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.
Sounds like Gordon Brown got off lightly that time with Mrs Duffy!
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 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.
I'm not really sure what your point is? Are you asking if I'm an American? What's the problem with that? And who said I'm a man?
I tend to agree: rifle for a fox, shotgun for game birds. Rifle for venison too every time for me. .22 for pigeon with a clean shot through the head.
Blimey this is bloodthirsty stuff today. I need a lie down.
What they do say is that the question of whether hunting compromises a fox's welfare is one that is scientifically answerable (cruelty is, obviously, not since it involves a legal judgement), and that it does in fact seriously compromise their welfare.
And even beyond that you have a further problem that you're not just asserting that I should support fox hunting, you're asserting that people who are opposed to it aren't opposed because of cruelty. Which means that for the Burns Inquiry to be relevant, a huge swathe of the UK population would have to be convinced by the fact that it didn't explicitly call fox hunting cruel (only that it seriously compromised their welfare). Obviously this isn't the case.
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.
"There are plenty of deaths which are horrible" is clearly not an argument for justifying inflicting a horrible death. Just try applying it in any other situation and add a dash of common sense, it's really pretty obvious.
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.
Yes, protracted killing for entertainment is viewed differently to killing for practical necessity. Note again that this seems to apply to all killing for entertainment of animals that humans naturally sympathise with (e.g. dog-fighting), not just that done by "poshos". Again, it's really very easy to see the pattern here if you're not tying your neurons up in knots trying to find your own different pattern.
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 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.
I'm not really sure what your point is? Are you asking if I'm an American? What's the problem with that? And who said I'm a man?
I tend to agree: rifle for a fox, shotgun for game birds. Rifle for venison too every time for me. .22 for pigeon with a clean shot through the head.
Blimey this is bloodthirsty stuff today. I need a lie down.
A nice slice of game pie and a glass of port will sort you out. Tally ho!
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 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.
I'm not really sure what your point is? Are you asking if I'm an American? What's the problem with that? And who said I'm a man?
I tend to agree: rifle for a fox, shotgun for game birds. Rifle for venison too every time for me. .22 for pigeon with a clean shot through the head.
Blimey this is bloodthirsty stuff today. I need a lie down.
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 it.
I think the point is that it's an incredible inefficient way of managing foxes. If they're a problem, which they are, then there are better ways of doing it.
But I'm not suggesting anyway that there are absolutes. That's ERG country. Unfortunately, it's always more complex.
FiveThirtyEight have an interesting piece based on repeated interviews with a small group of Democratic activists. Notably: a) Harris has the broadest appeal and the lowest number of activists actively against her b) Buttigieg has made significant inroads in a short space of time c) Biden and Sanders are not the big winners among this group, in contrast to the polling.
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.
Hmmm... Paul Stains may see them as dynamic and fresh. They look pretty identikit to me.
What they do say is that the question of whether hunting compromises a fox's welfare is one that is scientifically answerable (cruelty is, obviously, not since it involves a legal judgement), and that it does in fact seriously compromise their welfare.
And even beyond that you have a further problem that you're not just asserting that I should support fox hunting, you're asserting that people who are opposed to it aren't opposed because of cruelty. Which means that for the Burns Inquiry to be relevant, a huge swathe of the UK population would have to be convinced by the fact that it didn't explicitly call fox hunting cruel (only that it seriously compromised their welfare). Obviously this isn't the case.
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.
"There are plenty of deaths which are horrible" is clearly not an argument for justifying inflicting a horrible death. Just try applying it in any other situation and add a dash of common sense, it's really pretty obvious.
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.
Yes, protracted killing for entertainment is viewed differently to killing for practical necessity. Note again that this seems to apply to all killing for entertainment of animals that humans naturally sympathise with (e.g. dog-fighting), not just that done by "poshos". Again, it's really very easy to see the pattern here if you're not tying your neurons up in knots trying to find your own different pattern.
Protracted killing happens one way or another and I am happy that you accept that the argument that it should be banned is simply because people enjoy it.
The sadistic bloodthirsty fuckers on this forum are showing their true colours today. I'll come back when we are talking about politics.
