Its NOT the same thing at all, and the fact that you cannot see that highlights why people like you should be given no power over how the countryside is run.

Not at all, I can see that you are well beyond that. You may get an insight about why slowly burning an animal to death is not the same as a hunt however, not that you would ever admit it.

Your only argument is one of animal welfare, a subjective principle that you have demonstrated you cannot understand. This is no basis for interfering with people's way of life.

 

I wonder if people would prefer to see police taken off the streets to try and enforce a law that shouldn't even have come to pass. Its going to be speeding all over again.

 

Nothing like twisting words is there? It is a fact that one of the most important factors for *most* people, when it comes to deciding how to vote, is the perceived impact on their wallet/purse.

Ever was it thus...

 

This is your opinion - I, and it seems the majority of the public, consider it worthy of pursuing,so you'll just have to live with that.

This is the last thrown of the dice for you lot isn't it? First we had job losses (16,000 was the ludicrous figure quoted), then we had pest control,then we had "civil liberties", and now, finally, it's "please leave us alone. Surely there's more imporant issues?". Just desperate.
If you want this out of the way, let the will of parliament have it's way. Simple.


I've no doubt that hunting wasn't the main factor in swaying peoples vote, but it was in their manifesto, and the public have every right to expect them to see this through.

The "prejudice and ignorance" claims are just assumption on your part.


You said everyone voted for Labour to screw the rich. That was your prejudice coming out.

Why is drag hunting not an acceptable alternative?

 

In a democracy we all have the right to have a say in how our country, urban and countryside, is run.
Unfortunately for the pro hunt lobby the democratic process has gone against them so they choose to deny it when it suits them.
There are plenty of laws that restrict the way I have to live my life, that infringe on what I perceive to be my human rights but I have to respect them or pay the penalty.
Welcome to the real world huntspeople and their supporters.

 

*In your opinion*

The Scottish ban came about because of one MP's dedication to banning cruel sports. - It was a prvate member's bill. The other MP's agreed, and the population gave it support.

 

Yep, and that was nothing like it.

 

What??

 

The government was/is elected to serve the people of this country not to rule them. I don't recall any mention of the social engineering being practised by the current administration appearing in their 'manifesto'.

As far as I can see all this ban hunting stuff has little to do with the well being of foxes either. It's 'pay-back' by the Far Left for the perceived injustices of the Miners' Strike 20 years ago.

 

Of course the *true* irony will come when this unjust ban is over turned by the European Court of Human Rights.

That’s when the stick that the ‘politically correct’ bullies use to beat people will be turned on them.

 

I'm not a legal expert but does that mean that if this case went to the European Court of Human Rights and was deemed to be a "legal ban" that it would in affect open the door to it being banned throughout the EU.

 

Take a step back - the powers that be bring in all sorts of laws that some people don't agree with, and some that have a major impact on peoples lives.

A by-pass gets built though a village. People protest and go on demos - they might win, or they might lose, but democracy prevails and that's the end of it, one way or the other.
Some people lose their jobs overseas as a result of govt economic policy. They complain, but they deal with it and move on.
Some people even lose loved ones in the govt's dubious descision to go to war. They protest to the govt strongly, but they conduct themselves with diginity and honour.

...and then we have the fox-hunting lobby. What nasty peice of evil legislation is it that has them up in arms?

"Stop fox hunting. You can drag hunt though, so you won't lose any jobs,hounds or social life, just don't kill foxes."

And how do these fine, upstanding guardians of the countryside react?
They storm parliament. They cry "this is not democracy!" They chain themselves to railings. The daub slogans on flyovers. They threaten to break the law. They threaten mass civil disobedience. They pin poppys to placards and say "they died for our freedoms!" They make up lies about how 59% of the public support fox hunting, and numerous other lies about job losses and fox numbers. They cry "you're not listening to us!", in the arrogant belief that the reason anybody disagrees with them must be because they're not listening.

All for what? All for the right to chase and kill foxes.

Seriously, what on *earth* is wrong with these people?
How on earth anybody that isn't actively involved with a hunt can offer them any support is utterly beyond me.

There must be a reason for them to react like this. Could it possibly be that they've had it so good for so long, that as soon as some legislation comes along for the first time in decades that directly affects them, they simply cannot beleive it? How dare the govt do this to us?? We are above the law!!.
I can think of no other explanation.

