Following the traces of the best insight I have found about the case of the rabbit killed at midnight, the one I highlighted, I have also found the author, Guardian user SteB1, who now draws a remarkable conclusion to the case.
It wasn’t a clueless Winterson trying to be funny and celebrating herself as the tough woman of the countryside, like I thought, it was in fact a deliberate Winterson making some pro-hunting propaganda for Country Alliance while bullying their opponents, like when hunters dump a beheaded animal at the door of the local sab (this has never happened to me personally but sooner or later it will, or it has now happened with Winterson’s tweet).
Anyway it’s always a pleasure to be able to read a good deduction.
Just to clarify a something in my longer comment.
I know there will be scepticism that Jeanette Winterson had a hidden agenda and was manipulatively being provocative to get Countryside Alliance arguments into the headlines by stealth. However, please read this article that Jeanette Winterson wrote for the Guardian 12 years ago. It demonstrates that she is a supporter of hunting with dogs, and was a strong supporter of the countryside march, which was essentially a Countryside Alliance project.
To anyone not familiar with the Countryside Alliance, they are essentially a lobby group for landowners and fox hunting i.e. hunting with dogs. They only pretend to support wider countryside issues as a way of garnering more support. Essentially the Countryside Alliance are an Orwellian re-invention of history. They were formerly called the British Field Sports Society. This was a society completely devoted to lobbying on the behalf of hunting with dogs. You will notice a link to the BFSS in the Wikipedia page just links back to the Countryside Alliance page. In fact you will struggle to find information anywhere about the BFSS, because the Countryside Alliance seems to have obliterated all information about what it was.
One of the few links I could find is this. I think this neatly illustrates the extent this lobby group goes to stop the public discovering the truth.
The derogatory term that the Countryside Alliance and its supporters use for any of their opponents is bunny-huggers. Please Google something like “bunny hugger countryside alliance” to see how closely linked these terms are. What bunny-hugger means is someone that goes all sentimental at the sight of a cute bunny.
This is why what Jeanette Winterson did is so cynical. She clearly gave full support to the Countryside Alliance agenda 12 years ago, and reading between the lines she goes fox hunting herself now. So she knows full well the bunny-hugger stereotype that is common with the Countryside Alliance and its supporters.
Therefore putting a photograph of a half-skinned rabbit, with its cute face showing was a deliberate and knowing attempt to provoke what she considers opponents of the agenda she has openly declared she supports.
PS. Ignore the I used to be anti-hunt, until I discovered the error of my ways nonsense, this is classic concern trolling i.e. it is manipulative.
Why was she being deliberately provocative?
I explained in my other comment here.
http://discussion.theguardian.com/comment-permalink/37160186If you look at this article Jeanette Winterson wrote 12 years ago, you can clearly see that she is a supporter of hunting with hounds, and a supporter of the Countryside Alliance and their infamous countryside march. The term the CA and its supporters use for those opposed to them is “bunny-huggers”. Please Google “bunny hugger countryside alliance” or something similar to see how strong these two terms are associated.
They call their opponents bunny-huggers, because according to their dishonest stereotypes, their opponents become all sentimental and irrational at the sight of a cute bunny. So is it a mere coincidence that Jeanette Winterson posted a photo of a half-skinned rabbit with the skin left on its cut face, and joked about it making a glove puppet? Are you trying to say she wasn’t trying to provoke when she said it would make a good glove puppet. What has that to do with food or any of the other explanations she has given?
Initially I was willing to give Jeanette Winterson the benefit of the doubt i.e. that she was just being a bit naive and was unwittingly peddling arguments playing into the hands of Countryside Alliance propaganda. However, when someone pointed me to the article she had written 12 years ago, that possibility was lost. Even 12 years ago she clearly had a sophisticated understanding of the propaganda arguments the Countryside Alliance use. So it definitely was not an accident. She certainly knew what she was doing.
In response to another user:
How many people actually complained about the damned rabbit?
In the original article, there was one person quoted who de-followed out of sympathy for the thing. But the rest of this chorus of outrage seems to be here-say.
You’re dead right, and this is why I am so angry about this intellectual dishonesty. It is like one massive straw man logical fallacy argument. There’s all this crap about outraged bunny-huggers, when actually I’ve only seen a handful of these simplistic comments, even on the article threads. Jeanette Winterson and her followers are engaged in blatant dishonesty. They are claiming everyone who has objected to this is just naive, sentimental and irrational. This is a bare-faced lie and stereotyping. Because they have cherrypicked a handful of very atypical comments, which could be set-ups for all we know, and then they have smeared anyone criticising this stunt, with the same dishonest stereotype.
Animal Rights nonsense is a late 20th century urban creed. It is nonsense partly because a right can only be conferred to beings who are able to realise it.
Before saying anything else, my points were about the dishonest attempts to deceive and manipulate the public. You noticeably do not address these points at all.Firstly I have never been involved in animal rights. Secondly in the past I have taken part in these so called country sports. Thirdly I wanted to be a gamekeeper when I left school and did quite a bit of learning, training etc. Fourthly most of what I learned about respecting animals came from my grandfather, on old school countryman and shooter. However, my grandfather used to despise the hunt, as it went against everything he believed in, which is if you are going to kill an animal, you should do it as quickly as possible. Not chase the poor animal for miles with a pack of hounds for fun, and then have it torn to pieces whilst still alive. Only psychopaths can justify this, or those in denial of what is being done.
My grandfather also had a conscience, and when he saw the massive change in the countryside after WW2, and the huge decline in things like Grey Partridge he gave up shooting for good and took to rambling. He was in the Home Guard in the war, and fed my mother’s family with his shotgun in times of rationing.
No you don’t have the same values as most people that live in the countryside, that is a Countryside Alliance propaganda lie. You are not talking to a townie. I know for a fact that many country people do not and never have approved of fox hunting.
All that happened to me is that when I grew up I learned to think for myself, and saw that many things I had been taught, and I had taken for granted were mistaken and cruel.
All this brings me to Monbiot’s article a few days ago, about shocks and threats being the ways of conservatives to alarm people and manipulate them in order to obtain votes. They will tell you that terrorists can blow up your town or that there’s a lot of street violence in your nice neighbourhood, or that God will punish you. It’s a method that is used also in environmentalism, sometimes in the well-meaning attempt to awaken people, sometimes out of frustration, but it really should be abandoned, since it’s basically an abuse (and the way of conservatives).
Anyway, the horror of farmed animals was just a smokescreen for a hidden agenda, of course it was, it made no sense, since hunting in fact increases farming while additionally killing wildlife.
It appears that I have been more naive than I previously thought, in my idealization of literary authors.