I heard first about the latter on the radio and have admit to being a little disappointed by TV pictures that revealed the pro-hunting lobby wasn’t getting much of kicking after all (even though I know that’s terribly, terribly wrong). I don’t believe in bashing the BBC, but it has been pro-hunting. It’s relied on reporters embedded in pro-hunt groups (all of whom have gone native) while rarely interviewing the anti-hunt lobby. This will be why pro-hunt protestors chose to tip-off only the BBC on their House of Commons invasion.
Similarly, the reports of alleged police brutality were greatly hyped. Here reactionary pro-hunt blogger Laban Tall displays the worst pictures he could find; a couple of guys bleeding from cuts to the head. Head wounds always bleed surprisingly heavily and these won’t have been have caused by police batons; if they had, they’d be far worse. Meanwhile the Mail, which hysterically likened the clashes to a civil war, also struggled to find any convincing supporting evidence of battered pro-hunters.
The thing is, if you decide to riot and storm parliament you have to expect the odd cut and bruise. But only twelve people required treatment and the most likely cause of injury was crushing and stamping from fellow protestors trying to break the police line. Had they been football hooligans, the police would have got stuck in with proper baton charges and horses leading the way (like hunting, this would have been fun but wrong).
These guys think being ripped apart by hounds is a humane way to die, yet when push comes to shove a little cut to the head is all it takes to bring on the tears.