I'm not enthusiastic about it either in that I wouldn't particularly want to go and do it. However, I don't think that it's appropriate to legislate against it either when there are far more important issues.
One wouldn't mind if the services were any good. Trouble is that they aren't.
I didn't know that Ken was eligible.
That's always true.
I'd go back to a more basic point though. Does so much tax revenue need to be raised in the first place?
I go back to my point of bad law though.... after all the time spent on it, all we have is an entry on the statue books. It is a ban that is poorly drafted and unenforcable (and for that matter unenforced). The critters are still going to be killed on way or anyother anyway, so what was the point?
If you had to die, would you choose being ripping apart by a pack of dogs?
Against being shot, trapped or poisoned, or dying of disease, definitely.
Especially if it was a question of having my neck broken with a quick swing of the hounds jaws, rather than the ripping apart bit, which happens afterwards.
I think you will find that the problems are mostly (entirely?) human based. Trying to solve the problem the way it is done by hunts (or above) is no answer and almost always makes the problem worse. See also today's New Scientist report on 'problem' elephants.
Treat animals (or humans) as simply numbers and you will never sort out the problems that you cause. They have psychology (and sociology) just as relevant as ours. The best way of dealing with the elephant (and fox) 'problem' is to leave it alone and let their own social system ensure that 'rogue' elements are rare rather than the norm. In the meantime (getting back to relevance) we need to clean up our act so that foxes aren't attracted onto our patch by our badly discarded waste.
Rubbish. Shoot them and keep shooting them, or hunt them and keep hunting them, and the problem will be lessened. Taken to extremes, these and similar techniques have been known to totally eliminate the subject.
Bertie, stop babbling balls.
Do you mean you want to keep paracites?
Value for what? They cost an amazing amount of money and most importantly uphold a strata of privilege of Eton/Harrow, Oxbridge, Judiciary, military top brass etc.
They serve no purpose except their own. An anacronism that should have gone
100-150 years ago.
Then you fund them by your sycophantic self then.
What money? It has been proven may times than no one comes to the UK because we have a Queen. All surveys indicate that poepl come to the UK for many reasons; off the liost was Queeie and here paracites. The castles will still be there if they are kicked out.
It costs you pillock.
This pillock wants to close down the embassies now. A politician can be voted out. Democracy and all that. You know that thing we had many soldiers killed for instigating in Iraq. You might have heard of it.
Then the hidden cots of military; half the British Army is geared to protect her. Household this and that and Guards this and that. Chocolate soldiers. The Scots Guards were not combat ready in the Falklands because they were marching up and down in front of Queenie, hence their poor performance in combat. And the fighters that accompany the Queen's plane everywhere. The police costs, and the rest not accounted for.
The majority of people in the UK are AGAINST hunting animals for fun. The problem was that the government should have just banned it and not have allowed it to drag on for years.
I have no time for bargain hunters either.
Banning killing of animal for fun is a very good law and is supported by the majority of the people.
In fact the majority of people wouldn't want to do it but don't see a reason to prevent others when it comes to wasting huge amounts of Parliamentary time and money on doing so.
The result is the same as for much of the rest of this government's legislative programme. Unenforceable, idealistic nonsense.
Democracy dies when the people start to believe that membership of a simple majority confers the authority to control the behaviour of the corresponding minority.
Are you truly suggesting that any activity of which a majority disapproves should be made illegal?
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.