Should We Be Taking Nuclear Threats More...
News2 mins ago
Hunting Protest
The news is that Landowners and Farmers are to create bureaucratic sabotage by requesting utility companies to move power lines on their land in protest of the hunting ban. I feel this is a move will hurt businesses which are not involved in this debate and WILL affect the everyday person in the street. Your thoughts?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mash. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Sounds like a great idea to me. I am not in favour of fox hunting, however, I really do see the banning of foxhunting as a bad thing. We are really turning into a nanny state with the goverment telling us what we can and can't do.
What with all the cr@p that this government try to get us to do, I feel that we are only 4 meals away from anarchy. They are taxing us beyond belief, taking away our freedoms, making us work til we're dead, positively discriminating against British people (mainly the White hetro sexual ones) and giving away power to Europe.
The only way people can do anything about it is to vote this government out (and as much as I HATE Tony Blair and would never vote for him, I see no real alternative) or cause as much disruption as possible.
This is really another form of terrorism (but without killing anyone). There is little difference between the farmers doing this and the civil servants striking. They are doing it to make a point and to cause inconvenience.
Power to the people :-0
i thought it was very funny when the civil servants went on strike - did the country grind to a halt, did anyone notice??? nope - it just proved the point that there are far to many of them. anyway back to the point, i can see why the pro fox hunting lot have got to this point - they really can't believe that their money, power, and influence hasn't got them their own way for once. I think this latest tactic won't get them very far at all, because they'll be inconvinencing themselves more than anyone else and losing rent money from the power companies... i think we need to just try and ignor these people and eventually they'll go away
Yes i understand this one, they won;t let me spend a couple of days with my chums, our horses and our 200 dogs chasing a few foxes - lets make them move the electricity pylons. Why is this? Because we're runing the countryside "ways". To be honest the countryside ways seem to be arrogant, self righteous ways, and no ban on fox hunting is going to eradicate that from the countryside, so i don;t see what they're complaining about. Oneeyedvic - Daily Mail reader? If not - you'd love it!!!!
robbieh - no I don't read the Mail - howver I cannot see any logical argument as to why fox hunting is banned (and as I said I am against Fox Hunting in principal).
It seems to me it is a class issue - and the other answers seem to back my opinion up. So its a cruel sport? What about fishing - oh no can't ban that as too many people do it. Innocent animals get slaughtered - as opposed to an abatoir (sp?). This issue is purely about class, but smll minded people cannot seem to understand this.
Them moving pylons is no different to the Firemens strike - doing things to annoy other people so that their cause can be brough to light!
Logical argument - its not an efficient means of controlling fox numbers. How can 200+ hounds and 20 horses etc, crossing over miles and miles of private land (not allways permission given to enter) to kill 2 or 3 foxes be efficient??
If you will comapre it to fishing, then i will compare it to dog fighting. Its a fight to the death to please the owner, except with fox hunting there will be one winner always. Dog fighting is illegal, therfore so should fox hunting.
Also the majority of people in this country want it banned. In a democracy therefore surely it should be banned.
Its not ONLY about class, thats just not true, i happen to think theres a better, more humane and more efficient way of managing fox numbers.
Moving pylons is a brainwave idea they clearly haven't thought through properly.
Sorry robbieh - didn't say that I thought fox hunting was for fox control - I actually think it is done for fun. And yes, compare it to dog fighting if you wish - last time I checked though the fox was a domesticated animal!
Also, being a democracy has nothing to do with what the majority want. The majority of people would like child sex offenders to be castrated; they also want the protection to do what they want in their own homes to a burglar; they also want voluntary euthanasia (these are by the major MORI polls). The governement decide what people want and what they can get away with in the interest of the country.
Anyhow, I do think that fishing will be banned next - maybe 5 -10 years away, (if the government does not change, and as I have said before no real alternative).
Laugh if you want, but when advertising cigarettes were banned on tv, no one could forsee a time when government were thinking of banning smoking in public places!
Sorry oneeyedvic - didn't actually say that you thought fox hunting was for fox control. I did however answer a question that wanted reasons as to why it should be banned.
Assuming you meant fighting dogs are domesticated animals - i hardly would call those domesticated LOL They are bred to fight - not to be pets!!! And its illegal because its cruel. Hounds are bred to chase and kill foxes. Soon it will be illegal becuase its cruel. So YES they are comparable!!!! Its a far better comparison than fishing, which I honestly don't care whether they ban it or not.
