Hunting ban protest

[Fish Ed]

Heard at a briefing last week that landowners around a secret Shropshire airbase are removing permission to use their land for training in protest at the govt's ban on hunting.

It's just one or two at the moment, but the numbers are expected to increase AFTER they have had their annual freebie flight/lunch/drinkies at taxpayers expense.

[Impiger]

Fish Ed

And how much do you think the taxpayer would have to pay to get access to private land for training on if the landowners weren't given a hospitible thank you every now and again. On balance I think we're probably getting a good deal.

[BEagle]

No matter what one's view of fox hunting might be, the heavy-handed way in which Bliar's bunch of slime balls tried to railroad this through the House last week was an undemocratic act which would have made Stalin blush.

Don't blame the landowners, blame Bliar and his gang whose absurd obsession with fox-protection is way out of touch with reality.

Personally I detest ritual killing of animals; however, I accept that pest control in rural areas is essential. But Trust-me-Tone said that he'd ban it - and with an election looming, if he doesn't then it's ammunition to anyone who could then quite rightly claim that failure to ban fox hunting was yet another New Labour lie.

[Molesworth Hold]

A few years ago, at a secret Shropshire airbase OC Admin was very keen on fox hunting and arranged for the Hunt Ball to be held in the Officers Mess. At the end of the evening one pi$$ed up toff called the Station Commander over and demanded that he call him a taxi.

Strange that it never happened again.

[BEagle]

We were all booted out of the College Hall Mess many years ago when some Commandant decided to invite the local hunt to 'meet' on the College Hall parade ground. But we didn't have the worst of it - the poor airmen who had to shovel up several hundredweight of accumulated horse and hound**** afterwards were very unimpressed about that!

I gather that the College WO wasn't too happy about the state of the parade ground afterwards either.

[JessTheDog]

But we didn't have the worst of it - the poor airmen who had to shovel up several hundredweight of accumulated horse and hound**** afterwards were very unimpressed about that!

Never mind, the boys and girls in red coats will be cleaning up after themselves now, as the manure will be useful for dumping outside government ministers' homes!

[MaroonMan4]

Hmmh - so lets say the bumpkins do get their 1 million licenced shot gun and pitch fork carriers to march on London - it could all turn a bit a messy if the Met ask the Prime Minister for Military Assistance to Civil Powers.

However, I agree totally with Beags on this one and remain totally apolitical, but for sure our intrepid leader has well and truly screwed this one up and I really don't believe that he has any idea what is bubbling away in the countryside.

And as to the farmers/estate owners withdrawing the use of their land. I know for a fact that the South West fraternity are just about to pull the plug.

Isn't this history repeating itself (i.e.Tolpuddle Matyrs!).

[Tartan Giant]

I agree with BEagle.

BLIAR has, once again, made a complete ar*e of it. Not to mention the MET - to whom I wrote complaining about their uniformed thugs thus:

Dear Sir John,

Subject: 15th Sep 2004 House of Commons police violence against the public

I regret writing to complain against the police as I know they have a dreadfully difficult job trying to keep law and order in this ever increasing violent society - fuelled by unbridled T/V horrors.

However, having watched the images of your uniformed, baton happy, men visibly losing control of their tempers under containable conditions, I have to lodge my complaint at what I consider as an overt display of unnecessary over-reaction and measurable police violence against those armed only with loud mouths in the front line. They were not the ones who threw anything but their voices.

Ref: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/17/nsec217.xml
The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sir John Stevens, said yesterday that while any evidence of over-reaction would be investigated, "no one got cracked over the head for no reason".
---------------------------

Looking at the televised images time and time again, I form the view your men were clearly very heavy handed and perpetrated brutal assaults against members of the public.
Your young baton-wielding officer's reacted like a bunch of drunk hooligans, and did not display the command and control expected of British policemen.

I will just take one line from the Telegraph report:
"no one got cracked over the head for no reason".

Were YOU on the front line and agreed with each and every blow that rained down on the unarmed civilians in the front lines?
They were not the ones who threw anything but their voices!

You think you know beyond any doubt there were extraordinary reasons why women were cracked over the head, and punched in the face? I am afraid I do NOT believe you.

Scotland Yard said there had been 15 arrests, 19 people were injured, 2 of them police officers.
If you arrest 15 for what must have been alleged aggravated assault against your uniformed thugs, then discounting your 2 uniformed injured, that leaves TWO who were not cracked over the head and "injured" - what did they get arrested for, armed with a deadly mouth with intent?


Yours sincerely,

etc etc

-----------------------

On a similar thought, the Civil Contingencies Bill is another BLIAR trick.......... has anybody here compaired what BLIAR is doing to what Hitler did in 1933 with his "Enabling Act"?

Check it out gentlemen!

I can supply a shortened version if you want.............

Cheers

TG

[airborne_artist]

Has anyone witnessed a Halal slaughter? It takes about 5 minutes for an animal to die, and the animal has normally been held in pens in the slaughter house for several hours, as slaughters take place within earshot. A hunted fox is dead in a second, hunted for an average of 19 minutes.

But then Halal meat is consumed by a minority that the Labour party take seriously.

[Tartan Giant]

airborne_artist makes a very stout point that has escaped BLIAR and his puppets.

TWO years ago I posted this around (MP's and all sorts)........ the only MP to have the courage to mention anything was Boris Johnson



Posted 28 Sep 2002.

> Please......I beg of your time on this important issue.
>
>I have had just a few replies from my original email on the >subject, which quiet frankly, surprises me.
>
>New Labour believe foxhunting should be banned; what I wish >to know then is why ritual slaughter is not banned too - for >reading the excerpt below, I would suggest to readers there is >cruelty on a far larger scale going on in the UK/EU that is going >unchecked.

>What requires banning, killing 20,000 "pests" (foxes) a year or >cutting the throats of 1.56 million sheep/goats and over 91,000 >cattle ?
>
>I saw the RSPCA's balloon on site on the 22nd Sep 2002 >demanding that foxhunting be banned, but no equally large gas >filled envelope demanding the same of ritual slaughter ! Why >not I wonder ? Can somebody tell me please ?
>
>"A number of years ago the Federal inspectors ruled that no animal is to be slaughtered with its head resting on the floor probably for sanitary reasons. Therefore the animal is slaughtered while hanging in the air suspended by its hind legs with the head at the right height for the shochet [Jewish slaughterer] to reach it.
In order to do this properly it must be forced to remain perfectly still during the time of slaughter.
To render it incapable of movement, a rope is attached to one of its front legs, then tied securely to the wall by means of pulley and hooks while the head is made secure and immobile.... A plier with an iron hook at either end is inserted in the animal's nostril [and] tightened.... The plier is then pulled by a rope and secured to the opposite wall so that the front leg is pulled to one wall while the head with the help of the hooks is pulled to the other wall, thus subjecting it to the most excruciating pain imaginable....
The animal generally screams and bellows with agonizing pain until the shochet cuts its throat thus putting it out of its misery."

Excerpts from a shochet's report, Jewish Press. Jan. 13, 1961.
>
> http://www.ritualmurder.org/id25.htm
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I wonder if the school children would eat the meat if they knew of the details of how the animal was slaughtered - no prestunning.
>
>
> 30 July 2002 -
>
> More than half of school caterers have a demand for halal meat in their schools according to the results of a new survey from the Meat and Livestock Commission.

> The survey, which spoke to 195 local authorities, follows the publication of a British Meat Foodservice halal meat special edition of its Catering in the Public Sector booklet.

> The booklet, free of charge to all interested caterers, contained Tips on creating healthy menus with British Beef and Lamb to suit their customers' dietary requirements.

> Now new halal recipes are available in a supplement written
> in both English and Urdu and available from British Meat Foodservice on 01908 844144 or from [email protected]
>
> http://www.mlc.org.uk/news/newsreleases/oct2001.html/?i=1014901582&action=view
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Muslim lamb campaign from MLC
>
> [Back to article list] [Print this article]
>
> A campaign aimed to boost sales of British lamb to the Muslim community has been launched by the Meat and Livestock Commission (MLC).

> The campaign, the first by MLC to target a specific ethnic, religious or cultural group, recognises the importance of the Muslim community for British lamb producers.

> Although Muslims make up just five per cent of the population they consume an estimated 20 per cent of all lamb and mutton produced in Britain.

> Developed in close co-operation with sheepmeat producers and retailers, the campaign forms part of a wider promotion of sheepmeat in the light of oversupply caused by the export ban following the outbreak of foot and mouth disease.

> The MLC campaign will centre on point of sale material in Urdu and English, including leaflets and posters, for distribution to Halal butchers across the UK. This is designed to encourage Muslim consumers to use more lamb by providing tasty new recipes as well as highlighting lamb and mutton as healthy, versatile foods.

