Cycling UK complains to Sunday Times over Rod Liddle’s “piano wire at neck height” column – published on weekend a cyclist was hospitalised by riding into such a trap

Whilst the kind of nutters that stretch wire across paths are rare it's more likely that he'd influence someone in a car to close pass a cyclist "to give them a scare".

The problem with that, apart from the vile sentiment, is they only have to make a tiny misjudgment and the cyclist will live with consequences.

Liddle won't carry any blame and probably neither will the driver if it goes to court. 

I see your point.

Incidentally I am hoping that social distancing will extend to the road, but I feel I might be a bit naive. 

It turns out the great British public have a remarkable judgement of Two Metres if you stray within the boundary when you are passing pedestrians on a bike.

So when they brush past in the car, its not that they don't know how far 1.5 metres is, its that they can't be arsed to move the steering wheel with their fat arms.

Whilst I totally agree with your comments about the BBC, I think that articles such as his do have an influence, and normalising violence against cyclists makes it all the more likely.

Worth noting but when a member of the public tweeted a photo of a press photographer trying to take foreshortened photographs of cyclists in a London park recently many of his fellow journalists jumped to his defence.

The argument being made was that a member of the public publishing a photo of a press photogapher ("he was a war photographer don't cha know") might encourage attacks on members of the press.

No one should be encouraging acts of violence (and the tweeter certainly wasn't) but the hiprocracy there is riduculous.

Would you employ that same argument if someone were to publish a comment suggesting that the standard of journalism (and British culture generally) would improve if a few members of the Murdoch family found themselves in receipt of a bullet to the head?

Is there a reason why you feel the need to minimise Liddle's thuggery?  Are you a fan of his, or is it an odd psychological thing, because you don't want to feel threatened by his remarks, so have to convince yourself they will have no effect?

Why complain to ST or IPSO? Describing the construction of a booby trap targetted at a particular group of people should be a police matter - it would be if the targetted group were say gay people, or a racial or religious minority.

I suggest readers should be reporting this to their local Police & Crime Commissioner *, and referencing the real life similar incidents which have occurred, and are described on this website and elsewhere.

EDIT: *, or to Met Police

They won't respond to complaints but they will respond to loss of advertising revenue. What needs to be done is apply pressure to advertisers to withdraw due to the unacceptable nature of the comments - columnists are only writing opinion pieces not factual journalism, and they will drop them like a hot coal if their views inhibit revenue. Advertisers do not want to look guilty by association. And now is the perfect time, newspapers are already hurting from revenue losses from lockdown conditions.

Philh68 wrote:

They won't respond to complaints but they will respond to loss of advertising revenue. What needs to be done is apply pressure to advertisers to withdraw due to the unacceptable nature of the comments - columnists are only writing opinion pieces not factual journalism, and they will drop them like a hot coal if their views inhibit revenue. Advertisers do not want to look guilty by association. And now is the perfect time, newspapers are already hurting from revenue losses from lockdown conditions.

I don't read it, but does anyone have a list of their advertisers so that I can tell them I won't be buying their products?

they will probably just write it off again using some excuse about how criminal actions taken by another has no relation to their article despite the timeframe in which it occurred and the recurring language used by Liddle to in "jest".

the fact they published it at all means they see nothing wrong with his view and will not change their stance just because people are being attacked and they received a letter complaining.

it's just disgusting this person can get his writing published at all.

I thought the CUK letter was a bit of a scattergun  - what actually does the author want to happen?

eburtthebike wrote:

Fantastic letter, very well made points.  Thanks Duncan Dollimore.

The response from the editor will be worth reading, perhaps using the Parris defence?

"Perhaps"?

Of course that's how they'll respond - it was just a laugh, satire, etc etc, a bit of light relief for these Dark Times...