What's smug and deserves to be decapitated?

According to journalist and former Conservative politician Matthew Parris the answer is cyclists. In this article published in the Times on Thursday he suggests decapitating cyclists by stringing piano wire across country lanes.

I quite like Matthew Parris whenever he's on the BBC TV series Grumpy Old Men, but for some strange reason I've now gone completely off him.

Comments

[Warren T]

There is a wonderful letter in response to the article written by a woman who's son was injured by the method suggested in the article. You can read it by following this link: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article3100711.ece

[Treadly and Me]

I'm gobsmacked. As an editor, can you suggest how that nasty little piece of crap managed to make it unscathed across the subbies desk?

Not at all funny. Not even a bit.

[kimbofo]

Warren T, thanks for the link. Interesting...

Treadly and Me, it's a highly irresponsible piece of journalism -- well, actually, it's not journalism because it's simply a commentary piece peddling all kinds of stereotypes, generalities and inaccuracies. The only justification for running the first paragraph would be along the lines of humour, but I doubt anyone would find it funny -- it's offensive and dangerous to begin with -- so it should have been rejected outright. Unfortunately, the issue is made worse by the headline, so it's not just Matthew Parris but the sub-editor -- or more importantly, the person who let the sub-editor get away with this headline -- who should be hauled over the coals.

[Colin]

You know how you can tell that environmental thinking is taking root? Because it's being used so widely as a club in the realm of articles that boil down to "I don't like what you do so I shall find ways to antagonize or demonize you, using external and superficially quantitative arguments to justify my petty bigotry."

It's fun. I do it all the time to wind up people who own hybrid cars ; )

[Chris L]

The more things change...

He's just rerunning an old "opinion" piece that someone else used to boost circulation figures on a slow news day.

The real problem here is that "advocates" get all excited about this, bombard the tabloid with angry letters and so on, give them the attention they were seeking, and encourage them to do it all again in a few months.

The same thing has happened time and again since the Clear Channel debacle several years ago, and will continue to happen until people wise up to it. You don't eradicate a troll by feeding it.