Police officer injures cyclist
 

In http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/c...re/4606141.stm one
can read the following:

"During the pursuit another police car called to deal with the
incident struck a cyclist, who was seriously injured." [snip]

"The patrol car called to help was in collision with the cyclist,
from Stanground, Peterborough, as it travelled along Bourges
Boulevard.

"The 21-year-old victim was later taken to Peterborough District
Hospital for treatment.

"Cambridgeshire Police have suspended the driver of the police car
from driving duties pending an investigation and have appealed for
witnesses to the accident to come forward."

I make no comment on the rights and wrongs of this.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

Police officer injures cyclist
 

David Hansen wrote:
In http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/c...re/4606141.stm one
can read the following:

Yes, but this is the same website which asserts that "anyone opening the
attachment [of an email proclaiming Osama BL's capture] will fall victim
to a Microsoft Windows virus."

What I found a trifle annoying was that the news report that David
references above is entitled "Ramraiders hurl bricks at police";
presumably some sub-editor thinks that lowlifes hurling bricks is more
attention-grabbing than a cyclist being seriously injured.

R.

Police officer injures cyclist
 

On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 16:24:48 +0100 someone who may be Richard
.address.uk wrote
this:-

What I found a trifle annoying was that the news report that David
references above is entitled "Ramraiders hurl bricks at police";
presumably some sub-editor thinks that lowlifes hurling bricks is more
attention-grabbing than a cyclist being seriously injured.

Only a cyclist, not worth mentioning in the headline.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

Police officer injures cyclist
 

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 09:47:08 +0100,
David Hansen wrote:
On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 16:24:48 +0100 someone who may be Richard
o.address.uk wrote
this:-

What I found a trifle annoying was that the news report that David
references above is entitled "Ramraiders hurl bricks at police";
presumably some sub-editor thinks that lowlifes hurling bricks is more
attention-grabbing than a cyclist being seriously injured.

Only a cyclist, not worth mentioning in the headline.

It was front page news in the local paper, not the lead story mind
but it was prominent on the front page.

--
Andy Leighton =
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

Police officer injures cyclist
 

On 04 Jun 2005 09:53:45 GMT someone who may be Andy Leighton
wrote this:-

It was front page news in the local paper, not the lead story mind
but it was prominent on the front page.

Can you remember what the headline was?


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

Police officer injures cyclist
 

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 14:24:38 +0100,
David Hansen wrote:
On 04 Jun 2005 09:53:45 GMT someone who may be Andy Leighton
wrote this:-

It was front page news in the local paper, not the lead story mind
but it was prominent on the front page.

Can you remember what the headline was?

Something like "Cyclist hit by police car" or at least it was on
the board outside the shop.

It seems that online the story is now more about the police catching the
ram-raiders but at the time it was presented differently in the paper.

--
Andy Leighton =
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_