|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Feb 25, 2013 18:55:36 GMT
I'm not going to dispute that - I don't agree entirely, but if we go down that route we'll get sidetracked to no productive outcome. But the practical significance of hunting in rural life is vastly overstated - a great many rural areas don't have a hunt anywhere near them, nor has hunting ever been the major method by which the fox population is controlled. The fact that the Countryside Alliance spend almost all their time protesting about one law that doesn't prevent hunting from continuing tells you a lot about what it's actually there for. I will let you in on more secrets, EAL. I used to live in Perry....near Grafham Water, from 1967 to 1970. I went to school at Gt Staughton and Kimbolton. There were loads of hunts around there at the time and I used to follow them. Kids did that shit in them days. I was never particularly happy with watching the fox get ripped to shreds at the end of it. But, foxes were a nuisance that preyed on sheep and chickens etc. It was what happened. I just accepted it. When the ban came in I remember listening to some left wing imbecile on Radio 5. What shone through was not his concern for foxes but his contempt for the,supposedly rich people who went fox hunting. Now that foxes are shot, by people who's ability with a shotgun is questionable at times, and poisoned, the average fox meets a far worse end than it ever did. But I accept that hunting as a means of population control would seem to be fairly questionable. As I said, I don't think that hunting them is any more cruel than shooting or poisoning.....but it is sufficiently out of sight and out of mind for those wanting to attack people who hunt. It'll be bloody fishing next. I agree with most of this. As part of the tiny minority within the Labour Party who've ever held a gun licence or been shooting, I do think a lot of the hostility to blood sports is based on ignorance and a perception of the social class of the participants which is decidedly skewed. In my experience those who go hunting or shooting are likely to be wealthier than average, but that's not an absolute rule and most of them are not as wealthy as they try to project themselves to be. I've never been hunting, because there isn't a hunt in North Essex and I don't much like horses. My partner (from deepest darkest Lincolnshire and at that point a lifelong vegetarian) went cubbing once when she was about 15, but that was because she does like horses and I think she was pretty relieved not to find anything. My understanding was that the foxes were generally shot with a rifle, and that there was a similar standard of marksmanship to that required for deer stalking, but I've never troubled to check up on that so I may be wrong. You're certainly right that hitting but not killing a fox is going to mean that it dies in a very unpleasant way. I take the view that killing is always unpleasant to some degree. It doesn't matter if it's done by trap, or poison, or gun, or dogs, or abattoir. All involve death, preceded by pain and fear. From a welfare perspective, how quickly and cleanly it's done is far more important than the method. But from the perspective of most of the public, the most important thing is not having to think about it. I highly doubt that most meat eaters would enjoy seeing a day in the life of an abattoir. Anyway, this is moving some way off the topic of the thread. I'd be happy to discuss it in another thread, however. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2013 20:54:33 GMT
Groan. Fox levels are going to head towards an equilibrium whatever the very small minority of people who like to kill foxes do. There is literally no point whatsoever in these activities as a numbers restraint. Lets be honest, fox hunting is not about numbers control, that is ecological nonsense, it is just for the joy of: a) people who like behaving like a bit of a prat on a horse drinking port b) weird psychos who enjoy torturing animals Now im all for a) but you dont need to involve foxes for that. As animal cruelty is rightly banned in this country, those who actually hunt should be stopped from doing so. If you want to continue with option a) fair enough. 1) You ever been in a slaughter house, Joe? 2) Maybe we should stop that as well, eh? 1) No, anything relevant I should know? 2) Ideally yes. Don't see why not. Obviously like many issues I'm in a minority. We are beginning to derail the thread though. Perhaps if this could be separated? |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Feb 25, 2013 21:01:56 GMT
I'm an old-style Liberal - I don't do fanaticism. Even on electoral reform!  You must be a bit of a lone voice on Europe at those LibDem shindigs. I mean, if anyone in the Labour Party suggests that they may have Euro-sceptic views, which many do, they are sent for retraining If you said it as a LibDem you be escorted from the room in a straight jacket by men in white coats. My party colleagues are really very relaxed with my views. The party is perhaps more liberal than some on here would credit. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Feb 25, 2013 21:02:08 GMT
But the practical significance of hunting in rural life is vastly overstated - a great many rural areas don't have a hunt anywhere near them, nor has hunting ever been the major method by which the fox population is controlled. The fact that the Countryside Alliance spend almost all their time protesting about one law that doesn't prevent hunting from continuing tells you a lot about what it's actually there for. My father worked for them for much of the 1990s, when they transformed from the British Fields Sports Society into the CA (merging with two spin-off organisations). BFSS/CA has long take a domino theory approach hence the strong emphasis on foxhunting - this has been a criticism within the field sports community for some years even before New Labour began its crusade. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Feb 25, 2013 22:25:37 GMT
I'm aware of that. But the Countryside Alliance also likes to claim it's a broader lobby for rural areas, and has done some interesting work to this effect. My problem is that the bast majority of those in rural areas do not have any involvement with field sports, and a fair amount of us who are involved in field sports do not currently live in rural areas. Were they in fact a broader lobby for rural areas, they would thus not devote so much time to field sports.
