Licence fee dodgers will still face the threat of jail, with the Government ruling that evasion will remain a criminal offence.
Another commonsense-bypass considering the discussion we had about jails yesterday. Why is not paying the license fee a criminal offence, and yet not paying just about anyone else is a civil offence?
Yet that is a logic for mandatory vegetarianism, since there is no need for the people of England to eat meat. Yet mandatory vegetarianism would be an unspeakable crime against liberty.
No it isn't. You're seeing this through the black and white filter of the law, rather than they grey area that is real life.
As Nick Palmer says down thread: "Most people take a middle view, uneasily accepting some animal suffering for food and similar central preoiccupations(sic), but draw the line at doing it for sport."
I stress I take no view as to whether people should engage in the noble pursuits of fox hunting, bear baiting and cock and dog fighting, merely that it is an abuse of power for the majority to prohibit them.
You call "sports" like that "noble"? A bunch of dogs attacking a bear with unnecessary suffering "fun". Really?
People don't seem at all uneasy about fishing or shooting. For myself, I don't see the logic of permitting such activities while banning fox hunting.
Yet that is a logic for mandatory vegetarianism, since there is no need for the people of England to eat meat. Yet mandatory vegetarianism would be an unspeakable crime against liberty.
No it isn't. You're seeing this through the black and white filter of the law, rather than they grey area that is real life.
As Nick Palmer says down thread: "Most people take a middle view, uneasily accepting some animal suffering for food and similar central preoiccupations(sic), but draw the line at doing it for sport."
I stress I take no view as to whether people should engage in the noble pursuits of fox hunting, bear baiting and cock and dog fighting, merely that it is an abuse of power for the majority to prohibit them.
You call "sports" like that "noble"? A bunch of dogs attacking a bear with unnecessary suffering "fun". Really?
People don't seem at all uneasy about fishing or shooting. For myself, I don't see the logic of permitting such activities while banning fox hunting.
Isn't shooting " the humane harvesting of organic, free range produce "?
Why is the Tory party so obsessed about fox hunting? Why are we even talking about fox hunting? Who thinks that fox hunting should be high in a government's list of priorities?
There are so many things going around in the country and the world, why fox hunting ?
It's a harmless way of rewarding a section of Conservative voters.
To be fair to Nick P, every bit of polling evidence pointed to his winning back Broxtowe comfortably.
I don't doubt he's correct that most people disapprove of fox hunting. I worked for an animal charity, and I'm well aware that many people have irrational views about animals. ("I don't eat my friends" I was told by one woman who stared at the chicken on my plate).
But, I don't think it's an issue that shifts many votes.
Yet that is a logic for mandatory vegetarianism, since there is no need for the people of England to eat meat. Yet mandatory vegetarianism would be an unspeakable crime against liberty.
No it isn't. You're seeing this through the black and white filter of the law, rather than they grey area that is real life.
As Nick Palmer says down thread: "Most people take a middle view, uneasily accepting some animal suffering for food and similar central preoiccupations(sic), but draw the line at doing it for sport."
I stress I take no view as to whether people should engage in the noble pursuits of fox hunting, bear baiting and cock and dog fighting, merely that it is an abuse of power for the majority to prohibit them.
You call "sports" like that "noble"? A bunch of dogs attacking a bear with unnecessary suffering "fun". Really?
People don't seem at all uneasy about fishing or shooting. For myself, I don't see the logic of permitting such activities while banning fox hunting.
Isn't shooting " the humane harvesting of organic, free range produce "?
I've encountered people who, while perfectly happy to buy slabs of meat in a supermarket, would be appalled at the idea of raising a fee range animal for the table (one employee of mine called another a murderer for raising a free range pig).
To be fair to Nick P, every bit of polling evidence pointed to his winning back Broxtowe comfortably..
I don't doubt either that he honestly reported canvassing returns - people tend to hear what they want to hear and thats as true of canvassers as anyone else and people often try to avoid disappointing their interlocutors - so no doubt many who voted Soubry on the day were 'undecided' or 'really like Nick' in responding to Labour canvassers.....
To be fair to Nick P, every bit of polling evidence pointed to his winning back Broxtowe comfortably..
I don't doubt either that he honestly reported canvassing returns - people tend to hear what they want to hear and thats as true of canvassers as anyone else and people often try to avoid disappointing their interlocutors - so no doubt many who voted Soubry on the day were 'undecided' or 'really like Nick' in responding to Labour canvassers.....
The SNP have a longstanding position of not voting on matters that purely affect England – such as foxhunting south of the border, for example – and we stand by that. Where any issue is genuinely “English-only”, with no impact on Scotland, the case for Evel can be made.
Can you find us the bit where Nicola says "does not apply in July"?
People don't seem at all uneasy about fishing or shooting. For myself, I don't see the logic of permitting such activities while banning fox hunting.
seems simple enough - with shooting the animal can be dispatched fairly quickly and with less suffering than that involved in fox hunting.
Fish are fish. who knows whether they are neurologically equipped to suffer. Anyway, they can also be despatched fairly quickly once caught.
That seems logical enough. I wouldn't support a ban though
Most fishing as a form of sport does not kill the fish but puts them back in to the river/lake etc. In fact it is a condition to fish on many rivers and lakes that the fish are put back into the lake/river. Thus the same fish can be caught many times before it dies. Is that not cruelty - probably not as its not pretty or furry.
The SNP have a longstanding position of not voting on matters that purely affect England – such as foxhunting south of the border, for example – and we stand by that. Where any issue is genuinely “English-only”, with no impact on Scotland, the case for Evel can be made.
Can you find us the bit where Nicola says "does not apply in July"?
"Can be made"
not
"Is made"
you seem to have trouble parsing sentences.
"The SNP have a longstanding position of not voting on matters that purely affect England – such as foxhunting south of the border"
This does not appear to make sense. If gas plants (currently the most efficient) are losing money, then where are the low wholesale power prices coming from - France?
" If Europe prefers to again provide debt relief through maturity extension, there would have to be a very dramatic extension with grace periods of, say, 30 years on the entire stock of European debt, including new assistance....
.... Other options include explicit annual transfers to the Greek budget or deep upfront haircuts. The choice between the various options is for Greece and its European partners to decide."
Well, at least the SNP are just pissing about with hunting, not anything of real importance...
An SNP MP last night told The Times that assisted dying, due to come before the Commons for a second reading in September, had been identified as the next English-only legislation passing through the Commons on which the SNP could vote. Because it is likely to be a free vote rather than a whipped one, the SNP could potentially hold the balance of power if it voted en bloc.
There'll be civil strife in Glasgow over the SNP's U-turn, I expect 3 full days of strike on the Clyde too - the situation will remind us of the dire boundary change riots in Twickenham that occurred in August 2012 over the blocking of the boundary changes by Clegg.
An amendment to the hunting ban which was subject to a free vote for Conservatives is not the keystone of the manifesto. That said, it's legitimate to remind people of the little majority.
Yet that is a logic for mandatory vegetarianism, since there is no need for the people of England to eat meat. Yet mandatory vegetarianism would be an unspeakable crime against liberty.
No it isn't. You're seeing this through the black and white filter of the law, rather than they grey area that is real life.
As Nick Palmer says down thread: "Most people take a middle view, uneasily accepting some animal suffering for food and similar central preoiccupations(sic), but draw the line at doing it for sport."
I stress I take no view as to whether people should engage in the noble pursuits of fox hunting, bear baiting and cock and dog fighting, merely that it is an abuse of power for the majority to prohibit them.
You call "sports" like that "noble"? A bunch of dogs attacking a bear with unnecessary suffering "fun". Really?
People don't seem at all uneasy about fishing or shooting. For myself, I don't see the logic of permitting such activities while banning fox hunting.
Fundamentally, it's the idea of people they don't like doing it to an animal they do like, and enjoying it, that they find so offensive.
There'll be civil strife in Glasgow over the SNP's U-turn
What is of some interest was the ludicrous suggestion on newsnight that the futile 56, who have pledged to make Scotland's voice heard (sic) changed their policy of decades because 600 English people wrote to them...
Yet that is a logic for mandatory vegetarianism, since there is no need for the people of England to eat meat. Yet mandatory vegetarianism would be an unspeakable crime against liberty.
No it isn't. You're seeing this through the black and white filter of the law, rather than they grey area that is real life.
