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

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?



Relax, you are not 'ruled' by the people of the south, you are 'ruled' by
the labour establishment, which is run, principally, by Scots.

In message , BAC
writes

"Kay" wrote in message
...

prune

Doesn't anyone believe in snipping? ;-)

Perhaps we should rename it 'pruning' here?


Sorry. Should have thought of others (however, I did post 'OT' - I
didn't mean all to read). Many apols.
--
June Hughes

In article , Sacha
writes
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.

hey, you can't take all the credit for yourself! ;-)
It took more than two people to get that thread 14 deep!
--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"

In article , BAC
writes



Relax, you are not 'ruled' by the people of the south, you are 'ruled' by
the labour establishment, which is run, principally, by Scots.

Who are, in this case, mainly living in the south ;-)


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

"Martin" wrote in message
...
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 :-)

Too bad. {:-))

Franz

"Sacha" wrote in message
k...
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.

My politeness has to be earned.

Franz

"BAC" wrote in message
...

"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,

I know that I am wrong wrong, but I don't count the other lot as part
of parliament, since its membership is not determined in a democratic
fashion

and there were no referenda
on the matter to allow regional populations' views to prevail.

I did not imply that there were referenda. There were polls by the
usual reputable polling organisations. And don't say that the polls
were flawed. The results were too overwhelmingly in favour of a ban
to allow for any possible misinterpretation of the results.

Franz

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 15:19:02 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"Sacha" wrote in message
. uk...
On 24/11/04 8:31, in article
,

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.

You might be right. The Conservative Party are desperate to find a
Tory policy that New Labour haven't already taken off them. What
better than flog and hang 'em all? Transportation to the colonies
perhaps? Disenfranchisement of women?

Yes, you are right. Blair and his lot have indeed usurped the Labour
Party as a first move to use that party to usurp the Conservative
Party.

Franz

"Sacha" wrote in message
k...
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.

It is easy to recognise a rent-a-mob when you see one.
Study the results of the opinion polls instead.

Franz

"BAC" wrote in message
...

"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.

You are welcome to imagine any things you wish. That is not a
sufficient condition for turning them into realities.

Franz

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



Relax, you are not 'ruled' by the people of the south, you are 'ruled' by
the labour establishment, which is run, principally, by Scots.

Who are, in this case, mainly living in the south ;-)


Point taken :-)

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


"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.

Nobody did. I specified "those who CHOSE not to support them". It is
sound logic to deduce that those who do not support hunting, did not
join a pro-hunt march.


True, however it would be invalid IMO to deduce that those who did not join
a pro hunt march did not support hunting, nor that those who did not support
hunting were in favour of making the activity illegal. I know that you would
not make such an elementary error but thought others might misinterpret your
meaning.

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"BAC" wrote in message
...

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"BAC" wrote in message
...

[snip]

prune

and there were no referenda
on the matter to allow regional populations' views to prevail.

I did not imply that there were referenda. There were polls by the
usual reputable polling organisations. And don't say that the polls
were flawed. The results were too overwhelmingly in favour of a ban
to allow for any possible misinterpretation of the results.


I don't know whether or not the polls were flawed, only a referendum would
settle that.

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"BAC" wrote in message
...

"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.

You are welcome to imagine any things you wish. That is not a
sufficient condition for turning them into realities.


A statement of universal applicability, if I might say so.

Franz Heymann wrote:


I did not imply that there were referenda. There were polls by the
usual reputable polling organisations. And don't say that the polls
were flawed. The results were too overwhelmingly in favour of a ban
to allow for any possible misinterpretation of the results.

Franz



Only the polls you chose to take notice off, obviously. I couldn't care one
way or the other, but what you say above is so far from the truth I felt
compelled to comment.

--
"The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a bit
longer."
-- Henry Kissinger