September 15, 2004 at 14:16 #4044
As much as everyone is entitled to their own opinions on this subject, do jockeys think walking up the course with banners is the right thing to do.
With many folk against fox hunting who actually go racing i don’t see this as being a good idea, if they want to protest fair enough, but they shouldn’t be involving racing with it IMO, there are marches elsewhere for this.September 15, 2004 at 16:46 #93905
I don’t see any harm in it. If anything’s it’s all a bit futile, I doubt there’s going to be any big shifts in opinion no matter what jockeys or anyone else does.
The only difference this time around is that elected house will eventually get its way over the unelected one.September 15, 2004 at 17:04 #93906robertyleaMember
- Total Posts 30
This is an interesting subject to debate, and I had many conversations about it with my ex, who was a typical hunting, shooting country boy. Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Personally I think it’s cruel to chase the creatures until they drop of exhaustion, but I do see the need to control the fox population as their natural predators have waned. Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â I think there must be some other way, though I find it difficult to argue what that way is, as I have no direct expertise. Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â So while I am for a ban, I also have other concerns.
1. Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â What’s going to happen with the fox population – how will it be controlled?<br>2. Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â What’s going to happen to ex-racehorses, who may well go point-to-pointing or hunting after their career is over? Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Responsibility for these animals must be taken.
I guess those are the main concerns I think should be addressed before the legislation is formed.
Also don’t like the attitude of some of the yah-boos who get off on the kill, and love the blood lust of the hunt, something very sick about smearing blood on people!
Awaiting the increase in lamping too…
Oh, and I agree, I don’t think jockeys should protest on the course. It would be like me protesting at my workplace – people outside are likely to think it could be the view of the industry in general. They have every right to their opinions, but should protest elsewhere.
"I do not agree with what you say but defend to the death your right to say it"
(Edited by robertylea at 6:06 pm on Sep. 15, 2004)September 15, 2004 at 17:27 #93907LetsGetRacingMember
- Total Posts 1147
I’m definitely anti-hunting and it’s a point that becomes a tiresome subject. I only have three comments on the subject :
1) A woman was quoted as saying ‘I am born and bred in the country and wish to be able to live the way I want to.’ Why can’t the fox have that choice ?
2) The fox population needs controlling ? Isn’t the human population following a similar increase ? Are we to appoint a crack team of snipers to start picking us off when the figures get a little too high ? I don’t think so.
3) How can it be a ‘sport’ when one side doesn’t know it’s playing ?September 15, 2004 at 18:33 #93908insomniacParticipant
- Total Posts 1453
Never hunted, never want to, but wouldn’t ban it.<br> I look forward to seeing all those who feign animal welfare in the Commons (Tony Banks, Gerald Kauffman, John Prescott etc.) pressing for a ban on kosher and halal abattoirs in the UK.<br> This is a liberty being removed because of class bigotry, not because of any deep seated concern over animal welfare, that’s why it’s such a shoddy act. Or perhaps Banks and co are trying to ban halal and kosher butchery!<br> One thing you can be sure of though is that if fox-hunting was the pastime of gays, muslims or jews no action would have been taken against it by our Labour bigots.
(Edited by insomniac at 7:34 pm on Sep. 15, 2004)September 15, 2004 at 18:44 #93909dilysbMember
- Total Posts 51
I will be on the picket line outside the Cabinet Office tomorrow. 1. Hunting is the most decent method of culling foxes (and, like most pro-hunt people, I DO NOT hate foxes) – they have a good chance of escape and generally only the old and sick are culled, to the advantage of the fox population 2. If hunting goes (which it won’t), foxes will still be killed, by horrible local authority wardens who will gas/poison/trap and cause painful deaths to pets, domestic animals and wildlife. 3. The vile Tony Blair, for whom I’m sorry to say I voted, fondly believing at the time that he was going to cleanse the corrupt, sleazy, political system, raked up the hunting ban in a TV studio to please a selected, Old Labour, studio audience and has now fastened on this as a means of placating his spiteful backbenchers. Please note that no recent leading politician has kept animals or shown any interest at all in animals: what is going on at the moment has nothing whatsoever to do with animal welfare but everything to do with Mr. Blair and his cronies spectacularly abusing Parliamentary power.September 15, 2004 at 19:14 #93910
I don’t have any problems with folk protesting, i just don’t think the racecourse is the place for it.
