Image

Quoted message said:

Now, if someone states that all cyclists do either of these things then
he is effectively accusing me, as a cyclist, of committing an offence.
As far as I can see, depending upon how the statement is presented,
that's either slander or libel.

I think you'd have to be named alongside the allegations to stand any chance
of success at claiming that you've been libelled.

Danny Colyer said:

I've been thinking about image. Every so often, some journalist or
broadcaster makes a statement to the effect that all cyclists jump red
lights, or ride on the pavement.

Can you cite an example?

Quoted message said:

Now, if someone states that all cyclists do either of these things then
he is effectively accusing me, as a cyclist, of committing an offence.

Have you /never/ committed /any/ offence whilst cycling?

Quoted message said:

As far as I can see, depending upon how the statement is presented,
that's either slander or libel.

Only if it mentions you personally, and you can prove it to be untrue.

--
Matt B

"Danny Colyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I wonder how feasible it would be, and whether it would be helpful, for a
cyclist or group of cyclists to sue for libel following such a statement.
With a suitably chosen target (Cl*rks*n, for example), the action would
doubtless get a great deal of publicity. It could potentially make it
very clear that many cyclists (the majority of adult cyclists AFAICT)
neither commit nor condone these offences.

Digressing....

Remember the woolly-haired-petrol-headed tosspot's comments about driving
over any cyclist who happened to be in front of the thinking woman's fat
ugly bloke at a traffic light??? How complaints were made & said no law
against what he said? Well, last night on Radio 4, on the five o'clock news
thing... they had a couple of legal beagles discussing offensive statements
and which, of several presented to them, could be construed as breaking the
law. One of the statements was along the lines of suggesting someone should
be shot, IIRC. The legal beagles dug up an old law from 18whatever that is
still on the statue books, that made me wonder if it *might* be relevant to
the comments of the despised one about deliberately driving over cyclists???

I shall have to see if the BBC Listen Again facility covers this programme.

Cheers, helen s

Why should we be any better behaved than any other road using group?

No Danny, we display just as many stupidities and misjudgements as
others.

I'm afraid your lawsuit would not improve our image. On the contrary,
it would make us appear holyer than thou, and silly!

wafflycat said:

I shall have to see if the BBC Listen Again facility covers this programme.

PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/mainframe.shtml?http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/radio4_aod.shtml?radio4/pm

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

wafflycat said:

"Danny Colyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I wonder how feasible it would be, and whether it would be helpful,
for a cyclist or group of cyclists to sue for libel following such a
statement. With a suitably chosen target (Cl*rks*n, for example), the
action would doubtless get a great deal of publicity. It could
potentially make it very clear that many cyclists (the majority of
adult cyclists AFAICT) neither commit nor condone these offences.

Digressing....

Remember the woolly-haired-petrol-headed tosspot's comments about
driving over any cyclist who happened to be in front of the thinking
woman's fat ugly bloke at a traffic light??? How complaints were made &
said no law against what he said? Well, last night on Radio 4, on the
five o'clock news thing... they had a couple of legal beagles discussing
offensive statements and which, of several presented to them, could be
construed as breaking the law. One of the statements was along the lines
of suggesting someone should be shot, IIRC. The legal beagles dug up an
old law from 18whatever that is still on the statue books, that made me
wonder if it *might* be relevant to the comments of the despised one
about deliberately driving over cyclists???

Solicitation to Murder under Section 4 of Offences Against The Person
Act 1861. It would not succeed though because I don't think anyone
would be able to convince a jury that JC was actually trying to
encourage people to run cyclists over.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

Teredo said:

Why should we be any better behaved than any other road using group?

No Danny, we display just as many stupidities and misjudgements as
others.

I'm afraid your lawsuit would not improve our image. On the contrary,
it would make us appear holyer than thou, and silly!

Hi Ric! You have to be better at nym shifting than that. Begone Troll

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> writed in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

"Danny Colyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I wonder how feasible it would be, and whether it would be helpful,
for a cyclist or group of cyclists to sue for libel following such a
statement. With a suitably chosen target (Cl*rks*n, for example), the
action would doubtless get a great deal of publicity. It could
potentially make it very clear that many cyclists (the majority of
adult cyclists AFAICT) neither commit nor condone these offences.

Digressing....

Digressing further
Having been subjected to 'you don't pay road tax therefore .....' rant at
work recently, I've been considering whether cycling groups ought to go
on the offensive with a 'Cyclists do Pay Road Tax' campaign, on the basis
that a)there is no such thing as road tax, b)almost all cyclists pay
council tax (along with all other general taxation), and c)many cyclists
also own a motor vehicle which they can't use simultaneously while they
are cycling, and that they are paying VED for anyway.

Quoted message said:

vernon said:

I think you'd have to be named alongside the allegations to stand any chance
of success at claiming that you've been libelled.

It occurred to me that that might be the case, but I don't know whether
it is or isn't. If it is, then obviously that would put paid to that idea.

--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Subscribe to PlusNet <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/referral/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

Mike the Unshavable said:

"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> writed in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

"Danny Colyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I wonder how feasible it would be, and whether it would be helpful,
for a cyclist or group of cyclists to sue for libel following such a
statement. With a suitably chosen target (Cl*rks*n, for example), the
action would doubtless get a great deal of publicity. It could
potentially make it very clear that many cyclists (the majority of
adult cyclists AFAICT) neither commit nor condone these offences.

Digressing....

Digressing further
Having been subjected to 'you don't pay road tax therefore .....' rant at
work recently, I've been considering whether cycling groups ought to go
on the offensive with a 'Cyclists do Pay Road Tax' campaign, on the basis
that a)there is no such thing as road tax, b)almost all cyclists pay
council tax (along with all other general taxation), and c)many cyclists
also own a motor vehicle which they can't use simultaneously while they
are cycling, and that they are paying VED for anyway.

Quoted message said:

Why not go on the offensive by telling drivers that they don't pay road
tax ? And asking for a discount every time you visit a store that
supplies free or subidised parking since you are partly paying for the
driver's 'free' parking?

Tony Raven <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

Teredo said:

Why should we be any better behaved than any other road using group?

Quoted message said:

Hi Ric! You have to be better at nym shifting than that. Begone Troll

Ummm... I knew (not biblically, but that's another story...) an Ed
Wingfield in the London Cycling Campaign a couple of decades ago...

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden]
Edgware.

John_Kane said:

Why not go on the offensive by telling drivers that they don't pay road
tax ?

What would that achieve, given that most of them do pay 'road tax' in
the form of Vehicle Excise Duty (VED)? This is a tax paid by motorists
(as motorists) for the right[1] to use the road. Cyclists (as cyclists)
are not liable for this tax, and are in the privileged position of
currently using the roads for free.

What you would achieve is probably the opposite of what you might
intend, given the current backlash against dangerous cycling in the
press. You may even contribute to a strengthening of the case for
compulsory bicycle registration and bicycle VED.

[1] right - a just or legal claim to something
--
Matt B

Matt B <[email hidden]> writed in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

John_Kane said:

Why not go on the offensive by telling drivers that they don't pay
road tax ?

What would that achieve, given that most of them do pay 'road tax' in
the form of Vehicle Excise Duty (VED)? This is a tax paid by
motorists (as motorists) for the right[1] to use the road. Cyclists
(as cyclists) are not liable for this tax, and are in the privileged
position of currently using the roads for free.

As are the keepers of motor vehicles subject to the 'free' VED disc,
AFAIR this includes motor vehicles over 25 years old, and crown
vehicles, and may well include other catagories. Anyone may use the
public highway (well most of it) for free, it's just that some users are
required to obtain, and in some cases pay, for a licence to use certain
classes of vehicle on the public highway. The amount of this licence is
not hypothecated into the maintenance of the public highway, nor does it
pay for the expenses required to maintain a trauma infrastructure to
support the casualties from motor vehicle use.

However I agree that negative campaigning is - negative - it is always
better to go with a positive message (cyclist do pay this 'tax'😉 rather
than the negative (motorists don't pay this 'tax'😉.

Mike the Unshavable twisted the electrons to say:

Quoted message said:

As are the keepers of motor vehicles subject to the 'free' VED disc,
AFAIR this includes motor vehicles over 25 years old

Not since the budget in 1998, when the law was changed. It's now only
vehicles manufactured before 1st January 1973 that are exempt. How much
extra revenue this has generated for the government is left as an exercise
for the reader!
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

Mike the Unshavable said:

Matt B <[email hidden]> writed in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

John_Kane said:

Why not go on the offensive by telling drivers that they don't pay
road tax ?

What would that achieve, given that most of them do pay 'road tax' in
the form of Vehicle Excise Duty (VED)? This is a tax paid by
motorists (as motorists) for the right[1] to use the road. Cyclists
(as cyclists) are not liable for this tax, and are in the privileged
position of currently using the roads for free.

As are the keepers of motor vehicles subject to the 'free' VED disc,

Yes, some get the 'tax disc', which is, in fact technically the 'vehicle
licence' for zero VED.

Quoted message said:

AFAIR this includes motor vehicles over 25 years old,

It was, but then modified to those registered before 1973, so now it's
vehicles over 33 years old - and they are few and far between now.

Quoted message said:

and crown
vehicles, and may well include other catagories.

Yes.

Quoted message said:

Anyone may use the
public highway (well most of it) for free, it's just that some users are
required to obtain, and in some cases pay, for a licence to use certain
classes of vehicle on the public highway.

Precisely.

Quoted message said:

The amount of this licence is
not hypothecated into the maintenance of the public highway,

No. Although, AAMOF, 'coincidentally' the income from VED equates
more-or-less to the amount spent nationally on road provision annually.

Quoted message said:

nor does it
pay for the expenses required to maintain a trauma infrastructure to
support the casualties from motor vehicle use.

No. Although if a driver is found liable, by causing an 'accident', for
an NHS expense, the full cost, including that of ambulances, paramedics
etc is generally reclaimed from him (via his insurers).

The other thing to note is that about 10% of all government income is
raised through motoring taxes, the largest being fuel duty which raised
close to £30bn pounds in 2004.

Quoted message said:

However I agree that negative campaigning is - negative - it is always
better to go with a positive message (cyclist do pay this 'tax'😉 rather
than the negative (motorists don't pay this 'tax'😉.

Yes, worse still is attempting to defend or justify anti-social cycling
by attacking anti-social motoring, as if that renders it acceptable!

--
Matt B