Not logged inChampdogs Information Exchange
Forum Breeders Help Search Board Index Active Topics Login

Find your perfect puppy at Champdogs
The UK's leading pedigree dog breeder website for over 25 years

Topic Dog Boards / General / Its not about Fox's its about Class!!!! (locked)
1 2 3 Previous Next  
- By Lady Dazzle [in] Date 23.11.04 19:11 UTC
Well what a surprise a Labour MP who is telling the truth at last!!!

This was what was in the Telegraph at the weekend.

Yes - this is about class war
(Filed: 21/11/2004)

Peter Bradley, the MP who proposed the amendment to delay the Hunting Bill unitl 2006, says the battle is a last hurrah for the feudal system

Now that hunting has been banned, we ought at last to own up to it: the struggle over the Bill was not just about animal welfare and personal freedom, it was class war.

But it was not class war as we know it. It was not launched by the tribunes against the toffs - it was the other way round. This was not about the politics of envy but the politics of power. Ultimately it's about who governs Britain.

Labour had not been in Government a year before the Shires rose up and marched on London. But the Liberty and Livelihood March was not about the countryside. It was not a postdated protest against the remorseless loss over the previous 18 years of rural schools and post offices, public transport and affordable housing. It wasn't even really about hunting. Nor were we witnessing, as was claimed at the time, the birth of a new political movement. It was more like the last hurrah of the feudal system.

An experience in my own back yard crystallised it for me. In the very week the Commons voted to delete the hereditary principle from our constitution, a deputation of local hunt supporters brought to my surgery a map of my constituency coloured almost entirely green to signify the land where the fox is fair game until February.

This, they claimed, was conclusive evidence that The Wrekin overwhelmingly supports hunting. When I pointed out that they had painted round the towns and villages where most of my constituents live, effectively disenfranchising them, they were incredulous. "But," exclaimed one of them, sweeping his hand across the green acres of The Wrekin, "these are the landowners!"

That is the nub of it. The campaign to save hunting has relatively little to do with rural life or rights. It has a lot to do with preserving the age-old privileges of land ownership.

Labour governments have come and gone and left little impression on the gentry. But a ban on hunting touches them. It threatens their inalienable right to do as they please on their land. For the first time, a decision of a Parliament they don't control has breached the lodge gates.

The placards of the Countryside Alliance plead "Listen to Us", but what they mean is "Do What We Say" - as for centuries we have. That old order no longer prevails. Deference has been eroded by a new, universal prosperity. It's the recognition of that irrevocable change that has made the campaign for hunting so fierce and yet so futile.

The landowners have come to realise that although they still own the country, they no longer run it. That does not make them the victimised minority they claim to be, but it does make them very angry.

So the minority which for centuries ran this country from the manor houses of rural England now rails against the hegemony of an elected majority in Parliament. And, covertly encouraged by some peers and Tory grandees, those who today threaten to defy the laws they do not like bear the names of the legislators who for generations kept the rest of us in our place.

But the problem the landowners face is not theirs alone. It is shared by the Conservatives with whom, to their mutual disadvantage, they are so closely associated.

The majority of rural and semi-rural seats - 180 of them - went Labour in 1997 and, in the teeth of the foot and mouth epidemic as well as the row about hunting, stayed that way in 2001. The fact is that the majority of people who live in rural communities resent the squirarchy as much as they dislike hunting. The Countryside Alliance may speak for hunting, but it does not speak for the rural majority.

Nor, any longer, does the Conservative Party. If the Tories really want to recapture popularity and power, they ought to run a mile from hunting. Instead they have copied Labour's mistake when, throughout the 1980s, its obsession with unpopular minority causes made it an unpopular minority party.

It's no coincidence, either, that, according to MORI, some 80 per cent of those who participated in the two great Hyde Park rallies vote Conservative. Instead of reaching out to new supporters, the Tories are still talking to themselves.

The old order is going, but its values continue to dominate the Tory belief system. In a culture that now demands equality of opportunity, too many Conservatives can only properly enjoy what others do not have.