As Nick Palmer says down thread: "Most people take a middle view, uneasily accepting some animal suffering for food and similar central preoiccupations(sic), but draw the line at doing it for sport."
I stress I take no view as to whether people should engage in the noble pursuits of fox hunting, bear baiting and cock and dog fighting, merely that it is an abuse of power for the majority to prohibit them.
You call "sports" like that "noble"? A bunch of dogs attacking a bear with unnecessary suffering "fun". Really?
People don't seem at all uneasy about fishing or shooting. For myself, I don't see the logic of permitting such activities while banning fox hunting.
Fundamentally, it's the idea of people they don't like doing it to an animal they do like, and enjoying it, that they find so offensive.
Farmers dislike hunting foxes with dogs. Hunts destroy crops and don't kill foxes very often. So it's not even pest control. You don't find hunts where there are freehold farms.
There'll be civil strife in Glasgow over the SNP's U-turn
What is of some interest was the ludicrous suggestion on newsnight that the futile 56, who have pledged to make Scotland's voice heard (sic) changed their policy of decades because 600 English people wrote to them...
Steadfast and resolute to the end
Perhaps that should read the SNP are Scotland's voice herd?
EVEL sounds like it's been tightened, but not sufficiently: "England's MPs would be asked to accept or veto legislation only affecting England before it passed to a vote of all UK MPs at its third and final reading in the Commons.
This means England's MPs could block any unwanted policies from being introduced in England - but could not force proposals through unless the whole House agreed"
Yet that is a logic for mandatory vegetarianism, since there is no need for the people of England to eat meat. Yet mandatory vegetarianism would be an unspeakable crime against liberty.
No it isn't. You're seeing this through the black and white filter of the law, rather than they grey area that is real life.
As Nick Palmer says down thread: "Most people take a middle view, uneasily accepting some animal suffering for food and similar central preoiccupations(sic), but draw the line at doing it for sport."
I stress I take no view as to whether people should engage in the noble pursuits of fox hunting, bear baiting and cock and dog fighting, merely that it is an abuse of power for the majority to prohibit them.
You call "sports" like that "noble"? A bunch of dogs attacking a bear with unnecessary suffering "fun". Really?
People don't seem at all uneasy about fishing or shooting. For myself, I don't see the logic of permitting such activities while banning fox hunting.
Fundamentally, it's the idea of people they don't like doing it to an animal they do like, and enjoying it, that they find so offensive.
Sounds fair. Also fish and pheasants get eaten, anyone for fox?
Yet that is a logic for mandatory vegetarianism, since there is no need for the people of England to eat meat. Yet mandatory vegetarianism would be an unspeakable crime against liberty.
No it isn't. You're seeing this through the black and white filter of the law, rather than they grey area that is real life.
As Nick Palmer says down thread: "Most people take a middle view, uneasily accepting some animal suffering for food and similar central preoiccupations(sic), but draw the line at doing it for sport."
I stress I take no view as to whether people should engage in the noble pursuits of fox hunting, bear baiting and cock and dog fighting, merely that it is an abuse of power for the majority to prohibit them.
You call "sports" like that "noble"? A bunch of dogs attacking a bear with unnecessary suffering "fun". Really?
People don't seem at all uneasy about fishing or shooting. For myself, I don't see the logic of permitting such activities while banning fox hunting.
Fundamentally, it's the idea of people they don't like doing it to an animal they do like, and enjoying it, that they find so offensive.
Possibly because there is this (incorrect) image that everyone on the hunt is some sort of braying retired colonel or other bufton tufton type. As usual the unintended but predictable consequences are ignored. If the hunting stops completely, there is no reason for farmers not to destroy all foxes they find since there will be no income from the hunt, probably by poison. There will be no need for those packs of hounds who will be rapidly disposed of, and so forth. Its rather like a certain type of vegetarian that assume that if you don't eat meat the animals will have fulfilling lives gambolling picturesquely around the fields instead, as opposed to farmers breeding less animals, and taken to its logical conclusion, none.
An amendment to the hunting ban which was subject to a free vote for Conservatives is not the keystone of the manifesto. That said, it's legitimate to remind people of the little majority.
Cynics might argue it was only in the manifesto as a sop to the hunting lobby, and was intended to be dropped in coalition talks.
Yet that is a logic for mandatory vegetarianism, since there is no need for the people of England to eat meat. Yet mandatory vegetarianism would be an unspeakable crime against liberty.
No it isn't. You're seeing this through the black and white filter of the law, rather than they grey area that is real life.
As Nick Palmer says down thread: "Most people take a middle view, uneasily accepting some animal suffering for food and similar central preoiccupations(sic), but draw the line at doing it for sport."
I stress I take no view as to whether people should engage in the noble pursuits of fox hunting, bear baiting and cock and dog fighting, merely that it is an abuse of power for the majority to prohibit them.
You call "sports" like that "noble"? A bunch of dogs attacking a bear with unnecessary suffering "fun". Really?
People don't seem at all uneasy about fishing or shooting. For myself, I don't see the logic of permitting such activities while banning fox hunting.
Fundamentally, it's the idea of people they don't like doing it to an animal they do like, and enjoying it, that they find so offensive.
Sounds fair. Also fish and pheasants get eaten, anyone for fox?
Not a lot meat on a fox, and so probably not worth it even with reluctance to try it for most. Like dogs, in my head it seems like it must be tough and stringy meat. No idea if that's true though.
@Disraeli - with regard to vermin, I wouldn't use fox project as a reliable guide - there are some very strange people indeed involved in it, and their information is at best disingenuous.
Foxes are not technically considered vermin because they have other uses (to wit, their fur) and vermin are generally considered to be animals that are destructive and completely useless (cue SNP or ECB jokes). The same is true of, for example, rabbits. However, what fox project conveniently forget to say is that foxes are almost invariably included in pest control licences issued for vermin (the wording is generally something like 'foxes, rabbits or vermin') on the understanding that many wild foxes actually meet every other criteria to be vermin - e.g. destructive and spread disease. In farming terms, they are usually simply called 'vermin', whatever the technicalities of the situation.
With regard to hunting, the key problem is not that it isn't necessarily cruel - although remarkably, with a well trained pack of hounds, it was generally less cruel than gassing or snaring, both of which are technically illegal but still widely used - but that it is actually rather safer and more effective than other methods. The grim irony of the 2004 ban on hunting is that in the month it was passed, two children were killed in lamping accidents - which failed to get a single fox. It should also be noted that although wounding incidents are comparatively rare in lamping, they are not unknown and they do cause a great deal of prolonged suffering to the fox.
It should also be noted that further, in the same month that the act was passed, new regulations on the disposal of animal carcasses were brought in, making it difficult to bury them. As incineration capacity was and remains appallingly low, it was therefore necessary to dispose of them in another way. And what was the idea for 25% of these carcasses? Oh that's right - use them as food for foxhounds. And that's still the case. It also allows many horses the chance of a decent life, which would otherwise be shipped to France for meat, probably under bad conditions. So there are wider, useful functions fulfilled by the hunting system. This led vet (and animal rights supporter) Eddie Straiton to comment that while foxhunting was in his view 'morally degrading' he felt 'I must condone it.' (continued)
(continued) The key thing is that we are still wasting parliamentary time over what is at best a side issue because of the fanaticism of a bunch of animal rights activists, who in my experience are far more dangerous and vicious than any fox (I've yet to see a fox bashing people over the head with a crowbar while wearing a balaclava). The inane attempts of first Blair and now Cameron to mess with this to appease various vocal groups of their supporters is unedifying and unwise.
Sensible people would just ignore it on the basis that the decline of farming and the increasing urbanisation of the countryside will probably put an end to it in 30-40 years anyway. Unfortunately, we have left it to politicians.
Yet that is a logic for mandatory vegetarianism, since there is no need for the people of England to eat meat. Yet mandatory vegetarianism would be an unspeakable crime against liberty.
No it isn't. You're seeing this through the black and white filter of the law, rather than they grey area that is real life.
As Nick Palmer says down thread: "Most people take a middle view, uneasily accepting some animal suffering for food and similar central preoiccupations(sic), but draw the line at doing it for sport."
I stress I take no view as to whether people should engage in the noble pursuits of fox hunting, bear baiting and cock and dog fighting, merely that it is an abuse of power for the majority to prohibit them.
