- This topic has 141 replies, 40 voices, and was last updated 20 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I would personally make them sit in a room with Maggie and Tony for 2 hours , i’m sure their outlook on life would be different when they walked out.
There won’t be a government around who make decisions everyone likes, i didn’t like the poll tax but it was law and i paid it like most folk, so if this is passed folk will have to accept it whether they like it or not, they are getting far with Hunting and the Smoking ban, i wonder what will be next.
There will definetly be something or the professional protestors won’t have bugger all to do, i reckon it could be combing your hair to the left hand side, what do you think. :biggrin:
The Manifesto … that one chestnut, wasn’t it in the one before this one as well and wasn’t ‘NOT introducing top up fees’ in it as well … ???
This is all politics and manouvering. The Labour party is struggling to engage the population at the moment, no-one is interested anymore.
They are making a feeble attempt to move people’s attention away from the mess they made in IRAQ.
Blair the Invisible made a key note speech about Global Warming today!
Is anyone running a book about what they’ll come up with next?
What is it about the term, "parliamentary democracy" that the yahoos don’t understand!
I would like to see all street protests that inconvenience the public, banned, whether Orange Lodge, Fenian, Hunt mob, whatever. Let them all parade around to their heat’s content in some local park.
The hunt brigade have as much chance of persuading the public to countenance fox and stag hunting as they have, bear or badger-bating, otter hunting, bull-fighting, cock-fighting, seal clubbing – which latter, at least, has the *primary* purpose of providing a livelihood.
As for the abolition of hunting being a case of class warfare. The class war ended long ago. The rich won. If this looks like pay-back, so be it. Alas, the public have always been and indeed remain all too long-suffering to harbour such sentiments.
(Edited by Grimes at 10:40 pm on Sep. 15, 2004)<br>
(Edited by Grimes at 10:42 pm on Sep. 15, 2004)
Delighted to see the generally pro-ban sentiments here. It has been demeaning imo to see the hunt lobby try to ride on racing’s coat-tails of late in a desperate attempt  to broaden its sordid appeal.
It’s a case of Cheerio, Tally-ho !
Bull-fighting next !!!!!!!!
Clivex
Tolerance is a sliding scale: at one end of the spectrum, there’s a blindingly obvious need for laws prohibiting criminal behaviour – no-one’s going to argue that society should tolerate the minority pursuits of burglary or fraud:biggrin:.  In those cases, only an anarchist (or maybe the occasional student) would contend that there’s not a pressing social need for such regulation.
At the other end of the scale, I can’t say I’m that mad about Newcastle United fans, but I’m not going to campaign for a law demanding that anyone caught wearing a football shirt with ‘Shearer’ plastered on the back should be subject to immediate detention at Belmarsh (although there again…).
Somewhere in the middle though there are a whole lot of issues or pastimes that some people consider integral to the way they choose to live, which others (although they’re not directly affected by their existence) castigate as immoral or evil.  At what point should the state intervene and define what constitutes ‘civilised’ behaviour?
If you’re going to ban fox hunting on that basis, fair enough, but it’s a dangerous precedent – similar arguments could (and regularly are made) in respect of horseracing or, for that matter, boxing.
So let’s have a closer look at monsiuer Reynard.
This is the animal who HUNTS for a living, who and I talk from experience who will not steal on chicken but will kill the lot, leaving a pile of headless bloody bodies. it is ok treating animals as our equals, but the animals do not give a monkeys toss.<br> I have no problem with hunting though if the fox is given the chance of survival, as soon as the shovels come out thats where I draw the line.
But we live in a democracy and that is that, hunting with dogs will become illegal
I bet the packs of dogs will survive.
I bet the hunts will survive.
