Sneakily reintroducing (as if it stopped) hunting with hounds

[Pothunter]

Seems like that's what the government is going to do next week.

 

But what interested me more in this piece were all the preconceptions and mistaken assumptions the writer reveals, not just about hunting, but the countryside as a whole.

 

Count them in this par, for instance:

 

"But there is the fox to consider. It wasnt so much the kill that bothered me as the chase, which could sometimes last for a couple of hours, with the fox fleeing for its life. But foxes are killers, say the hunters. Think of our poor lambs. They miss the point. Foxes kill to survive; hunters kill for pleasure. Most of the pest-control claims are bogus, as many hunters will admit. A hunt is primarily a social and a sporting occasion, especially now the farming communities of which they were once an integral part have been largely destroyed."

 

Full article here: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/08/cameron-foxhunting-hunting-ban-legal-changes?CMP=share_btn_tw

[cwmmawr]

The countryside begins and ends in Hyde Park for the guardian I am afraid

 

Have a look at this video if you get a chance this is why we are pushing for it in wales its about a level playing field at the end of the day

 

http://fedwfp.co.uk/

[Scully]

Seems like that's what the government is going to do next week.

 

But what interested me more in this piece were all the preconceptions and mistaken assumptions the writer reveals, not just about hunting, but the countryside as a whole.

 

Count them in this par, for instance:

 

"But there is the fox to consider. It wasnt so much the kill that bothered me as the chase, which could sometimes last for a couple of hours, with the fox fleeing for its life. But foxes are killers, say the hunters. Think of our poor lambs. They miss the point. Foxes kill to survive; hunters kill for pleasure. Most of the pest-control claims are bogus, as many hunters will admit. A hunt is primarily a social and a sporting occasion, especially now the farming communities of which they were once an integral part have been largely destroyed."

 

Full article here: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/08/cameron-foxhunting-hunting-ban-legal-changes?CMP=share_btn_tw

Did you read the article in its entirety? I'm no fan of the Guardian , but was quite pleased with the article on the whole, and the 'does a majority have the right to force it's morals on a minority..........no', wasn't something I was expecting and more than fair.

I think the author is more concerned with the way in which this was done, via a 'statutory' article, given the Tories lack of a big majority. I wouldn't be too happy if a government used that method to introduce legislation regarding firearms.

Edited July 10, 2015 by Scully

[Zapp]

Did you read the article in its entirety? I'm no fan of the Guardian , but was quite pleased with the article on the whole, and the 'does a majority have the right to force it's morals on a minority..........no', wasn't something I was expecting and more than fair.

 

For all the nonsense that does find its way into the Guardian, of all the mainstream broadsheets it is the most willing to genuinely challenge its readerships' natural leanings with some decent counterpoint.

[Scully]

 

For all the nonsense that does find its way into the Guardian, of all the mainstream broadsheets it is the most willing to genuinely challenge its readerships' natural leanings with some decent counterpoint.

Pleasantly surprised I must admit. Unlike the LACS website which is now claiming this statutory act is in effect a full repeal! I can understand the hype, but if the law has been thus in Scotland since 2004, and they were cheering in 2004, then how come they are claiming such a thing now as it merely brings England into line with Scotland, which up until now they seem to have been happy with?

On a side note there is an article on there regarding the Scotland air gun bill, where they claim many animals are shot and killed and simply unreported and therefore not investigated, but they haven't explained how they know this if the deaths are unreported. They don't like it when you point out to them that if they want to be taken seriously they have to dispel with emotive claims and claims other than those they can prove. They don't like it at all. Have been banned twice from posting in the past, but they always let you back on eventually. First time I was banned was by Steve Taylor (?) who went on to swindle them and was then sacked as a result. They don't like it if you mention that either! Please delete mods if you think I've strayed too far off topic but LACS baiting is great fun and dead easy; all you have to do is stick to the facts while challenging theirs.

Edited July 10, 2015 by Scully

[walshie]

Sneakily reintroducing? Cameron always said he would put it to a vote if he got re-elected.

 

It's only a shame he doesn't put a lot of other Labour crackpot ideas to the vote.

[Pothunter]

Sneakily reintroducing? Cameron always said he would put it to a vote if he got re-elected.

 

This is a statutory instrument, and thus only a single whipped vote of the 30 odd members of the standing committee, appointed by the party whips. It's definitely sneaky. Which is fine by me.

 

My point was how much the writer, who was bending over backwards to be fair and reasonable and see the hunters' side, still just didn't understand basic things about rural life.

[kent]

An unfair and unjust law, voted on previously by people with axes to grind and no understanding nor wish to understand the true facts. Its at times like this we need to be "sneaky" if that's the correct word to use. Democracy abused by a larger numbers of idiots is as bad as being in a dictatorship

 

It was like three wolves and one lamb voting on what to have for lunch last time round, its just this time the lamb has his flock

Edited July 11, 2015 by kent