0000, "wafflycat"
<w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote:

>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. "
>
He'll think twice now before calling cyclists self-righteous
 
"Ekul Namsob" <[email protected]> wrote in
message
news:1ia522m.1105xg21jl7ti4N%[email protected]...
> wafflycat <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote:
>
>> 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. "
>
> Good man. Sure, he could have apologised in stronger terms but I am
> willing to accept that it was a case of misjudgment.
>
> Cheers,
> Luke

Agreed. He apologised, and graciously. However, I see two more
points.

1. Personally, I feel that we need an apology from this James
Harding, presumably his editor, for the letter that he sent out in
reply to people who protested.

2. Matthew Parris originally raised a strange point about litter,
which didn't sound like something left by normal cyclists, but did
sound as if it could be from some race food pick up point, where
something went wrong with the clean-up logistics that should have
taken place afterwards. This must have happened somewhere near
Matthew Parris's place (in the Peak District?). Does anyone know
about that?

Jeremy Parker
 
Shaun wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 23:05:49 -0000, "wafflycat"
> <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote:
>
>
>>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. "
>>
>
> He'll think twice now before calling cyclists self-righteous

Not necessarily - especially not if he reads all the Guardian-readers'
comments in response to Matt Seaton's article.
 
On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 15:42:10 -0000 someone who may be "Barb"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>The point being made, really, is that it was a "JOKE" (ha, ha!) and we're
>going way over the top by being upset.

Some other people called for a group of people to be decapitated.
Well the word they used was behead. Some of them were sentenced to a
few years in prison last year, though they will be let out before
the end of the so-called sentence.

It will be interesting to see what government officials do about a
white man calling for beheading. My guess is that they will do
nothing and the lesson one can draw from that is that there is one
law for Muslims and another one for white ex MPs.


--
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
 
David Hansen wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 04:39:32 -0800 (PST) someone who may be spindrift
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/7168530.stm
>>
>> Hundreds of people have complained to the press watchdog about a
>> newspaper column which they claimed encouraged the beheading of
>> cyclists. The Press Complaints Commission has had 200 objections to
>> comments by The Times columnist and former MP Matthew Parris.
>
> I will be very surprised if they hold the writer or "news"paper to
> account for this vile article. This organisation has a long record
> of dismissing complaints raised by sustainable transport interests.

Can you cite some other examples please.

--
Matt B
 
wafflycat wrote:
> "Nigel Randell" <nigel_randell@_1.web> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> I got this from the editor yesterday:
>>
>> Dear Mr Randell,
>>
>> Thank you for taking the time to write to me about Matthew Parris's
>> article (My Week, December 7).
>>
>> As someone who regularly rides to work and who likes to go on cycling
>> holidays, I shared your alarm, initially fearing that Matthew had it
>> in for me too. But I think it was immediately clear that he was
>> exaggerating for effect - and for a good cause: cyclists, as much as
>> anyone else, must share his determination to protect the natural
>> world from litter and pollution.
>>
>> I have received many similar e-mails and take note of the heartfelt
>> indignation. You may also have seen the piece that ran in the paper
>> on Monday in defence of the cyclist. While I admire the passion of
>> the cycling lobby and count myself one of their number, I think we do
>> ourselves no favours when we lose our sense of humour and I hope that
>> you, like me, will continue to enjoy Matthew Parris's excellent
>> writing. That said, two wheels good etc.
>>
>> Yours,
>>
>> James Harding
>>
>>
>> Maybe he did have a word or two.
>>
>
> That was the standard reply from the editor going out to those who
> emailed him.

I also got an e-mail from Matthew Parris himself. I had thrown in an
invitation to him to join me on a ride with my local CTC group. He declined
my invitation, but the gist of his reply was that he has always cycled and
enjoyed it but that it is for him a form of transport and he doesn't
particularly enjoy riding in a group. Fair enough.

So.... he is a cyclist after all. Maybe there is some sort of work-ethic
involved here that it's OK to cycle if there is a point to your journey, but
if you are doing it for fun then it's to be viewed with suspicion.

--

Nigel
 
Rob Morley wrote:
> In article <97e80c8b-8b56-44c2-bf6e-
> [email protected]>, spindrift
> [email protected] says...
>
>> Bravo that man, it takes guts to admit you were wrong, a quality
>> Clarkson, that weedy bloke who used to be married to Julie Burchill,
>> Havers and Hoey clearly lack.
>>
>> All of them said they would use their vehicles as weapons to driver
>> cyclists off the roads.
>>
> I don't know about the others, but Clarkson probably said it in an
> amusing way,

That's what Parris said about his article

--

Nigel
 
On 3 Jan, 21:04, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Shaun wrote:
> > On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 23:05:49 -0000, "wafflycat"
> > <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote:
>
> >>Matthew Parris apologises:-
>
> >>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/ar...
>
> >>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. "
>
> > He'll think twice now before calling cyclists self-righteous
>
> Not necessarily - especially not if he reads all the Guardian-readers'
> comments in response to Matt Seaton's article.

