Thread by @tweetymike

@thomasrcock @bathlive @sampetherick @CycleBath Thanks for engaging positively here Thomas, appreciated. First let’s agree terms. In saying ‘hate speech’, I’m going with the Wikipedia definition that hate speech is “speech that attacks a person/group on the basis of attributes such as” being a cyclist.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_spee…

@thomasrcock @bathlive @sampetherick @CycleBath Now hate speech is typically thought of as only being relevant to race, sexual orientation, etc. But it can be and is used as a tool to vilify segments of the population, usually those perceived as out-groups who are seen as minorities with no or ill-gotten rights.

@thomasrcock @bathlive @sampetherick @CycleBath Anti-cyclist hate speech exists on a spectrum. Here’s a taste of the sort of thing directed at a cyclist in YouTube comments, as discussed in a Road.cc forum recently: again, replace the collective-blaming use of ‘cyclist’ with ‘black’ or ‘Jew’ or ‘gay’.

@thomasrcock @bathlive @sampetherick @CycleBath So let’s look at the letter, and the level of journalistic rigour that should have been applied in deciding whether to publish it at all. You’re runnning a business. You are under no obligation to print anything, so this was an editorial choice. What was the rationale? The angle?

@thomasrcock @bathlive @sampetherick @CycleBath Firstly, application of some scepticism as to the veracity of the claims made;

“20 minutes clearing dirt and debris”.

This is patent fabrication of the highest order. A woman fell off her bike. At most, there’s a bike, pair of sunglasses and two water bottles to collect.

@thomasrcock @bathlive @sampetherick @CycleBath The claim they ‘stood around’ instead of moving ‘to a layby’ - maybe there was a spinal injury risk. The idea anyone would deliberately block the road putting themselves and the victim in ongoing danger for ‘selfish’ reasons is laughable.

@thomasrcock @bathlive @sampetherick @CycleBath “Why do the police, Department of Transport, and other road users tolerate these racing cyclists?”

...because it’s enshrined in law, perhaps? Again the language of outgrouping, of disenfranchise, of delegitimising, of *de-humanising*.

@thomasrcock @bathlive @sampetherick @CycleBath “I’ll make one thing clear to start – I have no gripe with the ordinary cyclist”

I’m sure some of her best friends are black/gay/Jewish too. Classic move there. Claim the high ground and position one’s motive as objective and beyond reproach.

@thomasrcock @bathlive @sampetherick @CycleBath “No, what I get annoyed about are the ones who are racing on the public highway”

If they’re racing, there would be labelled cars, motorcycle outriders, marshals, they’ll be wearing numbers and it’s a legally-sanctioned activity. What she seeks to do is portray *illegality*.

@thomasrcock @bathlive @sampetherick @CycleBath Every time you venture out you see people choosing to drive their cars/motorbikes faster than what many would consider sensible, actually breaking laws & endangering lives in the process. But I don’t think an even-handed appreciation of relative risk to others is her strongpoint.

@thomasrcock @bathlive @sampetherick @CycleBath “This cycling has nothing to do with being ‘green’ or emissions... their cycles, lycra, accessories and hospital admissions probably incur a greater footprint than using the bus”

Unlike her car. Cyclists responsible for global warming. Masters of their (and our) own demise.

@thomasrcock @bathlive @sampetherick @CycleBath “It is a sport; should be treated as such and should take place on private ground with proper facilities. The road is not the place for it”

De-legitimise the outgroup. Remove them. Most importantly, out from her way - they don’t deserve the right to use roads they paid for.

@thomasrcock @bathlive @sampetherick @CycleBath “If my husband, my friends and I got into our cars and raced each other 2 or 3 abreast, as fast as possible, we would quite rightly be apprehended and fined. So why is it seemingly acceptable to do just that on a bicycle?”

Again positioning legal, safe behaviour as the opposite.

@thomasrcock @bathlive @sampetherick @CycleBath Finally, “It has to stop. These cyclists are a danger to us all”

Drivers kill about 1700 people per year and maim around 800,000 more. Cyclists, maybe one per year dead, frequently their own fault for walking into the path of someone cycling. So where does the danger really lie?

@thomasrcock @bathlive @sampetherick @CycleBath All of the above was read by your team, printed as fact without question, thereby legitimised and promoted. You didn’t need to. You could have applied an ounce of journalistic rigour to what was clearly a fantastical concoction with a clear bias. Why didn’t that happen, Thomas?

@thomasrcock @bathlive @sampetherick @CycleBath I think I know why: your team are paid from advertising revenue, garnered through clicks on articles. Feeding prejudice and echoing established views is more likely to get shared, and be agreed with by social circles. You know this, so bingo-lists of hate speech are a god$end.

@thomasrcock @bathlive @sampetherick @CycleBath I appreciate local media is a tough gig. It’s important to tell local stories. How you go about it helps set the tone in our society, and influences the local mood. What you’ve done here, has helped engender hatred against a particular group of local mums, dads and children.

@thomasrcock @bathlive @sampetherick @CycleBath You won’t know if the article you’ll publish in a month’s time about the death of a 43yo mother of three following a close pass on a blind bend, will be about an incident where the motorist showed less care, *because they viewed the Lycra-clad person as not deserving of care*.

@thomasrcock @bathlive @sampetherick @CycleBath I can’t make you do the right thing Thomas. But please, please: know that your choices on what you publish do influence our society. Use that power for good, not to enable and amplify hate speech against vulnerable citizens going about a lawful activity.

Thanks for reading.