Otis Ferry et al

[galltin]

Has anyone heard what the outcome was for the yobs who stormed the House of Commons in protest at their toys being taken off them?

[Quizmonster]

They were found guilty of a public order offence and given an 18-month conditional discharge, though each was ordered to pay �350.00 towards prosecution costs.
One of them was interviewed as he came out of court after that verdict and claimed: "I have never committed a criminal offence." Like..."Does that include the one you've just been found guilty of?" Doh!

[galltin]

Maybe we should organise a whip round for them!

Cheers for the answer.

[Dom Tuk]

The young lads who perceived a brief and orderly interruption of a parliamentary debate to highlight what they see as a grave injustice to their sport have many (millions) supporters to their cause. They do not see it as a breach of the public order (hence the quote that Quizmonster has given), perhaps they have done us a public service by demonstrating how ridiculously easy it is to enter the houses of parliament. It would be interesting to see what sort of censure/conviction the Fathers for Justice group who threw purple powder into the chambers got. Or the deputy PM who brawled with a welsh farmer (albeit under provocation). If you can tolerate egg throwing, water thrown on the leader of Veritas and other types of protest with a sense of humour and acceptance that this will happen in a parliamentary democracy as ours then why not accept a bunch of lads who went that step ahead and entered the hallowed grounds but did not commit any damage whilst in there.

[Quizmonster]

Ferry 22, Tomlinson 28, Redvers 32, Wakeham 36, Thame 36, Wood 41, Holliday 42, Elliott 43. Young lads?!

[mike1222]

The fact that "they don't see it as a breach of public order" just about says it all!!  It matters not one iota to these people that millions of law-abiding citizens and our democratically elected law-makers take the opposite view.

[Quizmonster]

I quote: "They do not see it as a breach of the public order."
So, Dom, are we all free to decide which laws we - as individuals - are going to "see" as valid? The plain fact is that they did commit a breach of public order and were found guilty thereof.
As for the "millions of supporters", there are many more millions of non-supporters.

[Quizmonster]

A bit of synchrography there, Mike!

[mike1222]

QM, we posted at the same time as well!

[flaming]

It was an underhand act anyway, as the yobs being of the landed and/or class used their position  to contact an accomplice and to infiltrate an area at the heart of Parliament.  That's not an above-board protest.  They were lucky to be charged with only a Public Order Offence;  so far as I know the accomplice has not been punished in any way. 

Another yob was photographed in Nazi uniform fancy dress at the party given by one of them, soon after the incident.  I don't think any of them are overly-concerned about the will of the people.

I thought �350 each was a somewhat derisory amount.

[THECORBYLOON]

We've established what happened to Otis Ferry but what happened to Al then?

[luckyboy]

Dom...i wonder what your view would be if these guys happened to be working class lads from a housing estate....i take your point about their grievences, despite the fact that i myself abhor fox hunting, but i seem to remember when the miners and dockers were protesting the reaction of these similar upper class twits to them was to lock them up and throw away the keys, and for the police to truncheon them to bits.. despite the fact that these guys were trying to protect their jobs... something young otis with the closeted protection of his millionaire parents never has to worry about... what a total mong he is...

[bernardo]

They were let off by an obsequious bourgeois judge who was a vainglorious lickspittle popinjay of the reactionary countryside hierarchy.

[Dom Tuk]

If you see my post you will see that i wrote 'they....do not see it as a breach.....'. I dont support their actions.

So what did the fathers for justice get for their actions??

[Dom Tuk]

Here is the answer......(coipied from the Times)

In May 2004, two men from Fathers 4 Justice showered Tony Blair and the chamber with purple powder from the visitors� gallery. One was given a conditional discharge; the other was fined �600

In March 2004, two anti-Iraq war protesters scaled Big Ben�s tower. Harry and Simon Westaway were arrested but no charges were brought

Three lesbians who in 1988 abseiled into the House of Lords in protest at the Local Government Act were released

In 1978, demonstrators who hurled horse dung into the Commons in protest at Ulster prison conditions were fined �100.

So some may say Ferry and Co got off leniently. Many others have in the past. We do live in an equal society.

[woofgang]

Loon, I noticed even if nobody else did

[THECORBYLOON]

woofgang thank-you!

[silly moo]

Protesting against laws that could mean the loss of your job / livlihood is hardly throwing your toys out of the pram.

[acw]

Wouldn't it have been fitting if they'd been covered in fox scent and told "run!" as a load of anti-hunt people chased after them with dogs?  OR we could have gathered some of the hooded chavs, now homeless after their being banned from bluewater, mounted on their horses (I mean, in their Novas and Ibizas), told them that Ferry et al had just dissed their mum and nicked their brother's bling, and then we could sit back and watch!

I'm still confused by Dom Tuk's first answer.  What does it mean to "perceive" something?  I thought it meant to understand or be aware of.  I'm fairly certain these guys committed, carried out, effected, executed, performed etc the act.  Now percieving it as being "orderly" - that's something I can see as a moot point!

[Dom Tuk]

Many from the anti hunt faction opposed the activities of the hunters out of a genuine opposition to blood sport and out of concern for the needless and horrific suffering of the foxes. It was not acw out of a desire to get one over the toffs in a mindless class war. Your proposal to set the 'chavs' against the upper classes and 'sit back and watch' betrays your perverse thinking behind this.

[acw]

Do you think it was a serious suggestion?  OH PLEASE!  I was merely trying to illustrate the ridiculous class battle that this whole issue is about.  The question was asked in a very slanted manner and all the answers have said a lot about people's views.  If people can't see the class issues involved here, they must be blind.  I totally accept and understand that animal rights is not a class issue, so of course the fox-hunting debate is not supposedly about class.  But there ARE class issues involved. 

 

How are you doing on finding a new definition of "perceive"?