text 63338 text no the results will show on itn news

:rolleyes: and what if Im for the ban briedog? You know, believe it or not there are SOME people on this forum for the ban on fox hunting.  

I was about to ask the same, do we use the same number with YES??

I'm sure if you check the ITN website, it will give you the number should you wish to vote Yes.

liberty

:rolleyes: mabe she thinks this is a pro hunting forum . I wonder if shes right at times
Im going to pass this on to all my animal loving friends hope you all do the same :)

who she the cat mother,no i not rigth just stating a open forum for people who want to vote what they think is right or wrong if you want to vote yes vote it,
but the next ban will be shooting, fishing, ect and owners with gundog who train them for their albity will not be able to do their hobbie to

where the freedom in this country

There is going to be a telephone vote today after Countryfile at 11.30 as to whether shooting should be banned.  I thought this would be next. 

Trouble is with all these phone votes, you're really putting money into the coffers of the ITV etc, as I think you can stay on line until your money runs out, and the poll is not a true representation of the facts.   A bit like voting for Pop Idol etc!!!

Mind you, very few of the folk for the ban have first-hand knowledge of the facts anyhow, I suppose.

Still won't stop me spending my tuppence-worth  to stand up for minorities and freedom, and against class prejudice.    (Just thought - still haven't learnt to do texts, Terri - how sad is that?)

Jo and the Casblaidd Flatcoats

I don't think it will matter either way what we vote, what the government wants the government will get

You reckon.........?

Quote Winston Churchill
'Never underestimate a minority'

Jo and the Casblaidd Flatcoats

Quote Winston Churchill
'Never underestimate a minority'

yes I think Blair has taken on more than he can chew. What grates me more is someone dictating about what you can't do when they know nothing about it.  The new bill apparenty states that we can hunt rats with a pack of dogs but not mice!  Why?

Can anyone tell me, how do you tell a very young rat from a large mouse?   My dog needs to know :D

Damn - I've just started my own mousehound pack - think we may have to disband temporaily and turn it into a squirrelhound pack.    I hereby state my intent to hunt mice  (not dormice - I love'em) - shall I wait for the knock on the door........

Actually - as we haven't actually caught a live one yet, only one that's been long since dead, maybe we don't qualify......

Jo and the Casblaidd Mousehounds.

Too true.

I think it is sad that those against the ban have chosen to portray this as town folk against country folk or working class against middle class, or next it will be a ban on fishing  etc etc.  All of this emotional claptrap serves no purpose other than muddy the waters.  I don't particularly like Blair or a lot of what he does but I do support him on this.  I honestly believe he is trying to eliminate an out-dated barbaric 'sport' which the majority of the people in the UK find repulsive and distasteful.

A great many of us do not like the fact the they kill dogs and eat them in Korea, or 'bleed' oils and secretions out of bears in China, kill bulls in the ring in Spain, cull seals in Alaska, bludgeon Dolphins in Japan and we would support actions to ban these evils against animals. 

Fox hunting with dogs is our 'evil' here and a great many would like to see the back of it. Period.  No other ulterior motive and if it is made law then all I can say to those hell bent on breaking it what kind of lawless society are they promoting.  It can't be a case of keep those you want and flout those you don't.  We have enough criminals and law breakers as it is.  The law is the law - like it or not.

Peter Bradley, MP for Wrekin and PPS to Alun Michael Rural Affairs Minister wrote in the Sunday Telegraph "We ought at last to own up to it: the struggle over the Bill was not just about animal warfare and personal freedom, it was class war."
He says the "toffs" declared war by resisting the ban.

Well If I'm understanding you correctly, it was not the ban that was about a class war but the response of those affected by the ban that turned it into one ie the struggle to over turn it.

Not at all, suzieque. Labour MPs in the Commons were heard to say that it was all about 'toff-bashing' (their words).

Was this when the ban was first proposed or after the 'toffs' declared they would break the law and persist in what they were doing regardless?  If the latter and I was an MP I'd believe they ought to be 'bashed' too.

No matter what the individual thinks about the right and wrongs of a law the law is the law and it is there to be respected and obeyed.  You can't have a society that picks and chooses which ones it will uphold and which ones it will flout.  ALL those continuing to break this law will be criminals and as such ought to be punished no matter who they are or what 'class' (disgusting word!) they think themselves to be.

Do you know what really annoys me in this whole debate - the fact that *some* people only see what they want to see.

I used to be anti hunting - but I opened my mind and listened to the facts on BOTH sides of the argument...I even when to see a hunt for myself *shock* and then I made an INFORMED decision to support it as the least cruel way to cull foxes.

No matter what the individual thinks about the right and wrongs of a law the law is the law and it is there to be respected and obeyed.  You can't have a society that picks and chooses which ones it will uphold and which ones it will flout.  ALL those continuing to break this law will be criminals and as such ought to be punished no matter who they are or what 'class' (disgusting word!) they think themselves to be.

Really? I disagree. This law was shoe-horned in through the back door to satisfy the Labourites screaming for "toff" blood and to shut us up adn distract us from an unjust war. Yet again - folk just can't see it because they don't want to.

Hubby was a confirmed anti until he met me and I explained it all to him. I was quite happy for him to remain an anti as long as he understood what the deabte was actually about. He is now able to discuss it with ALL the facts and he supports hunting now

I was a confirmed supporter for many years  - i went t'other way though :D

I think most people who are against hunting are fairly knowledgeable about it. The fact that they disagree with hunters doesnt necessarily make them wrong ... :) The people who talk about toff bashing etc ARE being ridiculous because many who hunt are just ordinary peeps so just for the record i am against that and also the class war, town vs. countryside etc....the instigation of the latter was a very sad day for me :(

Lindsay
X

The argument that irritates me the most is that of accusing folk of wanting to watch "a kill" and being bloodthirsty.

Perhaps those who use this as their argument would like to answer this: would they support a ban on foxhunting if field followers were not allowed to be present at the culmination of the hunt (so just the huntsmen and the hounds at the end)?

I can't speak for anyone else, but because i used to do a lot of riding for years i knew many who hunted and it really isn't about being bloodthirsty at all. (not counting those associated with hunts who have been prosecuted in the past for badger baiting etc). It's more about wanting to ride across country and some want to teach their horse to be more forward going and so on.... and for some it is a way of controlling fox numbers so they feel it is necessary and don't necessarily get excited about a kill. I know riders who have been upset when they have witnessed one too. Correct me if i'm wrong but i don't think most field members see the end  anyway do they? Or do they?

Not totally sure on that last point but I believe most people see it as a part of country life and that's all.

I think peeps see it as bloodthirsty because hunters refer to the fox as "vermin" which does come across as a hate filled term. Also because they believe the fox suffers and so those who hunt must know that and support it in their eyes.

JMHO
Lindsay
X

Thats exactly my point Lindsay.

They also get upset when folk call them "mangy" - even though that relates to "mange" which is a legitimate disease they carry and drives them mad!

I can see why though, even though i don't agree with them on this particular point ;)

Peeps on both sides lack understanding of the other, let's face it. On another thread some were convinced that it was all about class war - but it just so isnt! I have never met anyone against hunting who has ever used that as a reason. And so on...to be honest this debate could go on forever couldn't it? :D

Lindsay
X

Yep - I think that anyone who is going to change their mind will have already done so by now. I'm glad to say that I have sat on both sides of the fence and I remain happy with my decision to support hunting and I support anyone else - pro or anti - who has had a direct experience.

:)

Off for my tea now!

Lindsay
X

Can someone please explain the term "class war" i get what it means,but which side are the hunters on etc.

I have to admit when i imagine hunting i see evil little men on horses with weazley faces rubbing their hands to gether when they hear the kill and laughing up toward the sky.Sorry i have a vivid imagination and thats the picture that sticks in my mind ;)

People from all walks of life hunt so the hunters are not on the side of any "class" and yes you do have a vivid imagination :) they hunt on foot in my area and I can assure you they are not weasly little men but very fit specimens indeed - in both senses of the word ;)

Edited - repeat post.

I agree Suzieque.

<......or next it will be a ban on fishing  etc etc. >

http://www.animalaid.org.uk/pheasants/index.htm

http://www.fishinghurts.com/

Not so much "emotional claptrap" after all?

It's a pity that those people who really care about animal welfare (as opposed to class hatred) don't spend their time trying to ban factory farming and ritual slaughter, or is this okay because one provides us with cheap food and the other would be religious persecution?

Snomaes

Well as far as I'm concerned its not Ok to kill animals to provide cheap food which is why I stopped eating animals and went vegetarian 18 years ago!

There are those who believe its a class war, personally I don't, and neither do almost everyone I have spokent to on the subject either. 

IMO it is barbaric no matter who participates.   Dog fighting (a sport for the 'working' or 'sub' class if you want to look at it in a 'class' way) was considered an evil of our time and declared illegal some years back.  Did all the, and I quote 'toffs' come out and support dog fighting on the basis that it goes against freedom of the masses to ban it?  Course not, they weren't interested because it wasn't their chosen sport and they were unaffected.   It is the nature of the sport that is being made illegal not a body of people being discriminated against.

