hunting r u for it

[Crazy_Harry]

well, thats the problem, isn't it? I choose a life that has as little impact on my environment as I can currently make it- I don't eat meat for ethical reasons (and not because I think the ittle fluffy critters are cute), and I take steps throughout my life to aid all measures concerned with the environment, because I think the world is a much more important entity than I am, and I believe if humans have anything they can contribute, it is our abilities as builders and users who are able to feel compassion.

 

Why? Because I have a different scale of "necessity" than someone who likes to chow down on a mcTesticle burger every day.

 

I do not see the necessity of fox-hunting with hounds, as as has been made clear by hissing sid, if they were actively engaging in a necessary measure designed to control the population of what farmers and politicians have chosen to class as "vermin", they would use guns, as they are a far more effective way of achieving such a result.

 

Fox-hunting with hounds is done as a social thing. It brings in money to the rural community (most of it, of course, ending up in the hands of those who already have plenty- the landowners), but it is not a necessity.

 

What it does do is illustrate the sort of cruelty that that particular aspect of society is prepared to embrace. For me, that aspect of our society is lagging embarressingly behind in the advancement stakes.

 

As for Hunting with guns: I'm yet to hear a substantially sound argument that, without shooting, the grouse population, for example, will take over england, or anything remotely close. Hunting is done, ultimately, to benefit the landowner who does not want his area of land overpopulated by those animals he does not want overpopulating his land.

 

Again, it is down to what we choose to classify as vermin- an animal such as a rabbit is not "vermin", there is no genetic code labelled "vermin"- it is a name that we give to animals (indeed, we gave them over the period when we existed as an agriculturally-motivated society), because we have decided that the cost to us of living with them is more than the cost we are prepared to pay to NOT live with them.

 

thats the hunting equation, reduced to its bare-bones. Do I like this animal? no. Am I prepared to pay money to co-exist with it? no. Then I must kill it.

 

of course, I'm yet to meet an animal I can't live in the same square mile as, but then, I'm not a crop-growing farmer.

 

so for me, my scale of necessity, based on personal ethics, does not allow for any form of hunting, whereas for a farmer, his scale of necessity (based, of course, on economics rather than such namby-pamby hippy notions as ethics) agrees with hunting whole-heartedly.

 

unless he is prepared to invest in measures that serve to protect his crops without resorting to out and out violence. But that means spending money, and most humans, when the choice is down to spending money or violence, tend to go with violence, every time.

[Hissing_Sid]

I'll be honest. Most of the farmers I know manage to plead poverty AND drive around in brand new 4.6 litre Range Rovers at the same time.

 

However their lives are a very hand-to-mouth existence. They buy equipment and machinery based on forecasts of crop yields in the next year etc.

 

As a result, basically, it's easier for a farmer to suffer the loss of a couple of dozen chickens and then pay me £10 (the current going rate for a fox tail around my area) to get rid of it for him instead of stumping up £10,000 to install anti pest fences.

 

Regarding animals such as grouse and other "game" creatures, they are bred purely for sport. They are hand reared on farm estates and released into the wild for the purpose of being shot.

Not pleasant, I guess, but a lot better life than a cow or pig grown for slaughter by Tesco.

 

Incidentally, I'd just like to say that I have a lot of respect for Crazy Harrys POV. I work in the construction industry and I consider it part of my job to try to help lessen the environmental impact which the industry creates.

 

However, that's the key point, hunting in any way,shape or form (distasteful as it may be) doesn't have any great impact on the environment at all.

 

How many rabbits do you suppose hunters kill every year?

Then how many rabbits do you suppose foxes kill?

[aimpoint]

Aimpoint, I have, on several occasions outlined the benefit to the community.  To kiss up to Sid and make out that noone else has is, really, a misrepresentation of the arguement being had here.  Was it not you who not three pages ago agreed that a compromise could be made in the form of drag hunting?   

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

   

i said it would be good IF hunting got baned as it may save a lot of the hounds,and that it could be a compromise,but like i said to you before some may no longer see the need for there hounds,and some may not like the idea of hounds still being "trained" with drag hunting

i know many people have said that it has benefits, like yourself and i didn't mean for the post to look like i said everyone else was had a posted a load on nonsense and i apologize if i offended anyone over that, i am not trying to make out someone as better/more intelligent/ignorant/foolish etc just because they support the hunt or they dont,as we are all equal and have our own views and opinions which everyone is entitled to and i respect

with regard to what sid said,hes got a point your average shooter is likely to bag twice as many foxes as a hunt ever will,its also nice that someone else other than myself has pointed out the fund raising stuff that the hunt does

 

again i apologize if i have offended anyone in my post/s

[Foxtrot]

I know its a little late in the thread life, and that it's been going all off topic now.. but hey, I'll post some sense anyways.

 

 

Please do not cross the English Fox hunts with American Hunting. Two totally different things. I've never gone on an English Fox hunt so I can't give my opinion on it, but I've been hunting in North America since I was 9. I hunt normally in Ohio, and Penn. I've been to Colorado, Alasak, New Mexico, and Lousianna hunting before.

