Who can say where the boundary between legitimate and illegal protest lies?
Perhaps The Argus can?
But I doubt it still thinks of Nelson Mandela as a terrorist for his fight against racism or would condemn Emmeline Pankhurst as a dangerous subversive in her fight for women's rights.
Both, in their respective times, went against the law and won what are today vaunted as great legacies: The end of apartheid and the vote for women.
The Argus must tacitly support the Iraq conflict because it is far happier to condemn anti-war protests on rather petty grounds than condemn highly illegitimate aspects of the war in Iraq.
Daubing the word "peace" on Mount Caburn (The Argus, March 28) may well damage grass of "international importance" but I am sure the protesters responsible - and most readers, too - consider the contravention of international law and the loss of Iraqi and British lives of slightly more international importance.
Hence, the damage caused matters less than the right to damage it in the name of peaceful protest.
Grass regrows. Dead soldiers and civilians don't.
-Tom Allen, Mill Lane, Shoreham
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article