It might not be a bad thing though if some of the Metropolitan elites (not you) got out into the country. And I mean real country not just in their Range Rovers. Countryside management is really complex and I'm not claiming to be an expert, despite having spent a lot of my life in it. I hunt and fish but I don't have solutions. I do try to listen though. It's not easy for farmers at the moment.
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 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.
I'm not really sure what your point is? Are you asking if I'm an American? What's the problem with that? And who said I'm a man?
I tend to agree: rifle for a fox, shotgun for game birds. Rifle for venison too every time for me. .22 for pigeon with a clean shot through the head.
Blimey this is bloodthirsty stuff today. I need a lie down.
I use a .22 to shoot mistletoe
I was starting to laugh, but you're probably serious? It's really difficult stuff to get down isn't it?
Perhaps the fox-hunting ban provides a model for Brexit?
The country has formally banned fox-hunting, expressing its disapproval, but fox-hunting continues with cosmetic changes.
Let's pretend that we've left the EU, declare associate membership, which is the same as membership but our EU Commissioner is called something else, and then forget about it, except for periodic arguments online about whether we are a colony of the EU.
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 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.
I'm not really sure what your point is? Are you asking if I'm an American? What's the problem with that? And who said I'm a man?
I tend to agree: rifle for a fox, shotgun for game birds. Rifle for venison too every time for me. .22 for pigeon with a clean shot through the head.
Blimey this is bloodthirsty stuff today. I need a lie down.
A nice slice of game pie and a glass of port will sort you out. Tally ho!
What they do say is that the question of whether hunting compromises a fox's welfare is one that is scientifically answerable (cruelty is, obviously, not since it involves a legal judgement), and that it does in fact seriously compromise their welfare.
And even beyond that you have a further problem that you're not just asserting that I should support fox hunting, you're asserting that people who are opposed to it aren't opposed because of cruelty. Which means that for the Burns Inquiry to be relevant, a huge swathe of the UK population would have to be convinced by the fact that it didn't explicitly call fox hunting cruel (only that it seriously compromised their welfare). Obviously this isn't the case.
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.
"There are plenty of deaths which are horrible" is clearly not an argument for justifying inflicting a horrible death. Just try applying it in any other situation and add a dash of common sense, it's really pretty obvious.
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.
Yes, protracted killing for entertainment is viewed differently to killing for practical necessity. Note again that this seems to apply to all killing for entertainment of animals that humans naturally sympathise with (e.g. dog-fighting), not just that done by "poshos". Again, it's really very easy to see the pattern here if you're not tying your neurons up in knots trying to find your own different pattern.
If you eat meat (and why shouldn't you - it is natural), you are "killing animals for entertainment/enjoyment" , you just kill them via the proxy of the slaughterman. There is no similarity between country sports and dog fighting etc and all the straw men put up by rabid bunny huggers that are so far removed form nature that they have no credibility on the subject.
What they do say is that the question of whether hunting compromises a fox's welfare is one that is scientifically answerable (cruelty is, obviously, not since it involves a legal judgement), and that it does in fact seriously compromise their welfare.
And even beyond that you have a further problem that you're not just asserting that I should support fox hunting, you're asserting that people who are opposed to it aren't opposed because of cruelty. Which means that for the Burns Inquiry to be relevant, a huge swathe of the UK population would have to be convinced by the fact that it didn't explicitly call fox hunting cruel (only that it seriously compromised their welfare). Obviously this isn't the case.
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.
"There are plenty of deaths which are horrible" is clearly not an argument for justifying inflicting a horrible death. Just try applying it in any other situation and add a dash of common sense, it's really pretty obvious.
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.
Yes, protracted killing for entertainment is viewed differently to killing for practical necessity. Note again that this seems to apply to all killing for entertainment of animals that humans naturally sympathise with (e.g. dog-fighting), not just that done by "poshos". Again, it's really very easy to see the pattern here if you're not tying your neurons up in knots trying to find your own different pattern.
Protracted killing happens one way or another and I am happy that you accept that the argument that it should be banned is simply because people enjoy it.
Which of course matters not at all to the fox.
On the enjoyment point, have you witnessed people (or perhaps felt a little quiver in the perineum yourself) enjoying the actual bloody evisceration & dismemberment of a frightened animal side of things? It would be quite useful to quantify what is actually being enjoyed.
Every country, including the UK, has increased it's support for the EU, or is flat at worst. Except France which is 5% down. Interesting stuff. Many countries in the mid-80s for EU approval.
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.
There are a lot of pastimes that I have contempt for, but I have no desire to ban. I am a liberal, and while I disapprove of both foxhunting and the Niqab, I have no desire to ban either.
Killing animals is sadly nessecary at times, but to take pleasure in the task shows a sick soul.
The sadistic bloodthirsty fuckers on this forum are showing their true colours today. I'll come back when we are talking about politics.
It might not be a bad thing though if some of the Metropolitan elites (not you) got out into the country. And I mean real country not just in their Range Rovers. Countryside management is really complex and I'm not claiming to be an expert, despite having spent a lot of my life in it. I hunt and fish but I don't have solutions. I do try to listen though. It's not easy for farmers at the moment.
If you live in the UK then I'm guessing you don't hunt.
Go and tell the Iroquois Hunt your views that said.
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.
There are a lot of pastimes that I have contempt for, but I have no desire to ban. I am a liberal, and while I disapprove of both foxhunting and the Niqab, I have no desire to ban either.
Killing animals is sadly nessecary at times, but to take pleasure in the task shows a sick soul.
But it's nice that we have opened another front in the PB culture war, since the Brexit front has become a bloody war of attrition.
On the enjoyment point, have you witnessed people (or perhaps felt a little quiver in the perineum yourself) enjoying the actual bloody evisceration & dismemberment of a frightened animal side of things? It would be quite useful to quantify what is actually being enjoyed.
That is not something which ever happens. You could spend a lifetime hunting without ever seeing such a thing, just as you can eat lamb chops without seeing the lamb from which they originate being slaughtered and butchered. The field doesn't want to see that actually happen, and anyone who showed signs of wanting to would be sent home sharpish.
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 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.
I'm not really sure what your point is? Are you asking if I'm an American? What's the problem with that? And who said I'm a man?
I tend to agree: rifle for a fox, shotgun for game birds. Rifle for venison too every time for me. .22 for pigeon with a clean shot through the head.
Blimey this is bloodthirsty stuff today. I need a lie down.
Every country, including the UK, has increased it's support for the EU, or is flat at worst. Except France which is 5% down. Interesting stuff. Many countries in the mid-80s for EU approval.
Comparison is to 6 months ago.
Makes me all nostalgic for when divide and conquer was one the major components of the Brexiteers' gentle jog to victory.
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.
Is there any topic on God's Green Earth that you are not expert on?
Every country, including the UK, has increased it's support for the EU, or is flat at worst. Except France which is 5% down. Interesting stuff. Many countries in the mid-80s for EU approval.
Comparison is to 6 months ago.
Makes me all nostalgic for when divide and conquer was one the major components of the Brexiteers' gentle jog to victory.
At the rate we’re going, Norway will join while we’re in our 10th Article 50 extension.
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.
Is there any topic on God's Green Earth that you are not expert on?
What? English law, classics/ancient history and horses are my only chosen specialised subjects. On other matters, it's all cooked up on the fly from wikipedia.
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.
There are a lot of pastimes that I have contempt for, but I have no desire to ban. I am a liberal, and while I disapprove of both foxhunting and the Niqab, I have no desire to ban either.
Killing animals is sadly nessecary at times, but to take pleasure in the task shows a sick soul.
Unless you are a vegan in which case props, why do you say killing animals is "sadly" necessary? How sick does someone's soul have to be if they enjoy dead animals? Eating them for example.
Every country, including the UK, has increased it's support for the EU, or is flat at worst. Except France which is 5% down. Interesting stuff. Many countries in the mid-80s for EU approval.
Comparison is to 6 months ago.
Interesting stats. Looks like Czechia is most Chexity at only 66% Remain. Greece, Italy and France all in the 70%+ range and most countries in the high eighties, including Poland and Hungary.
