Protest can effect change

I am tired of politicians telling us they 'defend the right to protest' while legislating to restrict that very right.

They tell us that direct action alienates the public and is counterproductive and ineffective.

The latest protest at the Snooker World Championship where a gentleman jumped on a table and spread orange paint over the sacred green baize has been met with almost universal condemnation.

I am a big snooker fan and was disappointed that the match had to be rescheduled but, in the grand scheme of things, in 20 years time, what will be remembered.

The players in that match or the cause he was promoting?

From Emily Davison throwing herself in front of the King's horse in 1913, there has been a long and mostly proud history of illegal but necessary law breaking.

Traffic has long been disrupted by protest marches – the Aldermarston marches in 50s and 60s, for example.

Greenham Common was illegally occupied by brave women who at the time were vilified by press and sections of the public.

Today that land is owned by the local council and contains a monument to those who stood there.

It is also free of nuclear weapons.

Direct Action at the time looks stupid and meaningless, it's only with the passage of time that its importance is acknowledged.

Sometimes direct action gets things wrong of course. In the 1975 cricket test match between England and Australia the night before the final day, protesters gained access to Headingley cricket ground and dug up the pitch.

This was part of a campaign to prove that a certain George Davis was innocent.

It was a national scandal, the protesters unapologetic.

Sadly Mr Davis wasn't as innocent as they thought and pleaded guilty to sundry crimes. Please, before you get too angry at stupid protesters disrupting your leisure time or journey into work, just remember history.

Before you get angry at protesters just remember history

Nick Haines

Paulsgrove