Reinstate Foxing Hunting or keep the ban?

SantaClaus said:

I left my best trainers on the deck a few months ago and woke up the next morning to find fox poo in one of them. Guess which camp I'm in.

Glastonbury?
If so mate, it probably isn't fox shit.

soapboxsam said:

killing a Fox for sport, and dressing up while doing it.
Sounds like an arcane Ritual from the medieval times.
Culling foxes, in urban or country areas to keep the numbers down would make sense. (Sterilisation dart would be best)
Sterilisation rules OK.

After the foxes, Geordie shore and Towie next.

But there really is no population problem with rural foxes anyway

.

Until I moved to Tropical Dorset some 17 years ago I was against fox hunting. Now well and truly amongst and part of country living I get the importance of hunting and the livlyhood it offers for many a rural community. Forget about overweight gentry dressed in red regalia charging around the countryside there is an age old community who scratched a living as part of the hounds. Also bloody foxes have slaughtered many of our chickens, so me I am up for legalising it once again.

My parents have kept chickens for years in a rural area. As pets really, nothing commercial. Naturally, they get raided from time to time.

They have always said this: when a fox attacks, it is hungry, and it will kill one or two for eating immediately. There will be nothing left of the chicken. When dogs attack, they are bloodthirsty and will keep killing until they can't any more (they lost 90% of their flock to two neighbour pet terriers in one attack). And when weasels attack, no idea what goes through their mind, but they eat the head only (they've recently lost the whole flock, and had to clear up the headless bodies).

They have no issue with foxes, prefer fox attacks to any other, and hate fox hunts. If they were weasel hunts, they might be different.

Why support a ban and not ban Halal meat first!

Stu_of_Kunming said:

Red7Oak said:

Why support a ban and not ban Halal meat first!

Vegetables have feelings too, so let's stop eating them as well.

This is so true - as proved by the tree surgeon episode of Tales of the Unexpected when I was a kid.

Cucumbers scream when you chop them I seem to remember

A-R-T-H-U-R said:

Algarveaddick said:

Bryan_Kynsie said:

Surely not worthy of yet more Parliamentary time.

(I find it strange that significant numbers of antis would cheerfully watch "posh people" being subjected to the foxes' fate. It's always because they are "posh" or "toffs". Posh people (define?) may come across as odd/daft/whatever but isn't this just another form of phobia? Who is looking out for this minority group?)

Hunting's days are done so I don't get why Cameron wants to make it an issue again other than to wind up the legions of urban fox-lovers and get widespread bad press. Very odd.

It's worthy of parliamentary time because the Tories had it in their manifesto BK. The minority group of posh people are looked out for by the other posh people who have all the money and influence. And I don't think that Cameron's government cares what people think or about bad press, as they have their extra five years to fill their pockets and then fuck off somewhere else when the shit hits the fan.

You still dont seem to get it.
1. hunting is far far removed from being a posh boys activity. You appear to have a real chip on your shoulder about ''posh'' people but as stated earlier, the vast majority of hunts are a cross section of society. Just because they dress up doesnt make them posh. (BTW and unrelated to hunting, do you consider every Charlton player of the past 2 decades as posh? Because in income terms they surely must be worthy of your ire!)

2. As I understand it (from a friend who is a hunter) the amendment is simply to increase the number of dogs used to flush to the gun, which is how hunting is supposed to be done currently. In Scotland you can have unlimited dogs to flush out Mr Fox to be shot, in England you are only allowed 2. Personally I have serious doubts that all foxes are shot (I've heard some hunts dont even take guns with them!) as opposed to being killed by dogs, but that is supposed to be happening since the change in rules. The amendment is to allow English hunts to use unlimited dogs like in Scotland. Not sure hunting ban is the correct term picked up by the media, though I stand to be corrected.

Just dealing with point one, as that's the bit directed at me.

