You went on a march, supporting the rights of people to terrify a defenceless wild animal, then tear it to shreds with a pack of dogs. You did this for the lolz, and ‘by accident’. So now we know.
The cynical attack of Blair - for purely internal party-political purposes - on British rural culture was and remains a total disgrace, which completely blows apart the left's claim to the higher moral ground on being sensitive to the culture of immigrant groups. On Blair's part it was just red meat (if you pardon the expression) to throw to his party, and on their part it was motivated by class hatred*, pure and simple: nothing to do with animal welfare. Even those lefties who run the RSPCA had fox-hunting as a negligible issue in terms of animal welfare.
* And ignorance, of course: there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting.
There are many people, if not a majority, in rural culture who are against hunting.
I can say all my family oppose fox hunting and my eldest granddaughter will not eat any meat under any circumstances. It was another issue in the last manifesto that had no need to be in there
Quite correct - it was a complete misjudgement on the part of May (or those who advise her).
Richard N's assertion that "there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting" is laughable. These people from unprivileged households are passionate about supporting an elite hobby they themselves will never be able to afford to participate in? Dream on.
I think there is a huge change in young people today who will not accept any blood sports, are 100% committed to the green agenda, are moving to being vegetarians or vegans. The also seem to be anti smoking, drinking and drugs.
It is certainly true of my eldest granddaughter (nearing 16) and her peer and social media groups .
You went on a march, supporting the rights of people to terrify a defenceless wild animal, then tear it to shreds with a pack of dogs. You did this for the lolz, and ‘by accident’. So now we know.
The cynical attack of Blair - for purely internal party-political purposes - on British rural culture was and remains a total disgrace, which completely blows apart the left's claim to the higher moral ground on being sensitive to the culture of immigrant groups. On Blair's part it was just red meat (if you pardon the expression) to throw to his party, and on their part it was motivated by class hatred*, pure and simple: nothing to do with animal welfare. Even those lefties who run the RSPCA had fox-hunting as a negligible issue in terms of animal welfare.
* And ignorance, of course: there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting.
There are many people, if not a majority, in rural culture who are against hunting.
I can say all my family oppose fox hunting and my eldest granddaughter will not eat any meat under any circumstances. It was another issue in the last manifesto that had no need to be in there
Quite correct - it was a complete misjudgement on the part of May (or those who advise her).
Richard N's assertion that "there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting" is laughable. These people from unprivileged households are passionate about supporting an elite hobby they themselves will never be able to afford to participate in? Dream on.
I think there is a huge change in young people today who will not accept any blood sports, are 100% committed to the green agenda, are moving to being vegetarians or vegans. They also seem to be anti smoking, drinking and drugs.
It is certainly true of my eldest granddaughter (nearing 16) and her peer and social media groups .
You went on a march, supporting the rights of people to terrify a defenceless wild animal, then tear it to shreds with a pack of dogs. You did this for the lolz, and ‘by accident’. So now we know.
The cynical attack of Blair - for purely internal party-political purposes - on British rural culture was and remains a total disgrace, which completely blows apart the left's claim to the higher moral ground on being sensitive to the culture of immigrant groups. On Blair's part it was just red meat (if you pardon the expression) to throw to his party, and on their part it was motivated by class hatred*, pure and simple: nothing to do with animal welfare. Even those lefties who run the RSPCA had fox-hunting as a negligible issue in terms of animal welfare.
* And ignorance, of course: there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting.
There are many people, if not a majority, in rural culture who are against hunting.
I can say all my family oppose fox hunting and my eldest granddaughter will not eat any meat under any circumstances. It was another issue in the last manifesto that had no need to be in there
Quite correct - it was a complete misjudgement on the part of May (or those who advise her).
Richard N's assertion that "there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting" is laughable. These people from unprivileged households are passionate about supporting an elite hobby they themselves will never be able to afford to participate in? Dream on.
I think there is a huge change in young people today who will not accept any blood sports, are 100% committed to the green agenda, are moving to being vegetarians or vegans. The also seem to be anti smoking, drinking and drugs.
It is certainly true of my eldest granddaughter (nearing 16) and her peer and social media groups .
You went on a march, supporting the rights of people to terrify a defenceless wild animal, then tear it to shreds with a pack of dogs. You did this for the lolz, and ‘by accident’. So now we know.
The cynical attack of Blair - for purely internal party-political purposes - on British rural culture was and remains a total disgrace, which completely blows apart the left's claim to the higher moral ground on being sensitive to the culture of immigrant groups. On Blair's part it was just red meat (if you pardon the expression) to throw to his party, and on their part it was motivated by class hatred*, pure and simple: nothing to do with animal welfare. Even those lefties who run the RSPCA had fox-hunting as a negligible issue in terms of animal welfare.
* And ignorance, of course: there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting.
There are many people, if not a majority, in rural culture who are against hunting.
I can say all my family oppose fox hunting and my eldest granddaughter will not eat any meat under any circumstances. It was another issue in the last manifesto that had no need to be in there
Quite correct - it was a complete misjudgement on the part of May (or those who advise her).
Richard N's assertion that "there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting" is laughable. These people from unprivileged households are passionate about supporting an elite hobby they themselves will never be able to afford to participate in? Dream on.
I'm glad to see you demonstrate so clearly my point that this is about class warfare, not animal welfare. And you are wrong on the narrow point as well.
History is on my side
It probably is. Genuine local culture is dying out throughout the Western world. Generally the left seek to protect it - or even more so if it's imported from far away - but for some reason they have a moral blind spot on this particular piece of our cultural heritage. And that's because they see it (wrongly) as exclusively a heritage of toffs.
I almost certainly had a better - if more expensive - time the night aforehand. we stumbled out of the hotel and got caught up in a wave of very pleasant people.
The venomous hate of the anti-hunt protesters was quite something to behold. Oddly, this conflicts with Nick Palmer's anecdote ...
Amazing, eh, that they felt so passionately about defending the rights of defenceless wild animals? How gauche!
I suspect that most mass events feel very different according to which side you're on. One's eye is drawn to the most virulent posters, the most abusive marchers, and one doesn't especially notice reasonable people just walking along indicating support. But the march, which featured lots of personal attacks on Tony Blair (who ironically was the Government MP least keen on the ban, apart from Kate Hoey and a couple of others) was very counter-productive if it was intended to influence the government and its MPs, since its effect was to polarise.
How to do a march that DOES change minds is an interesting question. As I've said before, the silent Tamil march did work for me - I'd thought of Tamils in Sri Lanka merely as one of two rival factions, and the Gandhiesque display of dignified silence was impressive and made me think that maybe they were the side that needed more sympathy.
The Saturday march is trying, I think, to answer the claim that the issue is settled and most people are shrugging and making the best of Brexit, by showing that there's still very substantial resistance. If only a few thousand turned up it would backfire, of course, but it doesn't look as though that'll happen.
I hadn't planned to be on the march. Some of the stuff the protesters on *your* side where shouting was obscene. You may not have seen some of that, as you were on the other side of the fence and could not be everywhere. Likewise, I may not have seen bad behaviour by marchers outside my immediate vicinity.
But we were 'taken in' by a lovely family, and ended up having strawberries and champagne in ?Hyde Park? at the end of the march. I reckon we probably had more fun.
Swearing and obscenity vs tearing terrified defenceless animals limb from limb.
You went on a march, supporting the rights of people to terrify a defenceless wild animal, then tear it to shreds with a pack of dogs. You did this for the lolz, and ‘by accident’. So now we know.
The cynical attack of Blair - for purely internal party-political purposes - on British rural culture was and remains a total disgrace, which completely blows apart the left's claim to the higher moral ground on being sensitive to the culture of immigrant groups. On Blair's part it was just red meat (if you pardon the expression) to throw to his party, and on their part it was motivated by class hatred*, pure and simple: nothing to do with animal welfare. Even those lefties who run the RSPCA had fox-hunting as a negligible issue in terms of animal welfare.
* And ignorance, of course: there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting.
There are many people, if not a majority, in rural culture who are against hunting.
I can say all my family oppose fox hunting and my eldest granddaughter will not eat any meat under any circumstances. It was another issue in the last manifesto that had no need to be in there
Quite correct - it was a complete misjudgement on the part of May (or those who advise her).
Richard N's assertion that "there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting" is laughable. These people from unprivileged households are passionate about supporting an elite hobby they themselves will never be able to afford to participate in? Dream on.
I think there is a huge change in young people today who will not accept any blood sports, are 100% committed to the green agenda, are moving to being vegetarians or vegans. They also seem to be anti smoking, drinking and drugs.
It is certainly true of my eldest granddaughter (nearing 16) and her peer and social media groups .
You went on a march, supporting the rights of people to terrify a defenceless wild animal, then tear it to shreds with a pack of dogs. You did this for the lolz, and ‘by accident’. So now we know.
The cynical attack of Blair - for purely internal party-political purposes - on British rural culture was and remains a total disgrace, which completely blows apart the left's claim to the higher moral ground on being sensitive to the culture of immigrant groups. On Blair's part it was just red meat (if you pardon the expression) to throw to his party, and on their part it was motivated by class hatred*, pure and simple: nothing to do with animal welfare. Even those lefties who run the RSPCA had fox-hunting as a negligible issue in terms of animal welfare.
* And ignorance, of course: there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting.
There are many people, if not a majority, in rural culture who are against hunting.
I can say all my family oppose fox hunting and my eldest granddaughter will not eat any meat under any circumstances. It was another issue in the last manifesto that had no need to be in there
Quite correct - it was a complete misjudgement on the part of May (or those who advise her).
Richard N's assertion that "there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting" is laughable. These people from unprivileged households are passionate about supporting an elite hobby they themselves will never be able to afford to participate in? Dream on.