I will say at least most animals that are shot are eaten there not wasted unlike some animals ;)

<Dog fighting (a sport for the 'working' or 'sub' class if you want to look at it in a 'class' way) was considered an evil of our time and declared illegal some years back.>

If you are going to use comparisons, at least use relevant ones!

Dog fighting was setting dog against dog and the loser (and sometimes 'winner') ended up dead. When dog-fighting was made illegal, dogs did not continue to be killed as a pest-control method.

If you check the history of dog-fighting, it was patronised by rich & poor alike, so there again you choose a poor comparison.

With fox hunting, the fox ends up dead if caught and escapes uninjured if not caught.

Hunting with dogs is no more cruel to the fox than the alternatives of snaring, gassing or shooting!
The fox is not killed cleanly with any of the alternatives and banning fox hunting will not spare the life of one single fox.

Some people seem to think that a fox is a cuddly little animal that does no-one any harm but they are killers of livestock that need to be kept under control.

Hunters are actually very concerned about the well-being of the fox. If there is not a healthy population, they cannot hunt and the sport would have died out without introducing a ban.
Hunters are responsible for more conservation and habitat control than most people who purport to be animal lovers.

As far as food goes, I am not a vegetarian (although I do enjoy non-meat foods as well), it is the quality of life that an animal receives before death, not the eventual killing and devouring that is important.
It is completely natural to eat meat and as long as the animals are raised with respect and concern for their well-being and killed humanely and swiftly, no-one should feel guilty about eating meat.

If vegetarianism became law, the countryside would be changed as all the cows, sheep and pigs that are there would disappear making the world a duller place and meal-times much less interesting.

Snomaes

You are missing the point Snomaes.  Dog fighting was declared illegal because it was considered 'barbaric' by the law of the land.  Fox hunting with dogs is being made illegal because it is thought to be a 'barbaric'  'sport'.  (the words 'barbaric' and 'sport' are those used by T Blair on TV 2 days ago).

The point is the law does not always please everyone all the time but it is not put forward in such a manner to pit 'class' against 'class' - the supporters of hunting have done that.   BUT, whatever your viewpoint, the law of the land MUST prevail otherwise we will have a lawless society.

By the way, dog fighting was always depicted as a 'sport' of the working class and if you are saying that other 'classes' indulged it just goes to show that there is no accounting for bad taste whatever the lineage! 

<the words 'barbaric' and 'sport' are those used by T Blair on TV 2 days ago>

Yes, and the words 'compromise' and 'middle-way' were used by him when he voted in the commons last week for the continuance of hunting in a licenced manner!
None of the 'big-names' in the present Government voted to ban hunting because they realised (too late) the trouble that it would cause in a run-up to an election.

< but it is not put forward in such a manner to pit 'class' against 'class' - the supporters of hunting have done that>

No, the supporters of hunting have not done that because it is not a class driven 'sport!

The urban, 'working-class' MPs made it a class issue, not the hunt supporters.

The Labour back-benchers were given the hunt ban as a reward for supporting the invasion of Iraq.

Ban the killing of foxes, but support the killing of innocent men, women and children in a foreign country. Which one would you consider the more barbaric 'sport'?

Snomaes

I went to see my MP some years ago now; i was well informed and we talked in a civil manner for over 50 minutes with me trying to persaude him to support a ban. He agreed with everything i said, but told me he could never support a ban because his wife rode with a Wiltshire hunt and she could not ride her horse, due to lack of access, if hunting was banned. That was the only thing that stopped him from supporting a ban :(

Lindsay
X

Whats wrong with that? I'd say that was exactly the reason not to support a ban - at least he appreciates she's going for the ride and not to watch a "fox being ripped apart"

Well, don't get me wrong, i understand totally - but i felt he was representing his wife rather than a constituent who had actually bothered to go and see him. He told me he had had many many letters against hunting but took no notice because of his wife. I had to admire his honesty at least :D

Lindsay
X

<but i felt he was representing his wife rather than a constituent who had actually bothered to go and see him.>

This is why I find it so hard to agree with the 'democratic' vote taken in the hunting bill. MPs are supposed to represent us (their constituents) in parliament. With a free, unwhipped vote, they actually vote on their on 'conscience' and do not have to take note of any of their constituent's views.

Thus, an MP may represent a constituency with a majority in favour of the continuence of hunting, but because the MP 'representing' his constituent's is anti-hunting, he actually votes against the majority view!