> The campaign will also include Mosque visits by MLC representatives to meet with community leaders and key opinion formers in Britain's Muslim communities. The first visits will take place at the Central Mosque in Regent's Park, London.
> Mohammad Khalid of MLC's Sheep Strategy Council, said: "We have worked closely with key figures in the Muslim community and the Halal meat trade to ensure that we have developed a campaign which is sensitive to Muslim views and answers their concerns."
>
> NOTE: Halal retailers wishing to request copies of campaign leaflets and posters should contact the MLC on 01908 232522.
>
> http://www.mlc.org.uk/news/newsreleases/july2002.html/?i=1028030233&action=view
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
> Butchers
>
> Bert's Butchers
> 146a Hatch Road
> Pilgrims Hatch
> BRENTWOOD
> Tel:01277 372924
> Colemans Butchers
> 10-15 Station Parade
> Elm Park
> HORNCHURCH
> Tel: 01708 620260
>
> Daniels Mobile Butchery
> 110 Main Road
> Broomfield
> CHELMSFORD
> Tel: 01245 441766
>
> H Stokes
> 73 High Street
> DUNMOW
> Tel: 01371 872813
>
> K & P Fresh Foods Ltd
> 17 The Stow
> HARLOW
> Tel: 01279 424053
>
> Knight Meats
> 104 Kings Road
> CHELMSFORD
> Tel: 01245 354167
>
>
> Meat Inn
> 3 The Newlands
> WITHAM
> Tel: 01376 511418<
>
>
> Newmans Butchers
> 37 Churchgate Street
> Old Harlow
> HARLOW
> Tel: 01279 429997
>
>
>
> R C Moriarty
> 12 Forest Drive
> Theydon Bois
> EPPING
> Tel: 01992 813283
>
>
> The Hambone
> 132 Petersfield Avenue
> Harold Hill
> ROMFORD
> Tel: 01708 343896
>
> LIST OF SLAUGHTERHOUSES WILLING TO PROVIDE A RELIGIOUS SLAUGHTER FACILITY DURING EID-UL-ADHA (23-25 FEBRUARY 2002)

> ABP Scotland
> Whitburn Road
> Bathgate EH48 2HP
> Telephone No: 01506 632722
>
>
> 2
> Northwest Food Products Ltd
> The Abattoir
> Coopers Way
> Blackpool
> Lancashire
> Telephone No: 01253 300299
>
> 3
> John W. F. Hughes & Co
> Roselawn Farm
> 110 Main Road
> Broomfield
> Chelmsford
> Essex
> CM1 7AG
> Telephone No: 01245 440329
>
> 4
> Melton Meat Ltd
> The Abattoir
> Nottingham Road
> Melton Mowbray
> Leicestershire
> LE13 0NP
> Telephone No: 01664 567791
>
> 5
> N V Gagen & Son
> High Road
> Gorefield
> Nr Wisbech
> Cambridgeshire
> PE13 4ND
> Telephone No: 01945 870325
>
> 6
> R E Williams & Sons
> Shambles
> Whitehill
> Weobley
> Hereford
> HR4 8QZ
> Telephone No: 01544 318046
>
> 7
> B Riley and Sons
> Dunnockshaw Farm
> Dunnockshaw
> Burnley
> Lancashire
> BB11 5PP
> Telephone No: 01706 213879
>
> 8
> Sandyford Abattoir
> Sandyford Road
> Paisley
> PA3 4HP
> Telephone No: 0141 887 6266
>
> 9
> Bradshaw Bros Ltd
> 76 High Street
> Chase Terrace
> Walsall
> WS7 8LR
> Telephone No: 01543 279437
>
> 10
> Euro Quality Lambs Ltd
> Dale Street
> Craven Arms
> Shropshire
> SY7 9PA
> Telephone No: 01588 673000
>
> 11
> Janan Meat Ltd
> The Abattoir
> Ham Lane
> Kingswinford
> West Midlands
> DY6 7JU
> Telephone No: 01384 401491
>
> 12
> Leansale Ltd - trading as
> Bates Wholesale Butchers
> 350 Stratford Road
> Birmingham
> West Midlands
> B11 4AA
> Telephone No: 0121 772 1466
>
> 13
> Birmingham Halal Abattoir Ltd
> 162-190 Bishop Street Birmingham
> West Midlands
> B5 7EJ
> Telephone No: 0121 622 3382
>
> 14
> Preston Abattoir Ltd
> Preston Abattoir
> Blazebyte
> Brook Street
> Preston
> Lancashire
> PR2 3AH
> Telephone No: 01772 774119
>
> 15
> Northern Counties Meat Group Ltd
> Shields Road
> Fulwell
>
> Sunderland
>
> Tyne & Wear
> SR6 8JL
> Telephone No: 0191 548 8855
>
> Slaughterhouses in bold type are willing to slaughter without prior stunning.
>
> Animal Welfare Division Branch D
> 1 February 2002

Please note :
UK law states that,
'No person shall slaughter any animal by a religious method, or cause or permit any animal to be slaughtered, elsewhere than in a slaughterhouse unless the slaughter is carried out in the presence of an authorised person' (The Welfare of Animals [Slaughter or Killing] Regulations 1995),

but eye witness accounts have stated that animals are routinely killed in back yards in the UK.

------------

So the question is, Mr BLIAR,

What requires banning, killing 20,000 "pests" (foxes) a year or cutting the throats of 1.56 million sheep/goats and over 91,000 cattle ?

Answers on your Ballot Papers everybody.

TG

PS: I am not a "fox hunter" but I do eat standard butchers meat.

[Zoom]

Wasn't it reported early last year on this very site that Parliament had spend half an hour reaching a decision to go to war in Iraq and followed that with an hour and a half's debate on fox hunting? This Government's sense of priorities astounds me.

How would Blair behave with regard to these 2 issues if one of his children was:
a. A member of a hunt?
b. A member of the Armed Forces?

I move that we ban angling. I'm not opposed to angling as such but there must be plenty of anti-foxhunters who go fishing and will tell you that fish feel no pain when hooked, harpooned, dynamited, played (Played!! Get that!!), netted, smashed on a rock, left to asphyxiate on the bank or thrown back in after the angler has had his fun, and so I would like to spoil their fun.

[twang]

The truth is the anti-fox hunting vote, was a free vote . Bringing Iraq & the religious obeisance into the debate over fox hunting is a goal post to far !.
Twice the 'unelected' house voted it down finally forceing the government to cut the debate short.The ayes were massively in the majority. In all the 'recognised' national polls i've read, again a massive majority were in favour of the ban.
If it were anyone else attacking the police in parliament square or invading the floor of the house with what are patently marginal views most right minded people would be up in arms .
Some perceive it to be Bliar & his cronies this is nonsense !.
We all have our views & i would defend anyones right to demonstrate them peacefully & lawfully. Don't allow yourself to be blinded by the fact that you do not have faith in the incumbent !

[airborne_artist]

Zoom

For God's sake keep up and stay with the programme ;-):

"Mr Hain [Leader of the House of Commons] told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "Hunting and Iraq are just fringe issues as far as conference is concerned." The full passage here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3691822.stm)

Mr Blair is far too busy placating his backbenchers, trying to keep them onside up to the next election to worry about big important things.

[Jackonicko]

The existence of cruel slaughtering for Halal and Kosher meat is distasteful, and may be worth stamping out. It does not excuse the hunting of foxes, however, whether that is more or less cruel, any more than the existence of third world sweatshops makes it OK for UK employers to ignore their obligations with regard to working conditions, H&S, etc.

Nor can the issue of hunting be something that should be left to people's individual conscience, any more than it should be left to an individual's conscience as to whether he should be allowed to kick a dog to death or stab a duck with a screwdriver. (Two recent real world examples of animal cruelty).

Nor is it acceptable to defend hunting on the basis of the economic need for it (slavery was once justified on similar grounds) nor on the basis of 'tradition', otherwise we'd still be enjoying bare knuckle boxing, public executions, cock-fighting and bear baiting.

I'm not convinced that hunting is an efficent means of pest control - we car drivers do a much better job at thinning out the fox population, and I'm inclined to think that farmers should adapt to nature rather than expecting to impose control over it by using unreasonable and harmful levels of pesticides, GM crops, or by slaughtering any animal they consider to be a pest. Using proper fencing can protect chickens, while more go ahead farmers already use llamas as 'guard/deterrent' animals to protect lambs.

Finally, if we're talking about democracy, a majority of the British public disapprove of hunting. Ending it was a manifesto commitment by our democratically elected government.

I'm a countryman, I've shot, fished, poached (in my distant youth!), and have no problem with people hunting or shooting for the pot, as long as their sport doesn't cause unnecessary suffering. Hunting foxes is nowadays a sport for the inbred rump of the aristocracy and aspirational country town dentists and estate agents. I can see the appeal of tear-arsing across the country on a horse, but why can't the bas.tards drag hunt?


But the behaviour of the police was disgraceful, it has to be said.

