How far tolerant societies should tolerate the threat from the intolerant is one of the most pressing questions of our times. Only up to a point is I think the honest answer, and indeed the revealed preference of these societies. Where that point is depends on your tolerance to the threat and that in part depends on whether the threat is to you and your loved ones directly. "if you tolerate this, your children will be next" turned out to be prophetic, after all.
So you are saying, to take a couple of counter examples, someone to whom fox-hunting is a crucial part of their way of life (and there are many such people), or someone who holds deeply-held religious views which mean they disapprove of schools teaching their children about LBGT rights, should not be tolerant of the threat to their way of life from the intolerance of metropolitan liberals?
Being concrete always helps. Examples of the kind of intolerant threats I am talking about are Islamist terrorism and the far right. These are people who are intolerant of other people's right to exist or to live their life in a way that involves no meaningful harm to others. It should be obvious that fox hunting involves an unacceptable level of cruelty towards animals - who while not perhaps deserving of all the same rights as humans deserve at least the right to not to experience pain simply so people can enjoy it. The right to bring your children up as you see fit is a strong one, but surely the right of gay people not to be subject to profound discrimination is stronger? Including of course the children involved, some of whom will be gay. Bring liberal doesn't mean that anyone can do anything they like whenever and wherever the fancy takes them. When rights collide, then the more profound right should dominate; this must involve a value judgement but in my view most cases are relatively obvious, as I think your two examples are.
They are far from obvious, you are just being intolerant and saying your views are 'more profound' than those you disagree with. After all, the two examples I gave represent what would have been the mainstream views of most people in the UK 30 years ago, and would still be the mainstream views in many societies today.
Autres temps, autres moeurs.
The foxes are irrelevant. It's the people who hunt them who are the targets.
That's ridiculous. Did Labour ban the Henley Regatta or anything else that the upper classes like doing that doesn't involve tearing another living creature limb from limb? I would argue the reverse is the case: fox hunting only survived so long, when working class bloodsport like dog fighting had been banned, because of who enjoyed doing it.
That's ridiculous. Did Labour ban the Henley Regatta or anything else that the upper classes like doing that doesn't involve tearing another living creature limb from limb? I would argue the reverse is the case: fox hunting only survived so long, when working class bloodsport like dog fighting had been banned, because of who enjoyed doing it.
Whilst I think you might be right, what would the other option be? The deal which they claim is the work of Satan?
I reckon (if we get this pre Brexit GE, that is) that the offerings will be -
Cons: The Brady amendment position. Drop the Stop, else we leave without a deal.
Lab: Renegotiate a softer deal, BINO really, and then a confirmatory Ref on that. And, yes, the WA, the work of Satan, will be pretty much as it is now. We have to sign it. Everyone knows that.
Then, as I say, my hunch is that Labour win that election (and quite easily) on the back of strong and growing Remainer sentiment.
But no Ref2 in 2019, obviously, not nearly enough time for the above to play out, so I'm still happily and bigly short of that on Betfair.
How far tolerant societies should tolerate the threat from the intolerant is one of the most pressing questions of our times. Only up to a point is I think the honest answer, and indeed the revealed preference of these societies. Where that point is depends on your tolerance to the threat and that in part depends on whether the threat is to you and your loved ones directly. "if you tolerate this, your children will be next" turned out to be prophetic, after all.
So you are saying, to take a couple of counter examples, someone to whom fox-hunting is a crucial part of their way of life (and there are many such people), or someone who holds deeply-held religious views which mean they disapprove of schools teaching their children about LBGT rights, should not be tolerant of the threat to their way of life from the intolerance of metropolitan liberals?
Be.
The exhaustive Burns Report concluded that fox hunting was not cruel.
Has the author of that report ever been ripped apart by a pack of dogs? I think the slaughtered foxes are the best judges of what amounts to cruelty.
Ask a lamb or pregnant sheep or hen savaged by a fox what they think of foxes, if we’re going to get into asking animals what they think.
The Burn report concluded that foxes were pests and needed to be culled and that many of the other ways of culling them were equally if not crueller than fox-hunting.
But the argument on this has been done. It’s not going to be brought back, foxes are still culled and trail hunting is still going on. There are more important issues in the countryside for politicians to address, if they can be bothered.
Pests. Abject nonsense. The only pest species on this planet is humankind.
Euro poll from France (Ifop-Fiducial for Paris Match)
République en marche (Macron) 22% Rassemblement national (LePen) 20.5% Les Républicains (UMP) 15% France insoumise (Melenchon) 9% Greens 8.5% Socialists 6% Debout la France (Gaullists) 4.5% Génération.s (ex Socialists led by Hamon) 3% Les Patriotes ( Philippot) 2.5%% Communists 2% UDI 1.5% Lutte ouvrière 1%
They have changed the electoral system this year. National lists (rather than regional) with a 5% threshold to get seats.
Lord above, is Melenchon still around? I bet against him in the penultimate French Presidential and won (unless I'm confusing him with another French lefty). I never thought I'd get nostalgic for old French statists, but they say distance lends enchantment...
How far tolerant societies should tolerate the threat from the intolerant is one of the most pressing questions of our times. Only up to a point is I think the honest answer, and indeed the revealed preference of these societies. Where that point is depends on your tolerance to the threat and that in part depends on whether the threat is to you and your loved ones directly. "if you tolerate this, your children will be next" turned out to be prophetic, after all.
So you are saying, to take a couple of counter examples, someone to whom fox-hunting is a crucial part of their way of life (and there are many such people), or someone who holds deeply-held religious views which mean they disapprove of schools teaching their children about LBGT rights, should not be tolerant of the threat to their way of life from the intolerance of metropolitan liberals?
Be.
The exhaustive Burns Report concluded that fox hunting was not cruel.
Has the author of that report ever been ripped apart by a pack of dogs? I think the slaughtered foxes are the best judges of what amounts to cruelty.
Ask a lamb or pregnant sheep or hen savaged by a fox what they think of foxes, if we’re going to get into asking animals what they think.
The Burn report concluded that foxes were pests and needed to be culled and that many of the other ways of culling them were equally if not crueller than fox-hunting.
But the argument on this has been done. It’s not going to be brought back, foxes are still culled and trail hunting is still going on. There are more important issues in the countryside for politicians to address, if they can be bothered.
Pests. Abject nonsense. The only pest species on this planet is humankind.
Labours policy for the EU elections will be the same fudge that’s happened for the last year .
Unless there’s a change of government then there’s no chance of another EU vote . You can’t just miraculously make another vote appear .
Another vote is very unlikely , there are very few EU nations left that want the UK to stay now anyway.
I say this as a staunch Remainer but really the UK has become a big problem now for the EU.
Just can’t see how another vote happens when you have the executive against it , and there’s no majority in the Commons for it anyway .
Am I missing something ?
Chuka was on Newnight the other night and agreed with the premise that the EU elections are kind of a proxy referendum...
So if the Tories are devoured by the Brexit Party in the shires and Labour are devoured by the Brexit Party in the north I assume we'll hear no more about referendums and CHUK will disband?
The Labour Party have few Leave voters compared to the Tories so will probably do okay . They will stay on the fence re another vote with the same all options on the table waffle .
Yet Lord Adonis is on his knees literally begging Labour leave voters (who he'd originally told to **** off) to keep voting Labour...
Labours policy for the EU elections will be the same fudge that’s happened for the last year .
Unless there’s a change of government then there’s no chance of another EU vote . You can’t just miraculously make another vote appear .
Another vote is very unlikely , there are very few EU nations left that want the UK to stay now anyway.
I say this as a staunch Remainer but really the UK has become a big problem now for the EU.
Just can’t see how another vote happens when you have the executive against it , and there’s no majority in the Commons for it anyway .
Am I missing something ?
Chuka was on Newnight the other night and agreed with the premise that the EU elections are kind of a proxy referendum...
So if the Tories are devoured by the Brexit Party in the shires and Labour are devoured by the Brexit Party in the north I assume we'll hear no more about referendums and CHUK will disband?
The Labour Party have few Leave voters compared to the Tories so will probably do okay . They will stay on the fence re another vote with the same all options on the table waffle .
In the low twenties, Labour have few Leave voters left. In the low thirties, they have quite a large number.
he stood again in 2017 presidential elections taking 19.5%. Later he won constituency number 4 of Bouches-du-Rhône (which basically is one of the Marseille seats) in the 2017 parliamentary elections and so he is still an MP.
Lord above, is Melenchon still around? I bet against him in the penultimate French Presidential and won (unless I'm confusing him with another French lefty). I never thought I'd get nostalgic for old French statists, but they say distance lends enchantment...
They are far from obvious, you are just being intolerant and saying your views are 'more profound' than those you disagree with. After all, the two examples I gave represent what would have been the mainstream views of most people in the UK 30 years ago, and would still be the mainstream views in many societies today.
Autres temps, autres moeurs.
Not really. I am not saying my views are profound. I am saying that your right to be the person you were created to be and love the people you want is more profound than my right to bring up my kids to hate you for it. I struggle to see how you could argue otherwise. If you say that you read it in a book that you think God wrote, there is no argument to be had since your views are rooted in faith and not reason. I support your right to believe it but not your right to harm other people because of your beliefs. (I am using "you" hypothetically here, I have no idea what your beliefs are). And if people believed otherwise 30 years ago, so what? People used to believe all kinds of crazy shit (and many still do) but that doesn't mean they are right. And in any case I don't think a majority of the UK population has supported fox hunting for a very long time, well over 30 years I am sure, although if you have polling to say otherwise I'd be more than happy to admit I am wrong.
The exhaustive Burns Report concluded that fox hunting was not cruel.
It is difficult for me to believe that the violent death of an animal by biting, penetration trauma, evisceration and dismemberment whilst alive and conscious is not cruel. If you said that it's less cruel than the alternatives then that would have been different, but in an absolute sense?
The problem is I can’t see an election before Brexit happens . The Tories aren’t going to vote for one whilst their poll numbers are in the toilet . Even with a new leader coming in on a hard Brexit offer the Brexit Party will say you can’t trust the Tories to deliver and that will cost them loads of votes.
I agree with you. Hard to see an election happening before Brexit. Cons are terrified.
But even harder to see Brexit happening before an election.
So given I cannot accept that we will stay in limbo until 2022, I must conclude that - somehow - an election is coming well before then.
Latest poll from Spain, the Roses are on 26.2 (-1.2 on two days ago), Aubergines on 13.5 (+1.1), Oranges 15.1 (+0.7), Water 19.9 (n/c), Broccoli 12.4 (-0.1). Slight reversion to last time as polling day approaches.
Quick question: is Spain one of those countries that restricts poll reporting? I assume that's why the vegetable thing.
Latest poll from Spain, the Roses are on 26.2 (-1.2 on two days ago), Aubergines on 13.5 (+1.1), Oranges 15.1 (+0.7), Water 19.9 (n/c), Broccoli 12.4 (-0.1). Slight reversion to last time as polling day approaches.
My theory is Roses are slightly over-estimated, Broccoli slightly under.
In the last election the aubergines and oranges under-performed and the same may well happen to Vo - oops broccoli! Unless there are some late changes the Roses will have trouble achieving an overall majority.
Latest poll from Spain, the Roses are on 26.2 (-1.2 on two days ago), Aubergines on 13.5 (+1.1), Oranges 15.1 (+0.7), Water 19.9 (n/c), Broccoli 12.4 (-0.1). Slight reversion to last time as polling day approaches.
Quick question: is Spain one of those countries that restricts poll reporting? I assume that's why the vegetable thing.
How far tolerant societies should tolerate the threat from the intolerant is one of the most pressing questions of our times. Only up to a point is I think the honest answer, and indeed the revealed preference of these societies. Where that point is depends on your tolerance to the threat and that in part depends on whether the threat is to you and your loved ones directly. "if you tolerate this, your children will be next" turned out to be prophetic, after all.
So you are saying, to take a couple of counter examples, someone to whom fox-hunting is a crucial part of their way of life (and there are many such people), or someone who holds deeply-held religious views which mean they disapprove of schools teaching their children about LBGT rights, should not be tolerant of the threat to their way of life from the intolerance of metropolitan liberals?
Given the extremely broad range of support for the fox hunting ban, across urban and rural areas and all major political parties, I'm not sure it's fair to characterise opponents of fox hunters as "metropolitan liberals". A more accurate demographic term would be "humans".
But to answer your question, no those people absolutely should not be tolerant of people like me seeking to force change on them. I want to defeat them, but it'd be 1984-esque madness for me to insist that they also love me for doing so.
No WAIB planned for next week at the moment . This of course could change but given the timeframes if it doesn’t happen then there’s no chance at all of it getting through before May 22.
On the democratic primary, what happens when a candidate with some delegates pledged drops out? Is it that they get to recommend who the delegates go to, but the delegates themselves ultimately decide? Do we have some sense of where each candidates' delegates would go?
he stood again in 2017 presidential elections taking 19.5%. Later he won constituency number 4 of Bouches-du-Rhône (which basically is one of the Marseille seats) in the 2017 parliamentary elections and so he is still an MP.
Lord above, is Melenchon still around? I bet against him in the penultimate French Presidential and won (unless I'm confusing him with another French lefty). I never thought I'd get nostalgic for old French statists, but they say distance lends enchantment...
Latest poll from Spain, the Roses are on 26.2 (-1.2 on two days ago), Aubergines on 13.5 (+1.1), Oranges 15.1 (+0.7), Water 19.9 (n/c), Broccoli 12.4 (-0.1). Slight reversion to last time as polling day approaches.
Quick question: is Spain one of those countries that restricts poll reporting? I assume that's why the vegetable thing.
Awkward.....some confused Ozzies reading their equivalent of the Current Bun were subjected to the horrors of finding pages from the equivalent of the Guardian...
Latest poll from Spain, the Roses are on 26.2 (-1.2 on two days ago), Aubergines on 13.5 (+1.1), Oranges 15.1 (+0.7), Water 19.9 (n/c), Broccoli 12.4 (-0.1). Slight reversion to last time as polling day approaches.
Sounds like Gardeners' Question Time.
Electomania did a good job with their joke taglines:
Haz que rose (Haz que pase! "Make it happen") Vapor seguro (Valor seguro "safe value") Vamos Zumasol (Zumasol is famous for its oranges - in place of Vamos Ciudadanos "Let's go Citizens") Por VOS-otros ('Por España" "for Spain") La berenjena la horneas tú (lit. "the aubergine that you bake", in place of "La historia la escribes tú" - the story that you write)
Latest poll from Spain, the Roses are on 26.2 (-1.2 on two days ago), Aubergines on 13.5 (+1.1), Oranges 15.1 (+0.7), Water 19.9 (n/c), Broccoli 12.4 (-0.1). Slight reversion to last time as polling day approaches.
My theory is Roses are slightly over-estimated, Broccoli slightly under.
In the last election the aubergines and oranges under-performed and the same may well happen to Vo - oops broccoli! Unless there are some late changes the Roses will have trouble achieving an overall majority.
Spain would be basically ungovernable on these figures. Neither of the two natural alliances, Roses and Aubergines, or Water and Orange (or even with Broccoli - I suppose steamed broccoli could make sense) would be short. The next would be Rose, Aubergine and some Orange support.
On the democratic primary, what happens when a candidate with some delegates pledged drops out? Is it that they get to recommend who the delegates go to, but the delegates themselves ultimately decide? Do we have some sense of where each candidates' delegates would go?
Also, which states are winner-takes-all and which are proportional?
The problem is I can’t see an election before Brexit happens . The Tories aren’t going to vote for one whilst their poll numbers are in the toilet . Even with a new leader coming in on a hard Brexit offer the Brexit Party will say you can’t trust the Tories to deliver and that will cost them loads of votes.
I agree with you. Hard to see an election happening before Brexit. Cons are terrified.
But even harder to see Brexit happening before an election.
So given I cannot accept that we will stay in limbo until 2022, I must conclude that - somehow - an election is coming well before then.
Agreed. But I think we will be in limbo until 2022 and perhaps much longer. Norway is technically in limbo, it is, in theory, transitioning in to the EU. And it has been in that position since the 1990s.
And having the UK in limbo will come to seem an attractive option for the EU - we will still be paying the bills but shorn of any real political influence. A continuing example of the fate that awaits any other country misguided enough to consider leaving. What's not to like for the 27?
How far tolerant societies should tolerate the threat from the intolerant is one of the most pressing questions of our times. Only up to a point is I think the honest answer, and indeed the revealed preference of these societies. Where that point is depends on your tolerance to the threat and that in part depends on whether the threat is to you and your loved ones directly. "if you tolerate this, your children will be next" turned out to be prophetic, after all.
So you are saying, to take a couple of counter examples, someone to whom fox-hunting is a crucial part of their way of life (and there are many such people), or someone who holds deeply-held religious views which mean they disapprove of schools teaching their children about LBGT rights, should not be tolerant of the threat to their way of life from the intolerance of metropolitan liberals?
Being concrete always helps. Examples of the kind of intolerant threats I am talking about are Islamist terrorism and the far right. These are people who are intolerant of other people's right to exist or to live their life in a way that involves no meaningful harm to others. It should be obvious that fox hunting involves an unacceptable level of cruelty towards animals - who while not perhaps deserving of all the same rights as humans deserve at least the right to not to experience pain simply so people can enjoy it. The right to bring your children up as you see fit is a strong one, but surely the right of gay people not to be subject to profound discrimination is stronger? Including of course the children involved, some of whom will be gay. Bring liberal doesn't mean that anyone can do anything they like whenever and wherever the fancy takes them. When rights collide, then the more profound right should dominate; this must involve a value judgement but in my view most cases are relatively obvious, as I think your two examples are.
The exhaustive Burns Report concluded that fox hunting was not cruel.
Can you show me where in the Burns report that conclusion is stated?
On the democratic primary, what happens when a candidate with some delegates pledged drops out? Is it that they get to recommend who the delegates go to, but the delegates themselves ultimately decide? Do we have some sense of where each candidates' delegates would go?
Delegates are unbound and get to decide who they will vote for. They may or may not follow the recommendation of their original nominee.
On the democratic primary, what happens when a candidate with some delegates pledged drops out? Is it that they get to recommend who the delegates go to, but the delegates themselves ultimately decide? Do we have some sense of where each candidates' delegates would go?
Also, which states are winner-takes-all and which are proportional?
How far tolerant societies should tolerate the threat from the intolerant is one of the most pressing questions of our times. Only up to a point is I think the honest answer, and indeed the revealed preference of these societies. Where that point is depends on your tolerance to the threat and that in part depends on whether the threat is to you and your loved ones directly. "if you tolerate this, your children will be next" turned out to be prophetic, after all.
So you are saying, to take a couple of counter examples, someone to whom fox-hunting is a crucial part of their way of life (and there are many such people), or someone who holds deeply-held religious views which mean they disapprove of schools teaching their children about LBGT rights, should not be tolerant of the threat to their way of life from the intolerance of metropolitan liberals?
Being concrete always helps. Examples of the kind of intolerant threats I am talking about are Islamist terrorism and the far right. These are people who are intolerant of other people's right to exist or to live their life in a way that involves no meaningful harm to others. It should be obvious that fox hunting involves an unacceptable level of cruelty towards animals - who while not perhaps deserving of all the same rights as humans deserve at least the right to not to experience pain simply so people can enjoy it. The right to bring your children up as you see fit is a strong one, but surely the right of gay people not to be subject to profound discrimination is stronger? Including of course the children involved, some of whom will be gay. Bring liberal doesn't mean that anyone can do anything they like whenever and wherever the fancy takes them. When rights collide, then the more profound right should dominate; this must involve a value judgement but in my view most cases are relatively obvious, as I think your two examples are.
The exhaustive Burns Report concluded that fox hunting was not cruel.
Can you show me where in the Burns report that conclusion is stated?
The exhaustive Burns Report concluded that fox hunting was not cruel.
It is difficult for me to believe that the violent death of an animal by biting, penetration trauma, evisceration and dismemberment whilst alive and conscious is not cruel. If you said that it's less cruel than the alternatives then that would have been different, but in an absolute sense?
Foxes don't line up to be euthanased. They are a pest and are either shot or trapped or gassed. They used to be hunted.
Not ways you or I might choose to go but then again I'm not sure setting a pack of Lucas terriers on rats (perfectly legal, and about which there has been at least one TV documentary) is particularly nice either.
This seems to me to be wishful thinking. As far as I can see, Labour have nowhere stated that they will offer a second referendum, with Remain as one of the options. They did not do so in 2017, they have not done so at any point since.
They would like people to believe that they might, with all sorts of weasel wording floated about. But they have not been clear. I may be wrong but far too many people are choosing to believe what they would like to be true.
I think it will come down to a dispassionate calculation of electoral impact.
"If we offer Reneg + Ref2 will we gain more seats due to increased Remainer support than we lose due to decreased Leaver support?"
They will ask that question and if they are confident that the answer is Yes they will do it.
On the democratic primary, what happens when a candidate with some delegates pledged drops out? Is it that they get to recommend who the delegates go to, but the delegates themselves ultimately decide? Do we have some sense of where each candidates' delegates would go?
The delegates decide, though naturally they will be interested in any recommendation that their pledgee makes.
You'd normally expect ideological leaning to decide (e.g. Warren delegates to go Sanders), unless there is too much bad blood (not uncommon between candidates fishing in the same pool).
How far tolerant societies should tolerate the threat from the intolerant is one of the most pressing questions of our times. Only up to a point is I think the honest answer, and indeed the revealed preference of these societies. Where that point is depends on your tolerance to the threat and that in part depends on whether the threat is to you and your loved ones directly. "if you tolerate this, your children will be next" turned out to be prophetic, after all.
So you are saying, to take a couple of counter examples, someone to whom fox-hunting is a crucial part of their way of life (and there are many such people), or someone who holds deeply-held religious views which mean they disapprove of schools teaching their children about LBGT rights, should not be tolerant of the threat to their way of life from the intolerance of metropolitan liberals?
Being concrete always helps. Examples of the kind of intolerant threats I am talking about are Islamist terrorism and the far right. These are people who are intolerant of other people's right to exist or to live their life in a way that involves no meaningful harm to others. It should be obvious that fox hunting involves an unacceptable level of cruelty towards animals - who while not perhaps deserving of all the same rights as humans deserve at least the right to not to experience pain simply so people can enjoy it. The right to bring your children up as you see fit is a strong one, but surely the right of gay people not to be subject to profound discrimination is stronger? Including of course the children involved, some of whom will be gay. Bring liberal doesn't mean that anyone can do anything they like whenever and wherever the fancy takes them. When rights collide, then the more profound right should dominate; this must involve a value judgement but in my view most cases are relatively obvious, as I think your two examples are.
The exhaustive Burns Report concluded that fox hunting was not cruel.
Can you show me where in the Burns report that conclusion is stated?
As someone has already goggled he could not say that it was cruel. I'm sure he would have done so if the evidence had been there.
And here I thought it was supposed to be lefties who lack common sense. Is this seriously an argument you're trying to make or are you quoting a deleted scene from Brazil?
How far tolerant societies should tolerate the threat from the intolerant is one of the most pressing questions of our times. Only up to a point is I think the honest answer, and indeed the revealed preference of these societies. Where that point is depends on your tolerance to the threat and that in part depends on whether the threat is to you and your loved ones directly. "if you tolerate this, your children will be next" turned out to be prophetic, after all.
So you are saying, to take a couple of counter examples, someone to whom fox-hunting is a crucial part of their way of life (and there are many such people), or someone who holds deeply-held religious views which mean they disapprove of schools teaching their children about LBGT rights, should not be tolerant of the threat to their way of life from the intolerance of metropolitan liberals?
Being concrete always helps. Examples of the kind of intolerant threats I am talking about are Islamist terrorism and the far right. These are people who are intolerant of other people's right to exist or to live their life in a way that involves no meaningful harm to others. It should be obvious that fox hunting involves an unacceptable level of cruelty towards animals - who while not perhaps deserving of all the same rights as humans deserve at least the right to not to experience pain simply so people can enjoy it. The right to bring your children up as you see fit is a strong one, but surely the right of gay people not to be subject to profound discrimination is stronger? Including of course the children involved, some of whom will be gay. Bring liberal doesn't mean that anyone can do anything they like whenever and wherever the fancy takes them. When rights collide, then the more profound right should dominate; this must involve a value judgement but in my view most cases are relatively obvious, as I think your two examples are.
The exhaustive Burns Report concluded that fox hunting was not cruel.
Can you show me where in the Burns report that conclusion is stated?
Latest poll from Spain, the Roses are on 26.2 (-1.2 on two days ago), Aubergines on 13.5 (+1.1), Oranges 15.1 (+0.7), Water 19.9 (n/c), Broccoli 12.4 (-0.1). Slight reversion to last time as polling day approaches.
My theory is Roses are slightly over-estimated, Broccoli slightly under.
In the last election the aubergines and oranges under-performed and the same may well happen to Vo - oops broccoli! Unless there are some late changes the Roses will have trouble achieving an overall majority.
Yes but the movement compared to last time is Aubergine to Roses, with Roses having a similar campaign bump that Aubergine got before..that didn’t materialise at the ballot box.
That and the same pollsters overestimated Roses in the Andalusian election, and underestimated Broccoli. So I’m wondering if it’s a systematic effect caused by the separatist debate.
How far tolerant societies should tolerate the threat from the intolerant is one of the most pressing questions of our times. Only up to a point is I think the honest answer, and indeed the revealed preference of these societies. Where that point is depends on your tolerance to the threat and that in part depends on whether the threat is to you and your loved ones directly. "if you tolerate this, your children will be next" turned out to be prophetic, after all.
So you are saying, to take a couple of counter exaople), or someone who holds deeply-held religious views which mean they disapprove of schools teaching their children about LBGT rights, should not be tolerant of the threat to their way of life from the intolerance of metropolitan liberals?
Being concrete always helps. Examples of the kind of intolerant threats I am talking about are Islamist terrorism and the far right. These are people who are intolerant of other people's right to exist or to live their life in a way that involves no meaningful harm to others. It should be obvious that fox hunting involves an unacceptable level of cruelty towards animals - who while not perhaps deserving of all the same rights as humans deserve at least the right to not to experience pain simply so people can enjoy it. The right to bring your children up as you see fit is a strong one, but surely the right of gay people not to be subject to profound discrimination is stronger? Including of course the children involved, some of whom will be gay. Bring liberal doesn't mean that anyone can do anything they like whenever and wherever the fancy takes them. When rights collide, then the more profound right should dominate; this must involve a value judgement but in my view most cases are relatively obvious, as I think your two examples are.
The exhaustive Burns Report concluded that fox hunting was not cruel.
Can you show me where in the Burns report that conclusion is stated?
As someone has already goggled he could not say that it was cruel. I'm sure he would have done so if the evidence had been there.
And here I thought it was supposed to be lefties who lack common sense. Is this seriously an argument you're trying to make or are you quoting a deleted scene from Brazil?
It was an enquiry into fox hunting. Do you think he would have found it to be cruel and just obtusely not said as much?
Agreed. But I think we will be in limbo until 2022 and perhaps much longer. Norway is technically in limbo, it is, in theory, transitioning in to the EU. And it has been in that position since the 1990s.
And having the UK in limbo will come to seem an attractive option for the EU - we will still be paying the bills but shorn of any real political influence. A continuing example of the fate that awaits any other country misguided enough to consider leaving. What's not to like for the 27?
I suppose limbos can go on for a long long time. The word itself does rather have that flavour to it.
If you are right I would be even more worried about Farage. Years of 'Brexit Limbo' would provide a near perfect backdrop for some serious populist monkey business.
The 2022 general election in those circumstances could be a wild & bumpy ride.
Hunting. Can’t say I like it but perhaps it’s better than the badger solution which appears to be mass-suicides on main roads.
I have no particilar view on banning fox hunting, though I deplore people wanting to do it.
I am quite happy for Tories to bang on about it. It lost them a critical few seats last GE!
You have put your finger on it.
It can't be said to be cruel yet you dislike the fact that people enjoy it. But whether they enjoy it or not is irrelevant to the argument.
It was one of several methods of killing foxes but you didn't want people to enjoy it. I wonder whether the local gamekeepers have a smile on their face as they dispatch the foxes.
How far tolerant societies should tolerate the threat from the intolerant is one of the most pressing questions of our times. Only up to a point is I think the honest answer, and indeed the revealed preference of these societies. Where that point is depends on your tolerance to the threat and that in part depends on whether the threat is to you and your loved ones directly. "if you tolerate this, your children will be next" turned out to be prophetic, after all.
So you are saying, to take a couple of counter examples, someone to whom fox-hunting is a crucial part of their way of life (and there are many such people), or someone who holds deeply-held religious views which mean they disapprove of schools teaching their children about LBGT rights, should not be tolerant of the threat to their way of life from the intolerance of metropolitan liberals?
Being concrete always helps. Examples of the kind of intolerant threats I am talking about are Islamist terrorism and the far right. These are people who are intolerant of other people's right to exist or to live their life in a way that involves no meaningful harm to others. It should be obvious that fox hunting involves an unacceptable level of cruelty towards animals - who while not perhaps deserving of all the same rights as humans deserve at least the right to not to experience pain simply so people can enjoy it. The right to bring your children up as you see fit is a strong one, but surely the right of gay people not to be subject to profound discrimination is stronger? Including of course the children involved, some of whom will be gay. Bring liberal doesn't mean that anyone can do anything they like whenever and wherever the fancy takes them. When rights collide, then the more profound right should dominate; this must involve a value judgement but in my view most cases are relatively obvious, as I think your two examples are.
“It is obvious that”
Thank goodness we didn’t have a public inquiry that concluded the opposite
Hunting. Can’t say I like it but perhaps it’s better than the badger solution which appears to be mass-suicides on main roads.
I have no particilar view on banning fox hunting, though I deplore people wanting to do it.
I am quite happy for Tories to bang on about it. It lost them a critical few seats last GE!
You have put your finger on it.
It can't be said to be cruel yet you dislike the fact that people enjoy it. But whether they enjoy it or not is irrelevant to the argument.
It was one of several methods of killing foxes but you didn't want people to enjoy it. I wonder whether the local gamekeepers have a smile on their face as they dispatch the foxes.
It isn’t unreasonable to conclude that there is something highly distasteful about people deliberately prolonging a creature’s pursuit and death in order to provide ‘sport’ and enjoyment. It’s in the same category as cock or bull fighting in that regard.
It’s also a myth that opposition is concentrated in towns. People concerned about the issue are typically older, very many of whom lie in the countryside. Hunts’ typical disregard for other people’s private property, with trespass and damage on private land and even the trashing of gardens in villages not uncommon, does little to win support from many rural communities.
A friend of mine campaigned for Labour in the doomed 1983 campaign, but suffered even more than the average left wing activist that year. He was bitten on the arm by an old lady on whose door he knocked. It drew blood and so he went to the GP who, somewhat oddly from my point of view, gave him a tetanus jab. He reacted to it and spent the next couple of weeks in bed with a fever. Meanwhile Maggie went on to win a landslide. He still wonders if he had still been on the streets rather than in bed if he might have turned the situation around.
How far tolerant societies should tolerate the threat from the intolerant is one of the most pressing questions of our times. Only up to a point is I think the honest answer, and indeed the revealed preference of these societies. Where that point is depends on your tolerance to the threat and that in part depends on whether the threat is to you and your loved ones directly. "if you tolerate this, your children will be next" turned out to be prophetic, after all.
So you are saying, to take a couple of counter examples, someone to whom fox-hunting is a crucial part of their way of life (and there are many such people), or someone who holds deeply-held religious views which mean they disapprove of schools teaching their children about LBGT rights, should not be tolerant of the threat to their way of life from the intolerance of metropolitan liberals?
Being concrete always helps. Examples of the kind of intolerant threats I am talking about are Islamist terrorism and the far right. These are people who are intolerant of other people's right to exist or to live their life in a way that involves no meaningful harm to others. It should be obvious that fox hunting involves an unacceptable level of cruelty towards animals - who while not perhaps deserving of all the same rights as humans deserve at least the right to not to experience pain simply so people can enjoy it. The right to bring your children up as you see fit is a strong one, but surely the right of gay people not to be subject to profound discrimination is stronger? Including of course the children involved, some of whom will be gay. Bring liberal doesn't mean that anyone can do anything they like whenever and wherever the fancy takes them. When rights collide, then the more profound right should dominate; this must involve a value judgement but in my view most cases are relatively obvious, as I think your two examples are.
The exhaustive Burns Report concluded that fox hunting was not cruel.
Because foxes love being chased for miles and then being torn apart by a pack of dogs? Seems unlikely although I have not read this report and am generally in favour of listening to experts, if indeed that is what Mr or Mrs Burns is.
It's not a quick death for the fox. In fact, it can be a long drawn out chase and then tearing limb from limb. Throw 'pleasure' into that and it's not a great activity really, in this day and age?
Foxes are frankly pretty horrible creatures. So shoot them. Instantaneous.
As I have to head off it's probably just easier to accept that the problem with fox hunting for opponents of it is the people who hunt.
They couldn't give a stuff about any other instances of similar supposed cruelty eg the Lucas terrier example, or fishing or..or.
And that's fine. They hate the apparent poshos who hunt. All good. But don't dress it up as some animal welfare issue.
Good lord, the rhetorical knots you have to tie yourself up in to argue that opposition to fox hunting isn't about animal welfare.
If for some reason this assertion doesn't trigger your in-built bullshit detector, how about giving it the most rudimentary test against reality? Why is there such widespread opposition to fox-hunting alone, not other "posh" things like the monarchy? Why is the opposition to fox hunting (poshos) also matched by opposition to dog-fighting (plebs) both in polling ( https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2017-12/17-085298-01_im_hunting_poll_q1_191217_public.pdf ) and advocacy groups ( https://www.league.org.uk/Pages/Category/campaigns )? Why, in fact, would we be okay with drag hunting in which people who are just as posh get just as dressed up, but no animal is killed?
Is it just possible that instead of being a bizarrely specific, indirect, rebellion against the aristocracy, our largely animal-loving society just doesn't like the idea of killing intelligent animals for sport?
They are far from obvious, you are just being intolerant and saying your views are 'more profound' than those you disagree with. After all, the two examples I gave represent what would have been the mainstream views of most people in the UK 30 years ago, and would still be the mainstream views in many societies today.
Autres temps, autres moeurs.
Not really. I am not saying my views are profound. I am saying that your right to be the person you were created to be and love the people you want is more profound than my right to bring up my kids to hate you for it. I struggle to see how you could argue otherwise. If you say that you read it in a book that you think God wrote, there is no argument to be had since your views are rooted in faith and not reason. I support your right to believe it but not your right to harm other people because of your beliefs. (I am using "you" hypothetically here, I have no idea what your beliefs are). And if people believed otherwise 30 years ago, so what? People used to believe all kinds of crazy shit (and many still do) but that doesn't mean they are right. And in any case I don't think a majority of the UK population has supported fox hunting for a very long time, well over 30 years I am sure, although if you have polling to say otherwise I'd be more than happy to admit I am wrong.
You are not doing your argument any good by twisting opposition to LGBT topics being taught in schools into bringing up kids to hate you! All you are doing by that absurd piece of scarcely-disguised prejudice is supporting my point.
As for your second paragraph, you don't seem to have understood the point. You said the rights and wrongs were obvious. How can they be obvious when they are not overwhelmingly held now in many societies, or haven't been recently?
It's not a quick death for the fox. In fact, it can be a long drawn out chase and then tearing limb from limb. Throw 'pleasure' into that and it's not a great activity really, in this day and age?
Foxes are frankly pretty horrible creatures. So shoot them. Instantaneous.
This seems to me to be wishful thinking. As far as I can see, Labour have nowhere stated that they will offer a second referendum, with Remain as one of the options. They did not do so in 2017, they have not done so at any point since.
They would like people to believe that they might, with all sorts of weasel wording floated about. But they have not been clear. I may be wrong but far too many people are choosing to believe what they would like to be true.
I think you're right that they haven't been clear they'd do that. It's definitely not *certain* that they would, but given a split party with no obviously popular option, the obvious move is "renegotiate and referendum". That's why Wilson and Cameron both went that route, and I don't see why Corbyn wouldn't.
A friend of mine campaigned for Labour in the doomed 1983 campaign, but suffered even more than the average left wing activist that year. He was bitten on the arm by an old lady on whose door he knocked. It drew blood and so he went to the GP who, somewhat oddly from my point of view, gave him a tetanus jab. He reacted to it and spent the next couple of weeks in bed with a fever. Meanwhile Maggie went on to win a landslide. He still wonders if he had still been on the streets rather than in bed if he might have turned the situation around.
He should just be glad that he survived the zombie apocalypse
The exhaustive Burns Report concluded that fox hunting was not cruel.
It is difficult for me to believe that the violent death of an animal by biting, penetration trauma, evisceration and dismemberment whilst alive and conscious is not cruel. If you said that it's less cruel than the alternatives then that would have been different, but in an absolute sense?
Foxes don't line up to be euthanased. They are a pest and are either shot or trapped or gassed. They used to be hunted.
Not ways you or I might choose to go but then again I'm not sure setting a pack of Lucas terriers on rats (perfectly legal, and about which there has been at least one TV documentary) is particularly nice either.
Rentokil quoted me £3,500 to shoot a fox that has taken to pissing in my front garden.
It's not a quick death for the fox. In fact, it can be a long drawn out chase and then tearing limb from limb. Throw 'pleasure' into that and it's not a great activity really, in this day and age?
Foxes are frankly pretty horrible creatures. So shoot them. Instantaneous.
You must be a helluva good shot
Kidding me? They're easy to shoot especially with a rifle and telescopic. They're not fast moving, they're pretty large.
Try shooting a woodcock. That's a lot harder.
There are lots of anomalies out there. I try to stick to the principle that if you shoot or hunt it you should eat it, skin it and wear it. Foxes don't fit that principle but they kill for pleasure so have to be controlled.
Reminds me of the animal welfare issue after some well-meaning people released mink into the wild. Now they wait on the river beds and bite off swans' heads for the hell of it.
And as for otters ... beautiful but awful for fish stocks. They, too, need controlling.
I think you're right that they haven't been clear they'd do that. It's definitely not *certain* that they would, but given a split party with no obviously popular option, the obvious move is "renegotiate and referendum". That's why Wilson and Cameron both went that route, and I don't see why Corbyn wouldn't.
That's probably right, except that it is very clear that Corbyn and some of his most important immediate circle are dead against a referendum and pretty strongly in favour of Brexit going ahead. I think he will continue to resist the calls from the bulk of the party to commit to a referendum, but I agree with you that ultimately he's likely to be dragged into supporting one if the timing of any GE before Brexit makes it a viable option. I also think it would be electorally to Labour's benefit.
The exhaustive Burns Report concluded that fox hunting was not cruel.
It is difficult for me to believe that the violent death of an animal by biting, penetration trauma, evisceration and dismemberment whilst alive and conscious is not cruel. If you said that it's less cruel than the alternatives then that would have been different, but in an absolute sense?
Foxes don't line up to be euthanased. They are a pest and are either shot or trapped or gassed. They used to be hunted.
Not ways you or I might choose to go but then again I'm not sure setting a pack of Lucas terriers on rats (perfectly legal, and about which there has been at least one TV documentary) is particularly nice either.
Rentokil quoted me £3,500 to shoot a fox that has taken to pissing in my front garden.
That fishing is a little less visceral than blood sports.
The fish may feel a little differently about that. You're going for that tasty nibble, and you find a hook in your cheek. You're then pulled along, sometimes for minutes, and then you're out of your watery realm and drowning in air.
If you're lucky you'll get thrown back into the water, but you always know that the next nibble you need to live might lead to the same again.
But that's okay, apparently.
Every moral position has difficulties and ambiguities. Animal rights are no different.
Biden clearly the Democrats best chance in the general election, his problem will be getting through the primaries
The age thing has to be an issue at this election. Hilary would have been the second oldest President, Trump is the oldest. Although both of them currently seem to be in good health, as does Biden, the fact is that Biden is four years older than Trump. Saunders is older still. The average age of Presidents at first inauguration is 55. I think we will see a regression to the mean.
On the age profile, not too old, not too young, not too weird, then I would suggest Cory Booker and Kirsten Gillibrand as the most Papabile of the Democrats and, if you are looking for a non-Trump Republican, John Kasich.
Agreed these are pretty mainstream choices, but after Trump I think voters would prefer normal levels of political evil rather than the shitshow circus of political evil (an several other kinds of evil) that we have had over the past two and a half years.
As I have to head off it's probably just easier to accept that the problem with fox hunting for opponents of it is the people who hunt.
They couldn't give a stuff about any other instances of similar supposed cruelty eg the Lucas terrier example, or fishing or..or.
And that's fine. They hate the apparent poshos who hunt. All good. But don't dress it up as some animal welfare issue.
Good lord, the rhetorical knots you have to tie yourself up in to argue that opposition to fox hunting isn't about animal welfare.
If for some reason this assertion doesn't trigger your in-built bullshit detector, how about giving it the most rudimentary test against reality? Why is there such widespread opposition to fox-hunting alone, not other "posh" things like the monarchy? Why is the opposition to fox hunting (poshos) also matched by opposition to dog-fighting (plebs) both in polling ( https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2017-12/17-085298-01_im_hunting_poll_q1_191217_public.pdf ) and advocacy groups ( https://www.league.org.uk/Pages/Category/campaigns )? Why, in fact, would we be okay with drag hunting in which people who are just as posh get just as dressed up, but no animal is killed?
Is it just possible that instead of being a bizarrely specific, indirect, rebellion against the aristocracy, our largely animal-loving society just doesn't like the idea of killing intelligent animals for sport?
It's actually very simple.
Killing foxes by hunting them was not found to be cruel ergo let's go with it's not cruel. I don't think this is a big leap to take.
When a fox was hunted it was chased which for an animal is not a hugely out of the ordinary phenomenon. It was then indeed ripped apart. But there are plenty of animal deaths which at the, er, death are horrible.
The context of this is that foxes are killed. By other horrible deaths such as trapping or gassing or shooting. Our animal loving nation doesn't give a stuff about that. Hunting was one means of dispatch and the big objection is that people who did it enjoyed it.
That is a very weak argument but not to worry, the argument won. Hunting is now banned.
That fishing is a little less visceral than blood sports.
The fish may feel a little differently about that. You're going for that tasty nibble, and you find a hook in your cheek. You're then pulled along, sometimes for minutes, and then you're out of your watery realm and drowning in air.
If you're lucky you'll get thrown back into the water, but you always know that the next nibble you need to live might lead to the same again.
But that's okay, apparently.
Every moral position has difficulties and ambiguities. Animal rights are no different.
Which is why I only fish to eat with the exception of Atlantic salmon which I always now tend to return to the river. They head up to spawn, then die, so the temporary trip to the river bank isn't the worst that can happen.
The exhaustive Burns Report concluded that fox hunting was not cruel.
It is difficult for me to believe that the violent death of an animal by biting, penetration trauma, evisceration and dismemberment whilst alive and conscious is not cruel. If you said that it's less cruel than the alternatives then that would have been different, but in an absolute sense?
Foxes don't line up to be euthanased. They are a pest and are either shot or trapped or gassed. They used to be hunted.
Not ways you or I might choose to go but then again I'm not sure setting a pack of Lucas terriers on rats (perfectly legal, and about which there has been at least one TV documentary) is particularly nice either.
Rentokil quoted me £3,500 to shoot a fox that has taken to pissing in my front garden.
A lot cheaper to buy a rifle and do it yourself
Firstly you have to be an excellent shot. A small moving target at a distance in the dark is not easy to get a clean kill. Far more foxes are wounded and the bleed to death or get infections. That’s a slow and painful way to go.
Second the police don’t like it when I pull my big gun out on the streets of London
It's not a quick death for the fox. In fact, it can be a long drawn out chase and then tearing limb from limb. Throw 'pleasure' into that and it's not a great activity really, in this day and age?
Foxes are frankly pretty horrible creatures. So shoot them. Instantaneous.
You must be a helluva good shot
Kidding me? They're easy to shoot especially with a rifle and telescopic. They're not fast moving, they're pretty large.
(Skip)
Hmmm. I never did that form of shooting, but I know people who do. If your primary aim is to reduce suffering, then you need to ensure that you kill the fox outright, and don't have it running to ground injured. Apparently that's much more difficult to do.
The exhaustive Burns Report concluded that fox hunting was not cruel.
It is difficult for me to believe that the violent death of an animal by biting, penetration trauma, evisceration and dismemberment whilst alive and conscious is not cruel. If you said that it's less cruel than the alternatives then that would have been different, but in an absolute sense?
Foxes don't line up to be euthanased. They are a pest and are either shot or trapped or gassed. They used to be hunted.
Not ways you or I might choose to go but then again I'm not sure setting a pack of Lucas terriers on rats (perfectly legal, and about which there has been at least one TV documentary) is particularly nice either.
Rentokil quoted me £3,500 to shoot a fox that has taken to pissing in my front garden.
A lot cheaper to buy a rifle and do it yourself
Firstly you have to be an excellent shot. A small moving target at a distant in the dark is not easy to get a clean kill. Far more foxes are wounded and the bleed to death or get infections. That’s a slow and painful way to go.
Second the police don’t like it when I pull my big gun out on the streets of London
You seriously don't have to be even a half-decent shot to kill a fox. If you want to do it at night, use a nightscope.
Taking down a fox is a piece of piss compared to game birds like woodcock.
Bit of practice down the ranges and you'll be ready to squeeze that trigger.
That Biden film is fantastic. Even if he doesn't make the ticket I expect his message to become a core component of the Democrats attack.
Which won't much help cohesion in America. Calling racist redeck scum "racist redneck scum" might not make them like you much whilst they'e shouting "THEY DEK ERR JERBS!"
Agreed. But I think we will be in limbo until 2022 and perhaps much longer. Norway is technically in limbo, it is, in theory, transitioning in to the EU. And it has been in that position since the 1990s.
And having the UK in limbo will come to seem an attractive option for the EU - we will still be paying the bills but shorn of any real political influence. A continuing example of the fate that awaits any other country misguided enough to consider leaving. What's not to like for the 27?
I suppose limbos can go on for a long long time. The word itself does rather have that flavour to it.
If you are right I would be even more worried about Farage. Years of 'Brexit Limbo' would provide a near perfect backdrop for some serious populist monkey business.
The 2022 general election in those circumstances could be a wild & bumpy ride.
My prediction would be that a prolonged limbo would lead Brexit to go off the boil as an immediate news story (just as it did over Easter whilst parliament was in recess) but there would be a continued drip of negative economic stories for which Brexit would be blamed and Farage would rampage round the country ranting about betrayal etc etc. There would a ready audience for that but it would be mostly people of pensionable age and I think a lot of the "anger" stories that the media love so much are exaggerated - most people are bored rather than angered by Brexit.
Anyway, I'm anti fox hunting. Just because it's got little to do with countryside management. It's basically a lot of toffs having a canter or gallop across other people's land, with the occasional blood curdling death of a creature they don't then eat.
The exhaustive Burns Report concluded that fox hunting was not cruel.
It is difficult for me to believe that the violent death of an animal by biting, penetration trauma, evisceration and dismemberment whilst alive and conscious is not cruel. If you said that it's less cruel than the alternatives then that would have been different, but in an absolute sense?
