A comment from the article on the Graun's donation to Charlie H:
Graun The key point is this: support for a magazine’s inalienable right to make its own editorial judgments does not commit you to echo or amplify those judgments. Put another way, defending the right of someone to say whatever they like does not oblige you to repeat their words.
Comment No, it does not 'oblige' you to. But you could choose to do so specifically in order to demonstrate to the murderers and their supporters that you will not be cowed by their actions.
Graun But the best response is not to be forced to speak in a different voice.
Comment No. The best response to these murders is to publish the cartoons even if you ordinarily wouldn't because of their content. The murders have rendered that content irrelevant; the cartoons now symbolise free speech, as the murderers actions demonstrated - it is the act of publishing that is now.
If you actually wish to defend freedom of speech, publish the cartoons.
If you are too afraid to do so, be honest about it instead of presenting us with this sad little rationalisation.
The best course of action would have been for both raids to have taken place simultaneously, but in fact there was a 20 minute gap. I assume this is because the brothers at the printworks came out firing unexpectedly.
I don't think we need to demonise each other. It's a straightforward choice between preserving English traditions and not having a sport hinging on suffering for animals. I can see why some might feel the former was more important, but it's not a tradition that in my opinion does us much credit, and I think the Conservatives would attract ridicule as well as dislike if they set aside time for it in the next Parliament.
Has Nick Palmer just conceded the general election to the Conservatives ?
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.
exactly and means more foxes get shot to pieces so does not make a lot of difference to foxes other than it is easier to avoid the dogs than a load of buckshot
Malcom and The Watcher agree. The End Times are truly upon us.
17.03 Harriet Alexander reports: Two RAID police have been injured in the conclusion of the Dammartin siege - one critically, the other shot in the leg.
A barrel of oil (159 litres) now sells for the equivalent of £33, which is about 21 pence a litre. It costs about five times that amount at forecourts.
Well 57p a litre of that is duty and another 18p approx is VAT. So that is 96p taken care of. That means if petrol is selling at 106p a litre as it is at the supermarkets right now, the refining, transport and sales costs as well as any profit you think they ought to be making amounts to 10p a litre or 9.4%.
Of course the biggest individual organisation to blame for the price of petrol compared to the price of oil is HMRC.
You have to love the way VAT gets charged on the duty element.
Not hard to see why governments aren't keen to allow all firms to print bills for customers showing how much tax was taken in duty, VAT.
"If the Conservatives are serious about bringing back fox hunting I may take my vote elsewhere."
It's always funny when Tories pretend their party is progressive when anyone with an IQ into double figures knows it isn't. It's like UKIPers with their innocent faces when they discover they're magnets to racists.
Captain Renault's 'Shocked, I'm shocked is sixty years old and still gets a smile.
If the Conservatives are serious about bringing back fox hunting I may take my vote elsewhere.
It's not the issue matters that much to me in itself, it's just that it symbolises everything I loathe about the party of the past and from which, thank goodness, we have moved on. Fox hunting of that sort has no place in today's Britain.
If it doesn't matter to you, it shouldn't affect your vote.
Read, then read again.
I said 'it's not that the issue matters that much to me in itself it's just that it symbolises everything … . I'm not alone on this. In other words Sean (sigh, that I have to spell it out) it's a throwback to a part of our past that should be left, in the past.
TBH I am with you on this one. It would undo so much of the Cameron detoxification project it doesn't bear thinking about. Lets leave that nonsense to Disney and biscuit boxes.
Is that the Cameron detoxification project that failed to persuade more than 36% of the electorate to vote for him last time, failed to win an outright majority over a Gordon Brown led Labour, has led to the haemorrhaging of over half of all Conservative Party members, and the defection of over 20% of their core vote, such that it looks like the party now will never win a majority ever again?
Do you mean that one?
Yep, that's the one. The one with a party with a future in modern Britain at the end of it.
The appeal of TV debates is that the party leaders get to speak directly to millions of people who don't usually engage in politics. A "digital" debate held by the Telegraph and Guardian for political anoraks would be a waste of time during the campaign.
It is not Conseervative party policy to legalise fox hunting. If there is a vote on it, it will be a free vote.
Look it's very simple. The Conservative Party has got to lose this reputation for lying, or no one it is every going to believe what they say, why do you think no one believes Dave about the referendum, so many Tories jump up and down and say how can you not believe him, he said it. Well he told the Countryside Alliance he would hold a free vote on fox hunting in exchange for their support. He must have cared enough to get it into the Coalition Agreement, because the LDs sure as hell didn't propose it. Then, in a moment of political expediency he dropped it. He broke another promise.
