Bastard May want to reintroduce fox hunting.

First topic message reminder :

She along with some blood lusting conservatives want to reintroduce fox hunting, which was outlawed by Blair in 2004.
Will the MP's blindly follow her say so, or follow the electorate, 84% of who support the ban.
Bitch. And lying cow.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-fox-hunting-bring-back-ban-repeal-conservative-tories-general-election-rural-vote-a7726506.html

nicko wrote:i SHOT THOUSANDS of Wood PIGEONS AND Rabbits to save Farmers having their Crops devastated, am i a bad person?

Yes, probably, in the tiny minds of the same sort of people who would be the first to start screaming about "rich toff farmers" as soon as the price of bread, biscuits, cakes, beer and sugar all went through the roof.

Eilzel wrote:It is quite obvious here didge that the fox hunting being discussed is horseback fox hunting with dogs. It is that I oppose. Not hunting for food or culling.

I totalky disagree with not caring for animals. I know my feelings on that matter and have no interest justifying them here.

If we both oppose fox hunting the 'sport' then there is nothing more to discuss.

Sorry but you are being hypocritical

I cannot say with any conviction that I truly care for animals, when I live within civilization, because countless animals suffer in order for my existence within civilization. Most people as I say put these thoughts out of their heads to make themselves feel better about themselves.

Just because we both agree to be against something does not mean I cannot debate other points.

My issue is how people get all high and mighty over something when in fact we are part of a system that systematically has caused untold suffering to animals.

Anyway as I said, you need to reason why you think something is cruel and I do not see a hunter who lives a self sufficient life is in anyway cruel. Its actually better for the eco system than how the vast majority live within civilization

Thorin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:It is quite obvious here didge that the fox hunting being discussed is horseback fox hunting with dogs. It is that I oppose. Not hunting for food or culling.

I totalky disagree with not caring for animals. I know my feelings on that matter and have no interest justifying them here.

If we both oppose fox hunting the 'sport' then there is nothing more to discuss.

Sorry but you are being hypocritical

I cannot say with any conviction that I truly care for animals, when I live within civilization, because countless animals suffer in order for my existence within civilization. Most people as I say put these thoughts out of their heads to make themselves feel better about themselves.

Just because we both agree to be against something does not mean I cannot debate other points.

My issue is how people get all high and mighty over something when in fact we are part of a system that systematically has caused untold suffering to animals.

Anyway as I said, you need to reason why you think something is cruel and I do not see a hunter who lives a self sufficient life is in anyway cruel. Its actually better for the eco system than how the vast majority live within civilization

I don't see a hunter who kills to eat as a cruel person either. I never said I did.

Eilzel wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Sorry but you are being hypocritical

I cannot say with any conviction that I truly care for animals, when I live within civilization, because countless animals suffer in order for my existence within civilization. Most people as I say put these thoughts out of their heads to make themselves feel better about themselves.

Just because we both agree to be against something does not mean I cannot debate other points.

My issue is how people get all high and mighty over something when in fact we are part of a system that systematically has caused untold suffering to animals.

Anyway as I said, you need to reason why you think something is cruel and I do not see a hunter who lives a self sufficient life is in anyway cruel. Its actually better for the eco system than how the vast majority live within civilization

I don't see a hunter who kills to eat as a cruel person either. I never said I did.

Sorry but you claim predators killing prey was cruel and yes i know you showed levels, but to me its not cruel in order to survive or live

Hey ho, you have made your points and I have made mine

Angry Andy wrote:I have never read such a load of bullshit in my life from a wannabe posh toff..
Totally outof synch with the vast majority. 
Hope your pet dog doesn’t get set upon by a pack of American bull terriers. 
That would be karma

HoratioTarr wrote:

Angry Andy wrote:I have never read such a load of bullshit in my life from a wannabe posh toff..
Totally outof synch with the vast majority. 
Hope your pet dog doesn’t get set upon by a pack of American bull terriers. 
That would be karma

Yes, pretty obscene wishful thinking, wasn't it?

And not one single, verifiable fact contained in my post was even challenged by him...simply because they ran counter to what he wanted to believe, both about decent, law-abiding hunts and their members and about equally decent, law-abiding people who choose not to support his extreme brand of Left wing thought.

Thorin wrote:

Angry Andy wrote:Why just go for the foc. Whst about wild board, deer, rabbits, sheep, horses, donkeys, chickens, feral dogs, gipsys. It isnt the controlling of foxes that is wrong persay, it is the methodology.
The hunters are not attempting to control fox numbers, their way makes little difference, so their reason for doing it is poor.