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.
There are a lot of pastimes that I have contempt for, but I have no desire to ban. I am a liberal, and while I disapprove of both foxhunting and the Niqab, I have no desire to ban either.
Killing animals is sadly nessecary at times, but to take pleasure in the task shows a sick soul.
I think thats the point for me as well. If controlling the Fox population is required, so be it, and there are various ways and means for that to be done.
But it's rather sickening if people then roll it into a pastime for pleasure.
On the enjoyment point, have you witnessed people (or perhaps felt a little quiver in the perineum yourself) enjoying the actual bloody evisceration & dismemberment of a frightened animal side of things? It would be quite useful to quantify what is actually being enjoyed.
That is not something which ever happens. You could spend a lifetime hunting without ever seeing such a thing, just as you can eat lamb chops without seeing the lamb from which they originate being slaughtered and butchered. The field doesn't want to see that actually happen, and anyone who showed signs of wanting to would be sent home sharpish.
Glad to hear it. Was blooding dying out even before the ban?
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.
Is there any topic on God's Green Earth that you are not expert on?
What? English law, classics/ancient history and horses are my only chosen specialised subjects. On other matters, it's all cooked up on the fly from wikipedia.
Well, I was being deliberately sarky.
I know that you are pig ignorant about apartheid for example, we established that several days ago.
Mr uniondivvie: Unless you are that rare beast (excuse the pun) a vegetarian Nationalist, do you ever think about the gassing or shooting and dismemberment of a frightened sheep when you tuck into that insult to gastronomy known as haggis?
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.
There are a lot of pastimes that I have contempt for, but I have no desire to ban. I am a liberal, and while I disapprove of both foxhunting and the Niqab, I have no desire to ban either.
Killing animals is sadly nessecary at times, but to take pleasure in the task shows a sick soul.
Unless you are a vegan in which case props, why do you say killing animals is "sadly" necessary? How sick does someone's soul have to be if they enjoy dead animals? Eating them for example.
It is enjoying the primary act of killing that is sick. Most people prefer to be further removed from the act. Hypocritical to a degree, I agree.
Every country, including the UK, has increased it's support for the EU, or is flat at worst. Except France which is 5% down. Interesting stuff. Many countries in the mid-80s for EU approval.
Comparison is to 6 months ago.
Makes me all nostalgic for when divide and conquer was one the major components of the Brexiteers' gentle jog to victory.
Chortle. Indeed.
Would be interesting to see the numbers for Scotland – interesting development today that France is making noises about automatic entry for you guys.
What they do say is that the question of whether hunting compromises a fox's welfare is one that is scientifically answerable (cruelty is, obviously, not since it involves a legal judgement), and that it does in fact seriously compromise their welfare.
And even beyond that you have a further t it seriously compromised their welfare). Obviously this isn't the case.
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.
"There are plenty of deaths which are horrible" is clearly not an argument for justifying inflicting a horrible death. Just try applying it in any other situation and add a dash of common sense, it's really pretty obvious.
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.
Yes, protracted killing for entertainment is viewed differently to killing for practical necessity. Note again that this seems to apply to all killing for entertainment of animals that humans naturally sympathise with (e.g. dog-fighting), not just that done by "poshos". Again, it's really very easy to see the pattern here if you're not tying your neurons up in knots trying to find your own different pattern.
Protracted killing happens one way or another and I am happy that you accept that the argument that it should be banned is simply because people enjoy it.
Which of course matters not at all to the fox.
On the enjoyment point, have you witnessed people (or perhaps felt a little quiver in the perineum yourself) enjoying the actual bloody evisceration & dismemberment of a frightened animal side of things? It would be quite useful to quantify what is actually being enjoyed.
As with Foxy (oh the irony his nom de plume derived from and riding on the back of fox hunting) you enjoy dead animals. You have just decided that your version of enjoying them is ok.
Plus eating animals is worse than fox hunting as the enjoyment from the latter does not require the fox to die.
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.
There are a lot of pastimes that I have contempt for, but I have no desire to ban. I am a liberal, and while I disapprove of both foxhunting and the Niqab, I have no desire to ban either.