You mean the one that compares cyclists on the Guardian cycling forum
to The taliban?

The taliban stone homosexuals to death, subjugate and torture women
and children and destroy priceless historical artifacts. The cycling
thread discusses good rear lights and chat about short cuts through
cities.

The sense of perspective displayed by those posters- probably refugees
from seafespeeding or the ABD- display the same rank cowardice and
dishonesty as you, nugent, when you lied about cyclists condoning
vandalism.

Prove me wrong.

Post your evidence- or wonder why so much of your life is spent
attacking people for stuff they haven't done....
 
In article <[email protected]>, Nigel Randell
nigel_randell@_1.web says...
> Rob Morley wrote:
> > In article <97e80c8b-8b56-44c2-bf6e-
> > [email protected]>, spindrift
> > [email protected] says...
> >
> >> Bravo that man, it takes guts to admit you were wrong, a quality
> >> Clarkson, that weedy bloke who used to be married to Julie Burchill,
> >> Havers and Hoey clearly lack.
> >>
> >> All of them said they would use their vehicles as weapons to driver
> >> cyclists off the roads.
> >>
> > I don't know about the others, but Clarkson probably said it in an
> > amusing way,
>
> That's what Parris said about his article
>
Parris said it was intended to be a joke, Clarkson is actually funny ...
 
Rob Morley wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Nigel Randell
> nigel_randell@_1.web says...
>> Rob Morley wrote:
>> > In article <97e80c8b-8b56-44c2-bf6e-
>> > [email protected]>, spindrift
>> > [email protected] says...
>> >
>> >> Bravo that man, it takes guts to admit you were wrong, a quality
>> >> Clarkson, that weedy bloke who used to be married to Julie Burchill,
>> >> Havers and Hoey clearly lack.
>> >>
>> >> All of them said they would use their vehicles as weapons to driver
>> >> cyclists off the roads.
>> >>
>> > I don't know about the others, but Clarkson probably said it in an
>> > amusing way,
>>
>> That's what Parris said about his article
>>
> Parris said it was intended to be a joke, Clarkson is actually funny ...

Clarkson has never in his life been funny, not even accidentally. He's a
pompous, ill-mannered, boorish oaf, and there's nothing remotely amusing in
that.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

The trouble with Simon is that he only opens his mouth to change feet.
;; of me, by a 'friend'
 
"Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> Clarkson has never in his life been funny, not even accidentally. He's a
> pompous, ill-mannered, boorish oaf, and there's nothing remotely amusing
> in
> that.
>

Agreed. The woolly-haired w@nker is a nasty bit of work.
 
Simon Brooke said the following on 04/01/2008 08:06:

> Clarkson has never in his life been funny, not even accidentally. He's a
> pompous, ill-mannered, boorish oaf, and there's nothing remotely amusing in
> that.

But apart from all that, he can be quite funny :)

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/
 
On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 08:12:56 -0000 someone who may be "wafflycat"
<w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote this:-

>Agreed. The woolly-haired w@nker is a nasty bit of work.

He is certainly not funny.

However, his style did suit the commentary on a programme about the
raid on St Nazaire. I had expected his commentary to be awful, but I
was wrong and pleasantly surprised by it.


--
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
 
In article <[email protected]>, Simon Brooke
[email protected] says...

> Clarkson has never in his life been funny, not even accidentally. He's a
> pompous, ill-mannered, boorish oaf, and there's nothing remotely amusing in
> that.
>
You're not big on satire then?
 
Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:

> Rob Morley wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>, Nigel Randell
> > nigel_randell@_1.web says...
> >> Rob Morley wrote:
> >> > In article <97e80c8b-8b56-44c2-bf6e-
> >> > [email protected]>, spindrift
> >> > [email protected] says...

> >> >> All of them said they would use their vehicles as weapons to driver
> >> >> cyclists off the roads.
> >> >>
> >> > I don't know about the others, but Clarkson probably said it in an
> >> > amusing way,
> >>
> >> That's what Parris said about his article
> >>
> > Parris said it was intended to be a joke, Clarkson is actually funny ...
>
> Clarkson has never in his life been funny, not even accidentally. He's a
> pompous, ill-mannered, boorish oaf, and there's nothing remotely amusing in
> that.

