Diablo

Not at all, if what popeye says is correct

And what difference should the number of posts make? I see you have over 3,700 - and I've yet to read one that strengthens yours.

And I have to agree, UB, you have failed abysmally to address any of the rebuttals to your points in this, and many other threads.

edit to add, UB has over 5,000 and the same applies

Senior_AP

Wooooooaaaaww!!!!!

unclebuck

No point debating with trolls. Winding them up is far more entertaining.

UB

ajm

Well lets all undermine our own positions then shall we, impartial moderator!

King RA

I can't believe I just spend the past hour reading this post. You lot are more bitchy and argumentative than the bloody MP's.

tiggers

Yeah it'll be handbags in here soon

Got to love the SN class system taking shape - your opinions carry more weight the more posts you have It's bit like the big house/more land you have the more important you are ... Oh hang on this might get us back on to toffs and foxes again

King RA

surely the more posts you have the more cod****e you talk???

Senior_AP

To a large extent - I agree!!!

ajm

You bunch of moaners, you love it really!

Diablo

In many cases that would appear all too true

Diablo

I'm human (yes, really ) therefore by defenition cannot be impartial.

Twigster

I am sorry Popeye but you have completely missed the point.
1) I would not say that cruelty is either fair or to be allowed, but my point was to try and highlight how difficult it is to draw a line between what some see as cruelty and what others see as sport. Although I do have to be honest and say that I don't particularly give a **** when, as I see it, there are bigger problems facing the nation.
2) I was making reference to the animal rights groups when I mentioned fishing, and if you think that this is not the case then I suggest you do a web search, including the P.E.T.A. websites among others, before attempting to pass this off as drivel in such an ignorant and uneducated fashion. Perhaps if you paid attention to some of the more recent government directives regarding the use of livebaits etc then you would have a semblance of a clue on this fact.
3) I can acutally ride horses well enough to keep up, and in fact in modern day UK we have these miraculous devices called "binoculars" which allow you to get a good view of these things even if you aren't taking part. For the record I don't care if it was banned or not, but since I wanted to make my own opinion I went along about 11 or twelve times since there was a regular hunt near my home. I also made a point of speaking to the local gameskeeper as well before deciding what my position was, which, in context of this thread I consider irrelevant.

So next time you think of insulting people, try to understand that people can think for themselves on occasion.

popeye

If it's "clap trap" then put up a coherent argument against it you hopeless clown. You should be concerned that the development of the internet has meant that people 10,000 miles away can now laugh at you as well.

Oh dear. A dig at my sex life. How original. I haven't seen a come back as desperate and predictable as this since the last time I saw someone have their **** kicked in a discussion. I've already told you the location is Sydney. Apparently you can't read.

You need to familiarise yourself with the definition of an internet troll you prize dork. I've posted loads of sensible points of view to 2 threads started by you, and your credible responses to them have been conspicuous by their total abscence. It's not my fault if you're a rent-a-quote intellectual weed.

And inevitability, here comes the old "I'm just winding you up" back-pedal. The trusty old last throw of the dice to try and regain some credibility.
You're so hopelessly predictable you might as well tell me your password, so I can sign in as you and type this rubbish for you.

Run along now tosspot, and start another "Why oh why" thread.
5000+ posts! Lol! I hope some of them are better than your posts in this one, I'm suprised you haven't been banned for wasting disk space or something.


I know. It's a shame really. His posts are a bit like Alf Garnett starting off on one of his rants, then just shutting up immediately when he realises he's out of his depth.

popeye

Chasing a fox and tearing it apart is cruel. Animal cruelty should not be dressed up and excused as "sport", and don't come back with that animal-psychology crud about "does a fox feel fear/pain" etc, because if you do, I'll just say that this therefore is perfectly acceptable:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/3659090.stm


Indeed there are. I've already explained my view on this "there's more important things" line in my original answer to you, and elsewhere, but I'll repeat it here. The same people stating that this is taking up too much time, are the same ones who are stalling the overwhelming wish of a democratically elected government from becoming law. It's being dragged out solely because of the pro hunting lobby, who are stubbornly refusing to accept a democratic piece of legislation.

Have any of the major political parties indicated a clear intention to ban fishing? Let me help you with this one - the answer is, "No". The government get lobbied for all sorts of things from various groups. Until banning fishing even looks like it has the remotest chance of making it onto the statute book, then you can't use it as a defence of hunting.

My apologies for not keeping tabs on the latest developments on the exhilarating world of livebaits. I'll try to pay more attention in future. I'm sure it's a fascinating subject. Perhaps you should discuss it over a pint with "unclebuck", as he needs to get out and meet a few interesting people, rather than sitting at home and concentrating on his quest to be the internet's biggest waste of bandwidth.