That is why they have an ideological commitment to private health and public schools. It's why they oppose the right to roam and a ban on hunting. For them it's ownership of property, especially land, and not citizenship that confers privilege. It's why they believe that the rights of minorities - or at least their minority - should prevail over those of majorities.

But in an age in which we are all aspirational and few are deferential, that is an increasingly unappealing philosophy. The tide is against the Tories as it is against the hunters and, now more than ever, the House of Lords.

And if Labour really wants a radical edge to the next manifesto, how about the long-neglected issue of land reform?

* Peter Bradley is MP for The Wrekin and the parliamentary private secretary to Alun Michael, the rural affairs minister

I rest my case.
- By LJS Date 23.11.04 20:07 UTC
LD

It has always been about this ! It has never been about anything else.

I think the lead upto the election is going to be very interesting :) Lets hope that people keep thier heads and use the advantage in a good way and not use violence or intimidation to get the point through ! :)

The Torys need a strong leader and I am not 100% convinced MH is the man to do it but perhaps we maybe surprised ?

I was out at the weekend with my family giving support to our local hunt.

They are people from every walk of life and are not out to see carnage as it is not carnage,well as much in fact less than you ever see if a fox was let loose in a coup of chickens.

Lets get this into context, if people are so concerned about this issue then channel the focus on animal husbandry and look at improving that instead of focusing on a minor problem in context :) This is vermin we are talking about that cause problems and diseases. They are beautiful animals but please lets get real on the whole situation ! It is like veggies that still wear leather :) Not a debate meant but trying to focus a point :)

I respect peoples choices but please look at the wider issue :)

Lucy
xx
- By Melodysk [gb] Date 23.11.04 20:13 UTC
MH will lose us the next election IMHO :( He has nothing about him, he has the charisma of a slowly rotting banana. We *need* someone like Heseltine, Boris is my favourite at the moment but I don't think the general public would trust him yet (It is also my personal opinion that MH got rid of Boris for this very reason ;) ;) )

We are off to watch the local hunt leave from the market place here on Boxing day, it is sad to say it may be the last time my children get to see such a sight

:(
- By LJS Date 23.11.04 20:19 UTC
I love Boris. He is a man with such character and I think intelligence apart from when his pants dictate his mind :D

MH needs a V good Spin Doc plus a Management / PR Consultancy/ Trinney and Suzanna (SP) on him as Mrs H is quite a class woman :D Not like CB who is a trogg :) ( Meant in a nice sort of way :D )
- By Carla Date 23.11.04 20:22 UTC
MH needs the sack - he's got no charisma at all :(

I always liked Michael Portillo ;)
- By Melodysk [gb] Date 23.11.04 20:24 UTC
I don't like MP either but he *is* marginally better than MH :D
- By Carla Date 23.11.04 20:28 UTC
:rolleyes: How about John Travolta with the Champdoggers United Party? :D
- By Melodysk [gb] Date 23.11.04 20:29 UTC
PHOAHHHHHHHHHHH!

:D :D :D
- By LJS Date 23.11.04 21:10 UTC
Get a grip girls :) :) We need to get focused :) What is more important rumpies ( or that fantasy :D ) or hunting ? ;)

Lucy
xx
- By Carla Date 23.11.04 21:19 UTC
both? *looks innocent* :D :D
- By LJS Date 23.11.04 21:22 UTC
Ok , it depends on what is between your legs :G


Lucy

xx
- By Melodysk [gb] Date 23.11.04 20:23 UTC
Noooooo no more spin, we have now had YEARS of spin ....anyway, you would need all the spinners in the UK to make something interesting out of MH LOL
- By LJS Date 23.11.04 20:29 UTC
MH is a bit of a bore. But he has form. He is from the old, middle (as in time not politics but time wise ) and I just hope that he gets a grip and the cowfers in the Tory funds are spent well to get a good campaign going :)

Perhaps we should offer our consultancy services to him !

Lucy
xx
- By Carla Date 23.11.04 20:32 UTC
I think Labour think they are home and dry with this election with the Tories in this state.

Unfortunately, I think they are right.

