Labour activists and the CA
Dizzy reports, and Iain has copies of, letters sent to three Labour activists who defaced the Countryside Alliance stall at last year’s Labour party conference. They’re being asked for £1000 each for the CA’s costs.
Now, I saw the damage to the stall. I also own (well, I don’t, but my employer does, and I look after) a similar size and make Nomadic display stand to that unfortunate one owned by the CA. The damage was not that extensive (one scrawled on, one split, as I recall), and replacing those panels is about £300 each. So the CA are making a tidy profit.
In any case, their presence was, to say the least, provocative, especially after the dead horse incident at Labour conference the previous year, and the incitement to vote anti-Labour at the general election four months previously. The incident was pretty bloody funny, too.
So, if anyone’s setting up a defence fund for the activists, I’ll chip in.
The dead horse incident was horrible.
I stopped on the way to the conference centre to get some take-away breakfast than morning. I turned back out of the sandwich shop to be confronted with the dead horse in the middle of the road. It wasn’t a nice start to the day. I seem to remember that the lady who made me my sandwich was reduced to tears due to the shock. Awful.
Great defence of criminal damage Antonia. How
does this fit into all your ASBO work? It’s
fine to commit petty crime as long as you disagree with the victim politically?
Oh Antonia, you are sweet thinking that the CA’s presence at conference was ‘provocative’. Are there any other interest groups whose presence at conference you’d find similarly incendiary? Serious question so do answer.
Irrespective of the horse incident, or how ‘provocative’ they were, the Labour activists defacing the stand were acting in an undemocratic fashion. They were wrong. Period. No ifs or buts, Antonia.
However, it may be true that the CA are trying to claim more than they should; 2 grand does seem excessive.
Resident - fair point, it’s not particularly consistent of me.
Crocus - please don’t patronise me, sweetie.
Benjamin - it’s 3 grand.
Without wanting to defend the damage in any way, its worth noting that the vandalism was so minor (it involved scribbling out the O in “Countryside Alliance” - hilarious, no?) that the CA felt the need to put up their own giant banner saying “VANDALISED” across their stand so that people noticed. The whole thing looked like a competition to see who could be the more childishly pathetic, and I thought the CA won on points.
The recipients of these begging letters (is the CA hard up for funds then?) should simply send a request for an itemised bill justifying the ridiculous “expenses” claim.
Obviously, the cost of the huge “Vandalised” banner cannot be counted.
Thats actually quite amusing…out of interest did the CA get any positive interest at the stall, I can only imagine it must have been long afternoons manning that particular enterprise.
Three grand for a minor squiggle is ridiculous. Of course they shouldn’t have done it, and the defence of ‘provocation’ is not, in general, one for which I have any time [slightly surprised that you hint you might do : ) ], but if there is a fund to contribute to the difference between a reasonable expenses claim and £3000, I’ll happily chip in.
Tsk, Antonia…
I mean, really, can’t you see the headlines?Councillor Defends Criminal Damage!…
Well if there is a defence fund, I’ll send them a cheque. It’s refreshing when Labour activists show a bit of the antique spirit. “A deep and burning hatred for the Tory Party” or any similar organisation!
Well, if you need a barrister for that defence, then I can suggest Robert Buckland
I’m sure he’ll be glad to help
If someone goes to the effort of setting up a defence fund, I will give a fiver.
Not patronising at all, Antonia, just curious. What groups would you consider provocative at Labour Party Conference?
Surely spitting can you locked up these days? Quite right too!
the kennel club’s stand equating the rights of a human child to the rights of one of those stupid little frilly white dogs was pretty offensive. yeah, no shit it’s illegal to put a shock collar on a little girl. a rottweiler now, that sounds eminently sensible.
[...] You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. Leave aReply [...]
The photo of a little schoolgirl with an electric or any dog training equipment around her neck and sultry look was disgusting and degrading not just to women but anyone approving of such implied paedophilia. How child pornography with gender prejudice equates with dog training is stupid but it was a disgrace that it was allowed at the conference.