I don't think that what Grimmy has done could be described as 'attacking' Appleby Horse Fair, to be fair. What he has done is comment on certain aspects of it. He has said over and over again that he wishes it to continue and that he does not wish to see it become a sanitised shadow of itself - but that there are aspects of it at present, which could lead to public opinion turning against it - namely the examples of cruelty / mistreatment which have variously been posted. I don't think that is attacking.

I'm trying to cite a relevant but unrelated example here - supposing, for instance, an accident happened in a workplace and concerns were raised about the working conditions of the employees. Would that be seen as attacking the industry?

Of course there are a myriad of other forms of animal cruelty but I don't see that discussing one particular example suggests that you are turning a blind eye to - or condoning - the rest. In fact the discussion here seems to have been more about concern that the event could be stopped because of some of the youth element (which Ruth's acquaintance seems to have confirmed is the main problem), rather than any outright call for it to be stopped. I can only think that you are particularly prickly about finding condemnation where there is none - or have some other point to try and make?

Yes, I will condemn cruelty where I see it - I would not, however, like to imagine that the event could not continue without it. Are you suggesting that it is absolutely inherent and that incidents of cruelty should be tolerated because the event / tradition is more important? I am genuinely not sure what you were saying.