You are reading a single comment by @Oliver Schick and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
London Fixed Gear and Single-Speed is a community of predominantly fixed gear and single-speed cyclists in and around London, UK.
This site is supported almost exclusively by donations. Please consider donating a small amount regularly.
@Oliver Schick
There is no other port of call for this sort of thing (unless you want to start legal action yourself). Of course the Code is fairly rubbish, but in rare instances the complaint can be upheld.
I knew that it wouldn't be in this case, as even in the Matthew Parris case, which was much more serious, it was not:
http://www.roadcyclinguk.com/event-news/matthew-parris-press-complaints-judgement/2931.html
They got almost 500 complaints, which is a lot. I'll certainly complain to the PCC again if the need arises. Every little helps--it's certainly not impossible that the Code may be revised if complaints of a particular nature (e.g., 'advocating' 'jokingly' aggressive behaviour against cyclists) keep piling in and it becomes apparent that there is an area of serious concern that the Code does not yet cover. I personally see absolutely no reason why 'journalists' should be allowed to get away with offensive and aggressive remarks against cyclists like this.
As far as I'm concerned, here there is no reason relating to freedom of the press, which at any rate is usually and systematically confused with licence of the press. Freedom has sensible and civilised limits; it does not automatically tip over into censorship just because it is given limits. Licence has no limits or far too few. Freedom even needs limits to be recognisable as freedom, and in practice no form of freedom exists without such limits. The Code simply doesn;t define its limits tightly enough.
For instance, while I deplore such behaviour in the press, I wouldn't bat an eyelid if a character appeared in a well-judged piece of drama who advocated violence (although of course a piece of drama can be base, vile, and licentious, too). Horses for courses.
I realise, of course, that many people are very worried about freedom of the press, and I appreciate why, but I've never understood why spouting hatred or advocating violence should be included in that freedom. In a fairly civilised democratic state (I'm not a cheerleader but I am in the chorus with a hushed voice), the context would ensure that this provision would not be abused. If a state tipped into a much worse form of government, it would be lights out for freedom of the press, anyway.
I think that it's also a mistake in the PCC judgement to go looking for whether cyclists are a 'vulnerable group' under the Code when it is clear that cyclists are Vulnerable Road Users (VRU). As this alleged attack (I still believe that he simply made it up) allegedly occurred when the writer and his supposed victims were all participants in traffic, it is relevant that they were at that moment vulnerable to a driver's aggressiveness. Merely pointing to the role of the police and that he hasn't formally been accused of a crime doesn't seem to me to be enough. Perhaps I'll send them a follow-up on that.
Sorry for rambling. Hope this makes sense.