-
Forgive me for being a cynic... but what did you expect?
The PCC are a "self regulatory" body. They exist because the press prefer to have them exist and to be able to control the complaints process rather than have government regulation in place that they can't control.
Though the PCC declare that: "The main role of the Press Complaints Commission is to serve members of the public who have complaints about newspapers and magazines."
It is more truthful to say: "The main role of the Press Complaints Commission is to serve members of the press who have complaints made against them by members of the public."
By allowing you to feel that you complained and got heard, they successfully kill any legal processes that would otherwise be called against them.
Of course, I'm a cynic.
-
No you're being realistic the entire basis of a fair trail is that of independence of the judge whom ever that may be.
-
The outcome of this would change if the cyclists are ever found and press charges. (The police have approached the CTC for any information they may have) But I think, probably, the cyclists didnt exist in the first place and he was just being a cock. Even though deliberately running into cyclists is hardly a fair fight, he is too pathetic to even do that, he was merely fantasising about running them off the road.
-
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.
-
The outcome of this would change if the cyclists are ever found and press charges. (The police have approached the CTC for any information they may have) But I think, probably, the cyclists didnt exist in the first place and he was just being a cock. Even though deliberately running into cyclists is hardly a fair fight, he is too pathetic to even do that, he was merely fantasising about running them off the road.
I agree.
-
enter james martin is a cunt into google, lfgss comes up but lots of others also think he is one too
-
Did you throw a spoke key at him?
-
enter james martin is a cunt into google, lfgss comes up but lots of others also think he is one too
Most people searching for James Martin would not be searching for 'James Martin is a cunt' but might be searching for 'James Martin recipes'.
I wonder if there was any way that we could influence a google search to reflect this fact???
Oh, I think that James cunt Martin cunt recipes are really cunty.
-
I have never read the Daily Mail before - its brilliant, innit - the 'lycra' made me do it , guv
Velocio
TheBrick(Tommy)
TT_Tom
Oliver Schick
jayloo
edscoble
CYOA
HillyBen
Balki
dancing james
andyp
Pistanator
twitch
EB
chameleon
bothwell
the-smiling-buddha
citygent
amey-
Post a reply
About
Daily Mail in cycling shocker!
Posted by
@squirrel
ta for that. quite interesting.