Part P conudrum.....

[Doctor Drivel]

Do they have coloured ones for Chavs?

[Dave Plowman (News)]

It probably would have been without the diversion tricks of those who think it ok to rip animals apart for sport.

[Roger]

The message from "Dave Plowman (News)" contains these words:

If those who so vehemently opposed fox hunting had been genuinely motivated by considerations of animal welfare then they would not have concentrated on hunting with dogs. Fishing is by far the most barbaric and most pervasive of the 3 common blood sports and even an apparently innocent pastime like keeping a pet cat probably causes more destruction to wildlife in 24 hours than fox hunting has since its inception in modern form (IIRC) circa 1750. (Yes John it has be around for centuries).

[Tony Bryer]

But likewise if those who argue that foxes are pests which need to be controlled genuine felt this they wouldn't put so much effort into creating conditions favourable to foxes.

[Capitol]

Nah, he's too dIMM. I was finance trained in multinational companies. Capital gains are largely tax free if managed properly. Offshore beneficial trusts are quite good as well.

Under this government only the poor, pay really high taxes. You must really be suffering. :)

Regards Capitol

[Doctor Drivel]

I find that hard to believe as you come across as totally and utterly stupid.

[Capitol]

That's unusual, you normally believe everything that you read. How's life going in your care home? Given up the medication we see.

Regards Capitol

[John Cartmell]

I think one hunt has an (unconfirmed) 'pedigree' going back that far. Most are of late 19th century and rely on 'new' money from the late 20th century. In any case the ritual almost died out about 100 years ago but was 'resued' by the import of foxes from Scandinavia. I think that just about demolishes most of the justfications that are used for the continued (illegal) practice.

[Roger]

The message from John Cartmell contains these words:

D'ye [na] ken John Peel?

You got any evidence at all to back your up your overheated imagination?

[John Cartmell]

In article , Roger wrote: [about a (very) short account of fox Hunts in the UK]

As I hadn't stated anything controversial I'm at a loss to see what you are questioning. Such Hunts generally started following the Napoleonic Wars (after the Peninsular Campaign) and only really took off in the late 19th Century. Foxes were thin on the ground at the turn of the 19th/20th Centuries and Hunts imported fresh foxes from Scandinavia to supply 'sport' - after the example of other Hunts who imported foxes into Spain and Australia for the same purpose. Hunts were generally dying out in the 20th century until revived by new money from the likes of retired pop musicians and others able to generate serious sums of money quickly but needing to buy an 'acceptable' position in society.

[Doctor Drivel]

That is not unusual, as there are other stupid people around too.

[John]

We don't have any retired (or otherwise) pop stars in the nearby Holdernes or York and Ainsty regions. AFAIK the majority of the members are local small businessmen (shopkeeepers, garages, farmers,plumbers etc) or simply country folk and their wives. I don't hunt personally but I do ride for pleasure and meet many of the folks who do hunt while out riding or at local shows. Nothing "special" or stuck up about them, just folks who enjoy their pastime. From discussions with them most of the kills are rapid and must be less traumatic than dying slowly over a week or so with a bullet or shotgun wound festering away, or a partial dose of poison. The antis often come up with fairy stories about dubious practices such as breeding foxes for release etc but I figure this works on the basis if something is said often enough it must be right mustn't it? It is like many other things in life - someone makes an outrageous claim which because there isn't any data to question or disprove is difficult to refute.

[Bob Martin]

Like the one about fox-hunting being necessary?

[Tony Bryer]

At the weekend the Telegraph - scarcely a left-wing rag - had a story saying that since the hunting ban far more foxes were being shot than were previously killed by hunts. Now if foxes are pests then one assumes that farmers think this a very good thing. But the Conservatives have promised to reverse the anti-hunting law if they get back into power which presumably means that there will be more foxes around. All this makes it very clear that fox hunting is nothing more than pursuing a creature and killing it for pleasure.

[John Cartmell]

You need to justify any sort of killing. Most of the so-called damage 'caused' by foxes is caused because of the disruption done by killing foxes. Until you appreciate that the whole thing is done for fun and status - and not for any need connected with foxes - you will continue to misunderstand the whole business.

So how do you refute the video-tape evidence? The whole thing is well-known and well understood. Evidence is hard to get because those getting it have been threatened and beaten up. Despite that evidence has been obtained and publicly aired - so why do you deny its existence?

[Andy Hall]

The question is more one of whether it is appropriate to legislate (ineffectively as well) in something that doesn't directly affect humans who are not involved in it. There are much higher priorities, and this has much to do about lobbying by people whose lives are not affected by something to attempt to restrict the freedoms of others.

It's a slippery slope.

If we are going to take this path then I think that we should ban angling. It isn't necessary.

Furthermore I think that we should make attendance at professional soccer matches illegal. I find that people participating in these behaving agressively on the street, in trains and buses and urinating in phone boxes. Clearly this is uncivilised and should be banned, especially as it affects other humans. It isn't necessary.

[John Cartmell]

Your freedom to get pleasure from killing other sentient creatures is not a freedom to be cherished.

[Andy Hall]

I have never said that I had any interest at all in being involved in foxhunting. I simply said that it is not appropriate to waste parliamentary time and invoking the Parliament Act to force through legislation for which even the prime minister has little enthusiasm.

The result has been something that is unenforceable because the legilsation is fundamentally broken and the police have little interest in applying it.

If I thought for one moment that this had anything to do with animal welfare I would support it without question.

The reality is that it doesn't. If the government were serious about animal welfare, they would have dealt with angling and other forms of sport involving animals. They didn't.

Therefore one has to look beyond this into the real motivations. These are clearly grandstanding to the desires of a few pressure groups whose members are not involved in or affected by fox hunting; an attempt by town dwellers to impose their standards on country dwellers and last but not least some kind of misplaced class warfare.

On the basis of this, and not because of animal welfare, the legislation should be repealled and the government should resign for abuse of parliamentary procedures. The whole affair is thoroughly dishonest.

[Roger]

The message from John Cartmell contains these words:

So where is your evidence that:

a) That there was very little fox hunting prior to the late 19th century.

b) That foxes were so thin on the ground circa 1900 that hunts in general were importing foxes in bulk.

c) That fox hunting very nearly died out at that time and was only saved by the said imports.

d) That fox hunting was dying out in the late 20th century before being revived by new money.

c) That it was new money from social climbers that revitalised the sport.

[Tony Bryer]

Urban taxpayers pay millions (billions?) to subsidising rural services - buses, post offices etc. If the rural brigade want to take the view that they should run their own lives and we can run ours then I'm more than willing to take the tax cut.