Killing animals is sadly nessecary at times, but to take pleasure in the task shows a sick soul.
Unless you are a vegan in which case props, why do you say killing animals is "sadly" necessary? How sick does someone's soul have to be if they enjoy dead animals? Eating them for example.
It is enjoying the primary act of killing that is sick. Most people prefer to be further removed from the act. Hypocritical to a degree, I agree.
Only sick from your puritanical mind. Death and birth of animals in the countryside is just part of the cycle. I have never met any towny who cares more for animals than most farmers or gamekeepers or gillies. The difference is they don't believe the little furry or slimey critters talk to each other like they do in Disney and have "rights"
Every country, including the UK, has increased it's support for the EU, or is flat at worst. Except France which is 5% down. Interesting stuff. Many countries in the mid-80s for EU approval.
Comparison is to 6 months ago.
Makes me all nostalgic for when divide and conquer was one the major components of the Brexiteers' gentle jog to victory.
Chortle. Indeed.
Would be interesting to see the numbers for Scotland – interesting development today that France is making noises about automatic entry for you guys.
Well, it was the leader of UDI (good punning opps!), the French equivalent of the LDs I think, who are currently on 1.5% in the polls making the noises. Still, straws in the wind and all that.
I know that you are pig ignorant about apartheid for example, we established that several days ago.
What? All I said about apartheid was that it was not an exercise in genocide, and that the lovely Mrs Mandela successfully proposed the torturing to death by necklacing of her perceived opponents. Which of those propositions do you think to be untrue?
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.
There are a lot of pastimes that I have contempt for, but I have no desire to ban. I am a liberal, and while I disapprove of both foxhunting and the Niqab, I have no desire to ban either.
Killing animals is sadly nessecary at times, but to take pleasure in the task shows a sick soul.
Unless you are a vegan in which case props, why do you say killing animals is "sadly" necessary? How sick does someone's soul have to be if they enjoy dead animals? Eating them for example.
It is enjoying the primary act of killing that is sick. Most people prefer to be further removed from the act. Hypocritical to a degree, I agree.
Well indeed. Hence my earlier reference to the frozen meat counter in Waitrose, or even the one in Tesco's in Melton.
People who eat meat enjoy animals being killed for their pleasure. Hunting folk enjoyed hunting foxes. Both are deriving pleasure from, as Burns put it, seriously compromising the welfare of animals.
OT: Paul Waugh confirms that Laura Murray has been appointed as Head of Complaints for Labour.
They're just trolling now. Arseholes, the lot of them (Corbyn's inner circle, that is).
LABOUR MEMBER SUSPENDED OVER ‘JEWISH DONORS’ REMARK IS NOW A LABOUR SPOKESMAN
Not only did Labour reinstate McManus after just eight weeks, they’ve actually made him a local election candidate and a Labour spokesman in the East Riding of Yorkshire.
Every country, including the UK, has increased it's support for the EU, or is flat at worst. Except France which is 5% down. Interesting stuff. Many countries in the mid-80s for EU approval.
Comparison is to 6 months ago.
Makes me all nostalgic for when divide and conquer was one the major components of the Brexiteers' gentle jog to victory.
Chortle. Indeed.
Would be interesting to see the numbers for Scotland – interesting development today that France is making noises about automatic entry for you guys.
Kantar's numbers for EU-wide polls include people aged over 16 and foreign nationals, so they are not directly comparable to UK voting intention surveys.
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.
There are a lot of pastimes that I have contempt for, but I have no desire to ban. I am a liberal, and while I disapprove of both foxhunting and the Niqab, I have no desire to ban either.
Killing animals is sadly nessecary at times, but to take pleasure in the task shows a sick soul.
Unless you are a vegan in which case props, why do you say killing animals is "sadly" necessary? How sick does someone's soul have to be if they enjoy dead animals? Eating them for example.
It is enjoying the primary act of killing that is sick. Most people prefer to be further removed from the act. Hypocritical to a degree, I agree.
Well indeed. Hence my earlier reference to the frozen meat counter in Waitrose, or even the one in Tesco's in Melton.