I think there is a huge change in young people today who will not accept any blood sports, are 100% committed to the green agenda, are moving to being vegetarians or vegans. The also seem to be anti smoking, drinking and drugs.
It is certainly true of my eldest granddaughter (nearing 16) and her peer and social media groups .
We could look to revive cockfighting, an ancient tradition loved by the salt of the earth working class.
I used to keep chickens. My beloved Jenny came along to an auction with me (this was up at Ross). There were the usual collection of tweedy middle aged folk, plus a gaggle of others who were very much 'of the people' - all tattoos and beer bellies. 'I didn't realise poulty had such broad appeal', she mused. 'Those are the cockfighters', I replied, 'they're here to buy cheap bait birds'.
I hope he thinks the million quid a year is worth the hatred coming his way. Even the Guardian called his explanation for abandoning Remainerism "weak". If he's lost the Guardian, you can imagine the bilious contempt he will receive elsewhere.
It's a grievous moral error. It's much worse than Miliband taking that absurd refugee job, It's closer to Blair cosying up with Kazakh oligarchs. It totally stinks, and I think he will suffer for it. He will be hated, most of all, I suspect, by dedicated Remainers who will now think he has abandoned the cause at THE crucial time.
Tut. And LOL
I'm not sure many people will react that strongly. Many centre-left people have written off his cohort of LibDems as people who became hopelessly compromised by coalition with the Conservatives, to the point that their distinctive identity became shrouded in mist. Getting a job with Facebook is exactly the sort of thing that's consistent with that, and such people will just feel their prejudices confirmed.
That, incidentally, is why the LibDems are not flourishing in apparently propitious circumstances. Vince is very much identified with the same era - they need someone young, dynamic and different.
I am a Cleggite, and think that the coalition is increasingly being seen as a golden era of good government, tuition fees excepted. Particularly if it is Corbyn vs Boris at the next election.
There is no second go in politics for Clegg though, and like Vince he needs to move on so the party can regenerate. He will hopefully be a good influence on Facebook, he has experience of supping with the devil.
Will the #peoplesvote match tommorow change things? probably not. It does help in keeping the cause alive and the hard Brexiteers on the back foot. Peaceful demonstrations do change the debate, albeit usually rather later than intended.
You went on a march, supporting the rights of people to terrify a defenceless wild animal, then tear it to shreds with a pack of dogs. You did this for the lolz, and ‘by accident’. So now we know.
The cynical attack of Blair - for purely internal party-political purposes - on British rural culture was and remains a total disgrace, which completely blows apart the left's claim to the higher moral ground on being sensitive to the culture of immigrant groups. On Blair's part it was just red meat (if you pardon the expression) to throw to his party, and on their part it was motivated by class hatred*, pure and simple: nothing to do with animal welfare. Even those lefties who run the RSPCA had fox-hunting as a negligible issue in terms of animal welfare.
* And ignorance, of course: there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting.
There are many people, if not a majority, in rural culture who are against hunting.
I can say all my family oppose fox hunting and my eldest granddaughter will not eat any meat under any circumstances. It was another issue in the last manifesto that had no need to be in there
Quite correct - it was a complete misjudgement on the part of May (or those who advise her).
Richard N's assertion that "there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting" is laughable. These people from unprivileged households are passionate about supporting an elite hobby they themselves will never be able to afford to participate in? Dream on.
I'm glad to see you demonstrate so clearly my point that this is about class warfare, not animal welfare. And you are wrong on the narrow point as well.
History is on my side
It probably is. Genuine local culture is dying out throughout the Western world. Generally the left seek to protect it - or even more so if it's imported from far away - but for some reason they have a moral blind spot on this particular piece of our cultural heritage. And that's because they see it (wrongly) as exclusively a heritage of toffs.
That's because the toffs (increasingly now urban incomers) sit on the horses; the oiks traipse along behind. Today's oiks are less inclined to know their station.
You went on a march, supporting the rights of people to terrify a defenceless wild animal, then tear it to shreds with a pack of dogs. You did this for the lolz, and ‘by accident’. So now we know.
The cynical attack of Blair - for purely internal party-political purposes - on British rural culture was and remains a total disgrace, which completely blows apart the left's claim to the higher moral ground on being sensitive to the culture of immigrant groups. On Blair's part it was just red meat (if you pardon the expression) to throw to his party, and on their part it was motivated by class hatred*, pure and simple: nothing to do with animal welfare. Even those lefties who run the RSPCA had fox-hunting as a negligible issue in terms of animal welfare.
* And ignorance, of course: there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting.
I followed the Warwickshire Hunt with my father-in-law who was working class to his bones. There was cruelty involved in flushing out the foxes and chasing them until they could run no more before being torn to shreds by the dogs, but I am unapologetic in saying that it was utterly thrilling and deeply rooted in the countryside - even though it past most country people by. The sight of the hunt in full flight streaming across a frosty field was breathtaking. I’m afraid to say that I always saw foxes as pests - still do - that need to be controlled. Why not do it via one of the few things that still binds us to the land and to our past?
It's not something I would personally do, but living in deepest Sussex I of course know lots of people who are really, really passionate about it, and I can see why. Not only does it bind them/us to the land and to our past - all over the world you see reproductions of English hunting scenes - but it's also a magnificent cultural and social event, wonderful to see, and as important to those who participate as religion is to many other people: I've known people, good people, for whom it's the centre of their lives. But what do townies, looking at this in abstract terms, care about that?
I wonder how many anti fox hunting campaigners are happy to holiday in rural France where hunting still takes place without restrictions (as far as I know).
You went on a march, supporting the rights of people to terrify a defenceless wild animal, then tear it to shreds with a pack of dogs. You did this for the lolz, and ‘by accident’. So now we know.
The cynical attack of Blair - for purely internal party-political purposes - on British rural culture was and remains a total disgrace, which completely blows apart the left's claim to the higher moral ground on being sensitive to the culture of immigrant groups. On Blair's part it was just red meat (if you pardon the expression) to throw to his party, and on their part it was motivated by class hatred*, pure and simple: nothing to do with animal welfare. Even those lefties who run the RSPCA had fox-hunting as a negligible issue in terms of animal welfare.
* And ignorance, of course: there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting.
There are many people, if not a majority, in rural culture who are against hunting.
That may be. So what? It doesn't make the culture of the minority invalid, does it? Or have you abandoned your most cherished principle of defending minority cultures?
It would be interesting to correlate people who fiercely oppose fox-hunting yet will happily tolerate traditional halal butchery, and also turn a very blind eye to FGM, because the last two are "aspects of a minority culture". At a rough guess more Muslim girls are "cut" every year in Britain than foxes run to ground by dogs.
These people, like Jonathan, are vile and contemptible hypocrites. Foxes matter more to them than girls. Moreover fox hunting is part of our age-old way of life, and a justifiable form of vermin control.
That, of course, for many of them, is why they hate it. It's British, so wrong. If it's a minority culture, please go ahead and mutilate your children.
A fucking stupid post. I doubt that he does tolerate FGM at all. You are drunk and making that up.
You went on a march, supporting the rights of people to terrify a defenceless wild animal, then tear it to shreds with a pack of dogs. You did this for the lolz, and ‘by accident’. So now we know.
The cynical attack of Blair - for purely internal party-political purposes - on British rural culture was and remains a total disgrace, which completely blows apart the left's claim to the higher moral ground on being sensitive to the culture of immigrant groups. On Blair's part it was just red meat (if you pardon the expression) to throw to his party, and on their part it was motivated by class hatred*, pure and simple: nothing to do with animal welfare. Even those lefties who run the RSPCA had fox-hunting as a negligible issue in terms of animal welfare.
* And ignorance, of course: there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting.
I followed the Warwickshire Hunt with my father-in-law who was working class to his bones. There was cruelty involved in flushing out the foxes and chasing them until they could run no more before being torn to shreds by the dogs, but I am unapologetic in saying that it was utterly thrilling and deeply rooted in the countryside - even though it past most country people by. The sight of the hunt in full flight streaming across a frosty field was breathtaking. I’m afraid to say that I always saw foxes as pests - still do - that need to be controlled. Why not do it via one of the few things that still binds us to the land and to our past?
It's not something I would personally do, but living in deepest Sussex I of course know lots of people who are really, really passionate about it, and I can see why. Not only does it bind them/us to the land and to our past - all over the world you see reproductions of English hunting scenes - but it's also a magnificent cultural and social event, wonderful to see, and as important to those who participate as religion is to many other people: I've known people, good people, for whom it's the centre of their lives. But what do townies, looking at this in abstract terms, care about that?
From my perspective as a townie, hunt supporters are a never-ending source of schadenfreude. The well of anti-gay-marriage tears has long since dried up, but fox hunter tears just go on and on and on...
tbh, in my neck of the woods, they just got on with it. The best part about protesting is that's now mainly just people wanking on Twitter. I can't remember the last time I saw a Sab.
You went on a march, supporting the rights of people to terrify a defenceless wild animal, then tear it to shreds with a pack of dogs. You did this for the lolz, and ‘by accident’. So now we know.
The cynical attack of Blair - for purely internal party-political purposes - on British rural culture was and remains a total disgrace, which completely blows apart the left's claim to the higher moral ground on being sensitive to the culture of immigrant groups. On Blair's part it was just red meat (if you pardon the expression) to throw to his party, and on their part it was motivated by class hatred*, pure and simple: nothing to do with animal welfare. Even those lefties who run the RSPCA had fox-hunting as a negligible issue in terms of animal welfare.
* And ignorance, of course: there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting.
There are many people, if not a majority, in rural culture who are against hunting.
That may be. So what? It doesn't make the culture of the minority invalid, does it? Or have you abandoned your most cherished principle of defending minority cultures?
