[Closed] C'mon then, own up. It's your time you're wasting....

A photo-fit has been released...

[img] [/img]

Cyclist? More like a ned on a stolen bike.

Do bombers qualify as a sharp implement ?

I don't understand why the BBC has to specifically refer to the person as a cyclist. The report clearly states that the motive for the attack is unknown, so why does the report presume that that the guy's mode of transport is in some way related to it. It's an absolute non-event - not even worthy or reporting - which requires prejudicial filler to pad it out enough to make the story longer than the headline. The motivation for some 'news' reports just baffles me at times...

person riding a bicycle = cyclist

so they could have said, 'a man riding a bicycle' or 'a cyclist', either is fine, but the latter is more concise and elegant

I don't understand why the BBC has to specifically refer to the person as a cyclist

I don't think its personal!

person riding a bicycle = cyclist

You don't need to try to patronise me, Nick; I understand the term. What I don't understand is the point of the article and the emphasis on the minor fact that the person who committed the attack was using a bicycle as his mode of transport. Other than it being the attacker's mode of trasport, the bicycle bears no relation to the incident. It wasn't used as a weapon and there is no indication that it is believed to be in any way related to the motive or cause. The bicycle is, it would appear, irrelevant to the incident; and yet the whole article revolves around it.

[i]Concise[/i] and [i]elegant[/i] are two of the least appropriate words that one could use to describe that article.

I'd have thought the police might find the fact he was on a bike quite important, so surely the story should report that he was on a bike just in case there are any witnesses out there that may have seen a 'ned on a stolen bike'.

Stop getting your knickers in a twist just because you're a proper 'cyclist'.

I'd have thought the police might find the fact he was on a bike quite important...

It was apparently [i]so[/i] important that the emphasis shifted so far away from identifying the perpetrator that they don't even mention his appearance, build, height or the color/style of his clothes; you know, the things that might help identify him when he isn't riding a bike.

white with a local accent, wearing a tracksuit, a scarf and a hat

That seems like a mention to me. Jeez, calm yourself.

[img] [/img]

That seems like a mention to me.

I meant to say that they barely make reference to it. Looks like my composition skills are not entirely dissimilar to whoever wrote the original article.

I don't know where you get the impression from that I'm not calm. Does disagreement in something have to indicate aggression? Perhaps it's just the tone in which you read?