"BAC" wrote in message
...

[snip]

IIRC, there was no labour party policy to ban hunting with hounds,
rather to
allow parliament to decide on hunting with hounds.

You do indeed recall correctly. Parliament voted overwhelmingly in
favour of a ban (many times), as did the majority of the population at
large when polled on the question. Those in favout of a ban were in
the majority even in counties normally closely associated with fox
hunting.

[snip]

Franz

"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?
Gary

Gary, do you not yet realise that it is winter?
Gardeners do need a bit of a rest this time of the year.
{:-))

Franz

Franz
Fort Langley, BC
Canada

In article , Sacha
writes
On 24/11/04 8:31, in article , "Kay"
wrote:


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. "

But what the Shropshire Star are not saying (in the bit you have quoted)
is that what Peter Bradley said was that it was class warfare that was
behind the opposition to the ban.

He did not say that class warfare was behind the ban itself.

His article did not set out to address the causes of the ban.

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.

Yes - that is about the reaction to the ban.

That is not saying 'the proles are fighting for a ban because the toffs
own all the land'

He is either
trotting out a party belief or he is very silly indeed to express his
personal views in this way.

Perhaps, but there is no indication that this is anything other than his
personal expression of views. To say this is Labour party policy, you
would have to draw on a ministerial statement.

He is not the only MP (of any persuasion) to use the newspapers to put
forward personal views. Do we assume that everything Boris Johnstone
says is Conservative party policy? Or that Kilroy-Silk was always
speaking for UKIP?


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 am not arguing, and haven't argued, for or against its being a class
war. What I am arguing against is using a hypothesis for the causes of
the *opposition* to a hunting ban as evidence that the proposal for the
hunting ban was based on class war. There may be lots of evidence that
the hunting ban was indeed the result of a class war, but Peter
Bradley's article is not it.

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.

As you say, we live in a democracy. There are laws passed which I oppose
with what I consider to be good reasons. But I have to accept that part
and parcel of being in a democracy is that one has to accept what may
appear to be misguided changes in legislation if that is what is decreed
by the party that the electorate has put in power.

We are all in *some* minority group ;-)

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.

I have no quarrels about the sincerity and compassion of your belief.
--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"

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)

On 24/11/04 11:56, in article , "Franz
Heymann" wrote:


"Gary" wrote in message
...
snip 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

Gary, do you not yet realise that it is winter?
Gardeners do need a bit of a rest this time of the year.
{:-))

Franz

And foxes do get into gardens...........
--

Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)

In message , Sacha
writes
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

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.


I hadn't noticed this paragraph before and am sorry if I gave you the
impression that I thought your friends had no useful knowledge to
impart. I wasn't intending to 'play any cards at all'. Nor have I yet
proffered any opinions on the subject.

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!
I didn't try to 'slam you into the ground' with _any_ knowledge,
superior or otherwise. Nor did I sneer at your answer. Nor did I say I
didn't like some of the answers. I simply failed to follow your
argument.

You were off-topic in your last reply to me. There is no company for
you in my kill-file and I find your attitude towards me thoroughly
unpleasant and nasty. That was the reason I stopped posting here in the
first place, some years ago.
--
June Hughes

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"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.

My most sincere apologies to June. In the heat of the moment I
replied in this tone to her letter, when I had in fact intended it to
be a jibe at Sacha for being so obtuse about this point.

Franz

"Sacha" wrote in message
k...
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.

Please provide a reference to one solitary statement issued by the
Labour Party in which, as you say,
"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."

If you can not, please shut up about this issue.

Franz

"Sacha" wrote in message
k...
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. "

Your cognitive powers need honing. Neither the Shropshire Star not
Mr. Peter Bradley are organs of the Labour Party. Mr. Peter Bradley's
rantings are not Labour Party policy.

I take it that within your belief system you also believe that the
Conservative Party policy is advocating the return of hanging.
Dear me, it has just occurred to md that you actually might well be of
that opinion.

[snip]

Franz

"Sacha" wrote in message
k...
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.

Quite correctly so. I am sorry that your link does not also use the
phrase "uncivilised barbarism".

You have tried and failed to change the topic. All you succeeded in
achieving is to raise a strawman. I don't fall for strawmen.
Please remember that I am disputing your earlier statement that it was
Labour Party policy to regard the hunting issue as a class war matter.
You have failed abysmally to prove your point.

For the nth time, the rantings of individual party members does not
constitute party policy.

Franz

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"BAC" wrote in message
...

[snip]

IIRC, there was no labour party policy to ban hunting with hounds,
rather to
allow parliament to decide on hunting with hounds.

You do indeed recall correctly. Parliament voted overwhelmingly in
favour of a ban (many times), as did the majority of the population at
large when polled on the question. Those in favout of a ban were in
the majority even in counties normally closely associated with fox
hunting.


Slight correction there, if I may - only one of the houses of parliament
voted in favour of a ban on hunting with dogs, and there were no referenda
on the matter to allow regional populations' views to prevail.

Kay wrote:

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.

I personally follow my cat everywhere on horseback. Will this be illegal
under the new legislation?

My neighbours are also angry about me riding my horse up on to their shed
roof.

--
I have a simple philosophy:

Fill what's empty.
Empty what's full.
Scratch where it itches.
-- A. R. Longworth

In message , Franz Heymann
writes

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"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.

My most sincere apologies to June. In the heat of the moment I
replied in this tone to her letter, when I had in fact intended it to
be a jibe at Sacha for being so obtuse about this point.

Franz


No worries.
--
June Hughes

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"Sacha" wrote in message
snip
Please remember that I am disputing your earlier statement that it was
Labour Party policy to regard the hunting issue as a class war matter.
You have failed abysmally to prove your point.

For the nth time, the rantings of individual party members does not
constitute party policy.


You are, of course, correct, however I don't see why the MP's remarks should
be dismissed as 'rantings' in this instance. As he was an 'insider' who
witnessed the process first hand, and, presumably, was privy to many
discussions with and between colleagues on the issue, I'd imagine his
observations and insights on what motivated a number of them might have a
degree of credibility.

In message , Martin
writes
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 15:19:00 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"June Hughes" wrote in message
...

Vast snip

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

My most sincere apologies to June. In the heat of the moment I
replied in this tone to her letter, when I had in fact intended it to
be a jibe at Sacha for being so obtuse about this point.

When they catch you they will tear you apart too :-)

Although my name is June, I am not generally the flaming type
--
June Hughes