It would be interesting to correlate people who fiercely oppose fox-hunting yet will happily tolerate traditional halal butchery, and also turn a very blind eye to FGM, because the last two are "aspects of a minority culture". At a rough guess more Muslim girls are "cut" every year in Britain than foxes run to ground by dogs.
These people, like Jonathan, are vile and contemptible hypocrites. Foxes matter more to them than girls. Moreover fox hunting is part of our age-old way of life, and a justifiable form of vermin control.
That, of course, for many of them, is why they hate it. It's British, so wrong. If it's a minority culture, please go ahead and mutilate your children.
A fucking stupid post. I doubt that he does tolerate FGM at all. You are drunk and making that up.
Why have there been fewer protests against FGM than against fox hunting over the years?
You went on a march, supporting the rights of people to terrify a defenceless wild animal, then tear it to shreds with a pack of dogs. You did this for the lolz, and ‘by accident’. So now we know.
The cynical attack of Blair - for purely internal party-political purposes - on British rural culture was and remains a total disgrace, which completely blows apart the left's claim to the higher moral ground on being sensitive to the culture of immigrant groups. On Blair's part it was just red meat (if you pardon the expression) to throw to his party, and on their part it was motivated by class hatred*, pure and simple: nothing to do with animal welfare. Even those lefties who run the RSPCA had fox-hunting as a negligible issue in terms of animal welfare.
* And ignorance, of course: there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting.
There are many people, if not a majority, in rural culture who are against hunting.
I can say all my family oppose fox hunting and my eldest granddaughter will not eat any meat under any circumstances. It was another issue in the last manifesto that had no need to be in there
Quite correct - it was a complete misjudgement on the part of May (or those who advise her).
Richard N's assertion that "there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting" is laughable. These people from unprivileged households are passionate about supporting an elite hobby they themselves will never be able to afford to participate in? Dream on.
I'm glad to see you demonstrate so clearly my point that this is about class warfare, not animal welfare. And you are wrong on the narrow point as well.
History is on my side
It probably is. Genuine local culture is dying out throughout the Western world. Generally the left seek to protect it - or even more so if it's imported from far away - but for some reason they have a moral blind spot on this particular piece of our cultural heritage. And that's because they see it (wrongly) as exclusively a heritage of toffs.
Maybe we should let people living in rural areas decide...
You went on a march, supporting the rights of people to terrify a defenceless wild animal, then tear it to shreds with a pack of dogs. You did this for the lolz, and ‘by accident’. So now we know.
The cynical attack of Blair - for purely internal party-political purposes - on British rural culture was and remains a total disgrace, which completely blows apart the left's claim to the higher moral ground on being sensitive to the culture of immigrant groups. On Blair's part it was just red meat (if you pardon the expression) to throw to his party, and on their part it was motivated by class hatred*, pure and simple: nothing to do with animal welfare. Even those lefties who run the RSPCA had fox-hunting as a negligible issue in terms of animal welfare.
* And ignorance, of course: there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting.
There are many people, if not a majority, in rural culture who are against hunting.
I can say all my family oppose fox hunting and my eldest granddaughter will not eat any meat under any circumstances. It was another issue in the last manifesto that had no need to be in there
Quite correct - it was a complete misjudgement on the part of May (or those who advise her).
Richard N's assertion that "there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting" is laughable. These people from unprivileged households are passionate about supporting an elite hobby they themselves will never be able to afford to participate in? Dream on.
I think there is a huge change in young people today who will not accept any blood sports, are 100% committed to the green agenda, are moving to being vegetarians or vegans. They also seem to be anti smoking, drinking and drugs.
It is certainly true of my eldest granddaughter (nearing 16) and her peer and social media groups .
And if so, good on them
Tell that to the Banwen Miners Hunt, Big G.
It may not go down well but life is changing sometimes for the good, other times not so good
You went on a march, supporting the rights of people to terrify a defenceless wild animal, then tear it to shreds with a pack of dogs. You did this for the lolz, and ‘by accident’. So now we know.
The cynical attack of Blair - for purely internal party-political purposes - on British rural culture was and remains a total disgrace, which completely blows apart the left's claim to the higher moral ground on being sensitive to the culture of immigrant groups. On Blair's part it was just red meat (if you pardon the expression) to throw to his party, and on their part it was motivated by class hatred*, pure and simple: nothing to do with animal welfare. Even those lefties who run the RSPCA had fox-hunting as a negligible issue in terms of animal welfare.
* And ignorance, of course: there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting.
There are many people, if not a majority, in rural culture who are against hunting.
That may be. So what? It doesn't make the culture of the minority invalid, does it? Or have you abandoned your most cherished principle of defending minority cultures?
It would be interesting to correlate people who fiercely oppose fox-hunting yet will happily tolerate traditional halal butchery, and also turn a very blind eye to FGM, because the last two are "aspects of a minority culture". At a rough guess more Muslim girls are "cut" every year in Britain than foxes run to ground by dogs.
These people, like Jonathan, are vile and contemptible hypocrites. Foxes matter more to them than girls. Moreover fox hunting is part of our age-old way of life, and a justifiable form of vermin control.
That, of course, for many of them, is why they hate it. It's British, so wrong. If it's a minority culture, please go ahead and mutilate your children.
Only in the deep recesses of your warped imigination Sean.
That's because the toffs (increasingly now urban incomers) sit on the horses; the oiks traipse along behind. Today's oiks are less inclined to know their station.
So the oiks who traipse along behind have false consciousness?
(Actually you would find - if you bothered to enquire - that hunts bend over backwards to help anyone who shows interest to find a nag. But that doesn't fit your predetermined narrative.)
You went on a march, supporting the rights of people to terrify a defenceless wild animal, then tear it to shreds with a pack of dogs. You did this for the lolz, and ‘by accident’. So now we know.
The cynical attack of Blair - for purely internal party-political purposes - on British rural culture was and remains a total disgrace, which completely blows apart the left's claim to the higher moral ground on being sensitive to the culture of immigrant groups. On Blair's part it was just red meat (if you pardon the expression) to throw to his party, and on their part it was motivated by class hatred*, pure and simple: nothing to do with animal welfare. Even those lefties who run the RSPCA had fox-hunting as a negligible issue in terms of animal welfare.
* And ignorance, of course: there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting.
There are many people, if not a majority, in rural culture who are against hunting.
I can say all my family oppose fox hunting and my eldest granddaughter will not eat any meat under any circumstances. It was another issue in the last manifesto that had no need to be in there
Quite correct - it was a complete misjudgement on the part of May (or those who advise her).
Richard N's assertion that "there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting" is laughable. These people from unprivileged households are passionate about supporting an elite hobby they themselves will never be able to afford to participate in? Dream on.
I'm glad to see you demonstrate so clearly my point that this is about class warfare, not animal welfare. And you are wrong on the narrow point as well.
History is on my side
It probably is. Genuine local culture is dying out throughout the Western world. Generally the left seek to protect it - or even more so if it's imported from far away - but for some reason they have a moral blind spot on this particular piece of our cultural heritage. And that's because they see it (wrongly) as exclusively a heritage of toffs.
Maybe we should let people living in rural areas decide...
I hope he thinks the million quid a year is worth the hatred coming his way. Even the Guardian called his explanation for abandoning Remainerism "weak". If he's lost the Guardian, you can imagine the bilious contempt he will receive elsewhere.
It's a grievous moral error. It's much worse than Miliband taking that absurd refugee job, It's closer to Blair cosying up with Kazakh oligarchs. It totally stinks, and I think he will suffer for it. He will be hated, most of all, I suspect, by dedicated Remainers who will now think he has abandoned the cause at THE crucial time.
Tut. And LOL
I'm not sure many people will react that strongly. Many centre-left people have written off his cohort of LibDems as people who became hopelessly compromised by coalition with the Conservatives, to the point that their distinctive identity became shrouded in mist. Getting a job with Facebook is exactly the sort of thing that's consistent with that, and such people will just feel their prejudices confirmed.
That, incidentally, is why the LibDems are not flourishing in apparently propitious circumstances. Vince is very much identified with the same era - they need someone young, dynamic and different.
You have a reasonable point there. The Lib Dems (unlike Blair or Blair's Labour) have become so unimportant people may not care.
However I think the timing (on the weekend of THE march) and the symbolism of the move (Facebook? Really?? They're now seen as the Saudi Arabia of data) will be crippling for him, personally. But hey, he's making one mill a year. Every man has his price. We now know his.
Quite right! Clegg will be regarded as the WH Auden of Brexit, hot footing it off to America at the very moment Britain and Europe were teetering on the edge of destruction. Those who stayed and fought won't forgive him, and he'll never be respected in his own land again.
You went on a march, supporting the rights of people to terrify a defenceless wild animal, then tear it to shreds with a pack of dogs. You did this for the lolz, and ‘by accident’. So now we know.
The cynical attack of Blair - for purely internal party-political purposes - on British rural culture was and remains a total disgrace, which completely blows apart the left's claim to the higher moral ground on being sensitive to the culture of immigrant groups. On Blair's part it was just red meat (if you pardon the expression) to throw to his party, and on their part it was motivated by class hatred*, pure and simple: nothing to do with animal welfare. Even those lefties who run the RSPCA had fox-hunting as a negligible issue in terms of animal welfare.
* And ignorance, of course: there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting.
There are many people, if not a majority, in rural culture who are against hunting.
That may be. So what? It doesn't make the culture of the minority invalid, does it? Or have you abandoned your most cherished principle of defending minority cultures?
It would be interesting to correlate people who fiercely oppose fox-hunting yet will happily tolerate traditional halal butchery, and also turn a very blind eye to FGM, because the last two are "aspects of a minority culture". At a rough guess more Muslim girls are "cut" every year in Britain than foxes run to ground by dogs.
