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.

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.
--

Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)

Sacha wrote:
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.

Well, I made my points on that. No sense in repeating if I wasn't
convincing the first time!

All along the Labour party has
presented this as a concern for animal welfare. Now they admit it
isn't.

But they don't. The article wasn't about Labour Party policy at all.
You just can't get there from here, as the saying is.

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.

Which is what what-is-name was saying, from the other side of the
argument.

Mike.

In article , Derek Moody
wrote:

Nothing at all. Pete the Troll is forging posts in my name again.
Here he reiterates his true obsession:

Another pro hunt prick in denial. Why do you faggots always lie about

Cheerio,

--

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.

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'.
--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"

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.
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.
--
June Hughes

"Sacha" wrote in message
k...

[snip]

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.

Please give a reference to a statement by the Labour Party which
suports your opinion on the matter. If you fail, I will inform you
that the Conservative Party has said that it will reintroduce hanging
for murder.

Franz

"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
...
Sacha wrote:
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.

Well, I made my points on that. No sense in repeating if I wasn't
convincing the first time!

All along the Labour party has
presented this as a concern for animal welfare. Now they admit it
isn't.

But they don't. The article wasn't about Labour Party policy at all.
You just can't get there from here, as the saying is.

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.

Which is what what-is-name was saying, from the other side of the
argument.


IIRC, there was no labour party policy to ban hunting with hounds, rather to
allow parliament to decide on hunting with hounds. I read 'what's his
name's' article as expressing his opinion that many of his colleagues were
motivated in the matter not so much by animal welfare concerns as by a
desire to ram home the message that they were the bosses now, not the old
landed classes.

To suggest that the opponents of a ban engineered the situation in some sort
of Quixotic attempt to establish the opposite of that seems a little far
fetched, to me.

On 11/24/04 1:17 AM, in article , "Franz
Heymann" wrote:


"Sacha" wrote in message
k...

[snip]

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.

Please give a reference to a statement by the Labour Party which
suports your opinion on the matter. If you fail, I will inform you
that the Conservative Party has said that it will reintroduce hanging
for murder.

Franz


Gardening! This newsgroup, as I was once told, is about gardening. Should
you all want to discuss foxes and political stuff please go to the
appropriate site. This is a gardening newsgroup. Have you not read the Faqs?
Gary
Fort Langley, BC
Canada

On 23/11/04 23:40, in article , "Mike Lyle"
wrote:

Sacha wrote:
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.

Well, I made my points on that. No sense in repeating if I wasn't
convincing the first time!

All along the Labour party has
presented this as a concern for animal welfare. Now they admit it
isn't.

But they don't. The article wasn't about Labour Party policy at all.
You just can't get there from here, as the saying is.

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.

Which is what what-is-name was saying, from the other side of the
argument.

Mike.


As far as I can see, while no doubt many people are genuinely anti-hunting,
the Labour party is admitting that it encouraged and manipulated the issue
using old fashioned class prejudice which is still rife among many of its
members.
--

Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)

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)

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.
--

Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)

On 24/11/04 9:17, in article , "Franz
Heymann" wrote:


"Sacha" wrote in message
k...

[snip]

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.

Please give a reference to a statement by the Labour Party which
suports your opinion on the matter. If you fail, I will inform you
that the Conservative Party has said that it will reintroduce hanging
for murder.

From the Guildford Labour arty site:
Local MP defends her support for hunting
Sue Doughty has consistently voted for the continuation of hunting on a
number of spurious grounds.

* She claims that hunting is the 'least worst' method of killing foxes
because the alternative of shooting may result in the fox being wounded to
later die a long lingering death. So apparently she thinks that the slow
death of a fox is more cruel than the quicker ritualised slaughter of
hunting when the fox is subjected to a terrifying chase to the point of
exhaustion, then savaged by the dogs and ripped apart whilst still alive.
* That really the argument is essentially a 'touch of class warfare' -
the fox hunters' main argument. Neither Sue Doughty nor the hunters seem to
appreciate that it is ONLY an issue of animal cruelty. That is the reason
for the ban, for exactly the same reasons that cock fighting and bear
baiting were banned.
From the Watford Labour Party site:
Watford Labour Party welcomes fox hunting ban
*
Claire Ward was amongst the overwhelming majority of MPs who have voted in
the Commons to ban fox hunting with dogs.
*
In the debate on the Bill, which is due to be passed over to the House of
Lords for a final decision next month, Claire said: ³I think fox hunting is
a brutal activity that should have been banned a long time ago.

Remarks by Tony Blair:

Press conference, 7 September 2004: "In relation to hunting my personal
position remains the same"

Breakfast with Frost, 29 September 2002: "I think it is cruel and I do not
understand why people want to do it in that way....I have voted in a
particular way in the past and I retain that view about fox-hunting."

Lobby Briefing 17th January 2001: "In answer to questions about the Prime
Minister's view on hunting, Alastair Campbell said the Prime Minister
believed that hunting was cruel". [from the 10 Downing Street website]

http://www.labour.org.uk/news/foxhuntingbill

This links uses the word 'cruelty' several times as its concern.
--

Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)

"Gary" wrote in message
...
On 11/24/04 1:17 AM, in article ,
"Franz
Heymann" wrote:


"Sacha" wrote in message
k...

[snip]

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.

Please give a reference to a statement by the Labour Party which
suports your opinion on the matter. If you fail, I will inform you
that the Conservative Party has said that it will reintroduce hanging
for murder.

Franz


Gardening! This newsgroup, as I was once told, is about gardening. Should
you all want to discuss foxes and political stuff please go to the
appropriate site. This is a gardening newsgroup. Have you not read the
Faqs?

Yes, I've read the FAQ's, and the Charter, and, a long time ago, I used to
read the Beano and write letters to Santa Claus.

It's wishful thinking to expect newsgroup regulars to refrain from all
discussion of 'burning' local issues amongst themselves. The subject may be
'off topic' but it is currently very topical indeed.

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.
--
June Hughes

"June Hughes" wrote in message
...
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.
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.

You give every appearance of being congenitally unable to understand
what you read. Perhaps you ought to consult an expert.

Franz
--
June Hughes