You call "sports" like that "noble"? A bunch of dogs attacking a bear with unnecessary suffering "fun". Really?
People don't seem at all uneasy about fishing or shooting. For myself, I don't see the logic of permitting such activities while banning fox hunting.
Fundamentally, it's the idea of people they don't like doing it to an animal they do like, and enjoying it, that they find so offensive.
Sounds fair. Also fish and pheasants get eaten, anyone for fox?
Perhaps foxes could be processed into pellets and fed to chickens?
An amendment to the hunting ban which was subject to a free vote for Conservatives is not the keystone of the manifesto. That said, it's legitimate to remind people of the little majority.
Cynics might argue it was only in the manifesto as a sop to the hunting lobby, and was intended to be dropped in coalition talks.
There would be no need to drop it in coalition talks - the coalition partners would get to be able to claim they prevented something from the nasty Tories, and Cameron could shrug and say it was promised as a free vote, alas, so he regrets it not passing but maybe vote Tory next time, wink wink. Win win for both.
Yet that is a logic for mandatory vegetarianism, since there is no need for the people of England to eat meat. Yet mandatory vegetarianism would be an unspeakable crime against liberty.
No it isn't. You're seeing this through the black and white filter of the law, rather than they grey area that is real life.
As Nick Palmer says down thread: "Most people take a middle view, uneasily accepting some animal suffering for food and similar central preoiccupations(sic), but draw the line at doing it for sport."
I stress I take no view as to whether people should engage in the noble pursuits of fox hunting, bear baiting and cock and dog fighting, merely that it is an abuse of power for the majority to prohibit them.
You call "sports" like that "noble"? A bunch of dogs attacking a bear with unnecessary suffering "fun". Really?
People don't seem at all uneasy about fishing or shooting. For myself, I don't see the logic of permitting such activities while banning fox hunting.
Fundamentally, it's the idea of people they don't like doing it to an animal they do like, and enjoying it, that they find so offensive.
Farmers dislike hunting foxes with dogs. Hunts destroy crops and don't kill foxes very often. So it's not even pest control. You don't find hunts where there are freehold farms.
Odd that a great number of hunts in the country are called Farmer's Hunts then... Mendip Farmers Hunt, Saltersgate Farmers Hunt etc
Farmers dislike hunting foxes with dogs. Hunts destroy crops and don't kill foxes very often. So it's not even pest control. You don't find hunts where there are freehold farms.
Depends on the farmer. Livestock farmers are in favour, arable-only farmers generally against (although not as much against hunting as they are against ramblers, who are an awful lot more destructive and operate in the summer, not the winter).
As for freehold farmers, they were the ONLY type of farmer on the Gloucestershire/Herefordshire border, where there are two very active hunts who go across a lot of land. So your second point is simply wrong.
Anyone want to argue that the most efficient means we have found of controlling the fox population is by slaughtering them as we drive about in our cars? Far, far more are killed on our roads than if all the hunts combined were running 24/7....
EV4EL, as envisaged by the Tories, would often lead to English laws that most voters in England do not want. The SNP has merely helped to ensure that with foxhunting this did not happen. As such the party's clear and opportunistic hypocrisy will not spark much outrage down south. In Scotland it will be a source of delight that the Tories have been defeated by plucky Scottish MPs - even though they probably would have lost anyway. The PM continues to be a very lucky general.
On another note, I am not sure what Nick Palmer would ever have gained by coming onto PB and lying about how he thought things were panning out in Broxtowe. Why would he do that, knowing that he would inevitably be found out? As for hopeless incompetence: perhaps he should have read things better, but it's not as if he was a lone voice in the wind. Most people on here - including those, like me, who predicted the Tories would win most seats - thought he was going to come out on top; and it would certainly have been reasonable to conclude that from almost all opinion polling. All that happened is that Nick got it wrong, like most other punters and politicians of all shades. Why people feel the need to attack him now that he comes on here as a private citizen is beyond me. Insights from an ex-MP, even if you do not like his politics, are pretty helpful and certainly very interesting. I know he is thick-skinned enough not to worry too much about the barbs, but why inflict them on the rest of us Nick bashers?
Farmers dislike hunting foxes with dogs. Hunts destroy crops and don't kill foxes very often. So it's not even pest control. You don't find hunts where there are freehold farms.
Depends on the farmer. Livestock farmers are in favour, arable-only farmers generally against (although not as much against hunting as they are against ramblers, who are an awful lot more destructive and operate in the summer, not the winter).
As for freehold farmers, they were the ONLY type of farmer on the Gloucestershire/Herefordshire border, where there are two very active hunts who go across a lot of land. So your second point is simply wrong.
I forgot the arable/livestock distinction. BTW, do you think farmers should be allowed to hunt ramblers with horses and dogs, then?
To be fair to Nick P, every bit of polling evidence pointed to his winning back Broxtowe comfortably..
I don't doubt either that he honestly reported canvassing returns - people tend to hear what they want to hear and thats as true of canvassers as anyone else and people often try to avoid disappointing their interlocutors - so no doubt many who voted Soubry on the day were 'undecided' or 'really like Nick' in responding to Labour canvassers.....
Soubry was quoted afterwards as being surprised.
You might be surprised at how big a majority you get, but when its over 4,000 you know its coming. Her canvassing figures had to show it. I
Farmers dislike hunting foxes with dogs. Hunts destroy crops and don't kill foxes very often. So it's not even pest control. You don't find hunts where there are freehold farms.
Depends on the farmer. Livestock farmers are in favour, arable-only farmers generally against (although not as much against hunting as they are against ramblers, who are an awful lot more destructive and operate in the summer, not the winter).
As for freehold farmers, they were the ONLY type of farmer on the Gloucestershire/Herefordshire border, where there are two very active hunts who go across a lot of land. So your second point is simply wrong.
I forgot the arable/livestock distinction. BTW, do you think farmers should be allowed to hunt ramblers with horses and dogs, then?
Whatever gave you that idea? I was pointing out that ramblers are more destructive than hunts - not that they are more destructive than foxes.
It's that sort of spiteful childishness, allied to a complete lack of logic, that has infected the anti-hunting lobby and made it something sane people would never be associated with.
EV4EL, as envisaged by the Tories, would often lead to English laws that most voters in England do not want. The SNP has merely helped to ensure that with foxhunting this did not happen. As such the party's clear and opportunistic hypocrisy will not spark much outrage down south. In Scotland it will be a source of delight that the Tories have been defeated by plucky Scottish MPs - even though they probably would have lost anyway. The PM continues to be a very lucky general.
On another note, I am not sure what Nick Palmer would ever have gained by coming onto PB and lying about how he thought things were panning out in Broxtowe. Why would he do that, knowing that he would inevitably be found out? As for hopeless incompetence: perhaps he should have read things better, but it's not as if he was a lone voice in the wind. Most people on here - including those, like me, who predicted the Tories would win most seats - thought he was going to come out on top; and it would certainly have been reasonable to conclude that from almost all opinion polling. All that happened is that Nick got it wrong, like most other punters and politicians of all shades. Why people feel the need to attack him now that he comes on here as a private citizen is beyond me. Insights from an ex-MP, even if you do not like his politics, are pretty helpful and certainly very interesting. I know he is thick-skinned enough not to worry too much about the barbs, but why inflict them on the rest of us Nick bashers?
Although reluctant to comment as Dr Palmer is more than able to defend himself, Hear hear.
On the SNP and fox hunting, it seems an odd choice to begin voting on English matters, but maybe it's a good test case for them , since it won't anger as many people on the actual issue. With their numbers now and potential to hold the balance at times they'd be stupid not to vote on English matters at times - they get to influence England and stir up animosity from some, which is good for them - so best to start on a minor issue perhaps.
Anyone want to argue that the most efficient means we have found of controlling the fox population is by slaughtering them as we drive about in our cars? Far, far more are killed on our roads than if all the hunts combined were running 24/7....
I don't think the debate (Whichever side you're on) is about the life or death of the foxes (animals). Or else everyone opposed to the ban would have to be vegetarian. From everything I've heard it's not actually a great pest control method.
More an issue of animal cruelty the blue foxes would say perhaps ? (Or Englishman's birthright/tradition if you're on the hunt side)
Anyone want to argue that the most efficient means we have found of controlling the fox population is by slaughtering them as we drive about in our cars? Far, far more are killed on our roads than if all the hunts combined were running 24/7....
Amazing number of badgers killed like that too. If you want to have the most effective bang for buck in preserving wildlife, the simplest solution is to kill all cats. I'd be in favour of that approach. A few foxes simply don't register on the scale.
EV4EL, as envisaged by the Tories, would often lead to English laws that most voters in England do not want.
What evidence do you have for that? My Facebook feed was full of anti fox hunting stuff the last few days - but I rather doubt they voted Tory or Ukip.
Anyone want to argue that the most efficient means we have found of controlling the fox population is by slaughtering them as we drive about in our cars? Far, far more are killed on our roads than if all the hunts combined were running 24/7....
Amazing number of badgers killed like that too. If you want to have the most effective bang for buck in preserving wildlife, the simplest solution is to kill all cats. I'd be in favour of that approach. A few foxes simply don't register on the scale.
Don't forget quite a lot of illegally killed badgers are dumped on the road to make it look as if they are roadkill. Not sure if that applies to foxes as well, although it wouldn't surprise me to learn it is. So the issue isn't quite as clear-cut as it may seem.
@JakeReesMogg: One increasingly understands why the SNP are seen as "different" to traditional British parties. All that integrity. https://t.co/ftALHRhZdQ
An amendment to the hunting ban which was subject to a free vote for Conservatives
A question for the philosophers: is a free vote that is postponed because the proposers thought they were going to lose it in any sense a free vote?
Yes. When or if it finally comes they won't be whipping, so it would and will be free. It's just clear that the government does want it to pass is all, but that doesn't alter that they have promised not to force people one way or another.
Anyone want to argue that the most efficient means we have found of controlling the fox population is by slaughtering them as we drive about in our cars? Far, far more are killed on our roads than if all the hunts combined were running 24/7....
Amazing number of badgers killed like that too. If you want to have the most effective bang for buck in preserving wildlife, the simplest solution is to kill all cats. I'd be in favour of that approach. A few foxes simply don't register on the scale.
Don't forget quite a lot of illegally killed badgers are dumped on the road to make it look as if they are roadkill. Not sure if that applies to foxes as well, although it wouldn't surprise me to learn it is. So the issue isn't quite as clear-cut as it may seem.
I didn't think it necessary to add that it was best seen in areas with real problems with bovine TB.
EV4EL, as envisaged by the Tories, would often lead to English laws that most voters in England do not want.
What evidence do you have for that? My Facebook feed was full of anti fox hunting stuff the last few days - but I rather doubt they voted Tory or Ukip.
Because the EV4EL proposals put forward give a veto to MPs elected by a minority of English voters.
Farmers dislike hunting foxes with dogs. Hunts destroy crops and don't kill foxes very often. So it's not even pest control. You don't find hunts where there are freehold farms.
Depends on the farmer. Livestock farmers are in favour, arable-only farmers generally against (although not as much against hunting as they are against ramblers, who are an awful lot more destructive and operate in the summer, not the winter).
As for freehold farmers, they were the ONLY type of farmer on the Gloucestershire/Herefordshire border, where there are two very active hunts who go across a lot of land. So your second point is simply wrong.
I forgot the arable/livestock distinction. BTW, do you think farmers should be allowed to hunt ramblers with horses and dogs, then?
Whatever gave you that idea? I was pointing out that ramblers are more destructive than hunts - not that they are more destructive than foxes.
It's that sort of spiteful childishness, allied to a complete lack of logic, that has infected the anti-hunting lobby and made it something sane people would never be associated with.
So why do you think people who are opposed to fox-hunting should have votes, if you think they are mad? Or do you like the idea of mad people having votes?
Anyone want to argue that the most efficient means we have found of controlling the fox population is by slaughtering them as we drive about in our cars? Far, far more are killed on our roads than if all the hunts combined were running 24/7....
I don't think the debate (Whichever side you're on) is about the life or death of the foxes (animals). Or else everyone opposed to the ban would have to be vegetarian. From everything I've heard it's not actually a great pest control method.
More an issue of animal cruelty the blue foxes would say perhaps ? (Or Englishman's birthright/tradition if you're on the hunt side)
Vegan, really. Vegetarianism shouldn't cut it if you're taking a proper moral stance as opposed to pick and choose animal welfare. [think of the end for male beef calves if you believe otherwise]
Anyone want to argue that the most efficient means we have found of controlling the fox population is by slaughtering them as we drive about in our cars? Far, far more are killed on our roads than if all the hunts combined were running 24/7....
Amazing number of badgers killed like that too. If you want to have the most effective bang for buck in preserving wildlife, the simplest solution is to kill all cats. I'd be in favour of that approach. A few foxes simply don't register on the scale.
Don't forget quite a lot of illegally killed badgers are dumped on the road to make it look as if they are roadkill. Not sure if that applies to foxes as well, although it wouldn't surprise me to learn it is. So the issue isn't quite as clear-cut as it may seem.
I didn't think it necessary to add that it was best seen in areas with real problems with bovine TB.
At least this government has the right attitude towards the badgers.
EV4EL, as envisaged by the Tories, would often lead to English laws that most voters in England do not want.
What evidence do you have for that? My Facebook feed was full of anti fox hunting stuff the last few days - but I rather doubt they voted Tory or Ukip.
Because the EV4EL proposals put forward give a veto to MPs elected by a minority of English voters.
At the risk of starting another voting reform argument, Labour had 13 years to change the system. They didn't. So get over it.
Farmers dislike hunting foxes with dogs. Hunts destroy crops and don't kill foxes very often. So it's not even pest control. You don't find hunts where there are freehold farms.
Depends on the farmer. Livestock farmers are in favour, arable-only farmers generally against (although not as much against hunting as they are against ramblers, who are an awful lot more destructive and operate in the summer, not the winter).
As for freehold farmers, they were the ONLY type of farmer on the Gloucestershire/Herefordshire border, where there are two very active hunts who go across a lot of land. So your second point is simply wrong.
I forgot the arable/livestock distinction. BTW, do you think farmers should be allowed to hunt ramblers with horses and dogs, then?
Whatever gave you that idea? I was pointing out that ramblers are more destructive than hunts - not that they are more destructive than foxes.
It's that sort of spiteful childishness, allied to a complete lack of logic, that has infected the anti-hunting lobby and made it something sane people would never be associated with.
So why do you think people who are opposed to fox-hunting should have votes, if you think they are mad? Or do you like the idea of mad people having votes?
If you cannot read the comments, and put the correct construction on them, there seems little point in engaging with you. I was criticising the anti-hunting lobby's lack of logic and its dishonesty. You appear to be willing to go with that, which is your loss. There are many definitions of insanity - for example, doing the same thing twice in the hope of a different result - but only lunacy would disqualify someone from voting. I will say, however, that most people who oppose hunting cringe as much as I do at the behaviour of the vocal anti-hunting lobby. That was the thrust of my remark. I do hope that is now clear.
I have incidentally often thought that any member of the ALF should be disqualified from voting, but that could easily be done by prosecuting them under the Terrorism Act and putting them in prison for several years.
Anyone want to argue that the most efficient means we have found of controlling the fox population is by slaughtering them as we drive about in our cars? Far, far more are killed on our roads than if all the hunts combined were running 24/7....
Amazing number of badgers killed like that too. If you want to have the most effective bang for buck in preserving wildlife, the simplest solution is to kill all cats. I'd be in favour of that approach. A few foxes simply don't register on the scale.
Don't forget quite a lot of illegally killed badgers are dumped on the road to make it look as if they are roadkill. Not sure if that applies to foxes as well, although it wouldn't surprise me to learn it is. So the issue isn't quite as clear-cut as it may seem.
I didn't think it necessary to add that it was best seen in areas with real problems with bovine TB.
At least this government has the right attitude towards the badgers.
It is interesting to note that when I was in Gloucester the other day, some of the road signs on the A40 had been vandalised with posters of badgers adorned with the caption 'Save badgers - cull Tories.'
If anyone wants to know the true measure of the so-called 'Animal Rights Movement', I think it is neatly encapsulated in that sentence.
But foxes are furry and therefore can do no wrong. There will never be such an outcry about slugs. And campaigning against fox-hunting makes people feel good about themselves.
Tigers are furry too so must be preserved. Yet according to Wiki ... "The most comprehensive study of deaths due to tiger attacks estimates that at least 373,000 people died due to tiger attacks between 1800 and 2009 ... Man-eaters have been a recurrent problem for India, especially in Kumaon, Garhwal and the Sundarbans mangrove swamps of Bengal".
As the famous kids' book said ... 'The tiger who came to tea'
Unfortunately, little brown babies in far away places don't matter as much as environmental credentials. Send £2 to save the tiger, those babies won't eat themselves.
I'm not upset, just a little weary of the hypocrisy.
Anyone want to argue that the most efficient means we have found of controlling the fox population is by slaughtering them as we drive about in our cars? Far, far more are killed on our roads than if all the hunts combined were running 24/7....
I don't think the debate (Whichever side you're on) is about the life or death of the foxes (animals). Or else everyone opposed to the ban would have to be vegetarian. From everything I've heard it's not actually a great pest control method.
More an issue of animal cruelty the blue foxes would say perhaps ? (Or Englishman's birthright/tradition if you're on the hunt side)
Vegan, really. Vegetarianism shouldn't cut it if you're taking a proper moral stance as opposed to pick and choose animal welfare. [think of the end for male beef calves if you believe otherwise]
Hmm What about duck eggs produced at home by Indian runners ?
Farmers dislike hunting foxes with dogs. Hunts destroy crops and don't kill foxes very often. So it's not even pest control. You don't find hunts where there are freehold farms.
Depends on the farmer. Livestock farmers are in favour, arable-only farmers generally against (although not as much against hunting as they are against ramblers, who are an awful lot more destructive and operate in the summer, not the winter).
As for freehold farmers, they were the ONLY type of farmer on the Gloucestershire/Herefordshire border, where there are two very active hunts who go across a lot of land. So your second point is simply wrong.
I forgot the arable/livestock distinction. BTW, do you think farmers should be allowed to hunt ramblers with horses and dogs, then?
Whatever gave you that idea? I was pointing out that ramblers are more destructive than hunts - not that they are more destructive than foxes.
It's that sort of spiteful childishness, allied to a complete lack of logic, that has infected the anti-hunting lobby and made it something sane people would never be associated with.
So why do you think people who are opposed to fox-hunting should have votes, if you think they are mad? Or do you like the idea of mad people having votes?
If you cannot read the comments, and put the correct construction on them, there seems little point in engaging with you. I was criticising the anti-hunting lobby's lack of logic and its dishonesty. You appear to be willing to go with that, which is your loss. There are many definitions of insanity - for example, doing the same thing twice in the hope of a different result - but only lunacy would disqualify someone from voting. I will say, however, that most people who oppose hunting cringe as much as I do at the behaviour of the vocal anti-hunting lobby. That was the thrust of my remark. I do hope that is now clear.
I have incidentally often thought that any member of the ALF should be disqualified from voting, but that could easily be done by prosecuting them under the Terrorism Act and putting them in prison for several years.
I cannot "put the correct construction" on comments because there is no single correct construction to be placed on any comment (including this one). Indeed, it is to promote this truth that I come here, as much as for any other reason.
And I have at least got you to admit that you like the idea of jailing your political opponents, which is something.
The fox hunting ban is a terminally boring issue skilfully used by Blair to keep his more moronic backbenchers amused for months when Brown was blocking public sector service reform and there was nothing else to do. I find it bewildering that we are back to playing the same game in 2015 so early in the Parliament.
The Tories promised a vote. They really should have delivered that promise last night and moved on. As for the SNP, well stupid doesn't really cover it (did no one ask Nicola?) but if the consequence is a strengthening of the EVEL rules (which it probably will be) then the glue holding the UK together will have been weakened just that little bit further so they won't be that bothered.
Belatedly in response to isam's comment about Hungary's border wall, I am not a fan, as you would expect.
But Hungary faces an unparalleled refugee crisis. It has been getting more refugees in absolute numbers than Italy and far more per head of population than anywhere else in the EU:
If you cannot read the comments, and put the correct construction on them, there seems little point in engaging with you. I was criticising the anti-hunting lobby's lack of logic and its dishonesty. You appear to be willing to go with that, which is your loss. There are many definitions of insanity - for example, doing the same thing twice in the hope of a different result - but only lunacy would disqualify someone from voting. I will say, however, that most people who oppose hunting cringe as much as I do at the behaviour of the vocal anti-hunting lobby. That was the thrust of my remark. I do hope that is now clear.
I have incidentally often thought that any member of the ALF should be disqualified from voting, but that could easily be done by prosecuting them under the Terrorism Act and putting them in prison for several years.
I cannot "put the correct construction" on comments because there is no single correct construction to be placed on any comment (including this one). Indeed, it is to promote this truth that I come here, as much as for any other reason.
And I have at least got you to admit that you like the idea of jailing your political opponents, which is something.
No they are not political opponents. They are terrorists. People who go around threatening and attacking other people to try and prevent them going about their lawful occasions. In fact, they have caused more destruction and injury in this country than any Islamist movement, although I will admit that I am not aware of any recent murders.
That is the last reply you will get from me until you engage with the facts rather than with spiteful abuse. It may be difficult for you, but I assure you you will find it worthwhile in the end.
A question for the philosophers: is a free vote that is postponed because the proposers thought they were going to lose it in any sense a free vote?
Is this another SNP date "clarification"?
"A free vote is not free if the date changes, like our principles change if the date changes..."
It's a truth universally acknowledged that when Scott C&P goes into repetitive wrist strain mode, the situation has developed not necessarily to the Tories' advantage.
EV4EL, as envisaged by the Tories, would often lead to English laws that most voters in England do not want.
What evidence do you have for that? My Facebook feed was full of anti fox hunting stuff the last few days - but I rather doubt they voted Tory or Ukip.
My facebook feed has people who definitely voted Conservative and definitely are against fox hunting
If you cannot read the comments, and put the correct construction on them, there seems little point in engaging with you. I was criticising the anti-hunting lobby's lack of logic and its dishonesty. You appear to be willing to go with that, which is your loss. There are many definitions of insanity - for example, doing the same thing twice in the hope of a different result - but only lunacy would disqualify someone from voting. I will say, however, that most people who oppose hunting cringe as much as I do at the behaviour of the vocal anti-hunting lobby. That was the thrust of my remark. I do hope that is now clear.
I have incidentally often thought that any member of the ALF should be disqualified from voting, but that could easily be done by prosecuting them under the Terrorism Act and putting them in prison for several years.
I cannot "put the correct construction" on comments because there is no single correct construction to be placed on any comment (including this one). Indeed, it is to promote this truth that I come here, as much as for any other reason.
And I have at least got you to admit that you like the idea of jailing your political opponents, which is something.
No they are not political opponents. They are terrorists. People who go around threatening and attacking other people to try and prevent them going about their lawful occasions. In fact, they have caused more destruction and injury in this country than any Islamist movement, although I will admit that I am not aware of any recent murders.
That is the last reply you will get from me until you engage with the facts rather than with spiteful abuse. It may be difficult for you, but I assure you you will find it worthwhile in the end.
Good day.
Excellent flouncing there. Definitely at least an 8.
With the IMF now giving the German Parliament every reason to vote down the deal (the assumed Greek economic growth numbers are just fanciful), the EU deal on Greece is looking like a complete buggers muddle....
If you cannot read the comments, and put the correct construction on them, there seems little point in engaging with you. I was criticising the anti-hunting lobby's lack of logic and its dishonesty. You appear to be willing to go with that, which is your loss. There are many definitions of insanity - for example, doing the same thing twice in the hope of a different result - but only lunacy would disqualify someone from voting. I will say, however, that most people who oppose hunting cringe as much as I do at the behaviour of the vocal anti-hunting lobby. That was the thrust of my remark. I do hope that is now clear.
I have incidentally often thought that any member of the ALF should be disqualified from voting, but that could easily be done by prosecuting them under the Terrorism Act and putting them in prison for several years.
I cannot "put the correct construction" on comments because there is no single correct construction to be placed on any comment (including this one). Indeed, it is to promote this truth that I come here, as much as for any other reason.
And I have at least got you to admit that you like the idea of jailing your political opponents, which is something.
