The Shooting Times

[kyska]

I've done it again, bought a copy of the Shooting Times after I said I never would.

 

Sharpshooter AKA Alasdair Mitchell seems to have again brain ****** with such ferocity he's splattered the page with journalistic ineptitude.

 

Comparing and lambasting the RSPCA (which ironically I have no fondness for other than their principles) when he has nothing other to fill his weekly spot for his beer fund.

 

Halal slaughter compared to fox hunting, am I the only one to see the very, very obvious difference on many levels?

 

Halal is legal, I don't like it, I'm an animal professional and a licensed slaugherman of a decade and have seen things many wouldn't see. The RSPCA have quite rightly campaigned against this act for years, as have many ethicists.

 

To compare this to fox hunting is, well, beyond my words, brain **** Mitchell being far more eloquent than me, but is it not easy to see that Halal slaughtermen don't chase said animal (bar pig) for miles before killing it? The difference is obviously polarising even for stupid people.

 

My onus to this rant is, that Mitchell is proclaiming that if one cruel act is legal all others should be? Shame on him, encouraging nihilism, no words on that page helps the cause.

[White Rabbit]

I can't comment on the relevent article as I chose to stop buying Shooting Times a month ago after buying every copy for 20 years. Basically there isn't anything in it anymore and what is seems tired and low quality. John Humphreys blatent scrounge for a new boat after his was stolen was the straw that broke the camels back. He even described what he'd want as a replacement for godsake! Shameless.

 

Shooting writers have a privledged job which gains them no end of freebies,invites and a chance to speak to the shooting community but all they can produce is the same old tired stuff month in month out.

 

I could make a list aslong as my arm of new and different items they could produce but it seems totally beyond them to do the same.

 

Shooting Times now takes 30 mins max to read from cover to cover. When I first bought it it cost 60p and was a decent read. Its a shame to see what it has become.

 

Endless moans about the RSPB,RSPCA etc Lets have a bit more substance and effort please. Current writers aren't fit to sharpen Noel Sedgewicks pencil!!!

 

Rant over!!

[artschool]

I flick through mine over a coffee. My subscription is up in a few months and I won't be renewing, the internet is better.

[Mungler]

I binned it off for the Field.

[CharlieT]

Well you obviously did not read the article thoroughly and understand the point he was making regarding the RSPCA's double standards on animal welfare.

 

I for one thought it a well writen article which proved, once again, that the RSPCA agenda is more than a little anti field sports to say the least.

[kyska]

Well you obviously did not read the article thoroughly and understand the point he was making regarding the RSPCA's double standards on animal welfare.

I for one thought it a well writen article which proved, once again, that the RSPCA agenda is more than a little anti field sports to say the least.

 

I did, and there are double standards, we all know that, but the double standards are not the RSPCA's doing, they cherry pick the cases they are likely to win. Again, I'm not pro or anti RSPCA, other than some of their more ingenious interests which really make a difference.

 

Maybe I read it differently to you, but the author made it quite clear to me that he found it incredulous that halal killing was ok, but not fox hunting, so do we reverse a decision to appease others?

 

It bias, and we as a whole should be above it, rather than school playground arguments that so and so jumped in a fire and we can too.

[Scully]

Like Charlie T,I also thought it was about the RSPCA's double standards concerning their lack of campaigning against the Halal method of slaughter(which they are opposed to)with the same vehemence as they campaigned against hunting with hounds...which they are also opposed to.

[kyska]

Like Charlie T,I also thought it was about the RSPCA's double standards concerning their lack of campaigning against the Halal method of slaughter(which they are opposed to)with the same vehemence as they campaigned against hunting with hounds...which they are also opposed to.

 

I'm really trying to extrapolate the meaning behind the article, which I can't, not start a thread on the RSPCA.

 

It was written child like, its illegal to fight dogs, if that was used as an analogy against fox hunting we'd be up in arms on here (I hope), it was a immature, blunt journalistic tool to use.

 

On top of it all, I was really just stating I won't be buying it again, as every time I do (once or twice a year) it infuriates me!

[Scully]

To be honest Kyska,you posted while I was typing.I'm not wanting to start an thread about the RSPCA or Alisdair Mitchell or the Shooting Times either.Nor am I wanting to defend any of them.I agree with some of Mr Mitchells' articles and disagree with others.In my opinion he pointed out something I wasn't aware of,and I thought it was a good article,you didn't,which is fair enough.

Whether anyone is for or against fox hunting I thought was irrelevant in the context of the article.I thought the issue was one of 'animal welfare',which is what the RSPCA professes to be concerned with.Obviously mr Mitchell has his own axe to grind based on his own bias,but that aside,it doesn't render the points he makes irrelevant.

Not sure if he meant the acceptance of Halal slaughter should mean the acceptance of Hunting with hounds though.He can be contacted via the 'shooting times' website.