I used the word "posh" as that's the word BK used in his tongue in cheek post, I was also being a bit t in c myself, by the way. Also just because one person stated it earlier, does not mean it is fact; the vast majority of hunts ARE NOT a cross section of society - I am willing to bet that there are hardly any barmaids, waiters, shop workers, nurses, vets, DSS clerks, etc etc etc involved at all. Pro hunters are stuffed full of lies to defend their unspeakable activities. They claim on the one hand that the hunt is the most efficient way of dealing with foxes, and then the next minute tell us that they only actually catch one in ten. You can't tell me that Big Rob with his blunderbuss wouldn't take out more that 10%...

It also depends on your definition of posh and chip on your shoulder - I always think of chip on shoulder as being something disputable, however the advantages afforded to the richer members of society are clear for all to see - that is indisputable. My definition is wrong I discover, so yes, I do have a chip on my shoulder, but I am not wrong in my reading of society. Take a look at the make up of the boards of the footsie 100 companies, the two houses of parliament and the bilderberg group if you want any proof, Art.

As for posh, as I said, I used the word because BK did, moneyed would be more the word I would use in this context. As there are social climbing city traders from Lewisham who hunt, as well as those who have had money and "rank" passed down to them from their predecessors. So no, I don't consider footballers posh, though their kids might be...

I have no problem with defending the poorer and less privileged and I have no problem with drawing attention to those who for their own interest like to keep it that way. If that makes me chippy - so be it, I wear the badge with pride. Sadly in their quest for superiority the "ruling classes" are blind to the fact that the man or woman who could discover the cure for cancer may be living on a council estate in Peckham, but due to policies that make it more and more difficult for the underprivileged to get themselves out of that situation, that person will probably end up as a (non fox hunting) clerk in the DSS.

Algarveaddick said:

Daarrzzetbum said:

Until I moved to Tropical Dorset some 17 years ago I was against fox hunting. Now well and truly amongst and part of country living I get the importance of hunting and the livlyhood it offers for many a rural community. Forget about overweight gentry dressed in red regalia charging around the countryside there is an age old community who scratched a living as part of the hounds. Also bloody foxes have slaughtered many of our chickens, so me I am up for legalising it once again.

The livelihood of many landlords and pub employees was screwed by the smoking ban, that was an age old community that that scratched a living as part of the social make up of the town. And they didn't inflict unspeakable suffering on other creatures...

apart from themselves and the non smokers, adults and kids who happened to want to be in the same bar.

Keep the ban. We are in a situation where essential services are being closed down and it is not getting any better. I can't believe parliament are wasting their time even discussing this shit.

Carter said:

Shrew said:

Algarveaddick said:

Daarrzzetbum said:

Until I moved to Tropical Dorset some 17 years ago I was against fox hunting. Now well and truly amongst and part of country living I get the importance of hunting and the livlyhood it offers for many a rural community. Forget about overweight gentry dressed in red regalia charging around the countryside there is an age old community who scratched a living as part of the hounds. Also bloody foxes have slaughtered many of our chickens, so me I am up for legalising it once again.

The livelihood of many landlords and pub employees was screwed by the smoking ban, that was an age old community that that scratched a living as part of the social make up of the town. And they didn't inflict unspeakable suffering on other creatures...

apart from themselves and the non smokers, adults and kids who happened to want to be in the same bar.

Different argument but I can promise you the smoking ban has assisted in sending hundreds, if not thousands of local pubs up the wall. As a case in point one of my old locals (not frequented since the ban by a deluge of people who would have previously not used the place because of smokers/smoking/second hand smoke) had to find 4 and a half grand to provide a smoking area that was us to scratch. It had a refurb too all at cost to the licensee's and tenancy holders at the time and have not seen a flood of people through the door. In fact they lost so much money they called it a day as they could not recoup the outlay.

That's why I took it as a joke response Carts - surely everyone is aware of that? And the fact that Shrew mentioned kids in the pub as well indicated to me that he was having a laugh...