[tmmorris]

Poor old hare-hunting (as practised by the Per Ardua Beagles, for example) always gets left out of the debate. It kills almost no hares (a good pack kills maybe 25-30 in a season) yet encourages farmers to care about hare numbers: there are plenty of hares where they are hunted, but modern farming (particularly mechanised ploughing right up to the hedgerow and winter crops) is terrible for numbers where they are not.

And the best thing, of course, is that it's done by Beagles :-P

Pest control, though, is a terrible argument for hunting. Lamping is a much more effective method of killing foxes (and, apparently, small boys). Conservation is a much better argument.

Tim

(beagler and VR(T), two despised minorities)

[BEagle]

With all the cut backs, do the Per Ardua pack still exist?

A beagle, BTW, has nothing to do with a Bald Eagle!

The most convincing argument for hunting with dogs which I ever saw was in a TV programme about the Lake District and a pack of fell hounds. A fox was causing mayhem locally, the houndsmen located it in terrain impassable to vehicle, horse or human foot. It was hopping about on a field of huge boulders half way up a very steep hill. But the hounds caught it and it was off to fox-heaven within milliseconds of the first bite. A clear explanation of the mechanics of its dispatch was given, in totally undramatic or gory detail. Of course, as they will, the hounds then proceded to reduce the fox remains to scrap....

It's much of the 'hunting ritual' which upsets the 'antis' and I have to agree with them on that. Deliberate breeding of foxes for hunting, wiping blood on the faces of young children at their first hunt kill - all pretty unsavoury. Of course the sight of a hunt in full hunting Pink at the gallop with hounds giving tongue in full voice is indeed considered to be a traditional British scene, but proper control (internal policing) and an end to some of the more 'barbaric' customs would help the 'pros' case enormously.

[tmmorris]

It's actually the fact that we dress up for it that really upsets the antis. I find this rather mystifying - surely it's either OK or it isn't, and doing it in jeans wouldn't make it acceptable? So many of them say 'oh, I understand foxes must be killed, but they shouldn't enjoy it...'

I'm with you on blooding, though - all rather unnecessary.

Tim

[BEagle]

And, to be honest, the Countryside Alliance does itself no favours with the way it goes about things.

'Banning fox hunting will threaten our livelihoods' is hardly valid - no doubt that's what the bear-baiters and cock-fighters once said.

Surely the MFHA can come up with more cogent justification and a revised code of practice for those who hunt? The CA viewpoint on the MFHA site http://www.mfha.co.uk/hunt_truth/index.html is, I consider, lacking in substance.

[Tartan Giant]

SPAIN..........
I just wonder how the BULLFIGHTING fraternity think it's OK to laugh and chear for hours on end, whilst some git drives steel into the shoulders of some bull?

Going back to the foxhunting, there has to be a middle way. An outright ban is unworkable.

If cruelty to animals was the real issue, then the outrageous slaughter of millions of proven healthy animals during the FMD 2001 fiasco would never have happened.

The RSPCA did not bring one case to court! They were a bloody disgrace.

TG

[Groundbased]

This argument that this is the will of the British people being carried out always amuses me.

I'm sure a referendum would show it was the will of the majority of the population to reintroduce the death penalty, or exit the EU, but we don't hear the Government rushing to use the Parliament act to get legislation through on these issues.

[Biggus]

I just thought I would mention a point, not directly in relation to fox hunting - about which I must say I have no particularly stong views, which politicians come out with now and again and really gets my goat!

Polticians in government sometimes say something to the effect that... 'this was in our manifesto and we got voted in with a large majority therefore it is the will of the people'.... Firstly almost no government is voted in by a majority of the people. The current one, despite its majority of seats, probably got about 40% of the vote - SO MORE PEOPLE VOTED AGAINST IT THAN FOR IT!! It just happens to be the HIGHEST SCORING PARTY. Given the low turnout in votes these days it is likely that it only got about 20% of elligible votes!!

Even those who voted for it don't necessarily agree with EVERY item in the manifesto, they just prefered that OVERALL PACKAGE to any other on offer. Therefore, anything in the Governments manifesto is probably only CERTAIN to have 20% acceptance by the public - although the actual figure could be higher!!

[Jackonicko]

Like cock fighting, bear-baiting, dog-fighting, bare knuckle fighting, or beating up immigrants, fox hunting is unacceptable in a civilised society.

The point isn't whether or not foxes are a pest (that's over-stated, and the effectiveness of fox hunting for pest control is dubious). If cockerels were a pest, it wouldn't make cock-fighting OK.

The point isn't about the supposedly vital economic need for hunting (if you want to retain the jobs, then drag hunt) any more than the economic justifications for slavery were valid.

It's a simple concept. Treating animals in an inhumane and cruel manner for 'sport' is quite simply morally unacceptable. It's not a matter of 'personal freedom' nor is it a matter for individual conscience - it's wrong and if people haven't the decency to stop, then they need to be stopped.

I'm astonished at the support expressed for the hunting mob here - the people who hunt tend to be the worst kind of chinless social-climbing townie estate agents and accountants. Many real country folk despise the bas.tards.

[Lurcher Man]

It did not take long for jeckencos true character to come out.
Your last post shows a deep ignorance and prejudice. You claim to be a 'countryman' because you've shot & fished & poached I'm afraid you 're not like any countryman I know.
Hunting with hounds is as natural and humaine as you can get and ensures that a healthy balance of the fox population is maintained.
Unfortunately the town and country cultures are poles apart and there will be no meeting of minds.

[insty66]

Coming from the country I have to disagree. What most rural folk dislike above all is being told what is and isn't right for their way of life, by a party that is still clearly fighting thier 80's class war (check the quotes after last vote in commons).
As has already been stated here most peoples objection to hunting is the people who do it and not the methods employed.
As for lamping, well I've seen the problems many people have shooting a stationary target standing at 25m and they've had training!
I can't think why you should be suprised that people in the military support hunting, we are still allowed to hold our own opinions, for the time being at least.

BTW. Attending this years hunt ball I met several farmers farmworkers, teachers, nurses and 1 police officer but absolutley no estate agents, although they would be welcome too!

[Jackonicko]

Great, diverted down another blind alley.

Whether or not country people support it or not - and I suspect that it varies a great deal from place to place - is irrelevant.

It's not about class warfare. It's not a left/right issue. Many decent Tories do not support hunting. Many Labour voters do. Irrelevant.

It's a simple matter of right and wrong. Like slavery.

The mob would vote to repatriate immigrants, and to restore capital punishment, while they might ban hunting. Irrelevant. It's about morality.

Treating animals in an inhumane and cruel manner for 'sport' is quite simply morally unacceptable. If people haven't the moral fibre, wit and decency to stop on their own, then they need to be stopped.

[insty66]

To follow that logic then, shooting and fishing are next after all both are sport. It has been demonstrated that fish do feel pain and I stand by my shooting comments.
Attend a hunt, put your predjuces (sp?) aside and then make comment.
If you rely on hearsay and myth you will never be able to convince me that you are right.

[tmmorris]

Meant to say BTW that I believe the Per Ardua Beagles are going strong but not officially RAF any more. The Shrivenham, sadly, have packed up.

Sadly I fear you are right, insty66: most people who are anti-hunting don't actually have the faintest idea, when put on the spot, what takes place in a day's hunting. The Sun sent Garry Bushell out hunting a few years ago and he loved every minute of it - didn't want to do it again, but defended it beautifully in an article in the paper. Ignorance is bliss.

Tim

[Flatus Veteranus]

I am neutral on the subject of foxhunting. I do not believe that it is the cruellest way of despatching these vermin. The first hound to reach the fox usually breaks its neck cleanly. I am against large parliamentary majorities legislating against the traditional pastimes of minorities. I believe the laws against bear-baiting and dog-fighting resulted from the landed classes (who dominated parliament in those days) voting against the pleasures of the urban poor. A fox took a pidgeon in my garden early this morning. I heard the rumpus and when I saw the results it spoilt my breakfast. The pridgeon was not eaten; it was just torn apart and the pieces left all over my lawn. Anyway, hunting beats the most prevalent alternative - lamping - in which foxes are illuminated with powerful torches and shot with a rifle. The score so far this week has been two children shot dead.

The hunting culture sometimes does not make many friends. I recall at South Cerney in about 1957 when a new Station Commander found two ladies in the Officers Mess. These grandes dames were braying to each other about what they would put where. When the staish asked one formidable dragon what they were doing, the reply was:

"We're from the Hunt Ball committee making plans for the Ball. And (down a long nose) who are you, young man?"

"I am the Station Commander, Madam, and no one has asked me for permission to hold the Hunt Ball here. Please leave the Mess immediately".

Of course it was sorted out at a high level. But, for the first time, members were not compelled to vacate their rooms for the night of the Ball. Indeed, a number of complementary tickets were made available to mess members.