 

Firstly, I gotta say this... Hunting for sport is wrong. You don't go out and shoot and animal then leave it. Also, Poaching is wrong, hunting out of season, and using the wrong caliber weapons. I eat the meat, or donate the meat off of everything I've ever killed, and will continue to kill (with the exception of diseased meats. Many-a times have I shot a white tail deer before that's been wounded by a wrong caliber gun, or an arrow that happen to hit in the rear flank, and it's gotten infected with gan-green and such.)

 

Secondly, lets list some pros of hunting:

 

Thins population of said animal. In north america, you get a problem with diseases and over population. Where I'm from, youngstown Ohio, deer cause tons of problems with peoples gardens, and majorly, on the roads (I.e. People hitting deer.) In the month of november, 30 car accidents happen a night because of deer in mahoning county. Why? It's rut for deer, so they're all over the place at all times of the night.

 

Provides a source of food. If you look around the local meat shops, you will see durring the hunting seasons, and right after, more of that animal being sold then normal beef.

 

Licenese and tags provide a ton of money for wildlife and wetlands protection. Not sure about you guys, but when I went out to colorado hunting, it costed me 515$ for an elk tag, and 623$ for a bear tag. I didn't get a bear, but hey, all well. The money is going to go to a good cause - helping the wildlife.

 

Buying ammuntion and guns - Helps local economy. Lets take in example ducks - American adverage is something like 53 shells per duck brought down. Thats alot of ammo, and steel shot isn't exactly cheap.

 

Hunters donate money. Lots of it. Oranizations like ducks unlimited, white tail unlimited, etc. etc. take donations to conserve and protect what ever they are declared for. Last year, Ducks unlimited spent over a billion dollars protecting america's wetlands. Not only for hunters - but for every one.

 

And for people who say its cruel to animals to shoot them.. I'll say this. A good sportman will hit a deer/animal and send it into shock imediately, if not kill it imediately. Last time I hunted, I shot a whitetail deer, went through both of it's lungs and it's heart. Yeah, dead instantly.

 

So please, when you say your opinion on hunting, please say what kind of hunting you mean.

 

Cheers

Fox

[creeping death]

fox hunting?...north american hunting? its still hunting therefore innccont animals still die some are hunted to extintion which in my opinion is the worst form of hunting.

 

Fox hunting methods are also very creul and so are those used by bear baiters

however one form of hunting in england i really hate is deer hunting, paticularly stagg hunting mainly because there are such elegant creatures, its like stamping on a butterfly.Many forms of english deer are also becoming endangered WAKE UP PEOPLE!

 

Airsoft of the other hand is perfectly fine sport in which the competitors choose to compete unlike animals in hunting because i pretty sure they don't won't to compete in hunting.

[Hissing_Sid]

Airsoft of the other hand is perfectly fine sport in which the competitors choose to compete unlike animals in hunting because i pretty sure they don't won't to compete in hunting.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Animals eat each other too.

 

What ya going to do about that? Persuade them all to play nice?

[Crazy_Harry]

"Regarding animals such as grouse and other "game" creatures, they are bred purely for sport. They are hand reared on farm estates and released into the wild for the purpose of being shot.

Not pleasant, I guess, but a lot better life than a cow or pig grown for slaughter by Tesco."- Hissing Sid.

 

Precisely why I'm a vegetarian- I see neither lifestyle as acceptable, so sacrifice my enjoyment of meat products for the future generations of other creatures.

 

Yes, the meat industry is far more damaging environmentally than hunting could ever be- the nutritional benefits of the amount of crops needed to maintain a herd of cows is exponentially larger than the nutritional benefits those same cows offer once slaughtered. Over farming frequently leads to over-population and over-grazing, which is destructive to the environment, the nutrients in soil, its ability to grow organisms within it, and the water table.

 

The demand for cheaper and cheaper meat in supermarkets has fuelled a worrying tendency by farmers and meat producers to engage in essentially unethical and ultimately dangerous pursuits- the recent Foot and Mouth disaster, the BSE, or madcow's disease epidemic, and the Salmonella scare in Britain all came from bad farming practices, and, possibly with the exception of the Foot and Mouth disaster, were so utterly avoidable as to be ridiculous.

 

Long before I gave up eating meat, I realised that the cost of meat should, by its very nature, be expensive- it is, afterall, a life that we take in order to feed our tastebuds. Why should this be cheap? I also realised that a regular intake of even the cheapest meat was still infinately more expensive than a vegetarian diet, while being exponentially more damging to both the environment and ultimately, human health.

 

In short, it makes very little sense to eat meat, unless (and this is where my argument stumbles a little) that meat is raised in the wild, hunted, killed, and eaten, with little waste.

 

Indeed, the only time I will actively consider eating meat is that I am so hungry I will kill for self-preservation. As I will probably never be in such a position, I will never eat meat (probably) for the rest of my life. I don't miss it, to be perfectly blunt.