How about everyone gives up their dependence on cities and goes back to the simple life.

I mean if people really cared about animals, they would not use countless products or medicines, wear many clothes, not domesticate animals for their own selfish needs, not eat meat and allow the eco system to go back to what it originally was before humanity became very selfish. The worlds infrastructure is set up to the needs of humans. If people really cared for animals as they claim, they would give up this way of life.

The reality is if they did, they would become hunters in order to survive.

Go figure

He does have point. I dislike fox hunting because of the cruelty but yet I'll happily wear leather like a hypocrite.

May reconsider that now tbh. I've been looking at vegan bags and belts etc.

Yep. Good idea, eddie...

Let's hunt and skin more Vegans..

Their hides should make a good alternative to animal leathers -- and it could at least give some reasonable productive reason for their otherwise useless lives !

if YOU DON'T wear leather, thousands of Hides would be thrown away !

HoratioTarr wrote:Hopefully they won't bring it back.   The majority of people hate it.

it never went away, the whole act was so full of holes the police cannot enforce it. she is not bringing back hunting, she is going to repeal the current useless legislation.

magica wrote:Tbh the hooray Henry's never stopped.

It's disgusting, and how can it be called a sport when foxes are torn to bits, painfully and without mercy. Their screams are terrible. How would they like it.

hunting is a sport that is more than hooray henries and encompasses the working class, middle class and the hooray henries.
It provides much needed work in rural communities

Angry Andy wrote:I guess the next idea from the far right will be dogs hunting illegal immigrants. They had a film about that - The Running Man starring Arnie.

Allakaka would love that.

I would prefer to see champagne socialist being hunted first

eddie wrote:Surely this will make them unpopular? It's a nasty sport for nasty people.

how is the title of this thread allowed when you change my thread, no charge?

Raggamuffin wrote:There have been several proposals to bring it back or to amend the bill. This is why I don't vote Tory - ever. If it's unbanned, all the protests will start again, and the hunt monitors will have a field day. I hope she fails.

it isn't banned thats the point. the legislation is useless and unenforceable, thats why hunting continues to this day

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes it is, and let's not forget hare coursing and stag hunting, which is also carried out by nasty people.

Sadly, all this stuff goes on underground.  Badger baiting,  cock fighting, not exactly blood sports one associates with the upper classes but just as bad as fox hunting, if not worse.

badger baiting and cock fighting are good traditional working class pursuits, surely

Angry Andy wrote:Vic only posted his pro hunt view because I posted an anti hunt one. 
He is simply winding us up. He is in a minority on here, as he is in the general population. 84% are against it.
And a huge number of the more 'sensible conservative MP's also think it is abhorrent and anti Christian. It is believed upwards of 100 Conservatives would vote against its reintroduction. 
They will waste time and money on the relegalisation of hunting, but ultimately they will lose again . Which is good, because they need to represent the decent  84%, not the shitty nasty fuckers who are the 16%.

why do you present only your view as being valid. you do seem to have a problem when people dont agree with you.
anyone here can hold any view they like on this subject.
the point is that labours law is deliberately unenforceable and was a sop to the left of the party when blair wanted to be elected.

Angry Andy wrote:It still goes on around our way. Luckily the saboteurs are very succesful with diversions , false trails  and weird scents for the dogs. And a few Landy's have ended up with 2 puntures whilst the owners are riding. 
How infortunate!

yes we know that the left have no respect for other peoples property, thanks for confirming you are in favour of vandalism

Angry Andy wrote:It affects me because last year an illegal hunt rode across my cricket ground, cause over £1000 damage to the square. 
They paid up!

of course they paid up, they are law abiding unlike you and your leftist friends who condone criminal damage.

Eilzel wrote:From all I've read halal slaughter is not much crueler than any other method. And even if it is, there is a purpose for those animals being killed- they will be eaten.

Foxes being torn to pieces by dogs after being chased and terrified to exhaustion is far crueler and serves no purpose.

the deaths in halal and non halal are caused by cutting the throat and bleeding out of large animals. the bolt in the head or electrical charge to the brain are more to salve our consciences than any welfare concerns. People who are really against halal for animal welfare concerns should give up meat altogether unless they want to be considered hypocrites.
the meat tastes the same whichever method is used and I would defy anyone to tell the difference.

of course the government could solve the problem at a stroke by making ritual slaughter illegal as has been done in denmark I believe.