I’m probably in the minority on here, but I couldn’t care less one way or the other … :cool:
The law is the law and as such should be obeyed. Can’t argue with that.<br>That doesn’t mean though that all laws passed by a democratically elected body are good laws. Many on here obviously thought some of the laws passed by Thatcher’s government were bad too <br> Rightly or wrongly, those laws (Thatcher’s relating to Trade Unions) were passed not out of spite to Unions but to improve the lot for Union members, industry and the Country as a whole – something history has shown it achieved. (Ever worked in a factory where if you voted against the Shop Stewards recommendation you found your locker had been broken into or your car damaged? I worked in such a factory prior to Thatcher, and I can tell you most workers WANTED union powers curbed).<br> This anti fox-hunting law will not be passed because of any noble caring for the welfare of the fox (although obviously some MP’s genuinely have this belief) but because a spiteful group want to get one over on the "upper class". (I believe it’s a misconception that fox hunting is predominately upper-class anyway.)<br> Is that a basis for passing laws?<br>I used to be an enthusiastic unionist and card carrying Labour member. The labour party meetings in my ward were full of ordinary people in most respects, yet when the subject of fox hunting ever arose, they went in to a foaming fit and were unable to consider the subject rationally. Their attitude was one simply of hating it because they hated the people they percieved did it. Just like Tony Banks, Kauffman, Prescott et al.<br> Another problem those who support hunting have is that too many urban people have a "care-bear", "disneyfied attitude towards animals, believing they’re all cuddly-wuddly little darlings. Perhaps if we’d all had to wring a few chickens necks as children there wouldn’t be such overblown horror at a dog killing a fox – quite a natural event surely?<br>Perhaps this caring, government which has taken this "brave" step to protect little foxy-woxy, might now like to consider protecting unborn babies by severely tightening abortion laws? But then again, perhaps too many "working class" have abortions for them to consider doing so!
Ian,<br> Just out of curiosity, did you think the unions WERE too powerful prior to Maggie making them more "democratic" ?
Wots all this union stuff got to with it anyway, is there a national union of foxes no-one told me about?
On the matter of the lower upper classes going hunting, it makes no difference what class you are, you just need to be able to afford it.
<br>But it will be entertaining if a hunt goes ahead and the police try to stop it. The image of the country bobby (I know they do not exist anymore) standing with his hand in the stop gesture, as a demented fox goes by, followed 40 or so slobbering fox hounds, after which a load of maniacs hanging on to horses for their dear life is one I would like to see.
And after in court the defendants solictor, well M’lud my clients gather every so often in this field for a medieaval Peagent on this occaision the dogs F***ed off and we were trying to catch them.<br>
(Edited by Dungheap at 11:35 pm on Sep. 15, 2004)
Let me repeat, as I said earlier, I don’t hunt and don’t want to. I Just think that this legislation has as much to do with poking the toffs as with loving animals.<br>Whatever Thatcher’s motives for curbing union powers, on balance the end result was (imo at least) justified.<br> A ban on fox-hunting will not stop foxes dying cruelly – (nature is cruel) so this law won’t make foxes live happier, longer and healthier lives. So why introduce it?<br>The only answer I can think of is bigoted class driven spite; a shameful reason to curb a minority recreation.<br> Some may disagree that that was the motive for the law: we’ll have to disagree then.<br> Not one fox will end up dying of old age in its sleep by stopping hunting with hounds. <br>Most books I’ve read on the subject (recommend Running with the Fox by David McDonald) list the main causes of death to foxes as (not in any particular order):-<br>Hypothermia, starvation, blood poisoning and traffic death. Hunting only accounted for a few percent. <br>So why legislate if it won’t bring about any improvement in the life of the creature?<br>Anyway, for those animal loving MP’s who banned this, will they now ban halal and kosher slaughtering?<br>Will they ban abortion?<br>Are they hypocrites?<br>What is this doing on a racing forum?
It is on a racing forum because Jockeys walked up the straight at Beverley today with banners supporting the alliance, although it has went off tandem a bit.
Regards classes and hunting, i’m sure i wasn’t the only one who used to go out with their dad , uncle or grandad when we were young to go hunting for rabbits for the potted hough.
I used to be taken along with many friends of mine when we were growing up to go fishing and our elders taking the jack russels and fox terriers to catch rabbits, hunting wasn’t just for the toffs, hunting covers many things not just fox hunting.
Has no one ever wondered about the fact that, although we townies tend to regard fox hunting cruel and barbaric, country folk (who’ve actually seen hunts first hand), generally support it?
It would seem that there are two sides to this story and that it’s those with no personal experience of hunting who have decided its fate.
It’s very easy and convenient for the majority to vote away the choices of a minority.
However, what we should realise is, we’re all a minority in some area of life.
On this forum, we’re members of that minority called "racing fans".
Already there are people who want to ban us from enjoying something that’s part of our life. And now, as Marling said, with hunting banned, they’ve got more time to focus on racing.
