Would that include, say, paedophiles? They might well argue their behaviour does no harm with a willing child.
It's too broad a question. But as above if it involves cruelty to another, either human or animal then yes. Of course vermin need to be controlled and animals will be used for food. But killed as humanely as possible. Not being ripped apart by a pack of dogs.
I repeat, 'the majority of people in the UK are AGAINST hunting animals for fun.'
So, you're in favour of hanging then? Supported by the majority of the people and very cost effective.
Regards Capitol
Who said anything about fun?
In any case it's irrelevant because it would appear in many parts of the country it is business as usual for the hunts.
The morally bankrupt party here is the government for wasting public money and parliamentary time.
Nope. No killing. If they do then the law comes in.
Hanging? Proof please.
Truth, morality, and evidence are all against you. Hunts imported foxes from Scandinavia when their numbers were too low for their 'sport'. Perhaps we should pass a law charging all the costs attributable to foxes onto hunt supporters?
Really? Several chief constables have gone on record as saying that this is not high priority for them.
Criminal friends of yours?
Only for Hunt criminals.
Neither is the 70mph limit.
Priorities should be set by the police authorities; not by chief constables.
It depends on how they do it. Didn't you know?
But Chief Constables are not the law.
Why don't you two lover boys disappear up each others orifices, I wonder?
Wrong. You miss one very critical item: foxes are mammals and social animals. Your 'solution' is obviously acceptable to someone incapable of serious thinking and fails in one very serious manner - it doesn't work. In fact it doesn't work so badly that it actually does the opposite - ie it makes the problem worse.
That is certainly a 'solution'. It ignores the cost to other wildlife and it ignores the consequences. It's a 'solution' for those not fit to bear the second bit of H*mo sapiens.
Right, which basically means that they may do something when they feel like it and have nothing more important to do.
Tell them that
No, but they do play a significant part in how it is operated.
I can only speak for myself but perhaps in the good doctor's case it's because you're there perhaps?
I don't have any criminal friends.
While I neither condone breaking of the law nor would object to it being applied where appropriate; as far as fox hunting is concerned, it is inappropriate to have legislation as much as it is to waste time and money on what amounts to government grandstanding.
The legislation has failed and will continue to fail and the sooner it's repealled the better.
Perhaps people should be left alone to pursue what they legally have done for centuries and which does not affect anybody in government or the average man in the city street.
Sounds about right for lazy policemen.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required