Welcome to the real world.

 

Use Search



Ah good point. For me personally I would think this is an "ok" alternative, although it can never be the same, takes a lot more organisation and the event loses its sense of purpose. It would be like asking fishermen to catch plastic fish, you lose the essence of the hunt which is man vs animal. Again, something I doubt you could understand.

It does raise the interesting point, however, of what happenes when the hounds, in the course of a drag hunt, pick up the scent of a real fox? How will the police (who have been taken off rape and murder duty) be able to distinguish between a drag hunt and a fox hunt if the only thing to distinguish between them in the early stages is intent?

Apart from what we have already debated ad nausium there is nothing more I can do to aid your understanding on this issue and I have nothing to gain from doing so, so sorry but I am going to have to write you off as beyond economic repair. Sadly hunting is going to be banned, you'll be smug etc. etc.

Now, instead of us arguing, recycling the same information over and over again and getting nowhere perhaps I should tell you how I intend to move forward...

I will continue to support hunts that carry on post-ban because I think that is the right thing to do, and there comes a point where a person must choose between doing the right thing morally and the right thing legally. Thus I will be criminalised by the system.

It will then be up to the government and the police to decide which laws are more important for them to enforce and how they intend to enforce them. I know you'll find this irritating and will cost you some smugness, but come on, its a small price to pay compared to the people losing out in this!



Anyway, I may see some of you guys inside after you have been jailed for speeding, so see you there!

 

Absolutlely pathetic. If you've got f**k all to say, don't bother trying.

"Listen to us! Your'e not listening to us!"

Then as soon as someone pulls you up on your arguments, you all crap your pants and run off.

You keep alluding to this mythical concept of acceptable animal cruelty that I don't understand, but you don't seem to want to explain it.

I'll just put it down to me being a civilised human being that wants to at least see something done about animal cruelty, and you just being an uncultured savage.

All the best.

 

They are getting upset because people are saying "I dont like it, so YOU cant do it"
Thats the crux of the arguement, ladies and gents, some people dont like it, so they want to stop everyone from doing it.
All the other arguements such as the fate of the fox, the job losses, the environmental impact are all academic. "I dont like it, so YOU cant do it"
WHo will win is whoever has the biggest fist to support them.
Something similar happened about 10 years ago, Raves were declared illegal and there were mass protests, violence in the streets and lots of political huffing and puffing.
10 years on and one Criminal Justice act later, what has changed?
Nothing. Yes they are illegal, but people still do them because they want to. If they get caught then they accept the consequences, but they rarely are.
The end result of this is will be a ban, I cannot see any other way. Another section of society will be criminalised and for what? The most selfish reason of all.
"I dont like it so YOU cant do it"
How very depressing.
astraboy.

 

Steady on, you'll do yourself a mischief! All the questions you have asked have already been answered. I am tired of answering the same questions over and over again, so now I choose to refer you to prior answers. You may be able to control the countryside from the comfort of your armchair, but I'm afraid you have no control over my time and how I choose to use it.


There is no concept of "acceptable cruelty". Once again these are YOUR words. The concept is a sporting kill. I could have a go at explaining it further, but with your preconceived ideas it would be futile.

 

Unlike raves out in the middle of nowhere causing no harm to anyone, where the organisers clear up after themselves and the net benefit is good for the community, I'd liken hunting to an antisocial, illegal rave that squats someone elses property, causes damage and disturbs the peace and quiet of others.
I'm all for people enjoying themselves in whatever way they see fit if it doesn't affect other people. In this case we also have a moral argument which I don't necessarily believe in but surely those that see it as cruel have the right to see their will enacted democratically?

 

Eh?

I said that there are more important issues for the gov't, but i'm certainly not pro hunt, seems like a waste of time to me tbh, and certainly not a "sport".

I would quite happily see it outlawed, but I still think there are more important issues to dealwith in the UK, not least the fact that we cam 29th in the world lifestyle charts, due to our flailing society

 

Well said, that pretty much covers everything they are trying to ban these days (except smoking,cos thats bad for health - added for Senior AP's benefit )

Pastor - the original illegal raves were detrimental - they used to break into warehouses, make noise and generally have a good time, was fun though

 

Sorry, but thats just not possible. There are hardly any "fun" pursuits that you can do that DONT affect other people.

