Letters - 26 July 2024

Stonehenge

The letter from our Friend in Tasmania (12 July), for me, put a new spin on the subject of someone throwing orange cornstarch at the stones. The first of course is whose heritage these stones represent and how loosely we approach ownership and belonging in a multicultural society that still bears the taint of ‘imperialist’ and ‘colonial’. 

Are we so distant from Stonehenge that we have no emotional attachment? What would I feel if something more local and ancient were targeted? Callandish, Skara Brae, the graves at Culloden? A local cenotaph? Where does respect start and end?

The second, and possibly more important to Quakers, the first I knew of this event was a newspaper calling the man a Quaker. We are a passionate people but… our Tasmanian Friend is quite correct in asking if the action was undertaken with the blessing of the individual’s Area Meeting. To be called a Quaker action, this is the least we should expect. We seem to have forgotten the process of testing our leadings. What makes us a community? The editorial seemed to skip this radical change in our proceedings. It matters less that the man was a member or attender than that his action was taken to represent a Quaker action. I am deeply ashamed and offended that this man was called a Quaker. If he were a member of the Church of Scotland or England, would this have been mentioned? And what does it mean that he was called out as a Quaker?

Margaret Roy

Court backlogs

As courts face lengthy backlogs of cases waiting years for trial is it time for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to review cases? Lengthy waits create hardship for victims and those unjustly charged, and increased rate of trial failure as memories fade and victims or witnesses may drop out. 

An acute and personal example questioning whether some cases are in the public interest is the case for crown court trial expected 16 November 2026 over four years after the event, on 24 August 2022. This involved a climate protest in which some protesters smashed pumps while others held banners at the entrances to the closed petrol station. A press photographer was also arrested and awarded damages. 

Is it reasonable to prosecute those protesters who were holding banners who did not inconvenience the public as the station was closed, and who did not assist in the damage of the pumps? Is it a waste of prosecution and court time creating a lengthy trial and unable to be scheduled before November 2026? Is it fair on the defendants, given outstanding cases can lead to some insurance companies refusing insurance, and lettings companies refusing tenancy?

At the moment the CPS view will be for the jury to decide if they are guilty of public nuisance, unless it reconsiders whether a lengthy expensive trial is in the public interest.

Ben Buse