Martin wrote:

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 12:28:19 +0000, bigboard
wrote:

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.

It was in the New Labour election manifesto.

What was?

--
America is a large, friendly dog in a very small room. Every time it
wags its tail, it knocks over a chair.
-- Arnold Joseph Toynbee

Martin wrote:

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:07:00 +0000, bigboard
wrote:

Martin wrote:

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 12:28:19 +0000, bigboard
wrote:

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.

It was in the New Labour election manifesto.

What was?

It.

I know we're both using English words, but only one of us is using the
English language... Care to tell me what the hell you're on about?

--
Love your enemies: they'll go crazy trying to figure out what you're up
to.

Martin wrote:

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:31:09 +0000, bigboard
wrote:

Martin wrote:

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:07:00 +0000, bigboard
wrote:

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.

It was in the New Labour election manifesto.

What was?

It.

I know we're both using English words, but only one of us is using the
English language... Care to tell me what the hell you're on about?

The subject which was polled and about which some think there should
be a referendum.

That's what I thought. I only asked because I couldn't for the life of me
see what your comment had to do with my comment.

--
Alimony is a system by which, when two people make a mistake, one of
them keeps paying for it.
-- Peggy Joyce

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 12:03:37 -0000, "BAC"
wrote:


"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"BAC" wrote in message
...

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"BAC" wrote in message
...

prune

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.

GB & NI isn't governed by means of referendums.


True, although they have been used on matters affecting devolution and will
be used regarding the euro and the euro constitution as soon as the
Government thinks it will win. But that doesn't invalidate my point that the
only way to determine whether the polls Franz referred to were accurate
would have been to test their results against a referendum posing the same
question.

In article , Sacha
writes
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.

I have been following this thread with interest and agree with an awful
lot that Sacha says. I ride but I have never hunted, never wanted to
but I have had the opportunity to do so where it was part of one's life
and I declined; not because I see the fox as an "itsybitsypet" - not
because that the dogs will kill it- but simply because I find the idea
of a large number of grown people, yes, grocers, postman, landlady as
well as the local landowners, jumping over hill and dale with an
expression of glee in the chase. I personally can enjoy the same glee
when riding hell for leather - I don't need to chase hounds to achieve
this.

I don't have a problem with a farmer, with hounds, culling foxes - I
only have a problem with the enjoyment aspect of it - I take no pleasure
in killing an animal in this manner, for any reason. Some of my friends
would disagree with me and put forward the view of the keeping numbers
down. I agree wholeheartedly with them - I know all the drawbacks of
the destructive nature of foxes - I have no objection of them being
killed but I really do not feel it takes numerous people and a pack of
hounds to dispatch a fox humanely.



--
Judith Lea

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:31:09 +0000, bigboard
wrote:

Martin wrote:

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:07:00 +0000, bigboard
wrote:

prune

It was in the New Labour election manifesto.

What was?

It.

I know we're both using English words, but only one of us is using the
English language... Care to tell me what the hell you're on about?

The subject which was polled and about which some think there should
be a referendum.

If you mean hunting with hounds, the Manifesto commitment was to allow
parliament to reach a decision, I think. That decision could have been
anything from status quo to a total ban, including a licensing option linked
to a regional referendum to allow the regional population to take the
decision, or devolution of the decision to local authorities, much like the
Scots parliament took the decision for its part of the UK. So the manifesto
did not rule out a referendum on the matter.

I do believe putting the matter to a popular vote would have been wise. Not
only would it have given an accurate indication of public opinion,
individuals might have been more willing to accept the 'verdict' if it could
honestly have been said to be the people's decision rather than the result
of a free vote amongst a few hundred other individuals.

And we might not be quite so apathetic about politics in general if we were
actually allowed to vote on some issues, rather than merely given a limited
choice every now and again between which of very similar parties takes a
turn at muddling through for the next few years.

I doubt whether anyone who voted for a New Labour candidate at the last
election supported every single policy in the party's manifesto, let alone
every single personal opinion of the candidate, and to pretend that is so on
an issue which, although relatively trivial seems to be splitting the
nation, when a means of determining the public's wishes is easily available,
strikes me as plain daft.

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 15:07:47 -0000, "BAC"
wrote:


I doubt whether anyone who voted for a New Labour candidate at the last
election supported every single policy in the party's manifesto, let
alone
every single personal opinion of the candidate, and to pretend that is so
on
an issue which, although relatively trivial seems to be splitting the
nation, when a means of determining the public's wishes is easily
available,
strikes me as plain daft.

