Shubtill v Director of Public Prosecutions: Difference between revisions

Shubtill v Director of Public Prosecutions (view source)

Revision as of 22:04, 18 October 2022

757 bytes added , 18 October 2022

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

83,240

edits

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 So the paltry goings on of Friday 14th October 2022 will not linger over the aeons. Fairer things, and fouler ones, will soon wipe them from the collected consciousness, just as a sponge might spilt soup. The sooner the better. But alas, they are on our agenda today so, [[Tedium|tiresome]] as they undoubtedly are, it falls to me to recount them. I shall do so as briefly as I can.
-Just after 11am, two young women entered Room 43 of the Gallery. Dressed in matching white tee-shirts, they might have been mistaken, at a glance, for devotees of the pop-group ''Wham!'' or ''Frankie Goes To Hollywood''.  I regret that no arguments were advanced, either way, as to whether they in fact were, but their tee-shirts read  “{{caps|Just Stop Oil}}” and not “{{caps|Relax!}}” or “{{caps|Choose Life}}”, so we can suppose they were not. In any case, nothing turns on it.
+Just after 11am, two young women entered Room 43 of the Gallery. Dressed in matching white tee-shirts, they might have been mistaken, at a glance, for devotees of the pop-group ''Wham!'' or ''Frankie Goes To Hollywood''.  I regret that no arguments were advanced, either way, as to whether they were, but their tee-shirts read  “{{caps|Just Stop Oil}}” and not “{{caps|Relax!}}” or “{{caps|Choose Life}}”, so we can suppose they were not. In any case, nothing turns on it.
-Being a normal Friday at season end, the Gallery was busy enough that the women were able to escape the attention of the Gallery’s security detail. This the Gallery may have since come to regret, for the women had, concealed about their persons, containers of soup. Without ado, the women vaulted a low velvet rope, emptied their soup receptacles onto the ''Sunflowers,'' glued themselves to the wall and began shouting at everyone.
+Being a normal Friday at season-end, the Gallery was busy enough for the women to escape the attention of the Gallery’s security detail. This the Gallery may since have come to regret, for the women had, concealed about their persons, containers of soup, and it soon became clear they had not brought them for lunch. Without ado, the women vaulted a low velvet rope, emptied their soup tins onto the ''Sunflowers,'' glued themselves to the wall and began shouting at everyone.
-There were gasps, roars and a shout of “''Oh, my gosh!''” from nearby patrons, but beyond this, the bystanders — bar one — took no action. They stood transfixed. That one, the appellant, Neasden, did not. He exited Room 43, largely unobserved, and at a decent clip. We shall hear more about the appellant shortly.
+Media reports tell us there were gasps, roars and a shout of “''Oh, my gosh!''” from nearby patrons, but beyond this, the bystanders took little action. Most stood transfixed. One did not. That one was the appellant. He exited Room 43, largely unobserved, and at a decent clip. We shall hear more about the appellant shortly.
-The women continued with their shouting. Before long — with curious haste, I am inclined to think — the world’s media representatives arrived, with cameras, cine films and outside broadcast units. They formed a makeshift press Gallery. This scrum may have impeded Gallery security — again, a regrettable dearth of evidence or argument on the point  — but by all accounts no-one: not gallery patrons, nor members of the press, nor officials of the gallery, made any effort to eject the young women, or even stop them talking. By this point they were securely fastened to the wall with Araldite{{Tm}}.  Mr Baxter-Morley for the Gallery intimated that they could not be removed even if one wanted to.
+In the mean time, the women continued with their shouting. Before long — with curious haste, I am inclined to think — the world’s media representatives arrived, with cameras, cine films, videographs and outside broadcast units. They formed a makeshift press Gallery. Their scrum may have impeded Gallery security — again, a regrettable dearth of evidence on the point  — but by all accounts no-one: not the patrons, nor members of the press, nor Gallery staff, made any effort to eject the young women, or even stop them talking. By now, Mr. Baxter-Morley contends, they were in any case fastened to the wall securely with Araldite{{Tm}} such that they could not be removed even if one wanted to.
-Did you not want to, Mr Baxter Morley?
+The young women warmed to their task. The more loquacious of the two, was Ms. [[Violet Elizabeth Botts]], of Hampstead. She embarked upon something of a monologue.
-The young women warmed to their task. The more loquacious of the two, a Ms. [[Violet Elizabeth Botts]], of Hampstead, delivered something of a monologue.
+“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.”
-“What is worth more: art or life?” she asked, rhetorically. “Is it worth more than food? More than justice? Are you more concerned about the protection of a painting or the protection of our planet and people? The cost of living crisis is part of the cost of oil crisis, fuel is unaffordable to millions of cold, hungry families. They can’t even afford to heat a tin of soup.”
+''Sunflowers'' has an estimated value of £72m, so for most ordinary 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 the answer to Ms. Primrose’s first question, for most people, if not Ms. Botts, 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.
+The appellant was by this stage also in possession of soup — chicken soup, as it happens. It seems he had no more difficulty than had Ms. Botts and her confederate in spiriting materials calculated to be of use in acts of vandalism into the National Gallery. The appellant approached the women. Ms Botts was still mid-harangue. The appellant opened his soup tins and emptied them onto Ms. Botts and her confederate. There was something of a melée at this point, though perhaps less than there might have been had Ms Botts’ hands not been stuck fast to the wall. By the time the police were able to take her statement Ms. Botts would prove imaginative in her complaints, but at the time thje most she couild muster was “But I’m vegan.”
 ===The soup===
 It was [[common ground]] that the soup was tomato flavoured, and manufactured by the Heinz company of Pennsylvania, but the parties have disagree sharply on the significance of this fact.