Another of the highly-dubious fox hunters claims is that foxes are killed very quickly by a bite to the throat. Can you tell me where you purchased these magic binoculars, that can apparently see clean through a pack of hounds as they swarm around and kill a fox?

Noted. I'll bear that in mind the next time I'm being referred to as a "bloody townie" that doesn't understand the countryside.

popeye

Look at these comedians:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/3660140.stm

What a sad day for democracy that some of these jokers could gain access to Parliament and embarass themselves with that shameful display of self-centered blubbing. These people should be led away quietly and pushed off a large cliff somewhere. Failing that, I'm looking forward to the day when these clots are flipping burgers for a living.
"I'll have large fries with that please".

Looking through these pictures, you can almost feel the collective lack of common sense.
A pox upon the lot of them, and their half-baked excuses.

Right, I'm done with this. I'm not sure I've got the stomach for any more of the same hysterical, repetetive rubbish from the pro-hunt loons about "traditions", "civil liberties" and "fishing's next!"
It's been fun, (if a little bit like shooting fish in a barrel),

Ok thanks bye.

MooseRacer

Haven't bothered reading UB's latest lunatic ramblings, but that line from Popeye is class

Brit_in_Japan

Popeye, you seem to be clear in your views, but let me ask you what you think the fundamental different is between recreational "sports" like foxhunting and fishing. Both involve the killing of a creature and people get some pleasure from the activity.

If you believe in a civilised society it is wrong to kill foxes by hunting, why is it any more acceptable to kill fish? Morally do you see a difference?

r32

Every one is entitled to their view, its a shame a good thread gets destroyed by the inevitable and unnecessary name calling.

popeye

I don't have a problem with killing animals per se - if foxes need to be controlled, then kill them by humane methods, not by a gang of people getting enjoyment out of tearing them apart. I don't see a difference between that and the link to the BBC site story I posted above, and if you want to stop the sort of activity as detailed in that story, then the government has to send out a message that that sort of behaviour can't be tolerated either by the red-jacket set, or the Burberry brigade. Hooking a fish out of the water does not even come close to fox hunting in terms of viciousness. To compare it is just silly.

This really is my last post on this - I honestly can't be arsed reading the same nonsense over and over again.

Have a nice weekend.

andrewdelvard

Popeye.

You're good. Very good.

RR

To be honest i just feel as if Blair and his muppets are just doing what they want without being bothered about what the public say. I think the vast majority of people are unhappy with how the Goverment are dealing with things. Fox Hunting today, and tomorrow cars with inboard speed limiters via gps. Where do we draw a line in the sand with these so called Public Servants. The police have a lot to answer for as well, thugs. Its to hard for them to catch real criminals, its easier to sit in there T5's and have a sleep, and let the scammera's earn there spending money.

Pbr

Popeye's posts here are the funniest I've read in ages on this site. Class!!

akshay67

Agreed.

Twigster

Ok. Let's try and make this clear for the third time shall we?
I do not make reference to the political parties when I discuss fishing, nor do I suggest that a ban is iminent. However, it is nothing short of naivity to simply suggest that the anti-hunting lobbyists and animal rights groups will not now turn their attentions elsewhere. As Brit in Japan said, there is very little difference in my own mind between hunting and fishing, and I am a keen fisherman. I am also not trying to stage a defense of hunting, as frankly I don't care. What I am simply trying to point out, is that there will bo no end to this by simply banning hunting with dogs. Shooting and fishing will be under fire next and probably sooner than you think, after all, who would have predicted this ban ten years ago??
Second, I am not trying to defend hunting no matter how it may come across. My own opinions are my own and are not for discussion in this thread. However, since you refuse to believe that someone can independantly attend hunts and see anything among the enormous pack of hounds I will answer in graphic and clear details. What I have experienced horrified me to the core when I watched it, the dogs close in once the fox is too tired, and instantly tear in to it. Amongst the lumps of orange flesh there was only ever a single shriek from the fox, and moments after that it was dead. The whole thing was a most unpleasant experience, but never in my attendance did it last for more than 2 seconds. This, however is nothing to the horror of wathcing farmers dispatch the foxes themselves. On more than one occasion I have been told, and seen foxes wounded by 12-bore shotguns which have been left to die after being blown in half or seriously wounded in other gruesome ways. Which is better? I'm not going to say, but the sheer way you have rubbished things which people have taken time to look at makes me wonder if you actually have any knowledege of the events or if you have simply swallowed the complete drivel uttered in the media whilst sitting on the other side of the world.
Third, democracy is not about forcing the will of the majority on the minority, whether it be right or wrong morally to some. It is about the freedom to choose who runs the country in your name, and the legal right to hold a government accountable if they do not do that adequately. Whilst I accept that this law was an inevitability of a labour government, does not simply make it right because the majority of the population wanted it. If that was the case then there area large number of hair-brained laws that would result every time there was a crisis. As it is the law is a nonsence in itself, the police won't enforce it because they are too busy with speeding, it isn't enforced for two years and the majority of the country, frankly, has no idea of the complete carnage that is going to repalce the hunts for the future. If you would like to debate this more then I have a fine local ale establishment near me, because frankly it will take more time than I have available to argue it over scoobynet, as well as an Msc in Politics, theory and international realtions to testify how long I can waffle for in the right circumstances!! lol (NOT intended as an "i know more than you" jab before anyone bites on it).
One other thing, in a true democracy a person's opinion is NEVER wrong. It is simply their opinion, so as I am trying to keep the the points and have a sensible argument, it would be nice if you could resist the temptation to pass offensive comments about people whom you do not personally know. I for one see no need to resort to insults when I could have a sensible and intelligent conversation, and I'm sure that with the sheer amount of crap spouted on here lately scoobynet could use a nicely conducted argument??