[soddim]

I fear that there is more to this issue than a simple desire to make the world a better place for foxes for, if that was the motive, we would surely be banning shooting, fishing and meat eating, God forbid.

I am convinced that if fox hunting was a popular pastime of labour voters it would receive a government grant.

The fox hunting ban is hardly the action of a tolerant society and nor does it make sense. If all the hounds in my village were to be set free they would soon form a pack and hunt whatever prey they could find and if it was a fox it would be despatched just the way a hunt does it. That is the natural way. There is nothing natural about shooting, fishing or meat eating.

[DummyRun]

- Jacko, disappointed to hear all the old anti stuff trotted out with little thought or research, I've never met any of your stereotypes out hunting nor have I ever seen an injured fox limp away from a pack of hounds, however, have seen a few wounded foxes cleanly dispatched by hounds.
Bliar commissioned independent Reports into Hunting and Ritual butchery and ignored the facts provided by both The fact is that not a single foxes life will be saved by a Hunting ban they will be controlled using other methods. This ill thought ban is purely about an issue that has become totemic for the Labour party who obviously have got ooodles of time to spend debating it having sorted out health, education, defence, assylum.......

If it was about "working class" people riding mountain bikes and hunting rats with terriers would Labour be so desparate to ban it?

Any PProoners going to Brighton tommorrow? PM me.

[MaroonMan4]

Jackprorocial,

Although I try and keep an open mind, just try and help me out with the remedy for keeping foxy loxy at bay when Fox Hunting is banned? All my mates that can slot a fox with a head shot are either earning mega bucks in Iraq or on the British Olympic shooting team and certainly not enough to curb the natural increase per year.

So what is your solution, poison or go for the shot anyway and let a bit of disease set in as the injured Mr and Mrs Fox passes on infection to his/her cubs?

Also, what about the Urban Foxes that reporters try and dumb down (e.g. Kent baby bitten by Fox that strolled into front room through patio window or the London Borough that will not class Foxes as pests although the place hums of fox pooh (not a nice smell) the mating beats the cr@p out of any noise pollution from rap music and the bins all across the street try and get blamed on poorly trained dogs?

Hmmh - or will you require the Army/RM sniper course to help with the pest control? And if you still don't think they are pests - go to the West Country during lambing and see how cute the little baby mauled and mutilated carcasses are then. Not just one but dozens at a time.

Oh, but that will be the farmer bumpkins poor farming techniques won't it Jack!


Still an open mind - country boy - but still an open mind :ok:

[airborne_artist]

Many real country folk despise the bas.tards

Can you back this up with research, perhaps? I doubt it - all you are doing is re-cycling LACS and other's propaganda.

the people who hunt tend to be the worst kind of chinless social-climbing townie estate agents and accountants

Substantiate this equally ludicrous statement with some facts, please. See above - two spectacularly wild generalisations that give journos the poor reputation Jackonicko so clearly deserves.

How do you think the Banwen Miners' Hunt got its name? Not many social climbers there I suspect...

It's not about class warfare

In the minds of a significant number of Labour MPs it is about just this. They see a pink coat and think - "why doesn't that person pay more tax?" They resent the fact that Tony hasn't taxed "them" til the pips squeak.

[16 blades]

Jacko,

I would like to know where your authority comes from to moralise in such an absolute way. Have you been suddenly appointed a deity without any of us noticing? What on earth gives you the right to tell others what is morally right and wrong?

And all of this from a Journalist, possibly the most morally reprehensible (lawful) profession in the western world - a profession which will not think twice about ruining peoples lives to sell newspapers.

People have the right to choose which moral code they follow - be it religious, social or otherwise. You do not have the right to sit in judgement over mankind.

I do not agree with foxhunting. I do not agree with the killing of animals for sport. Yet, I do not have the right to stop those who wish to carry out such practices, and legislating against it is the height of ignorance and illiberalism - two trademarks of this joke of a government.

Tell me, what is the difference between animals in the wild hunting, chasing and killing each other (they don't always do it for food - have you ever seen a cat have its sport with a bird? or chimps tear apart an unfortunate rival who has stumbled into their territory?) and what happens on a hunt, essentially the same thing? No-one is being harmed by hunting, the foxes are despatched in exactly the same way as they would be by a natural predator, so why legislate against it?

It is, as has already been stated here, naked class warfare, pursued in order to keep the rank-and-file lefties in line, on whom Blair must now depend in his weakened position. To suggest that this government has a moral compass is utterly ludicrous - its record speaks for itself.

And on the question of whether the public wants a ban, I think you'll find that the MAJORITY of people in this country, not just those in lefty, 'liberal', bien pensant, Islingtonite, champagne socialist circles, really don't give a flying f@ck. There are more important issues facing mankind right now.

16B

[solo73]

"the people who hunt tend to be the worst kind of chinless social-climbing townie estate agents and accountants." Really, I wish that people who dont know what they are talking about wouldnt comment on the subject! I have hunted all my life and am neither bloodthirsty or some moron who tramples over the countryside without a thought for the land I am riding on. When was the last time that some of the posters on here actually went hunting? If you believe that hunting is like somthing out of a Jilly Cooper novel then you clearly dont have a clue. It makes me VERY angry that the minority are being persecuted for absolutely nothing. There are far bigger things to worry about than hunting; its so transparent as to be pathetic that this government are making such a big deal about it. A better idea would be to use the money they have wasted on debating this on decent kit for troops on the ground in Iraq, like proper aircon in snatch vehs or proper ECM?

[Tartan Giant]

Selina Scott wrote last year about this barbaric method of killing animals.

TG
---------------------


http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/columnists/selinascott/page.cfm?objectid=1306994
9&method=full&siteid=86024

Stop this inhuman massacre
Selina Scott
The Sunday Mail
15 June 2003

HALAL and kosher meat, favoured by Muslims and Jews, is produced by cutting the throat of the animal while it's still alive and letting the blood and other body fluids drain away as it writhes in its final agonies.

It's going on in abbatoirs all over Scotland.

Sorry if you're at your breakfast, folks, but that's the way it is. I
couldn't agree more with the animal cruelty people who say the practice should be banned.

They have been begging the politicians for years to do something but the Tories and Labour have never had the guts to give their backing to a change in the law if it meant losing votes.

Of course, while they're at it they should ban the live transportation of animals.

Naturally there has been a great outcry from the ethnic groups who prefer their meat prepared in this barbaric way.

But just as we have to accept the customs of Middle Eastern countries, including the banning of alcohol, while we live among them, so they must accept our views on animal welfare when they make their homes here.

Britain is a tolerant country but we should make it crystal clear to
religious groups and immigrants we have a uniform standard on animal slaughter. Quite simply, animals should be killed quickly and humanely.

For those who don't like it there's an easy remedy. They could always make a valuable contribution to the government's reverse migration policy.
----------------------------

When in Rome do as the Roman's do........... I don't think it applies to this BLIAR infested place.

TG

[Jackonicko]

16 Blades,

You may see yourself as being no different to a chimp or a cat, which may explain your somewhat relaxed attitude to morality.

I do not. As a human, I have to make moral choices - constraining my own desires in order to "do the right thing". I therefore try to avoid jumping every attractive woman (however bright purple their bottoms might be) and I refrain from other behaviour patterns that may be entirely acceptable in the animal world, but that don't pass muster in the civilised human world.

People do NOT have the right to choose which moral code they follow, there are certain moral absolutes that are universal - that mean that we don't kill (except in self defence), steal, lie, cheat, or vandalise the planet and its resources.

With that in mind I don't need to be appointed a deity in order to judge that inflicting unnecessary cruelty on animals is morally wrong, whether it's for sport, or to maximise farmers' profits. Animals are not there to provide barbaric entertainment for the morally handicapped.

The way in which we treat the planet and its resources are what mark us out from the animal kingdom. It is morally wrong to mistreat those weaker and less powerful than we are whether they are children, slaves, or animals - there is a huge difference in degree of course, but the underlying morality is similar.

Nor do I find your tired jibes against journalists particularly intelligent or amusing. You lump together every journalist if it helps you with your own insecurities, but if you think that any more than a small minority of journos act in the way in which you describe, then you're plainly deluded. Many journalists are every bit as well motivated as those who follow any vocational calling, and are driven by the desire to educate, inform, and even to shape and influence opinion. Others simply want to communicate. Very few want to 'sell newspapers' and even fewer would want to ruin people's lives in order to do so. But I do, of course. I'm a liberal (funny how that now seems to be a term of abuse among the knuckle dragging right) and I dare to disagree with you, so I must be scum. :rolleyes:

I do not agree with slavery, wife-beating, bare knuckle boxing, or child prostitution, either. By your logic, presumably "I do not have the right to stop those who wish to" carry out such practices, and presumably legislating against them represents "the height of ignorance and illiberalism"?