This is not just conjecture, it actually happened early on in the hunting debate when several rural MPs voted to ban hunting, against the majority wishes of their constituents.

The vote to ban hunting was not even a majority of the MPs, the final vote was 321 for, 204 against out of a total of 659 MPs with a vote.
Not even half the MPs voted for a ban, but of those present, the majority were in favour so it was passed.

Hurrah for democracy!

Snomaes

<The Labour back-benchers were given the hunt ban as a reward for supporting the invasion of Iraq.>

What a load of old Tosh snomaes A Ban on hunting with dogs was part of the Labour Manifesto since the 1970's It is only since 1997 that there has been enough support vis the ballot box to actually get a goverment act rather than a private members act. Don't forget the private members acts have been stopped by the Unelected Right wing dominanted Lords for over 30 years despite always having a elected commons pro vote irrespective of the party holding power at the time

I am born & bred in the country & have never supported hunting foxes or deer------oooops did we all forget that nasty vicious killer deer also get hunted ???? I have a relative in scotland whose private land(only a couple of thosand acres)adjoins a royal estate & Deer regularly flee from the royal estate in the hunting seaon to his land & more than once he has to remove the hunting party when they forget they are trepassing on his land-this has included the more senior Royals. He cannot fence off the land but he & his estate workers actively encourage the natural wild life to stay on his property. To see a lovely mature Stag collapsing from exhaustion after being hunted/stalked for hours is pitiful

As too the hunts not breeding many puppies someone should tell our local hunt which is fairly small they breed a minimum 6 litters a year & each litter is over 10 normally. They kill anything over 7 or that is not upto their standard & have to breed as their hounds are also destroyed if they have a serious injury that would mean them missing a good part of the season. They also cull the bitches that have no or small litters. They shoot them & have never used a ltal injection as this would entail a vet fee & as everyone knows Hunts have no money

The hunt already sells horses for meat consumption that are either injured & teith oo costly or not able to be medically treated(the first is the more usual in my retired vets experienced) or considered too old for further work

We have a couple of rejected fox hounds come to training & they are not young puppies, I have never asked when or how they came into private homes, but they are settling well to training & the owners are considering doing some obedience competitions with them, untlike the skinny dogs seen on most hunt publicity shots, they are sleek & well muscled. They have been neutered(again haven't asked how or where)They are excerised on & off lead in encloeds woodland & always have reliable recalls. they are very food orientated which makes for a good training tool

I agree with suzieque here.  Over 100 years ago, my own breed was bred to torment and torture bears and bulls - the 'sport' was rightly outlawed!  My breed has been adapted by 'man' over the ensuing years to do other things.  If people want to gallop about the countryside on horses - good for them!   But do they really need a pack of dogs and dead foxes at the end of it to ENJOY it?

>next it will be a ban on fishing  etc etc

Yep, that's next on PETA's list, according to yesterday's Sunday Telegraph. But not just angling - sea fishing too. They want to make fish-eating illegal.

An interesting point was bought to my attention the other day.
Just because people go out riding with foxhounds across farmland etc doesn't mean that they are actually hunting. Its only when they are chasing a fox that the hunting bill takes force.
So how are the police going to be able to prove that hunting was taking place, not  just a group of people dressed up on horseback with foxhounds going for a ride.
I can just see mounted policemen following such people to check to see if hunting is taking place.
Obviously it is impossible to enforce and bring to court.
Please note I am not saying if I am pro or anti hunting as this is not the point I am trying to bring out.

Bazza

they want to make pet owning illegal.

A man lives in london his rubbish bags are ripped to bits each night, so one night he hits a fox with a shovel and kills it! So what I would like to know is what the Pro Hunting supporters think of that. Just for the record as far as I can see the Countryside Alliance made this a class issue as hunting foxes with dogs is obviuosly wrong, also many horses and hounds sustain horrible injuries.

I don't understand your point regarding the rubbish?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/11/22/nhunt222.xml

The number of foxes being killed in Scotland has almost doubled following the ban on traditional hunting.

The hounds are used to flush foxes from cover to be shot by waiting marksmen and the system has proved far more efficient than traditional hunting, in which the fittest foxes often escaped.

the point I'm trying to make is that hunting foxes in urban areas (where we all know there are many) would not be acceptable. However put on a red jacket jump on a horse and set loose a pack of starving hounds seems quite alright to the Pros. Also let's remember any hound that is to old or injured to keep up with the pack is put down as they as far as I know can not be kept as pets.