Who is this idiot!
Discussion
What a f
king idiot.
I suggest everyone with a spare minute should drop an e-mail to the editor of Scottish Herald at complaints@heraldscotland.com or tweet Henry Faure Walker, CEO of Newsquest Media Group, the company which owns the Herald, at @FaureWalker asking why they are advocating criminal damage in their publication.
king idiot.I suggest everyone with a spare minute should drop an e-mail to the editor of Scottish Herald at complaints@heraldscotland.com or tweet Henry Faure Walker, CEO of Newsquest Media Group, the company which owns the Herald, at @FaureWalker asking why they are advocating criminal damage in their publication.
Her mind would be blown if she met me; a petrol head, Nissan Leaf driving, clean licence for 5 years, enjoying Pistonhead hoons, motorbike riding and powerfully built director of an electric charge point company 
What does she think of a £100k Tesla or £7k used Merc SL500?
And btw the number of people who say 'why get a car than can do more than 70mph' should put their car on cruise at 69.9mph and go play on the motorway - 9 out of 10 cars will pass them, not at Mach 1 but just making progress around 75-80 in central Scotland at least... Moron
What does she think of a £100k Tesla or £7k used Merc SL500?
And btw the number of people who say 'why get a car than can do more than 70mph' should put their car on cruise at 69.9mph and go play on the motorway - 9 out of 10 cars will pass them, not at Mach 1 but just making progress around 75-80 in central Scotland at least... Moron
"You can't spend more than a house worth on a car and claim the moral high ground."
Nor you can't condone vandalism and claim moral high ground in a newspaper article. Damaging other people's property is still wrong (and punishable by the law), no matter if it's 7000 or £7 worth of damage.
Nor you can't condone vandalism and claim moral high ground in a newspaper article. Damaging other people's property is still wrong (and punishable by the law), no matter if it's 7000 or £7 worth of damage.
I did complain:
Sir
I read the feature in your opinion section that the writer thought it acceptable to damage swanky cars simply because they are such cars.
People are allowed opinions even if they are stupid, illogical uninformed ridiculous and in a minority. If your publication needs column inches so badly that it has to fill it with this drivel, then you should just close your paper and turn off the lights.and go home.
Whats next? Rich people need their houses broke into or assets stolen because they have more than others?
That piece was a complete disgrace and you should be as ashamed of publishing it. If you pay that write at least have the good sense to fire her now
Yours
Paul Santoni
Sir
I read the feature in your opinion section that the writer thought it acceptable to damage swanky cars simply because they are such cars.
People are allowed opinions even if they are stupid, illogical uninformed ridiculous and in a minority. If your publication needs column inches so badly that it has to fill it with this drivel, then you should just close your paper and turn off the lights.and go home.
Whats next? Rich people need their houses broke into or assets stolen because they have more than others?
That piece was a complete disgrace and you should be as ashamed of publishing it. If you pay that write at least have the good sense to fire her now
Yours
Paul Santoni
jsc15 said:
Has anyone got the original text before it was edited? This has got me in a foul mood just in time for the weekend
Here:http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cac...
footsoldier said:
Earlier in the day there were more comments at foot of article and also a section about Audi drivers that's been deleted. Clearly Herald think the rest is ok, but didn't want to take on VAG...
Letting it pass editing once is careless, twice is hardly credible.
Yeah, for a while there was an Audi ad running on the page. Chris Harris was tweeting the Audi Press Office about it.Letting it pass editing once is careless, twice is hardly credible.
I think that the whole article is just the paper trolling for pageviews. The state of the UK media makes me a sad panda.
response I received. . . . . . .
Dear Reader,
Thank you for your comments regarding Catriona Stewart’s column in The Herald of September 11. I am sorry that the column has offended you. This was neither Catriona’s intention, nor The Herald’s.
Her intention was to use the story about the conviction for “keying” an expensive car as a starting point to write about her views on people who drive expensive, high-performance cars. Her views that such people tend to drive aggressively and in a disrespectful way – will be shared by some readers but opposed by others.
That is her opinion and she is entitled to express it in a newspaper that believes in free speech and open debate. Her intention was to use the example of “keying” to reinforce her position on such drivers. This she strove to do by making references to “keying” that were intended to be sardonic.
Catriona would never “key” or otherwise vandalise a car. The Herald condones neither action and believes that those convicted of such offences should be punished appropriately by the law.
With the benefit of hindsight, we should all have taken greater care to ensure that the finished article was less intemperate in tone.
We believe in balance as well as tone and, in today’s edition, we published an article by the commentator Andrew McKie that takes issue with Catriona’s views in a clear-headed and intelligent way. In addition, we published on today’s Letters Pages correspondence from three readers who disagree with Catriona. I have attached both in case you have not had the opportunity to read them.
Our intention in publishing Catriona’s article was to stimulate interest and debate. We have certainly done so in this case and I am sorry if you believe this has been the outcome for reasons that are questionable or wrong.
Yours sincerely,
Barclay McBain
Deputy Editor
Dear Reader,
Thank you for your comments regarding Catriona Stewart’s column in The Herald of September 11. I am sorry that the column has offended you. This was neither Catriona’s intention, nor The Herald’s.
Her intention was to use the story about the conviction for “keying” an expensive car as a starting point to write about her views on people who drive expensive, high-performance cars. Her views that such people tend to drive aggressively and in a disrespectful way – will be shared by some readers but opposed by others.
That is her opinion and she is entitled to express it in a newspaper that believes in free speech and open debate. Her intention was to use the example of “keying” to reinforce her position on such drivers. This she strove to do by making references to “keying” that were intended to be sardonic.
Catriona would never “key” or otherwise vandalise a car. The Herald condones neither action and believes that those convicted of such offences should be punished appropriately by the law.
With the benefit of hindsight, we should all have taken greater care to ensure that the finished article was less intemperate in tone.
We believe in balance as well as tone and, in today’s edition, we published an article by the commentator Andrew McKie that takes issue with Catriona’s views in a clear-headed and intelligent way. In addition, we published on today’s Letters Pages correspondence from three readers who disagree with Catriona. I have attached both in case you have not had the opportunity to read them.
Our intention in publishing Catriona’s article was to stimulate interest and debate. We have certainly done so in this case and I am sorry if you believe this has been the outcome for reasons that are questionable or wrong.
Yours sincerely,
Barclay McBain
Deputy Editor
Gassing Station | Scotland | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff