"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"BAC" wrote in message
snip

I haven't said they were wrong, I said the only way to test the
validity of
the various interpretations of their results would have been via a
universal
poll of opinion.

That was a wrong thing to say. You might spend some time studying
probability theory and statistics before sticking out your neck in
this way.

Oooh, miaow :-) Your faith in the accuracy of political opinion polls is
touching. I must have imagined Major's 'soap box' election victory. And my
neck does not feel particularly exposed by stating I regard predictions
which are not tested against actual results as somewhat suspect, especially
predictions made in the absence of a prospect of actually being able to cast
a vote.


By the way, I am not aware of anty of these "various ways" of
interpreting their results.

I'm not surprised you are not aware of any way of interpreting results other
than in the way you consider appropriate. If you are remotely interested in
the differing spins which can be put on analysis of polls, and reservations
concerning the methodology employed, you might take a look at the
Countryside Alliances analyses, tables and graphs of polls. Then look at
LACS and others' observations on, mainly, the same polls.

There is only one way of interpreting
their results in such a way that they are all compatible, namely that
in the areas where the polls were conducted, there were approximately
twice as many people in favour of a bam as those in favour of hunting.

Depends on the polls selected. For example, in February 2000, Burns
commissioned MORI to test opinion in the rural areas of West Cumbria, Devon,
Somerset, Leicester and Powys. It seems only 25% of all respondents favoured
a ban on hunting. There are people who interpret that in 'only one way',
that the majority of what they call 'real' rural folk do not favour a ban
and they are being railroaded and oppressed by the urban majority. My point
(although I don't expect you to accept it) is that there are sufficient
competing statistical samples out there to afford anyone with a particular
viewpoint to make his case. An official referendum would be conclusive.


I look forward to hearing a few of these "various ways" of
interpreting the results as you claim there are.

I'm glad to hear you have an open mind.


I wouldn't bet my shirt or anything else on disputing the
findings of market research teams,

You are beginning to show the onset of some elements of widsom.

An undeserved compliment, from your viewpoint, since I did not mean that I
accepted they never made mistakes, I'm sure they do. Rather, that unless I
had investigated the matter myself, I wouldn't feel confident to bet either
way.


but I am unhappy with the notion that
market research renders a more democratic approach superfluous.

Nobody said that it does.

That was the inference I drew from your remarks - that people should accept
the ban was what the population wanted, on the back of the results of some
opinion polls.

The democratic approach, as practiced in
England, elected a parliament and this has resulted in a number of
parliamentary decisions with overwhelming majorities that hunting
foxes with dogs should be banned.


Regrettably, there is no English Parliament. There is an UK Parliament,
which consists of two Houses, one elected and one appointed, and, if you add
up the votes cast for and against a total ban in both houses, you'll find
there was actually a majority in Parliament (all of it) against a ban.

So, what better way to silence the protests of the pro hunters, that they
have been 'stitched up' by a scarcely representative Commons majority, and
that rural people are being oppressed, than to settle the matter by that
most democratic of options, a popular vote?