Airborne Artist,

You don't know me, so you really should refrain from over personalised attacks. It's amusing that you reactionary types feel entitled to trot out your own arguments and prejudices, but deny anyone with an opposing viewpoint (especially a despised journo!:hmm: ) the right to express theirs, and if they do so, then you belittle and demean them. I don't know you, but I doubt that you're any more of a countryman than I am, and I suspect that you know no more hunting folk than I do. You clearly have a more tolerant view of those who think that the world revolves around them, and that everything is put there for their convenience and enjoyment.

Solo 73,

In days gone by you\'d claim to be an exemplary owner, but wouldn\'t see anthing wrong with owning slaves. You\'d be giving them work, shelter and sustenance, after all.

Hunting is immoral, and offends modern sensitivities. Why can\'t people like you have the good grace to compromise a bit and drag hunt?


Tartan,

"We should make it crystal clear to religious groups and immigrants we have a uniform standard on animal slaughter. Quite simply, animals should be killed quickly and humanely."

Absolutely. This is a bigger disgrace than hunting. Ban both ritualised slaughter and hunting with dogs now. And keep an eye out to stop wife beating and female circumcision too.

[Tartan Giant]

Boris Johnson says it as it is..... two years ago.

I looked at all those Labour members, gibbering and hooting like a bunch of flea-ridden gibbons, taunting Nicholas Soames and other Tories brave enough to stick up for an ancient way of life. Would they dare to attack halal?

Nope!

TG
-------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2002/12/05/do0502.xml

Cowardice and hypocrisy at the heart of Labour
By Boris Johnson
(Filed: 05/12/2002)

Those of a sensitive disposition may not forgive me for reminding them, but every day, up and down the country, in every large town, vast quantities of animals are slaughtered according to the following method.

A chap says some kind prayer and then the cow's throat is slit, while fully conscious, and it bleeds to death.
It may be a full three minutes before the heart pumps its last.

There are those who will say this is cruel, and there are those who will say that it is not cruel. It doesn't really matter.

The procedure is morally identical to hunting, in that an animal's death is governed by human sensibility rather than the needs of the poor dumb brute.

If I were a cow, I think, in an ideal world, that I would rather not die by having my throat slit while I was still conscious.
I would prefer not to pass my last three minutes in a state of bovine gloom, mourning the lost pastures of my calfhood, and contemplating man's inhumanity to cow, a fate that befalls 600,000 beasts in this country every year.

And if I were a fox, I think, on the whole, that I would rather not perish through a hound's bite to the back of the neck, as happens to about 13,000 foxes in this country every year.
If I had to choose between the two fates, I would plump immediately for being killed by dogs, on the grounds that death is instantaneous.

But my purpose is not to antagonise the many well-meaning and conscientious Muslims who practise halal butchery. It is merely to point out the ludicrous hypocrisy and cowardice of Labour's Bill to ban hunting.

I looked at all those Labour members, gibbering and hooting like a bunch of flea-ridden gibbons, taunting Nicholas Soames and other Tories brave enough to stick up for an ancient way of life. Would they dare to attack halal? Would any of them, in their largely urban seats, with their sizeable Muslim minorities, ever have the guts to denounce Islamic ritual slaughter?

Like hell they would. The hunters, on the other hand, the toffs in pink - now there is a group that is much more appealing, as a target, to a party that feels it has been denied the red meat of socialism.

The whole thing reeks of bullying and cowardice; and, in that, the hunting Bill is consonant with almost everything else that Labour does. If Labour had any principle or logic, it would leave the hunters alone, just as it leaves the Muslims alone.

But the whole point about Blair's "Third Way" is that it is nothing to do with courage or logic, and all about expediency.
If we understand this Bill correctly, it would make a criminal of anyone whose dog chased a hare, but exempt anyone whose dog chased a rabbit. You can rip a rat to ribbons whenever you like, but not a fox.

In that sense, the Bill is internally illogical, but we have not begun to do justice to the full gutlessness of Labour's proposals.

When 407,000 people marched on London in defence of hunting, [they were NOT all there supporting hunting!] they did achieve their objective, in the sense that they put the wind up Blair.

He saw that there was no chance of banning hunting without doing himself irreparable damage with a sizeable chunk of the population. It was perfectly clear that the measure would engender undying hatred among rural communities, and Blair is a man who likes to be loved, not hated. [FAILED]

He also knew, on the other hand, that he had a great many restive backbenchers who could not understand why he would not use his 169 majority to stick one in the eye for the hunters. He has tried to solve this dilemma, as ever, by splitting the difference; and has ended up with a muddle that will satisfy no one.

The anti-hunters, who make up the vast majority of MPs, will never accept the licencing system, which is Blair's attempt to appease the Countryside Alliance and which would appear to mean that fox-hunting will survive. The pro-hunters are furious at the nonsensical ban on deer-hunting, and will certainly oppose any amendments to ban foxhunting.

It is a classic "Third Way" mess, and emblematic of everything this Government does.
Blair cannot agree with his Chancellor about how to reform the health service. Tony would like to encourage more private investment, of the kind you see in every other European country. Gordon Brown is deeply ideologically committed to the NHS as a universal public service funded out of general taxation.

The result, after five years, is that we have what is in many ways a deteriorating health service, and an unhappy "Third Way" compromise between Prime Minister and Chancellor. Private firms are increasingly involved in NHS infrastructure projects, but the taxpayer picks up the tab.

Or take the "Third Way" on transport. When Labour came to power, it couldn't work out which it disliked more: the motorist or the privatised railways. So it has contrived, with a kind of perverse "Third Way" genius, to be equally brutal to both. Stephen Byers deliberately destroyed Railtrack, while Gordon Brown blocked all new bypasses and other measures that might alleviate the country's desperate congestion.

The "Third Way" on education, it is now clear, is to pretend that A-levels are still a gold standard, even if absolutely all pupils were to be awarded an A.
The "Third Way" answer to constitutional reform is to be in favour of neither the hereditary peers nor an elected chamber, but of some unguessable final plan involving large numbers of cronies.

As for Europe, the "Third Way" means supporting the euro, while being so gutless as to refuse to call a referendum to settle the matter.[we have gor a referendum on the cards now]
It is all, as they say in Brussels, le petit dejeuner d'un chien.

There is no Third Way between sucking and blowing, Tony. You can't do both at once.

Boris Johnson is MP for Henley and editor of The Spectator

[BEagle]

Boris for PM!!

[16 blades]

Jacko,

"People do NOT have the right to choose which moral code they follow, there are certain moral absolutes that are universal - that mean that we don't kill (except in self defence), steal, lie, cheat, or vandalise the planet and its resources. "

As per my previous post, I would like to ask again - EXACTLY WHERE do you derive this moral authority from? EXACTLY WHERE are these 'moral absolutes' you speak of, in writing or otherwise?

If there are 'Universal' values governing all of mankind, surely there must be a 'Universal' value-giver? You don't strike me as a religious man.

In my experience of worldwide travel, I have not seen any evidence of these 'Universal moral absolutes' of which you speak. All cultures and societies have their own values - there is very little, if anything, that unites the human race. For example, in many Islamic cultures, 'honour killings' of female family members who refuse arranged marriages or shag around are not just morally acceptable, but also perfectly legal. Many countries still have the death penalty for a wide range of offences - supported by a majority of their populus. And so on and so forth......

You are a liberal?

You're having a giraffe, surely?

Since when does a true 'liberal' seek to ban others from doing something that they don't agree with?

I concede that my generalised swipe at your chosen profession was unwarranted and petulant. I apologise.

16B

[airborne_artist]

Airborne Artist, You don't know me, so you really should refrain from over personalised attacks.

What I said was: "Substantiate this equally ludicrous statement with some facts, please. See above - two spectacularly wild generalisations that give journos the poor reputation Jackonicko so clearly deserves. "

You have not substantiated either statement, yet, just complained that I pointed out your innaccurate ramblings.

For what it's worth I've hunted for most of the last 34 years - lost count of the number of people I've met and now know through hunting....

[Maple 01]

Shame on you, Jackonicko!

Fancy making a stand for common decency! How dare you sir! I wouldn’t be suppressed if one of the huntmasters doesn’t send a chap round to have you horsewhipped. It’s the only kind of language you sort of people understand – you’ll be wanting free speech next…….

You should know it's all a class war plot lead by such left wingers as Miss Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone & The Weald), Sir Teddy Taylor (Rochford & Southend East) & John Taylor (Solihull).

A link to a Communist backed Class warfare based extremist animal rights organisation……er, no, it’s the International Fund for Animal Welfare

http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/general/default.aspx?oid=116766

How MPs voted (remember democracy?)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3661766.stm

Now as this is a Mil forum…..

