In the news

im not getting involved. not after the last time.

What have you done sony!?

How long before Jeez turns up and blows everyone's minds?

How long before Jeez turns up and blows everyone's minds?

Nerged for transparently attempting to summon the Beast

Here's a good example of someone making sure they're fully aware of what's going on around them...

The next time you hear some mouthbreather saying 'Boris - what a ledge! He should be PM', please punch them in the face until they die.

In fact, just do it to anyone who uses the word 'ledge'.

Or calls him Boris...

Rob Ford... again. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-24995820

I think he should replace Boris though.

Are you on first name terms with that prize plum Johnson?

http://www.ibtimes.com/wal-mart-wmt-store-starts-food-drive-its-own-employees-so-they-can-afford-thanksgiving-dinner

Rob Ford... again. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-24995820

Nice headline "Fresh blow" :)

Rob Ford can run?

They see me ROLLIN'...

ugly business in zebraville... hope it's not as bad as it sounds :(

http://news.sky.com/story/1170843/dozens-feared-trapped-in-shopping-mall-collapse

I can't say I'm too impressed by the Guardian's attempt to associate me with lab-grown 'meat'.

http://www.theguardian.com/books/shortcuts/2013/nov/19/schmeat-oxford-dictionaries-word-of-the-year-synthetic-meat-sheet

I've just been a little bit schick in my mouth.

#it'sallaboutme

I don't get it. Has it been dismissed as nonsensical by the Guild of Jewish Mothers? "Meat-schmeat!"

No, it's a combination of "sheet" and "meat".

Apetising.

Apetising.

What do apes have to with it? Urgh. :)

http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/simon-jenkins-roads-will-be-risky-for-cyclists-whatever-we-do-8948926.html wac

Coppers interviewed under caution after this..

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/14/man-dies-mental-health-act-surrey-police

http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/simon-jenkins-roads-will-be-risky-for-cyclists-whatever-we-do-8948926.html wac

"Road warriors: other European males do not cycle aggressively in helmets and Lycra"

What about other European scooter riders? I wonder if they scoot to work in PVC arseless catsuits?

http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/simon-jenkins-roads-will-be-risky-for-cyclists-whatever-we-do-8948926.html

A crap article from a crap newspaper.

I wasted a fair bit of time analysing it.

The article seems to say cyclists are too numerous, smug, zany, wildcats that are untrained and either make themselves invisible or ride too slowly in the middle of the road.

It also implies the deaths of cyclists in the capital are not increasing year on year so that means nobody should worry.

You can read his opinion as: recent reports in the media about cycling dangers that can be fixed are just myth not fact.

Simon Jenkins basically says there has already been too much investment in cycling and any more would make the problems drivers face worse.
**
Blow by blow analysis:
**
The first paragraph sets up the main thrust of the article. In a sarcastic teenage voice Simon asks: does the Mayor really HAVE to do anything.

The rest of the piece is Simon Jenkins justifying his own reasons, and by extension the Evening Standard's reasons and by further extension the readership's reasons why the Mayor must not do anything.

Simon tells us there is myth surrounding the use of our streets by cyclists. Basically, don't believe what others say, here are the facts.

He refutes the common consensus and says the streets are not dangerous and the government does care. Message: "Don't worry"

His facts remind us most of the cycle deaths are not in London. Message: "Don't worry"

He coldly notes that although cycling is up the number of deaths is constant over the years. Message: "Don't worry"

There is then a paragraph smashing various statistics together that don't prove a point either way. Simon actually relishes this difficulty with statistics in a way that would get a 12 year old a detention for laziness and poor writing.

Next comes some dull anecdotes and admissions from Simon that he was once a very poor cyclist with poor habits. He is not trying to get cyclists reading on his side with this, he is just trying to gain more authority over the non cycling readership by saying "I've been there, I've lived with those poor vulgar people"

A key paragraph follows: "The debate over cycling safety has become a dialogue of the deaf." Simon is here attempting to use his platform as a writer for the Evening Standard not to engage the debate but to put a stop to it. He is saying the two sides are polarised and it's a pointless argument.

It is at this point Simon comes down heavily on the side of the drivers. He lists a set of common woes that spew from cab drivers slobbering mouths all over London. They jump reds, they have no lights, there's loads of them, I have to look at traffic lights and can't see the cyclists.

Simon tells us too much money has been spent on cycling in London. The Boris bike mean more inexperience cyclists on the street and he uses a few statistics to back up his argument.

To try and give the article some balance Simon blurts some poorly written details about how having more cyclists over all makes things safer. He acknowledges this will upset drivers.

Next another key point for the article. Simon wishes riders were less smug. This must be a personal opinion with no news value and barley any value in terms of comment either. He repeats his gripes that cyclists are untrained, unlicensed and almost invisible. Even riders that take the primary position on the road come in for attack.

In summing up Simon adds a bizarre comparison between sit-up-and-beg bikes on the continent demanding more respect from car drivers than London's high-performance bikes.

In the final words cyclists are lab led as zany wildcats and we are reminded cycling is dangerous, perhaps telling us we shouldn't do it. But he counters this by saying it's not as dangerous as the headlines suggest, reinforcing the opening lines about how the Mayor need not do anything to stop the bloodshed.

Simon Jenkins is a good writer, but he writes about far too many things that he doesn't know enough about, cycling being one of them. I think he may have written about cycling before and it was an equally poor effort.

turns out he's also a really crap cyclist.

these articles make me wonder if most journalism is this bad and i don't notice a lot of the time, or if cycling specifically attracts atrocious drivel.

^^ He had a moan about the recent road closures for the Royal Parks Triathlon I think.

And criticised the Times' campaign.