Hunting Protest

[mash]

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?

[Oneeyedvic]

I do find in interesting that the goverment do not want this ban to happen in 3 months (and have said the Lords would be irresponsible if they try to implement it in 3 months) but in 18 months time.

 

This has NOTHING to do with a forthcoming gerneal election though!

 

[Oneeyedvic]

I also find it amazing that when the "upper class toffs" want to cause problems and I quote: "The aim is to minimise disruption to the public but to wreak havoc for the authorities, to clog government machinery and impose extra bureaucracy on officials." it is a disgrace and can never work.

 

When the firemen, hauliers coal miners etc came out to cause inconvenience to the public, there is not such an outcry.

 

Glad we live in a classless society under Labour.

 

And to answer a previous point: I don't think Fox Hunting should be banned as I feel the only reason it is being banned is as it is a "class sport"

 

To say they are banning it becuase it is cruel is a lie - have you ever been to an abbatoir - this is equally if not more cruel to animals - are they banning meat?

 

As I have always said - if there is a LOGICAL argument (and saying "we don't like you doing it", or "it is an outdated sport" is not logical), i will look at that and form an opinion. They are banning this as it is an easy way of getting votes from the "working class" by sticking one in the eye to the "upper class".

 

Looks like it has worked too....

 

 

[georgit79]

ok, am I allowed to say that I agree with everything in Oneeyedvic's last answer?

[robbieh]

I don't think anyone who put some thought into this would suggest that "we don't like you doing it", or "it is an outdated sport" is a logical reason.

I've been logical to expand my narrow-minded thoughts beyond it just being a sport, and have thus tried to look at it from a wider viewpoint. But it comes down to the fact that brutally ripping an animal to shreds "just for sport" which you suggest it is, is almost allways illegal in this country. Fox control is the only reason for keeping fox hunting, but the fact is - that hunts are inefficient at doing this. I would hope that ANY sport where animals are ripped to shreds for the delight of people (regardless of class) would be made illegal (which is where my argument about dog hunting came in - i bet there wasn't as much outrage when that was banned???). Whilst abortoirs are cruel as you say, they have a purpose which is more logical than being a sport.

I don't think anyone would deny this is a vote-happy decision to ban this. Again no one here in this argument has suggested that. The fact it is such a vote winner, is because it such a popular feeling amongst voters. Therefore theres no shame on Tony Blairs part.

Can i go and kick a fox, badger or a hedgehog to death? What if I call it sport - you know just just for fun? No, and i wouldn't want to either. So why should any group of society be let off by the law to do this? The answer is because its to control fox numbers, right? But you say its not (and it isn't), therefore its cruelty and should be illegal. Or shall we allow these people do to do it just because if we ban it, then all i'm being is anti-upper class?

If we legalise fox hunting then should anyone in this country be allowed to go and kill an animal in whichever way they see fit?

[robbieh]

btw how can you say "Looks like it has worked too...." with reference to getting votes from lower classes at the cost of the upper class??? Theres been no election or proof to show a change in votes!!! The only change is that there has been that a vote has been pushed past the thoughts of the unelected. We could only possibly tell at the next election, but the effects that this has, will not be clear at all.

[FP]

Excellent postings Robbie.

 

Vic, how can you compare this with the Firemen's Strike?  Firemen do one of the most worthwhile jobs you can name and were striking for a reasonable wage.  What reasonable job to Hunter's do?  Most people agree that it is a totally useless way of controlling the fox population.  People will lose their jobs, but jobs which rely on cruelty and outdated, barbaric customs should not exist anyway.  The hunt brigade argue they should have freedom of choice.  How ridiculous is that?  Why should they be allowed the choice to be cruel to animals.

Hunting is cruel, cruelty to animals is intolerable and  criminal.  The whole issue has nothing to do with class.  Tonight's news is excellent.

 

[drussila]

 A last they've finally voted to ban the outdated, barbaric practise of chasing a poor fox for miles and tearing it to bits.  Whats wrong with drag hunting?   l will you  tell whats wrong with it, there is no kill at the end and the fox hunters won't admit that they are blood thirsty ******** and enjoy the kill.As for the foxes  killing poultry ect. its the owners fault for not keeping them secure.I say hurrah for the fox and two fingers two the fox hunters!!!!!

[macattack]

nah mate, go the quater pounder and cheese

[robbieh]

I don't think anyone who put some thought into this would suggest that "we don't like you doing it", or "it is an outdated sport" is a logical reason.