To be fair, on this I think Dave would keep his promise purely because I have it on good authority that fox hunting is one of the few things he passionately cares about.
His minister crunched the numbers this time, and concluded it wouldn't be won, so he shelved it.
He doesn't want to hold the vote and lose, because it might then settle the matter.
A barrel of oil (159 litres) now sells for the equivalent of £33, which is about 21 pence a litre. It costs about five times that amount at forecourts.
Well 57p a litre of that is duty and another 18p approx is VAT. So that is 96p taken care of. That means if petrol is selling at 106p a litre as it is at the supermarkets right now, the refining, transport and sales costs as well as any profit you think they ought to be making amounts to 10p a litre or 9.4%.
Of course the biggest individual organisation to blame for the price of petrol compared to the price of oil is HMRC.
You have to love the way VAT gets charged on the duty element.
Not hard to see why governments aren't keen to allow all firms to print bills for customers showing how much tax was taken in duty, VAT.
We saw soldiers with machine guns on patrol with police in Toulouse this afternoon. A sombre, watchful atmosphere. The world weighs heavy on France tonight.
Researcher Myriam Benraad at the Paris Science Po university, who has studied terror cells in Paris, is warning a renowned terror cell in the city has reawoken and to expect more attacks. ... She said: "Coulibaly is part of the same group as the Kouachi brothers. They were part of the same neighbourhood. "This would confirm this has not been a lone wolf attack. It is the awakening of the terror cell of an old network to jihadi calls to wage war against France. I believe it is in response to calls by Isil for French extremists to carry out attacks on their home soil. "I think this is just the start."
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.
exactly and means more foxes get shot to pieces so does not make a lot of difference to foxes other than it is easier to avoid the dogs than a load of buckshot
Malcom and The Watcher agree. The End Times are truly upon us.
LOL
Je Suis Malkie.
Nom De Nom, Sacre Bleu , ............Certes, je ne suis pas en train de devenir l'observateur
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.
exactly and means more foxes get shot to pieces so does not make a lot of difference to foxes other than it is easier to avoid the dogs than a load of buckshot
Malcom and The Watcher agree. The End Times are truly upon us.
It is not Conseervative party policy to legalise fox hunting. If there is a vote on it, it will be a free vote.
Look it's very simple. The Conservative Party has got to lose this reputation for lying, or no one it is every going to believe what they say, why do you think no one believes Dave about the referendum, so many Tories jump up and down and say how can you not believe him, he said it. Well he told the Countryside Alliance he would hold a free vote on fox hunting in exchange for their support. He must have cared enough to get it into the Coalition Agreement, because the LDs sure as hell didn't propose it. Then, in a moment of political expediency he dropped it. He broke another promise.
To be fair, on this I think Dave would keep his promise purely because I have it on good authority that fox hunting is one of the few things he passionately cares about.
His minister crunched the numbers this time, and concluded it wouldn't be won, so he shelved it.
He doesn't want to hold the vote and lose, because it might then settle the matter.
I understand that completely. So he shouldn't have made the promise. Its like reducing immigration, it was obvious to everyone that he couldn't do it, even when he said it, but he just couldn't help himself.
It's always funny when Tories pretend their party is progressive when anyone with an IQ into double figures knows it isn't. .
No that's terribly simplistic. There are, broadly, two different wings or factions in the Conservative party. One is Tory and old school: pro fox hunting and in its extreme is typified by the old squire. It's predominantly rural.
The other is altogether different: progressive, radical, pro-business and set around the laissez-faire economy, the dog-eats-dog mentality. It's more urban and was classically represented by Margaret Thatcher who was many things and none of them were conservative.
Now you may well accuse me of being simplistic. Yes, but a lot less than you were. There is a very definite progressive wing of the party: more progressive than any other mainstream party. Dangerously so, actually, although I happen to identify more with it.
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.
exactly and means more foxes get shot to pieces so does not make a lot of difference to foxes other than it is easier to avoid the dogs than a load of buckshot
Malcom and The Watcher agree. The End Times are truly upon us.
LOL
Je Suis Malkie.
Nom De Nom, Sacre Bleu , ............Certes, je ne suis pas en train de devenir l'observateur
It is not Conseervative party policy to legalise fox hunting. If there is a vote on it, it will be a free vote.
Look it's very simple. The Conservative Party has got to lose this reputation for lying, or no one it is every going to believe what they say, why do you think no one believes Dave about the referendum, so many Tories jump up and down and say how can you not believe him, he said it. Well he told the Countryside Alliance he would hold a free vote on fox hunting in exchange for their support. He must have cared enough to get it into the Coalition Agreement, because the LDs sure as hell didn't propose it. Then, in a moment of political expediency he dropped it. He broke another promise.
To be fair, on this I think Dave would keep his promise purely because I have it on good authority that fox hunting is one of the few things he passionately cares about.
His minister crunched the numbers this time, and concluded it wouldn't be won, so he shelved it.
He doesn't want to hold the vote and lose, because it might then settle the matter.
I understand that completely. So he shouldn't have made the promise. Its like reducing immigration, it was obvious to everyone that he couldn't do it, even when he said it, but he just couldn't help himself.
Except on this one there's evidence of Cameron thinking about how he can best achieve his goal. But it's his own failure to win over a broad coalition of voters to his side that's the issue, not others (like the EU) outside his direct control.
By the way, I applaud the decision of the British press not to publish the cartoons. I have kept away from this topic, knowing how the rabid right will react. So I simply remark: well done to our media. Spot bloody on.
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'd assume this is more about GOTV than anything else. IIRC the Countryside Alliance put together a very effective operation at the last election & the Tories would very much like them to do it again. They didn't repeal the law this time (mainfesto pledge) because the LibDems are utterly opposed to the extension of liberty.
If it is they are on a hiding to nothing.
The Libs can't have been that opposed to the idea since it was in the Coalition Agreement
We will bring forward a motion on a free vote enabling the House of Commons to express its view on the repeal of the Hunting Act.
The Conservatives were not required by their deal with the CA to actually win the vote, just to hold a free vote on the subject, and they didn't.
Its going to look like another example of cast iron Dave's cast iron lies, fat chance of the CA turning out for him this time.
no ifs, no buts...
They didn't hold it because they would have lost it. Apart from the LDs there are the "Blue Foxes" (anti-hunting conservatives) which mean the OM needs to be higher if there is going to be repeal from a free vote.
It was fine not to hold it.
But to not piss off the Countryside Alliance they just had to hold it with a free vote, not win it.
And its not "find not to hold it" when you have promised someone that you will hold it, that is usually known as "lying" something Dave is becoming particularly good at.
I'm sure the CA leadership was squared in advance. At that point it becomes a "change in plans"
By the way, I applaud the decision of the British press not to publish the cartoons. I have kept away from this topic, knowing how the rabid right will react. So I simply remark: well done to our media. Spot bloody on.
Just because you can doesn't mean you should .
Had the British press all published the cartoons it would have showed the terrorists that it is counter productive to kill editors and writers.
Had the Britsh press all published the cartoons it would have shown they were not intimidated by the terrorists.
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.
exactly and means more foxes get shot to pieces so does not make a lot of difference to foxes other than it is easier to avoid the dogs than a load of buckshot
Malcom and The Watcher agree. The End Times are truly upon us.
LOL
Je Suis Malkie.
Nom De Nom, Sacre Bleu , ............Certes, je ne suis pas en train de devenir l'observateur
It is not Conseervative party policy to legalise fox hunting. If there is a vote on it, it will be a free vote.
Look it's very simple. The Conservative Party has got to lose this reputation for lying, or no one it is every going to believe what they say, why do you think no one believes Dave about the referendum, so many Tories jump up and down and say how can you not believe him, he said it. Well he told the Countryside Alliance he would hold a free vote on fox hunting in exchange for their support. He must have cared enough to get it into the Coalition Agreement, because the LDs sure as hell didn't propose it. Then, in a moment of political expediency he dropped it. He broke another promise.
To be fair, on this I think Dave would keep his promise purely because I have it on good authority that fox hunting is one of the few things he passionately cares about.
His minister crunched the numbers this time, and concluded it wouldn't be won, so he shelved it.
He doesn't want to hold the vote and lose, because it might then settle the matter.
I understand that completely. So he shouldn't have made the promise. Its like reducing immigration, it was obvious to everyone that he couldn't do it, even when he said it, but he just couldn't help himself.
Except on this one there's evidence of Cameron thinking about how he can best achieve his goal. But it's his own failure to win over a broad coalition of voters to his side that's the issue, not others (like the EU) outside his direct control.
The pro hunting brigade will never get the majority of the voters as a whole in favour of bringing back fox hunting . Their only hope is to get it repealed in some devious manner whereby they can ignore public opinion . If they succeeded they would then try and find ways of bringing back all the other barbaric " traditional country pursuits " dog fighting , cock fighting , stag hunting , bear baiting etc etc . The proponents of the latter sadistic practices are no worse than those who want fox hunting restored indeed in many cases they are the same people .
It is not Conseervative party policy to legalise fox hunting. If there is a vote on it, it will be a free vote.
Look it's very simple. The Conservative Party has got to lose this reputation for lying, or no one it is every going to believe what they say, why do you think no one believes Dave about the referendum, so many Tories jump up and down and say how can you not believe him, he said it. Well he told the Countryside Alliance he would hold a free vote on fox hunting in exchange for their support. He must have cared enough to get it into the Coalition Agreement, because the LDs sure as hell didn't propose it. Then, in a moment of political expediency he dropped it. He broke another promise.
To be fair, on this I think Dave would keep his promise purely because I have it on good authority that fox hunting is one of the few things he passionately cares about.
His minister crunched the numbers this time, and concluded it wouldn't be won, so he shelved it.
He doesn't want to hold the vote and lose, because it might then settle the matter.
I understand that completely. So he shouldn't have made the promise. Its like reducing immigration, it was obvious to everyone that he couldn't do it, even when he said it, but he just couldn't help himself.
Except on this one there's evidence of Cameron thinking about how he can best achieve his goal. But it's his own failure to win over a broad coalition of voters to his side that's the issue, not others (like the EU) outside his direct control.
The pro hunting brigade will never get the majority of the voters as a whole in favour of bringing back fox hunting . Their only hope is to get it repealed in some devious manner whereby they can ignore public opinion . If they succeeded they would then try and find ways of bringing back all the other barbaric " traditional country pursuits " dog fighting , cock fighting , stag hunting , bear baiting etc etc . The proponents of the latter sadistic practices are no worse than those who want fox hunting restored indeed in many cases they are the same people .
It is not Conseervative party policy to legalise fox hunting. If there is a vote on it, it will be a free vote.
Look it's very simple. The Conservative Party has got to lose this reputation for lying, or no one it is every going to believe what they say, why do you think no one believes Dave about the referendum, so many Tories jump up and down and say how can you not believe him, he said it. Well he told the Countryside Alliance he would hold a free vote on fox hunting in exchange for their support. He must have cared enough to get it into the Coalition Agreement, because the LDs sure as hell didn't propose it. Then, in a moment of political expediency he dropped it. He broke another promise.
To be fair, on this I think Dave would keep his promise purely because I have it on good authority that fox hunting is one of the few things he passionately cares about.
His minister crunched the numbers this time, and concluded it wouldn't be won, so he shelved it.
He doesn't want to hold the vote and lose, because it might then settle the matter.
I understand that completely. So he shouldn't have made the promise. Its like reducing immigration, it was obvious to everyone that he couldn't do it, even when he said it, but he just couldn't help himself.
Except on this one there's evidence of Cameron thinking about how he can best achieve his goal. But it's his own failure to win over a broad coalition of voters to his side that's the issue, not others (like the EU) outside his direct control.
The pro hunting brigade will never get the majority of the voters as a whole in favour of bringing back fox hunting . Their only hope is to get it repealed in some devious manner whereby they can ignore public opinion . If they succeeded they would then try and find ways of bringing back all the other barbaric " traditional country pursuits " dog fighting , cock fighting , stag hunting , bear baiting etc etc . The proponents of the latter sadistic practices are no worse than those who want fox hunting restored indeed in many cases they are the same people .
Like free speech this is an issue of freedom.
Should liberals allow people the freedom to kill vermin (as they see it) the way they want or should their freedom be curtailed because it offends some people? Just asking.
A barrel of oil (159 litres) now sells for the equivalent of £33, which is about 21 pence a litre. It costs about five times that amount at forecourts.
That's about right:
Cost on forecourt: 100% Tax 70% Cost of fuel 15% Operating costs, rent, staff etc 10% Retail profit margin 5%
It's always funny when Tories pretend their party is progressive when anyone with an IQ into double figures knows it isn't. .
No that's terribly simplistic. There are, broadly, two different wings or factions in the Conservative party. One is Tory and old school: pro fox hunting and in its extreme is typified by the old squire. It's predominantly rural.
The other is altogether different: progressive, radical, pro-business and set around the laissez-faire economy, the dog-eats-dog mentality. It's more urban and was classically represented by Margaret Thatcher who was many things and none of them were conservative.
Now you may well accuse me of being simplistic. Yes, but a lot less than you were. There is a very definite progressive wing of the party: more progressive than any other mainstream party. Dangerously so, actually, although I happen to identify more with it.
And then there are those that are both rural and metropolitan, conservative and progressive, squires and businessmen.
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?
Sorry for the delay, been out walking the dog.
My mind about the hunts was made up when I found out that most actually maintained the breeding populations of foxes in the Hunt's area to provide entertainment to the Hunt. Done by feeding and protecting dens etc..
The arguments made by CA are mostly specious, and when you consider that the actual kill rate of the hunts make it questionable hobby and a bloody nuisance when the Hunt goes over newly planted fields, damaging walls and fences.
I have no real liking for pests such as foxes, rabbits or even deer. If they are in the wrong place, either move them or if that is not viable (urban foxes being captured and being let loose in the countryside by so called do-gooders, the foxes starved to death) then shoot them or poison them. If it's rabbits or deer - shoot then eat them.
Apart from that, I still think it would be better TV than Big Brother. Mind you, anything is better than BB
Comments
Two RAID police have been injured in the conclusion of the Dammartin siege - one critically, the other shot in the leg.
"If the Conservatives are serious about bringing back fox hunting I may take my vote elsewhere."
It's always funny when Tories pretend their party is progressive when anyone with an IQ into double figures knows it isn't. It's like UKIPers with their innocent faces when they discover they're magnets to racists.
Captain Renault's 'Shocked, I'm shocked is sixty years old and still gets a smile.
His minister crunched the numbers this time, and concluded it wouldn't be won, so he shelved it.
He doesn't want to hold the vote and lose, because it might then settle the matter.
SDLP; Alliance; Sinn Fein; DUP; UUP (NI)
UKIP Con Lab Scots-Greens LD SNP (Scotland)
UKIP Con Lab Welsh-Greens Plaid-Cymru UKIP; Welsh Communists(Wales)
UKIP Con Lab Green LD; Respect; BNP; Merbyn Kenow(England)
...
She said: "Coulibaly is part of the same group as the Kouachi brothers. They were part of the same neighbourhood.
"This would confirm this has not been a lone wolf attack. It is the awakening of the terror cell of an old network to jihadi calls to wage war against France. I believe it is in response to calls by Isil for French extremists to carry out attacks on their home soil.
"I think this is just the start."
The other is altogether different: progressive, radical, pro-business and set around the laissez-faire economy, the dog-eats-dog mentality. It's more urban and was classically represented by Margaret Thatcher who was many things and none of them were conservative.
Now you may well accuse me of being simplistic. Yes, but a lot less than you were. There is a very definite progressive wing of the party: more progressive than any other mainstream party. Dangerously so, actually, although I happen to identify more with it.
Just because you can doesn't mean you should .
And its not "find not to hold it" when you have promised someone that you will hold it, that is usually known as "lying" something Dave is becoming particularly good at.
I'm sure the CA leadership was squared in advance. At that point it becomes a "change in plans"
Labour - BJO
Lib Dem - Mark Senior
Tory - AudreyAnne
UKIP - MikeK
SNP - Malcolmg
David Herdson to moderate. Questions from the audience from the rest of us.
Had the British press all published the cartoons it would have showed the terrorists that it is counter productive to kill editors and writers.
Had the Britsh press all published the cartoons it would have shown they were not intimidated by the terrorists.
What a lost opportunity and how cowardly.
If they succeeded they would then try and find ways of bringing back all the other barbaric " traditional country pursuits " dog fighting , cock fighting , stag hunting , bear baiting etc etc .
The proponents of the latter sadistic practices are no worse than those who want fox hunting restored indeed in many cases they are the same people .
No live coverage or prominent reporting because Baga is in Nigeria so who cares?.
See
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/01/09/boko-haram-may-have-killed-2000-people-in-one-attack/
Should liberals allow people the freedom to kill vermin (as they see it) the way they want or should their freedom be curtailed because it offends some people? Just asking.
Cost on forecourt: 100%
Tax 70%
Cost of fuel 15%
Operating costs, rent, staff etc 10%
Retail profit margin 5%
My mind about the hunts was made up when I found out that most actually maintained the breeding populations of foxes in the Hunt's area to provide entertainment to the Hunt. Done by feeding and protecting dens etc..
The arguments made by CA are mostly specious, and when you consider that the actual kill rate of the hunts make it questionable hobby and a bloody nuisance when the Hunt goes over newly planted fields, damaging walls and fences.
I have no real liking for pests such as foxes, rabbits or even deer. If they are in the wrong place, either move them or if that is not viable (urban foxes being captured and being let loose in the countryside by so called do-gooders, the foxes starved to death) then shoot them or poison them. If it's rabbits or deer - shoot then eat them.
Apart from that, I still think it would be better TV than Big Brother. Mind you, anything is better than BB