A tale told to me by an aging Scopie many moons ago

At a remote top-secret radar station somewhere in Yorkshire a board gate-guard was approached by the local hunt – it seems that their quarry, being a cunning old fox, had slipped under the less than secure camp fence knowing he would be relatively secure. The Hunt demanded entrance to pursue their ‘sport’

The SAC wasn’t having any of it but the Huntmaster attempted to intimidate him saying he had right of access because the top-secret radar station was on his land, he was a personal friend of the CO, and could make life very difficult for the horrible little man.

The guateguard made a few phone calls and sure enough the Huntmaster was allowed on camp – so he took the only option open to him:
‘Yes sir, that’s perfectly OK, you can come on camp but you’ll have to register your vehicle and those of your friends’

What could the Hunt do? They had to follow procedures, so one-by -one they dismounted, filled in their details and those of their ‘vehicles’, and were issued with car passes – as we know, SACs aren’t too bright so he made many mistakes and had to write slowly. Anyhow, after about 15 mins the hunt were waved onto camp to continue their business

Rumour is that the hunt failed to get their fox that day. The SAC got a pat on the back for following procedures - seems the CO didn't like the landowner that much...

Still, as I say, I have no idea how true the story was – but I’d like to think it has at least some grain of truth

[TheBeeKeeper]

Is this the start of a trend I wonder?

Are we to expect a ban of hunting with birds of prey too?

BK

[airborne_artist]

BK

Falconry certainly would go, if the IFAW get to hear of it.

Ban hunting with hounds and you also lose the minkhounds, who do a very good job against a viscious and destructive animal, ironically largely in the wild after "release" by animal rights activists.

Here's a quote from a R4 programme about water voles:

Robin Webb, Press Officer of the Animal Liberation Front, whose
members released large numbers of mink into the UK, which have since
demolished the water vole population.

He says: "I'm not concerned about conservation"..."I've no time for
conservationists"...and the best bit: "I'd like to see water voles
living in peace, I'd like to see mink living in peace, in a world where
all species lived in peace together."

How does he plan to explain to the mink that he wants them to live in
peace?!

[allan907]

Cutting through all the crap it seems to be blindingly obvious that this whole shennanigins is driven by the good old English class divide.

To ride with the hunt demands that one owns, or has access to, a horse. To not look totally out of place demands that the rider be in possession of a red coat, white breeches, shiny leather riding boots and possibly a silk cravat. All these things tend to cost a great deal of money. People who have a great deal of money are generally thought to be the 'toffs' who the great majority of 'honest toilers' would like to see brought down a peg or two. The Labour party represents the 'honest toilers'; therefore they are the party, driven by political dogma, that seeks to impose and undemocratic solution to a perceived problem.

Any crap which seeks to moralise on the issue is just that - crap (also known as 'journalistic license')

[PhoenixDaCat]

What is not natural about eating meat? It certainly comes naturally to me!

[ORAC]

Maple 1,

RAF Boulmer, Northumberland, the Percy Hunt as I recall. The Duke owns the land and it is written into the terms of the lease and into SSOs.

[Maple 01]

Ahhh, thanks ORAC,

As told it was Staxton but the source was very drunk......

allan907 said

Cutting through all the crap it seems to be blindingly obvious that this whole shennanigins is driven by the good old English class divide.

That may be what you feel, but it doesn’t make it so. Personally I don't much mind if anyone wants to dress up, hold the whole social thing and charge about on horses - I'd even say it adds a bit of colour to the countryside. What I object to is the cruel death of the fox (or cats or whatever the hounds get their teeth into) for sport.

Simple answer, convert to drag hunting - lifestyle preserved, no slaughter of horses and dogs (well, no more than usual), no job losses and no criminal record - or is that too obvious?

If, as hunt supporters keep pointing out, 'common people' hunt too, how can it be a class issue? Or is it any old defence in time of need?

First off it was

There's no public support for the bill
But there was

They'll never get it past the House of Lords

But they got round that, sorry if you're unhappy but that’s the way it works - the Government lawyers got round the vested interests for once....yippee!


Then
It's the best way of vermin control

But argue in the same breath that 'not many foxes are killed'

The foxes enjoy the chase

Until scientists proved they didn't (big shock there)

Thousands of horses/dogs will have to be destroyed

Why? Do people only have horses to hunt and care so little for them they will cast them aside if they can't have their 'sport'?

Thousands of jobs will be lost

So go drag hunting, save jobs and animal lives!

[Gainesy]

ORAC beat me to it. It was in 1969 and t'was a ModPlod on the gate to the tech site.

[soddim]

Hard to understand why we have to ban hunting 'because it is cruel to foxes'. If this is the reason we must expect further action to ban all forms of cruelty to animals and yet this government is apparently in favour of experiments and drug testing on captive animals even though the results cannot be read across to the human species.

No, I am sorry for those who believe that it has anything to do with a policy against animal cruelty, this government is just too inconsistant for that to be so. After all, this is the same government that says it had to get rid of Saddam and yet does nothing about Mugabe.

If you don't like hunting, don't do it but please leave those people who enjoy it and those it employs alone.

[Jackonicko]

Soddim,

"If you don't like hunting, don't do it but please leave those people who enjoy it and those it employs alone."

Great argument. And universally applicable....

"If you don't like child prostitution, don't do it but please leave those people who enjoy it and those it employs alone."

"If you don't like slavery, don't buy one it but please leave those people who enjoy slavery and those it employs alone."

"If you don't like wife-beating, don't do it but please leave those people who enjoy it and those in the NHS and Police who have to deal with the consequences alone."

"If you don't like hard drugs, then don't do them but please leave those people who enjoy them and those they employ alone."

Etc.

It's a moral issue. Those who enjoy it are the morally bankrupt, the selfish, morally disabled, who have the least ability to reach a balanced view and who thus have the least right to comment. You wouldn't leave drugs policy in the hands of the addicts and pushers, or prostitution policy in the hands of the pimps and the whores, would you? Or maybe you would.

Maple,

"Convert to drag hunting - lifestyle preserved, no slaughter of horses and dogs (well, no more than usual), no job losses and no criminal record - or is that too obvious?"

What? Are you suggesting that these self-obsessed, selfish, social-climbing, morally disabled 'tards should compromise? That they should respect the views of the majority? That there should be any constraint on their pleasures?

Do get real, old chap!

[air pig]

Now we have had three people killed and injured during lamping for foxes, in recent weeks, where do we go from here???

[BillHicksRules]

Maple/Jacko,

Dear chaps. The "country" folk can be trusted to know what is right. After all they recently brought us such notable successes as introducing BSE; Foot and Mouth; and Dutch Elm Disease. Further to this over the last 2000 years they have managed to change the shape and look of the countryside beyond all recognition.

This is not about class. It is about those that take sadistic pleasure in killing. It is that simple. All the other obfuscation simply hides this truth. It is not a matter of perception. This is fact. None of the reasons given by the pro-hunts lobby actually stand up to scrutiny.

Cheers

BHR

[soddim]

Jacko,

Your childish response does you an injustice for I have seen more reasoned arguments from you.

The hunting ban is not for moral reasons - if it was then all forms of animal cruelty would have to be banned. Here is a list of some examples:

Animal experiments
Fishing
Shooting
Drug testing on animals
Halal butchery
Intensive poultry production

Yes, I agree that morality calls for legislation where appropriate but let us not pretend that is the case here.

[Flatus Veteranus]

Jackonicko

To equate (morally) fox hunting with child prostitution, slavery and wife beating is logical, but reductio ad absurdum. Much of what goes on in the country is offensive to refined urban tastes. Every summer we hear stories of good citizens from Nothern cities who bring their families down for a holiday in deeply rural Devon. They stay in B&Bs, often farm-based, and then start complaining about the cock crowing at dawn and the nasty smells and flies. As for drag hunting, do you really think that it would assuage the blood-lust of the class warriors? I doubt it. They are out to extinguish the landowners. Their next targets will be the shoots and the game fishermen. In the latter case they will have a problem. How do you legislate against trout and salmon fishing and still let the urban proletariat line the rivers and canals every weekend with their rods trying to slaughter the coarse fish?

[Maple 01]

Reductio ad absurdum is a mode of argumentation that seeks to establish a contention by deriving an absurdity from its denial, thus arguing that a thesis must be accepted because its rejection would be untenable. It is a style of reasoning that has been employed throughout the history of mathematics and philosophy from classical antiquity onwards.

from online dictionary of philosophy
- who said you'd never learn anything PPRuNing?