People who eat meat enjoy animals being killed for their pleasure. Hunting folk enjoyed hunting foxes. Both are deriving pleasure from, as Burns put it, seriously compromising the welfare of animals.
Indeed. Though I did hear of some ALF nutters who "liberated" 5 or 6 sheep and kept them in a loft. If that wasn't compromising their welfare, I don't know what is!
I know that you are pig ignorant about apartheid for example, we established that several days ago.
What? All I said about apartheid was that it was not an exercise in genocide, and that the lovely Mrs Mandela successfully proposed the torturing to death by necklacing of her perceived opponents. Which of those propositions do you think to be untrue?
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.
There are a lot of pastimes that I have contempt for, but I have no desire to ban. I am a liberal, and while I disapprove of both foxhunting and the Niqab, I have no desire to ban either.
Killing animals is sadly nessecary at times, but to take pleasure in the task shows a sick soul.
Unless you are a vegan in which case props, why do you say killing animals is "sadly" necessary? How sick does someone's soul have to be if they enjoy dead animals? Eating them for example.
It is enjoying the primary act of killing that is sick. Most people prefer to be further removed from the act. Hypocritical to a degree, I agree.
Well indeed. Hence my earlier reference to the frozen meat counter in Waitrose, or even the one in Tesco's in Melton.
People who eat meat enjoy animals being killed for their pleasure. Hunting folk enjoyed hunting foxes. Both are deriving pleasure from, as Burns put it, seriously compromising the welfare of animals.
Indeed. Though I did hear of some ALF nutters who "liberated" 5 or 6 sheep and kept them in a loft. If that wasn't compromising their welfare, I don't know what is!
OT: Paul Waugh confirms that Laura Murray has been appointed as Head of Complaints for Labour.
They're just trolling now. Arseholes, the lot of them (Corbyn's inner circle, that is).
LABOUR MEMBER SUSPENDED OVER ‘JEWISH DONORS’ REMARK IS NOW A LABOUR SPOKESMAN
Not only did Labour reinstate McManus after just eight weeks, they’ve actually made him a local election candidate and a Labour spokesman in the East Riding of Yorkshire.
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.
I agree with you. But I was drawing a distinction between a relative statement ("Y is less cruel than X"), a negative absolute statement ("we have no evidence to say that Y is cruel") and the positive absolute statement ("Y is not cruel")
I know that you are pig ignorant about apartheid for example, we established that several days ago.
What? All I said about apartheid was that it was not an exercise in genocide, and that the lovely Mrs Mandela successfully proposed the torturing to death by necklacing of her perceived opponents. Which of those propositions do you think to be untrue?
Nope. You said apartheid never killed anyone.
Deeply ignorant.
Did it? I didn't know. My attitude was always rather ‘I ain’t got no quarrel with them Vietcong’.
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.
There are a lot of pastimes that I have contempt for, but I have no desire to ban. I am a liberal, and while I disapprove of both foxhunting and the Niqab, I have no desire to ban either.
Killing animals is sadly nessecary at times, but to take pleasure in the task shows a sick soul.
Unless you are a vegan in which case props, why do you say killing animals is "sadly" necessary? How sick does someone's soul have to be if they enjoy dead animals? Eating them for example.
It is enjoying the primary act of killing that is sick. Most people prefer to be further removed from the act. Hypocritical to a degree, I agree.
Well indeed. Hence my earlier reference to the frozen meat counter in Waitrose, or even the one in Tesco's in Melton.
People who eat meat enjoy animals being killed for their pleasure. Hunting folk enjoyed hunting foxes. Both are deriving pleasure from, as Burns put it, seriously compromising the welfare of animals.
Indeed. Though I did hear of some ALF nutters who "liberated" 5 or 6 sheep and kept them in a loft. If that wasn't compromising their welfare, I don't know what is!
What I would like to know from this imbeciles is what do they propose to do with millions of domesticated animals in their future utopia? I guess this article suggests their answer FFS
Mr uniondivvie: Unless you are that rare beast (excuse the pun) a vegetarian Nationalist, do you ever think about the gassing or shooting and dismemberment of a frightened sheep when you tuck into that insult to gastronomy known as haggis?