These people, like Jonathan, are vile and contemptible hypocrites. Foxes matter more to them than girls. Moreover fox hunting is part of our age-old way of life, and a justifiable form of vermin control.
That, of course, for many of them, is why they hate it. It's British, so wrong. If it's a minority culture, please go ahead and mutilate your children.
A fucking stupid post. I doubt that he does tolerate FGM at all. You are drunk and making that up.
Why have there been fewer protests against FGM than against fox hunting over the years?
I am talking about an individual who has just been accused of tolerating FGM, based on absolutely zero evidence.
You went on a march, supporting the rights of people to terrify a defenceless wild animal, then tear it to shreds with a pack of dogs. You did this for the lolz, and ‘by accident’. So now we know.
The cynical attack of Blair - for purely internal party-political purposes - on British rural culture was and remains a total disgrace, which completely blows apart the left's claim to the higher moral ground on being sensitive to the culture of immigrant groups. On Blair's part it was just red meat (if you pardon the expression) to throw to his party, and on their part it was motivated by class hatred*, pure and simple: nothing to do with animal welfare. Even those lefties who run the RSPCA had fox-hunting as a negligible issue in terms of animal welfare.
* And ignorance, of course: there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting.
I followed the Warwickshire Hunt with my father-in-law who was working class to his bones. There was cruelty involved in flushing out the foxes and chasing them until they could run no more before being torn to shreds by the dogs, but I am unapologetic in saying that it was utterly thrilling and deeply rooted in the countryside - even though it past most country people by. The sight of the hunt in full flight streaming across a frosty field was breathtaking. I’m afraid to say that I always saw foxes as pests - still do - that need to be controlled. Why not do it via one of the few things that still binds us to the land and to our past?
It's not something I would personally do, but living in deepest Sussex I of course know lots of people who are really, really passionate about it, and I can see why. Not only does it bind them/us to the land and to our past - all over the world you see reproductions of English hunting scenes - but it's also a magnificent cultural and social event, wonderful to see, and as important to those who participate as religion is to many other people: I've known people, good people, for whom it's the centre of their lives. But what do townies, looking at this in abstract terms, care about that?
I wonder how many anti fox hunting campaigners are happy to holiday in rural France where hunting still takes place without restrictions (as far as I know).
You went on a march, supporting the rights of people to terrify a defenceless wild animal, then tear it to shreds with a pack of dogs. You did this for the lolz, and ‘by accident’. So now we know.
The cynical attack of Blair - for purely internal party-political purposes - on British rural culture was and remains a total disgrace, which completely blows apart the left's claim to the higher moral ground on being sensitive to the culture of immigrant groups. On Blair's part it was just red meat (if you pardon the expression) to throw to his party, and on their part it was motivated by class hatred*, pure and simple: nothing to do with animal welfare. Even those lefties who run the RSPCA had fox-hunting as a negligible issue in terms of animal welfare.
* And ignorance, of course: there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting.
There are many people, if not a majority, in rural culture who are against hunting.
I can say all my family oppose fox hunting and my eldest granddaughter will not eat any meat under any circumstances. It was another issue in the last manifesto that had no need to be in there
Quite correct - it was a complete misjudgement on the part of May (or those who advise her).
Richard N's assertion that "there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting" is laughable. These people from unprivileged households are passionate about supporting an elite hobby they themselves will never be able to afford to participate in? Dream on.
I'm glad to see you demonstrate so clearly my point that this is about class warfare, not animal welfare. And you are wrong on the narrow point as well.
History is on my side
It probably is. Genuine local culture is dying out throughout the Western world. Generally the left seek to protect it - or even more so if it's imported from far away - but for some reason they have a moral blind spot on this particular piece of our cultural heritage. And that's because they see it (wrongly) as exclusively a heritage of toffs.
That's because the toffs (increasingly now urban incomers) sit on the horses; the oiks traipse along behind. Today's oiks are less inclined to know their station.
You went on a march, supporting the rights of people to terrify a defenceless wild animal, then tear it to shreds with a pack of dogs. You did this for the lolz, and ‘by accident’. So now we know.
The cynical attack of Blair - for purely internal party-political purposes - on British rural culture was and remains a total disgrace, which completely blows apart the left's claim to the higher moral ground on being sensitive to the culture of immigrant groups. On Blair's part it was just red meat (if you pardon the expression) to throw to his party, and on their part it was motivated by class hatred*, pure and simple: nothing to do with animal welfare. Even those lefties who run the RSPCA had fox-hunting as a negligible issue in terms of animal welfare.
* And ignorance, of course: there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting.
There are many people, if not a majority, in rural culture who are against hunting.
I can say all my family oppose fox hunting and my eldest granddaughter will not eat any meat under any circumstances. It was another issue in the last manifesto that had no need to be in there
Quite correct - it was a complete misjudgement on the part of May (or those who advise her).
Richard N's assertion that "there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting" is laughable. These people from unprivileged households are passionate about supporting an elite hobby they themselves will never be able to afford to participate in? Dream on.
I'm glad to see you demonstrate so clearly my point that this is about class warfare, not animal welfare. And you are wrong on the narrow point as well.
History is on my side
It probably is. Genuine local culture is dying out throughout the Western world. Generally the left seek to protect it - or even more so if it's imported from far away - but for some reason they have a moral blind spot on this particular piece of our cultural heritage. And that's because they see it (wrongly) as exclusively a heritage of toffs.
Maybe we should let people living in rural areas decide...
You went on a march, supporting the rights of people to terrify a defenceless wild animal, then tear it to shreds with a pack of dogs. You did this for the lolz, and ‘by accident’. So now we know.
The cynical attack of Blair - for purely internal party-political purposes - on British rural culture was and remains a total disgrace, which completely blows apart the left's claim to the higher moral ground on being sensitive to the culture of immigrant groups. On Blair's part it was just red meat (if you pardon the expression) to throw to his party, and on their part it was motivated by class hatred*, pure and simple: nothing to do with animal welfare. Even those lefties who run the RSPCA had fox-hunting as a negligible issue in terms of animal welfare.
* And ignorance, of course: there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting.
There are many people, if not a majority, in rural culture who are against hunting.
That may be. So what? It doesn't make the culture of the minority invalid, does it? Or have you abandoned your most cherished principle of defending minority cultures?
It would be interesting to correlate people who fiercely oppose fox-hunting yet will happily tolerate traditional halal butchery, and also turn a very blind eye to FGM, because the last two are "aspects of a minority culture". At a rough guess more Muslim girls are "cut" every year in Britain than foxes run to ground by dogs.
These people, like Jonathan, are vile and contemptible hypocrites. Foxes matter more to them than girls. Moreover fox hunting is part of our age-old way of life, and a justifiable form of vermin control.
That, of course, for many of them, is why they hate it. It's British, so wrong. If it's a minority culture, please go ahead and mutilate your children.
A fucking stupid post. I doubt that he does tolerate FGM at all. You are drunk and making that up.
Why have there been fewer protests against FGM than against fox hunting over the years?
You think just maybe we might see more protests against FGM if it was legal, or the PM was pledging to give a vote on legalising it?
You went on a march, supporting the rights of people to terrify a defenceless wild animal, then tear it to shreds with a pack of dogs. You did this for the lolz, and ‘by accident’. So now we know.
The cynical attack of Blair - for purely internal party-political purposes - on British rural culture was and remains a total disgrace, which completely blows apart the left's claim to the higher moral ground on being sensitive to the culture of immigrant groups. On Blair's part it was just red meat (if you pardon the expression) to throw to his party, and on their part it was motivated by class hatred*, pure and simple: nothing to do with animal welfare. Even those lefties who run the RSPCA had fox-hunting as a negligible issue in terms of animal welfare.
* And ignorance, of course: there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting.
There are many people, if not a majority, in rural culture who are against hunting.
I can say all my family oppose fox hunting and my eldest granddaughter will not eat any meat under any circumstances. It was another issue in the last manifesto that had no need to be in there
Quite correct - it was a complete misjudgement on the part of May (or those who advise her).
Richard N's assertion that "there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting" is laughable. These people from unprivileged households are passionate about supporting an elite hobby they themselves will never be able to afford to participate in? Dream on.
I think there is a huge change in young people today who will not accept any blood sports, are 100% committed to the green agenda, are moving to being vegetarians or vegans. They also seem to be anti smoking, drinking and drugs.
It is certainly true of my eldest granddaughter (nearing 16) and her peer and social media groups .
And if so, good on them
Tell that to the Banwen Miners Hunt, Big G.
It may not go down well but life is changing sometimes for the good, other times not so good
I'm sure if you take your family to their Boxing Day meet they would be pleasantly surprised.
You went on a march, supporting the rights of people to terrify a defenceless wild animal, then tear it to shreds with a pack of dogs. You did this for the lolz, and ‘by accident’. So now we know.
The cynical attack of Blair - for purely internal party-political purposes - on British rural culture was and remains a total disgrace, which completely blows apart the left's claim to the higher moral ground on being sensitive to the culture of immigrant groups. On Blair's part it was just red meat (if you pardon the expression) to throw to his party, and on their part it was motivated by class hatred*, pure and simple: nothing to do with animal welfare. Even those lefties who run the RSPCA had fox-hunting as a negligible issue in terms of animal welfare.
* And ignorance, of course: there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting.
There are many people, if not a majority, in rural culture who are against hunting.
That may be. So what? It doesn't make the culture of the minority invalid, does it? Or have you abandoned your most cherished principle of defending minority cultures?
It would be interesting to correlate people who fiercely oppose fox-hunting yet will happily tolerate traditional halal butchery, and also turn a very blind eye to FGM, because the last two are "aspects of a minority culture". At a rough guess more Muslim girls are "cut" every year in Britain than foxes run to ground by dogs.