What exactly are your reasons for allowing fox hunting apart from your stand against the "single minded" people that believe that fox hunting should be banned for more than just the one reason of class?!?!
And i'd hardly compare a soft subject such as banning fox hunting, to euthanesia or being allowed to batter a burglar. If a soft vote winning subject has strong enough support then it will happen. As this shows. It happens because we live in a democracy AND because its a vote winner.
yes but oneeyedvic wasn't saying it shouldn't be banned because foxes are vermin and needed to be killed, he was saying that it shouldn;t be banned because...... well i don't know. I compare the breeding of fighting dogs and the breeding of hunt hounds and their usage. I'm not against fox hunting, just hunting with hounds and as a sport. When this sport is being pursued, it isn't a case of it being vermin, its an object of fun. Much like dogs being bred to fight - theres no need for it but for the owners pleasure.
So quite what your totally with oneeyedvic on I don't know and neither i guess do you.
Georgit, if you read the question before you butted in there would be no need to be slaughtered. I'm with robbieh on this, theres obviously a need to control fox numbers. That is the reason for keeping some level of hunting.
Oneeyedvic - i've heard logical reasons for banning the hunts as they are in this question and it answers, what are the logical reasons for not banning it? Some of you logic is astounding - comparing banning fox hunting to terrorism???? Fox hunting to fishing, euthanasia as a political point, moving pylons to a firemans strike. YOU asked for logic, but wheres YOUR logic???? Whats your reason for not banning hunting?? And Georgit for that matter - lets see if you do have the same thoughts after all and are totally with him. Or are you the same person?
Georgit, if you read the question before you butted in there would be no need to be slaughtered. I'm with robbieh on this, theres obviously a need to control fox numbers. That is the reason for keeping some level of hunting.
Oneeyedvic - i've heard logical reasons for banning the hunts as they are in this question and it answers, what are the logical reasons for not banning it? Some of you logic is astounding - comparing banning fox hunting to terrorism???? Fox hunting to fishing, euthanasia as a political point, moving pylons to a firemans strike. YOU asked for logic, but wheres YOUR logic???? Whats your reason for not banning hunting?? And Georgit you too for that matter - lets see if you do have the same thoughts after all and are totally with him.
Oneeyedvic - i've heard logical reasons for banning the hunts as they are in this question and it answers, what are the logical reasons for not banning it? Some of you logic is astounding - comparing banning fox hunting to terrorism???? Fox hunting to fishing, euthanasia as a political point, moving pylons to a firemans strike. YOU asked for logic, but wheres YOUR logic???? Whats your reason for not banning hunting?? And Georgit you too for that matter - lets see if you do have the same thoughts after all and are totally with him.
Georgit, if you read the question before you butted in there would be no need to be slaughtered. I'm with robbieh on this, theres obviously a need to control fox numbers. That is the reason for keeping some level of hunting.
Oneeyedvic - i've heard logical reasons for banning the hunts as they are in this question and it answers, what are the logical reasons for not banning it? Some of your logic is odd - comparing banning fox hunting to terrorism???? Fox hunting to fishing, euthanasia as a political point, moving pylons to a firemans strike. YOU asked for logic, but wheres YOUR logic???? Whats your reason for not banning hunting?? And Georgit for that matter - lets see if you do have the same thoughts after all and are totally with him.
Oneeyedvic - i've heard logical reasons for banning the hunts as they are in this question and it answers, what are the logical reasons for not banning it? Some of your logic is odd - comparing banning fox hunting to terrorism???? Fox hunting to fishing, euthanasia as a political point, moving pylons to a firemans strike. YOU asked for logic, but wheres YOUR logic???? Whats your reason for not banning hunting?? And Georgit for that matter - lets see if you do have the same thoughts after all and are totally with him.
As Paula says above, the law can be changed to cater for any such idiocy on the part of farmers. Indeed, the Government already has powers of compulsory land purchase. All it need do, therefore, is set up a commission to agree a price per square foot and pay them off once and for all.
As it is, of course, we've paid the landowners year after year - and would continue to do so - in the form of charges in our electricity bills. Not a very bright threat on their part, but then...why am I not surprised?
Latest Posts
News3 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
Is Keir Starmer Really Going To Arrest...
News27 mins ago
Shopping & Style27 mins ago