andrewdelvard

But mention it anyway

Twigster

Simply to indicate that I can go on for hours when I get going mate!!
My missus hates it honestly, all my buds at home are banned from discussing politics around me so SN is one of very few chances I get these days!!! lol.

tiggers

Just read popeye's comments - nearly spat my coffee all over the screen.

There was me thinking I could be blunt.

Diablo

Hunting with dogs was banned in Scotland a year (or more) back

No one really seems to give a flying **** about the shooting/fishing issue, TBH

I wouldn't get too hung up on it

D

Twigster

I thought the Scots had not banned hunting, but had made it illegal for the dogs to make the kill? As far as I was aware one of the riders had to make the kill with a gun and he had to be a registered marksman with a local gameskeeper or something to that effect?? I may be wrong though.

I'm not overly concerned yet, but as someone who goes fishing on a regular basis I have already seen an increase over the last few years in anti-fishing activity. It is usually thins like letters and pamphlets being posted at local fisheries and tackle shops, but I have seen people turn up and start playing loud music etc near to fishermen to scare the fish away!! Now I am not saying for one second that fox hunting should not have been banned because of fishing etc. But I am concerned at the rising levels of protests, and the effect that the ban on hunting will have on this. I also find it worrying that there is so much time dedicated to animal rights in this country when human rights are being trampled on by this government at all sides. If that sounds harsh then I am sorry but until I come face to face with a cow that can shoot back then all I will see is steak and chips! lol.
My priorities are to see my family safe for the future and I don't see what arguments about fox-hunting, saving cows like "pheonix" during the foot and mouth outbrak and such things will do to help reduce crime, get guns off the streets and make this country a nice place to live again!! At the same time I want to see my right to be free protected, and I don't want to be dictated to because someone tells me it is not politically correct or it is morally objectionable. Christ, if that was the case then most of my favourite jokes would be illegal! IMHO, it may be a fair ban and one that has the support of the majority,and it may outlaw a cruel sport, but in current times I am very wary of the precedent it sets, and only time will tel if that is a valid concern or not.

unclebuck

I hadn't seen this little gem. I suppose I'd better respond... <sigh>

Calling people names does nothing to disguise the fact that while you become incandescent with rage at the culling of small furry animals you are quite happy to gleefully advocate the beating of law abiding citizens by armed and armoured police and the destruction of their livelihoods by political means. This kind of mass social engineering for no other reason than revenge for past events if far worse in my view than any issues relating to controlling the Fox population. What you speak is indeed clap trap of the highest order. Immature ranting punctuated with petty insults in my view is scarcely worthy of anybody’s attention. To try to dignify it as ‘discussion’ is genuinely absurd.

Just checking. As you clearly don’t understand what I’m getting at by those remarks you have clarified something that I was suspicious about. Those who know what I meant in reference to the above know what I was getting at.

Revise my definition of you as a troll? I don’t think so. You fit the bill perfectly adequately. All these ‘sensible posts’? I don’t recall seeing any. Not with your name on them anyway. Plenty of tree hugging ranting maybe, but sensible? I don’t think so. In terms of my response to you. Your attitude to discussion doesn’t merit anything other then mockery, which is what it will continue to receive.

I rest my case. A complete w*nker.