From the Tory manifesto on Rural Affairs I found lurking in a drawer from 1995.
Mankind owes obligations to the other creatures of this earth. That obligation is to abstain from unreasonably causing pain and suffering (see page 23 says the scrawled notes. Okay..) Page 23: ...I don't hunt - at least not yet - but I resolutely champion the rights of those two do. I don't believe that there is any distinction of principle between angling, shooting and hunting. They are all precisely the same.
Hold on there... the first two sentences were on page 21. The followings were on page 23. Add to this the other funny ha ha moment which is already up on blog ha ha plug plug not that I even have a stats counter... awww... and how did they ever manage to get through with such incoherency and lack of sense and lies and 5th form writing style?? Needless to say, I can't find the names of the Movers and Shakers in this manifesto anywhere today, whereas the names of the SCS are still pretty much the same, give or take a few sideways shifts and retirements.
What other DOH! moments in politics can you think of, where the most redundant or DID NO-ONE PROOFREAD THAT comment managed to get through?
― Sarah, Monday, 17 December 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)
Then I remembered that this is a politician's favourite word, and its inclusion was more than deliberate. It has been included to infer that there are circumstances in which it is perfectly reasonable to cause pain and suffering to animals.
In pursuit of "angling, shooting and hunting", for example.
― Trevor, Monday, 17 December 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)
― Rebecca, Monday, 17 December 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)
― Sarah, Tuesday, 18 December 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)