Shubtill v Director of Public Prosecutions: Difference between revisions

Shubtill v Director of Public Prosecutions (view source)

Revision as of 14:45, 26 October 2022

16 bytes added , 26 October 2022

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

83,240

edits

@@ Line 42: / Line 42: @@
 “Whath worth more: art or life?” she asked, rhetorically. “Ith it worth more than food? More than juthtith? Are you more contherned about the protection of a painting or the protection of our planet and people? The cotht of living crithith ith part of the cotht of oil crithith! Fuel ith unaffordable to millionth of cold, hungry familieth. They can’t even afford to heat a tin of thoup.”
-''Sunflowers'' has an estimated value of £72m, so for most people the answer to Ms. Bott’s first question is probably “the art”. That being said, it is not for this court to parse this young woman’s non-sequiturs, perplexing though they are, for she is not the one on trial here. So I shall return to the story, for it is at this point that the appellant returned to Room 43.
+''Sunflowers'' has an estimated value of £72m, so for most people the answer to Ms. Bott’s first question is probably “the art”. That being said, it is not for this court to parse this young person’s non-sequiturs, perplexing though they are, for the complainants are not the ones on trial here. So I shall return to the story, for it is at this point that the appellant returned to Room 43.
 The appellant was by this stage also in possession of soup — chicken soup, as it happens. He had acquired it from a newsagent on the Strand. It seems he found it no harder than had the protesters to spirit materials [[calculated]] to be of use in acts of vandalism into the National Gallery.