 

Animals raised for SPORT, however, do not enter this equation- they are artificially induced into the environment in numbers deemed suitable by the landowner (though not necessarily by the environment) and then butchered with impunity by people with guns for the simple fun of it.

 

The fact that I can say that, and a great many humans will think "yeah, so what?" indicates how this situation came about- humans are too frequently elitist, with themselves above everything else, and pay little or no regard for those around them. Leaving the whole cruelty debate to one side, I consider it more of a measure of a humans worth as to what sort of degrees of selfishness and impact they inflict upon their environs.

 

A "sport shooter"- someone who seeks out and shoots from herds or flocks raised specifically for the purpose of being shot for money, is someone who is governed by selfish motivations that impact heavily on the lives and species of those in their environment.

 

Basically, humans have no need to eat meat. Meat is eaten for purely selfish reasons in our current societies- we a re rich enough for us all in the west to live perfectly healthy and long-lived vegetarian lifestyles. We don't because we like the taste of meat, and becasue we are labouring under a misunderstanding as to the amount of protein the average human needs to consume to be healthy. Hunting in any form, is, therefore, an essentially selfish act, governed either by a desire to eat meat, a desire to shoot things that are moving, or by a desire to protect ones investments without having to expend capital.

 

It all depends as to whether you are ok with such levels of selfishness.

[Hissing_Sid]

Must admit, I reckon that it's important that we, as a species, DO retain our understanding of what it is to hunt.

 

To me the ultimate ignorance comes from people who say "You don't need to hunt because meat comes from Tesco."

 

I must admit, I do understand that I'm elitist and selfish. I'm part of a species of apex predators in my habitat. I'm expected to be able to pick and choose what I eat just as a fox does when it raids a henhouse.

Unfortunately, as a species, we've just grown too good at our "harvesting" of animals.

 

For a lot of people actually hunting for food and then eating what you've killed is a great way to understand where food comes from and what has to happen in order to supply us with our dinner.

[Crazy_Harry]

precisely- and its a great way to swell the ranks of the vegetarian society too- I know so many people who eat meat, but are kind to animals and consider animal cruelty to be awful- they won't wear fur, but they'll buy a big mac.

 

bizarre.

[guinnessman]

Well, this has been a pretty damn thread to catch up on (I tell ya, I don't check this site for a few days and all the interesting stuff comes out, typical ). For what it's worth, here's my 5 cents, or 2 cents, or whatever the hell it is....

 

First off, a disclaimer - I've never hunted any animal in my life ( a few humans maybe ), although I wouldn't mind having a crack at that Barney the purple dinosaur.....

 

Hunting animals isn't really my thing. If I did have to hunt animals, I'd shoot them (that's out of an innate fear of horses more than anything else). However, I most emphatically do not support a ban on hunting. Main reason being is that it is a politically motivated move by politicians who harbour a traditional dislike for the element of society (the aforementioned hooray henries, I'll get on to that in a second) which is percieved to do all the hunting, and it is this dislike which is primarily behind the ban, not the wellbeing of foxes.

I don't dislike foxes. I even saved one once when it ran out of a treeline about twenty feet in front of me as I was walking my then pet dog, an incredibly slobbery and stupid Rottweiler who weighed more than I did. Though personally I doubt whether my dog would have caught the fox even if I hadn't almost dislocated my shoulder keeping him close on the leash, he was just too damn stupid....

I just think that i) considering all the other stuff going on in todays society foxes should be low down on the priority scale - hey, if we can't stop knocking seven shades out of our fellow humans, foxes don't have much of a chance, and ii) a lot of anti-hunt types dislike pro-hunt types because they're percieved to be upper class.

I say percieved to be upper class because a helluva lot of participants in hunts aren't upper class. I was speaking to a taxi driver the other day who goes on hunts.

And even if they are mostly upper-class, so what? What you're basically saying is that because somebody has a different accent and more money than you (which if they are members of the aristocracy they were born into - it's not their fault they have that accent, and if you were born into money, would you refuse it?), they should be deprived from doing something that probably has no impact on you whatsoever purely because of who they are. That kind of statement is a very dangerous one to make. I wouldn't associate with the upper class types myself (yeah, I do think the accents are annoying as well) but that doesn't mean I dislike them as people. And I certainly wouldn't brand them all as inbred drunken brainless fraudsters any more than I would brand all muslims as terrorists, all texans as brainless rednecks, etc etc.

Hey, if you dislike fox-hunting because of a genuine concern for the well-being of foxes, go ahead, I can respect that at least. But let's not have any more talk of 'hooray henries'.

And incidentally, I'm not too keen on the fairness aspect either. Nature isn't fair. Just look at those wildlife programmes they show when all those poor wildebeest get eaten by lions and stuff (you know, one of those days the wildebeest are going to figure out that when TV cameras are about, they're in trouble, wildebeest are just too damn boring to film otherwise ).