These people, like Jonathan, are vile and contemptible hypocrites. Foxes matter more to them than girls. Moreover fox hunting is part of our age-old way of life, and a justifiable form of vermin control.
That, of course, for many of them, is why they hate it. It's British, so wrong. If it's a minority culture, please go ahead and mutilate your children.
Only in the deep recesses of your warped imigination Sean.
You are being far, far too lenient with that reply.
You went on a march, supporting the rights of people to terrify a defenceless wild animal, then tear it to shreds with a pack of dogs. You did this for the lolz, and ‘by accident’. So now we know.
The cynical attack of Blair - for purely internal party-political purposes - on British rural culture was and remains a total disgrace, which completely blows apart the left's claim to the higher moral ground on being sensitive to the culture of immigrant groups. On Blair's part it was just red meat (if you pardon the expression) to throw to his party, and on their part it was motivated by class hatred*, pure and simple: nothing to do with animal welfare. Even those lefties who run the RSPCA had fox-hunting as a negligible issue in terms of animal welfare.
* And ignorance, of course: there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting.
I followed the Warwickshire Hunt with my father-in-law who was working class to his bones. There was cruelty involved in flushing out the foxes and chasing them until they could run no more before being torn to shreds by the dogs, but I am unapologetic in saying that it was utterly thrilling and deeply rooted in the countryside - even though it past most country people by. The sight of the hunt in full flight streaming across a frosty field was breathtaking. I’m afraid to say that I always saw foxes as pests - still do - that need to be controlled. Why not do it via one of the few things that still binds us to the land and to our past?
It's not something I would personally do, but living in deepest Sussex I of course know lots of people who are really, really passionate about it, and I can see why. Not only does it bind them/us to the land and to our past - all over the world you see reproductions of English hunting scenes - but it's also a magnificent cultural and social event, wonderful to see, and as important to those who participate as religion is to many other people: I've known people, good people, for whom it's the centre of their lives. But what do townies, looking at this in abstract terms, care about that?
I wonder how many anti fox hunting campaigners are happy to holiday in rural France where hunting still takes place without restrictions (as far as I know).
You went on a march, supporting the rights of people to terrify a defenceless wild animal, then tear it to shreds with a pack of dogs. You did this for the lolz, and ‘by accident’. So now we know.
The cynical attack of Blair - for purely internal party-political purposes - on British rural culture was and remains a total disgrace, which completely blows apart the left's claim to the higher moral ground on being sensitive to the culture of immigrant groups. On Blair's part it was just red meat (if you pardon the expression) to throw to his party, and on their part it was motivated by class hatred*, pure and simple: nothing to do with animal welfare. Even those lefties who run the RSPCA had fox-hunting as a negligible issue in terms of animal welfare.
* And ignorance, of course: there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting.
There are many people, if not a majority, in rural culture who are against hunting.
I can say all my family oppose fox hunting and my eldest granddaughter will not eat any meat under any circumstances. It was another issue in the last manifesto that had no need to be in there
Quite correct - it was a complete misjudgement on the part of May (or those who advise her).
Richard N's assertion that "there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting" is laughable. These people from unprivileged households are passionate about supporting an elite hobby they themselves will never be able to afford to participate in? Dream on.
I think there is a huge change in young people today who will not accept any blood sports, are 100% committed to the green agenda, are moving to being vegetarians or vegans. They also seem to be anti smoking, drinking and drugs.
It is certainly true of my eldest granddaughter (nearing 16) and her peer and social media groups .
And if so, good on them
Tell that to the Banwen Miners Hunt, Big G.
It may not go down well but life is changing sometimes for the good, other times not so good
I'm sure if you take your family to their Boxing Day meet they would be pleasantly surprised.
I do not want to prevent people enjoying themselves and drag hunts are no problem.
If my granddaughter saw a hunt she would become be very angry, upset and in tears.
Yes, as a practical political matter I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole. That's a different point.
Okay, but as a non-practical matter, you'd overturn the ban against the wishes of the majority of people living in rural areas?
The ban was wrong in principle (although hunts can live with it), but there are more important things for the Conservative Party to worry about, and it's not worth the political capital. Sorry, fox-hunters!
These people, like Jonathan, are vile and contemptible hypocrites. Foxes matter more to them than girls. Moreover fox hunting is part of our age-old way of life, and a justifiable form of vermin control.
I remember when you were witty. Sad. We used to have fun.
To throw a techno-cat amongst the pigeons, I wonder how PB-ers would feel about humans, dogs and horses hunting an entirely robot fox? This will be very do-able very soon.
I cannot see any moral argument against this. No one suffers, everyone has fun, an unfeeling piece of electronics is "killed". The human instinct to hunt is satisfied. Win win.
It's the same argument (which we will soon be having) about pedophilia. We will soon be able to create child sex-bots, with no brains or consciousness, who could slake the appetites of pedophiles, so they wouldn't have to go to jail for attacking real kids. That means real kids go unmolested, yet pedos don't have to be locked up, expensively, for life.
Surely this, too, is win win. Yet I've heard people arguing that we shouldn't allow child sex bots, as this somehow "encourages" pedophilia. To me this seems insane. No human will suffer, many real kids at risk will be saved. And they OBJECT??
It speaks of a puritan agenda hidden within the anti-sex, anti-hunting ethos: they don't object to the act, it's the pleasure taken which annoys them.
I would have no problem with a robot fox hunt. The child thing is deeply disturbing.
You went on a march, supporting the rights of people to terrify a defenceless wild animal, then tear it to shreds with a pack of dogs. You did this for the lolz, and ‘by accident’. So now we know.
The cynical attack of Blair - for purely internal party-political purposes - on British rural culture was and remains a total disgrace, which completely blows apart the left's claim to the higher moral ground on being sensitive to the culture of immigrant groups. On Blair's part it was just red meat (if you pardon the expression) to throw to his party, and on their part it was motivated by class hatred*, pure and simple: nothing to do with animal welfare. Even those lefties who run the RSPCA had fox-hunting as a negligible issue in terms of animal welfare.
* And ignorance, of course: there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting.
There are many people, if not a majority, in rural culture who are against hunting.
I can say all my family oppose fox hunting and my eldest granddaughter will not eat any meat under any circumstances. It was another issue in the last manifesto that had no need to be in there
Quite correct - it was a complete misjudgement on the part of May (or those who advise her).
Richard N's assertion that "there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting" is laughable. These people from unprivileged households are passionate about supporting an elite hobby they themselves will never be able to afford to participate in? Dream on.
I think there is a huge change in young people today who will not accept any blood sports, are 100% committed to the green agenda, are moving to being vegetarians or vegans. They also seem to be anti smoking, drinking and drugs.
It is certainly true of my eldest granddaughter (nearing 16) and her peer and social media groups .
And if so, good on them
Tell that to the Banwen Miners Hunt, Big G.
It may not go down well but life is changing sometimes for the good, other times not so good
I'm sure if you take your family to their Boxing Day meet they would be pleasantly surprised.
I do not want to prevent people enjoying themselves and drag hunts are no problem.
If my granddaughter saw a hunt she would become be very angry, upset and in tears.
You went on a march, supporting the rights of people to terrify a defenceless wild animal, then tear it to shreds with a pack of dogs. You did this for the lolz, and ‘by accident’. So now we know.
The cynical attack of Blair - for purely internal party-political purposes - on British rural culture was and remains a total disgrace, which completely blows apart the left's claim to the higher moral ground on being sensitive to the culture of immigrant groups. On Blair's part it was just red meat (if you pardon the expression) to throw to his party, and on their part it was motivated by class hatred*, pure and simple: nothing to do with animal welfare. Even those lefties who run the RSPCA had fox-hunting as a negligible issue in terms of animal welfare.
* And ignorance, of course: there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting.
There are many people, if not a majority, in rural culture who are against hunting.
That may be. So what? It doesn't make the culture of the minority invalid, does it? Or have you abandoned your most cherished principle of defending minority cultures?
It would be interesting to correlate people who fiercely oppose fox-hunting yet will happily tolerate traditional halal butchery, and also turn a very blind eye to FGM, because the last two are "aspects of a minority culture". At a rough guess more Muslim girls are "cut" every year in Britain than foxes run to ground by dogs.
These people, like Jonathan, are vile and contemptible hypocrites. Foxes matter more to them than girls. Moreover fox hunting is part of our age-old way of life, and a justifiable form of vermin control.
That, of course, for many of them, is why they hate it. It's British, so wrong. If it's a minority culture, please go ahead and mutilate your children.
A fucking stupid post. I doubt that he does tolerate FGM at all. You are drunk and making that up.
Why have there been fewer protests against FGM than against fox hunting over the years?
You think just maybe we might see more protests against FGM if it was legal, or the PM was pledging to give a vote on legalising it?
It may as well be legal for all the effort put into enforcement.
You went on a march, supporting the rights of people to terrify a defenceless wild animal, then tear it to shreds with a pack of dogs. You did this for the lolz, and ‘by accident’. So now we know.
The cynical attack of Blair - for purely internal party-political purposes - on British rural culture was and remains a total disgrace, which completely blows apart the left's claim to the higher moral ground on being sensitive to the culture of immigrant groups. On Blair's part it was just red meat (if you pardon the expression) to throw to his party, and on their part it was motivated by class hatred*, pure and simple: nothing to do with animal welfare. Even those lefties who run the RSPCA had fox-hunting as a negligible issue in terms of animal welfare.
* And ignorance, of course: there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting.
There are many people, if not a majority, in rural culture who are against hunting.
I can say all my family oppose fox hunting and my eldest granddaughter will not eat any meat under any circumstances. It was another issue in the last manifesto that had no need to be in there
Quite correct - it was a complete misjudgement on the part of May (or those who advise her).
Richard N's assertion that "there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting" is laughable. These people from unprivileged households are passionate about supporting an elite hobby they themselves will never be able to afford to participate in? Dream on.
