My first reaction to reading about this 'defacement' was to get pissed off at those "pro-hunt bastards". But the more i thought about it, the more i realised that reaction has a lot to do with my personal politics; and not much else.

When the statue of Winston Churchill was 'defaced' during a recent anti-capitalist demo in Westminister (red paint and a grass mohican, i believe) i found it incredibly amusing - and wanted to shake the hand of the person who did it.

The defacement of Churchill and the pro-hunt actions have a lot in common. Neither caused any lasting damage to the object being defaced (important point that - let's get this into perspective; neither horse was actually "damaged" in any way). Both garnered publicity for a point (one of which i agree with; one of which i don't). And both offended the sensibilities of a lot of people - many of whom disagree vehemently with the point being made.

The "sacredness" of something is completely relative - and i'd argue that there are probably more people in the country who hold the memory of Churchill 'sacred' in some way (rightly or wrongly) than there are people who see the Uffington Horse as 'sacred'. That one is a lot older than the other would only really be an issue if the horse had been physically damaged in some way (it's irreplaceable, whereas a Churchill bronze can be duplicated). But it wasn't.

Is there, therefore, not double-standards going on? (not least, my own initial anger).

Of course, i'm still pissed off with them for being pro-hunt activists in the first place. But that's another issue entirely.