I don’t accept Flatus Veteranus’s argument, but I bow to his Latin knowledge

[Mad_Mark]

I don’t accept Flatus Veteranus’s argument, but I bow to his Latin knowledge

And very useful it must be too :rolleyes: He must spend hours of fun having conversations with himself in Latin :8

Mad Mark!!! :mad:

[mbga9pgf]

Child prostitution, Wife beating and slavery involve the abuse of fellow human beings, and as such is abhorrent. Do not even dare to carry a similar argument for foxes; the argument just does not hold. The law surely is designed to act upon societies moral convictions, yet when an independent review on fox hunting confirms that the majority of the population want hunting to remain or that people simply dont care about such trivia, the minority shout loudest and this idiotic government feels it is wholly legitimate to attack the class system to suit its communist origins.
:mad:

[Maple 01]

yet when an independent review on fox hunting confirms that the majority of the population want hunting to remain

Sorry, the Countryside Alliance have already conceded the majority of the population are in favour of a ban - see their website

They are now going down the path of 'oppressed minority' :rolleyes:

Public opinion matters little to them because apparently the only people whose views count are the ones that agree with them. It would seem the rest are Townies, Class warriors, radical animal rights activists and pinko-fag Commie subversives

All this time I never knew I was all of the above!

I never thought I'd be on the same side as the Rt Hon Ann Widdecombe MP!

[Jackonicko]

"The hunting ban is not for moral reasons - if it was then all forms of animal cruelty would have to be banned. Here is a list of some examples:...."

Failing to ban fox hunting because there are other forms of cruelty is a poor defence. You don't ignore one burglar because there are others.....

Some animal experiments are useful, and a very few are essential. Relatively few are pursued simply for entertainment. Needs tightening, not banning.
Fishing. It may be inconsistent, but I'm unworried about fishing - fish aren't sentient in the same way. I'm pro-fishing when it's for the pot.
Shooting. I'm not a vegan nor do I expect anyone else to be. Shooting genuine pests, or for the pot is fine by me.
Halal and Kosher butchery is indefensible and should be banned.
Intensive poultry production is extremely distasteful, and I'd ban it. I'd also ban the import of intensively produced eggs and meat. If people aren't prepared to pay a few pence extra for an egg, or a few quid for a chicken, then let them eat rats and carrots!

I'm not a Towny, a Class warrior, a radical animal rights activist (though I do believe in treating animals, and the environment, properly) and I'm not a pinko-fag Commie subversive either. I'm a village-dwelling, Wet Tory-voting, shooting, ex-poaching, meat-eating small c conservative. Like many of those who find hunting repugnant, and who find many hunting people to be selfish, immoral fools.

[16 blades]

Jacko,

I'm suprised and disappointed at you - you normally produce much more logical arguments than the dogmatic responses you have given here.

"I'm unworried about fishing - fish aren't sentient in the same way."

Please explain your logic behind this supposition. It makes no sense.

The point alot of people seem to miss here is that it's not the huntsmen that kill the fox - it's the hounds, and they kill it in a perfectly natural way, the same way any animal hunting a prey would. The same way, in fact, that a fox would kill a chicken or a sheep or lamb. So where is the cruelty? Are you going to legislate against foxes killing livestock? There is no difference in my mind between a hunt and a perfectly natural phenomenon that ends in the death of billions of animals worldwide every year. The hounds are simply doing what comes naturally to them. Anyone denying this has obviously never owned a jack russel and seen it rip a hedgehog to bits for sh1ts and giggles.

16B

[cyclic]

Jacko

As a so called self proclaimed shooting man, can I ask what you shoot and for what purpose? Yes, you may shoot for the pot and that is very gracious of you but are you seriously telling me that you have never wounded a bird or rabbit in your attempt to keep your family fed? Surely it would be better to make sure the kill is definite by keeping the animals caged and then slaughtered at a licenced factory on a sterile conveyor belt (ever visited a chicken factory?). Oh I forgot, you have the God given right to decide which of the creatures on this planet is sentient. I find your attitude and those like you arrogant in the extreme. I think if you participate in game shooting (including rough shooting) you have to support the hunters. Your sport is no different and potentially worse in many aspects. I realise that you have lofty morals and only shoot for altruistic reasons but frankly this kind of hypocrisy stinks.

What really upsets the IFAW, RSPCA, LAC etc. is that people take pleasure in this sport in much the same way as you take pleasure in a good clean shot. If there was no pleasure in that action you would just breed pheasants and wring their necks!

This government is slowly but surely killing this once fine nation by removing all form of tradition and loyalty. I look at hunting in the same vein as the Regimental system. It may be from a different age but in both cases it holds together groups of people from vastly different backgrounds and creates a common sense of purpose. Do you think that the average soldier is fighting for King and country? No, they are fighting for each other and the pride they have in belonging. The hunts and their sense of community work along very similar lines.

If you find the idea so repugnant Jacko, I presume you wrote to your MP, demonstrated and generally made your strong opinions felt before this Act was raised in parliament? Oh, if you also consider yourself a true European are you going to take your moral crusade to the rest of Europe once the ban is in force here? I would like to see you take on the French hunts!

[Jackonicko]

16 blades,

Foxes are mammals. As such they are warm blooded, and fully sentient.
Fish aren't. There's controversy as to whether being hooked actually hurts a fish.

That's the difference. Can you really not see it?

Hounds might do what comes naturally. As would the pit-bulls beloved by the skinhead tendency. "E was only doin' wot comes natchrul, yer 'onor. Rippin' that Paki ter bits 'ad nuffink to do wiv me."

Those on horseback are supposed to be better than mere animals, I thought, and were supposed to stop the hounds from randomly ripping Mrs Jenkins' cat to pieces. Why is that? They'd only be following their instincts. Ah, so we do keep the hounds in check, and only let them follow their instincts with the Fox. Whose arguments are inconsistent and illogical?


Cyclic,

Shooting for the pot, and doing the utmost to avoid suffering while doing so is entirely different to deliberately chasing a terrified, inedible animal until hounds tear it to pieces. I rarely shoot these days, and I've never shot anything that someone hasn't subsequently eaten.

In a democracy, if a majority (or a democratically elected government) ever decide that shooting rabbits, pigeons, or even pheasants and grouse is no longer acceptable, then I'll disagree, and I'll be sad, but I won't break the law in order to continue, and I won't whinge on and on about the assault on my liberty, or the loss of cherished traditions. I'll find something else to do - and I'll probably take up clay pigeon shooting.

Like slavery, flogging, the birch, cock-fighting and bare-knuckle boxing, Fox hunting is a 'tradition' whose time is long past. We're better than that now, and it's time to move on. Let the boys in their pink show some consideration for the rest of us, let them compromise a bit, and let them drag hunt .

Soldiers fighting in a regiment are doing so in defence of their society and community. That's a morally just thing to do. Hunting a fox is not. Trying to equate hunts and the Regimental system is either disingenuous or dim-witted, I'm not sure which.

[16 blades]

Jacko,

So, being warm-blooded suggests 'full sentience'? Please explain what you mean by 'fully sentient'? As I recall from biology lessons, fish have a central nervous system, in common with all vertebrates, which suggests they feel pain. Perhaps it's the fact that fish don't fall into the 'cute and furry' category that is denying them your sympathy.

Is the way we treat animals to be dertermined by their position in the food chain, or their supposed level of 'sentience' or intelligence? That is what the logic of your argument would suggest. If this is the case, then why compare foxhunting to child prostitution or wife beating, after all:

"Those on horseback are supposed to be better than mere animals..."

If, as you claim, humans are supposed to be better than mere animals, why compare something that causes other humans incalculable damage with something that only kills animals? If humans are 'better' than animals, isn't harming other humans much more heinous than harming 'mere animals' (your words)? After all, if foxes rank above fish in your world, doesn't it follow that humans rank above foxes?

IMHO the 'animal cruelty' argument for banning foxhunting falls flat on its face, since the foxes are not being subjected to anything different to any other animal that lives in the wild and is chased by predators.

All of these arguments, however, are somewhat irrelevant. It is not your objection to foxhunting I am attacking - you have the right to your opinion and I respect it.

What I AM attacking is your arrogant insistance that everyone should think the way you do, and that anyone who thinks any different is "morally bankrupt" (despite failing to reveal the source of your moral authority, after being asked twice).

16B

[soddim]

Jacko,

We may have more common ground than I first thought and I am pleased that you agree that other forms of animal cruelty should be banned. Furthermore, I agree with you that the need to ban them all should not stop the banning of one. However, is fox hunting cruel to the fox who would in the wild be hunted by dogs were it not for the humans who made dogs pets?

I suspect that you will agree that much of wildlife behaviour is cruel by human behaviour standards - but they do it for a good reason in most cases. All the hunting fraternity is doing is to facilitate the pursuit of the fox by the hounds - a perfectly natural phenomenum. The fox is not going to enjoy it but he would be hunted in the wild just the same. In future he is going to get shot - he's not going to enjoy that either. If the shooter is off-centre, he is going to suffer even more and may face a lingering, painful death.

I remain convinced that the only reason the ban has been pursued in parliament is because they do not like the sort of people who hunt and your words tell me that you think this way too:


Like many of those who find hunting repugnant, and who find many hunting people to be selfish, immoral fools.

"Judge not less you be judged" is a piece of sage advice that springs to mind. If we are to legislate against all the selfish immoral fools in our society I suspect there is going to be civil war.