No they are not political opponents. They are terrorists. People who go around threatening and attacking other people to try and prevent them going about their lawful occasions. In fact, they have caused more destruction and injury in this country than any Islamist movement, although I will admit that I am not aware of any recent murders.
That is the last reply you will get from me until you engage with the facts rather than with spiteful abuse. It may be difficult for you, but I assure you you will find it worthwhile in the end.
Good day.
Excellent flouncing there. Definitely at least an 8.
A 10 presumably includes a soon-forgotten promise never to return.
If you cannot read the comments, and put the correct construction on them, there seems little point in engaging with you. I was criticising the anti-hunting lobby's lack of logic and its dishonesty. You appear to be willing to go with that, which is your loss. There are many definitions of insanity - for example, doing the same thing twice in the hope of a different result - but only lunacy would disqualify someone from voting. I will say, however, that most people who oppose hunting cringe as much as I do at the behaviour of the vocal anti-hunting lobby. That was the thrust of my remark. I do hope that is now clear.
I have incidentally often thought that any member of the ALF should be disqualified from voting, but that could easily be done by prosecuting them under the Terrorism Act and putting them in prison for several years.
I cannot "put the correct construction" on comments because there is no single correct construction to be placed on any comment (including this one). Indeed, it is to promote this truth that I come here, as much as for any other reason.
And I have at least got you to admit that you like the idea of jailing your political opponents, which is something.
No they are not political opponents. They are terrorists. People who go around threatening and attacking other people to try and prevent them going about their lawful occasions. In fact, they have caused more destruction and injury in this country than any Islamist movement, although I will admit that I am not aware of any recent murders.
That is the last reply you will get from me until you engage with the facts rather than with spiteful abuse. It may be difficult for you, but I assure you you will find it worthwhile in the end.
Good day.
Excellent flouncing there. Definitely at least an 8.
Much more than that. Ydoethur dragged in the ALF, whom I do not support and are clearly taking up far too much space in his/her head.
EV4EL, as envisaged by the Tories, would often lead to English laws that most voters in England do not want.
What evidence do you have for that? My Facebook feed was full of anti fox hunting stuff the last few days - but I rather doubt they voted Tory or Ukip.
My facebook feed has people who definitely voted Conservative and definitely are against fox hunting
I think it's always been one of those issues that cut across party lines, and it depends partly on where in the country people come from. Where I was born in Gloucestershire, it was generally upper-class and ergo Conservative. In the Valleys, it is much more working class and therefore Labour, although that's not necessarily reflected among their current MPs because only a handful of them are local now.
Some people see it as an issue of animal welfare, some as a matter of pest control: some as a civil liberty, others as uncivilised. And no one party has a monopoly on any of those views.
So it doesn't at all surprise me that Cameron is struggling to get it through. Indeed, I'm more than a bit surprised he was so keen on bringing it forward in the first place, although I suppose the way it's dominating this thread is clear evidence of how emotive an issue it is.
With the IMF now giving the German Parliament every reason to vote down the deal (the assumed Greek economic growth numbers are just fanciful), the EU deal on Greece is looking like a complete buggers muddle....
The IMF is doing no more than stating the blindingly obvious but nevertheless their timing is...interesting.
If it is accepted that at least £200bn of past loans to Greece from the other Member States are going to have to be written off then selling yet another batch of loans so they can "pay back" token amounts of existing debt really is a hard sell.
Greece is fundamentally broken and what is clear from the IMF is that Syriza have simply added to the damage with every step they took since elected whilst failing to address any of the problems. The reform part of the EU package makes sense to me. What doesn't make sense is pretending it is going to work without massive debt forgiveness at the same time. The IMF are spot on about that.
Belatedly in response to isam's comment about Hungary's border wall, I am not a fan, as you would expect.
But Hungary faces an unparalleled refugee crisis. It has been getting more refugees in absolute numbers than Italy and far more per head of population than anywhere else in the EU:
"It's that sort of spiteful childishness, allied to a complete lack of logic, that has infected the anti-hunting lobby."
There's some truth in that, so don't expect a logical argument. As Wilde nearly said .... "The uneducated in full pursuit of the unspeakable in full pursuit of the uneatable."
Extra markets for Hungary up on Betfair (not Ladbrokes, yet).
Keep an eye on No Safety Car. It's the circuit least likely to see one (but check the weather, as that's a potential, though unlikely, spanner in the works). It's wide, there's run-off and the way the circuit's been rubbishly designed means it's very hard to get close due to the aerodynamics involved. This all minimises the potential for crashing (NB there have been many reliability failures this year, so it's not a dead cert).
The fox hunting ban is a terminally boring issue skilfully used by Blair to keep his more moronic backbenchers amused for months when Brown was blocking public sector service reform and there was nothing else to do. I find it bewildering that we are back to playing the same game in 2015 so early in the Parliament.
The Tories promised a vote. They really should have delivered that promise last night and moved on. As for the SNP, well stupid doesn't really cover it (did no one ask Nicola?) but if the consequence is a strengthening of the EVEL rules (which it probably will be) then the glue holding the UK together will have been weakened just that little bit further so they won't be that bothered.
And NS doesn't have problems north of the border that are coming home to roost?
Nice to see the SNP standing up to the nasty Engerlish Tories about foxes which are not exactly overrunning the pastures of Govan and Paisley.
It's gonna keep all those new members happy and not dwelling on Nicola's air circulatory equipment problems
With the IMF now giving the German Parliament every reason to vote down the deal (the assumed Greek economic growth numbers are just fanciful), the EU deal on Greece is looking like a complete buggers muddle....
The IMF is doing no more than stating the blindingly obvious but nevertheless their timing is...interesting.
If it is accepted that at least £200bn of past loans to Greece from the other Member States are going to have to be written off then selling yet another batch of loans so they can "pay back" token amounts of existing debt really is a hard sell.
Greece is fundamentally broken and what is clear from the IMF is that Syriza have simply added to the damage with every step they took since elected whilst failing to address any of the problems. The reform part of the EU package makes sense to me. What doesn't make sense is pretending it is going to work without massive debt forgiveness at the same time. The IMF are spot on about that.
I've always found it very puzzling that at every stage of the Euro crisis the IMF has been arguing for debt relief and then being pilloried for the ECB's refusal to countenance it. OK, so in the Irish crisis it was Timothy Geithner who voted it down rather than whatever random person was running the ECB. But at every stage the IMF has urged restructuring, been ignored and then been blamed for being ignored.
Is it because we find it a convenient bogeyman, or is there some added level of complexity to this relationship?
If you cannot read the comments, and put the correct construction on them, there seems little point in engaging with you. I was criticising the anti-hunting lobby's lack of logic and its dishonesty. You appear to be willing to go with that, which is your loss. There are many definitions of insanity - for example, doing the same thing twice in the hope of a different result - but only lunacy would disqualify someone from voting. I will say, however, that most people who oppose hunting cringe as much as I do at the behaviour of the vocal anti-hunting lobby. That was the thrust of my remark. I do hope that is now clear.
I have incidentally often thought that any member of the ALF should be disqualified from voting, but that could easily be done by prosecuting them under the Terrorism Act and putting them in prison for several years.
I cannot "put the correct construction" on comments because there is no single correct construction to be placed on any comment (including this one). Indeed, it is to promote this truth that I come here, as much as for any other reason.
And I have at least got you to admit that you like the idea of jailing your political opponents, which is something.
No they are not political opponents. They are terrorists. People who go around threatening and attacking other people to try and prevent them going about their lawful occasions. In fact, they have caused more destruction and injury in this country than any Islamist movement, although I will admit that I am not aware of any recent murders.
That is the last reply you will get from me until you engage with the facts rather than with spiteful abuse. It may be difficult for you, but I assure you you will find it worthwhile in the end.
Good day.
Excellent flouncing there. Definitely at least an 8.
A 10 presumably includes a soon-forgotten promise never to return.
Oh yes, but it needs to be accompanied by some high minded hyperbole as well. The post also scored well in that category even using the straw man technique.
Mr. Doethur, I wonder if there's a realistic prospect of the Greeks saying no. I'd guess not, Tsipras seems to be seeing it's horrendous but there's no alternative.
"It's that sort of spiteful childishness, allied to a complete lack of logic, that has infected the anti-hunting lobby."
There's some truth in that, so don't expect a logical argument. As Wilde nearly said .... "The uneducated in full pursuit of the unspeakable in full pursuit of the uneatable."
'Y Doethur' is actually a title - it means, 'the Doctor'. I am one of those sad overqualified geeks with a PhD in History on a very random obscure subject (most PhDs are). Alas, I do not have a TARDIS though to go back in time and settle all arguments about Hannibal
If you cannot read the comments, and put the correct construction on them, there seems little point in engaging with you. I was criticising the anti-hunting lobby's lack of logic and its dishonesty. You appear to be willing to go with that, which is your loss. There are many definitions of insanity - for example, doing the same thing twice in the hope of a different result - but only lunacy would disqualify someone from voting. I will say, however, that most people who oppose hunting cringe as much as I do at the behaviour of the vocal anti-hunting lobby. That was the thrust of my remark. I do hope that is now clear.
I have incidentally often thought that any member of the ALF should be disqualified from voting, but that could easily be done by prosecuting them under the Terrorism Act and putting them in prison for several years.
I cannot "put the correct construction" on comments because there is no single correct construction to be placed on any comment (including this one). Indeed, it is to promote this truth that I come here, as much as for any other reason.
And I have at least got you to admit that you like the idea of jailing your political opponents, which is something.
No they are not political opponents. They are terrorists. People who go around threatening and attacking other people to try and prevent them going about their lawful occasions. In fact, they have caused more destruction and injury in this country than any Islamist movement, although I will admit that I am not aware of any recent murders.
That is the last reply you will get from me until you engage with the facts rather than with spiteful abuse. It may be difficult for you, but I assure you you will find it worthwhile in the end.
Good day.
Excellent flouncing there. Definitely at least an 8.
A 10 presumably includes a soon-forgotten promise never to return.
No, a 10 require defying OGH directly, refusing to follow his rules, then complaining periodically to your handful of followers about the subsequent banning on your own modest blog.....
Mr. Doethur, I wonder if there's a realistic prospect of the Greeks saying no. I'd guess not, Tsipras seems to be seeing it's horrendous but there's no alternative.
The question is, without the IMF is there still a deal to be voted on? If there is nothing on the table - horrendous or not - there seems little point accepting it?
I'm getting a bit uneasy about my friends in Greece, particularly those who swapped a holiday in Tunisia for a holiday in Corfu...
If you cannot read the comments, and put the correct construction on them, there seems little point in engaging with you. I was criticising the anti-hunting lobby's lack of logic and its dishonesty. You appear to be willing to go with that, which is your loss. There are many definitions of insanity - for example, doing the same thing twice in the hope of a different result - but only lunacy would disqualify someone from voting. I will say, however, that most people who oppose hunting cringe as much as I do at the behaviour of the vocal anti-hunting lobby. That was the thrust of my remark. I do hope that is now clear.
I have incidentally often thought that any member of the ALF should be disqualified from voting, but that could easily be done by prosecuting them under the Terrorism Act and putting them in prison for several years.
I cannot "put the correct construction" on comments because there is no single correct construction to be placed on any comment (including this one). Indeed, it is to promote this truth that I come here, as much as for any other reason.
And I have at least got you to admit that you like the idea of jailing your political opponents, which is something.
No they are not political opponents. They are terrorists. People who go around threatening and attacking other people to try and prevent them going about their lawful occasions. In fact, they have caused more destruction and injury in this country than any Islamist movement, although I will admit that I am not aware of any recent murders.
That is the last reply you will get from me until you engage with the facts rather than with spiteful abuse. It may be difficult for you, but I assure you you will find it worthwhile in the end.
Good day.
Excellent flouncing there. Definitely at least an 8.
A 10 presumably includes a soon-forgotten promise never to return.
Oh yes, but it needs to be accompanied by some high minded hyperbole as well. The post also scored well in that category even using the straw man technique.
How does it compare to the famous SeanT flounce of a year or so ago, that is the true measure surely
I wonder how people would react if a bunch of kids in red hoodies on bikes, for 'sport' chased urban foxes though the suburbs with a pack of bull terriers.
@SpiegelPeter: #EU official: @EU_Commission has sent formal plan to use #EU-wide EFSM for #Greece bridge financing needs. Can #UK garner allies to block?
Anyone want to argue that the most efficient means we have found of controlling the fox population is by slaughtering them as we drive about in our cars? Far, far more are killed on our roads than if all the hunts combined were running 24/7....
I don't think the debate (Whichever side you're on) is about the life or death of the foxes (animals). Or else everyone opposed to the ban would have to be vegetarian. From everything I've heard it's not actually a great pest control method.
More an issue of animal cruelty the blue foxes would say perhaps ? (Or Englishman's birthright/tradition if you're on the hunt side)
I have no issue whatsoever with people riding out with hounds on a drag hunt.
The issue is when they actually catch and rip Lily Savage to shreds....
EV4EL, as envisaged by the Tories, would often lead to English laws that most voters in England do not want.
What evidence do you have for that? My Facebook feed was full of anti fox hunting stuff the last few days - but I rather doubt they voted Tory or Ukip.
Because the EV4EL proposals put forward give a veto to MPs elected by a minority of English voters.
At the risk of starting another voting reform argument, Labour had 13 years to change the system. They didn't. So get over it.
Get over what? As soon as Labour get back in - or the Tories lose their overall majority - you can be certain that EV4EL measures imposed by the Tories will be overturned. Such is the nature of constitutional politics in the UK. It's ridiculous. I have always supported PR and a constitutional convention. It has nothing to do with Labour.
I wonder how people would react if a bunch of kids in red hoodies on bikes, for 'sport' chased urban foxes though the suburbs with a pack of bull terriers.
It was actually suggested once, believe it or not, although it was put forward as 'yellow' rather than red hoodies. Not sure it was meant to be taken very seriously, but it found immortality in a page of Horrible Histories.
Comments
http://t.co/T9YVoodZEP
This is Nicola "we will not vote on English foxhunting" Sturgeon...
Blackouts or brownouts are just the sort of thing that could strike at their reputation for competence:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33527967
I don't doubt he's correct that most people disapprove of fox hunting. I worked for an animal charity, and I'm well aware that many people have irrational views about animals. ("I don't eat my friends" I was told by one woman who stared at the chicken on my plate).
But, I don't think it's an issue that shifts many votes.
Fish are fish. who knows whether they are neurologically equipped to suffer. Anyway, they can also be despatched fairly quickly once caught.
That seems logical enough. I wouldn't support a ban though
unless you mean organic as in "primarily composed of Carbon, Hydrogen and Nitrogen atoms" (the definition I prefer), in which case, yes
"Can be made"
not
"Is made"
you seem to have trouble parsing sentences.
Nicola Sturgeon: Fox hunting ban.
https://t.co/rjCQat2VGB
You seem to have trouble understanding what Nicola said
not
"Is made"
you seem to have trouble parsing sentences.
"The SNP have a longstanding position of not voting on matters that purely affect England – such as foxhunting south of the border"
Seems clear enough.
EU regulations have forced older polluting power plants to close.
Low wholesale power prices have continued that trend making some plants uneconomic to keep open.
Around 2GW of power has come off the system since last year with the closure of plants including Barking Power Station, Ferrybridge and Littlebrook.
"The economics of generation are terrible" says Peter Atherton, a utilities analyst at Jefferies Investment Bank.
"Every gas fired plant is losing money. And new build is not delivering. Hence the underlying margins are getting worse".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33527967
This does not appear to make sense. If gas plants (currently the most efficient) are losing money, then where are the low wholesale power prices coming from - France?
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/business/IMF-Greece.pdf
" If Europe prefers to again provide debt relief through maturity extension, there would have to be a very dramatic extension with grace periods of, say, 30 years on the entire stock of European debt, including new assistance....
.... Other options include explicit annual transfers to the Greek budget or deep upfront haircuts. The choice between the various options is for Greece and its European partners to decide."
An amendment to the hunting ban which was subject to a free vote for Conservatives is not the keystone of the manifesto. That said, it's legitimate to remind people of the little majority.
What is of some interest was the ludicrous suggestion on newsnight that the futile 56, who have pledged to make Scotland's voice heard (sic) changed their policy of decades because 600 English people wrote to them...
Steadfast and resolute to the end
"England's MPs would be asked to accept or veto legislation only affecting England before it passed to a vote of all UK MPs at its third and final reading in the Commons.
This means England's MPs could block any unwanted policies from being introduced in England - but could not force proposals through unless the whole House agreed"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33530765
It also means if the margin was tight, non-English MPs could block it.
English Parliament resolves all the problems.
Also fish and pheasants get eaten, anyone for fox?
It seems Nicola Sturgeon is auditioning....
Foxes are not technically considered vermin because they have other uses (to wit, their fur) and vermin are generally considered to be animals that are destructive and completely useless (cue SNP or ECB jokes). The same is true of, for example, rabbits. However, what fox project conveniently forget to say is that foxes are almost invariably included in pest control licences issued for vermin (the wording is generally something like 'foxes, rabbits or vermin') on the understanding that many wild foxes actually meet every other criteria to be vermin - e.g. destructive and spread disease. In farming terms, they are usually simply called 'vermin', whatever the technicalities of the situation.
With regard to hunting, the key problem is not that it isn't necessarily cruel - although remarkably, with a well trained pack of hounds, it was generally less cruel than gassing or snaring, both of which are technically illegal but still widely used - but that it is actually rather safer and more effective than other methods. The grim irony of the 2004 ban on hunting is that in the month it was passed, two children were killed in lamping accidents - which failed to get a single fox. It should also be noted that although wounding incidents are comparatively rare in lamping, they are not unknown and they do cause a great deal of prolonged suffering to the fox.
It should also be noted that further, in the same month that the act was passed, new regulations on the disposal of animal carcasses were brought in, making it difficult to bury them. As incineration capacity was and remains appallingly low, it was therefore necessary to dispose of them in another way. And what was the idea for 25% of these carcasses? Oh that's right - use them as food for foxhounds. And that's still the case. It also allows many horses the chance of a decent life, which would otherwise be shipped to France for meat, probably under bad conditions. So there are wider, useful functions fulfilled by the hunting system. This led vet (and animal rights supporter) Eddie Straiton to comment that while foxhunting was in his view 'morally degrading' he felt 'I must condone it.'
(continued)
The key thing is that we are still wasting parliamentary time over what is at best a side issue because of the fanaticism of a bunch of animal rights activists, who in my experience are far more dangerous and vicious than any fox (I've yet to see a fox bashing people over the head with a crowbar while wearing a balaclava). The inane attempts of first Blair and now Cameron to mess with this to appease various vocal groups of their supporters is unedifying and unwise.
Sensible people would just ignore it on the basis that the decline of farming and the increasing urbanisation of the countryside will probably put an end to it in 30-40 years anyway. Unfortunately, we have left it to politicians.
As for freehold farmers, they were the ONLY type of farmer on the Gloucestershire/Herefordshire border, where there are two very active hunts who go across a lot of land. So your second point is simply wrong.
On another note, I am not sure what Nick Palmer would ever have gained by coming onto PB and lying about how he thought things were panning out in Broxtowe. Why would he do that, knowing that he would inevitably be found out? As for hopeless incompetence: perhaps he should have read things better, but it's not as if he was a lone voice in the wind. Most people on here - including those, like me, who predicted the Tories would win most seats - thought he was going to come out on top; and it would certainly have been reasonable to conclude that from almost all opinion polling. All that happened is that Nick got it wrong, like most other punters and politicians of all shades. Why people feel the need to attack him now that he comes on here as a private citizen is beyond me. Insights from an ex-MP, even if you do not like his politics, are pretty helpful and certainly very interesting. I know he is thick-skinned enough not to worry too much about the barbs, but why inflict them on the rest of us Nick bashers?
"A free vote is not free if the date changes, like our principles change if the date changes..."
It's that sort of spiteful childishness, allied to a complete lack of logic, that has infected the anti-hunting lobby and made it something sane people would never be associated with.
That is complete nonsense
On the SNP and fox hunting, it seems an odd choice to begin voting on English matters, but maybe it's a good test case for them , since it won't anger as many people on the actual issue. With their numbers now and potential to hold the balance at times they'd be stupid not to vote on English matters at times - they get to influence England and stir up animosity from some, which is good for them - so best to start on a minor issue perhaps.
Good day to all.
More an issue of animal cruelty the blue foxes would say perhaps
http://www.unz.com/article/mh17-the-blaming-putin-game-goes-on/
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/07/09/mh-17-case-slips-into-propaganda-fog/
Quite why the lives of the airline passengers have been elevated over the victims of the Kiev government's war against its own people I do not know.
I mean really ?
@JakeReesMogg: Must be absolutely exhausting.
Goodness that's very naive (!)
I have incidentally often thought that any member of the ALF should be disqualified from voting, but that could easily be done by prosecuting them under the Terrorism Act and putting them in prison for several years.
If anyone wants to know the true measure of the so-called 'Animal Rights Movement', I think it is neatly encapsulated in that sentence.
But foxes are furry and therefore can do no wrong. There will never be such an outcry about slugs. And campaigning against fox-hunting makes people feel good about themselves.
Tigers are furry too so must be preserved. Yet according to Wiki ... "The most comprehensive study of deaths due to tiger attacks estimates that at least 373,000 people died due to tiger attacks between 1800 and 2009 ... Man-eaters have been a recurrent problem for India, especially in Kumaon, Garhwal and the Sundarbans mangrove swamps of Bengal".
As the famous kids' book said ... 'The tiger who came to tea'
Unfortunately, little brown babies in far away places don't matter as much as environmental credentials. Send £2 to save the tiger, those babies won't eat themselves.
I'm not upset, just a little weary of the hypocrisy.
And I have at least got you to admit that you like the idea of jailing your political opponents, which is something.
The Tories promised a vote. They really should have delivered that promise last night and moved on. As for the SNP, well stupid doesn't really cover it (did no one ask Nicola?) but if the consequence is a strengthening of the EVEL rules (which it probably will be) then the glue holding the UK together will have been weakened just that little bit further so they won't be that bothered.
But Hungary faces an unparalleled refugee crisis. It has been getting more refugees in absolute numbers than Italy and far more per head of population than anywhere else in the EU:
http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21656230-hungary-shuts-door
Any government would be doing something in such circumstances.
That is the last reply you will get from me until you engage with the facts rather than with spiteful abuse. It may be difficult for you, but I assure you you will find it worthwhile in the end.
Good day.
Some people see it as an issue of animal welfare, some as a matter of pest control: some as a civil liberty, others as uncivilised. And no one party has a monopoly on any of those views.
So it doesn't at all surprise me that Cameron is struggling to get it through. Indeed, I'm more than a bit surprised he was so keen on bringing it forward in the first place, although I suppose the way it's dominating this thread is clear evidence of how emotive an issue it is.
If it is accepted that at least £200bn of past loans to Greece from the other Member States are going to have to be written off then selling yet another batch of loans so they can "pay back" token amounts of existing debt really is a hard sell.
Greece is fundamentally broken and what is clear from the IMF is that Syriza have simply added to the damage with every step they took since elected whilst failing to address any of the problems. The reform part of the EU package makes sense to me. What doesn't make sense is pretending it is going to work without massive debt forgiveness at the same time. The IMF are spot on about that.
"It's that sort of spiteful childishness, allied to a complete lack of logic, that has infected the anti-hunting lobby."
There's some truth in that, so don't expect a logical argument. As Wilde nearly said .... "The uneducated in full pursuit of the unspeakable in full pursuit of the uneatable."
Keep an eye on No Safety Car. It's the circuit least likely to see one (but check the weather, as that's a potential, though unlikely, spanner in the works). It's wide, there's run-off and the way the circuit's been rubbishly designed means it's very hard to get close due to the aerodynamics involved. This all minimises the potential for crashing (NB there have been many reliability failures this year, so it's not a dead cert).
Nice to see the SNP standing up to the nasty Engerlish Tories about foxes which are not exactly overrunning the pastures of Govan and Paisley.
It's gonna keep all those new members happy and not dwelling on Nicola's air circulatory equipment problems
Is it because we find it a convenient bogeyman, or is there some added level of complexity to this relationship?
Again.
I'm getting a bit uneasy about my friends in Greece, particularly those who swapped a holiday in Tunisia for a holiday in Corfu...
The issue is when they actually catch and rip Lily Savage to shreds....