And to quote some military type in a book I read: 'Fair means all my people get home, and **** everyone else.' (Not 100% relevant I know, but it's such a cool quote I had to get it in somewhere )

[Foxtrot]

fox hunting?...north american hunting?  its still hunting therefore innccont animals still die some are hunted to extintion which in my opinion is the worst form of hunting.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

You don't read very well do you? No offense, read my post, then reply to it with knowledge.

 

 

I'll put it in terms of airsoft. You just ran right into about 20 people with m249's with a springer. If you were smart, you would of looked at what your enemies where before you charged.

[Crazy_Harry]

Well, this has been a pretty damn thread to catch up on (I tell ya, I don't check this site for a few days and all the interesting stuff comes out, typical  ). For what it's worth, here's my 5 cents, or 2 cents, or whatever the hell it is....

 

First off, a disclaimer - I've never hunted any animal in my life ( a few humans maybe  ), although I wouldn't mind having a crack at that Barney the purple dinosaur.....

 

Hunting animals isn't really my thing. If I did have to hunt animals, I'd shoot them (that's out of an innate fear of horses more than anything else). However, I most emphatically do not support a ban on hunting. Main reason being is that it is a politically motivated move by politicians who harbour a traditional dislike for the element of society (the aforementioned hooray henries, I'll get on to that in a second) which is percieved to do all the hunting, and it is this dislike which is primarily behind the ban, not the wellbeing of foxes.

I don't dislike foxes. I even saved one once when it ran out of a treeline about twenty feet in front of me as I was walking my then pet dog, an incredibly slobbery and stupid Rottweiler who weighed more than I did. Though personally I doubt whether my dog would have caught the fox even if I hadn't almost dislocated my shoulder keeping him close on the leash, he was just too damn stupid....

I just think that i) considering all the other stuff going on in todays society foxes should be low down on the priority scale - hey, if we can't stop knocking seven shades out of our fellow humans, foxes don't have much of a chance, and ii) a lot of anti-hunt types dislike pro-hunt types because they're percieved to be upper class.

I say percieved to be upper class because a helluva lot of participants in hunts aren't upper class. I was speaking to a taxi driver the other day who goes on hunts.

And even if they are mostly upper-class, so what? What you're basically saying is that because somebody has a different accent and more money than you (which if they are members of the aristocracy they were born into - it's not their fault they have that accent, and if you were born into money, would you refuse it?), they should be deprived from doing something that probably has no impact on you whatsoever purely because of who they are. That kind of statement is a very dangerous one to make. I wouldn't associate with the upper class types myself (yeah, I do think the accents are annoying as well) but that doesn't mean I dislike them as people. And I certainly wouldn't brand them all as inbred drunken brainless fraudsters any more than I would brand all muslims as terrorists, all texans as brainless rednecks, etc etc.

Hey, if you dislike fox-hunting because of a genuine concern for the well-being of foxes, go ahead, I can respect that at least. But let's not have any more talk of 'hooray henries'.

And incidentally, I'm not too keen on the fairness aspect either. Nature isn't fair. Just look at those wildlife programmes they show when all those poor wildebeest get eaten by lions and stuff (you know, one of those days the wildebeest are going to figure out that when TV cameras are about, they're in trouble, wildebeest are just too damn boring to film otherwise  ).

And to quote some military type in a book I read: 'Fair means all my people get home, and **** everyone else.'  (Not 100% relevant I know, but it's such a cool quote I had to get it in somewhere )

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Though I agree with you that the vast majority of foxhunters are not the scum on horseback, I still don't agree with the logic- why is foxhunting still legal in a land that has banned all other forms of hunting with dogs? Because fox-hunting, due to the cost of organising a hunt, is the preserve of a certain section of our society that has always held inassailable political power, even though they represent an undemocratic and demographically tiny percentage of the population.

 

Bear-baiting, Badger-baiting, using terriers to hunt rabbits, are all technically illegal now. They still go on, of course, but they are illegal.

 

Fox-hunting is MAINTAINED by political manipulation. If this was a truly democratic country, then foxhunting would have been banned years ago, because despite what the countryside alliance would have us believe, an overwhelming majority of British people consider it to be a reprehensible way to behave.

 

The fact that, every time the House of Commons votes to impose some sort of ban, and the last vestige of our feudal past, the House of Lords casts it out (the Lord are overwhelmingly Aristocratic landowners, afterall), indicates this.

 

The only way this most recent attempt at imposing a ban is political from the point of view of those wishing to impose it, is due to tony blair's desperate desire to divert attention from his abysmal track-record in other areas of British life. This does not make the desire of the majority of the population to see foxhunting finally thrown on the historical scrap heap, where it so deservedly belongs, into a "political motivation". Only the reasons behind our tony supporting them.

 

Imagine, if you will, a Britain where the rich landowners didin't foxhunt, and never had, and foxhunting was something done by a group of peasants for the simple pleasure of seeing something slaughtered.

 

How long do you think such a practice would last? It would have been banned along with badger-baiting. It is maintained, like some braindead coma victim on a lifesupport machine, by external means, namely, pressure from the undemocratically elected minority that is the House of Lords.

 

Fox-hunting IS a political issue, but never pretend that it is only political to tony blair and.

 

And if you want to paint these upper-crust twits as the victims in all this, please remember that it is they who have consistently gone against democracy in the UK, they who for centuries have held all the power in its final form (the House of Lords, even with the Parliament Act, is still far more powerful than the democratically elected House of Commons), and continue to manipulate it to suit their petty desires.

 

Stopping foxhunting wouldn't hurt them in the slightest- the imposition of a ban in Scotland has seen no ill-effects to any hunts, as they simply accepted the ban and changed the nature of their hunt.

 

The English hunts continue to spin out lies about how it will effect the local community, thousands out of jobs, packs of hound destroyed, blah blah, blah, but this SIMPLY ISN'T THE CASE. They have created an industry, they are the employers. It is up to them, as the Scottish hunts realised, to change their business practices to accept that it is no longer the 18th century.

 

I have no sympathy for them. They have consistently proved themselves to be utterly uncaring about the environment in which they exist within, they would happily slaughter all those packs of hounds if a ban was imposed, and they would gleefully sack all their workers without any kind of severance pay or pension, blaming the government and the urban liberals.

 

As always, they renege on their basic civic responsibility as owner and employer, to seek to change their business practices (which wouldn't be difficult at all- see scotland again) to continue to "afford" their packs and their workers and turn a profit from their drag-hunts.

 

Imagine how many more would go drag-hunting, if the killing was removed fromt eh occasion? Imagine how many more would PAY to do it? I would. I'd cease to have any ethical or social problem with it.

 

but, of course, its not about that, is it. It isn't about the money, it isn't about improving relations, or encouraging newcomers to the sport.

 

Its about a powerful elite maintaining thier hierarchy, and their political status, at the expense of democracy. Its about the democratic will of the people being subverted to protect a tiny, elitist minority. And it is, ultimately, about that same tiny elitist minority clinging to their outmoded, unethical, unpopular habits, and effectively trying to deny that history has well and truly left them behind.

 

These people do not deserve our sympathy. Whatever we stand for, democracy, freedom, the right of the people to a voice, they stand against it, in favour of their own selfishness and corrupt power. Symathy is wasted on them.

 

Damn, I'm an angry chap today, I should go do some meditation or something...

[creeping death]

yes animals do kill each other however they do this either over food or territory not for sport and that was mt point.

[Hissing_Sid]

yes animals do kill each other however they do this either over food or territory not for sport and that was mt point.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ever seen a cat kill a mouse?

Ever seen a fox in a henhouse?

 

No idea what you're talking about, have you?

[Duff Beer]

Crazy Harry, although I agree with your points about the Scottish hunts and the changes that they have made, I feel I must defend the political role that the House of Lords has.

The House of Lords is an unelected minority of the citiznes of teh land, correct. However, this is not necessarily a bad thing. I say this not as some secret desire to be part of their very exclusive society, but because I believe in their role and see the continual eroding of the power that they have by the current Labor government to be a threat to the civil liberties of which we all hold dear.

I shall elaborate, how many people are actually happy with the Labour government at the moment? I have a sneeking suspicion that at the next general election the Labour party will once again be elected to power. This worries me for several reasons. The 'recent' terrorist threat has lead to a number of consequences including the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and the passing of laws allowing the detention of suspected terrorists without trial. Now let me make one thing clear, I take the security of my country extremely seriously and wish for my home as safe as possible, but not at the expense of civil liberties. The right to a fair trial and the dissallowing of imprisonment without trial is something that hhas protected not only the judicial system but also the civil liberties of the citiznes of this great country. Denying these people the right to a trail and holding them indefinitely without one is wrong. I have no doubt that MI5 have damning evidence about them, but the actions of the government are wrong. the government is able to pass laws like this because they have the support of the Sun readers and the majhority of the uninformed public. However, that does not mean that I am calling all Labour supporters ignorant readers of tabloids, take Robin Cook for example, I don't agree with his poilitcs but he is a man of integrity and one for whom I have a large amount of respect. The Lords recently declared that the detention of the prisoners without trial is wrong and unconstitutional. This is the precise difference between the two houses. The Lords can say something like that because they don't have the public to answer for. The government has to be seen to do something to combat the terrorist threat or else it will not be elected again. The Lords don't have to worry about such things as elections as the only thing that will restrict their individual participance in the government is time itself.

Admittedly, the Lords does have some outdated practices of which I include hunting with hounds, but this is the compromise we have to bear to have a sensible governmental practice. The Lords have no political motivation behind their actions (with the exception of protecting a few of their own interests such as the abominable Death Tax and their sport) and thus can bring sanity to an otherwise dire government.

They are there not to be undemocratic, I argue the direct opposite, they are there for the benifit of democracy. The Labour government knows this and has as such created a number of life peerages to attempt to gain a better foothold in the Lords. So perhaps the Lords are deliberately obstructive of some laws, but are those actually of any real threat to the consitution? I would argue no. Without the Lords the politics of this country would be in a far worse state than it is currently.

