On 23/11/04 10:21 pm, in article ,
"Kay" wrote:

In article , Sacha
writes
On 23/11/04 7:16 pm, in article , "Kay"
wrote:


The argument of the article was the other way around - that the reaction
was so strong because those that do own the land perceived it as an
attack on their power. The article was about the reaction to the Bill,
not about its genesis. So on the question of whether the Bill was
stimulated by class issues or by animal rights concerns, it isn't
satisfactory evidence for either side.


The majority of people who hunt are not the rich land owners against whom
the Labour party now admits it was conducting a class war.

Where did the Labour Party admit this? Whether you agree with him or not
that wasn't what Peter Bradley was saying. Note I'm not saying it wasn't
a class war, I'm just pointing out that Peter Bradley's article was not
an admission that Labour was declaring a class war.

Then we read this differently, Kay.
--

Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)