In article , Sacha
writes
On 23/11/04 10:32 pm, in article , "Mike Lyle"
wrote:


The Telegraph piece wasn't about Labour Party policy, it was about an
MP's view of the attitudes of those who opposed him. As I said
upthread, it's an interesting point of view if you take it along with
reactions to "right-to-roam" and such.

I can see why some people are angry about the decision, sure; but
there's no point in being inaccurate about it.


I don't see what is inaccurate. All along the Labour party has presented
this as a concern for animal welfare. Now they admit it isn't. To me,
that's very simple.

Not to me. For the second time you have talked about the Labour Party
admitting that it is class war, and I don't understand where you have
got this from. Even if you interpret Peter Bradley's article that way
(and I think you are wrong to do so), that is still the views of a
single MP, and not, as Mike has said, a statement of Labour policy.

I don't hunt, don't want to, never have, couldn't. But I think there is
rank dishonesty at the heart of this.

Isn't their rank dishonesty at the heart of most policy, Labour and
Conservative alike? Most issues are not clear cut, but you don't get a
law passed by saying 'it's hard to see what to do but on balance it's
probably better to go this way rather than that'.
--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"