the moose

Remember, these are the same people who also state that the only foxes they tend to catch are the old and sick ones ... meaning that they ensure the stronger, fitter ones carry on.

Not sure that this is exactly controlling a problem, quite the reverse in fact; it perpetuates it.

popeye

Oh I'm a ****! What a card you are! Nurse, come quickly, my sides appear to have split.

Face it loser, you start these "why oh why" posts but don't have the nouse to follow through any arguments. Never mind eh? 5000+ plus posts. I'm sure you make a great conversationalist down the pub.

MJW

Hmm, can't remember the last time I saw a bunch of redcoats on horseback chasing rats around with a pack of dogs ....

I don't think the issue is the killing of the fox, it's the way its done. I would imagine not a lot of people would object to a fox being blasted with a shotgun, which of course is far easier, cheaper and a hundred times more effective.

unclebuck

Not at all. You come across as a very well balanced and rational chap. lol

popeye

Huuhhhh????? Elaborate please.

I never mentioned the miners! Whhaaatt??????

Kyl3cook

The main problem here is not the fact that it is fox hunting...it is the fact that the government is

1) Using it as an attempt to gain more votes in a period in which they have lost trust from the majority of the nation...with the exception of some of the blinkered on here.

2) Pushing through this case, bypassing the house of lords...why would they do this? because they know the house of lords would dismiss it!!!...and like it or not, the house of lords share the same view of a sizeable proportion of the population....hence this ******* government are pushing towards a dictatorship....nobody can argue with that as it's the truth.

back onto the issue of fox hunting. We have chickens, and a fox will not come and kill one or two chickens to eat....it'll come and kill 50 of them, and take one away to eat. Foxes are not cuddly! if some of you are going to spout drivvel about animal rights!!! what about the chickens? and the lambs? geese?....the dogs are doing no worse than what the fox does to the farmers' animals.

popeye

Don't worry - I accept your white flag of surrender, and under the Geneva convention, you will be treated fairly.

the moose

Point is that when the miners protested the Tories said "rule of law, we're going to shut the mines, it's called democracy" despite the fact that their manifesto didn't state what they were about to do, and they thus had no clear mandate for their actions. Most of the country stood by - certainly, I'd suggest, many of the sorts of people who marched on London yesterday.

*Now* they're worried about the rule of law, democracy, and police brutality, despite the fact that the government couldn't have a clearer mandate for their actions. But it only bothers them when it suits, as usual.

unclebuck

That's what they all say, until the cattle trucks are wheeled out.

(ans, zwa, drai, viere… ans, zwa, drai, viere… )

popeye

I'm going to have a replica of your head mounted above my fireplace, next to that of pslewis.

MJW

As mentioned previously on this thread, the House of Lords has been largely useless since Lloyd George neutered them with the Parliament Act in 1911. This means the Lords cannot stop bills going through, they can only make recommendations on their amendment and return them to the Commons. By-passing the House of Lords has been common political practice for nearly 100 years now. Why they don't just burn the place down, I don't know.

akshay67

Hey mate, are you the same Popeye I used to have run-ins with in the Current World Events forum?

You were also Sti_Shrek and Prince Popeye?

Jap2Scrap

This has nothing to do with civil liberties. Unless you're saying that if someone shaggeed my girlfriend and I was enraged enough to want to kill them for it that it would be an erosion of my civil liberties to have a law preventing me doing so..

How come so many of the posters who are shouting out the "you can't pass a law like this, it is just a repression of my civil liberties," are much the same type who give the "well, it's your own fault for speeding. I hope they ban you. A law's a law," type responses to a post where someone's asking if the speeding camera that flashed them is just after the revenue?

You know what I'm saying.

You can't have it all ways up you know.

Fox hunting is soon to be against the law. Get over it. It's neither amusing or pleasant anyway so where's the loss? Pest control? B*llocks - Urban foxes are pests too and I don't see them being hunted down by Wilberforce Poncenby and his fellow inbreds. Natural culling? Again b*llocks - as previously stated, only the weak are caught so it strengthens the fox community, hardly the claim that the protesters are making.

IMO anyone who protests in the manner they did yesterday deserves all they get. I don't have that much sympathy for the police community but I would have to say they were left with no choice yesterday.

At the end of the day we elect a government to make these decisions for us. Vote for someone else if you don't like it.

unclebuck

LOL Flattery will get you *everywhere*

the moose

<adopts most patient manner>

Look, the government have a mandate for this, OK? They offered this to the public, the public accepted, and they're carrying out their side of the bargain. *Surely* you can't disagree with this.

The House of Lords has held no power other than to delay legislation since the Parliament Act of 1911, following the rejection of Lloyd George's 1909 Budget. You know, the one that wanted to do such terrible things as establish and fund an Old Age Pension, and carry out some much-needed wealth redistribution.

popeye

No. This has been asked elsewhere. I haven't posted on here in yonks. Apparently there was some goon called popeye P1 or something. I however, am the original and best.

unclebuck

Original and best 'goon', of that there is no doubt.

popeye

Watch it loser, lest I should rubbish you some more.

akshay67

Right! That makes sense...since that one was barely able to string a sentence of comprehensible English. He also had great difficulty in putting some logic behind his arguement: a position I'm sure you could attribute to others.

popeye

Indeed. Regard any post on this thread by "unclebuck". A pox upon his half-witted nonsense. Surely he needs to spend more time away from his computer talking to people, such that he should not talk such laughable drivel.

