On 24/11/04 11:44, in article , "June
Hughes" wrote:

In message , Sacha
writes
On 24/11/04 8:37, in article , "June
Hughes" wrote:

In message , Sacha
writes
On 23/11/04 10:37 pm, in article ,
"June
Hughes" wrote:

In message , Sacha
writes
On 23/11/04 10:02 pm, in article ,
"June
Hughes" wrote:

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

In article , Sacha
writes
On 22/11/04 11:05 pm, in article
,
"Kay" wrote:


You can read the full article on the Telegraph website.

So - it was class war. Those who do not own the land but
perceive it as
giving power, 'fought' those who do.

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. At
the end of
all this, that was what this was about - a class war. Not a concern
for
animal welfare - a class war. It was a disgusting exercise in
manipulative
hypocrisy. I'd like to see Tony Blair come down here to the South
Devon
Hunt and tell them they're a crowd of land-owning feudalists who
think they
own and control Britain.
Assuming the our beloved leader can find the SW of England.

Explain, please. Your argument is unconvincing.

Many thanks.

I suggest you read the many reports on the matter, June. I feel
sure those
will convince you more than anything I have to say.

Thank-you Sacha. I have read umpteen reports. They don't convince me
at all. As a country girl, I always supported fox-hunting. It was what
we were brought up with. Incidentally, in Cumbria, where there are
many sheep (sheep-farming is often a farmer's living in the far north
of England), they hunt with hounds but not horses. However, things have
changed rapidly over the past twenty years or so and I am now
unconvinced.

A friend of mine's family owns an estate in Cumbria, June - used to have
their own Otter Hound pack - if that's the correct terminology. I'm glad
they don't now. Because otters are not the nuisance they once were to the
industry that supported an estate. Rather the contrary, in fact!
Another friend of mine whose father owns another estate in Cumbria rides to
hounds here in Devon. I wouldn't say I've gone into deep conversation with
them over this but I know these people well and have some idea of their
knowledge of the countryside and know too, that the majority of those who
hunt with them are not 'toffs' and that they would never see themselves
that
way, either.

That speaks volumes.

Why? Because you don't like the idea of their existence or because you
believe that they have no useful knowledge to impart. You played the "I
know what happens in Cumbria" card and I indicated that I have some
information on that, too. Sorry June but given our history, I think that
anything I say is going to annoy you and the above comment by you simply
demonstrates that, IMO.

Kay was very clear in what she said. At present, I agree with her.
Your reasoning has not changed my mind. Sorry to be a nuisance but if
you stick your neck out, you should be able to substantiate what you
say.

Please see my reply to Mike. This has been a class issue and that issue
has
been obfuscated.
I have seen it. If I had time to sit here and argue with you I would
but I have to start work now. You have failed convinced me. Sorry.

I'm not terribly concerned to convince you about anything, June.

In that case, I am surprised you wasted your time replying to my
original post, Sacha. You have now drifted off-topic, which is
tantamount to admitting you are unable to prove your case. I think the
best thing I can do is return you to my kill-file. Goodbye.

You have the most extraordinary manners, June. You asked me something and I
replied to it. In your usual fashion, you then try to slam me into the
ground with your 'superior knowledge', which fails, so you sneer at my
answer but don't have the courtesy to tell me why. And then, having joined
this thread, you don't like some of the answers and so you accuse me of
being off topic and imply that YOU are so important that I am under an
obligation to convince you. I can't imagine why you would think that your
approbation is of the least interest to anyone, let alone me.
Please do return me to your kill file. I can't imagine why you ever took me
out. There's certainly plenty of company in there, it seems!
--

Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)