[Crazy_Harry]

Crazy Harry, although I agree with your points about the Scottish hunts and the changes that they have made, I feel I must defend the political role that the House of Lords has.

The House of Lords is an unelected minority of the citiznes of teh land, correct.  However, this is not necessarily a bad thing.  I say this not as some secret desire to be part of their very exclusive society, but because I believe in their role and see the continual eroding of the power that they have by the current Labor government to be a threat to the civil liberties of which we all hold dear. 

I shall elaborate, how many people are actually happy with the Labour government at the moment?  I have a sneeking suspicion that at the next general election the Labour party will once again be elected to power.  This worries me for several reasons.  The 'recent' terrorist threat has lead to a number of consequences including the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and the passing of laws allowing the detention of suspected terrorists without trial.  Now let me make one thing clear, I take the security of my country extremely seriously and wish for my home as safe as possible, but not at the expense of civil liberties.  The right to a fair trial and the dissallowing of imprisonment without trial is something that hhas protected not only the judicial system but also the civil liberties of the citiznes of this great country.  Denying these people the right to a trail and holding them indefinitely without one is wrong.  I have no doubt that MI5 have damning evidence about them, but the actions of the government are wrong.  the government is able to pass laws like this because they have the support of the Sun readers and the majhority of the uninformed public.  However, that does not mean that I am calling all Labour supporters ignorant readers of tabloids, take Robin Cook for example, I don't agree with his poilitcs but he is a man of integrity and one for whom I have a large amount of respect.  The Lords recently declared that the detention of the prisoners without trial is wrong and unconstitutional.  This is the precise difference between the two houses.  The Lords can say something like that because they don't have the public to answer for.  The government has to be seen to do something to combat the terrorist threat or else it will not be elected again.  The Lords don't have to worry about such things as elections as the only thing that will restrict their individual participance in the government is time itself. 

Admittedly, the Lords does have some outdated practices of which I include hunting with hounds, but this is the compromise we have to bear to have a sensible governmental practice.  The Lords have no political motivation behind their actions (with the exception of protecting a few of their own interests such as the abominable Death Tax and their sport)  and thus can bring sanity to an otherwise dire government. 

They are there not to be undemocratic, I argue the direct opposite, they are there for the benifit of democracy.  The Labour government knows this and has as such created a number of life peerages to attempt to gain a better foothold in the Lords.  So perhaps the Lords are deliberately obstructive of some laws, but are those actually of any real threat to the consitution?  I would argue no.  Without the Lords the politics of this country would be in a far worse state than it is currently.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Duff, you've misunderstood me. The lords, in recent years, have proved themselves on a great many issues to be worthy of remaining in power- it has been interesting watching the house of lords through out Blairite labour approved "reforms" to civil liberties since the WTC attacks. I am thankful they exist while there a thugs like blair and his cohorts (thankfully, no more blunkett) are in power- they are, any many respect, the last defence of sense against a democratic procedure which has allowed a bunch of mad businessmen to run a country.

 

My problem with them is to do with their manipulative approach to their interpretation to the reasons for their existence: they exist to benefit the nation as a whole, otherwise they exist to serve themselves, an existence which, given their massive power, is unacceptable in a so-called democratic nation- their opposition to foxhunting is based not on the beneficial aspects to the nation and its populace, but on their own whims and interests.

 

Like Lawyers, the lord should not be allowed any say on issues which they might have vested interest in. Its like allowing ###### Cheney to have any say on where haliburton are allowed to operate, not as a haliburton employee, but as a politician. Madness. Oh, wait, He does that all the time, sorry. Bad example.

 

my point is that, in this intance, the lords are acting out of self-centred motivations. It would be like (and heres a better example) Arnie getting a casting vote in whether or not airsoft was banned in England. He clearly holds a vested interest in the continuation of airsoft, is therefore biased, and therefore should be allowed no where near a voting booth, unless the vote is opened up to every single person of voting age in britain.

 

I do not wish to see the Lords overthrown, at least not while the current politic system exists, as they offer true benefits to our country that usually our elected politicians fail to give.

 

I would see a serious check on them allowing their self-interest to govern how they vote. They exist to benefit the people, not themselves. This is not the 19th century anymore, and the Lords cannot behave this way unless they really want to find themselves out of a job.

[Duff Beer]

Ah fair enough Crazy Harry, I did misunderstand you.

 

However I still feel that when it does come down to issues like the hunting with hounds I personally have no issue with the Lords voting on it. Although they may throw out the bill, it will be passed automatically on the third time of going ot them so they would only be delaying the demise of their sport. Therefore there is little reason to disallow them the vote on the issue. Plus I think it will highlight how committed Blair is to the proposal and whether it is being used as a smoke screen for the election after the farce that was the justification for the invasion in Iraq and the unconstitutional methods of declaring that war.

To remove their ability to vote on issues with which the have a declared interest would most probably limit the power that Blair has been hell bent on eroding since he came into power in 1997. I personally feel this would be wrong. If anything I would give more power to the Lords.