I don't find him pompous, I don't find him generally ill-mannered,
although he does act the role of the boor regularly. He is not hilarious
but I find him often amusing.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
 
David Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 15:42:10 -0000 someone who may be "Barb"
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
> >The point being made, really, is that it was a "JOKE" (ha, ha!) and we're
> >going way over the top by being upset.
>
> Some other people called for a group of people to be decapitated.
> Well the word they used was behead. Some of them were sentenced to a
> few years in prison last year, though they will be let out before
> the end of the so-called sentence.

"so-called"?

> It will be interesting to see what government officials do about a
> white man calling for beheading. My guess is that they will do
> nothing and the lesson one can draw from that is that there is one
> law for Muslims and another one for white ex MPs.

Or that there is one law for people who can be shown to have angrily
called for a beheading and the same law for people who cannot be shown
to have angrily called for a beheading but could reasonably demonstrate,
by reference, for example, to their appearances on programmes such as
"Grumpy OId Men", that their attempt at humour had misfired.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
 
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 09:40:35 GMT someone who may be
[email protected] (Ekul Namsob) wrote this:-

>> Some other people called for a group of people to be decapitated.
>> Well the word they used was behead. Some of them were sentenced to a
>> few years in prison last year, though they will be let out before
>> the end of the so-called sentence.
>
>"so-called"?

So-called.

If people are sentenced to say six years in prison then they should
generally serve six years in prison. If the courts wish to sentence
people to three years in prison, followed by three years of
probation, then that is what they should do.

Sentences should be honest, otherwise the result is things like this

http://www.dunfermlinepress.com/article.php?sec=1&id=15364

In that case someone given a so-called sentence of eight years was
seen at the crime scene less than three years after he killed a
pedestrian. Of course the officials who let him out couldn't even be
bothered to warn the victim's relatives.




--
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
 
David Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 09:40:35 GMT someone who may be
> [email protected] (Ekul Namsob) wrote this:-
>
> >> Some other people called for a group of people to be decapitated.
> >> Well the word they used was behead. Some of them were sentenced to a
> >> few years in prison last year, though they will be let out before
> >> the end of the so-called sentence.
> >
> >"so-called"?
>
> So-called.
>
> If people are sentenced to say six years in prison then they should
> generally serve six years in prison. If the courts wish to sentence
> people to three years in prison, followed by three years of
> probation, then that is what they should do.

Largely, I would agree with you. However, how would you encourage people
to reform their behaviour? A six year sentence is a maximum period of
time that a convict should be expected to serve. A person who
demonstrates, say, four years of outstanding behaviour should surely be
released earlier than one who demonstrates four years of poor behaviour.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
 
David Hansen wrote:
>
> If people are sentenced to say six years in prison then they should
> generally serve six years in prison. If the courts wish to sentence
> people to three years in prison, followed by three years of
> probation, then that is what they should do.
>
> Sentences should be honest, otherwise the result is things like this
>
> http://www.dunfermlinepress.com/article.php?sec=1&id=15364
>
> In that case someone given a so-called sentence of eight years was
> seen at the crime scene less than three years after he killed a
> pedestrian. Of course the officials who let him out couldn't even be
> bothered to warn the victim's relatives.
>

"If prisoners are not considered a danger to the public, they can gain
access to the open prison estate and from there can be considered for
work placements and home and family contact."

What, exactly, do you have to do in order to be considered "a danger to
the public" ?
 

>>The point being made, really, is that it was a "JOKE" (ha, ha!) and we're
>>going way over the top by being upset.
>
> Some other people called for a group of people to be decapitated.
> Well the word they used was behead. Some of them were sentenced to a
> few years in prison last year, though they will be let out before
> the end of the so-called sentence.
>
> It will be interesting to see what government officials do about a
> white man calling for beheading. My guess is that they will do
> nothing and the lesson one can draw from that is that there is one
> law for Muslims and another one for white ex MPs.
>
Oooooooooops we are going off topic.

I do not think yer average hoodie reads The Times- I think its Tory "ironic"
humour of the Boris Johnson variety.
Must admit I did not think Parris was such a ****.
Tam
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
St Matthew Academy Cycle Parking
Replies
5
Views
456
UK and Europe
Ian Smith
I
T
St Matthew's Academy
Replies
56
Views
2K
UK and Europe
Tom Crispin
T
C
Times columnist ducks a Parris wire
Replies
54
Views
2K
UK and Europe
Peter Clinch
P
S
Are you out there Mr Parris?
Replies
22
Views
636
UK and Europe
Sir Jeremy
S
S
Told you the PCC was toothless. Parris adjudication.
Replies
8
Views
452
UK and Europe
Jeremy Parker
J
Top Bottom Back