Foxes don't line up to be euthanased. They are a pest and are either shot or trapped or gassed. They used to be hunted.
Not ways you or I might choose to go but then again I'm not sure setting a pack of Lucas terriers on rats (perfectly legal, and about which there has been at least one TV documentary) is particularly nice either.
Rentokil quoted me £3,500 to shoot a fox that has taken to pissing in my front garden.
A lot cheaper to buy a rifle and do it yourself
Firstly you have to be an excellent shot. A small moving target at a distant in the dark is not easy to get a clean kill. Far more foxes are wounded and the bleed to death or get infections. That’s a slow and painful way to go.
Second the police don’t like it when I pull my big gun out on the streets of London
You seriously don't have to be even a half-decent shot to kill a fox. If you want to do it at night, use a nightscope.
Taking down a fox is a piece of piss compared to game birds like woodcock.
Bit of practice down the ranges and you'll be ready to squeeze that trigger.
Don't sound like much of a socialist today, do I?
Why do you need a nightscope if you have a Golf with a sun roof?
It's not a quick death for the fox. In fact, it can be a long drawn oand then tearing limb from limb. Throw 'pleasure' into that and it's not a great activity really, in this day and age?
Foxes are frankly pretty horrible creatures. So shoot them. Instantaneous.
You must be a helluva good shot
Anybody with a functional eye and finger can shoot 3-5 MOA at 100m with a scoped .22LR after instruction.
A "helluva good shot" can shoot sub 1 MOA. ie 1" groups at 100yds.
It's not a quick death for the fox. In fact, it can be a long drawn oand then tearing limb from limb. Throw 'pleasure' into that and it's not a great activity really, in this day and age?
Foxes are frankly pretty horrible creatures. So shoot them. Instantaneous.
You must be a helluva good shot
Anybody with a functional eye and finger can shoot 3-5 MOA at 100m with a scoped .22LR after instruction.
A "helluva good shot" can shoot sub 1 MOA. ie 1" groups at 100yds.
The exhaustive Burns Report concluded that fox hunting was not cruel.
It is difficult for me to believe that the violent death of an animal by biting, penetration trauma, evisceration and dismemberment whilst alive and conscious is not cruel. If you said that it's less cruel than the alternatives then that would have been different, but in an absolute sense?
Foxes don't line up to be euthanased. They are a pest and are either shot or trapped or gassed. They used to be hunted.
Not ways you or I might choose to go but then again I'm not sure setting a pack of Lucas terriers on rats (perfectly legal, and about which there has been at least one TV documentary) is particularly nice either.
Rentokil quoted me £3,500 to shoot a fox that has taken to pissing in my front garden.
A lot cheaper than a red coat, a hunter, and a dozen hounds.
include Dr David Bull. I remember when he was being held up as the kind of person the new look Cameron Tory party was all about. Young, educated, socially liberal.
The exhaustive Burns Report concluded that fox hunting was not cruel.
It is difficult for me to believe that the violent death of an animal by biting, penetration trauma, evisceration and dismemberment whilst alive and conscious is not cruel. If you said that it's less cruel than the alternatives then that would have been different, but in an absolute sense?
Foxes don't line up to be euthanased. They are a pest and are either shot or trapped or gassed. They used to be hunted.
Not ways you or I might choose to go but then again I'm not sure setting a pack of Lucas terriers on rats (perfectly legal, and about which there has been at least one TV documentary) is particularly nice either.
Rentokil quoted me £3,500 to shoot a fox that has taken to pissing in my front garden.
In London councils don't have a fox control strategy and if you call them they say to call the RSPCA.
The exhaustive Burns Report concluded that fox hunting was not cruel.
It is difficult for me to believe that the violent death of an animal by biting, penetration trauma, evisceration and dismemberment whilst alive and conscious is not cruel. If you said that it's less cruel than the alternatives then that would have been different, but in an absolute sense?
Foxes don't line up to be euthanased. They are a pest and are either shot or trapped or gassed. They used to be hunted.
Not ways you or I might choose to go but then again I'm not sure setting a pack of Lucas terriers on rats (perfectly legal, and about which there has been at least one TV documentary) is particularly nice either.
Rentokil quoted me £3,500 to shoot a fox that has taken to pissing in my front garden.
A lot cheaper to buy a rifle and do it yourself
Firstly you have to be an excellent shot. A small moving target at a distant in the dark is not easy to get a clean kill. Far more foxes are wounded and the bleed to death or get infections. That’s a slow and painful way to go.
Second the police don’t like it when I pull my big gun out on the streets of London
You seriously don't have to be even a half-decent shot to kill a fox. If you want to do it at night, use a nightscope.
Taking down a fox is a piece of piss compared to game birds like woodcock.
Bit of practice down the ranges and you'll be ready to squeeze that trigger.
Don't sound like much of a socialist today, do I?
I don't think the average farmer has a rifle. Much more likely to have a shotgun...... think there's something about the licensing, too. Shotguns are much more likely to leave wounds than result in a clean kill.
The exhaustive Burns Report concluded that fox hunting was not cruel.
It is difficult for me to believe that the violent death of an animal by biting, penetration trauma, evisceration and dismemberment whilst alive and conscious is not cruel. If you said that it's less cruel than the alternatives then that would have been different, but in an absolute sense?
Foxes don't line up to be euthanased. They are a pest and are either shot or trapped or gassed. They used to be hunted.
Not ways you or I might choose to go but then again I'm not sure setting a pack of Lucas terriers on rats (perfectly legal, and about which there has been at least one TV documentary) is particularly nice either.
Rentokil quoted me £3,500 to shoot a fox that has taken to pissing in my front garden.
A lot cheaper to buy a rifle and do it yourself
Firstly you have to be an excellent shot. A small moving target at a distant in the dark is not easy to get a clean kill. Far more foxes are wounded and the bleed to death or get infections. That’s a slow and painful way to go.
Second the police don’t like it when I pull my big gun out on the streets of London
You seriously don't have to be even a half-decent shot to kill a fox. If you want to do it at night, use a nightscope.
Taking down a fox is a piece of piss compared to game birds like woodcock.
Bit of practice down the ranges and you'll be ready to squeeze that trigger.
Don't sound like much of a socialist today, do I?
Why do you need a nightscope if you have a Golf with a sun roof?
(And you need a specific license to shoot foxes)
Yep, lamping. Lots of friends of mine do it. I guess when you see a fox clean out a chicken run for the fun of it, you tend to get a bit hardened to them. They're nasty.
And I like corvids, but a farmer friend of mine just found a lamb with its eyes pecked out by the crows or magpies. Happens regularly.
And another friend of mine swears by shooting otters. Totally illegal, but when you see a pair of them empty a fishing lake in the space of one night you, again, have a different perspective.
The exhaustive Burns Report concluded that fox hunting was not cruel.
It is difficult for me to believe that the violent death of an animal by biting, penetration trauma, evisceration and dismemberment whilst alive and conscious is not cruel. If you said that it's less cruel than the alternatives then that would have been different, but in an absolute sense?
Foxes don't line up to be euthanased. They are a pest and are either shot or trapped or gassed. They used to be hunted.
Not ways you or I might choose to go but then again I'm not sure setting a pack of Lucas terriers on rats (perfectly legal, and about which there has been at least one TV documentary) is particularly nice either.
Rentokil quoted me £3,500 to shoot a fox that has taken to pissing in my front garden.
A lot cheaper to buy a rifle and do it yourself
Firstly you have to be an excellent shot. A small moving target at a distant in the dark is not easy to get a clean kill. Far more foxes are wounded and the bleed to death or get infections. That’s a slow and painful way to go.
Second the police don’t like it when I pull my big gun out on the streets of London
You seriously don't have to be even a half-decent shot to kill a fox. If you want to do it at night, use a nightscope.
Taking down a fox is a piece of piss compared to game birds like woodcock.
Bit of practice down the ranges and you'll be ready to squeeze that trigger.
Don't sound like much of a socialist today, do I?
You also don't know what you are talking about. I have shot foxes with a rifle, and woodcock with a shotgun. I am not convinced you have. For a start no Englishman who shoots woodcock has ever said "hunt woodcock", that is an Americanism.
