Getting A Better Wifi/Ethernet Signal.
Technology0 min ago
Rspca Spends £250K On A Fox Hunting Court Case
I have no opinion on fox hunting - I couldn't really care less either way - but this seems an incredibly large amount of money for a charity to spend.
http://
So, was it worth it? Strikes me it was a pyrrhic victory.
http://
So, was it worth it? Strikes me it was a pyrrhic victory.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by flip_flop. 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.
I'm rather surprised by your reply NJ.
I always thought I was the one who disapproved of the current democratic process, and you were the one who defended it.
The two part system means that you will always end up voting for a party who have some policies of which you approve, and others of which you disapprove.
Nevertheless, insofar as we get the chance to vote on anything, Prudie got the chance to vote on fox hunting. In much the same way, I was forced to vote for the current government, even though I disapprove of it in almost every respect, simply because (for me) there was one overriding issue which meant that under no circumstances would I vote Labour.
And yes, it was careless of me to phrase my answer in the way that I did so I'll rephrase it: "You got the chance to vote on it. It was in the Labour manifesto, Labour won the election."
Happy Christmas to all.
I always thought I was the one who disapproved of the current democratic process, and you were the one who defended it.
The two part system means that you will always end up voting for a party who have some policies of which you approve, and others of which you disapprove.
Nevertheless, insofar as we get the chance to vote on anything, Prudie got the chance to vote on fox hunting. In much the same way, I was forced to vote for the current government, even though I disapprove of it in almost every respect, simply because (for me) there was one overriding issue which meant that under no circumstances would I vote Labour.
And yes, it was careless of me to phrase my answer in the way that I did so I'll rephrase it: "You got the chance to vote on it. It was in the Labour manifesto, Labour won the election."
Happy Christmas to all.
Yes let's leave it on a happy note, rojash.
I don't approve of party politics because it leads to situations such as this where voters have to vote for a package of measures, much of which probably does not suit them so they have to choose the "least bad" option. They should be able to assess their candidates' opinions on individual issues that matter to them and vote for the individual.
Having said that, if we must have party-based elections then first-past-the post is my preferred system.
I don't approve of party politics because it leads to situations such as this where voters have to vote for a package of measures, much of which probably does not suit them so they have to choose the "least bad" option. They should be able to assess their candidates' opinions on individual issues that matter to them and vote for the individual.
Having said that, if we must have party-based elections then first-past-the post is my preferred system.
"It's seen as the sport of the ruling classes, and is a soft target for a bit of cheap left wing demonisation. "
Sorry, but you've got that completely back to front. There were loads of country "sports" that were cruel to animals, and all were banned except those supported by the "upper classes". Not the politics of envy, but the politics of privilege.
As far as I'm concerned, all cruelty should be banned, regardless of the social class of the participants, but for a long time the "toffs" got away with it. Now that they are being treated like everyone else, they pretend that they are being singled out.
Sorry, but you've got that completely back to front. There were loads of country "sports" that were cruel to animals, and all were banned except those supported by the "upper classes". Not the politics of envy, but the politics of privilege.
As far as I'm concerned, all cruelty should be banned, regardless of the social class of the participants, but for a long time the "toffs" got away with it. Now that they are being treated like everyone else, they pretend that they are being singled out.
For me rojash you have proved my point by referring to hunt supporters as toffs. In reality all walks of life supported fox hunting, in particular the farming community who are in no way well off toffs on the whole. The anti-hunt really need to come up with valid arguments, of which there are plenty, that don't persistently refer to it as an upper class pastime.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.