Chicken Drumstick, Pork Pie, Glass Of...
News4 mins ago
No best answer has yet been selected by galltin. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.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.
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.
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!
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.
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"?
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.