[Jackonicko]

Many, not all.

But what a pity that so many of the arrogant, braying twits are spokespeople for the CA..... These are not helpful, modest, selfless facillitators.

[insty66]

so many of the arrogant, braying twits

You still appear to be judging by who does the hunting, I find it hard to believe in that case, you can fail to see how the hunting commuities feel singled out.


If you can find a way of hunting the fox which absolutley guarantees that it either lives or dies with no half way house then you would pull the rug from under our feet, none of the alternatives can do this and indeed some methods (snare and gassing) are far more repugnant to me than using hounds and shooting is patently unreliable and as it's carried out by humans who would no doubt enjoy the thrill of the chase should not be allowed!

As an aside, if/when the ban is enforced will 12 sqn have to change their motto or crest?

[tmmorris]

Could I ask those of you who suggest that we should all go drag-hunting instead exactly how you would train the hounds not to hunt a fox/hare if they actually saw one? Converting to draghunting would at the very least involve destroying all the existing hounds and training new ones.

Tim

[BlueWolf]

What do you shoot, Jacko? And where, and when, and with what, and in what company?

What quarry, what weapon, what calibre?

And your strike rate, sir?

Just curious.

[BillHicksRules]

Dear all,

Can someone of the pro-animal abuse lobby please explain to me the use of dead horses yesterday in Brighton? Surely this just strengthens the image of you in the publics mind.

Those who claim to love animals so much that they killed two of them to make a political point in an attempt to prevent the elected parliament of this country from democratically banning them from killing anymore.

BHR

[airborne_artist]

BHR

I hunt and I was sickened by that action. I doubt that the animals were killed for the protest, however.

It was suggested that the perpetrators were from the "Real Countryside Alliance" - a bunch of hotheads who think extreme action is the only way to get success - quite the wrong route, IMHO.

And then again it could have been done by other groups with very different motives.

The horse carcass that I saw had shoes on - you don't shoe a useless horse, and nor do you shoot it. Thus it probably had recently died/been put down, and the idiots had been able to get it before it was disposed of.

[BlueWolf]

Let's imagine, for just a moment, that the dog food industry in Britain mirrors that in NZ.

Most dog food in NZ is made from horses. Sure, sheep and cows have some input, but the bulk of your average dog roll is horse.

I know that the same is true in Oz and Canada, so I assume it follows in Pomgolia.

On average, a horse converted to dog roll provides about 300kg of usable material. Standard dog rolls, at least the ones I buy, weigh in at 3kg. So one horse equals about 100 dog rolls.

New Zealand's population is just on 4 million. Britain's is around 60 million. We own dogs at about the same rate, ie one dog per four people; so there are around 1 million dogs in NZ, and it can be assumed that Britain has around 15 million dogs.

My mutts (I have five) go through about 2.5 kg of dog roll per day, or roughly 0.5kg of horse, per dog, per day.

This equates to Britain's dogs eating around 7.5 million kg's of horse per day; at 300kg per horse, this is about 25,000 horses consumed by Britain's dogs, per day, every day.

So killing two horses, for any reason, be it political or otherwise, doesn't actually mean Jack Schitd in the grand scheme of things.

Let's keep some perspective here.

The two horses in question would have fed Britain's dogs for about three and a half seconds.

[The Gorilla]

I think everyone on here has missed the actual point of all this. And indeed the fact that the two differing camps are at each others throats merely adds weight to my theory.

Tony Bliar and his slimey cronies have had seven long years to do this. The actual timing of this bill and the roughshod way it was bullied through have nothing to do with the issue of hunting at all.

This is purely a distraction move to take away attention from the one issue which might possibly lose Labour the next election, i.e. Iraq!!

And every one is falling for it big time!!


:ok:

[Jackonicko]

Blue Wolf,

I'm seriously thinking of taking up shooting Kiwis.

Curious little blighters......

Jacko

[airborne_artist]

Gorilla

Look back at some of the pro-hunting and neutral posts and I think you'll find that we realise it's got everything to do with internal Labour politics and nothing to do with animal welfare.

The very small number of the highly vocal anti-hunting fraternity are thrilled that Trust-Me Tony has taken up their cause, but one of the antis on my local TV the other night did have the honesty to admit that Labour MPs had hijacked her cause!

Despite the massive publicity given to the hunting arguement over the last seven years the vast majority of the UK electorate still think that MPs and the Labour government should be devoting their time to sorting out the NHS, crime and education.

I suspect that even more will be very irritated to hear that police manpower will have to be diverted to catch those who continue to hunt, rather than spent patrolling their towns/villages for muggers and the like.

[foldingwings]

So 5 pages of heated hunting debate on the Military Forum of PPrune, stoked by some extreme views by some apparently extreme individuals on both sides of the argument, whatever next!

Forgive me, 'cos I only come here occasionally, but I thought that this forum was for debating aspects of military air operations and related topics. I think, gentlemen and ladies, we are way off beam here and I for one cannot for the life of me see the purpose of this extended debate as neither party will ever see eye to eye on this subject other than perhaps to agree that The Bliar (and his henchmen) approach to the populace, no matter the individual or collective persuasions of the latter, is less than considerate, more than bombastic, ill thought through and abhorrant to the majority.

Let's get back to the military point of any debate, if it is to appear on PPrune. So, I'm off to find the Bl**dy Flying Officer who, many years ago was charged with the safe keeping of the 12 Sqn mascot - a live fox - but failed in his duty only to see his charge being flattened on 10,000 ft of tarmac by one of the squadron's Vulcans during the take-off run. Leads the Field - I'll say it did, but not for long!

What, the RAF used to cage foxes!!! Bring on the debate now!

[airborne_artist]

It kicked off by saying that landowners in the vicinity of a secret air base in Ppruneshire were going to withdraw permission for MoD use of their land if Trust-Me's lot pushed through the hunting ban.

It's non-violent, for sure, but it won't make a ha'porth of difference to the outcome.

[CrabInCab]

That’s what happens when you put the proletariat in charge, just look at the Air Corps!

[cyclic]

Jacko

Thanks for the insult - knew a journo couldn't resist eventually!

[Jackonicko]

Blimey Cyclic,

That was slooooooooooow

No insult intended, I'd assumed that you were being disingenuous.......;)

[buoy15]

What on Earth has this thread got to do with Military Aviation??
Sod off to somewhere else!

Love many, trust a few, Always paddle your own canoe:confused:

[Scud-U-Like]

Are these some of the same 'heroic landowners' who stick in a compensation claim against the MOD whenever a military overflight happens to 'cause' a flattened crop/fallen roof tile/lame horse/aborting cow or sheep/collapsed wall/ (delete as appropriate)?

The MOD owns enough land in the UK to guarantee enough land-away sites for training purposes, even if every private landowner in the UK decides to withdraw their co-operation (which, of course, they won't).

I really have no strong opinion on the hunting issue, but one of Labour's manifesto commitments in 1997 was to hold a free vote in Parliament on whether hunting with hounds should be banned. They won. Get over it.

[jindabyne]

buoy15

Agree - it's now all a bit tedious

[ORAC]

Jackonicko:

"Foxes are mammals. As such they are warm blooded, and fully sentient. Fish aren't. There's controversy as to whether being hooked actually hurts a fish. That's the difference. Can you really not see it?"

I see, it's based on the difference between mammals and fish then. Nothing to do with class warfare? The published comments of Labour MPs of it being just that obviously being misreported.

Just one thing puzzles me, when did rabbits become fish?
---------------------------------------------------------------------

The Times - Saturday 9th Oct:

The Government cam out in favour of hunting with dogs yesterday - as long as it is for rabbits.

According to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, hunting rabbits is, "a relatively humane means of controlling them".

Hunting foxes, hares, deer and mink with hounds, however, is described on Defra's website as, "perceived to be a cruel and outdated activity"......

A spokeswoman for Defra denied last night that there was any paradox and said that hunting rabbits was "reatively humane" compared to alternate methods..... the bill has always exempted rabbits....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Rabbits obviously have a more coarse nervous system than hares then.......

Interesting thing, science. :hmm:

[airborne_artist]

And it will be legal to hunt rats with dogs after the proposed ban - so they are fish as well as the rabbits, it seems.

Just as well, because the North Sea is fresh out of fish, so it's down to the chippy for a choice of rabbit or rat.

[BEagle]

Rat au Chip Van, perhaps?

[inditrees]

You may scoff at the land owners stopping the military using their land, but can you imagine the mayhem that would be caused if a flying complaint went in EVERY time any military aircraft(FW/Rotary) took off/flew low level/landed.

A mass of complaints all along the route of just one flight would clog up the system for weeks.

I have bitter experience of the powers that be when it comes to the flying complaints 'industry', and untill this problem is sorted out im going to be way up there at flight level nosebleed. :ok: