politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sign In Register

Categories

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Legalising fox-hunting: A vote winner for the Tories or a

SystemSystem Posts: 11,704
edited January 2015 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Legalising fox-hunting: A vote winner for the Tories or a vote loser?

With the Tories reported to planning legalise fox-hunting if they are returned with a majority YouGov has had a look at the issue and finds support for current ban,

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,584
    edited January 2015
    Hmmm - I've been of the belief people who were already voting Tory support it, whereas it could lose the support of floating voters who hate fox hunting.
  • Options
    steve_garnersteve_garner Posts: 1,019
    This subject appears a bit trivial given current events in France.
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,715
    They are vermin, pure and simple.

    I am, of course, referring to the pro-hunting morons, not the foxes.

    It's about time the police took some action on the lawbreakers, instead of spending their time patrolling Twitter.
  • Options
    taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    Perhaps a more apposite question would be

    Do you want your police to chase red faced men in red coats doing silly things, or islamic terrorists?
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Now being reported that there are two hostage takers at the kosher grocery, one of them a woman:

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/jan/09/charlie-hebdo-manhunt-kouachi-terrorist-links-live-updates
  • Options
    MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    steve_garner said:

    This subject appears a bit trivial given current events in France.

    Agreed but it is hard to see what a thread could be about.

  • Options
    Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,059
    edited January 2015
    Geek-mongous in current circumstances. We used to have a 'rolling' sort of thread didn't we when something dominant was happening.
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    SandyRentool said:

    They are vermin, pure and simple.

    I am, of course, referring to the pro-hunting morons, not the foxes.

    It's about time the police took some action on the lawbreakers, instead of spending their time patrolling Twitter.

    Don't you think that's ridiculously strong language to describe supporters of fox hunting?
  • Options
    taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    It's about time the police took some action on the lawbreakers, instead of spending their time patrolling Twitter.

    Yeah.....or spending their time investigating burglaries and muggings!!!

    slackers.
  • Options
    SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @MikeSmithson
    Circle health backing out of running a general hospital?, Drop in industrial output?.... There are plenty of options under the main headlines.
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,715
    AndyJS said:

    SandyRentool said:

    They are vermin, pure and simple.

    I am, of course, referring to the pro-hunting morons, not the foxes.

    It's about time the police took some action on the lawbreakers, instead of spending their time patrolling Twitter.

    Don't you think that's ridiculously strong language to describe supporters of fox hunting?
    No.
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,446
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Hmmm - I've been of the belief people who were already voting Tory support it, whereas it could lose the support of floating voters who hate fox hunting.

    As cunning as a fox who's just been appointed Professor of Cunning at Oxford University?
  • Options
    TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    AndyJS said:

    SandyRentool said:

    They are vermin, pure and simple.

    I am, of course, referring to the pro-hunting morons, not the foxes.

    It's about time the police took some action on the lawbreakers, instead of spending their time patrolling Twitter.

    Don't you think that's ridiculously strong language to describe supporters of fox hunting?
    Don't upset the Kippers.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2529489/Tally-ho-ho-ho-Thousands-gather-watch-traditional-Boxing-Day-hunt-riders-hounds-parade-country.html
  • Options
    MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    Smarmeron said:

    @MikeSmithson
    Circle health backing out of running a general hospital?, Drop in industrial output?.... There are plenty of options under the main headlines.

    This is not a general news site and my specialities are polling and political betting.

    On Wednesday when I switched to the Paris killings I was accused of diverting attention from EdM's plan to "weaponise the NHS".
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,584
    We're a nation of animal lovers, and seeing animals torn apart for sport is UnEnglish/UnBritish.

    Look at the love that poor dog has received, and the silly woman who abandoned it has finally come forward.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11335107/Woman-who-left-Kai-the-dog-at-Ayr-station-comes-forward.html
  • Options
    taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    The european elite are like City traders when the market turns savagely against them for the first time.

    Real rabbit in the headlights stuff. Total brain freeze.

    Very instructive for voters.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,068
    @Socrates, et al, re continued discussions about the prophet.

    I regard freedom of speech and freedom to offend as fundamental. The idea the state should have any kind of power over what I do or do not say is abhorrent and repellent.

    I also believe that the state should not criminalise who people sleep with. (Assuming its between consenting adults!)

    Those cartoon are like cheating on your wife. Something whose legality should be defended to the death. But they are also something which is rather impolite. While I would tweet my abhorrence with the acts of the murderers and my absolute defence of free speech, I would not retweet the cartoons themselves. Not because it should be illegal to do so, but because I regard them as offensive.
  • Options
    dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,291
    4x4s kill more foxes than hunts. Let's ban 4x4s.

    How does fox hunting keep down the suburban foxes?

    There are more important issues like not rigging contracts with private firms to force them to stop providing services to the state. The Hinchenbrooke hospital stuff reminds me of the East Coast Railway franchises for some odd reason.
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,840
    FPT: someone was saying there's no Christian terrorism: maybe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism would be a useful link to peruse. Sadly, terrorism is seen in many places and communities.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,068
    taffys said:

    Perhaps a more apposite question would be

    Do you want your police to chase red faced men in red coats doing silly things, or islamic terrorists?

    Do you think all laws should be enforced, or just ones that are in the papers at the moment?
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Speaking personally, I do not like foxhunting!
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,446
    Murali of this parish will like this one:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-30738671
  • Options
    taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    edited January 2015
    ''This is not a general news site and my specialities are polling and political betting.''

    What is extremely churlish is posters to start nitpicking with OGH on a day such as this, when its always going to be difficult to get things in context.

    100% behind you OGH whatever the thread title is, Sir!!!
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,584
    MikeSmithson said:

    Smarmeron said:

    @MikeSmithson
    Circle health backing out of running a general hospital?, Drop in industrial output?.... There are plenty of options under the main headlines.

    This is not a general news site and my specialities are polling and political betting.

    On Wednesday when I switched to the Paris killings I was accused of diverting attention from EdM's plan to "weaponise the NHS".
    Fox hunting is a news story today

    Tally no-go! Cars forced to stop as huntsman rides wrong way down busy road

    Drivers do double take on A5 in Shropshire as huntsman on horse trots along busy dual carriageway after confused hounds stray from field

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/countryside/11334933/Huntsman-rides-wrong-way-down-A5-near-Shrewsbury..html
  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    edited January 2015
    bondegezou said:

    FPT: someone was saying there's no Christian terrorism: maybe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism would be a useful link to peruse. Sadly, terrorism is seen in many places and communities.

    Half of the stuff in that list is not terrorism. The Lord's Resistance Army, for instance, are a brutal evil organisation, but they don't terrorise to make political demands, but for their own gains of people, wealth and personal enjoyment.

    Other stuff isn't doing terrorism in the name of Christianity, such as Anders Breivik or the IRA.
  • Options
    taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    Do you think all laws should be enforced, or just ones that are in the papers at the moment?

    I absolutely do, which is why I think its high time we decriminalised fox hunting.

    Its a moral issue, not a legal one. I don;t like fox hunting idiots myself. But they are not crims.
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    rcs1000 said:

    taffys said:

    Perhaps a more apposite question would be

    Do you want your police to chase red faced men in red coats doing silly things, or islamic terrorists?

    Do you think all laws should be enforced, or just ones that are in the papers at the moment?
    I'd like the police to enforce laws on FGM and forced marriage, something they've failed to do over many years. Maybe it's easier for them to pick up people for making tasteless jokes on Twitter.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,002
    rcs1000 said:

    @Socrates, et al, re continued discussions about the prophet.

    I regard freedom of speech and freedom to offend as fundamental. The idea the state should have any kind of power over what I do or do not say is abhorrent and repellent.

    I also believe that the state should not criminalise who people sleep with. (Assuming its between consenting adults!)

    Those cartoon are like cheating on your wife. Something whose legality should be defended to the death. But they are also something which is rather impolite. While I would tweet my abhorrence with the acts of the murderers and my absolute defence of free speech, I would not retweet the cartoons themselves. Not because it should be illegal to do so, but because I regard them as offensive.

    What about cartoons depicting very young girls - should they be illegal
  • Options
    SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @MikeSmithson
    I agree, but with the economy supposedly being one of the major factors in the next GE, it also passes the PB test.
    (no criticism of the thread header implied)
  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    rcs1000 said:

    @Socrates, et al, re continued discussions about the prophet.

    I regard freedom of speech and freedom to offend as fundamental. The idea the state should have any kind of power over what I do or do not say is abhorrent and repellent.

    I also believe that the state should not criminalise who people sleep with. (Assuming its between consenting adults!)

    Those cartoon are like cheating on your wife. Something whose legality should be defended to the death. But they are also something which is rather impolite. While I would tweet my abhorrence with the acts of the murderers and my absolute defence of free speech, I would not retweet the cartoons themselves. Not because it should be illegal to do so, but because I regard them as offensive.

    Some of the cartoons were offensive, others were not. I hope you're not taking the position that all images of Muhammad are offensive.

    However, when the right to free speech is under attack, I am happy to retweet even offensive images if those are the ones people are seeking to ban.
  • Options
    DaemonBarberDaemonBarber Posts: 1,626
    Hunting foxes with dogs is barbaric.
    However, is it something that the state should seek to ban? I would argue that yes is is, it is cruel and utterly unnecessary.
  • Options
    IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    rcs1000 said:

    taffys said:

    Perhaps a more apposite question would be

    Do you want your police to chase red faced men in red coats doing silly things, or islamic terrorists?

    Do you think all laws should be enforced, or just ones that are in the papers at the moment?
    Possibly we should repeal some laws and let the police concentrate on matters that save people from harm, especially since the police are slated for significant cutbacks whoever wins the election.

    Incidentally I believe the answer to your question (and mine) is that the police commander has discretion on how to make best use of his manpower.
  • Options
    SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    foxinsoxuk said:

    Speaking personally, I do not like foxhunting!

    Arf - very droll...
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,648
    I want it repealed. Big time. But I think it'd only pass with a Conservative majority of 50 or so. There'd be a couple of dozen Tory MPs who'd vote against it, and a few more who'd abstain.

    I remember losing my rag with Marcus Woods PPC on this when he welched on it before the election. It's not a surprise he lost if he was that fickle.

    I don't think there are many floating voters who'd change their vote away from the Conservatives over the issue of fox-hunting. However, those that do feel that way are very vocal and extremely emotional about it.

    EDIT: I just saw SandyRentool's post. I rest my case.
  • Options
    weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820
    edited January 2015
    DaemonBarber said:

    Hunting foxes with dogs is barbaric.
    However, is it something that the state should seek to ban? I would argue that yes is is, it is cruel and utterly unnecessary.

    'The pursuit of the inedible by the unspeakable' IIRC - however culling foxes is necessary and no more cruel than your cat bringing a dead mouse into the house.

    Since I am a firm believer that people have the right to do what they want - subject to respecting the rights of other people and their property then I am definitely in favour of allowing Fox-hunting to resume.
  • Options
    DaemonBarberDaemonBarber Posts: 1,626
    Pulpstar said:

    rcs1000 said:

    @Socrates, et al, re continued discussions about the prophet.

    I regard freedom of speech and freedom to offend as fundamental. The idea the state should have any kind of power over what I do or do not say is abhorrent and repellent.

    I also believe that the state should not criminalise who people sleep with. (Assuming its between consenting adults!)

    Those cartoon are like cheating on your wife. Something whose legality should be defended to the death. But they are also something which is rather impolite. While I would tweet my abhorrence with the acts of the murderers and my absolute defence of free speech, I would not retweet the cartoons themselves. Not because it should be illegal to do so, but because I regard them as offensive.

    What about cartoons depicting very young girls - should they be illegal
    Depicting doing what? If it is depicting then doing an illegal act then possibly.
    I assume you are referring to the manga "idols" stuff in Japan, and the recent decision not to ban...?

    As a libertarian it is difficult to defend, but here in the west you would not find many places to publish that kind of image and we already have other laws that would cover outright pronographic/explicit content.
  • Options
    weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820
    dr_spyn said:

    4x4s kill more foxes than hunts. Let's ban 4x4s.

    How does fox hunting keep down the suburban foxes?

    There are more important issues like not rigging contracts with private firms to force them to stop providing services to the state. The Hinchenbrooke hospital stuff reminds me of the East Coast Railway franchises for some odd reason.

    Well blame Andrew Burnham - he was the one who put the contract out to tender.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,002
    edited January 2015
    On topic, I can sort of see both sides of the argument and personally don't have a strong opinion either way on it.

    Put me down as "Neither/Don't know"

    If I was an MP I'd probably just follow the party whip on this one or abstein if it was a free vote.

    Meh.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    weejonnie said:

    dr_spyn said:

    4x4s kill more foxes than hunts. Let's ban 4x4s.

    How does fox hunting keep down the suburban foxes?

    There are more important issues like not rigging contracts with private firms to force them to stop providing services to the state. The Hinchenbrooke hospital stuff reminds me of the East Coast Railway franchises for some odd reason.

    Well blame Andrew Burnham - he was the one who put the contract out to tender.
    Circle agreed to the terms...
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,446
    I used to be really anti-Fox hunting, coupled with my vegetarianism (which I "converted" too while still doing my GCSEs!), but nowadays I don't think I would really mind if it was "unbanned". Many, many more animals die annually in the meat industry!
  • Options
    anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    edited January 2015
    Regardless of what the voters think, in the 2010 election campaign pro-hunting activists volunteered for the Conservatives.
    According to independent assessments, rural campaigners were instrumental in winning 36 target seats in 2010. Overall, Vote OK leafleters were present in 58 constituencies which saw a significant swing to the Tories. A survey conducted by Professor David Denver of Lancaster university for the Electoral Commission following the 2005 election concluded: ‘There is no doubt that turnout was indeed higher in Vote OK targets than anywhere else. In targeted seats the greater the effort of Vote OK, the better the Conservative performance.’

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9069211/rural-revolt/
    The payback for that was a commitment to a free vote in parliament to repeal the ban. This found its way into the coalition agreement, but last year the Conservatives decided to not hold the vote.

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4069366.ece

    All they had to do to fulfil their end of the bargain was to have the vote. They didn't need to win it.

    Why would pro-hunting activists volunteer for the Conservatives in 2015?
  • Options
    DaemonBarberDaemonBarber Posts: 1,626
    weejonnie said:

    DaemonBarber said:

    Hunting foxes with dogs is barbaric.
    However, is it something that the state should seek to ban? I would argue that yes is is, it is cruel and utterly unnecessary.

    'The pursuit of the inedible by the unspeakable' IIRC - however culling foxes is necessary and no more cruel than your cat bringing a dead mouse into the house.

    Since I am a firm believer that people have the right to do what they want - subject to respecting the rights of other people and their property then I am definitely in favour of allowing Fox-hunting to resume.
    Culling foxes is necessary.
    Culling foxes by means of a pack of dogs chasing a single fox down over the course of a morning once a week is both abhorrently cruel and grossly inefficient.

    The ban is hunting foxes with dogs, not hunting foxes for the purpose of population control
  • Options
    MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    Casino_Royale said:

    I want it repealed. Big time. But I think it'd only pass with a Conservative majority of 50 or so. There'd be a couple of dozen Tory MPs who'd vote against it, and a few more who'd abstain.

    I remember losing my rag with Marcus Woods PPC on this when he welched on it before the election. It's not a surprise he lost if he was that fickle.

    I don't think there are many floating voters who'd change their vote away from the Conservatives over the issue of fox-hunting. However, those that do feel that way are very vocal and extremely emotional about it.

    EDIT: I just saw SandyRentool's post. I rest my case.

    Out of interest , why do you want it repealed "Big Time" , why do you wish to impose your minority view on the population as a whole ? Why are you not calling for a referendum on this subject - presumably because you know it would lose heavily ?
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited January 2015
    DaemonBarber said:

    Hunting foxes with dogs is barbaric.
    However, is it something that the state should seek to ban? I would argue that yes is is, it is cruel and utterly unnecessary.

    But shouldn't we tackle problems involving exclusively human beings first as a priority? The police only have limited time and resources, so any resources they spend arresting fox hunters are resources that could have been deployed on more important investigations.
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,715
    Casino_Royale said:

    I want it repealed. Big time. But I think it'd only pass with a Conservative majority of 50 or so. There'd be a couple of dozen Tory MPs who'd vote against it, and a few more who'd abstain.

    I remember losing my rag with Marcus Woods PPC on this when he welched on it before the election. It's not a surprise he lost if he was that fickle.

    I don't think there are many floating voters who'd change their vote away from the Conservatives over the issue of fox-hunting. However, those that do feel that way are very vocal and extremely emotional about it.

    EDIT: I just saw SandyRentool's post. I rest my case.

    I reject the suggestion that I am a floating voter!
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,227
    steve_garner said:

    This subject appears a bit trivial given current events in France.

    Quite. It's beginning to feel a bit Bombay-like in Paris.

    And horribly, sadly, inevitable that a Jewish target would be chosen.

  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 41,002
    Apparently another incident in Paris... this is unreal. At the Trocadero nr the Eiffel Tower

    As for Foxhunting.. seems wrong to me, I don't like killing of animals... but I am not from the countryside and wouldn't know the danger they pose I guess
  • Options
    AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    edited January 2015
    Casino_Royale said:

    I want it repealed. Big time. But I think it'd only pass with a Conservative majority of 50 or so. There'd be a couple of dozen Tory MPs who'd vote against it, and a few more who'd abstain.

    I remember losing my rag with Marcus Woods PPC on this when he welched on it before the election. It's not a surprise he lost if he was that fickle.

    I don't think there are many floating voters who'd change their vote away from the Conservatives over the issue of fox-hunting. However, those that do feel that way are very vocal and extremely emotional about it.

    EDIT: I just saw SandyRentool's post. I rest my case.

    A third of the UK are vermin, according to Sandy. Add in the anti-hunting Tories and Kippers (who no-doubt are also vermin from such a bonkers viewpoint) and it's a good half of us who are on a par with a rat.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,648
    SandyRentool said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    I want it repealed. Big time. But I think it'd only pass with a Conservative majority of 50 or so. There'd be a couple of dozen Tory MPs who'd vote against it, and a few more who'd abstain.

    I remember losing my rag with Marcus Woods PPC on this when he welched on it before the election. It's not a surprise he lost if he was that fickle.

    I don't think there are many floating voters who'd change their vote away from the Conservatives over the issue of fox-hunting. However, those that do feel that way are very vocal and extremely emotional about it.

    EDIT: I just saw SandyRentool's post. I rest my case.

    I reject the suggestion that I am a floating voter!
    I reject the insinuation that I am vermin!

    Which party do you support?
  • Options
    FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    What is the level of public support for gassing trapping shooting poisoning and garotting animal vermin?
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,446
    edited January 2015
    Cyclefree said:

    steve_garner said:

    This subject appears a bit trivial given current events in France.

    Quite. It's beginning to feel a bit Bombay-like in Paris.

    And horribly, sadly, inevitable that a Jewish target would be chosen.

    A Jewish target was also chosen in Mumbai!

    BTW, excellent pertinent points on the last thread, but your quote about "those who rule us" is yet another misattributed Voltaire quote!

    To determine the true rulers of any society, all you must do is ask yourself this question: Who is it that I am not permitted to criticize?

    - was actually Kevin Strom, "All America Must Know the Terror That is Upon Us" (1993)

    https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Voltaire
  • Options
    DaemonBarberDaemonBarber Posts: 1,626
    AndyJS said:

    DaemonBarber said:

    Hunting foxes with dogs is barbaric.
    However, is it something that the state should seek to ban? I would argue that yes is is, it is cruel and utterly unnecessary.

    But shouldn't we tackle problems involving exclusively human beings first as a priority? The police only have limited time and resources, so any resources they spend arresting fox hunters are resources that could have been deployed on more important investigations.
    How about the collection of bird's eggs or the poisoning of eagles? Should those crimes take a back-seat until there are no wife-beatings, drunk drivers, house break-ins etc, etc?

  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,002
    edited January 2015
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    I used to be really anti-Fox hunting, coupled with my vegetarianism (which I "converted" too while still doing my GCSEs!), but nowadays I don't think I would really mind if it was "unbanned". Many, many more animals die annually in the meat industry!

    Foxes chase and attack ducks, I used to own some indian runners (Who now live in Thanet South of all places) as my garden was simply too small to keep them in good order. I really like ducks, they have alot of character methinks.

    Ducks are also very tasty with Hoi-Sin sauce.

    So I don't know really, I think my attitude to animals is a typically British mixed and confused one.

    I wouldn't eat rabbit though, not on the basis that I own pet rabbits - but farmed rabbit living conditions are atrocious.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,969
    edited January 2015
    I take much the same view of foxes as I do of bats. Exterminate the Brutes.

    I think that only 1-2% of the population would shift their votes over the issue anyway.
  • Options
    SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    edited January 2015
    @DaemonBarber
    An argument can be made that fox hunting with packs, while terrible for the individual fox, benefits the greater population.
    This is because most cubs die of starvation in their first year anyway, and that fox hunting is inefficient, compared to other methods, and means landowners have to tolerate a certain amount of foxes on their land so that hunting can take place.
    (personally, I think it is a nonsense, but hey ho....or tally ho?)
  • Options
    Edin_RokzEdin_Rokz Posts: 516
    weejonnie said:

    DaemonBarber said:

    Hunting foxes with dogs is barbaric.
    However, is it something that the state should seek to ban? I would argue that yes is is, it is cruel and utterly unnecessary.

    'The pursuit of the inedible by the unspeakable' IIRC - however culling foxes is necessary and no more cruel than your cat bringing a dead mouse into the house.

    Since I am a firm believer that people have the right to do what they want - subject to respecting the rights of other people and their property then I am definitely in favour of allowing Fox-hunting to resume.
    When the Twits in Pink run through some of the housing estates, chased by a varied selection of alsatians, dobermans, mastiffs, pit bulls, etc, with their respective owners following on their mountain bikes carrying baseball bats for mercy killings, then I think we should allow any of the TIP's who get away to have their fun going after foxes.

    Sounds like it would be more fun to watch on TV than Big Brother!
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,990
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    I used to be really anti-Fox hunting, coupled with my vegetarianism (which I "converted" too while still doing my GCSEs!), but nowadays I don't think I would really mind if it was "unbanned". Many, many more animals die annually in the meat industry!

    Become more Tory as you age, old chap!
  • Options
    AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    edited January 2015
    DaemonBarber said:

    AndyJS said:

    DaemonBarber said:

    Hunting foxes with dogs is barbaric.
    However, is it something that the state should seek to ban? I would argue that yes is is, it is cruel and utterly unnecessary.

    But shouldn't we tackle problems involving exclusively human beings first as a priority? The police only have limited time and resources, so any resources they spend arresting fox hunters are resources that could have been deployed on more important investigations.
    How about the collection of bird's eggs or the poisoning of eagles? Should those crimes take a back-seat until there are no wife-beatings, drunk drivers, house break-ins etc, etc?
    It's a matter of impact - poisoning eagles or stealing eggs can damage a tiny and fragile population of birds. I'd put fox-hunting in the same category as shooting crows.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,990
    isam said:

    Apparently another incident in Paris... this is unreal. At the Trocadero nr the Eiffel Tower

    As for Foxhunting.. seems wrong to me, I don't like killing of animals... but I am not from the countryside and wouldn't know the danger they pose I guess

    Let's hope the police in Paris get this all under control. At least they know where the perps are.
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,715
    Casino_Royale said:

    SandyRentool said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    I want it repealed. Big time. But I think it'd only pass with a Conservative majority of 50 or so. There'd be a couple of dozen Tory MPs who'd vote against it, and a few more who'd abstain.

    I remember losing my rag with Marcus Woods PPC on this when he welched on it before the election. It's not a surprise he lost if he was that fickle.

    I don't think there are many floating voters who'd change their vote away from the Conservatives over the issue of fox-hunting. However, those that do feel that way are very vocal and extremely emotional about it.

    EDIT: I just saw SandyRentool's post. I rest my case.

    I reject the suggestion that I am a floating voter!
    I reject the insinuation that I am vermin!

    Which party do you support?
    I've been a Labour member for 20 years...who 'tactically' (haha) voted LD in 2010 to my shame.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @SkyNewsEditor: Scene in Trocadero in central #Paris - reports of another armed police - via @julienespio incident http://t.co/wavzbB2tHU
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 41,002
    Apparently Cameron has is also refusing to do the Bite The Ballot Leaders Live Q&A with young voters
  • Options
    BenMBenM Posts: 1,795
    I oppose the ban.
  • Options
    DaemonBarberDaemonBarber Posts: 1,626
    Smarmeron said:

    @DaemonBarber
    An argument can be made that fox hunting with packs, while terrible for the individual fox, benefits the greater population.
    This is because most cubs die of starvation in their first year anyway, and that fox hunting is inefficient, compared to other methods, and means landowners have to tolerate a certain amount of foxes on their land so that hunting can take place.
    (personally, I think it is a nonsense, but hey ho....or tally ho?)

    I agree; it is a nonsense argument.
    There is no reasonable argument in favour of hunting foxes with dogs.
  • Options
    A_Man_Called_HorseA_Man_Called_Horse Posts: 100
    edited January 2015
    Whenever the topic of Christian terrorism is raised, out come the rhetorical salami-slicers which could put any Waitrose delicatessen to shame -- "Oh no, Breivik doesn't count, nor do the IRA!" etc.

    Will people at least concede that the prolonged, atrocious and, yes, terroristic crimes of the KKK and Eric Rudolph were motivated by a warped and sectarian interpretation of Christianity?

    Even a religion as benevolent as Buddhism has proven capable of inspiring terrorism (Japan's Aum Shirikyo cult). Christianity does not have some magical exemption.
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,446
    edited January 2015
    Sean_F said:

    I take much the same view of foxes as I do of bats. Exterminate the Brutes.

    I think that only 1-2% of the population would shift their votes over the issue anyway.

    Bats?

    "I don't want to kill you! What would I do without you?" - The Joker (The Dark Knight, 2008).
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    DaemonBarber said:

    weejonnie said:

    DaemonBarber said:

    Hunting foxes with dogs is barbaric.
    However, is it something that the state should seek to ban? I would argue that yes is is, it is cruel and utterly unnecessary.

    'The pursuit of the inedible by the unspeakable' IIRC - however culling foxes is necessary and no more cruel than your cat bringing a dead mouse into the house.

    Since I am a firm believer that people have the right to do what they want - subject to respecting the rights of other people and their property then I am definitely in favour of allowing Fox-hunting to resume.
    Culling foxes is necessary.
    Culling foxes by means of a pack of dogs chasing a single fox down over the course of a morning once a week is both abhorrently cruel and grossly inefficient.

    The ban is hunting foxes with dogs, not hunting foxes for the purpose of population control
    Culling foxes after the hunters have helpfully built artificial earths to make it easier for the fox to live around the hunt area is the apogee of really cruelty.

    I believe the justification is that they are trying to keep fox numbers at just the right level.

    Horse back fox hunting with dogs has to be the worst and stupidest way to "conserve" fox levels.
  • Options
    AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    Edin_Rokz said:

    weejonnie said:

    DaemonBarber said:

    Hunting foxes with dogs is barbaric.
    However, is it something that the state should seek to ban? I would argue that yes is is, it is cruel and utterly unnecessary.

    'The pursuit of the inedible by the unspeakable' IIRC - however culling foxes is necessary and no more cruel than your cat bringing a dead mouse into the house.

    Since I am a firm believer that people have the right to do what they want - subject to respecting the rights of other people and their property then I am definitely in favour of allowing Fox-hunting to resume.
    When the Twits in Pink run through some of the housing estates, chased by a varied selection of alsatians, dobermans, mastiffs, pit bulls, etc, with their respective owners following on their mountain bikes carrying baseball bats for mercy killings, then I think we should allow any of the TIP's who get away to have their fun going after foxes.

    Sounds like it would be more fun to watch on TV than Big Brother!
    You do realise that makes you sound like something of a [presumably vegan] nutter, don't you?
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Sean_F said:

    I take much the same view of foxes as I do of bats. Exterminate the Brutes.

    While I clearly am supportive of my fellow foxes, bats are also lovely creatures. They eat vast quantities of insects, something that I strongly approve of.

    I appreciate that having bats in your bellfrey is not a pleasant phenomenon!
  • Options
    SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    Sean_F said:

    I take much the same view of foxes as I do of bats. Exterminate the Brutes.

    Bats ? - living in the country as I do, don't often hear of them killing lambs and wiping out chicken coops very often - why the grudge?
  • Options
    TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    RobD said:

    isam said:

    Apparently another incident in Paris... this is unreal. At the Trocadero nr the Eiffel Tower

    As for Foxhunting.. seems wrong to me, I don't like killing of animals... but I am not from the countryside and wouldn't know the danger they pose I guess

    Let's hope the police in Paris get this all under control. At least they know where the perps are.
    They would appear to be everywhere.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,584
    The Daily Mash guide to satire for jihadists

    http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/the-daily-mash-guide-to-satire-for-jihadists-2015010994260
  • Options
    AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    Alistair said:

    DaemonBarber said:

    weejonnie said:

    DaemonBarber said:

    Hunting foxes with dogs is barbaric.
    However, is it something that the state should seek to ban? I would argue that yes is is, it is cruel and utterly unnecessary.

    'The pursuit of the inedible by the unspeakable' IIRC - however culling foxes is necessary and no more cruel than your cat bringing a dead mouse into the house.

    Since I am a firm believer that people have the right to do what they want - subject to respecting the rights of other people and their property then I am definitely in favour of allowing Fox-hunting to resume.
    Culling foxes is necessary.
    Culling foxes by means of a pack of dogs chasing a single fox down over the course of a morning once a week is both abhorrently cruel and grossly inefficient.

    The ban is hunting foxes with dogs, not hunting foxes for the purpose of population control
    Culling foxes after the hunters have helpfully built artificial earths to make it easier for the fox to live around the hunt area is the apogee of really cruelty.
    Far less cruel than battery farming, and affecting a miniscule number of creatures in comparison.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,990
    TheWatcher said:

    RobD said:

    isam said:

    Apparently another incident in Paris... this is unreal. At the Trocadero nr the Eiffel Tower

    As for Foxhunting.. seems wrong to me, I don't like killing of animals... but I am not from the countryside and wouldn't know the danger they pose I guess

    Let's hope the police in Paris get this all under control. At least they know where the perps are.
    They would appear to be everywhere.
    I should say 'these' perps, then!
  • Options
    DaemonBarberDaemonBarber Posts: 1,626
    Anorak said:

    DaemonBarber said:

    AndyJS said:

    DaemonBarber said:

    Hunting foxes with dogs is barbaric.
    However, is it something that the state should seek to ban? I would argue that yes is is, it is cruel and utterly unnecessary.

    But shouldn't we tackle problems involving exclusively human beings first as a priority? The police only have limited time and resources, so any resources they spend arresting fox hunters are resources that could have been deployed on more important investigations.
    How about the collection of bird's eggs or the poisoning of eagles? Should those crimes take a back-seat until there are no wife-beatings, drunk drivers, house break-ins etc, etc?
    It's a matter of impact - poisoning eagles or stealing eggs can damage a tiny and fragile population of birds. I'd put fox-hunting in the same category as shooting crows.
    Would you be comfortable getting a few neighbours round to corner the crow with your pet dogs and stand there cheering whilst your dogs tear it apart? Even if you go out on a limb and say yes to that, do you think it is the most appropriate method to use for population control?
  • Options
    TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    A greater number of animals suffer at the hands of Halal butchers than fox hunting. Opposing the latter is more about Class War, than any concern for animal welfare.
  • Options
    NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    Anorak said:

    Alistair said:

    DaemonBarber said:

    weejonnie said:

    DaemonBarber said:

    Hunting foxes with dogs is barbaric.
    However, is it something that the state should seek to ban? I would argue that yes is is, it is cruel and utterly unnecessary.

    'The pursuit of the inedible by the unspeakable' IIRC - however culling foxes is necessary and no more cruel than your cat bringing a dead mouse into the house.

    Since I am a firm believer that people have the right to do what they want - subject to respecting the rights of other people and their property then I am definitely in favour of allowing Fox-hunting to resume.
    Culling foxes is necessary.
    Culling foxes by means of a pack of dogs chasing a single fox down over the course of a morning once a week is both abhorrently cruel and grossly inefficient.

    The ban is hunting foxes with dogs, not hunting foxes for the purpose of population control
    Culling foxes after the hunters have helpfully built artificial earths to make it easier for the fox to live around the hunt area is the apogee of really cruelty.
    Far less cruel than battery farming
    You should get a prize for the best case of whataboutery on pbc today!
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    A_Man_Called_Horse said:

    Whenever the topic of Christian terrorism is raised, out come the rhetorical salami-slicers which could put any Waitrose delicatessen to shame -- "Oh no, Breivik doesn't count. nor do the IRA!" etc.

    Will people at least concede that the prolonged and atrocious crimes of the KKK and Eric Rudolph were motivated by a warped and sectarian interpretation of Christianity?

    Even a religion as benevolent as Buddhism has proven capable of inspiring terrorism (Japan's Aum Shirikyo cult). Christianity does not have some magical exemption.

    I think no religion is immune to criticism on this, but the numbers, widespread geography, persistence and systematic nature of Islamic terrorism puts all others into the also-rans, and then some.

    Worth noting that the people most at risk of Islamic terrorism are Islamic liberals speaking out against violence.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 41,002
    edited January 2015
    A_Man_Called_Horse said:

    Whenever the topic of Christian terrorism is raised, out come the rhetorical salami-slicers which could put any Waitrose delicatessen to shame -- "Oh no, Breivik doesn't count. nor do the IRA!" etc.

    Will people at least concede that the prolonged and atrocious crimes of the KKK and Eric Rudolph were motivated by a warped and sectarian interpretation of Christianity?

    Even a religion as benevolent as Buddhism has proven capable of inspiring terrorism (Japan's Aum Shirikyo cult). Christianity does not have some magical exemption.

    Any religion which has a significant enough number of followers to have meaningful conflict with another that is nearby will find trouble.. its not necessarily the religion, it is the distribution of power

    The reason there is trouble with Islam in Europe is because it is the 2nd biggest religion in Europe, not because of anything particular to Islam

    I still say if 5% of UK residents were Jews, Hindus or Mormons, there would be problems with extremists of whichever religion it was, and if the Muslim population was 0.5% we would have little or no trouble with Islamic fundamentalism
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,648
    MarkSenior said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    I want it repealed. Big time. But I think it'd only pass with a Conservative majority of 50 or so. There'd be a couple of dozen Tory MPs who'd vote against it, and a few more who'd abstain.

    I remember losing my rag with Marcus Woods PPC on this when he welched on it before the election. It's not a surprise he lost if he was that fickle.

    I don't think there are many floating voters who'd change their vote away from the Conservatives over the issue of fox-hunting. However, those that do feel that way are very vocal and extremely emotional about it.

    EDIT: I just saw SandyRentool's post. I rest my case.

    Out of interest , why do you want it repealed "Big Time" , why do you wish to impose your minority view on the population as a whole ? Why are you not calling for a referendum on this subject - presumably because you know it would lose heavily ?
    I could say the same thing about you. I'm not imposing anything on anyone. I'm simply allowing those who live in the countryside to continue to be able to exercise their right to continue to do something they've been doing for centuries. It's a libertarian argument.

    The welfare arguments are a red herring. You could make even stronger arguments against those who fish, trap, shoot and stalk - and those will never be touched. Fox hunting suffered not because it was cruel but because it was perceived to be exclusive. It was vindictive, divisive and ignorant and the ban should never have been passed.

    Incidentally, I do have concerns over animal welfare. I think many abattoirs are absolutely appalling, as is the treatment by some of their pet cats & dogs, and I have reservations about mass badger culls too. But I'm the sort of person who'd (in principle) be happy to raise free-range pigs organically, and bond with them, as well as take them to the slaughterhouse when the time came to feed my family.

    Incidentally, I live in the countryside. Everyone I've met who hunts are animal lovers, and passionate about countryside and effective land management. Whilst I wouldn't go so far as to say everyone is a supporter where I live, most are, the majority of opponents are urbanites.

    I have no problem with it. I think it's a wonderful centuries old English tradition.
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Why hasn't this odious man been arrested for inciting hatred?

    http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/01/08/london-preacher-who-called-for-gays-to-be-killed-defends-paris-charlie-hebdo-shootings/
  • Options
    felixfelix Posts: 15,125
    SandyRentool said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    I want it repealed. Big time. But I think it'd only pass with a Conservative majority of 50 or so. There'd be a couple of dozen Tory MPs who'd vote against it, and a few more who'd abstain.

    I remember losing my rag with Marcus Woods PPC on this when he welched on it before the election. It's not a surprise he lost if he was that fickle.

    I don't think there are many floating voters who'd change their vote away from the Conservatives over the issue of fox-hunting. However, those that do feel that way are very vocal and extremely emotional about it.

    EDIT: I just saw SandyRentool's post. I rest my case.

    I reject the suggestion that I am a floating voter!
    Floating - clearly not. Barking - defo judging by your ott comments about it.
  • Options
    AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    edited January 2015
    DaemonBarber said:

    Anorak said:

    DaemonBarber said:

    AndyJS said:

    DaemonBarber said:

    Hunting foxes with dogs is barbaric.
    However, is it something that the state should seek to ban? I would argue that yes is is, it is cruel and utterly unnecessary.

    But shouldn't we tackle problems involving exclusively human beings first as a priority? The police only have limited time and resources, so any resources they spend arresting fox hunters are resources that could have been deployed on more important investigations.
    How about the collection of bird's eggs or the poisoning of eagles? Should those crimes take a back-seat until there are no wife-beatings, drunk drivers, house break-ins etc, etc?
    It's a matter of impact - poisoning eagles or stealing eggs can damage a tiny and fragile population of birds. I'd put fox-hunting in the same category as shooting crows.
    Would you be comfortable getting a few neighbours round to corner the crow with your pet dogs and stand there cheering whilst your dogs tear it apart? Even if you go out on a limb and say yes to that, do you think it is the most appropriate method to use for population control?
    I'm sure there are more humane ways to control fox numbers, but the hunts bring excellent economic benefits, enhance social cohesion, and are a wonderful tradition. Hunts in Cumbria (and elsewhere), are conducted on foot and attended by all and sundry - far, far from the bunch of horse-riding toffs which the anti-hunt lobby would have you believe are the only people in the country who partake in the sport.

    EDIT: I see Casino Royale has made many of the same points, and more eloquently.
  • Options
    madasafishmadasafish Posts: 659
    DaemonBarber said:

    Anorak said:

    DaemonBarber said:

    AndyJS said:

    DaemonBarber said:

    Hunting foxes with dogs is barbaric.
    However, is it something that the state should seek to ban? I would argue that yes is is, it is cruel and utterly unnecessary.

    But shouldn't we tackle problems involving exclusively human beings first as a priority? The police only have limited time and resources, so any resources they spend arresting fox hunters are resources that could have been deployed on more important investigations.
    How about the collection of bird's eggs or the poisoning of eagles? Should those crimes take a back-seat until there are no wife-beatings, drunk drivers, house break-ins etc, etc?
    It's a matter of impact - poisoning eagles or stealing eggs can damage a tiny and fragile population of birds. I'd put fox-hunting in the same category as shooting crows.
    Would you be comfortable getting a few neighbours round to corner the crow with your pet dogs and stand there cheering whilst your dogs tear it apart? Even if you go out on a limb and say yes to that, do you think it is the most appropriate method to use for population control?
    DaemonBarber said:

    Anorak said:

    DaemonBarber said:

    AndyJS said:

    DaemonBarber said:

    Hunting foxes with dogs is barbaric.
    However, is it something that the state should seek to ban? I would argue that yes is is, it is cruel and utterly unnecessary.

    But shouldn't we tackle problems involving exclusively human beings first as a priority? The police only have limited time and resources, so any resources they spend arresting fox hunters are resources that could have been deployed on more important investigations.
    How about the collection of bird's eggs or the poisoning of eagles? Should those crimes take a back-seat until there are no wife-beatings, drunk drivers, house break-ins etc, etc?
    It's a matter of impact - poisoning eagles or stealing eggs can damage a tiny and fragile population of birds. I'd put fox-hunting in the same category as shooting crows.
    Would you be comfortable getting a few neighbours round to corner the crow with your pet dogs and stand there cheering whilst your dogs tear it apart? Even if you go out on a limb and say yes to that, do you think it is the most appropriate method to use for population control?

    Let#s think : foxes are a pia. Killing them is boring often cold and dirty work.

    Any thing that encourages people to keep their numbers down is to be encouraged..

    Yes: I live adjacent to several fox dens.. Create havoc on domestic pets and chickens...
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,631
    Smarmeron said:

    @MikeSmithson
    Circle health backing out of running a general hospital?, Drop in industrial output?.... There are plenty of options under the main headlines.

    The drop in industrial output is all related to a 5% drop in oil production. Without that industrial production would have been up a reasonable amount. Manufacturing production is up ahead of expectations so it's not as if there is any real slowdown in non-oil production.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,227
    Socrates said:

    rcs1000 said:

    @Socrates, et al, re continued discussions about the prophet.

    I regard freedom of speech and freedom to offend as fundamental. The idea the state should have any kind of power over what I do or do not say is abhorrent and repellent.

    I also believe that the state should not criminalise who people sleep with. (Assuming its between consenting adults!)

    Those cartoon are like cheating on your wife. Something whose legality should be defended to the death. But they are also something which is rather impolite. While I would tweet my abhorrence with the acts of the murderers and my absolute defence of free speech, I would not retweet the cartoons themselves. Not because it should be illegal to do so, but because I regard them as offensive.

    Some of the cartoons were offensive, others were not. I hope you're not taking the position that all images of Muhammad are offensive.

    However, when the right to free speech is under attack, I am happy to retweet even offensive images if those are the ones people are seeking to ban.
    I didn't find them offensive - and I looked at some of the ones attacking Jews and Christians. And have sent them to people.

    But, frankly, I take a rather Hogarthian/John Wilkes approach to most things. Living life with a thin skin is intolerable. Do not be afraid: that seems to me to be a good motto for life.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,648
    BenM said:

    I oppose the ban.

    Good for you.

    Right, now, I really must get on with some work.
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,446
    isam said:



    I still say if 5% of UK residents were Jews, Hindus or Mormons, there would be problems with extremists of whichever religion it was,

    Based on what evidence?

  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,292
    edited January 2015
    With all that is going on at the moment, does anybody really give a stuff out about hunting, one way or another?

    Seems like a lot more important issues to all our lives are at stake, than should some blokes in silly clothes chase a small creature around some fields with or without dogs.
  • Options
    taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    edited January 2015
    Why hasn't this odious man been arrested for inciting hatred?

    If we're going to defend Hebdo, shouldn't we also let him say what he wants? Knock yourself out, f8ckwit
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    TheWatcher said:

    A greater number of animals suffer at the hands of Halal butchers than fox hunting. Opposing the latter is more about Class War, than any concern for animal welfare.

    Have we banned rat hunting yet ? Our furry friends.

  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,584
    @britainelects: There was a council by-election yesterday, and we only just heard about it. Awkward...
  • Options
    DaemonBarberDaemonBarber Posts: 1,626
    Anorak said:

    DaemonBarber said:

    Anorak said:

    DaemonBarber said:

    AndyJS said:

    DaemonBarber said:

    Hunting foxes with dogs is barbaric.
    However, is it something that the state should seek to ban? I would argue that yes is is, it is cruel and utterly unnecessary.

    But shouldn't we tackle problems involving exclusively human beings first as a priority? The police only have limited time and resources, so any resources they spend arresting fox hunters are resources that could have been deployed on more important investigations.
    How about the collection of bird's eggs or the poisoning of eagles? Should those crimes take a back-seat until there are no wife-beatings, drunk drivers, house break-ins etc, etc?
    It's a matter of impact - poisoning eagles or stealing eggs can damage a tiny and fragile population of birds. I'd put fox-hunting in the same category as shooting crows.
    Would you be comfortable getting a few neighbours round to corner the crow with your pet dogs and stand there cheering whilst your dogs tear it apart? Even if you go out on a limb and say yes to that, do you think it is the most appropriate method to use for population control?
    I'm sure there are more humane ways to control fox numbers, but the hunts bring excellent economic benefits, enhance social cohesion, and are a wonderful tradition. Hunts in Cumbria (and elsewhere), are conducted on foot and attended by all and sundry - far, far from the bunch of horse-riding toffs which the anti-hunt lobby would have you believe are the only people in the country who partake in the sport.

    EDIT: I see Casino Royale has made many of the same points, and more eloquently.
    If it is purely about tradition and so-forth, then the "hunt" can continue without the unnecessary cruelty of chasing down a living creature and have it torn apart for sport.
  • Options
    NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    AndyJS said:

    Why hasn't this odious man been arrested for inciting hatred?

    http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/01/08/london-preacher-who-called-for-gays-to-be-killed-defends-paris-charlie-hebdo-shootings/

    Inoring him would hurt him far more than locking him up.

  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,584
    @britainelects: Bolsover North West (Bolsover) result:
    LAB - 45.0% (-22.0)
    UKIP - 39.5% (+39.5)
    CON - 15.5% (-17.6)
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,631
    isam said:

    A_Man_Called_Horse said:

    Whenever the topic of Christian terrorism is raised, out come the rhetorical salami-slicers which could put any Waitrose delicatessen to shame -- "Oh no, Breivik doesn't count. nor do the IRA!" etc.

    Will people at least concede that the prolonged and atrocious crimes of the KKK and Eric Rudolph were motivated by a warped and sectarian interpretation of Christianity?

    Even a religion as benevolent as Buddhism has proven capable of inspiring terrorism (Japan's Aum Shirikyo cult). Christianity does not have some magical exemption.

    Any religion which has a significant enough number of followers to have meaningful conflict with another that is nearby will find trouble.. its not necessarily the religion, it is the distribution of power

    The reason there is trouble with Islam in Europe is because it is the 2nd biggest religion in Europe, not because of anything particular to Islam

    I still say if 5% of UK residents were Jews, Hindus or Mormons, there would be problems with extremists of whichever religion it was, and if the Muslim population was 0.5% we would have little or no trouble with Islamic fundamentalism
    I find your final supposition extremely unlikely, and I highly doubt that any "extremists" of another minority would be murderous like Islamic fundamentalists are. The fact that you think this is quite telling tbh and I hope you just haven't thought it through properly.
  • Options
    AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    edited January 2015
    TGOHF said:

    TheWatcher said:

    A greater number of animals suffer at the hands of Halal butchers than fox hunting. Opposing the latter is more about Class War, than any concern for animal welfare.

    Have we banned rat hunting yet ? Our furry friends.
    Death by poisoning must be an awful, painful way to go. We should have rat sanctuaries where they can be rehomed and looked after in comfort.
  • Options
    DaemonBarberDaemonBarber Posts: 1,626
    Can we separate the need to control a pest, and the need to satisfy blood-lust?
  • Options
    NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    MaxPB said:

    I highly doubt that any "extremists" of another minority would be murderous like Islamic fundamentalists are.

    That's extremists for you. They tend to be pretty extreme.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @Mr_Eugenides: http://t.co/ecsBWBkM3u

    I'm on
This discussion has been closed.