I'm glad to see you demonstrate so clearly my point that this is about class warfare, not animal welfare. And you are wrong on the narrow point as well.
History is on my side
It probably is. Genuine local culture is dying out throughout the Western world. Generally the left seek to protect it - or even more so if it's imported from far away - but for some reason they have a moral blind spot on this particular piece of our cultural heritage. And that's because they see it (wrongly) as exclusively a heritage of toffs.
I have no issue with shooting, fishing, even most aspects of fox hunting. But there's something about the role of terriermen that leaves a bad taste in the mouth. They also tend to be the ones thumping hunt monitors. Don't tend to be toffs I think...
You went on a march, supporting the rights of people to terrify a defenceless wild animal, then tear it to shreds with a pack of dogs. You did this for the lolz, and ‘by accident’. So now we know.
The cynical attack of Blair * And ignorance, of course: there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting.
There are many people, if not a majority, in rural culture who are against hunting.
I can say all my family oppose fox hunting and my eldest granddaughter will not eat any meat under any circumstances. It was another issue in the last manifesto that had no need to be in there
Quite correct - it was a complete misjudgement on the part of May (or those who advise her).
Richard N's assertion that "there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting" is laughable. These people from unprivileged households are passionate about supporting an elite hobby they themselves will never be able to afford to participate in? Dream on.
I'm glad to see you demonstrate so clearly my point that this is about class warfare, not animal welfare. And you are wrong on the narrow point as well.
History is on my side
It probably is. Genuine local culture is dying out throughout the Western world. Generally the left seek to protect it - or even more so if it's imported from far away - but for some reason they have a moral blind spot on this particular piece of our cultural heritage. And that's because they see it (wrongly) as exclusively a heritage of toffs.
Maybe we should let people living in rural areas decide...
Yes, plenty of countryfolk that I meet see foxhunting as pointless cruelty, and remember the arrogance of the hunt (Cottesmore being my local one) forcing itself where it was not welcome.
Personally, it is not an issue that bothers me, but it may well have cost May her majority.
You went on a march, supporting the rights of people to terrify a defenceless wild animal, then tear it to shreds with a pack of dogs. You did this for the lolz, and ‘by accident’. So now we know.
The cynical attack of Blair * And ignorance, of course: there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting.
There are many people, if not a majority, in rural culture who are against hunting.
I can say all my family oppose fox hunting and my eldest granddaughter will not eat any meat under any circumstances. It was another issue in the last manifesto that had no need to be in there
Quite correct - it was a complete misjudgement on the part of May (or those who advise her).
Richard N's assertion that "there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting" is laughable. These people from unprivileged households are passionate about supporting an elite hobby they themselves will never be able to afford to participate in? Dream on.
I'm glad to see you demonstrate so clearly my point that this is about class warfare, not animal welfare. And you are wrong on the narrow point as well.
History is on my side
It probably is. Genuine local culture is dying out throughout the Western world. Generally the left seek to protect it - or even more so if it's imported from far away - but for some reason they have a moral blind spot on this particular piece of our cultural heritage. And that's because they see it (wrongly) as exclusively a heritage of toffs.
Maybe we should let people living in rural areas decide...
Yes, plenty of countryfolk that I meet see foxhunting as pointless cruelty, and remember the arrogance of the hunt (Cottesmore being my local one) forcing itself where it was not welcome.
Personally, it is not an issue that bothers me, but it may well have cost May her majority.
Maybe as @Foxy you're not entirely objective about this
You went on a march, supporting the rights of people to terrify a defenceless wild animal, then tear it to shreds with a pack of dogs. You did this for the lolz, and ‘by accident’. So now we know.
The cynical attack of Blair * And ignorance, of course: there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting.
There are many people, if not a majority, in rural culture who are against hunting.
I can say all my family oppose fox hunting and my eldest granddaughter will not eat any meat under any circumstances. It was another issue in the last manifesto that had no need to be in there
Quite correct - it was a complete misjudgement on the part of May (or those who advise her).
Richard N's assertion that "there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting" is laughable. These people from unprivileged households are passionate about supporting an elite hobby they themselves will never be able to afford to participate in? Dream on.
I'm glad to see you demonstrate so clearly my point that this is about class warfare, not animal welfare. And you are wrong on the narrow point as well.
History is on my side
It probably is. Genuine local culture is dying out throughout the Western world. Generally the left seek to protect it - or even more so if it's imported from far away - but for some reason they have a moral blind spot on this particular piece of our cultural heritage. And that's because they see it (wrongly) as exclusively a heritage of toffs.
Maybe we should let people living in rural areas decide...
Yes, plenty of countryfolk that I meet see foxhunting as pointless cruelty, and remember the arrogance of the hunt (Cottesmore being my local one) forcing itself where it was not welcome.
Personally, it is not an issue that bothers me, but it may well have cost May her majority.
You are very unlikely to have experienced arrogance from the Cottesmore.
To throw a techno-cat amongst the pigeons, I wonder how PB-ers would feel about humans, dogs and horses hunting an entirely robot fox? This will be very do-able very soon.
I cannot see any moral argument against this. No one suffers, everyone has fun, an unfeeling piece of electronics is "killed". The human instinct to hunt is satisfied. Win win.
It's the same argument (which we will soon be having) about pedophilia. We will soon be able to create child sex-bots, with no brains or consciousness, who could slake the appetites of pedophiles, so they wouldn't have to go to jail for attacking real kids. That means real kids go unmolested, yet pedos don't have to be locked up, expensively, for life.
Surely this, too, is win win. Yet I've heard people arguing that we shouldn't allow child sex bots, as this somehow "encourages" pedophilia. To me this seems insane. No human will suffer, many real kids at risk will be saved. And they OBJECT??
It speaks of a puritan agenda hidden within the anti-sex, anti-hunting ethos: they don't object to the act, it's the pleasure taken which annoys them.
I think the only people opposed to it would be the fox hunters. But sure, if it were possible it'd be a great solution as long as the dogs didn' "accidentally" end up chasing a real fox instead.
To throw a techno-cat amongst the pigeons, I wonder how PB-ers would feel about humans, dogs and horses hunting an entirely robot fox? This will be very do-able very soon.
I cannot see any moral argument against this. No one suffers, everyone has fun, an unfeeling piece of electronics is "killed". The human instinct to hunt is satisfied. Win win.
It's the same argument (which we will soon be having) about pedophilia. We will soon be able to create child sex-bots, with no brains or consciousness, who could slake the appetites of pedophiles, so they wouldn't have to go to jail for attacking real kids. That means real kids go unmolested, yet pedos don't have to be locked up, expensively, for life.
Surely this, too, is win win. Yet I've heard people arguing that we shouldn't allow child sex bots, as this somehow "encourages" pedophilia. To me this seems insane. No human will suffer, many real kids at risk will be saved. And they OBJECT??
It speaks of a puritan agenda hidden within the anti-sex, anti-hunting ethos: they don't object to the act, it's the pleasure taken which annoys them.
There's a list of things that are judged to be unacceptable by most people even though no-one is hurt: sex with corpses, incest between consenting adults, etc.
To throw a techno-cat amongst the pigeons, I wonder how PB-ers would feel about humans, dogs and horses hunting an entirely robot fox? This will be very do-able very soon.
I cannot see any moral argument against this. No one suffers, everyone has fun, an unfeeling piece of electronics is "killed". The human instinct to hunt is satisfied. Win win.
It's the same argument (which we will soon be having) about pedophilia. We will soon be able to create child sex-bots, with no brains or consciousness, who could slake the appetites of pedophiles, so they wouldn't have to go to jail for attacking real kids. That means real kids go unmolested, yet pedos don't have to be locked up, expensively, for life.
Surely this, too, is win win. Yet I've heard people arguing that we shouldn't allow child sex bots, as this somehow "encourages" pedophilia. To me this seems insane. No human will suffer, many real kids at risk will be saved. And they OBJECT??
It speaks of a puritan agenda hidden within the anti-sex, anti-hunting ethos: they don't object to the act, it's the pleasure taken which annoys them.
Have you heard many (or any) arguments against robofox? I'd be perfectly fine with it myself, not sure if a latter day Jorrocks would be down with it.
Don't think he'd be down with foxhunters = paedos either.
Nothing that has come out of Brussels in the Brexit process has caused me to have one moment of doubt about voting to Leave.
Nothing has come from a single Brexiteer that has caused me to have a moment of doubt that this is the greatest fuckup in living memory.
Those who promoted it will be reviled, and those that voted for it will be ashamed.
It will be impossible to find anyone who voted for it within the next 24 months, outside the safe anonymity of PB.
Isn't that what you said after the Referendum, over 24 months ago ?
I have no idea, it was a long time ago.
In all fairness, I have found it impossible to find any such person, but you will tell me that is because I am a metropolitan elitist Londoner and haven’t yet seen the true way and the light and moved to Mansfield.
Remember its only the wannabe metropolitan elitists who say they don't know anyone who voted Leave.
To throw a techno-cat amongst the pigeons, I wonder how PB-ers would feel about humans, dogs and horses hunting an entirely robot fox? This will be very do-able very soon.
I cannot see any moral argument against this. No one suffers, everyone has fun, an unfeeling piece of electronics is "killed". The human instinct to hunt is satisfied. Win win.
It's the same argument (which we will soon be having) about pedophilia. We will soon be able to create child sex-bots, with no brains or consciousness, who could slake the appetites of pedophiles, so they wouldn't have to go to jail for attacking real kids. That means real kids go unmolested, yet pedos don't have to be locked up, expensively, for life.
Surely this, too, is win win. Yet I've heard people arguing that we shouldn't allow child sex bots, as this somehow "encourages" pedophilia. To me this seems insane. No human will suffer, many real kids at risk will be saved. And they OBJECT??
