Warning: This post was published more than 12 years ago.
I keep old posts on the site because sometimes it's interesting to read old content. Not everything that is old is bad. Also, I think people might be interested to track how my views have changed over time: for example, how my strident teenage views have mellowed and matured!
But given the age of this post, please bear in mind:
- My views might have changed in the 12 years since I wrote this post.
- This post might use language in ways which I would now consider inappropriate or offensive.
- Factual information might be outdated.
- Links might be broken; embedded material might not appear properly.
Many thanks for your understanding.
As much as I disagree with his methods – it’s not a terribly good idea to go pouring slurry over people – I do think that Kilroy has somewhat walked into this kind of abuse. If he will insult great swathes of the population, does he not expect that he might end up in some trouble because of it sometimes?
I also particularly like the way the Beeb has chosen to put ‘attack’ in inverted commas, and refer to it throughout the article simply as an ‘incident’. I’d just be interested now to find out exactly what David McGraths three counts of criminal damage were in relation to. Three different parts of Kilroy? His jacket, tie, and trousers? I don’t know the details of the incident, but three counts seems slightly excessive to me, especially when combined with a public order offence. Though, of course, I do think it’s right that he is punished.