Significant, and indeed surprising, self-awareness from Trump, with this warning to Biden: 'you will be dealing with people who truly have some very sick & demented ideas"
Anyway, I'm anti fox hunting. Just because it's got little to do with countryside management. It's basically a lot of toffs having a canter or gallop across other people's land, with the occasional blood curdling death of a creature they don't then eat.
That is not to understand countryside management.
Edit: but does prove my point about why people dislike fox hunting.
Comments
https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1121353260231688192
Cons:
The Brady amendment position. Drop the Stop, else we leave without a deal.
Lab:
Renegotiate a softer deal, BINO really, and then a confirmatory Ref on that. And, yes, the WA, the work of Satan, will be pretty much as it is now. We have to sign it. Everyone knows that.
Then, as I say, my hunch is that Labour win that election (and quite easily) on the back of strong and growing Remainer sentiment.
But no Ref2 in 2019, obviously, not nearly enough time for the above to play out, so I'm still happily and bigly short of that on Betfair.
And if people believed otherwise 30 years ago, so what? People used to believe all kinds of crazy shit (and many still do) but that doesn't mean they are right. And in any case I don't think a majority of the UK population has supported fox hunting for a very long time, well over 30 years I am sure, although if you have polling to say otherwise I'd be more than happy to admit I am wrong.
But even harder to see Brexit happening before an election.
So given I cannot accept that we will stay in limbo until 2022, I must conclude that - somehow - an election is coming well before then.
But to answer your question, no those people absolutely should not be tolerant of people like me seeking to force change on them. I want to defeat them, but it'd be 1984-esque madness for me to insist that they also love me for doing so.
The EU elections now look very likely .
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-48049146
Haz que rose (Haz que pase! "Make it happen")
Vapor seguro (Valor seguro "safe value")
Vamos Zumasol (Zumasol is famous for its oranges - in place of Vamos Ciudadanos "Let's go Citizens")
Por VOS-otros ('Por España" "for Spain")
La berenjena la horneas tú (lit. "the aubergine that you bake", in place of "La historia la escribes tú" - the story that you write)
And having the UK in limbo will come to seem an attractive option for the EU - we will still be paying the bills but shorn of any real political influence. A continuing example of the fate that awaits any other country misguided enough to consider leaving. What's not to like for the 27?
I have concluded that it does not.
Not ways you or I might choose to go but then again I'm not sure setting a pack of Lucas terriers on rats (perfectly legal, and about which there has been at least one TV documentary) is particularly nice either.
"If we offer Reneg + Ref2 will we gain more seats due to increased Remainer support than we lose due to decreased Leaver support?"
They will ask that question and if they are confident that the answer is Yes they will do it.
John McDonnell really wants to be Chancellor.
You'd normally expect ideological leaning to decide (e.g. Warren delegates to go Sanders), unless there is too much bad blood (not uncommon between candidates fishing in the same pool).
They couldn't give a stuff about any other instances of similar supposed cruelty eg the Lucas terrier example, or fishing or..or.
And that's fine. They hate the apparent poshos who hunt. All good. But don't dress it up as some animal welfare issue.
That and the same pollsters overestimated Roses in the Andalusian election, and underestimated Broccoli. So I’m wondering if it’s a systematic effect caused by the separatist debate.
I am quite happy for Tories to bang on about it. It lost them a critical few seats last GE!
If you are right I would be even more worried about Farage. Years of 'Brexit Limbo' would provide a near perfect backdrop for some serious populist monkey business.
The 2022 general election in those circumstances could be a wild & bumpy ride.
It can't be said to be cruel yet you dislike the fact that people enjoy it. But whether they enjoy it or not is irrelevant to the argument.
It was one of several methods of killing foxes but you didn't want people to enjoy it. I wonder whether the local gamekeepers have a smile on their face as they dispatch the foxes.
Thank goodness we didn’t have a public inquiry that concluded the opposite
It’s also a myth that opposition is concentrated in towns. People concerned about the issue are typically older, very many of whom lie in the countryside. Hunts’ typical disregard for other people’s private property, with trespass and damage on private land and even the trashing of gardens in villages not uncommon, does little to win support from many rural communities.
Foxes are frankly pretty horrible creatures. So shoot them. Instantaneous.
If for some reason this assertion doesn't trigger your in-built bullshit detector, how about giving it the most rudimentary test against reality? Why is there such widespread opposition to fox-hunting alone, not other "posh" things like the monarchy? Why is the opposition to fox hunting (poshos) also matched by opposition to dog-fighting (plebs) both in polling ( https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2017-12/17-085298-01_im_hunting_poll_q1_191217_public.pdf ) and advocacy groups ( https://www.league.org.uk/Pages/Category/campaigns )? Why, in fact, would we be okay with drag hunting in which people who are just as posh get just as dressed up, but no animal is killed?
Is it just possible that instead of being a bizarrely specific, indirect, rebellion against the aristocracy, our largely animal-loving society just doesn't like the idea of killing intelligent animals for sport?
As for your second paragraph, you don't seem to have understood the point. You said the rights and wrongs were obvious. How can they be obvious when they are not overwhelmingly held now in many societies, or haven't been recently?
Try shooting a woodcock. That's a lot harder.
There are lots of anomalies out there. I try to stick to the principle that if you shoot or hunt it you should eat it, skin it and wear it. Foxes don't fit that principle but they kill for pleasure so have to be controlled.
Reminds me of the animal welfare issue after some well-meaning people released mink into the wild. Now they wait on the river beds and bite off swans' heads for the hell of it.
And as for otters ... beautiful but awful for fish stocks. They, too, need controlling.
https://www.gunplan.co.uk/blog/2015/11/19/five-woodcock-hunting-tips/
If you're lucky you'll get thrown back into the water, but you always know that the next nibble you need to live might lead to the same again.
But that's okay, apparently.
Every moral position has difficulties and ambiguities. Animal rights are no different.
On the age profile, not too old, not too young, not too weird, then I would suggest Cory Booker and Kirsten Gillibrand as the most Papabile of the Democrats and, if you are looking for a non-Trump Republican, John Kasich.
Agreed these are pretty mainstream choices, but after Trump I think voters would prefer normal levels of political evil rather than the shitshow circus of political evil (an several other kinds of evil) that we have had over the past two and a half years.
Killing foxes by hunting them was not found to be cruel ergo let's go with it's not cruel. I don't think this is a big leap to take.
When a fox was hunted it was chased which for an animal is not a hugely out of the ordinary phenomenon. It was then indeed ripped apart. But there are plenty of animal deaths which at the, er, death are horrible.
The context of this is that foxes are killed. By other horrible deaths such as trapping or gassing or shooting. Our animal loving nation doesn't give a stuff about that. Hunting was one means of dispatch and the big objection is that people who did it enjoyed it.
That is a very weak argument but not to worry, the argument won. Hunting is now banned.
Second the police don’t like it when I pull my big gun out on the streets of London
Taking down a fox is a piece of piss compared to game birds like woodcock.
Bit of practice down the ranges and you'll be ready to squeeze that trigger.
Don't sound like much of a socialist today, do I?
Which won't much help cohesion in America. Calling racist redeck scum "racist redneck scum" might not make them like you much whilst they'e shouting "THEY DEK ERR JERBS!"
(And you need a specific license to shoot foxes)
A "helluva good shot" can shoot sub 1 MOA. ie 1" groups at 100yds.
include Dr David Bull. I remember when he was being held up as the kind of person the new look Cameron Tory party was all about. Young, educated, socially liberal.
Or my one at least.
Shotguns are much more likely to leave wounds than result in a clean kill.
But, look, fish have blood and fishing is a sport, but fishing is not a blood sport. It just isn't.
My granddad used to fish. Happiest times of his life.
And I like corvids, but a farmer friend of mine just found a lamb with its eyes pecked out by the crows or magpies. Happens regularly.
And another friend of mine swears by shooting otters. Totally illegal, but when you see a pair of them empty a fishing lake in the space of one night you, again, have a different perspective.
Edit: but does prove my point about why people dislike fox hunting.