I have been on beats many times but never on a hunt, i personally wouldn’t ban it, but then it is Smoking they are onto now so i’m sure something else will come along as well.
An interesting point i got from my bruv in law who is now a gamekeeper is that he won’t go on any protests for 1 reason, 20 years ago he worked in the pits and in his words not mine, the same folk who keep asking him to protest now were the very same folk who despised the miners when they went on strike, at the time it was Tory voters who were happy to see Maggie Thatcher crush them, now it is on the other boot and Tony Blair and Labour are getting it in the neck.
My view on it is the miners were right to protest back then as are the Countryside Alliance are now, the only thing is folk have long memories especially in Scotland where pits shut down left right and centre, the area i live is in the country with many mining villages all around, but if the Alliance think folk in this part of the country will back them up they will be sadly mistaken.
The situations are no different, but perhaps some of the Alliance supporters should remember they were happy enough for the miners to brought to their knees. :)September 15, 2004 at 19:21 #93911marlingMember
- Total Posts 27
Personally I wouldn’t ever want to go on a hunt but I’m still very uncomfortable with the idea of banning it.
In particular, exactly the same fundamental logic (and many of the same arguments) used to by those seeking to justify this piece of legislation could equally be used to argue that horseracing (and especially NH racing) should also be banned.
And as for that idiotic Tony Banks, don’t get me started…September 15, 2004 at 19:41 #93912jairducochetfanMember
- Total Posts 139
What will happen to Hunter Chases?September 15, 2004 at 19:48 #93913jairducochetfanMember
- Total Posts 139
:biggrin:September 15, 2004 at 19:53 #93914
Quote: from dilysb on 7:44 pm on Sep. 15, 2004[br]3. The vile Tony Blair, for whom I’m sorry to say I voted, fondly believing at the time that he was going to cleanse the corrupt, sleazy, political system, raked up the hunting ban in a TV studio to please a selected, Old Labour, studio audience and has now fastened on this as a means of placating his spiteful backbenchers. <br>
erm it was in the manifesto so you can hardly say he snuck it in through the backdoor. If anything he’s been trying to renege on it for years with the so called "middle way".
There’s a lot of issues people take exception to, like Iraq (which was never in any manifesto I know of), but at the end of the day we live in a democracy and have to live with the results.September 15, 2004 at 20:08 #93915stevedvgMember
- Total Posts 1137
I’m city born and bred, I don’t eat meat and would never go on a hunt, but I don’t support the ban.
To me this is democracy at it’s worst – it’s 3 wolves and a lamb voting on what’s for dinner.
It’s really convenient for us city folk to throw up our hands in horror at these barbarous country folk and their cruelty but at the same time ignore the fact that the vast, vast majority of animals killed by humans in this country are killed for meat.
And before anyone suggests that meat is needed for survival, take a look at the connection between meat consumption and the most widespread degenerative diseases in the west (cancers, heart disease, strokes, diabetes).
Also have a look at the diets of those people’s who live the longest. Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â
Nor is it an efficient use of land as it takes 16lbs of grain to create 1lb of beef.
People eat meat because they want to. Pure and simple.
That’s fine with me.
Ok, it eats up a huge amount of money on subsidies, increases the burden on the NHS and takes a huge toll on the environment, but that’s the lie of the land and I’m not losing any sleep over it. :)
However, if people want to talk about animal rights, they can start by giving up meat themselves.
IMO, until the majority of the country are vegetarian, it’s pure hypocrisy to ban hunting.
It’s really easy voting away the rights of others (especially when the others are perceived as a bunch of chinless hooray henrys and henriettas) and patting yourself on the back, but changing the world should start at home.
This is a slippery slope. As Marling said, what’s next?
Once we start voting away people’s rights, we can ban racing or we can ban other people’s religions, or homosexuality or the rights and freedoms of any minority the majority don’t happen to approve of. Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â
Rather than waste their time banning this minority activity that affects a few animals a year, I’d rather see the government working on a bill of rights which protect our basic freedoms from being voted away (like the right to fair trial).
(Edited by stevedvg at 4:11 pm on Sep. 17, 2004)September 15, 2004 at 20:23 #93916
Do animal rights folk take medicines and drugs that are tested on animals.