It speaks of a puritan agenda hidden within the anti-sex, anti-hunting ethos: they don't object to the act, it's the pleasure taken which annoys them.
Child molesters rarely do it for sexual gratification (there being simpler means!), but because of the sadistic joy of controlling another person. Like all rape, it is about violence, with the sexual aspect being just the instrument. As such, I think child sex bots would merely legitimise paedos.
To throw a techno-cat amongst the pigeons, I wonder how PB-ers would feel about humans, dogs and horses hunting an entirely robot fox? This will be very do-able very soon.
I cannot see any moral argument against this. No one suffers, everyone has fun, an unfeeling piece of electronics is "killed". The human instinct to hunt is satisfied. Win win.
It's the same argument (which we will soon be having) about pedophilia. We will soon be able to create child sex-bots, with no brains or consciousness, who could slake the appetites of pedophiles, so they wouldn't have to go to jail for attacking real kids. That means real kids go unmolested, yet pedos don't have to be locked up, expensively, for life.
Surely this, too, is win win. Yet I've heard people arguing that we shouldn't allow child sex bots, as this somehow "encourages" pedophilia. To me this seems insane. No human will suffer, many real kids at risk will be saved. And they OBJECT??
It speaks of a puritan agenda hidden within the anti-sex, anti-hunting ethos: they don't object to the act, it's the pleasure taken which annoys them.
Child molesters rarely do it for sexual gratification (there being simpler means!), but because of the sadistic joy of controlling another person. Like all rape, it is about violence, with the sexual aspect being just the instrument. As such, I think child sex bots would merely legitimise paedos.
What about people who buy child porn, and so fund its creation?
You went on a march, supporting the rights of people to terrify a defenceless wild animal, then tear it to shreds with a pack of dogs. You did this for the lolz, and ‘by accident’. So now we know.
The cynical attack of Blair * And ignorance, of course: there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting.
There are many people, if not a majority, in rural culture who are against hunting.
I can say all my family oppose fox hunting and my eldest granddaughter will not eat any meat under any circumstances. It was another issue in the last manifesto that had no need to be in there
Quite correct - it was a complete misjudgement on the part of May (or those who advise her).
Richard N's assertion that "there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting" is laughable. These people from unprivileged households are passionate about supporting an elite hobby they themselves will never be able to afford to participate in? Dream on.
I'm glad to see you demonstrate so clearly my point that this is about class warfare, not animal welfare. And you are wrong on the narrow point as well.
History is on my side
It probably is. Genuine local culture is dying out throughout the Western world. Generally the left seek to protect it - or even more so if it's imported from far away - but for some reason they have a moral blind spot on this particular piece of our cultural heritage. And that's because they see it (wrongly) as exclusively a heritage of toffs.
Maybe we should let people living in rural areas decide...
Yes, plenty of countryfolk that I meet see foxhunting as pointless cruelty, and remember the arrogance of the hunt (Cottesmore being my local one) forcing itself where it was not welcome.
Personally, it is not an issue that bothers me, but it may well have cost May her majority.
You are very unlikely to have experienced arrogance from the Cottesmore.
Plenty of folk in East Leics were happy to see the back of them.
To throw a techno-cat amongst the pigeons, I wonder how PB-ers would feel about humans, dogs and horses hunting an entirely robot fox? This will be very do-able very soon.
I cannot see any moral argument against this. No one suffers, everyone has fun, an unfeeling piece of electronics is "killed". The human instinct to hunt is satisfied. Win win.
It's the same argument (which we will soon be having) about pedophilia. We will soon be able to create child sex-bots, with no brains or consciousness, who could slake the appetites of pedophiles, so they wouldn't have to go to jail for attacking real kids. That means real kids go unmolested, yet pedos don't have to be locked up, expensively, for life.
Surely this, too, is win win. Yet I've heard people arguing that we shouldn't allow child sex bots, as this somehow "encourages" pedophilia. To me this seems insane. No human will suffer, many real kids at risk will be saved. And they OBJECT??
It speaks of a puritan agenda hidden within the anti-sex, anti-hunting ethos: they don't object to the act, it's the pleasure taken which annoys them.
I would have no problem with a robot fox hunt. The child thing is deeply disturbing.
Seting aside the happily abusive PB banter, I know what you mean. There is something disturbing about creating child sex bots to slake pedophile desires. I *get* the revulsion. I kinda share it.
And yet logically this revulsion is absurd. We should allow indeed encourage this tech development, as it would protect real human children from the predations of molestors.
I suspect our rational morality is coloured, here, by more atavistic emotions.
To complicate the argument, police forces are now creating online child sex tempters, entirely non-existent, to attract and then convict pedos. I also find THAT somehow disturbing.
You went on a march, supporting the rights of people to terrify a defenceless wild animal, then tear it to shreds with a pack of dogs. You did this for the lolz, and ‘by accident’. So now we know.
The cynical attack of Blair * And ignorance, of course: there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting.
There are many people, if not a majority, in rural culture who are against hunting.
I can say all my family oppose fox hsto that had no need to be in there
Quite correct - it was a complete misjudgement on the part of May (or those who advise her).
Richard N's assertion that "there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting" is laughable. These people from unprivileged households are passionate about supporting an elite hobby they themselves will never be able to afford to participate in? Dream on.
I'm glad to see you demonstrate so clearly my point that this is about class warfare, not animal welfare. And you are wrong on the narrow point as well.
History is on my side
It probably is. Genuine local culture is dying out throughout the Western world. Generally the left seek to protect it - or even more so if it's imported from far away - but for some reason they have a moral blind spot on this particular piece of our cultural heritage. And that's because they see it (wrongly) as exclusively a heritage of toffs.
Maybe we should let people living in rural areas decide...
Yes, plenty of countryfolk that I meet see foxhunting as pointless cruelty, and remember the arrogance of the hunt (Cottesmore being my local one) forcing itself where it was not welcome.
Personally, it is not an issue that bothers me, but it may well have cost May her majority.
You are very unlikely to have experienced arrogance from the Cottesmore.
Plenty of folk in East Leics were happy to see the back of them.
I'm not sure their country has changed all that much for the past hundred years or so.
And if people don't want them on their land they don't go over that land.
The fact that Labour spent more time debating fox hunting than the war in Iraq shows what a skewed moral compass they had.
They focused on relative trivialities that made them feel good rather than on stuff that really mattered and whose consequences we - and Iraqis and others - are feeling to this day.
To throw a techno-cat amongst the pigeons, I wonder how PB-ers would feel about humans, dogs and horses hunting an entirely robot fox? This will be very do-able very soon.
I cannot see any moral argument against this. No one suffers, everyone has fun, an unfeeling piece of electronics is "killed". The human instinct to hunt is satisfied. Win win.
It's the same argument (which we will soon be having) about pedophilia. We will soon be able to create child sex-bots, with no brains or consciousness, who could slake the appetites of pedophiles, so they wouldn't have to go to jail for attacking real kids. That means real kids go unmolested, yet pedos don't have to be locked up, expensively, for life.
Surely this, too, is win win. Yet I've heard people arguing that we shouldn't allow child sex bots, as this somehow "encourages" pedophilia. To me this seems insane. No human will suffer, many real kids at risk will be saved. And they OBJECT??
It speaks of a puritan agenda hidden within the anti-sex, anti-hunting ethos: they don't object to the act, it's the pleasure taken which annoys them.
Child molesters rarely do it for sexual gratification (there being simpler means!), but because of the sadistic joy of controlling another person. Like all rape, it is about violence, with the sexual aspect being just the instrument. As such, I think child sex bots would merely legitimise paedos.
What about people who buy child porn, and so fund its creation?
Pornography is just sexual violence enjoyed vicarously. I refer you to the works of Andrea Dworkin:
The fact that Labour spent more time debating fox hunting than the war in Iraq shows what a skewed moral compass they had.
They focused on relative trivialities that made them feel good rather than on stuff that really mattered and whose consequences we - and Iraqis and others - are feeling to this day.
Yes, it was a class-warfare bone thrown by Blair to the slavering Labour Party dogs to keep them quiet while he concentrated on playing geopolitics (disastrously) with his mate GW Bush. It worked, too.
You went on a march, supporting the rights of people to terrify a defenceless wild animal, then tear it to shreds with a pack of dogs. You did this for the lolz, and ‘by accident’. So now we know.
The cynical attack of Blair - for purely internal party-political purposes - on British rural culture was and remains a total disgrace, which completely blows apart the left's claim to the higher moral ground on being sensitive to the culture of immigrant groups. On Blair's part it was just red meat (if you pardon the expression) to throw to his party, and on their part it was motivated by class hatred*, pure and simple: nothing to do with animal welfare. Even those lefties who run the RSPCA had fox-hunting as a negligible issue in terms of animal welfare.
* And ignorance, of course: there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting.
There are many people, if not a majority, in rural culture who are against hunting.
That may be. So what? It doesn't make the culture of the minority invalid, does it? Or have you abandoned your most cherished principle of defending minority cultures?
It would be interesting to correlate people who fiercely oppose fox-hunting yet will happily tolerate traditional halal butchery, and also turn a very blind eye to FGM, because the last two are "aspects of a minority culture". At a rough guess more Muslim girls are "cut" every year in Britain than foxes run to ground by dogs.
These people, like Jonathan, are vile and contemptible hypocrites. Foxes matter more to them than girls. Moreover fox hunting is part of our age-old way of life, and a justifiable form of vermin control.
That, of course, for many of them, is why they hate it. It's British, so wrong. If it's a minority culture, please go ahead and mutilate your children.
A fucking stupid post. I doubt that he does tolerate FGM at all. You are drunk and making that up.
Why have there been fewer protests against FGM than against fox hunting over the years?