I've been logical to expand my narrow-minded thoughts beyond it just being a sport, and have thus tried to look at it from a wider viewpoint. But it comes down to the fact that brutally ripping an animal to shreds "just for sport" which you suggest it is, is almost allways illegal in this country. Fox control is the only reason for keeping fox hunting, but the fact is - that hunts are inefficient at doing this. I would hope that ANY sport where animals are ripped to shreds for the delight of people (regardless of class) would be made illegal (which is where my argument about dog hunting came in - i bet there wasn't as much outrage when that was banned???). Whilst abortoirs are cruel as you say, they have a purpose which is more logical than being a sport.

I don't think anyone would deny this is a vote-happy decision to ban this. Again no one here in this argument has suggested that. The fact it is such a vote winner, is because it such a popular feeling amongst voters. Therefore theres no shame on Tony Blairs part.

Can i go and kick a fox, badger or a hedgehog to death? What if I call it sport - you know just just for fun? No, and i wouldn't want to either. So why should any group of society be let off by the law to do this? The answer is because its to control fox numbers, right? But you say its not (and it isn't), therefore its cruelty and should be illegal. Or shall we allow these people do to do it just because if we ban it, then all i'm being is anti-upper class?

If we legalise fox hunting then should anyone in this country be allowed to go and kill an animal in whichever way they see fit?

[Oneeyedvic]

Okay lets go for the logic:

Fox hunting is cruel - go to an abbatoir - most people in this country are not vegetarians, nor is there any legislation to ban animal killing

 

There is no purpose to fox hunting - agreed - I have always said I think it is a sport. There is 'no point' in football, but people still pay to see football matches.

 

It is purely for pleasure - yes it is - but is it cruel only to a fox (vermin)

 

Animal cruelty is wrong fullstop - again see answer (1). Also people kill flies every day with not a word against it (last time I checked they were animals as opposed to mineral or vegetable) - but they don't count do they. You could kill a rat in the street, stamp on it a few times and people would not blink (and they even have fur).

 

In a similar vein to the debate about smacking children (with people using the words 'hitting' or 'smacking' depending on their viewpoint), there seems to be no differentiation between 'animal' and 'vermin'. Yes hitting a child is bad, smacking a child not neccessarily so.

cont

[Oneeyedvic]

The reference to the firemans strike was in answer to the original question - should farmers and landowners create a bureaucratic sabotage. The firemans strike (like the postal workers, tube workers, baggage handlers etc) all strike to cause as much disruption as possible - the farmers are not planning to take food away from our plates or deny us milk.

 

So on to fishing:

Why is this not banned?

Is it cruel - probably - research shows either way

Is it necessary - no

Is it a sport? - yes

Is there a purpose - no

Is it done predominately by the upper class - no, quite the opposite.

 

I say that I personally don't like Fox Hunting but 2 points:

 

1) It has never affected my life in any way, shape or form (that I know of)

 

2) I don't like this nanny state that we are living in - banning things 'for the sake of it' and wasting parliaments time on cr@p like this.

 

 

 

[robbieh]

well you say that fox hunting doesn't affect you, but personally i've yet to experience a detrimental effect from the supposed "nanny state". This nanny state issue isn't really relevant in this point as it is a point that a majority of the people in the country want.

And lets be honest, the only thing thats kept the commons on this issue for so long are the unelected peers in the house of lords. I've still yet to see how these people are meant to be better than anyone else and how therefore they can claim unelected seats.

Also if you were to start kicking any animal around be it a rat, a hedgehog, yes somebody would blink an eye. Comparing it to a fly is a little odd too. Does that mean infact i can kill absolutely anything i want? Oh and ban fishing if you want i don't mind, i eprsonally don;t see the point of it anyway. Though at least the majority do get put back alive and not torn apart alive.

You've still not outweighed the arguments against fox hunting with ones for it. There are still no logical reasons for not banning it? The only reasons are half attempts and defending issues raised and now trying to call a popular decision, yet another apparent incident of being in a "nanny state".

[robbieh]

Btw how can you say it matters that foxes are vermin, when infact you say thats its not about controlling fox numbers. If its not then its irrelavent surely?!?!?! Your arguments are severley flawed

[Oneeyedvic]

You are not seeing my point - I say that foxes are vermin - this is a fact. Therefore I see no reason in not killing them and don't really care how they get killed - just as I don't care how a rat or a fly gets killed.

 

This 'nany state' means that children can't play conkers, schools are closed as soon as a snowflake drops in case a child slips over and sues the school, people will soon not be able to go into some pubs and smoke, there is talk about taxing higher fat content food, etc etc. I am fairly sure that one way or other you have or will be effected - be it opening a bank account due to the ridiculour money laundering regulations or whatever.

