|
"Janet Baraclough.." wrote in message ... The message from Sacha contains these words: Killing foxes - or rabbits, or magpies, or crows, or whatever - is part of countryside management. And that is what the *farmers* are doing. Only now they are being forced by the anti-hunt nuts to do it in such a way as to make it probable that the foxes are dying in great pain and larger numbers. In Scotland, AFAIR there was very little anti-hunt protest. The change was a straightforward majority decision of the Scottish Parliament. There were only 10 Scottish horse/hound hunts, in the flatter lowlands with suitable terrain for galloping a horse. Fox control in the rest (majority) of Scotland has always been done by other methods including shooting.It's inaccurate to claim that farmers here have been "forced by anti-hunt nuts" into shooting foxes badly. The raised killcounts are figures provided by the same sport hunts comparing their OWN pre- and post-ban tallies. They are still hunting foxes. IOW, your comments above are criticising sport hunts. The largest Scottish hunt, the Buccleugh, records that it killed twice as many foxes pa after the ban as before. It's still legal here to use hounds to "flush foxes to the guns", but inevitably they still chase and kill some before the foxes get to the guns. Before the ban, foxes which went to ground were let alone. Now the hunt sends in terriers to flush it out to shoot. In 03 to 04, the Buccleugh's tally was 58 foxes shot by guns,19 killed by hounds and 26 shot leaving boltholes. If similar 'workarounds' prove feasible in England and Wales, the Act is hardly likely to stop hunting with hounds. |
|
|
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. -- Kay "Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river" |
In article , Jane Ransom
writes In article , Ian Snowdon writes Just ordinary people who find entertainment in the chase of an animal to its death. Do you have a cat? That's a relevant question only if you believe that most cat owners find entertainment in their cat's killing. -- Kay "Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river" |
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. I think your interpretation of the text is sound. And, actually, the MP was making an interesting point about the pro campaign. I'd need more evidence before deciding if he was right or wrong, but it's a point of view well worthy of consideration. Political campaigns often turn out to have an important sub-text. Mike. |
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. -- Sacha (remove the weeds for email) |
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. -- June Hughes |
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. -- Sacha www.hillhousenursery.co.uk South Devon (remove the weeds to email me) |
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. -- Kay "Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river" |
Sacha wrote:
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. I don't think it's reasonable to generalize to the pro-wealth, pro-property Government from the remarks of one of its back-bench MPs, even if he was not alone. I doubt if a Michael Howard Government would bring back hanging. At the end of all this, that was what this was about - a class war. Not a concern for animal welfare - a class war. Well, to speak only for myself, it was nothing of the sort. I've considered the issue over some forty years purely on an animal welfare basis (and I still haven't reached a very strong conclusion). I imagine the majority of the public look at it the same way, whichever conclusion they reach. It was a disgusting exercise in manipulative hypocrisy. I don't understand who you feel was manipulated here. They said up front they were going to do it, and then didn't manage to (some say because Tony Blair sabotaged the procedure); they said again they were going to do it, and finally did. Agree or disagree, that was pretty straightforward behaviour for politicians. 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. Tony Blair, quite apart from the fact that he only seems to associate with multi-millionaires, has never, as far as I know, said anything of the sort. It certainly wasn't Blair in the article we're discussing. His record suggests he's pretty lukewarm about the issue, and it's one of the very few things on which he's prepared to give half an ear to his MPs -- normally we'd praise a PM for that. 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. Mike. |
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) |
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. 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. -- June Hughes |
On 23/11/04 10:32 pm, in article , "Mike Lyle"
wrote: Sacha wrote: 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. I don't think it's reasonable to generalize to the pro-wealth, pro-property Government from the remarks of one of its back-bench MPs, even if he was not alone. I doubt if a Michael Howard Government would bring back hanging. At the end of all this, that was what this was about - a class war. Not a concern for animal welfare - a class war. Well, to speak only for myself, it was nothing of the sort. I've considered the issue over some forty years purely on an animal welfare basis (and I still haven't reached a very strong conclusion). I imagine the majority of the public look at it the same way, whichever conclusion they reach. It was a disgusting exercise in manipulative hypocrisy. I don't understand who you feel was manipulated here. They said up front they were going to do it, and then didn't manage to (some say because Tony Blair sabotaged the procedure); they said again they were going to do it, and finally did. Agree or disagree, that was pretty straightforward behaviour for politicians. 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. Tony Blair, quite apart from the fact that he only seems to associate with multi-millionaires, has never, as far as I know, said anything of the sort. It certainly wasn't Blair in the article we're discussing. His record suggests he's pretty lukewarm about the issue, and it's one of the very few things on which he's prepared to give half an ear to his MPs -- normally we'd praise a PM for that. 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. Mike. 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. I don't hunt, don't want to, never have, couldn't. But I think there is rank dishonesty at the heart of this. -- Sacha (remove the weeds for email) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:58 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter