Repeal of Hunting Act

[Major Sinic]

Eric Pickles confirmed today that a future Conservative Government will allow a free vote in government time regarding the repeal of this legislation.

This badly drafted, class driven, poorly implemented and unenforceable piece of legislation only became law because of the misuse of the Parliament Act, and despite public opinion to the contrary.

It was passed before the conclusions of an independent report commissioned by New Labour were even published. Not surprisingly when the Burns report was published it concluded that animal welfare was unlikely to be served by a ban on hunting with hounds.

It has made criminals of many otherwise law abiding, hard working and socially responsible members of our society from all walks of life, who refused to obey an unjust law which removed rights enjoyed for centuries.

That there have been only three public prosecutions and one conviction, which is pending appeal, illustrates the inability and unwillingness of the authorities to enforce this illiberal legislation certainly within England.

The sooner it is repealed the better.

[Opinionated]

Eric Pickles confirmed today that a future Conservative Government will allow a free vote in government time regarding the repeal of this legislation.

Sure, that would be my top priority for repealing legislation introduced under NuLab!

This badly drafted, class driven, poorly implemented and unenforceable piece of legislation only became law because of the misuse of the Parliament Act, and despite public opinion to the contrary.

Oh and repealing it wouldn't be pandering to a small minority of largely well off and upper class (I know not exclusively so) people? The majority of people do instinctively disapprove of hunting with hounds, sure they probably haven't examined all the evidence but sometimes majority rules in a democracy.

It was passed before the conclusions of an independent report commissioned by New Labour were even published. Not surprisingly when the Burns report was published it concluded that animal welfare was unlikely to be served by a ban on hunting with hounds.

Well I've not read the report so I can't really comment on it's findings, but I do know that even putting aside the horrible death of the fox the dogs are generally treated well only up to the point where they are no longer young able to keep up with the pack and then most of them are unable to adapt to life as a domestic animal and so terminated before their time, that's quite possibly the definition of cruelty isn't it?

It has made criminals of many otherwise law abiding, hard working and socially responsible members of our society from all walks of life, who refused to obey an unjust law which removed rights enjoyed for centuries.

Hmhm, rights enjoyed by a certain class, any reason why we shouldn't re-legalise cock fighting, bear baiting or dog fighting for the lower classes? I personally think they are all disgusting "sports".

That there have been only three public prosecutions and one conviction, which is pending appeal, illustrates the inability and unwillingness of the authorities to enforce this illiberal legislation certainly within England.

Or does it tell us that certain people are "above" the law? You know what, there are certain laws I'd love to ignore but I don't because I don't think I'm above the law!

The sooner it is repealed the better.

As I say, should this really be a top priority for a government inheriting the current mess? If the Tories make this a top priority then they are only proving that they have not changed from the nasty party of the eighties and nineties!

[pauli007001]

Sure, that would be my top priority for repealing legislation introduced under NuLab!

Oh and repealing it wouldn't be pandering to a small minority of largely well off and upper class (I know not exclusively so) people? The majority of people do instinctively disapprove of hunting with hounds, sure they probably haven't examined all the evidence but sometimes majority rules in a democracy.


Well I've not read the report so I can't really comment on it's findings, but I do know that even putting aside the horrible death of the fox the dogs are generally treated well only up to the point where they are no longer young able to keep up with the pack and then most of them are unable to adapt to life as a domestic animal and so terminated before their time, that's quite possibly the definition of cruelty isn't it?
Hmhm, rights enjoyed by a certain class, any reason why we shouldn't re-legalise cock fighting, bear baiting or dog fighting for the lower classes? I personally think they are all disgusting "sports".
Or does it tell us that certain people are "above" the law? You know what, their are certain laws I'd love to ignore but I don't because I don't think I'm above the law!
As I say, should this really be a top priority for a government inheriting the current mess? If the Tories make this a top priority then they are only proving that they have not changed from the nasty party of the eighties and nineties!

People of a cirtain class may enjoy a Hunt?

When I used to ride with a Hunt it was attended mostly by Farm Labourers, Enlisted Men in the Army,2 local shopkeepers and a Plumber.There were 2 minor aristocrats, Father and Son, the poorest of the lot.
The Organisation of the Hunt created jobs within the local economy, which was generally Rural.The countryside alliance has Proven that NULAB desires to remove all those who make their living from the countryside, probably so that Nulab MPs can concrete over the entire country and build homes for themselves, that and Amusment parks to entertain the proles!!!!

Nulabs actions against the country folk of the UK are nothing short of hate driven acts of evil.The suffering of Farmers and their familys matters not.Drive em all to suicide and then they are no longer a problem.......

[Major Sinic]

Sure, that would be my top priority for repealing legislation introduced under NuLab!

It wouldn't be mine, but it would be on the list.

Oh and repealing it wouldn't be pandering to a small minority of largely well off and upper class (I know not exclusively so) people? The majority of people do instinctively disapprove of hunting with hounds, sure they probably haven't examined all the evidence but sometimes majority rules in a democracy.

Many people from all classes and backgrounds enjoy hunting with hounds. It is no longer exclusive to the moneyed gentry. Opinion polls taken in the lead up to the vote, varied between 55-78% against an outright ban.

Well I've not read the report so I can't really comment on it's findings, but I do know that even putting aside the horrible death of the fox the dogs are generally treated well only up to the point where they are no longer young able to keep up with the pack and then most of them are unable to adapt to life as a domestic animal and so terminated before their time, that's quite possibly the definition of cruelty isn't it?

The fox is invariably killed outright by the first hound, or it escapes unscathed. Far more humane than gas, poison or shotgun, when many suffer a lingering death. Yes hounds are humanely destroyed when their working days are done, as are most horses. An animal has no concept of life expectancy, and a quick, painless and humane end is better than we provide for many people.

Hmhm, rights enjoyed by a certain class, any reason why we shouldn't re-legalise cock fighting, bear baiting or dog fighting for the lower classes? I personally think they are all disgusting "sports".

I agree, along with badger baiting. The pain to the animal is long and drawn out. The end for the fox is virtually instant.

Or does it tell us that certain people are "above" the law? You know what, there are certain laws I'd love to ignore but I don't because I don't think I'm above the law!

No. it is because the law is in reality unenforceable. The government were advised that this would be the case by most rural police forces.

As I say, should this really be a top priority for a government inheriting the current mess? If the Tories make this a top priority then they are only proving that they have not changed from the nasty party of the eighties and nineties!

I don't think that it will be a top priority. However it is reassuring to know that the probable incoming government recognises illiberal and bad legislation and acknowledges the need to review it.

[JacquesMagique]

Many people from all classes and backgrounds enjoy hunting with hounds. It is no longer exclusive to the moneyed gentry. Opinion polls taken in the lead up to the vote, varied between 55-78% against an outright ban.

Poll - Public Attitudes Towards The Ban On Hunting With Dogs

Fox-hunting ban strongly backed, says new poll - This Britain, UK - The Independent

BBC News | UK POLITICS | Public back hunt ban, suggests poll

Other way round I'm afraid.

The fox is invariably killed outright by the first hound, or it escapes unscathed. Far more humane than gas, poison or shotgun, when many suffer a lingering death. Yes hounds are humanely destroyed when their working days are done, as are most horses. An animal has no concept of life expectancy, and a quick, painless and humane end is better than we provide for many people.


I agree, along with badger baiting. The pain to the animal is long and drawn out. The end for the fox is virtually instant.

Can you imagine the stress of having your home blocked up and being chased by dogs? Can't imagine that bit is particularly enjoyable. Furthermore whilst I can't find the video right now, I've seen one where a foxes legs keep getting bitten by hounds as it runs away and then eventually they kill it, but not with the supposed bite to the back of the neck everyone always talks about.
[/QUOTE]

[Major Sinic]

Poll - Public Attitudes Towards The Ban On Hunting With Dogs

Fox-hunting ban strongly backed, says new poll - This Britain, UK - The Independent

BBC News | UK POLITICS | Public back hunt ban, suggests poll

Other way round I'm afraid.


Can you imagine the stress of having your home blocked up and being chased by dogs? Can't imagine that bit is particularly enjoyable. Furthermore whilst I can't find the video right now, I've seen one where a foxes legs keep getting bitten by hounds as it runs away and then eventually they kill it, but not with the supposed bite to the back of the neck everyone always talks about.

This depends which of the many available opinion polls you select. When I have a minute I will dig out a couple which support my view, and we can have a battle of the polls.


As someone who was brought up in the country and within a rural environment, I am rather matter of fact about life and death having seen it start and end more often, I suspect, than most. I have never accepted the townie's favourite analogy of giving wild, or even domestic, animals human thought processes and emotions. Basil Brush is a glove puppet!

I have hunted for decades, and have witnessed the kill on countless occasions, and have only ever once witnessed a fox injured before death. I am not saying it never happens, but it is very rare. It is my opinion, and that of most people with experience of the alternatives, that hunting is as humane as any and more humane than the alternatives. It also creates a more natural selection in culling. The older and infirm are caught whilst the younger and fitter escape. This is nature's way. It is not by coincidence we have the healthiest red fox population in Europe.

[/QUOTE]
-----

[Opinionated]

The fox is invariably killed outright by the first hound, or it escapes unscathed. Far more humane than gas, poison or shotgun, when many suffer a lingering death. Yes hounds are humanely destroyed when their working days are done, as are most horses. An animal has no concept of life expectancy, and a quick, painless and humane end is better than we provide for many people.

I think this may be video Jacques was looking for to dispute that "fact":
YouTube - IFAW Pre-Ban Stag Hunting Footage - WARNING. Also why does the MFH (Master of Fox Hounds) normally carry a rifle to humanely finish off the animal, if the hounds are quick to do the job? Quite often the fox dies before being caught from an adrenaline overload causing it's heart to fail.

No. it is because the law is in reality unenforceable. The government were advised that this would be the case by most rural police forces.

No law is unenforceable, rural police have just always sided with the hunters. Once apon a time when I was a naive teenager going through that vegetarian phase that comes complete with the anaemic look and believing (as I still do) in passive resistence I used to go along to hunts with the sabateurs (nothing violent just planting alternative scents for the dogs) and I can tell you that the police most definately were friendly (to say the least) with the hunt organisers and less than friendly to us "townies".
Do you really think that if there was a campaign in towns where a minority of people openly flouted the smoking ban, for example, as a political statement, that the police wouldn't do the job they are paid to do?

People of a certain class may enjoy a Hunt?
When I used to ride with a Hunt it was attended mostly by Farm Labourers, Enlisted Men in the Army,2 local shopkeepers and a Plumber.There were 2 minor aristocrats, Father and Son, the poorest of the lot.

Which is why I said not exclusively so and started with "well off" not aristocracy. There are also aristocracy who are very anti fox-hunting, due to the poor treatment of the horses on the whole. It's an issue that divides the rural community as well as families.

The Organisation of the Hunt created jobs within the local economy, which was generally Rural.The countryside alliance has Proven that NULAB desires to remove all those who make their living from the countryside, probably so that Nulab MPs can concrete over the entire country and build homes for themselves, that and Amusment parks to entertain the proles!!!!

Which could easily have been seamlessly replaced by the introduction of proper drag hunting, if the hunt was about the social side as pro-hunters claim then why would that not continue without the fox? Here's my problem with fox hunting, I understand the need to keep their population under control etc., but just stop lying that the fact the hunt is enjoyable isn't because it satisfies a baser instinct of blood lust. It is not an enlightened activity is it? And no animals presumably have no concept of life expectancy, but my problem is the callousness with which perfectly healthy horses and dogs are thrown away.

Nulabs actions against the country folk of the UK are nothing short of hate driven acts of evil.The suffering of Farmers and their familys matters not.Drive em all to suicide and then they are no longer a problem.......

Yes, I agree that NuLab has ignored many of the problems which face rural communities, it still doesn't give them the right to act above the law. The Conservatives seem to be getting more nervous as time goes by that perhaps the majority they are bound to get wont be as wide as they hope and are starting to pander to their old base. That's OK though everyone deserves representation.

[Major Sinic]

I think this may be video Jacques was looking for to dispute that "fact":
YouTube - IFAW Pre-Ban Stag Hunting Footage - WARNING. Also why does the MFH (Master of Fox Hounds) normally carry a rifle to humanely finish off the animal, if the hounds are quick to do the job? Quite often the fox dies before being caught from an adrenaline overload causing it's heart to fail.

Some of the myths that abound! No MFH ever carries a rifle! The Huntsman (not the MFH) carries a pistol. The main reason for the pistol was to shoot the fox when it was put up by terriers after it had gone to ground. This was because the MFHA code of conduct forbade the continued hunting of a fox which had gone to ground. The landowner or farmer may however have required the fox to be killed, and since we were there as guests and vermin like foxes were, and still are, a nuisance to farmers, we would need to oblige. This culling was always carried out by the Huntsman.

No law is unenforceable, rural police have just always sided with the hunters. Once apon a time when I was a naive teenager going through that vegetarian phase that comes complete with the anaemic look and believing (as I still do) in passive resistence I used to go along to hunts with the sabateurs (nothing violent just planting alternative scents for the dogs) and I can tell you that the police most definately were friendly (to say the least) with the hunt organisers and less than friendly to us "townies".
Do you really think that if there was a campaign in towns where a minority of people openly flouted the smoking ban, for example, as a political statement, that the police wouldn't do the job they are paid to do?

It is the practicality of enforcing the ban which persuades local constabularies that it isn't an efficient use of police time. Of the hundred plus mounted followers who is hunting hounds? Who is the MFH? What evidence is there that the huntsman simply lost control of the pack? What do they do with the horse belonging to the person they have arrested? and on it goes!


Which is why I said not exclusively so and started with "well off" not aristocracy. There are also aristocracy who are very anti fox-hunting, due to the poor treatment of the horses on the whole. It's an issue that divides the rural community as well as families.

Another myth. The vast majority of riders as a very minimum at least respect their horses and look after them if only as valuable assets. The rare occurrences of poor treatment of horses or hounds would usually result in a ban from the hunt.

Which could easily have been seamlessly replaced by the introduction of proper drag hunting, if the hunt was about the social side as pro-hunters claim then why would that not continue without the fox? Here's my problem with fox hunting, I understand the need to keep their population under control etc., but just stop lying that the fact the hunt is enjoyable isn't because it satisfies a baser instinct of blood lust. It is not an enlightened activity is it? And no animals presumably have no concept of life expectancy, but my problem is the callousness with which perfectly healthy horses and dogs are thrown away.

Drag hunting is a totally different sport jumping over a course of fences. Most fox hunters enjoy the chase, galloping over countryside, jumping natural obstacles, and watching the hounds hunt. Many however never jump a stick, and use their knowledge to traverse the country at a trot often arriving at the same time as the 'thrusters'. Only a few are usually up with the hounds at the kill, whilst many people who have hunted for years have never seen a kill. Hunters' blood lust is another urban myth. I don't lie. I loved hunting, the excitement, the danger, the adrenalin, being at one with my horse, the camaraderie, the fresh air, the countryside but I got no pleasure from seeing a fox killed, relief that it invariably happened instantly, certainly and pleasure at the skill of the hounds definitely.

Healthy horses are never 'thrown away' and pack animals like fox hounds , once their hunting days are over, have no other quality of life. They can not be domesticated. A quick, painless end is by far the kindest solution.

Yes, I agree that NuLab has ignored many of the problems which face rural communities, it still doesn't give them the right to act above the law. The Conservatives seem to be getting more nervous as time goes by that perhaps the majority they are bound to get wont be as wide as they hope and are starting to pander to their old base. That's OK though everyone deserves representation.

I am delighted to agree with most of this paragraph at least!

[DTE]

Eric Pickles confirmed today that a future Conservative Government will allow a free vote in government time regarding the repeal of this legislation.

This badly drafted, class driven, poorly implemented and unenforceable piece of legislation only became law because of the misuse of the Parliament Act, and despite public opinion to the contrary.

It was passed before the conclusions of an independent report commissioned by New Labour were even published. Not surprisingly when the Burns report was published it concluded that animal welfare was unlikely to be served by a ban on hunting with hounds.

It has made criminals of many otherwise law abiding, hard working and socially responsible members of our society from all walks of life, who refused to obey an unjust law which removed rights enjoyed for centuries.

That there have been only three public prosecutions and one conviction, which is pending appeal, illustrates the inability and unwillingness of the authorities to enforce this illiberal legislation certainly within England.

The sooner it is repealed the better.

Quite right too. This law exists only as class warfare, yes its cruel, but so is pest control in other forms, animal testing and all manner of other perfectly legal things we don't bat an eyelid at. The introduction of the law was labour sticking it to the upper classes and hiding behind flimsy animal rights evidence.

I have no interest in going on a hunt, and TBH most posh/rich people really get on my t*ts, but if thats how they want to spend a Saturday, then who are the government to tell them they can't? Not to mention the amount of money the hunt makes for the local community, and the people who depend on this income are usually not from the upper classes either. Its a classic example of people thinking with their hearts rather than heads and getting caught up in the emotive aspects of the case, rather than looking at things pragmatically. It doesn't help that plum-mouthed tosspots like Ottis Ferry are on the other side either, as it just turns the public away from the cause and onto the 'ban the hunt' bandwagon.

[Opinionated]

Its a classic example of people thinking with their hearts rather than heads and getting caught up in the emotive aspects of the case.

Why is that wrong though? The abolition of slavery was finally won on emotive arguments as was ending child labour etc.

It also creates a more natural selection in culling. The older and infirm are caught whilst the younger and fitter escape. This is nature's way. It is not by coincidence we have the healthiest red fox population in Europe.

I think this is the Major's winning argument myself; but I would still vote in favour of keeping the ban because I can't help thinking it's distasteful in the least to turn the brutal (having your throat ripped out is a brutal death even if instant) killing of a living creature into sport!
As for the issue of horse treatment, I'm not a "horsey person", it's just an argument I have heard from those who are (probably the only issue I would agree with these people on) which is why I included it. I do have a problem with any dog being bred for its violent tendancies though, if an animal isn't capable of being domesticated then it should be left in the wild.

[octopus]

Why is that wrong though? The abolition of slavery was finally won on emotive arguments as was ending child labour etc.

I think this is the Major's winning argument myself; but I would still vote in favour of keeping the ban because I can't help thinking it's distasteful in the least to turn the brutal (having your throat ripped out is a brutal death even if instant) killing of a living creature into sport!
As for the issue of horse treatment, I'm not a "horsey person", it's just an argument I have heard from those who are (probably the only issue I would agree with these people on) which is why I included it. I do have a problem with any dog being bred for its violent tendancies though, if an animal isn't capable of being domesticated then it should be left in the wild.

It never fails to amaze me. Our "do-gooders" in the Conservative party are quite prepared to sentence innocent animals to death on a whim, just to secure votes from the rich, who hunt, and get off, on this vile kind of entertainment, but haven"t got the stomach, to put a rope around the neck of a piece of human filth like Ian Huntley, or such like. Funny old world, isn"t it?

[Major Sinic]

It never fails to amaze me. Our "do-gooders" in the Conservative party are quite prepared to sentence innocent animals to death on a whim, just to secure votes from the rich, who hunt, and get off, on this vile kind of entertainment, but haven"t got the stomach, to put a rope around the neck of a piece of human filth like Ian Huntley, or such like. Funny old world, isn"t it?

Your post is rather like the curate's egg; good in parts or at least one part!

First of all you will find 'do-gooders', which I usually consider a euphemism for ineffective, interfering busy bodies, exist in every mainstream political party and walk of life. Foxes are vermin and a substantial nuisance to a large number of farmers. Even the most committed 'bunny huggers' accept that they need to be controlled. If anything, the banning of hunting with hounds, if effective, would lead to the death of many more foxes, than if hunting were left well alone. That said I am not suggesting that those who do it, do not find it enjoyable and exciting. I did for many years.

Secondly, hunting is not limited to just the rich or the Conservatives. Many New Labour and Liberal Democrats enjoy hunting as do many people with financially modest occupations. Perhaps the Conservatives agree with senior New Labour MP Kate Hoey and Liberal Democrat, Lembit Opik that it was an ill-concieved, poorly drafted and illiberal piece of legislation, which contributes nothing to animal welfare.

You are fully entitled to call it 'vile entertainment'. I disagree and suspect you have no real knowledge about the activity; I won't goad you by referring to it as a country sport!

Not all murders deserve capital punishment, and I understand and respect the views of those who consider it unjustifiable under any circumstances. That said I agree with you about Ian Huntley and others guilty of a similar level of depravity, and would be in favour of capital punishment by lethal injection in such cases.

[Citizen Smith]

A cruel, sadistic pastime of the idle rich.

[Major Sinic]

Why is that wrong though? The abolition of slavery was finally won on emotive arguments as was ending child labour etc.

I think this is the Major's winning argument myself; but I would still vote in favour of keeping the ban because I can't help thinking it's distasteful in the least to turn the brutal (having your throat ripped out is a brutal death even if instant) killing of a living creature into sport!
As for the issue of horse treatment, I'm not a "horsey person", it's just an argument I have heard from those who are (probably the only issue I would agree with these people on) which is why I included it. I do have a problem with any dog being bred for its violent tendancies though, if an animal isn't capable of being domesticated then it should be left in the wild.

It is not accurate to describe a fox hound as being bred for its violent tendencies, and that this is the reason it can not be domesticated. They are a pack animal by nature and rearing. As such when you remove them from the pack they pine and withdraw.

As young puppies virtually all hounds are put with a country family ( a minimum of a 'couple' or two hounds) for four/five months or so. They live outside in a kennel, but part of the process is to familiarise them with humans. It is a hectic, demanding pastime but immensely rewarding to 'walk hounds'. My extensive personal experience is that hounds are immensely boisterous, never still and immensely affectionate, (unless you have the misfortune to be a fox). It is this and their essential requirement for upwards of 8/10 miles exercise per day, and 25 miles plus on a hunting day which prevents successful domestication not vicious tendencies. Far more vicious tendencies are to be found in 'domestic breeds'

This is why there are no reports that I am aware of, of a fox hound attacking a human.

[Major Sinic]

A cruel, sadistic pastime of the idle rich.

In your opinion, based on minimal knowledge or understanding. Many who hunt are people with modestly paid occupations. I hunted for 30+ years and still did a 50 and sometimes a 60 hour week in my business. So 'idle rich' is another over used and inaccurate sound bite.

Sadistic suggests pleasure at inflicting pain. I don't recall meeting anyone who hunted who got pleasure from this aspect, so you are wrong again. Sadists tend to enjoy the much more drawn out forms of causing pain such as badger baiting, dog fighting and cock fighting which are thankfully banned.

[JAMC]

The ban on foxhunting

• was class driven - namely the lower-middle class that defected to Labour in '97 going after the bastions of the old order.
• wasted hundreds of hours of parliamentary time debating what is, if we're honest, an issue firmly at the bottom of the priority list.
• damaged rural communities, yet brought no obvious benefit to the sub-urban communities that are home to the people that largely supported the ban.

What may I ask was the point of all that?

I also lament the number of parliamentary hours that will be consumed debating it's repeal. Thinking about it, this could be modern Britain's 18th amendment.

[Citizen Smith]

I personally think its bad when society takes delight in killing things for no reason.
As I said before, its mostly the privileged who enjoy this sport any way.
As for Sadists enjoying more drawn out forms- of course they do. But just because hunting isn't as bad as some other things, doesn't mean its okay.

[pauli007001]

A cruel, sadistic pastime of the idle rich.

I refer you to my last post, i am neither Idle or rich, when i rode with the Hunt it generated jobs for local people.I was a Corporal in the Army, hardly a job for a person who is Idle or rich.Nothing cruel about controlling pests in the most effective manner possible, nothing works better than chasing down the fox, even if it gets away it wont want to come back to that area.The Fox populations were kept under controll.Today they are not.I will state here that people with infantile minds who want to save the cuddly wuddly foxy woxy from the nasty doggies really need to get their heads screwed on right.PEOPLE IN THE COUNTRYSIDE ARE DYING BECAUSE OF RETARDED LEGISLATION LIKE THIS!!!!It is a form of mass murder by the NULAB fascists targeted at the non urban public.
I suppose the life of cuddly wuddly foxy woxy is more important than a human life but a cows life counts for little, or a Goat, have you seen how they are killed???Honestly its a FOX, you know VERMIN!!!!!Why not ban Rat and mouse traps??

[Major Sinic]

I personally think its bad when society takes delight in killing things for no reason.
As I said before, its mostly the privileged who enjoy this sport any way.
As for Sadists enjoying more drawn out forms- of course they do. But just because hunting isn't as bad as some other things, doesn't mean its okay.

Foxes are not killed for no reason. They are vermin and a rural pest and a nuisance to farmers. They need to be controlled. Hunting is one way of doing this, and certainly the most natural.

Whether you refer to the 'privileged' or the 'idle rich' you are largely wrong . As already explained hunting ceased to be the preserve of the moneyed gentry decades ago. It is an activity shared by people from all walks of life and of most political persuasions.

I am glad you acknowledge that sadists enjoy more drawn out forms of inflicting pain. The average fox hunter sees few actual kills, and they are over in a few seconds. Hardly the stuff to appeal to sadists!

[Balthazar]

I don't like the idea of anyone getting coshed by the rozzers but when those vile hunting toffs, their moron working class supporters and idiot rural Mrs Bucket hangers-on, had their heads broken in Parliament Square I wasn't the only one who raised a glass to good old British policing.


http://www.ananova.com/images/web/38728.jpg


Whatever the arguments about cruelty (I suspect the Major's right) and aesthetics (a hunt on a frosty morning passing through a green English field is a wonderful sight) it's a socially disgusting institution: a cancer deep in the fabric of rural Britain which NuLab quite rightly tried to cut out.

[JacquesMagique]

Foxes are not killed for no reason. They are vermin and a rural pest and a nuisance to farmers. They need to be controlled. Hunting is one way of doing this, and certainly the most natural.

Hunting has virtually no effect on the level of fox population in any given area. The amount of foxes killed my hunts is exceeded many many times by the level of foxes killed by car collisions. Drawing out the kill of one fox over one sunday once a week is clearly not an effective method of pest control at all.
[/QUOTE]

[Balthazar]

Why can't the hunt follow aniseed? Why must the toffs, their working class boot-lickers, and social-climbing bourgeois hangers on, chase a live animal? Let the farmers and game-keepers humanely shoot the damn foxes. If they can't shoot straight, and only wound their targets, so they slink off and die a slow death, let them take shooting lessons. Or fly Flash over with some of his guns. I bet he can shoot straight, and might even 'take out' a toff or two!

[Major Sinic]

I don't like the idea of anyone getting coshed by the rozzers but when those vile hunting toffs, their moron working class supporters and idiot rural Mrs Bucket hangers-on, had their heads broken in Parliament Square I wasn't the only one who raised a glass to good old British policing.

So it is 'good old British policing' when someone you don't approve of suffers from police brutality. I wonder what your view of the police is when young Muslim demonstrators suffer from police brutality. I object strongly to any police brutality or unreasonable use of force. Sadly you don't.



Whatever the arguments about cruelty (I suspect the Major's right) and aesthetics (a hunt on a frosty morning passing through a green English field is a wonderful sight) it's a socially disgusting institution: a cancer deep in the fabric of rural Britain which NuLab quite rightly tried to cut out.

This sounds rather like, 'I know what I believe, don't confuse me with the facts'. You appear to accept my views on the relative cruelty of hunting with hounds or lack of it, you recognise at least one of the facets of the chase that most hunters find attractive. You then conclude in your usual immoderate terminology that you consider it a 'socially disgusting institution' and a 'cancer....' etc.

I can only conclude that as a left winger you, as a principle, condemn anything that so much has a hint of privilege, or of 'toffs' enjoying themselves. What an intolerant lot some of you lefties are.

-----

[Major Sinic]

Hunting has virtually no effect on the level of fox population in any given area. The amount of foxes killed my hunts is exceeded many many times by the level of foxes killed by car collisions. Drawing out the kill of one fox over one sunday once a week is clearly not an effective method of pest control at all.

[/QUOTE]

The one day a week when a fox hunt never takes place is a Sunday.

You are correct more foxes are killed on the road than by hunts, although your indicated multiple is suspect. However vehicles are far less selective in their victims, killing young and old, healthy and infirm alike, and with no closed season.

Hunting with hounds imitates natural selection which road kills don't. The fox population is also redistributed by the hunt to create better natural balance.

Few hunters would claim that hunting with hounds is the most effective method of fox control, although it is the most natural method, anymore than they would claim they are hunting as a pest control service to farmers. I know that there are clowns who have made these claims.

I hunted because I enjoyed it, as do most who participate. This enjoyment had nothing to do with satisfying a blood lust or fulfilling sadistic tendencies as some have suggested. Farmers and landowners accommodate the hunt because we contribute to fox control and because it is an enjoyable rural tradition.I repeat that it is no coincidence that we have the healthiest red fox population in Europe.

[Balthazar]

So it is 'good old British policing' when someone you don't approve of suffers from police brutality. I wonder what your view of the police is when young Muslim demonstrators suffer from police brutality. I object strongly to any police brutality or unreasonable use of force. Sadly you don't.

Certainly not. The police treated the hunting toffs badly (and their slimy hangers-on) and should pay for what they did in the normal way. I assume those who got themselves coshed consulted lawyers. What was the result?

This sounds rather like, 'I know what I believe, don't confuse me with the facts'. You appear to accept my views on the relative cruelty of hunting with hounds or lack of it, you recognise at least one of the facets of the chase that most hunters find attractive. You then conclude in your usual immoderate terminology that you consider it a 'socially disgusting institution' and a 'cancer....' etc.

I'm just telling the truth (as I see it). The hunt is beautiful - to my eyes - and the cruelty argument not straightforward. Banning something often has unintended consequences.

The problem is Britain's unreformed aristocracy. The hunt is their symbol of power, their lackeys at hunt meets a symbol of their ownership and control of the British countryside. It's that culture which NuLab quite rightly attacked.

The legislation had little to do with the fox, or cruelty, or rural employment or any of the other red herrings. It was all about class hatred and attacking the rural upper class in their nest.

I happen to believe the British countryside is for everyone. I love it with a passion, was brought up in it, and now (as a Londoner) visit it as often as I can. Many of my family still live deep within it.

Most of it was stolen - there's no other word for it - by relatives of these wretched upper class hunting buffoons when the common land was enclosed in the 18th and 19th centuries. They've got no right to that land - it's ours not theirs - and the sight of them galloping all over it in all their arrogance should stick in the throat of any true-born Englishman.

That's why I have such contempt for the upper class thieves and their stupid, fawning, middle and working class lackeys.

I can only conclude that as a left winger you, as a principle, condemn anything that so much has a hint of privilege, or of 'toffs' enjoying themselves. What an intolerant lot some of you lefties are.

You're right. I am intolerant of these vile "Whah! Whah! Whahing!" toffs who stole my birthright - and the birthright of all loyal, patriotic, Englishmen - and now, together with their appeasing lickspittle camp followers, seek to gallop all over it.

[JacquesMagique]

Oh ok, I thought I had been to one on a sunday, guess it was a saturday though (My dad used to hunt).


Why would we want a healthy fox population, surely it would make it easier for them to be a nuisance to farmers, easier to get into chicken runs, easier to escape.

I have researched it on a number of occasions and the effect of hunting on the fox population really is negligible.

There is nothing natural about blocking up their homes though is there.

[Major Sinic]

Why can't the hunt follow aniseed? Why must the toffs, their working class boot-lickers, and social-climbing bourgeois hangers on, chase a live animal? Let the farmers and game-keepers humanely shoot the damn foxes. If they can't shoot straight, and only wound their targets, so they slink off and die a slow death, let them take shooting lessons. Or fly Flash over with some of his guns. I bet he can shoot straight, and might even 'take out' a toff or two!

Whats this! Decided that you didn't have a good enough pop at we 'toffs' in your earlier post?

Your post does I'm afraid demonstrate a serious lack of knowledge and understanding.

Drag hunting bears little similarity to fox hunting, although many hunters also drag hunted. There is no real demonstration of hounds hunting (The Master of the drag knows exactly where they are going and what they are going to jump: the half dozen hounds are there for show), no spontaneity in making your way across country, not knowing what you will be faced with in terms of jumping so far less excitement. Generally the land open to the Drag is very limited because it is not traditional, and fufils no service to the farmer.

A fox is basically a nocturnal animal. The only sure way of shooting them effectively is lamping at night with a rifle. Restrictions on ownership of rifles ( as opposed to shotguns) are stringent, and danger to other animals and humans is far greater because of velocity and distance of travel.

Shooting them with a shotgun is always uncertain (maximum range is under fifty yards). However good a shot you are, you are likely to maim rather than kill them, unless the fox is very close (10/15 yards max). Shooting lessons would make little difference. With the hunt the fox is either 100% dead or 100% alive. They do not crawl away to die a lingering death from shotgun wounds.

In many parts of the country, some farmers who would not shoot a fox but leave it to the hunt ( a very common tradition) are now shooting many more foxes than the hunt would have dispatched, and many of these are not killed outright. The same can be said regarding the use of gas, poison , and snares. None of these methods are based on natural selection.

None of this of course matters to you Baltizar, because yours, like New Labour's attack is class driven, and has nothing to do with animal welfare.

[Major Sinic]

Certainly not. The police treated the hunting toffs badly (and their slimy hangers-on) and should pay for what they did in the normal way. I assume those who got themselves coshed consulted lawyers. What was the result?



I'm just telling the truth (as I see it). The hunt is beautiful - to my eyes - and the cruelty argument not straightforward. Banning something often has unintended consequences.

The problem is Britain's unreformed aristocracy. The hunt is their symbol of power, their lackeys at hunt meets a symbol of their ownership and control of the British countryside. It's that culture which NuLab quite rightly attacked.

The legislation had little to do with the fox, or cruelty, or rural employment or any of the other red herrings. It was all about class hatred and attacking the rural upper class in their nest.

I happen to believe the British countryside is for everyone. I love it with a passion, was brought up in it, and now (as a Londoner) visit it as often as I can. Many of my family still live deep within it.

Most of it was stolen - there's no other word for it - by relatives of these wretched upper class hunting buffoons when the common land was enclosed in the 18th and 19th centuries. They've got no right to that land - it's ours not theirs - and the sight of them galloping all over it in all their arrogance should stick in the throat of any true-born Englishman.

That's why I have such contempt for the upper class thieves and their stupid, fawning, middle and working class lackeys.



You're right. I am intolerant of these vile "Whah! Whah! Whahing!" toffs who stole my birthright - and the birthright of all loyal, patriotic, Englishmen - and now, together with their appeasing lickspittle camp followers, seek to gallop all over it.

You are supporting a ban today based on events which form part of ancient history. The world you describe no longer exists in the majority of the country.

In my area of the country there are three hunts. They are all subscription packs. There are I think only two or three privately owned packs in the country. Even packs like the Beaufort, Quorn and Belvoir are subscription packs.

The vast majority of country we hunt over is farmland, owned by hard working farming families, or on larger farms owned by faceless corporations where the human face is the farm manager. There are a couple of private country estates, and the hospitality offered by the 'gentry' who own them is as egalitarian as you can get. I personally, on numerous occasions, have seen the host of a hunt, ie one of your hated toffs give a farm worker a leg up, offer a glass of sherry to a postman and share his dinner table with a butcher, a solicitor, a car mechanic and a florist among others. The hunt is a great leveller and generally there is little social hierarchy, other than respect to those who arrange and manage the hunt.

The Masters, like the members and subscribers, come from many walks of life. None of the dozen or so Masters involved in the three hunts have any pretensions of aristocracy. Certainly some are wealthier than others, but that applies in all walks of life.

You raise wider issues regarding countryside access which are not directly related to the hunting issue. One final point I would make in this regard is that the estates of these traditional members of the British gentry, your 'hunting buffoons', are far more open to visitors of all types, than some of those that have recently fallen into the ownership of respectively, a Russian oligarch, a well known pop singer and a European industrialist, where bridle ways have been gated shut, footpaths ploughed up and arbitrarily rerouted., and access deliberately made difficult. I know which I prefer!

[Balthazar]

Whats this! Decided that you didn't have a good enough pop at we 'toffs' in your earlier post?

Is it possible ever to attack toffs sufficiently?

There is no real demonstration of hounds hunting (The Master of the drag knows exactly where they are going and what they are going to jump

Well don't tell him! Talk about excuses, special pleading and dumb insolence!

the half dozen hounds are there for show

Well get some more pooches! Battersea Dogs Home is groaning at the seams.

no spontaneity in making your way across country

Well introduce some spontaneity then! We did put a man on the moon you know.... Surely you can organise a decent drag hunt?

not knowing what you will be faced with in terms of jumping so far less excitement.

Crikey, you huntsmen are an unenterprising lot. Poor little diddums.

Generally the land open to the Drag is very limited because it is not traditional, and fufils no service to the farmer.

Oh, I see. It's the farmers' fault. Well I can't help that. If farmers choose to sabotage the drag that's up to them. The local hunt committee should go visit them and tell them to behave.

Restrictions on ownership of rifles ( as opposed to shotguns) are stringent

Well campaign to have the restrictions relaxed then. Start a local NRA chapter.

and danger to other animals and humans is far greater because of velocity and distance of travel.

LOL. You're saying foxes can't be shot with a rifle in case the shooter is so incompetent his rounds fly over the hill and kill the Widow Twankie while she's feeding her chickens? Or take out some wretched toff female in a Range Rover?

Flash? FLASH?? Could you please provide this dude with some online gunnut instruction...

None of this of course matters to you Baltizar

What you say matters a great deal to me young Major. I read your posts with interest and respect. Should your name appear in a politicspoliticalforum.com poll for 'Most Rational UKIP Blazer Dude' you've got my vote.

because yours, like New Labour's attack is class driven, and has nothing to do with animal welfare.

Correct. But I proudly admitted that several posts back. The hunting ban was a 100% justified class-based attack on some of the most dishonest, arrogant and corrupt historic thieves and social pariahs (and their idiot hangers on) in British society. The assault was backed by opinion poll after opinion poll. I'd welcome Cameron taking a crack at it. It's certain to blow up in his face.

[Major Sinic]

Is it possible ever to attack toffs sufficiently?




Well don't tell him! Talk about excuses, special pleading and dumb insolence!




Well get some more pooches! Battersea Dogs Home is groaning at the seams.



Well introduce some spontaneity then! We did put a man on the moon you know.... Surely you can organise a decent drag hunt?



Crikey, you huntsmen are an unenterprising lot. Poor little diddums.




Oh, I see. It's the farmers' fault. Well I can't help that. If farmers choose to sabotage the drag that's up to them. The local hunt committee should go visit them and tell them to behave.



Well campaign to have the restrictions relaxed then. Start a local NRA chapter.

LOL. You're saying foxes can't be shot with a rifle in case the shooter is so incompetent his rounds fly over the hill and kill the Widow Twankie while she's feeding her chickens? Or take out some wretched toff female in a Range Rover?

Flash? FLASH?? Could you please provide this dude with some online gunnut instruction...



What you say matters a great deal to me young Major. I read your posts with interest and respect. Should your name appear in a politicspoliticalforum.com poll for 'Most Rational UKIP Blazer Dude' you've got my vote.



Correct. But I proudly admitted that several posts back. The hunting ban was a 100% justified class-based attack on some of the most dishonest, arrogant and corrupt historic thieves and social pariahs (and their idiot hangers on) in British society. The assault was backed by opinion poll after opinion poll. I'd welcome Cameron taking a crack at it. It's certain to blow up in his face.

Yet when 'toffs' and 'hunting buffoons' by your values were having a pop at the 'proles' ,before Pontius was a Pilot, this was wrong. So its OK in one direction but not in the other. At least you are consistent! It is OK for young Muslim thugs to give white working class thugs a pasting, but when the white working class thugs do the very same thing back they are completely unjustified, according to some of your previous posts.

My own view, and I am much closer to being a 'toff' than a white working class racist or a Muslim supremacist thug, is that prejudice against any minority whether social, ethnic or religious, is rarely justified. No matter how articulate the perpetrator, it is invariably based on ignorance, bigotry, and a closed mind.

I suppose your honesty is to be admired, if not your intolerance. New Labour never admitted that they had embarked on class warfare, although of course most people knew that banning hunting had nothing to do with animal welfare.

[octopus]

I quite agree hunting is not just restricted to the rich, but you don"t seem to see much hunting in mainstream Britain. The reason is most people find the idea of a living creature being tortured to death for peoples entertainment, not only depraved, but evil. And, like other issues, the vast majority of the population are against it. There was a case in the paper were a baby deer was kicked to death, by two thugs - and to my mind, hunting is just as sick. If we have problem with foxes, rabbits, mice, rats or any kind pest, you pick up a phone, and ring the pest control companies; the phone books full of them. If people must indulge their blood-lust, indulge it on the scum that murder our children, by bringing back hanging, or indulge it by bringing back corporal punishment against fearal children - THEY DESERVE IT! I certainly would get pleasure from that. Animals bring joy to me, and most normal people - and they need us humans to look after them in this nightmare of a world we have created for them.

[Major Sinic]

Oh ok, I thought I had been to one on a sunday, guess it was a saturday though (My dad used to hunt).


Why would we want a healthy fox population, surely it would make it easier for them to be a nuisance to farmers, easier to get into chicken runs, easier to escape.

I have researched it on a number of occasions and the effect of hunting on the fox population really is negligible.

There is nothing natural about blocking up their homes though is there.

You probably saw a Drag Hunt, who very often follow the drag on a Sunday. They try to emulate proper hunts in appearance.

It is far better to have a healthy wild life than not. For example one of the worst infections carried by foxes is the mange. Untreated it eventually, after weeks of agony, kills. It is easily caught by domestic pets off fence rails etc. A mangy fox is weakened and will usually be killed by the hunt thus ending its misery, and reducing the spread of the disease. A reduced fox population (however achieved) leaves more food through natural sustainable resources (pigeons, wild game birds, rabbit, hare and various small vermin and rodents) for each one, thus reducing attacks on domestic poultry producers and sheep farmers.

I disagree that hunting had a negligible effect on the fox population. However by your argument there was even less justification in banning hunting. Although as I have said animal welfare was not the prime objective of the ban, class prejudice was.

[Major Sinic]

I quite agree hunting is not just restricted to the rich, but you don"t seem to see much hunting in mainstream Britain. The reason is most people find the idea of a living creature being tortured to death for peoples entertainment, not only depraved, but evil. And, like other issues, the vast majority of the population are against it. There was a case in the paper were a baby deer was kicked to death, by two thugs - and to my mind, hunting is just as sick. If we have problem with foxes, rabbits, mice, rats or any kind pest, you pick up a phone, and ring the pest control companies; the phone books full of them. If people must indulge their blood-lust, indulge it on the scum that murder our children, by bringing back hanging, or indulge it by bringing back corporal punishment against fearal children - THEY DESERVE IT! I certainly would get pleasure from that. Animals bring joy to me, and most normal people - and they need us humans to look after them in this nightmare of a world we have created for them.

I fundamentally disagree with your views on hunting and would only repeat what I have already said in explanation and justification in reply. Nevertheless I respect your right to hold the views you do, as wrong as I think they are, and will leave it at that.

[pauli007001]

Is it possible ever to attack toffs sufficiently?




Well don't tell him! Talk about excuses, special pleading and dumb insolence!




Well get some more pooches! Battersea Dogs Home is groaning at the seams.



Well introduce some spontaneity then! We did put a man on the moon you know.... Surely you can organise a decent drag hunt?



Crikey, you huntsmen are an unenterprising lot. Poor little diddums.




Oh, I see. It's the farmers' fault. Well I can't help that. If farmers choose to sabotage the drag that's up to them. The local hunt committee should go visit them and tell them to behave.



Well campaign to have the restrictions relaxed then. Start a local NRA chapter.

LOL. You're saying foxes can't be shot with a rifle in case the shooter is so incompetent his rounds fly over the hill and kill the Widow Twankie while she's feeding her chickens? Or take out some wretched toff female in a Range Rover?

Flash? FLASH?? Could you please provide this dude with some online gunnut instruction...



What you say matters a great deal to me young Major. I read your posts with interest and respect. Should your name appear in a politicspoliticalforum.com poll for 'Most Rational UKIP Blazer Dude' you've got my vote.



Correct. But I proudly admitted that several posts back. The hunting ban was a 100% justified class-based attack on some of the most dishonest, arrogant and corrupt historic thieves and social pariahs (and their idiot hangers on) in British society. The assault was backed by opinion poll after opinion poll. I'd welcome Cameron taking a crack at it. It's certain to blow up in his face.

