Pulling the wool (vegan, of course) over our eyes

Animal rights activists have been mocked, correctly in my opinion, for asking the 1,000-year-old village of Wool to change its name to ‘Vegan Wool’.

The Dorset village has faced calls from PETA to change its name in an “animal friendly update” despite the fact the name of derives from the ancient word for well.

The vegan organisation wrote to Wool’s parish council asking for the change to be made.

Elisa Allen, director of PETA, said the change would “put Wool in the spotlight and promote kindness to sheep”.

She said wool “stolen from a sheep” is a “product of extreme cruelty” and if it is done incorrectly it can leave sheep with “large, bloody wounds”.

She wrote: “With a simple name change, your village can take a stand against this cruelty and remind everyone that it’s easy to stay warm and be warm-hearted to sheep by choosing vegan wool and other animal-free materials.”

What a load of absolute tosh. I have the feeling that this was purely and simply a publicity-generating exercise by PETA.

Of course the people behind this organisation, and its supporters, are perfectly entitled to their opinions.

But if they want to be taken seriously they should stick to presenting the facts behind their beliefs and not undertaking ridiculous PR campaigns.

By the way – PETA’s letter was posted by the parish council on Facebook to get feedback from residents and was widely ridiculed.

Mags Snook wrote: “I wonder whether Woolston, a suburb in Southampton has also had this hassle…or Lambeth, or Woolwich.”

In a statement, Dorset County Council said: “We would like to say that we are immensely proud of Dorset's heritage which includes many unusual place names like Shitterton, Scratchy Bottom and Knackers Hole, to name but a few!”

I bet the Parish Council in Ham, Glos. can’t wait for its letter from PETA.