They're a field sports lobby. Which is fine, because field sports deserves to have its own lobby, but I wish they wouldn't pretend otherwise.
|
|
nick10
Forum Regular
[k4r]
Posts: 296 
|
Post by nick10 on Feb 26, 2013 18:50:35 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Feb 28, 2013 22:09:23 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Mar 1, 2013 9:09:11 GMT
Although Irish Travellers are an ethnic group and so are Romani.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Mar 1, 2013 10:11:09 GMT
See the Court of Appeal judgment in the case of R (on the application of Baker and Others) v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government and Others [2008] EWCA Civ 141 (28 February 2008) at paragraph 28: "It is common ground that (i) the appellants (as Irish Travellers) belong to a racial group within the meaning of section 3(1) of the [Race Relations Act]" www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2008/141.html |
|
|
|
Post by Philip Davies on Mar 1, 2013 11:27:40 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Mar 1, 2013 11:38:25 GMT
All New Zealanders I have known would be mortally offended at being called Australians.
|
|
|
|
Post by irish observer on Mar 1, 2013 20:09:10 GMT
beg to differ on Irish travellers, so I will ask you for a source that is not a political claim, but is a legal or anthropological one. Romani may well be, but they are not indigenous to the UK. I would support David. I would also add web.archive.org/web/20070203055126/http://cre.gov.uk/gdpract/g_and_t_facts.html Irish travellers are considered an ethnic group in the UK and a social group in Ireland although there is at present a campaign to make them an ethnic group in Ireland. Personally I don't agree with the change in definition although they have a more distinct identity than the overwhelming majority of the Irish population. Several recent genetic studies of Irish travellers have confirmed that as a group they appear to be more Celtic in identity than the rest of the Irish population. Their origins have been traced to the "creaghs", cattle-herding nomads for the middle-income clan lords whose income source was destroyed completely with the Cromwellian invasion. Ever since then they as a group have been "on the road" involved in traditional activities such as horse trading and scrap metals until national and local government eventually grasped the nettle of providing halting site facilities despite local opposition. |
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,785
|
Post by john07 on Mar 1, 2013 21:40:45 GMT
All New Zealanders I have known would be mortally offended at being called Australians. This sketch proves the point: |
|
cibwr
Plaid Cymru
Posts: 3,589
|
Post by cibwr on Mar 1, 2013 22:28:10 GMT
beg to differ on Irish travellers, so I will ask you for a source that is not a political claim, but is a legal or anthropological one. Romani may well be, but they are not indigenous to the UK. I would say that they are indigenous, after all they have been here for several hundred years - rather like the royal family... |
|
|
|
Post by paulypaul on Mar 3, 2013 0:00:13 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by kevinlarkin on Mar 4, 2013 15:32:00 GMT
Benjamin Dennehy, suspended from the Conservative group on Ealing council last year for remarks he made in a blog post, has now joined UKIP. He represents Hanger Hill ward.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2013 16:09:10 GMT
to Paulypaul, we have seen a lot of discontent in Wyre Forest Tories and this case your example is just a long line of them of really.
|
|
|
|
Post by iainbhx on Mar 4, 2013 16:18:34 GMT
to Paulypaul, we have seen a lot of discontent in Wyre Forest Tories and this case your example is just a long line of them of really. Isn't the answer to that "It's Wyre Forest" |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2013 16:30:15 GMT
certainly Wyre Forest Tories !!
As for that other UKIP defector just another strange person to joined them who took advantage of the very same immigration laws he seems to want to stop.Maybe for him the rules should be based on the colour of the skin.
|
|
|
|
Post by slicesofjim on Mar 4, 2013 22:41:18 GMT
Two Cornwall councillors, Carolyn Rule and Lance Kennedy, defect from Tory to Independent. The Tories proposed a council tax increase, these two (and cabinet member Stephen Rushworth) voted for the Lib Dem proposal for a freeze. They do things differently in Cornwall.
|
|
