So, the young hothead who wore a suicide bombers’ outfit during the demonstration in London on Saturday (4^th February 2006) has publicly apologised today for any affront he might have caused.

It takes a considerable amount of courage to make an apology.  Our ruling classes avoid it routinely and so do our newspapers.  This young man desires credit for having done so.  Whether or not his elders prevailed upon him, he has shown a maturity beyond his years.  He is of greater stature than three days ago.

Say what you like about the Liberal Democrats, but in the past their membership has always elected such likeable leaders.  Menzies Campbell is a case to point.  How can you dislike him?  Mr Huhne on the other hand comes across as just another ambitious politician.  More importantly, even members of his own party can see that he is an opportunist and is seeking to be what he thinks his party’s electorate want him to be.  The Liberal Democrats are notoriously blind to their own faults, so if they can smell something fishy, then the electorate at large will, too.  However, I fear that Mr Huhne’s campaign has developed a dangerous momentum. He is closer to being the new Liberal Democrat leader than many commentators care to think.

Menzies Campbell might not be able to fight two elections[1] but he is the only man who can hold the Liberal Democrats together during what is going to prove to be a very difficult few years.  It is in this sense that despite his age, he is the man of the moment, while Mr Huhne is not. At this point in time, what is bad for the Liberal Democrats is good for the Conservatives, so I am happy for the Third Party to choose its own merry path to Hell.

So says Grace Phillips in the Sunday Times on 5^th February 2006.  This follows the ill judged statement of intent issued by animal rights activists who threatened violence against all staff and students at Oxford by virtue of the University’s plans for a £20 million animal research laboratory.  You can do no better than read the report of Ms Phillips’ defiance.  There is more about the matter and student reaction to the threats, in a report by Patrick Foster and Nicola Woolcock in The Times (1^st February 2006).

I wish Ms Phillips well and I hope she is not subjected to too much intimidation by the faceless individuals who seek to terrorise anyone who opposes their view.  It would be a serious error of judgement for anyone to threaten her, because rather than being an “animal murderer” or “torturer”; she is merely holding a point of view.  It would not be only students who would turn against the “animal rights” movement.  Then again, those who God wishes to destroy, first he turns mad…[1]

The Metropolitan Police were right not to make arrests during the demonstration that took place in London, last week.  A small number of the protesters were being deliberately provocative and I have little doubt that arrest was what they craved. Notwithstanding that bystanders were insulted by some of the placards, the protesters were not physically violent and no one had any reason to be put in fear.  The whole demonstration was a lot of hot air spouted by a small number of hotheads.

I do not believe that the Police should now take action against some of those hotheads.  True, by applying the principles that the Police use in relation to other demonstrations and according to the strict letter of the law, public order offences were committed.[1]  I do not take this view because I am soft when it comes to Muslim protesters, but because I am soft on protesters generally.  Peaceful protesting does not mean just gentlemanly, peaceful demonstrations such as for instance, the Jarrow Marchers or the Countryside Alliance March a few years ago.  It includes those demonstrations where tempers are frayed and a great deal of rude, abusive, insulting language is used.  People should be allowed to let off hot air in public.[2]  It is therapeutic for a start.[3]  It lets us know where they stand, second.

I hope that the Police will now approach other, non-Muslim, non-physically violent but very loud demonstrations in much the same way.  It would save so much trouble and expense.

[2] A lot of what I do constitutes a s.4 or s.5 public disorder offence when I've just cleaned my car and a bird immediately dumps on it.

[3] And how many incidents of public disorder have escalated because the Police misjudged their response to a little bit of argy-bargy?