On 24/11/04 8:31, in article , "Kay"
wrote:

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.

From The Shropshire Star
"Labour MP Peter Bradley has admitted that class warfare lay at the heart of
the battle over the future of fox hunting, which was finally outlawed by
Parliament last week. "
He goes on to say, effectively, that it was the 'last hurrah' of the toffs
fighting the proles because the toffs own all the land etc. He is either
trotting out a party belief or he is very silly indeed to express his
personal views in this way.
I know several people who hunt in Devon and I can only think of one who is
titled. Most are 'ordinary' members of the population, farmers, postmen,
supermarket workers etc. The idea that this is a 'class war' was not
raised by any one of those people or by a land owner but by a Member of
Parliament.

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'.

I think the latter would be preferable, if unlikely. But what disturbs me
about the hunting bill is that while we live in a democracy, the majority of
the population of this country is urban. The majority of the people who
hunt and know about control of the fox as a pest, live in the country. I
wouldn't dream of imposing my will about some urban issue on the people of
e.g. Liverpool and I'm not convinced that it's right for urban dwellers to
impose their will on countrymen. And no, I am NOT arguing that ALL country
dwellers are pro-hunting but the march on Westminster would appear to
suggest that an awful lot are - and probably the majority.
I am concerned about this too because I believe most genuinely that what
will now happen to foxes is going to be much more cruel and painful for them
than either a clean escape or a certain death.
--

Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)