Shubtill v Director of Public Prosecutions: Difference between revisions

Shubtill v Director of Public Prosecutions (view source)

1 byte added , 26 October 2022

no edit summary

83,223

edits

@@ Line 113: / Line 113: @@
 Sir Anthony contends that the appellants must, therefore, establish a basic sense of ''coherence'' to the complainants’ behaviour before there can be any talk of a licence. And Ms. Bott’s cloth-headed oration, he contends, had none. It was baffling: a confused assemblage of illogicalities, sophistries, begged questions, trite slogans, miscued rhetoricals and conclusions not even hinted at by whatever meagre premises led up to them. One could not safely say that even [[Violet Elizabeth Bott|Ms. Bott]] herself understood her point.
-“What,” asks Sir Anthony, “is one to make of someone whose tee-shirt says “Just Stop Oil,” but who carries on to decry the cost of energy? What sort of moron demonstrates against hunger,” he continues, “by tipping away soup?” This is indeed a good question.
+“What,” asks Sir Anthony, “is one to make of someone whose tee-shirt says “Just Stop Oil,” but who carries on to decry the cost of energy? What sort of moron demonstrates against hunger,” he continues, “by tipping away soup?” There are indeed good questions.
 “Ms. Bott’s behaviour was a cry for professional help, not for a face full of soup.”