Say you have campaigned for years about animal rights and you then find out your child has a serious illness which can be treated by drugs which have been tested on animals , do they refuse the drugs or do they take them for their child, it’s a bit like your comment about eating meat stevedvg, if they want to talk about animal rights surely they won’t use drugs or medicines.September 15, 2004 at 20:42 #93917marlingMember
- Total Posts 27
Quote: from Ian Davies on 9:03 pm on Sep. 15, 2004[br]
Quote: from blobby on 8:53 pm on Sep. 15, 2004[br]but at the end of the day we live in a democracy and have to live with the results.
Isn’t tolerance an equally essential component of living in a democracy, Ian?
It’s all very easy for us on the outside to smile smugly and lecture the hunting lot on accepting the outcome of the democratic process but, on any view, the manner in which this legislation has been guaranteed is pretty unedifying. Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Whilst a majority of MPs might get very excited about this, the fact is that the vast majority of the country really don’t care too much either way. Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â
The only reason the bill is going through (under the laughable pretext of national necessity demanded by the Parliament Act) is to allow Blair to placate the awkward squad in his Party and buy himself some breathing room after the Iraq debacle. Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â As Steve says, this is democracy of a pretty unappealing nature – political expediency and prejudice.
Returning to my previous point, put the boot on the other foot and envisage a vote on the future of horseracing under similar circumstances – I can’t speak for anyone else but I’m pretty certain I wouldn’t be content simply to accept the will of Parliament and move on.September 15, 2004 at 21:09 #93918
Quote: from marling on 9:42 pm on Sep. 15, 2004
<br>… the manner in which this legislation has been guaranteed is pretty unedifying. Whilst a majority of MPs might get very excited about this, the fact is that the vast majority of the country really don’t care too much either way.
The only reason the bill is going through (under the laughable pretext of national necessity demanded by the Parliament Act) is to allow Blair to placate the awkward squad in his Party and buy himself some breathing room after the Iraq debacle. As Steve says, this is democracy of a pretty unappealing nature – political expediency and prejudice.<br>
Hmm, the parliament act was introduced a bodge to overcome the old guard in the lords constantly opposing the will of parliament. A little history:
<br>In 1908 David Lloyd George, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Liberal government led by Herbert Asquith introduced the Old Age Pensions Act that provided between 1s. and 5s. a week to people over seventy. To pay for these pensions Lloyd George had to raise government revenues by an additional Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£16 million a year.
In 1909 David Lloyd George announced what became known as the People’s Budget. This included increases in taxation. Whereas people on lower incomes were to pay 9d. in the pound, those on annual incomes of over Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£3,000 had to pay 1s. 2d. in the pound. Lloyd George also introduced a new supertax of 6d. in the pound for those earning Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£5000 a year. Other measures included an increase in death duties on the estates of the rich and heavy taxes on profits gained from the ownership and sale of property.
The Conservatives, who had a large majority in the House of Lords, objected to this attempt to redistribute wealth, and made it clear that they intended to block these proposals. Lloyd George reacted by touring the country making speeches in working-class areas on behalf of the budget and portraying the nobility as men who were using their privileged position to stop the poor from receiving their old age pensions.
With the House of Lords extremely unpopular with the British people, the Liberal government decided to take action to reduce its powers. The 1911 Parliament Act drastically cut the powers of the Lords. They were no longer allowed to prevent the passage of ‘money bills’ and it also restricted their ability to delay other legislation to three sessions of parliament. The bill also changed the maximum length of time between general elections was reduced from seven years to five and provided payment for Members of Parliament. .
When the House of Lords attempted to stop this bill’s passage, the Prime Minister, Henry Asquith, appealed to George V for help. Asquith, who had just obtained a victory in the 1910 General Election, was in a strong position, and the king agreed that if necessary he would create 250 new Liberal peers to remove the Conservative majority in the Lords. Faced with the prospect of a House of Lords with a permanent Liberal majority, the Conservatives agreed to let the 1911 Parliament Act to become law. <br>
As it’s been 3 sessions now
The keywords here are "and it also restricted their ability to delay other legislation to three sessions of parliament".<br>I really don’t think there’s a choice here for Blair, he’d have to give to up the notion of parliamentary democracy altogether if he blatantly ignores the country’s only elected national assembly.
(Edited by blobby at 10:10 pm on Sep. 15, 2004)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.