In message , Martin
writes
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 16:09:15 +0000, June Hughes
wrote:

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

Nor the sort that bursts out all over? :-)

Are you insinuating I am fat?
--
June Hughes

In article , BAC
writes

"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.

Yes indeed, if that's what his article had been about. But it wasn't -
it was about what motivated the pro-hunting people to react so strongly


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

Martin wrote:
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 17:17:07 +0000, June Hughes
wrote:

In message , Martin
writes
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 16:09:15 +0000, June Hughes
wrote:

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

Nor the sort that bursts out all over? :-)

Are you insinuating I am fat?

I'm insinuating that you are not :-)

My own mental image, despite the denial of being the flaming kind, is
firmly Pre-Raphaelite.

Mike.

On 24/11/04 15:19, in article , "Franz
Heymann" wrote:


"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


Then please keep your jibes to yourself. As you appear congenitally unable
to be polite, I see no reason to observe your dictates.
--

Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)

On 24/11/04 13:44, in article , "June
Hughes" wrote:

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.

I thought I was in your kill file? Please - make it so.
--

Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)

On 24/11/04 12:29, in article , "Kay"
wrote:

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.

I must say that this is not my (or others) interpretation of his remarks.
As he is a Labour MP closely involved in this issue, I think how his
comments are interpreted is very important. Obviously, we see them in
different ways.


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.

No, no. I has not been stated as such, if only because that isn't how the
wording works, though Labour MPs have said they consider hunting to be
'cruel'. But I do think it was in the background and I think it is
impossible to pretend that many anti-hunt supporters have made a great many
class-ridden remarks.

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?

The point surely is that he has introduced 'class' into the situation and
officially, that is not supposed to have anything to do with it. He has
done it cleverly, I grant, but nonetheless he has done it. In my view he
uses weasel words.


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 read it as being so because of the way in which it forced country dwellers
into defending their position. You could - or I could - say, that whoever
'started it', class was at the bottom of it all *for the politicians*. I do
not quarrel with those who are deeply convinced of what they believe, even
if I disagree with them because just a few years ago I was anti. I DO think
there has been a cynical manipulation of the issue. Who can forget John
Prescott's comments, some years ago?
snip
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 ;-)

And that is another point although a dangerous one, I know. Why should
people living in the country be 'ruled' by those who lived in towns, simply
because our population is mainly urban? Another can of worms....
But I think this has caused terrible divisions and I'm sorry for it.

snip
--

Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)

In message , Mike Lyle
writes
Martin wrote:
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 17:17:07 +0000, June Hughes
wrote:

In message , Martin
writes
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 16:09:15 +0000, June Hughes
wrote:

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

Nor the sort that bursts out all over? :-)

Are you insinuating I am fat?

I'm insinuating that you are not :-)

My own mental image, despite the denial of being the flaming kind, is
firmly Pre-Raphaelite.

Mike.


In my dreams!
--
June Hughes

On 24/11/04 17:59, in article ,
"Janet Baraclough.." wrote:

The message
from Sacha contains these words:

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.

Are you really telling us that you believe most of Britain's
country-dwellers attended that march?

The marchers represented their own view; they very obviously did not
represent the views of those absent rural-dwellers who chose not to
support them!

Janet.


I think the numbers present surprised the government which is why,
reportedly, Tony Blair had hoped that a ban would not be in place before the
next general election.
It seems to be quite possible to say that many who *would* have supported
them *could* not be there.
--

Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)

snip 6 screens of posting and 's 14 deep

Doesn't anyone believe in snipping? ;-)
--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"

In article , Sacha
writes
On 24/11/04 12:29, in article , "Kay"
wrote:

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.

No, no. I has not been stated as such, if only because that isn't how the
wording works, though Labour MPs have said they consider hunting to be
'cruel'. But I do think it was in the background and I think it is
impossible to pretend that many anti-hunt supporters have made a great many
class-ridden remarks.

erm.... I think you might have missed out a 'not' in there ;-)

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?

The point surely is that he has introduced 'class' into the situation and
officially,

That's not the point in this bit - we were talking about whether a
junior MP writing in a newspaper is to be assumed to be stating the
policy of his party. If that is the assumption to be made, then all
three parties have an awful lot of conflicting policies ;-)

that is not supposed to have anything to do with it. He has
done it cleverly, I grant, but nonetheless he has done it. In my view he
uses weasel words.


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 read it as being so because of the way in which it forced country dwellers
into defending their position.

What forced country dwellers into defending their position? The article?
Are you equating country dwellers with landowners? Shouldn't anyone who
expresses their opinion in a way which tries to influence others expect
to defend their position?

You could - or I could - say, that whoever
'started it', class was at the bottom of it all *for the politicians*.

I'm not arguing either for or against that. My argument all along has
been that Peter bradley's article is not about who started it, in the
sense of who started the anti-hunting bill, it was about the response to
it. And I know that is not how you read the article. I guess I should
stop banging on about it because I will not convince you that your
interpretation is reading into the article things that are not there.


And that is another point although a dangerous one, I know. Why should
people living in the country be 'ruled' by those who lived in towns, simply
because our population is mainly urban? Another can of worms....

Because it's a democracy ;-)

As I said, we are all in a minority. Why should I in the north be
'ruled' by those of you living in the south simply because there are
more of you?


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

"Kay" wrote in message
...

prune

Doesn't anyone believe in snipping? ;-)

Perhaps we should rename it 'pruning' here?

"Kay" wrote in message
...
In article , BAC
writes

"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.

Yes indeed, if that's what his article had been about. But it wasn't -
it was about what motivated the pro-hunting people to react so strongly



That is not the inference I drew from it.

"Janet Baraclough.." wrote in message
...
The message
from Sacha contains these words:

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.

Are you really telling us that you believe most of Britain's
country-dwellers attended that march?

The marchers represented their own view; they very obviously did not
represent the views of those absent rural-dwellers who chose not to
support them!


It cannot be denied that those who attended the demonstration represented
their own views, and not necessarily the views of the greater number who did
not attend. However, it cannot be sound to deduce that all those who did not
attend were tacitly indicating a contrary opinion. The best way to determine
the views of the people of England and Wales over the matter would probably
have been to invite them to vote on it.

On 24/11/04 19:40, in article , "Kay"
wrote:

snip
You could - or I could - say, that whoever
'started it', class was at the bottom of it all *for the politicians*.

I'm not arguing either for or against that. My argument all along has
been that Peter bradley's article is not about who started it, in the
sense of who started the anti-hunting bill, it was about the response to
it. And I know that is not how you read the article. I guess I should
stop banging on about it because I will not convince you that your
interpretation is reading into the article things that are not there.

That's correct. Because I think they are there.


And that is another point although a dangerous one, I know. Why should
people living in the country be 'ruled' by those who lived in towns, simply
because our population is mainly urban? Another can of worms....

Because it's a democracy ;-)

As I said, we are all in a minority. Why should I in the north be
'ruled' by those of you living in the south simply because there are
more of you?


My point, exactly.
--

Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)

On 24/11/04 19:23, in article , "Kay"
wrote:

snip 6 screens of posting and 's 14 deep

Doesn't anyone believe in snipping? ;-)

Thank you, Kay. I preferred to let June make her own point and then allow
me to make mine. You can be assured that I will not be bothering urg in
this way again.
--

Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)