Ok thick bigot!!!!

1/ Fox hunting has one goal, to reduce the number of foxes(same as putting out mouse traps is to kill mice)!!!!

2/ Shooting a weapon is not a simple case of pointing and pulling a trigger.To safely utilise a rifle to kill a fox efficiently is not as easy as you might think.
Get 10 of your mates together and see if you can get a coached shoot through an Infantry APWT(annual Personal weapons test) and pass.It aint easy, shooting a rifle for most people(some are naturals) takes months of coaching and teaching.But as always you know better than those with years of experience of shooting.

Dont make comments on subjects that you have no knowledge of, only a retard would do such a thing, you are not a retard are you Balti??

[pauli007001]

Why can't the hunt follow aniseed? Why must the toffs, their working class boot-lickers, and social-climbing bourgeois hangers on, chase a live animal? Let the farmers and game-keepers humanely shoot the damn foxes. If they can't shoot straight, and only wound their targets, so they slink off and die a slow death, let them take shooting lessons. Or fly Flash over with some of his guns. I bet he can shoot straight, and might even 'take out' a toff or two!

Spoken by an expert on all things related to firearms!!!!!
Probably never picked up a gun in his life.

[Midas]

Eric Pickles confirmed today that a future Conservative Government will allow a free vote in government time regarding the repeal of this legislation.

This badly drafted, class driven, poorly implemented and unenforceable piece of legislation only became law because of the misuse of the Parliament Act, and despite public opinion to the contrary.

It was passed before the conclusions of an independent report commissioned by New Labour were even published. Not surprisingly when the Burns report was published it concluded that animal welfare was unlikely to be served by a ban on hunting with hounds.

It has made criminals of many otherwise law abiding, hard working and socially responsible members of our society from all walks of life, who refused to obey an unjust law which removed rights enjoyed for centuries.

That there have been only three public prosecutions and one conviction, which is pending appeal, illustrates the inability and unwillingness of the authorities to enforce this illiberal legislation certainly within England.

The sooner it is repealed the better.

Not a lot more to add from my point of view, the sooner this piece of badly implemented and politically inspired legislation is repealed the better, more for the latter reason than anything in my opinion. As was discussed at length earlier this year (http://www.politic.co.uk/conservativ...html#post67172), despite living in the countryside I have no particular interest in the sport itself, however it well illustrated the spurious nature of the many objections which were thrown up by the left wing and by animal 'welfare' groups, many of whom I'm sure had very little knowledge of countryside matters.

Any politically or pressure-group inspired legislation which is introduced for the wrong reasons and which subsequently proves to be unenforceable or has potential to bring the law into disrepute deserves to be repealed. Although off-topic, another similar piece of legislation was the ban on handguns introduced after the Dunblane shootings. All that achieved was to deprive some 3/4 million honest gun club members of their sport with zero effect on the use of illegal handguns, which is where the problem lies.

[Opinionated]

Any politically or pressure-group inspired legislation which is introduced for the wrong reasons and which subsequently proves to be unenforceable or has potential to bring the law into disrepute deserves to be repealed.

Taking the discussion into completely different territory for a second, got to point out that all legislation is politically inspired! The fact that this law is poorly drawn up is reason to see it amended certainly, but that it may (or may not) have been motivated by a desire to stick it to a section of society is not reason enough. The majority were in favour of privatisation in the 80s and hence we are stuck with it (until the revolution at least), that's democracy. The nature of social democracy is that it swings from left to right periodically, hopefully over time acheiving a balance the majority are comfortable with. If all the Tories do once they acheive power is repeal thirteen years of Labour legislation then they do not deserve to form a governent.

[Major Sinic]

Taking the discussion into completely different territory for a second, got to point out that all legislation is politically inspired! The fact that this law is poorly drawn up is reason to see it amended certainly, but that it may (or may not) have been motivated by a desire to stick it to a section of society is not reason enough. The majority were in favour of privatisation in the 80s and hence we are stuck with it (until the revolution at least), that's democracy. The nature of social democracy is that it swings from left to right periodically, hopefully over time acheiving a balance the majority are comfortable with. If all the Tories do once they acheive power is repeal thirteen years of Labour legislation then they do not deserve to form a governent.

I can go along with much of your point of view. However when 'bad' law has been passed as in poorly constructed, unenforceable, unjust or it simply fails to achieve its objective then I would consider an incoming government is morally obliged to take action either by amendment or repeal. Since the hunting legislation falls into each of these categories then repeal is the right course of action.

It is also often forgotten that in a liberal democracy (small 'l') it is the responsibility of society, through its government, to protect the rights of minority groups as well as those of the majority. As the late Robin Cook observed, 'Banning hunting is Tony's (Blair) way of throwing some red meat to the left wing'. It was Dennis Skinner I think, who said 'Remember the miners! This is pay back'. This thread alone has illustrated the considerable ignorance on the part of 'antis' about the activity that they are so strongly against, whilst others have demonstrated their deep seated class intolerance and inverted snobbery. Hardly a reassuring background for rational and fair law making! Just because the majority are in favour of an issue does not make it right

[Balthazar]

thick bigot... retard...

Pauli, dear old chum. You're squealing like Brunhilde!

http://www.brightcecilia.com/feature...s/valkyrie.jpg

[Midas]

Taking the discussion into completely different territory for a second, got to point out that all legislation is politically inspired! The fact that this law is poorly drawn up is reason to see it amended certainly, but that it may (or may not) have been motivated by a desire to stick it to a section of society is not reason enough. The majority were in favour of privatisation in the 80s and hence we are stuck with it (until the revolution at least), that's democracy. The nature of social democracy is that it swings from left to right periodically, hopefully over time acheiving a balance the majority are comfortable with. If all the Tories do once they acheive power is repeal thirteen years of Labour legislation then they do not deserve to form a governent.

It might be politically inspired in the sense that all legislation is obviously passed by any one particular party in power, however that's a far cry from implying that there are party political motives behind it, as was obviously the case with the Hunting Act. It's also very different to your example of privatisation; by and large that's done for very sound economic reasons, regardless of whether you agree with it or not.

[JAMC]

It's also very different to your example of privatisation; by and large that's done for very sound economic reasons

The reasons only appear 'very sound' from one ideological perspective. They are (or rather were) every bit as politically motivated as the foxhunting debacle.

[pauli007001]

Pauli, dear old chum. You're squealing like Brunhilde!

http://www.brightcecilia.com/feature...s/valkyrie.jpg

And....It aint over till the fat lady sings!!!!