Extra, Extra

Farringdon: not actually closed, just this entrance

Farringdon: not actually closed, just this entrance

General News

  • A lorry driver’s been arrested after not stopping at the scene of a collision with a pedestrian on Mansell Street. The pedestrian has died.
  • London Assembly report says some police are “routinely ignoring” our rights on stop and search.
  • Young’s pubs say Kentish Town locals are killing off the Bull and Gate while trying to save it.
  • ‘Plebgate’ police officer Keith Wallis has been sentenced to 12 months in prison.
  • Soon you’ll be able to (remotely) drive a robot around Tate Britain at night.
  • The delayed Shangri-La hotel will open at the Shard in May.
  • Not sure where in London you should live? Ask Buzzfeed.


  • Fulham residents who thought they’d fought off cycle hire docking stations in Ranelagh Gardens confused to find TfL’s won an appeal they didn’t know was happening.
  • Half price Dangleway fares for Greenwich and Newham residents.
  • Bus passengers on a C10 rebelled against an early turnaround last night.
  • Not London-related, but if we think we have transport problems, look at poor Rio.

Article by Rachel Holdsworth | 2,684 Articles | View Profile | Twitter

  • http://gplus.to/casalotti Andrea Casalotti

    Come on Londonist, you can do it, you can say that the pedestrian was killed, It is OK: saying the truth will not harm you or send you to jail. (Did you notice the Evening Standard’s title: “Lorry driver arrested after pedestrian is killed in Whitechapel”?)

    • Ben

      But why would they do that?
      They stand to gain = next to nothing. The copy still makes sense, reads fine, and gives all the facts without implying culpability.

      They stand to lose = a lot of money through a potentially crippling lawsuit.

      Obvious choice.

      • http://gplus.to/casalotti Andrea Casalotti

        Because using such euphemisms is an insult to the victims of traffic violence and their family, and to intelligent people who abhor hypocrisy.

        “Potential crippling lawsuit” – another typical idiocy. Lawsuit from whom? Why isn’t the Evening Standard afraid to state the truth?

        • Ben

          There’s no need to be so rude.

          The law in this country is quite clear. You may have already judged the driver as guilty based on what you read in a paper, but the rest of us will wait until the courts have had their say.

          Until then, it befits the intelligence of Londonist not to pre-judge a legal decision, and thus open itself up to a potential libel suit.

          By the by, you say the Evening Standard ‘isn’t afraid’ – but they don’t imply guilt either, they just use a slightly more evocative word. Besides which, they have a much larger overhead than Londonist and so may be able to absorb such risks.

          Anyway, talk about making a mountain out of a molehill. Cheer up, it might do you some good.