[Crazy_Harry]

perhaps, except that would begin to erode whatever democratic process we have in the UK- an undemocratically elected body that has more power than the house of commons, which is also by definition conservative with a small "c", and also out of touch, for the most part, with the ways the majority of Britons live (as are most politicians, I admit), is incredibly dangerous.

 

Checks and balances are needed in a democracy. The lord currently offer a reasonable check to a Commons dominated by one party. Giving them more power would remove this check. Yes, they would stop those policy's they didn't like (ie foxhunting bans) but pass those they did agree with (harsher immigration laws, civil liberties restrictions, removing descrimination laws, to name but a few...)

 

The fact that the lords have consistently voted out bans on such things as fox-hunting, things that challenge their worldview and life style, irrespective of the poular pressure, indicates how they would behave if given more power.

 

As you say, fox-hunting is a small issue (not for me, but for some). Giving them more power would see them starting to corrupt and undermine much larger issues. I'd prefer to see them removed and have them replaced by a paanel of democratically elected experts and thinkers, people who actually might know something about the issues they are going to be allowed power to decide over, rather than a bunch of born-to-power old white guys who probably don't know a great deal about how the real world works.

[creeping death]

yes cats eats mice and foxes eat chickens they do not do this for sport

animals at this level of itelligence are not capable of doing this out of general intrest or for fun. I ask u this how many times have u seen a large group of cats kill a mouse and then turn to each other and say well wasn't that fun

 

NO IT DEOSN"T HAPPEN ??????????????

[HaVoC]

yes cats eats mice and foxes eat chickens they do not do this for sport

animals at this level of itelligence are not capable of doing this out of general intrest or for fun. I ask u this how many times have u seen a large group of cats kill a mouse and then turn to each other and say well wasn't that fun

 

NO IT DEOSN"T HAPPEN ??????????????

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

My family and I keep chickens, and we have done for a number of years.

 

One night, we returned to see a fox coming up our track at a fair pace. We pull in near our house, and find, in total, that 6 out of our 8 chickens (kept for eggs, incidentally) had been killed. Clean bite wounds to the neck, mostly.

 

We had 8 chickens. There were 6 dead bodies, and 2 left cowering in the run. The fox hadn't eaten any of them, and couldn't have heard us coming (it was too far away from the 'killing field' when we saw it running up the track).

 

Therefore, unless something else had disturbed it, it had killed the 6 chickens and then just left. If it had been after food, why would it have killed 6 of our chickens, when it could only carry one in its mouth?

 

Please, for the love of god, don't say anything like that unless you know what you're on about, because you just look stupid.

[Duff Beer]

perhaps, except that would begin to erode whatever democratic process we have in the UK- an undemocratically elected body that has more power than the house of commons, which is also by definition conservative with a small "c", and also out of touch, for the most part, with the ways the majority of Britons live (as are most politicians, I admit), is incredibly dangerous.

 

Checks and balances are needed in a democracy. The lord currently offer a reasonable check to a Commons dominated by one party. Giving them more power would remove this check. Yes, they would stop those policy's they didn't like (ie foxhunting bans) but pass those they did agree with (harsher immigration laws, civil liberties restrictions, removing descrimination laws, to name but a few...)

 

The fact that the lords have consistently voted out bans on such things as fox-hunting, things that challenge their worldview and life style, irrespective of the poular pressure, indicates how they would behave if given more power.

 

As you say, fox-hunting is a small issue (not for me, but for some). Giving them more power would see them starting to corrupt and undermine much larger issues. I'd prefer to see them removed and have them replaced by a paanel of democratically elected experts and thinkers, people who actually might know something about the issues they are going to be allowed power to decide over, rather than a bunch of born-to-power old white guys who probably don't know a great deal about how the real world works.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes I see your point, and to a certain extent i agree with it. However, what scares me is the consequences of the current pop culture in Britain, my case and point being the so called 'chavs'. My mind boggles when I think about the consequences of allowing such people to vote. Perhaps that is elitist of me but it must be remembered that although it would be unconstitutional to remove their ability to vote something must be done to stem the tide of ignorant politics that I fear the media is breeding. I take America as an example. There are many Americans that believe that Saddam was directly linked to 9/11. The politics in America is so dominated by the press that I fear Britain is morphing into a similar model.

Of course that is not to say that Americans are brainwashed, nearly half of them voted against President Bush, but the half that counted voted for him, and I feel that similar consequences will happen in Britain. The rise of the BNP and UKID has seen a xenophobic increase in British politics. Now I am not here to debate the pros and cons of Britain becomming a more involved part of Europe, but how many people who voted actually took the time to research the economic issues and the political effects? I woujld assume that the vast majority of people who voted actually took a great deal of their ideas from the media.

I would personally grant the House of Lords the powers taken from it in recent years. That way the current government can be bought to heel.

I also, although I know you were not having a go, would like to point out that I meant Fox hunting with hounds was a small issue when reltaed to somethign like the admittance by Korea that it posseses Nuclear weapons. Obvioulsy the issue of hunting with hounds is somethign that has to be changed, but there are larger issues currently.

