JNugent wrote:

On 27/05/2020 21:24, Kelly wrote:
Simon Mason wrote:

On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 at 9:16:45 AM UTC+1, colwyn wrote:
Matthew Parris 2007 also in "The Times"

Also Rod Liddle is now at it.

https://road.cc/content/news/liddle-...yclists-273749

Rod Liddle has to be a real second rater, though. It was well over a
decade ago that Matthew Parris wrote 'the most complained about story
of the year'. His article in The Times in which he suggested piano
wire should be strung across country lanes to decapitate cyclists
prompted almost 600 protests to the Press Complaints Commission. And
this, apparently, because he felt cyclists needed to be punished for
supposedly littering the countryside with plastic drinks bottles.
Anyway, at the time, The Commission replied that the article had not
breached its Code of Practice, but it was pleased Mr Parris had
apologised for his comments.

Then, last Sunday, we get Sunday Times columnist Rod Liddle saying he
finds it 'tempting' to stretch piano wire across the road to target
cyclists. There's no way he could have been unaware of the controversy
Matthew Paris caused when he said the same thing. It's just plain and
simple copy-cat trolling.

Maybe the jurno Rod Liddle should start reading ukrc and learn how
proper 'players' set about their game. Then try and see if he can come
up with something original for his Sunday Times column.

Serious question: would you rather people didn't tell the truthwhen
expressing their opinions so that cyclists could remain unaware of the
opprobrium in which they are held by a significant proportion of the
population?

No, I am only too glad to hear the truth from people - as they see it.
But does that mean, for example, that Matthew Parris really wants to
see cyclists who litter plastic bottles punished by being decapitated,
as he suggested? I don't think so. Nor do I think Rod Liddle would
truly consider tying 'piano wire at neck height' to prevent a
middle-class city family from cycling along the pavement outside his
house. That doesn't stop them, however, from stating the opposite in
their paper columns. So what they are printing is not exactly the
truth, is it? This just has to be part of a game they are playing.

Isn't it the same game being played on ukrc? The same game that has
been played for many a year? Each opposing side has players
exaggerating their positions usually giving some consideration as to
the extent they believe their antagonists are exaggerating their
positions? I imagine this is merely individuals levelling out the
playing field, in their respective views. I don't see anything
particularly wrong with this. No one is obliged to take part, it's a
free choice, anyone can chose to participate or not.

It is difficult, though, impossible more like, to get a dispassionate
discussion going because virtually each player is reluctant to lose
ground against their adversaries, some of whom they know are going to
hang on to the ground they hold come what may. There you go, play the
game by all means. If anything it's an enthrallment - a curious,
discordant blend of light and heat, as the expression goes.