 

As someone put in a fifferent thread once - which would you prefer - heridatry peers or elected official - the latter I guess. But do you really want another 500 politicians?

 

And obviously you have never worked on market stalls where rats are killed on a daily basis.

Face facts - the only animal that 'is torn about and killed' is a fox - a vermin. No its not about contolling the fox population - it is a sport and enjopyable to some people.

 

Yes, if you want to go out and hunt vermin - I really do nnot have a problem with it.

 

'Ban fishing for all I care' - obviously this hits the nail on the head - you don't really care what happens so long as it doesn't affect you. Well don't come moaning when some legislation comes in that does affect you and noone else cares - typical NIMBY behaviour.

 

[robbieh]

i'm a NIMBY? lol Because i have no opinion on fishing? Another very odd comment considering I actually have opinions about the fox hunting issue, something you try to claim not to be, but in reality it seems you are infact a strong supporter. Fox hunting I wouldn't say majorly affected me, yet i have opinions, so there goes another comment

You are not seeing my point - I say that foxes are vermin - this is a fact. Therefore I see no reason in not killing them and don't really care how they get killed

Well then its a shame for you that the majority of people in this country have been listened to and would prefer that foxes weren't killed for fun just because they are labelled vermin. Which before you say it isn't the "nanny state" at all, its as previously agreed, a vote winner because its a very popular choice. Nanny state has NO place in the fox hunting argument whatsoever.

I think foxes should be hunted to control numbers but in an efficient and less obscene nature. The problem with fox hunting is that there are no strong arguments for keeping it, thats why people you see on television and from their own media, only have very weak arguments or just blame it on discrimination on people in the countryside.

To be honest the best comparison in this thread, although i do say so myself, was the dog fighting. They are not pets, they have no use but being bred to fight to the death. But its illegal and although its still occurs, if people are caught they are prosecuted. Well the same will now happen with fox hunters.

[Oneeyedvic]

Okay , maybe calling you a NIMBY was going OTT and I unreservedly appologise.

 

However your argument seems to be "there is no reason for keeping fox hunting" (other than the fact that people enjoy it).

 

I simply put the fact that that is not a good enough reason to ban it!

 

I disagree with your comparissons to dog fighting as dogs are ususally a domesticated animal. Foxes are not, never have been and probably never will be.

 

So this Labour governement can say in 97 that they will not raise income tax (but put a penny on NI), not introduce tuition fees (but maybe we will next term) and go to war on very dodgy ground. A labour MP who says that he will try and get through a Christmas Day poll on Radio 4 as to what law would be introduced says listeners are Bonkers to try and get a 'Tony Martin' law introduced.

 

But hey, at least we have managed to ban fox hunitng - probably something that affects less than 10% of the population but "it is a vote winner"!

 

And to reiterate something I have said on this and previous posts - I do not support fox hunting - but I do defend other people's right to do what they want

 

I suspect that we will have to agree to disagree on this issue.

 

[robbieh]

As you well know, I have given other reasons for banning fox hunting, other than "there is no reason for keeping fox hunting". Thats a ridiculous claim though for that i'm not suprised. The problem is you failed to give competing opinions to my reasons and just gave wide comparisons etc. All you keep answering is the points you want to think i've raised. 

The fact is that a majority of people wanted it banned, it should have been banned a lot sooner therefore not wasting so much time, but now it is banned. I have no problem people doing what they want either as long as it isn't plain cruel, regardless of being "vermin". Dogs used for fighting were/are bred for fighting. They are not pets. The comparison isn't of what breed they are, the comparison is animals attacking another under the "orders" and at the delight of a person.

And if you defend other people's right to hunt foxes, then of course you support the fox hunting cause!!! The vast majority of your arguments are all pro hunting arguments, they aren't "let people do what they want".

Agree to disagree? I guess 

[Oneeyedvic]

"And if you defend other people's right to hunt foxes, then of course you support the fox hunting cause" - typical ludicrous argument - I support a lot of things that I don't agree with

 

I believe the police should be able to join the BNP - but I am not racist.

 

I don't believe there should be a "tony Martin's Law", but I fo agree people should be able to defend their property.

 

Oh what I would do to live in such a clear cut world that you live in.

 

Not everything is in black & white.

[mash]

Well if nothing  else a great one on one battle.

My question was not really and arguement for or against fox hunting, it was related to the reaction to the ban by landowners and farmers.

Enjoyable all the same, good stuff guys!