Scooby meetings mean us driving loud cars through villages, even a sport such as Golf uses up large amounts of land, and neighbouring houses can have ***** through windows.

Football matches cause traffic, noise and fighting.

So thats not a valid argument.

In the usual Scoobynet "litigation" way, I DONT support fox hunting, this is just to add to the debate.

 

Whole other debate but would not put too much faith in that particular survey. Cannot believe Ireland (my home country) came first.

 

As I Understand it the legislation is a Ban on Hunting with Dogs.

I've come up with a solution that should keep everybody happy. Rather than removing the Dogs why don't the countryside alliance do away with the Hunting. Just Tie up some Foxes in locations known to the Hunt organisers then let the Pack try and find the foxes.

That way you're playing Hide & Seek with Dogs not Hunting.


I wonder if that would stand up in court - The way our justice system works it Probably would !

 

As yes, in the middle of nowhere out there in the countryside somewhere. Of course nobody owns the land or is trying to make their living from it? Not that you'd understand if they were.

The fact remains that this is a conflict between people who sit in London and have read a book about how it should be in the country and the people who actually live in the country, make a living in the country and have been preserving the environment for 10,000 years just because they depend on it for their income.

If people in the towns want to tell people in the countryside how to live and how the voice of the majority should be heard then a few things are about to change around here. For a start the majority of people living in the country don't want all your rubbish trucked out to landfill sites so prepare yourself for the Buckingham Palace landfil which will be opening soon.

Another thing, the majority of people in the country don't want those nuclear power stations you keep putting in remote parts of Scotland. So prepare yourself for the Battersea Nuclear Power Station.

The majority in the country are also not dead keen on their animals being virtually worthless, so prepare yourself to see the prices of food in your supermarkets increase by 10 fold. My girlfriend keeps just over 80 sheep and works about a day per week to keep them, her profit at the end of the year is about £500. Who in the town works for £10 per day? Hardly the image of some toff making their fortune while oppressing the fluffy bunny animals is it?

In many ways the banning of fox hunting will be a major watershed in terms of the people who live in the country establishing their identity and starting to demand fair treatment and fair payment for their resources and efforts. They are not going to be happy to work for £10 per day when you are sending them random laws, wind turbines and your crap. So, I think things are going to change around here.

 

I'm really glad that the government have got their priorities in the right place and sorting this fox marlarky over and above the crime, judicial system, NHS, schooling and immigration.

Funny that Bliar is not very vocal on banning fox hunting - scared he may upset a few cronies?

 

I don't think the majority of people in the UK live in the 'country' as you put it. Most of 'us' are urban dwellers (I'm not FYI) and what the majority says goes. That being the case fox hunting is shortly to become illegal. Learn to live with it.

BTW most of the illegal raves I went to involved no damage to anyone or anybody.

 

I think that, perhaps, you may have misunderstood what Hedgehog was saying.

He was actually talking about the opinions of the majority of those people living in the country(side) in the rural sense of the word - not the national.

 

we are moving away from the original debate and I 100% agree that the notion of all rural residents being wealthy is utter rubbish but if the farming community were in a position to control this then they would have already done so. They would not have waited for a ban on fox hunting to spur them on. Many in the farming community (my own family included) have had to accept that traditional small family holdings are no longer viable. This is something the fisheries industry has had to come to terms with, the miners, small shopkeepers and now the farmers will have to do the same.

It's not quite the urban plot against the rural community that you seem to suggest as they are subject to the same market forces. Britains manufacturing industries are disappearing to cheaper locations as are some of the service based industries.

 

I also like the way John Prescott is happy to try and set up his own little devolved empire in the North East, but they don't want it! God forbid they should offer the same autonomy to the countryside instead?

 

And there's another major issue that should take priority in sorting out in parliment over fox hunting laws

 

Global economy so absolutely nothing the government can do about it. This is one that is purely in the hands of the British people and blaming the government is just a cop out.


People have to decide to bank with the bank that does not have it call centre abroad, same with the insurance company for their car/home.

Buy cars and products that are made at home