"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 , Ian Snowdon
writes

Just ordinary people who find entertainment in the chase of an animal to
its death.

Do you have a cat?
--
Jane Ransom in Lancaster.
I won't respond to private emails that are on topic for urg
but if you need to email me for any other reason, put ransoms
at jandg dot demon dot co dot uk where you see

On 22/11/04 8:20 pm, in article , "Jane
Ransom" wrote:

In article , Sacha
writes
the struggle over the Bill was not just about animal
welfare and personal freedom, it was class war.

No, no, Sacha . . . 'perceived class' war!!!!!!!!

I wish, Jane. I wish.

These people know absolutely *nothing* about hunting or the types of
people who hunt.
We don't have any blue blooded huntsmen in our local hunt.
Just ordinary people . . lorry drivers, butchers, teachers, farmers etc
etc.

Ditto in South Devon - same goes for much of the shooting. A shoot near us
is run by a local game keeper, retired plumber/publican, quarry man, stone
mason - not one drop of blue blood in sight.
--

Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)

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

In article , Sacha
writes
On 22/11/04 13:46, in article , "Kay"
wrote:

In article , Sacha
writes

The ban on foxhunting is about a class war and not animal welfare a member
of the Government admitted last night.
Peter Bradley an aide to Rural Affairs Minister Alun Michael, said his
fellow Labour MPs felt so strongly about hunting because it was a chance to
"take on the gentry".

That's not quite what he said!

It was according to the web site I read!

That may be what your web site said, but it was not what Peter Bradley
said. The bit I quoted was taken from his article in the Sunday
Telegraph:

"Now that hunting has been banned, we ought at last to own up to it: the
struggle over the Bill was not just about animal welfare and personal
freedom, it was class war.

But it was not class war as we know it. It was not launched by the
tribunes against the toffs - it was the other way round. This was not
about the politics of envy but the politics of power. Ultimately it's
about who governs Britain. ... For them it's ownership of property,
especially land, and not citizenship that confers privilege. "

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. It was, therefore, class war but NOT
an animal welfare issue. The second paragraph declares that.
I don't want to hear one more word from the fluffywuffies about the poor
ickle fox, therefore. And I don't even hunt, never have!
--

Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)

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)