On 16/04/2019 08:45, TMS320 wrote:

On 16/04/2019 03:14, JNugent wrote:
On 15/04/2019 22:03, Simon Jester wrote
On Monday, April 15, 2019 at 9:05:11 PM UTC+1, MrCheerful wrote:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...shire-47939192

So, 'Woman cyclist raped by pedestrian' would be more acurate.

How?
The headline is: "Woman raped in Peterborough by passing cyclist".

It does but is plainly wrong unless you can describe a way that makes
"rape by passing cyclist" technically possible.

In what way is it not possible?

Unless his bike, his cycling and the fact that he is a cyclist is - in
your view at least, and that of Jester - irrelevant, whilst the fact
that the rapist cyclist's victim is a cyclist is not irrelevant?

Got it.

You might both want to think about honing your skills in logic.

In the meantime, let's all hope that this cyclist pedestrian / airline
pilot / rich man (Considerably Richer than Yow at least, because he's a
cyclist) is caught and brought to justice.

Given a charge like that, he's probably best off heading straight for
the Ecuadorean Embassy, wouldn't you say?