Thanks, McGrath: Jim might want it to be 'end of conversation', but I don't have to bow to his authority. It is traditionally mothers-in-law who insist on having the last word, not antagonists on open forums.

Apart from fact that E Davidson did not intend any 'ultimate sacrifice' [& if she had I can't see why this should be so praiseworthy to one of Jim's well-known pacifist views], she certainly intended to make her point by harm to jockeys - hardworking men doing their skilful job - and horses. Her aim was disruption, not sacrifice. A thoroughly quixotic and ill-considered gesture, far from entirely admirable to my mind; and just as likely to lead to "How can we be expected to give the vote to such irrationally irresponsible characters?" as to "Wow, what inimitably marvellous self-sacrifice: give them all just what they want immediately!".

~M~