On a personal level, I really don’t care about hunting or hunters, but I do care about my rights.
And I’m smart enough to realise that, once you start casually voting away the rights of other’s, it’s only a matter of time before you become the minority and someone is voting away your rights.
The lessons of history are there.
Steve
Some interesting points on this thread.
There is a difference between humans hunting for food and hunting for "sport".
Man hunts for food to survive. The vegetarians argument that we do not need to eat meat/fish is a different one. (I am a meat eater in a family of vegetarians living in the country). Farming rears animals to supply the bulk of that food whilst hunting/shooting animals & birds such as rabbits & pheasants, might provide the hunter with a bit of "pleasure" under the guise of "sport" , at least the "kill" (and a relatively quick one) is used for food.
The problem with hunting (imo) is the cruelty of chasing one animal by hundreds (dogs/horses& humans) until it is exhausted or trapped. If it goes underground for cover then it is dug out for the hounds to tear it apart, live.
I cannot call this "sport". The hunted has absolutely no chance with "rules" like that. At least with a gun it is a one to one – and a quick kill (if a good shot). But I doubt if it is as much fun as charging over others peoples land, running out in front of vehicles on country roads, hounds getting sidetracked and chasing/catching/killing peoples pets.
The argument that it will cost jobs. What’s wrong with a drag hunt?
The points raised about the sympathies between this & the miners is interesting. Just shows that the class difference and "not in my back yard" attitude is still here. <br>The closing of the pits destroyed communities. Forget about the animosity between workers families. It was the fact that the pits were going to be closed that caused that. The pits were, in many places, the only employment. There was no real alternative employment. (How many taxi drivers does a village need?).
At least with alternative hunting -such as drag hunting – employment can still carry on. It would still need the employment of the farriers/blacksmiths, etc
As for the fox and the killing of chickens, etc. While I sympathise – isn’t that its nature. My cat catches birds but rarely eats them.
As for foxes dying of hyperthermia, blood poisoning and starvation isn’t this part of survival/natural selection.<br>Ok, the RTA is a man made thing but that is progress, like building houses on land thus reducing the habitat that the fox has for finding food. Which is why many foxes come into towns to scavange amongst the rubbish bins. (I was in Basildon last week at around 11.30pm saw two foxes coming from a new housing estate just off the bypass heading for Sainsbury’s back yard – where the bins are).
Regarding the killing of animals for Halal & Kosher food. Apart from the health risks I have always thought that this is unacceptable in this Christian country. But this is getting into a religious part of the debate which has no relevance here.
And I am aware that racing has its roots via hunting.
But our society has moved on from these ancient/traditional methods. <br>We live in houses – not caves.
In conclusion; We use to have to hunt for food for survival. With farming we no longer have to.<br>The culling of foxes, if it is a necessity, should be done with a gun although the motor car seems to be doing a decent job of it.<br>If people want to dress up and chase something – let it be one of their own.
If this is meant to be a democracy, why is so much time and money being spent on something that the majority of the country doesn’t give a toss about? This so called democracy is a small group out of our elected representatives forcing through a law just because it a)keeps a few happy, b)it’s one thing they can say they have achieved before the next election, and c) all this malarky at Westminster has detracted from all the other messes the country is in, even for a short time. A democracy should make decisions that benefit the majority – yes there will always be those who disagree – but this benefits the majority, err… how, exactly?
I think its quite ironic that the security of a little fluffy animal has taken priority and the Commons been shown up by desperately needing to look at their own security first!
(Edited by Spook at 10:28 am on Sep. 16, 2004)
Just to add another vote in – I don’t hunt, but am against a ban.
I think countryside workers who regularly have to kill turkeys, lambs, calves and chickens to go onto the supermarket shelves have a slightly different perspective on the circle of life than that of people who’s contact with meat is to put their frozen burger in the oven.
Controlling the fox population is done to protect livestock and preserve the balance of the countryside – and as that is for the good of the country in general I personally don’t care what colour clothing the participants wear or whether they go to the pub afterwards.
As for the protests – surely the point of a democracy is that everyone’s voice can be heard?  If we don’t agree with a government decision we are free to protest against it (within reason).  Better than living in a military dictatorship! ÂÂÂ
No further contribution to this, just putting in my vote.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.