harestonesdown wrote:
What is particularly irritating about the stunt is the banal double standards at work. Would the ‘authorities’ allow an ‘addition’ to Victoria’s statue on the Victoria Memorial in support of a charity in aid of breast cancer, or an addition to Churchill’s statue in Parliament Square in support of a lung cancer campaign? Of course they wouldn’t! So why is it allowed here? The assumption has to be that the Cerne Abbas Giant is not ‘really’ as important as the examples above – in fact, with it’s ‘rather splendid penis’ it’s a bit of a giggle, and you know what – the perfect candidate in support of a men’s health campaign.
Bollocks in every sense of the word!
Reply | with quote | Posted by Littlestone 2nd November 2013ce 09:37 |
Another stunt allowed by the NT. (harestonesdown, Nov 02, 2013, 00:17)- Re: Another stunt allowed by the NT. (PMM, Nov 02, 2013, 08:17)
- Re: Another stunt allowed by the NT. (nigelswift, Nov 02, 2013, 08:27)
- Re: Another stunt allowed by the NT. (PMM, Nov 02, 2013, 09:35)
- Re: Another stunt allowed by the NT. (nigelswift, Nov 02, 2013, 09:55)
- Re: Another stunt allowed by the NT. (Mustard, Nov 02, 2013, 12:39)
- Re: Another stunt allowed by the NT. (Sanctuary, Nov 02, 2013, 14:47)
- Re: Another stunt allowed by the NT. (harestonesdown, Nov 04, 2013, 02:26)
- Re: Another stunt allowed by the NT. (jonmor, Nov 02, 2013, 09:40)
- Re: Another stunt allowed by the NT. (Littlestone, Nov 02, 2013, 08:28)
- Re: Another stunt allowed by the NT. (tjj, Nov 02, 2013, 08:45)
- Re: Another stunt allowed by the NT. (harestonesdown, Nov 04, 2013, 02:22)
- Re: Another stunt allowed by the NT. (Littlestone, Nov 02, 2013, 09:37)
- Re: Another stunt allowed by the NT. (moss, Nov 03, 2013, 09:20)
- Re: Another stunt allowed by the NT. (Sanctuary, Nov 03, 2013, 15:08)
|
|