Twigster

Oh well.
From reading most of this thread it is pitifully clear that this country is turning into a nation of "cutesy-wutesy" bunny-huggers. Who actually gives a **** if the animal suffers? Where do we draw the line? Fishing is going to be the next point of attack for the fluffy brigade I can promise you and then how much of an issue will this become?
As far as I am concerned as a voter and a tax payer I am thoroughly disgusted by the sheer amount of time, money and effort that this bill has received in an age where someone can attack you or your family, rob your house, steal your car and get F. All for doing it. And I don't give a flying F. about the argument of foxes suffering either, because after looking at the issue from an independant standpoint over the last few years, I can say that in 90% of cases the dogs will kill the fox much faster than your average farmer with a shotgun, which is what you will now have. In fact, in 99% of hunts that I have observed (yes I actually went to find out for myself) the fox never even gets caught.

So it's one for the pointless brigade and nil for the real issues in the country. Well done to Tony Blair and co for wasting a couple of hundred million more of my tax money.

Simon Lines

Having just waded through 6 pages I have to agree, cynical manipulation of the media means the government of the day can pretty much do what it likes, whether it be vilifying speeding as the new "great evil", banning handguns, banning fox hunting or even banning fishing, there is, frankly, not a damn thing you can do about it

One wonders what will be next. Looking at European 20th century history you do have to wonder were we will end up. We already have enough bloody cctv camera's blighting our landscape to make most dictatorship's green with envy but, of course, that's "ok" because they are there for "our safety" now we face the spectre of ID cards

What else are "we" the UK citizens going to apathetically let go because it's "for our safety" "our own good" etc etc...

ajm

Tell me popeye, what is it that makes a user with less than 200 posts to his name in 4 years suddenly rise from the depths of obscurity and find his voice in such an overt and provocative manner?

popeye

*sigh*

<shakes head>

For the one billionth time, your argument here is that everyone should be allowed to be cruel to animals. *Anyone* with an IQ of above say 5, knows this is not acceptable in a civilised society.

There's is no evidence for this whatsoever. None of the political parties have even remotely threatened it. It's another load of imaginary guff used by the pro hunting faction.

Quite. So let's let the will of a democratically elected government have their way and get the ban OVER AND DONE WITH!!! AARRGGHHHH!!!!!!

You must be quite a fast runner. You manage to be right there at a kill and in a position to see every detail of what goes on every time.

Is fox-hunting an effective means of fox control or not? Yes or no?

<shakes head again>


I've lived in Sydney for 4 months now. What's happened in the UK? Has an IQ-lowering device been detonated or something?
Right, it's late here so I'm going to retire as I can feel my brain starting to atrophy whilst reading this appalling toss.

popeye

I'm in an argumentative mood, and experience tells me the best place to find clueless nobbers spouting crap is Scoobynet. It whiles away some time whilst I'm bored.

Good night. (It's late here). I'll address anymore nonsense tomorrow.

Kyl3cook

don't patronise me...who do you think you are?!? I'm no politician, but I'm not stupid!

The ban on fox hunting had already been thrown out once, so they come back for another attempt. I see that the majority in favour of the ban this time around was 180 ish...bit of a tunraround heh....I'm sure that has nothing to do with the government giving them two options?!?...and where the bloody hell were these voters? there must have been all of 20 people in the room at the time. You have your views, which seem to be that the country folk are barbaric toffs and should all be locked away...when in fact, I beleive the traditions of this country revolve around the counrtyside, and what we used to be....not some jumped up little man who is trying to decide what they should and shouldn't do, whithout giving anyone a chance to state their opinions.

I bet you were against the poll tax too, and you're in favour of income related tax?!? I don't know you, so I won't judge!

tiggers

Class

Senior_AP

They say that, its bollox imo. They are trying to justify it by using good arguments ; but they are wrong.

Due to the fact its just a hooraar henry way of having fun and there are soooo many jobs at risk if it is banned, I support its legality on the grounds of that very fact.

They talk **** when it comes to "pest control" they know thats ****e as do you and I. Its a sport, they have a day out and it creates/maintains jobs.

So few foxes are caught - - - that's why I can't believe all the hype.

ajm

That confirms my suspicion and adequately undermines your position.

unclebuck

PMSL. So after all that arrogant clap trap you're not even in this country (at least that's what you claim).

Let me guess, you work for a Multi National (Oil Company?) in some idillic location, and have an asian girlfriend who likes a good spanking. I feel quite sure that you will also be an enthusiastic masterbator (though it seems from you posts though that you may have missed out on this particular activity for a while).

BTW I think you'll find that the only clueless nobber spouting crap is on this thread will be... you

UB