I suspect mass apathy regards to turnout - and that could be their downfall. If trad tory voters turn out in their droves they could find themselves gaining.

but I doubt it.
- By LJS Date 23.11.04 20:49 UTC
No way. How much does the ban mean ? It means so much to us as peeps who live in a rural place and have done for along time . This thread is about the ban perhaps lets do a new dabate on the General Election :)

I really think this GE will be a move to another Party :)
- By snomaes [in] Date 23.11.04 21:06 UTC
Shooting is also perceived by the public as a sport which is participated by the wealthy and 'upper' classes. There are already websites campaigning for the banning of shooting, so you can be sure that eventually this will be a mainstream campaign supported by the hypocritical, factory-farm produce consuming, general public who will be calling for an end to this cruel sport.

All of you with working gundogs, make the most of it - your days are numbered!

Welcome to the sanitized, politically correct, hypocrite ridden future of this once great country.

Snomaes
- By LJS Date 23.11.04 21:12 UTC
'Perceived' is the key  here. :)

Lucy
xx
- By Carla Date 23.11.04 21:20 UTC
I agree with you 110%. We'll even have ID cards that stop us dying our hair.
- By hefinjones [gb] Date 23.11.04 21:35 UTC
I for one will carry on protecting my livestock. It just means the farmhands get an evening job.
- By Lindsay Date 23.11.04 21:37 UTC
The MPs don't seem to be in touch with peeps who are against hunting to be honest if they are writing that rubbish

Lindsay
X
- By Jeangenie [gb] Date 23.11.04 21:39 UTC
I fear the only people that MPs care even the slightest for is themselves, followed by the Party chiefs. Constituents come way, way down the line - except of course in the run-up to an election.
- By ManxPat [im] Date 24.11.04 00:58 UTC
I think that MH will have a problem in the next election - labour have eaten into the tory ethos, (because they have tory policies), and the tories do not have a strong enough leadership - every leader since Margaret Thatcher has been a compromise leader within the party. The strength and leadership of the party is at a very low ebb, the policies are non existant.

I think the tories have other talented leaders, but they are too scared to pick someone who might stretch the party.
- By doberman [gb] Date 24.11.04 03:27 UTC
This is madness this site is meant to be about about dogs! I would like to point out and this is only a guess that many more wealthy people live in cities rather than the the counrty and why on earth should poorer people have no say no matter where they live. This isn't class warfare but the monority want it their way. lets bring back dog fights, cock fighting, bear baiting etc after all there seems to be a blood lust in this forum...are you all mad....settle for drag hunting...and god knows how anyone can accuse the labour party of being working class, just ask Tony Blair a wealthy man from a wealthy background...remember a democracy is meant to based on a majority. p.s I should imagine most hunt sabs come from rather middle class backgrounds rather than poor run down working class council estates with problems far greater than your barbaric sport, get a grip and stop using the hype.
- By snomaes [in] Date 24.11.04 07:03 UTC
<This is madness this site is meant to be about about dogs! >

And your point is what?

I thought that the 'Hunting wild mammals with dogs' legislation DOES concern dogs!

Shooting and retrieving DOES concern dogs!

The new legislation has upset many dog owners and it is not surprising that they are venting their frustration of DOG matters on a DOG forum!

If you don't like the subject, don't read it, no one is forcing you to participate.

Snomaes
- By vivian [gb] Date 24.11.04 08:07 UTC
It doesn't matter who we vote for, The Goverment alway's get in. teehee
- By lucyandmeg [gb] Date 24.11.04 21:37 UTC
Doberman, if you are so concerned about this forum being just for dogs, then does it not bother you that if hunting goes so do the dogs? How is that not about dogs?
Vivian, that does seem to be the case. Around election time people are always saying that they don't want TB back in, but he always gets back in. People obviously aren't reading their voting forms!! ;-)
- By doberman [gb] Date 25.11.04 00:21 UTC
I guess I'm just a bit naive I thought this website was about dogs and not politics, I assumed that people who who loved dogs loved all animals. You will be pleased to know after reading the postings I now support fox hunting, badger baiting, dog fighting and general cruelty to animals. Hope this pleases the the blood lust lobby!
- By gary22U [gb] Date 25.11.04 00:33 UTC
" I assumed that people who who loved dogs loved all animals.".........what about Rats/Mice/Spiders/Cockroaches/Daddylonglegs/Johnnyspinners/Wasps/Fleas/Ticks....all horrid !!!...suppose you don't kill any of them either...Vermin should be controlled   should we ban Fly/wasp spray too, what a way for them to die, poor things.......couldn't condone any form of cruelty but control of vermin is not cruelty just what it is.....CONTROL not Extinction.
- By doberman [gb] Date 25.11.04 00:46 UTC
As I said Gary I'm converted kill them all and if you enjoy it all the better. "spiders" wow freaky those fiendish eight legged terrors! exterminate!
- By liberty Date 25.11.04 01:12 UTC
Let folk who live in the country deal with their problems their way; an we can deal withour problems
- By hugex [gb] Date 25.11.04 01:20 UTC
What????? I don't have any problems    apart from INSOMNIA
- By Teri Date 25.11.04 01:30 UTC
Aaah, insomnia - that's a common problem with me too :D
- By Teri Date 25.11.04 01:28 UTC
Liberty, this is not a country v town issue - it's an animal welfare issue and the Government's new bill has now clearly dictated how this specific "problem" is to be dealt with, regardless of anyone's personal viewpoints / geographical location etc.

It's certainly fired up strong emotions on both sides of the pro and anti hunts and some of the posts are just becoming a little too personal - which is very unfortunate although understandable I guess.

Personally I'm proud to admit that any *blood sport* is abhorent to me - regardless of the fact that I understand measures often need to be taken to control the population of certain species.   This argument can and will go on forever - some of us see cruely to animals - any animals - as inexcusable.  Others don't - for them it's depending on the animal concerned - simple as that.

With the obvious physical similarities between foxes and dogs, I find it incredible that anyone on a dog related forum who is presumably therefore a dog lover could condone the *sport* for pleasure of hounding foxes.

Teri
- By Trevor [gb] Date 25.11.04 05:35 UTC
Sorry Liberty - the countryside does not belong to simply to those who happen to be living in it at this moment. Many people would dearly love to move out of towns into a more rurla way of life but cannot do so for various reasons. I was born and brought up in the countryside but had to move to the London suburbs to get a decent job - only now after many years have I been able to afford to move back and get a cottage with a bit of land. The countryside is part of the heritage of EVERYONE - and we are all entitled to have an opinion on issues connected with it ( just as those who live 'in the sticks' are able to regulate life for those who live in towns :) - those who are pro hunting seemed determined to create divisions either by saying it's a class divide or a country versus Townie one - it's neither  -just an issue of morality ! :D
- By snomaes [in] Date 25.11.04 06:56 UTC
< This argument can and will go on forever - some of us see cruely to animals - any animals - as inexcusable.>

I abhor cruelty to animals, that is why I am against the indiscriminate gassing, snaring and shooting of foxes.

Hunting is no more cruel to the fox than the alternatives (as was found in the Government sponsored Burn's report),
but because it did not fit with the Labour part ideology, it was dismissed.

Do not make the mistake that pro-hunters condone animal cruelty, most pro-hunt supporters are passionate about the countryside and it's wildlife and have done more for the conservation of the fox and his habitat than any Westminster politician.

Snomaes
- By Jeangenie [gb] Date 25.11.04 08:19 UTC
Well said snomaes. Even the politicians are now crawling out from the woodwork and admitting the bill had nothing to do with animal welfare; that it was a class issue. What a shame so many people were gullible enough to believe them. Sadly it's animals who'll suffer for it, not the people who voted for it.
- By Zoe [gb] Date 25.11.04 08:21 UTC
But Fox hunting does not control the population!! So why do it??
- By Fablab [gb] Date 25.11.04 08:22 UTC
Quote by Snoames:

"Hunting is no more cruel to the fox than the alternatives (as was found in the Government sponsored Burn's report),but because it did not fit with the Labour part ideology, it was dismissed."

If you mean hunting foxes with hounds that is not so.

These are direct quotes from the Burns enquiry:

56 The evidence which we have seen suggests that, in the case of the killing of a fox by hounds above ground, death is not always effected by a single bite to the neck or shoulders by the leading hound resulting in the dislocation of the cervical vertebrae. In a proportion of cases it results from massive injuries to the chest and vital organs, although insensibility and death will normally follow within a matter of seconds once the fox is caught. There is a lack of firm scientific evidence about the effect on the welfare of a fox of being closely pursued, caught and killed above ground by hounds. We are satisfied, nevertheless, that this experience seriously compromises the welfare of the fox. (Paragraph 6.49)

and

60 Our tentative conclusion is that lamping using rifles, if carried out properly and in appropriate circumstances, has fewer adverse welfare implications than hunting, including digging-out. However, in areas where lamping is not feasible or safe, there would be a greater use of other methods. We are less confident that the use of shotguns, particularly in daylight, is preferable to hunting from a welfare perspective. We consider that the use of snaring is a particular cause for concern. (Paragraph 6.60)

- By Jeangenie [gb] Date 25.11.04 08:44 UTC
6.56 In the case of shooting, it seems to be generally agreed that lamping with a high powered rifle, if carried out properly and in appropriate circumstances, is the most humane way of killing a fox.[422] But as we noted in paragraph 5.24, there are a number of situations in which lamping is not practicable or safe. In particular, because of the need for vehicular access, it is not usually suitable in more remote, upland areas. The use of shotguns, especially in daylight, involves welfare implications. We received a good deal of evidence arguing that it was not easy to shoot foxes and that a fair number were wounded. We suspect that this is correct, given that foxes are relatively small animals.[423] There is also the welfare issue of what happens to orphaned cubs when the vixen is shot during the breeding season.[424] Terriers are used at present by gamekeepers and others to dispatch cubs which have been orphaned in this way.

6.59 None of the legal methods of fox control is without difficulty from an animal welfare perspective. Both snaring and shooting can have serious adverse welfare implications.

So is this, Fablab.
:)
- By Fablab [gb] Date 25.11.04 08:59 UTC
True JG none are without difficulties that's a fact, but the report clearly does not say that hunting is "no more cruel to foxes than the alternatives" what it does actually say is that "lamping using rifles, if carried out properly and in appropriate circumstances, has fewer adverse welfare implications than hunting".

So the previous poster was incorrect in what he or she was saying.
- By Teri Date 25.11.04 09:58 UTC
Were all of the hunting fraternity as passionate about the welfare of their horses and hounds I might give some credence to your argument snowmaes :(

The use of carefully selected fragments of a report to back an argument is hardly conclusive evidence that fox hunting by hounds in the way it is carried out by the majority of hunts is not cruel.   It is currently a *traditional sport* - not a means of population control and therefore I, and literally millions of animal lovers, find it repulsive.
- By Melodysk [gb] Date 25.11.04 10:00 UTC
Millions? I wasn't aware any survey had been carried out that actually questioned *millions* Trevor
- By Melodysk [gb] Date 25.11.04 11:12 UTC
Teri, not Trevor , sorry :)
- By Trevor [gb] Date 25.11.04 18:12 UTC
It was Teri who actually posted this not me - I do however totally agree with her :D
- By Melodysk [gb] Date 25.11.04 18:28 UTC
Erm I posted a correction about 6 hours before you posted that Trevor
- By Moonmaiden Date 25.11.04 18:47 UTC
Some people have very very short memories re Margaret Thatcher, she had a very weak cabinet full of yes men because she was far more of  dictator that Tony Blair. She was responsible for selling off the railways, utilities etc etc & what happened to them ? the Railway maintenance is a joke & the cost ? people's lives in accidents, the utilities are now owned on the whole by foreign companies & the costs have spiralled upwards.

Funding for teaching, hospitals etc all cut NHS & councils forced to outsource cleaning & meals etc-result dirty wards, the quality of school meals dropped to the lowest levels yet, I could go on & on but won't

She is also why this country is spending over £2,000,000 a day in the Falklands whose inhabitants want to have the protection of the UK but not people from the UK other than the Forces living there & also why Saddam Hussain was allowed to stay in power after the he invaded Kuwait( Yes I know JM was the PM but MT was pulling the strings)after all someone had to trade with Sir Mark didn't they !

