On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 15:31:22 +0000, Trevor Barton wrote:



Reading the article closely, there were minor injuries to the policemen.

The article almost makes it sound like "this cyclist ran into a stationary
police car. The cyclist was killed, and the poor policeman are all shaken
up by the incident"

Reading the article closely, it says nothing about the circumstances of
the incident.

I realise that. Let me make try to make this clearer - the words in the
article are slanted in a certain way. It does use the word "accident"
(twice) with no justification if you follow your logic (*). The mental
image they put in my mind is the one I've described.

I'm no good at doing this, but let's say the article said:
"A police car collided with a cyclist on the Rotherham Road.
The cyclist was killed, but the officers escaped with minor injuries"

Sorry, I really don't want to pick a fight with you,
especially over such a tragic story.


(*) the article pre-judges that this was an "accident".