To be fair to Iain, the article he linked to starts with the following:

MINISTERS are considering making motorists legally responsible for accidents involving cyclists or pedestrians, even if they are not at fault.

Government advisers are pushing for changes in the civil law that will make the most powerful vehicle involved in a collision automatically liable for insurance and compensation purposes.

So it’s perhaps more the Times pushing a non-story a bit hard.

But wait, is this Sunny Hundal criticising a blogger for not reading the article he links to before going off on a rant? The irony! It burns!

Oh Tim, all these accusations and counter-accusations of hypocrisy are soooo passe. Why play whataboutery eh?

As for the blog post, I suppose reading between the lines is too much to ask.

Yes indeed Sunny, Iain ought to have read the article more closely and seen that, instead of ‘Government ministers’ it was ‘Government advisers’ that are pushing for a change in the law.

But then again, at least he bothered to read the article at all.

Tim J

It doesn’t say that either. A pressure group has made a proposal. Someone in the department is looking at it. Presumably another pressure group has got a tame journalist to help head it it off.

A Department for Transport spokesman said:This is something that gets raised by pressure groups from time to time

Who actually funds Cycling England? Not the DoT is it?

You might want to read the blog of Labour MP, Tom Harris occasionally.

He raised the same issue about a week ago, and the plans were coming out of a Scottish Government report.

As he notes, there have been other Labour MPs who have in the past supported such a proposal.

http://www.tomharris.org.uk/2009/09/14/two-wheels-good-usually/

Tim J,
the way you are defending an obvious slip-up is ridiculous.
I mean, HELLO?, the title itself is “Labour’s Maddest Idea”, and the first line says “Labour Ministers are intending to pass laws…”etc, which is totally bollox. End of.

4 – um, it does say that. See, right there in the bit I quoted.

Iain was linking to the Times article, Sunny’s linking to the Daily Mail.

7 – oh I agree, which is why I said that Iain ought to have read the Times article more closely before posting. It’s just an odd accusation from Sunny, who posted a whole thread accusing Dan Hannan of excusing racism, without bothering to read the article in question at all.

You’ve got to love these outfits. “Cycling England is an independent, expert body,” their website says. Not only does the bit about expert, proclaim a very high opinion of themselves (and what does it mean? – that they can ride bikes?), but the word independent displays quite an amazing lack of honesty. Given that their website address is http://www.dft.gov.uk/cyclingengland I think it’s fair to say that they are not actually independent of the government at all. and are a bunch of not very expert liars.

who posted a whole thread accusing Dan Hannan of excusing racism,

No I didn’t. I said he was playing it down, and I expanded more on that here:
http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/5944

Sunny, the thread was entitled “Dan Hannan excusing racism at Obama”.

Although perhaps this isn’t the place to go through all that again. Talk to Sunder about it.

Oh dear – it’s “Why Iain Dale Must Be Ignored”, volume 2665343.

Nice to see a utilisation of the term IAIN DALE FAIL, which can also be rephrased as an EPIC DALE.

It’ll catch on no doubt!

#5/#9 There are plenty of organisations which are funded by the government directly or indirectly and which are independent of it.

cjcjc – I think this is more “Iain Dale must be pointed at and laughed at” than “Iain Dale must be ignored”. To be honest, the only time I ever read Iain Dale is when blogs I read criticise him.

@12 – oh dear, it’s cjcjc’s ‘Oh dear – it’s “Why Iain Dale Must Be Ignored”, volume 2665343.’ comment, for the 2665343rd time.

@14. No there aren’t.

@16

The BBC?

Most universities (amenable to pressure, to varying degrees, but some are definitely very independent – e.g. Oxford and Cambridge)?

I heard Dale on five live the other night, he really does come across as rather odious.

That Dale chap is rather odious.

Also not very bright either, judging by his political opinions. That post was classic Daily Express mendacity.

And this jester gets BBC radio airtime?

Perhaps concrete evidence that the corporation really has dumbed down.