Eilzel wrote:It's cruel in the wild too didge. But that is the 'wild' where animals kill to eat. Not for reasons of sick pleasure. Watching animals get attacked in the wild is fascinating, but I don't see how a human with a pack of dogs doing the same can be considered 'fun'. It speaks of a sinister personality to me.

foxes will often kill far more than they can possibly eat, maybe they enjoy it as well.

Eilzel wrote:Animals suffering is always cruel didge. Of course that doesn't mean animals should think.about their prey- they are animals- a strange suggestion tbh.

My issue is with the reason.

Humans and animals kill other animals to eat. That us nature. I have no issues with this.

But for fun? Among highly evolved, conscious humam beings? That is my problem

you presumably would ban cats then as they most certainly torment their food before killing it.

Angry Andy wrote:But the question is WHY cvilised and educated MEN ( seldon women) feel the need to wear £2000 clothes whilst riding horses to watch an animal maiming and butchering another animal?
Clearly not a poor man's sport. Yet we are told everyone can participate.
Only if you can afford it. And speak with a plum in your mouth. And enjoy cruelty. 

Bloodlust?
Why wear red?  To mask the blood splatter.
Why invariably wealthy and 'posh" folk.?
We are told it is for all and enjoyed by all. Utter bollocks.
Hooray Henrys running amok as if they own the countryside - often trespassing on land on which they are not permitted.

If the pleasure is in the ride and the hunt, then drag hunt.
It seems most of the thrill is watching the fox in it's death throes, hearing it's shreiks of agony, watching it's guts being torn from it and the dogs feasting . 
These are the actions of sick individuals.

yes we understand your outrage is class based.
however cock fighting, dog fighting and badger baiting are all predominantly working class "sports"

Angry Andy wrote:And for thousands of years, the human race has been wrong to enjoy hunting of live animals.
We have evolved to appreciate the beauty of animals. Or 84% of the populus have.
The remaining 16% are still neanderthal in their mindset .

I wonder which percentage would survive if society collapses.

Angry Andy wrote:Why just go for the fox. What about wild boar, deer, rabbits, sheep, horses, donkeys, chickens, feral dogs, gipsys. It isnt the controlling of foxes that is wrong persay, it is the methodology.
The hunters are not attempting to control fox numbers, their way makes little difference, so their reason for doing it is poor.

boar, deer, rabbits are all hunted because if they are not they destroy their environment.

Angry Andy wrote:I have never read such a load of bullshit in my life from a wannabe posh toff..
Totally outof synch with the vast majority. 
Hope your pet dog doesn’t get set upon by a pack of American bull terriers. 
That would be karma

you do love wishing death and destruction on people who can out think and out talk you.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Angry Andy wrote:And for thousands of years, the human race has been wrong to enjoy hunting of live animals.
We have evolved to appreciate the beauty of animals. Or 84% of the populus have.
The remaining 16% are still neanderthal in their mindset .

I wonder which percentage would survive if society collapses.

I think that for "thousands of years" the human race would have faced extinction without food, hides and skins and animal bones for rudimentary tools.

Angry Andy wrote:Proud hunt sabateur. . Its funny how so many of the hunt riders cars get flat tires whilst they are riding.

yes we understand you are a self confessed criminal.

veya_victaous wrote:the problem is like Cage egg farms versus free Range there is a moral way and A cruel way

yes, the moral way means only rich toffs can afford them and the poor can bugger off.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Angry Andy wrote:I have never read such a load of bullshit in my life from a wannabe posh toff..
Totally outof synch with the vast majority. 
Hope your pet dog doesn’t get set upon by a pack of American bull terriers. 
That would be karma

you do love wishing death and destruction on people who can out think and out talk you.

Yep, and as I have already posted I'm neither a hunt member, supporter nor follower.

Perhaps Andy should have a go at his friend Scrat, who as we all know enjoys riding to hounds and the thrill of the hunt....he has boasted about it enough in the past.

Eilzel wrote:It is quite obvious here didge that the fox hunting being discussed is horseback fox hunting with dogs. It is that I oppose. Not hunting for food or culling.

I totalky disagree with not caring for animals. I know my feelings on that matter and have no interest justifying them here.

If we both oppose fox hunting the 'sport' then there is nothing more to discuss.

the foxes hunted in this way are by and large killed by shooting.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
I wonder which percentage would survive if society collapses.

I think that for "thousands of years" the human race would have faced extinction without food, hides and skins and animal bones for rudimentary tools.

some would have difficulty skinning a rabbit these day, let alone hunting it.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Eilzel wrote:It's cruel in the wild too didge. But that is the 'wild' where animals kill to eat. Not for reasons of sick pleasure. Watching animals get attacked in the wild is fascinating, but I don't see how a human with a pack of dogs doing the same can be considered 'fun'. It speaks of a sinister personality to me.

foxes will often kill far more than they can possibly eat, maybe they enjoy it as well.

I once had the job of disposing of more than 30 dead and mutilated Aylesbury ducks from my late wife's duck shed.

The fox that dug under the concrete step to get into the shed and commit the carnage needed food so much that it took just one bird. The rest it slaughtered in an orgy of bloodlust which is, of course, what foxes do.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
you do love wishing death and destruction on people who can out think and out talk you.

Yep, and as I have already posted I'm neither a hunt member, supporter nor follower.

Perhaps Andy should have a go at his friend Scrat, who as we all know enjoys riding to hounds and the thrill of the hunt....he has boasted about it enough in the past.

as we know some are incapable of seeing beyond a blue rosette.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

I think that for "thousands of years" the human race would have faced extinction without food, hides and skins and animal bones for rudimentary tools.

some would have difficulty skinning a rabbit these day, let alone hunting it.

I believe I'm right in saying that landowners are under a legal obligation to control rabbits on their land that are damaging and destroying crops on neighbouring farmland.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:There have been several proposals to bring it back or to amend the bill. This is why I don't vote Tory - ever. If it's unbanned, all the protests will start again, and the hunt monitors will have a field day. I hope she fails.

it isn't banned thats the point. the legislation is useless and unenforceable, thats why hunting continues to this day

It is banned. People often do things which are banned, but that doesn't mean they're not banned. Like I said, they have to look over their shoulders now in case there's a hunt monitor about. Not all police officers are indifferent you know - I've met plenty who say they will uphold the law as far as possible.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Yep.   Good idea, eddie...

Let's hunt and skin more Vegans..

Their hides should make a good alternative to animal leathers --  and it could at least give some reasonable productive reason for their otherwise useless lives !

Hahahahahahaha okay that was funny

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Eilzel wrote:It's cruel in the wild too didge. But that is the 'wild' where animals kill to eat. Not for reasons of sick pleasure. Watching animals get attacked in the wild is fascinating, but I don't see how a human with a pack of dogs doing the same can be considered 'fun'. It speaks of a sinister personality to me.

foxes will often kill far more than they can possibly eat, maybe they enjoy it as well.

That behaviour is called surplus killing and it's very common in many predators not just foxes. They don't do it for 'pleasure' they do it because it's instinctual.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It affects me in the way it should affect everyone - every right-thinking person anyway. These hunters do not own the wildlife, and they have no right whatsoever to go around torturing foxes, hares, and stags for their own amusement. No, I don't think there are more important things, and clearly the Tories think it's important enough to bother with, so that argument doesn't wash.

I think it's very important not to treat animals badly.  They have no voice.   There's always this hoo hah about human rights and how we are a civilised society...but hunting any animal for sport is not civilised, it's downright cruel and backward.    One can only imagine the terror a fox must feel being chased for miles by a baying pack, then cornered and ripped apart.   It's fucking disgusting.    

Exactly. If hunting with dogs is legal again, what does that tell people? That it's OK to torture and abuse an animal. Would they do that to their own pets?

Tommy Monk wrote:Fox hunting is not about controlling numbers or pest control... as foxes were introduced into the isle of wight specifically for the fox hunters to pursue over there when there were none there before...!

It is even referred to as a 'sport'!

Just in case anyone missed this...

Raggamuffin wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
it isn't banned thats the point. the legislation is useless and unenforceable, thats why hunting continues to this day

It is banned. People often do things which are banned, but that doesn't mean they're not banned. Like I said, they have to look over their shoulders now in case there's a hunt monitor about. Not all police officers are indifferent you know - I've met plenty who say they will uphold the law as far as possible.

it's banned in the sense it is on the statute books, but the law is so flawed that it is unenforceable and is why there aren't prosecutions. this is why the worthless law is going to be repealed.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Animals suffering is always cruel didge. Of course that doesn't mean animals should think.about their prey- they are animals- a strange suggestion tbh.

My issue is with the reason.

Humans and animals kill other animals to eat. That us nature. I have no issues with this.

But for fun? Among highly evolved, conscious humam beings? That is my problem

you presumably would ban cats then as they most certainly torment their food before killing it.

They are animals. Cats also clean their own genitals in publics. We'd arrest humans for doing the same. Humans are not animals (in that sense).

The Devil, You Know wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:the problem is like Cage egg farms versus free Range there is a moral way and A cruel way

yes, the moral way means only rich toffs can afford them and the poor can bugger off.

so get rid of capitalism, obvious solution

the more moral way is farm them yourself .

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It is banned. People often do things which are banned, but that doesn't mean they're not banned. Like I said, they have to look over their shoulders now in case there's a hunt monitor about. Not all police officers are indifferent you know - I've met plenty who say they will uphold the law as far as possible.

it's banned in the sense it is on the statute books, but the law is so flawed that it is unenforceable and is why there aren't prosecutions. this is why the worthless law is going to be repealed.

The law against murder is also unenforceable in that people still commit murder, so should it be repealed?

There have been successful prosecutions actually. Of course the penalties should be harsher, so that's what needs to change.

Raggamuffin wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
it's banned in the sense it is on the statute books, but the law is so flawed that it is unenforceable and is why there aren't prosecutions. this is why the worthless law is going to be repealed.

The law against murder is also unenforceable in that people still commit murder, so should it be repealed?

There have been successful prosecutions actually. Of course the penalties should be harsher, so that's what needs to change.

no, you can be charged and prosecuted because the law is clear on the subject, fox hunting law is muddled and the police cannot enforce it.

veya_victaous wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
yes, the moral way means only rich toffs can afford them and the poor can bugger off.

so get rid of capitalism, obvious solution  

the more moral way is farm them yourself .

can you explain how the vast majority of city dwellers would be able to farm eggs, especially free range eggs.
Yes of course the rich can put a coop in their ample gardens, but not so easy in a tower block

veya_victaous wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:the problem is like Cage egg farms versus free Range there is a moral way and A cruel way

yes, the moral way means only rich toffs can afford them and the poor can bugger off.

so get rid of capitalism, obvious solution  

the more moral way is farm them yourself .

Kinda hard when you live in a built-up city where there's no space and not everyone has a piece of land.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The law against murder is also unenforceable in that people still commit murder, so should it be repealed?

There have been successful prosecutions actually. Of course the penalties should be harsher, so that's what needs to change.

no, you can be charged and prosecuted because the law is clear on the subject, fox hunting law is muddled and the police cannot enforce it.

You can be charged and prosecuted for illegal hunting as well.

http://www.huntingact.org/prosecutions/summary/

Raggamuffin wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
no, you can be charged and prosecuted because the law is clear on the subject, fox hunting law is muddled and the police cannot enforce it.

You can be charged and prosecuted for illegal hunting as well.

http://www.huntingact.org/prosecutions/summary/

yes you can, but hunts do not kill foxes with dogs except by accident, the fox is shot.,

eddie wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

so get rid of capitalism, obvious solution  

the more moral way is farm them yourself .

Kinda hard when you live in a built-up city where there's no space and not everyone has a piece of land.

it would be most amusing watching people trying to farm eggs from tower blocks.
Of course letting chickens scratch around in the dirt is a good way to keep them, but it comes at a price. Just as farming chickens for meat comes at a price if you want free range and is why the 2 chicken is no longer a staple of the poorest in the land with chickens costing quite a bit more these days and putting it out of the reach of many very poor families.

Raggamuffin wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
no, you can be charged and prosecuted because the law is clear on the subject, fox hunting law is muddled and the police cannot enforce it.

You can be charged and prosecuted for illegal hunting as well.

http://www.huntingact.org/prosecutions/summary/

Where established hunts are prosecuted, usually as a result of surveillance by the police and organisations such as the RSPCA and the LACS, they really have no excuse; the Master and his staff are required to know the law and should stick to it. End of story.

Dogs can legally be used to flush out foxes from cover if it is being done for pest control purposes, but the fox must then be shot by a qualified marksman. A legitimate case locally was when a very old and mangy dog fox was regularly raiding free-range poultry and game-rearing units and a local gamekeeper and his assistant flushed out the fox and shot it. Clean kill and very necessary.

One of the main reasons why police fail to prosecute is because they simply don't have the resources to cover large rural areas and, in any case, they have to give priority to crime such as murder, rape, GBH, domestic assaults, etc., etc. I don't think anyone can reasonably argue with that.

The biggest hunting crime is illegal hare-coursing, which is highly organised and is not for catching hares for food but for heavy betting on the result of the kill.

The people concerned, mainly gangs from London and travellers, are dangerous and vicious people. We get a lot of it around here...they use 4X4s to drive through standing crops in order to release their dogs, principally lurchers, and they are prepared to carry weapons to deter any farmer or landowner brave enough to confront them.

Several of my neighbours have been threatened, one with an automatic.