If you want to change the British political system, this is not the
newsgroup for it.

Just sowing some seeds.

BAC wrote:
"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 12:03:37 -0000, "BAC"
wrote:


"Franz Heymann" wrote in
message
...

"BAC" wrote in message
...

"Franz Heymann" wrote in
message ...

"BAC" wrote in message
...

prune

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.

GB & NI isn't governed by means of referendums.


True, although they have been used on matters affecting devolution
and will be used regarding the euro and the euro constitution as
soon
as the Government thinks it will win. But that doesn't invalidate
my
point that the only way to determine whether the polls Franz
referred
to were accurate would have been to test their results against a
referendum posing the same question.

Market research firms make their living by being generally reliable;
if several outfits independently reach the same conclusion by a
considerable margin, I'd strongly urge you not to bet your shirt on
their being wrong.

Mike.

Martin wrote:
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 16:07:25 -0000, "BAC"
wrote:


"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 15:07:47 -0000, "BAC"
wrote:


I doubt whether anyone who voted for a New Labour candidate at
the
last election supported every single policy in the party's
manifesto, let alone every single personal opinion of the
candidate, and to pretend that is so on an issue which, although
relatively trivial seems to be splitting the nation, when a
means
of determining the public's wishes is easily available, strikes
me
as plain daft.

If you want to change the British political system, this is not
the
newsgroup for it.

Just sowing some seeds.


or letting them fall on the barren ground?

I keep telling people not to cover seeds with unrotted muck, but do
they listen?

Mike.

In article , Kay
writes

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.

We have had this argument before, haven't we ))))))))))

The reason I don't have a cat is that our garden is a haven for birds
and I can't bear the thought of the slaughter that would take place if I
introduced a cat into it (( I have seen my mother's and my daughter's
cats in action.

A huntsman will make no bones about it; he will tell the world that his
purpose is to kill foxes.
His 50-60 hounds will kill a few foxes in a year. Once the pack catches
a fox, it dies in seconds.

A cat owner will wriggle and squirm and tell the world that a cat is
doing only what comes naturally to it and that, anyway, his/her cat
never kills anything - it is always someone else's cat.
One solitary little cat will kill dozens of small mammals/birds in a
year. Once a cat catches something, it tortures it for hours before the
poor thing finally keels over and dies.

I'm not pro hunt, I'm not anti hunt. But at least I can respect the
hunters for being un-hypocritical.

BTW, I don't think people who go hunting *do* find entertainment in the
killing of a fox. Most of them don't see the actual death and find
entertainment in having a good gallop across the countryside, and a
drink afterwards, with a group of like minded people!!!!!!!!

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

"BAC" wrote in message
...

"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.

That would be your problem..............
I, in turn, don't know how one would skew a poll to show quite as
convincing majority in favour of a ban without making it glaringly
obvious that one has skewed the results. That I find hard to swallow,
since the polls were conducted by the usual, respected polling
organisations, which would not wish to have their reputations
destroyed.

Franz

"BAC" wrote in message
...

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 12:03:37 -0000, "BAC"
wrote:


"Franz Heymann" wrote in
message
...

"BAC" wrote in message
...

"Franz Heymann" wrote in
message
...

"BAC" wrote in message
...

prune

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.

GB & NI isn't governed by means of referendums.


True, although they have been used on matters affecting devolution
and will
be used regarding the euro and the euro constitution as soon as the
Government thinks it will win. But that doesn't invalidate my point
that the
only way to determine whether the polls Franz referred to were
accurate
would have been to test their results against a referendum posing
the same
question.

The details of the accuracy of the polls are not relevant here. The
majority was so overwhelmingly in favour of a ban that any reasonable
amount of error would be absorbed without changing the qualitative
result that the polulation all over the counntry, including the rural
regions normally associated with fox hunting.

It really is time you accepted the realities of the situation.
Wistfully thinking that you might have a valid point is not a valid
form of arguing.

Franz

"bigboard" wrote in message
...
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.

I took notice of all the polls that I saw reported in my daily paper.

They all pointed strongly in the same direction. Sorry bigboard, but
you have no maneuvring space on this one.

Franz

"BAC" wrote in message
...

[snip]

I do believe putting the matter to a popular vote would have been
wise.

Any wiser than putting the annual budget proposals to a popular vote?

Franz

"BAC" wrote in message
...

"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.

And you are part of that universality. Do please apply it.

Franz