Hunting debate.....nb

I'm always rather bemused at this 'townies don't understand the country'.

The vandals currently in possession of the 'countryside' have effectively presided over the mass chemicalisation, mass poisoning, mass grubbing up and mass destruction of what I would call the countryside. Birdlife - down up to 90% for some species; insect life the same, amphibian and small mammals - the same.

The CAP will take its share of the blame, but this process started a long time before we joined the EU.

Why are foxes a pest? Because of the inappropriate and greedy ways which we attempt to farm.

Don't kid yourself that hunting has anything legitmiate about it. Its the same as bullfighting, cockfighting, dog fighting, otter hunting, badger baiting - the last in a very very long line of sad and deplorable excesses of wanton human cruelty against an animal that cannot respond.

Let's ban it and cast it into the recesses of history, where even then it didn't belong.

<hr width=100% size=1>Nickel

Being paranoid simply means - having all the facts.
 
I wonder why it was that after the last parliamentary debate on this issue, I sat listening to a program on BBC Radio interviewing the guy who used to be one of the foremost anti hunting demostrators in the country. After being invited along to a hunt, and watching the antics of the anti-hunt protesters, he immediately switched sides. That is one hell of a turn around. In fact, this guy gave his wholehearted support to the whole issue and the arguments surrounding it.

Sir Gerald Kaufman has just said that this has been the most debated article in the house in the last 34 years. Doesn't say much for how the debate on going to war was handled.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Democratic process

Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The Lords didn't "throw out" the last bill. It was rejected because the Upper House was not given enough parliamentary time for due scrutiny.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
<<<< Oh, and neither is it an "upper class" persuit but goes right accross the socioeconomic and age ranges.>>

I wonder what it costs to own, stable, and pay medical fees for a hunter ? Probably boating is cheap by comparison.
>>

This response is representative of the problem that hunting has (and boating) it is perceived as a rich man's sport. If you ever took the effort to actually go to a hunt you would find that the majority of people who actually follow the hunt thesedays do not actually have a horse. They follow the hunt and get their enjoyment o f watching those with more money than riding ability taking a spill at the fences.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: I don\'t think this is \"non-boaty\"

The other year on a radio prog, they said that fox hunting represented 4% of fox deaths, 60% were road traffic incidents.
Buts pensions in context, and how much relevence it would take to link boating to a bill to control it.

Brian

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Democratic process

Due scrutiny indeed! They needed more time in order to produce a set of amendments to render the Bill unworkable.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Whilst I agree with the conclusion I don't agree with your comments about modern farming. The farmers are there to run a business and if the Great British public wants the countryside to look like a Constable picture then it will have to be prepared to pay for it, and that means paying more for food. The comments you make about pollution etc can equally well be made about the towns; after all not so long ago our towns and cities were still the Countryside; and just look at some of our inner Cities! By making such a one sided argument I don't believe that you make a very good case. Sorry.

Foxes are, and always have been a pest. It's nothing to do with the way we farm, nothing to do with greed, nothing to do with "vandalism".

However I do agree that Fox hunting is barbaric and I will be glad to see it gone.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
"The vandals currently in possession of the 'countryside' have effectively presided over the mass chemicalisation, mass poisoning, mass grubbing up and mass destruction of what I would call the countryside. Birdlife - down up to 90% for some species; insect life the same, amphibian and small mammals - the same. "

British farmers were told to feed the nation - and they did. Now they're told they're not wanted but without management the countryside will go to even more rack and ruin than intensive agriculture has wrought. And who earns the money the twons spend on country produce? Yes, the supermarkets.

Wonderful thing sailing !

<hr width=100% size=1>Khyber
 
Re: Democratic process

I believe that was their right, just as much as this gov't sees it as it right, to force through this bill by use of the parliament act if need be, regardless.
I believe that this gov't just want to do this so that they can point backwards and say, look at what we acheived in the face of all this adversity. Never to mention all the things they have totally screwed up. This debate is just seen by them as winnable (regardless of how), at the expense of all the other issues which they have conveniently buried as deep as they can.

This just a ranting moment....................now over.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Much cheered up today

Hunting will never be in the top 100 important issues but even so, I'd hoped that they'd ban it sooner than after seven years in power. I also saw the new Charity bill will allow the removal of charity status for private schools. It just gets better.

Now if they could just stop people in towns from owning dogs I'd be a happy man.



<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Hmm. Impressive thread, but are foxes the stand-on animal under all circumstances, or must paws give way to hooves on some occasions? And what lights should a hunt show at night?

/forums/images/icons/laugh.gif

<hr width=100% size=1>Je suis Marxiste - tendance Groucho
 
I only posted this topic, to point out what I was watching taking place in the House, as being a bit disproportionate, with regards to the number of MP's on all sides attending this debate, which has been given such importance.
This thread has reflected how strong people feel about this subject yet as voting is now taking place, behind locked doors, I cannot see more than around 30-40 MP's taking part. Why is this, considering the depth of feeling this issue has raised?
This in a country which is going to ratshit(sorry Kim) all around us.
What is going on?
Bill has now passed it's second reading.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
depends from which side of the field the fox enters. Paws must give way to hooves at all times and upon hearing a cry of WATER from the fox, hooves must immediately break away. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
what a load of crap is talked about support for hunting by those living in the countryside .. well I've live in the country for over 20 years now and virtually everyone I know is against the cruelty of the hunt. In a local village the hunt stopped a few years ago at the primary school. They were booed by every child in the playground .. the hunt master shouted at the kids average age 8yo, told them all to f#ck off, cracked his whip and rode off ... I wo'nt be sorry to see the end of his kind!

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
As a country liver I never held any particular view on fox hunting. Until a friend of ours who owns a smallholding a couple of miles from us had the hunt cross her little bit of land, without any permission, tear her pet cat to pieces - literally!

When she had the unmitigated gall to protest, the noble huntsman hit her about the head with his riding crop causing her to need several stitches.

Do I want hunting banned - you bet your life I do.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Tony Banks, Labour MP for West Ham, has just stood up and said that the House is currently 'packed to the rafters for this reading'. He must have had his eyes plucked out beforehand, since all I can see is row after row of empty green leather. /forums/images/icons/crazy.gif

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
I live deep in the country in a fox (and stag) hunting area and am agin this "sport". I don't much care for foxes but I worry about those who get their jollies from killing them.

A quick poll of the neighbours (including two sheep farmers) seems to suggest this is a fairly common view.

Doesn't mean I be against the hunting of the pillocks in Westminster with or without dogs though.

<hr width=100% size=1>A pessimist is an optimist in full possession of the facts
 
Interesting how many of those who are against hunting can recall unpleasant individuals who have helped to form their views.

The same could be said of sailing. Beware!

I cannot see the point of criminalising yet more of the law-abiding population, soon we'll all be criminals and they can insist on holding our fingerprints & DNA.

I'm off to get my voluntary GPS tag (aka Blunkett's Trinket) fitted before they start to charge us for them!

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top