You think just maybe we might see more protests against FGM if it was legal, or the PM was pledging to give a vote on legalising it?
It may as well be legal for all the effort put into enforcement.
I cannot for the life of me work out how there have been so many cases and yet zero prosecutions
To throw a techno-cat amongst the pigeons, I wonder how PB-ers would feel about humans, dogs and horses hunting an entirely robot fox? This will be very do-able very soon.
I cannot see any moral argument against this. No one suffers, everyone has fun, an unfeeling piece of electronics is "killed". The human instinct to hunt is satisfied. Win win.
It's the same argument (which we will soon be having) about pedophilia. We will soon be able to create child sex-bots, with no brains or consciousness, who could slake the appetites of pedophiles, so they wouldn't have to go to jail for attacking real kids. That means real kids go unmolested, yet pedos don't have to be locked up, expensively, for life.
Surely this, too, is win win. Yet I've heard people arguing that we shouldn't allow child sex bots, as this somehow "encourages" pedophilia. To me this seems insane. No human will suffer, many real kids at risk will be saved. And they OBJECT??
It speaks of a puritan agenda hidden within the anti-sex, anti-hunting ethos: they don't object to the act, it's the pleasure taken which annoys them.
I would have no problem with a robot fox hunt. The child thing is deeply disturbing.
Seting aside the happily abusive PB banter, I know what you mean. There is something disturbing about creating child sex bots to slake pedophile desires. I *get* the revulsion. I kinda share it.
And yet logically this revulsion is absurd. We should allow indeed encourage this tech development, as it would protect real human children from the predations of molestors.
I suspect our rational morality is coloured, here, by more atavistic emotions.
To complicate the argument, police forces are now creating online child sex tempters, entirely non-existent, to attract and then convict pedos. I also find THAT somehow disturbing.
On the latter point isn't that just like the cars some police forces would use to try and catch car theft criminals?
On the first point. I don't think it would work. It wouldn't be the real thing. Isn't it a bit like your methadone analogy from the other day? Instead of putting a stop to the impulse, it would be fed, but not satisfied. It might even do more harm than good.
I get the feeling if white men were systematically beating up black men, David Lammy would mention the colour of the perpetrators... but still an interesting question
I get the feeling if white men were systematically beating up black men, David Lammy would mention the colour of the perpetrators... but still an interesting question
The BBC report Javid linked to commented on the race or ethnicity of the convicted too. I understand where Lammy is coming from on this, but I think he's gone a bit overboard in how he's attacking Javid about it.
The fact that Labour spent more time debating fox hunting than the war in Iraq shows what a skewed moral compass they had.
They focused on relative trivialities that made them feel good rather than on stuff that really mattered and whose consequences we - and Iraqis and others - are feeling to this day.
Yes, it was a class-warfare bone thrown by Blair to the slavering Labour Party dogs to keep them quiet while he concentrated on playing geopolitics (disastrously) with his mate GW Bush. It worked, too.
No, the duration was 90% due to obstructive tactics and filibustering by opponents (some of it breaching the conventions for how far the Lords could go) and 10% due to Tory Blair taking forever to give it adequate time (he was deliberately unhelpful on the subject, as his memoirs concede). And the idea that it was something to do with class war is just silly - the same Bill took out (rather more effectively) the largely working-class sport of hare coursing. I was one of the organisers, and I never heard any of the team describe the Bill in class terms. I've been involved in animal issues for even longer than human ones, as had several of the others like Tony Banks.
What I did feel was that the number of animals involved was too small to justify the focus on the issue - but in the end we felt we couldn't let the filibuster succeed.
I get the feeling if white men were systematically beating up black men, David Lammy would mention the colour of the perpetrators... but still an interesting question
The BBC report Javid linked to commented on the race or ethnicity of the convicted too. I understand where Lammy is coming from on this, but I think he's gone a bit overboard in how he's attacking Javid about it.
Overboard??? It's a ridiculous piece of whataboutery, Lammy is a dick. Even the lefty judge saw fit to mention the ethno-religious origin of the perps several times.
It is an undeniable fact that 85% of "street groomers" are Muslim, mostly Pakistani, even though they are about 3-5% of the population. It is an undeniable if repugnant cultural phenomenon.
It does Javid great credit that he is prepared to confront this, honestly. I'd happily see him as PM: a self made man, from humble origins, clearly smart, with a bit of backbone, who turned himself into a millionaire with hard work.
He lacks a little charisma, but compared to a robot like Starmer he is Abraham Lincoln.
You are free to take the use of overboard as understatement.
I get the feeling if white men were systematically beating up black men, David Lammy would mention the colour of the perpetrators... but still an interesting question
I get the feeling if white men were systematically beating up black men, David Lammy would mention the colour of the perpetrators... but still an interesting question
I almost certainly had a better - if more expensive - time the night aforehand. we stumbled out of the hotel and got caught up in a wave of very pleasant people.
The venomous hate of the anti-hunt protesters was quite something to behold. Oddly, this conflicts with Nick Palmer's anecdote ...
Amazing, eh, that they felt so passionately about defending the rights of defenceless wild animals? How gauche!
I suspect that most mass events feel very different according to which side you're on. One's eye is drawn to the most virulent posters, the most abusive marchers, and one doesn't especially notice reasonable people just walking along indicating support. But the march, which featured lots of personal attacks on Tony Blair (who ironically was the Government MP least keen on the ban, apart from Kate Hoey and a couple of others) was very counter-productive if it was intended to influence the government and its MPs, since its effect was to polarise.
How to do a march that DOES change minds is an interesting question. As I've said before, the silent Tamil march did work for me - I'd thought of Tamils in Sri Lanka merely as one of two rival factions, and the Gandhiesque display of dignified silence was impressive and made me think that maybe they were the side that needed more sympathy.
The Saturday march is trying, I think, to answer the claim that the issue is settled and most people are shrugging and making the best of Brexit, by showing that there's still very substantial resistance. If only a few thousand turned up it would backfire, of course, but it doesn't look as though that'll happen.
I hadn't planned to be on the march. Some of the stuff the protesters on *your* side where shouting was obscene. You may not have seen some of that, as you were on the other side of the fence and could not be everywhere. Likewise, I may not have seen bad behaviour by marchers outside my immediate vicinity.
But we were 'taken in' by a lovely family, and ended up having strawberries and champagne in ?Hyde Park? at the end of the march. I reckon we probably had more fun.
Swearing and obscenity vs tearing terrified defenceless animals limb from limb.
Still, you got strawberries.
As Sean says, every man has his price.
I hate to break it to you , but it was the countryside march. I don't have particularly strong views about foxhunting, but I do about the countryside.
The fact that Labour spent more time debating fox hunting than the war in Iraq shows what a skewed moral compass they had.
They focused on relative trivialities that made them feel good rather than on stuff that really mattered and whose consequences we - and Iraqis and others - are feeling to this day.
Yes, it was a class-warfare bone thrown by Blair to the slavering Labour Party dogs to keep them quiet while he concentrated on playing geopolitics (disastrously) with his mate GW Bush. It worked, too.
No, the duration was 90% due to obstructive tactics and filibustering by opponents (some of it breaching the conventions for how far the Lords could go) and 10% due to Tory Blair taking forever to give it adequate time (he was deliberately unhelpful on the subject, as his memoirs concede). And the idea that it was something to do with class war is just silly - the same Bill took out (rather more effectively) the largely working-class sport of hare coursing. I was one of the organisers, and I never heard any of the team describe the Bill in class terms. I've been involved in animal issues for even longer than human ones, as had several of the others like Tony Banks.
What I did feel was that the number of animals involved was too small to justify the focus on the issue - but in the end we felt we couldn't let the filibuster succeed.
Comments
It is certainly true of my eldest granddaughter (nearing 16) and her peer and social media groups .
And if so, good on them
It is certainly true of my eldest granddaughter (nearing 16) and her peer and social media groups .
And if so, good on them
And with that goodnight all!
Still, you got strawberries.
As Sean says, every man has his price.
And good night folks from me
There is no second go in politics for Clegg though, and like Vince he needs to move on so the party can regenerate. He will hopefully be a good influence on Facebook, he has experience of supping with the devil.
Will the #peoplesvote match tommorow change things? probably not. It does help in keeping the cause alive and the hard Brexiteers on the back foot. Peaceful demonstrations do change the debate, albeit usually rather later than intended.
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2015-01-08/huntrur.png
So, keep the ban, then?
(Actually you would find - if you bothered to enquire - that hunts bend over backwards to help anyone who shows interest to find a nag. But that doesn't fit your predetermined narrative.)
http://www.gourmetfly.com/Venerie.htm
If my granddaughter saw a hunt she would become be very angry, upset and in tears.
Don't tend to be toffs I think...
Personally, it is not an issue that bothers me, but it may well have cost May her majority.
Don't think he'd be down with foxhunters = paedos either.
And if people don't want them on their land they don't go over that land.
You are unaware of that of which you speak.
They focused on relative trivialities that made them feel good rather than on stuff that really mattered and whose consequences we - and Iraqis and others - are feeling to this day.
Are we playing a game?
I have to be up early in the morning.
On the first point. I don't think it would work. It wouldn't be the real thing. Isn't it a bit like your methadone analogy from the other day? Instead of putting a stop to the impulse, it would be fed, but not satisfied. It might even do more harm than good.
https://twitter.com/davidlammy/status/1053400721700372481?s=21
What I did feel was that the number of animals involved was too small to justify the focus on the issue - but in the end we felt we couldn't let the filibuster succeed.
Florida 15th: Dem 43%, GOP 43%
Virginia 2nd: Dem 43%, GOP 43%
Virginia 5th: Dem 46%, GOP 45%
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/upshot/elections-polls.html
Nope, thought not
Do fuck off mr Lammy
The mask slips!