& of course who was the PM when The DDA was started ???????????????? Errrrrrr Let me guess it was July 1989 & MT was in power until November 89 so I guess it was that lady all you lovely people so admire HRH ooops er Lady Thatcher try this link as you will see from the link it was July 1989 & not 1991 as most people quote

So you want another PM like MT who banned breeds rather than deeds & you call yourselves dog people I think not
- By Fablab [gb] Date 25.11.04 10:59 UTC
Teri wrote:

"The use of carefully selected fragments of a report to back an argument is hardly conclusive evidence that fox hunting by hounds in the way it is carried out by the majority of hunts is not cruel.   It is currently a *traditional sport* - not a means of population control and therefore I, and literally millions of animal lovers, find it repulsive. "

I entirely agree with you Terri, my quoting of the Burns report was only in an effort to minimise the dis-information being put about viz. where does it say in the Burns report that "Hunting is no more cruel to the fox than the alternatives" ?

I merely highlighted where the enquiry gave a direct comparison in this respect.

I also read the report as viewing lamping with rifles as the  most humane and effective method of fox population control (in most situations) albeit I accept that all methods have their own particular difficulties.
- By Gilly [gb] Date 26.11.04 00:30 UTC
Hello all
im new to this forum lark and i am also a Farmers wife i get a bit concerned at the many people who think they own the countryside!!! we are all caretakers and as farmers we work and keep that countryside 'nice' for people to run there  dogs through fields of cows lambs and whatever take's the fancy...no im not saying that any of you do, but believe me i have walked through the fields after picnic parties and picked up bottles plastic bags etc...so rightly or wrongly i think i have a say on what happens to this land we are in charge of more than any politiian or city dweller!!! Fox Hunting well im neither for or against, l know that where i live it is overrun with foxes, i once had hens.not anymore Mr fox delighted in having one for his dinner and 30 for the pure pleasure of the kill....l wonder what will happen when fishing (the workingmans sport) is next on the list cos by god we will see the biggest outcry more so than the fox hunting debate what ban fishing my god they cant fo that or can they?? now to get back to F Hunting and control who is going to do it??? who is going to cull?? anyone who has tried to hunt foxes will know that you have to wait hours in the middle of the night to try and shoot one, now i may be  wrong here but i know for one that many farmers work alone mine does and he has neither time or energy after maybe 17hrs working to go out after midnight to kill off foxes!!!! i have seen foxes who have not been killed outright and my husband has put them down to save further suffering....poisoning well we have all seen what happens to rabbits and the dreadful way they die, trapping barbaric more so than Fox Hunting....so come on then people what are you going to do with this and how is it to be funded???  oh im sure our (President) mr Tony Blair will answer all these questions!!!
- By Teri Date 26.11.04 00:46 UTC
Gilly, everyone regardless of whether rural or city dweller has a right to say what they feel about animal welfare issues - it's not about the land - although as UK citizens and tax payers we are each entitled to an opinion on that too :D

In any event many city dwellers provide great boosts to rural exconomies by way of spending their free time and hard earned cash in rural locals - please don't be another poster to add yet a different aspect to this debate.  We've had the whole class war issue, don't think we need the city v rural issue on top as not all farmers are for hunting nor all "suits" against it ;) 

Very few of the anti-hunt fraternity on this board have not accepted that fox control will still be required - it's the "sport" and callousness they are impassioned about and I believe that is a moral issue at the end of the day. 

Teri ;)
- By Trevor [gb] Date 26.11.04 05:49 UTC
Gilly as farmers you do not work to keep the countryside 'nice' so that we can run our dogs on your fields ! - like everyone else you work to make a profit - hence the 'prairie fields '  here in East Anglia ! ( not a hedgrow to be seen for miles :()
Topic Dog Boards / General / Its not about Fox's its about Class!!!! (locked)
1 2 3 Previous Next  

Powered by mwForum 2.29.6 © 1999-2015 Markus Wichitill

About Us - Terms and Conditions - Privacy Policy