[Foxtrot]

Any chance we can leave America/Americans/American Hunting out of this conversation?

 

I know we're drawn into it alot mainly because there are many of us that populate this forum as well - 'tis quite a lovely forum. But, back to my point - Theres two sides of every story, and with the media today, people only see one. Alot of people blame bush for alot of things, note that some of it is a given, but some of it is not. With out living in American looking around and noticing things, you won't be able to tell the good things he has done. (I.e. Small business help.)

 

You also have to remember, if your going to include America/Americans in your discussions, poltically, That both sides (Rep/Bush, and Dems/Kerry) Play the media to their will and wants. What the media says isn't always true, and I firmly beleive, is always biased - Mostly Liberal, with the exceptions like FOX news.

 

So please, I ask of you either seperate American Hunting/Politics People out of this conversation (i.e. Examples), Remember that theres two sides of every story, or leave Americans out of this conversation completely.

 

Note: Like I did with my inital post - I posted on what I know, North American Hunting. I've never gone Fox hunting or African hunting, so I do not comment on those subjects - Just pointed out the truth of North American Hunters.

 

 

Cheers

Fox

[guinnessman]

Crazy Harry:

Because fox-hunting, due to the cost of organising a hunt, is the preserve of a certain section of our society that has always held inassailable political power,

 

Fox-hunting is MAINTAINED by political manipulation.

 

Until now it would appear.

 

If this was a truly democratic country, then foxhunting would have been banned years ago, because despite what the countryside alliance would have us believe, an overwhelming majority of British people consider it to be a reprehensible way to behave.

 

Until a national vote is carried out you can't prove that one way or the other. Even then, most people in this country probably couldn't be bothered voting anyway....

 

The only way this most recent attempt at imposing a ban is political from the point of view of those wishing to impose it, is due to tony blair's desperate desire to divert attention from his abysmal track-record in other areas of British life. This does not make the desire of the majority of the population to see foxhunting finally thrown on the historical scrap heap, where it so deservedly belongs, into a "political motivation". Only the reasons behind our tony supporting them.

 

I would respectfully disagree. To you it may not be a political motivated issue, which makes you (regardless of the difference in opinions we have) a more honest person in my view. But you aren't an MP; you haven't voted on a ban against foxhunting. As you state above, only politics has enabled this ban to go through, not any expression of democratic will. That and the class-hatred (one Labour MP admitted he didn't give a toss about foxes but wanted to get back at the upper-classes) involved makes it (to me at least) a sham.

 

And if you want to paint these upper-crust twits as the victims in all this, please remember that it is they who have consistently gone against democracy in the UK, they who for centuries have held all the power in its final form (the House of Lords, even with the Parliament Act, is still far more powerful than the democratically elected House of Commons), and continue to manipulate it to suit their petty desires.

 

If that's the case and the upper-classes/house of lords are so powerful why is the UK a democracy? Lets face it they could hardly do any worse than the democratically-elected House of Commons....

 

they would happily slaughter all those packs of hounds if a ban was imposed, and they would gleefully sack all their workers without any kind of severance pay or pension, blaming the government and the urban liberals.

 

How do you know? You're making a generalisation (in fact a demonisation) about an entire element of our society. That's just like saying all airsoft players are gun-nuts who subconsciously want to go out and shoot people to death (hmmm...maybe that was a bad example )

 

Its about a powerful elite maintaining thier hierarchy, and their political status, at the expense of democracy. Its about the democratic will of the people being subverted to protect a tiny, elitist minority. And it is, ultimately, about that same tiny elitist minority clinging to their outmoded, unethical, unpopular habits, and effectively trying to deny that history has well and truly left them behind.

 

These people do not deserve our sympathy. Whatever we stand for, democracy, freedom, the right of the people to a voice, they stand against it, in favour of their own selfishness and corrupt power. Symathy is wasted on them.

 

Unpopular habits? Says who? Why should the state have any involvement whatsoever in deciding what anybodys habits are?

Democratic will of the people? As in the minority who can actually be bothered to get off their butts and vote? And there's an even smaller minority who will vote after rationally considering all the issues, and not just vote for party x because they'll get better tax breaks/they've always voted party x/they just pick a party at random.

 

I'd lay good money on the following bet: Make it a phone-in vote over whether foxhunting should be banned or not. Count the total number of votes for yes AND no. I'll bet the result couldn't beat the number of people who phoned and voted for an eviction on Big Brother. Any takers?

 

Damn, I'm an angry chap today, I should go do some meditation or something...

 

Say it with me.....I love myself.....oooooosaaaaah........

[Duff Beer]

Any chance we can leave America/Americans/American Hunting out of this conversation?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

*Duff hits mute button on Foxtrot's posts*

 

Done

 

[Spedz]

Humpth let me say this after a few days i have figured that life and everything around it is one hormone so at least let the foxes hunt let nature kill itself off i'm sure will be glad for it. maybe we could be a catalist for it still you know this leads to a god VS. nature debate in the end