Disgusting. This thieving trougher deserves serious prison time, she embezzled money meant for food banks.
A former SNP MP has admitted embezzling more than £25,600 from pro-independence organisations.
Natalie McGarry, 37, faced three charges of embezzlement and a charge that she refused to give police the passcode for a mobile phone they had seized.
McGarry, who represented Glasgow East but did not seek re-election in 2017, admitted two of the charges when she appeared at Glasgow Sheriff Court on Wednesday and the Crown accepted not guilty pleas to the other two.
She embezzled £21,000 from Women for Independence in her role as treasurer of the organisation.
She transferred money raised through fundraising events into her personal bank accounts and failed to transfer charitable donations to Perth and Kinross food bank and to Positive Prison, Positive Future between April 26, 2013 and November 30, 2015.
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.
True. Absolutes vs nuance. Slippery slopes. Hypocrisy. Drawing the line. Logic. Coherence. To law or not to law? All of that.
On this one, I start with a value judgement. I think that harming animals for fun is wrong.
All animals? Yes. Including insects and fish? Yes.
So, should it be a criminal offence?
Yes as a default answer. If No there needs to be a good reason. For example, the harm is minor and incidental (fishing) or the offence would be impossible to police (insect abuse).
Although on this latter, perhaps it would be a good use of police time. It's well known that boys who like to pull the legs of spiders grow up to be serial killers or, at best, police officers.
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.
There are a lot of pastimes that I have contempt for, but I have no desire to ban. I am a liberal, and while I disapprove of both foxhunting and the Niqab, I have no desire to ban either.
Killing animals is sadly nessecary at times, but to take pleasure in the task shows a sick soul.
Unless you are a vegan in which case props, why do you say killing animals is "sadly" necessary? How sick does someone's soul have to be if they enjoy dead animals? Eating them for example.
It is enjoying the primary act of killing that is sick. Most people prefer to be further removed from the act. Hypocritical to a degree, I agree.
Well indeed. Hence my earlier reference to the frozen meat counter in Waitrose, or even the one in Tesco's in Melton.
People who eat meat enjoy animals being killed for their pleasure. Hunting folk enjoyed hunting foxes. Both are deriving pleasure from, as Burns put it, seriously compromising the welfare of animals.
Indeed. Though I did hear of some ALF nutters who "liberated" 5 or 6 sheep and kept them in a loft. If that wasn't compromising their welfare, I don't know what is!
What I would like to know from this imbeciles is what do they propose to do with millions of domesticated animals in their future utopia? I guess this article suggests their answer FFS
PETA are mad by any measure. Guardian writer Cath Elliott was taking her dogs for a walk in countryside near Norwich when they cut their paws open on glass which PETA members had strewn in the path of the local hunt.
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.
There are a lot of pastimes that I have contempt for, but I have no desire to ban. I am a liberal, and while I disapprove of both foxhunting and the Niqab, I have no desire to ban either.
Killing animals is sadly nessecary at times, but to take pleasure in the task shows a sick soul.
Unless you are a vegan in which case props, why do you say killing animals is "sadly" necessary? How sick does someone's soul have to be if they enjoy dead animals? Eating them for example.
It is enjoying the primary act of killing that is sick. Most people prefer to be further removed from the act. Hypocritical to a degree, I agree.
Only sick from your puritanical mind. Death and birth of animals in the countryside is just part of the cycle. I have never met any towny who cares more for animals than most farmers or gamekeepers or gillies. The difference is they don't believe the little furry or slimey critters talk to each other like they do in Disney and have "rights"
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.
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.
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.
Does that mean we should be hunting down lions, tigers , bears , etc etc etc. Burn is obviously a moronic townie.
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.
True. Absolutes vs nuance. Slippery slopes. Hypocrisy. Drawing the line. Logic. Coherence. To law or not to law? All of that.
On this one, I start with a value judgement. I think that harming animals for fun is wrong.
All animals? Yes. Including insects and fish? Yes.
So, should it be a criminal offence?
Yes as a default answer. If No there needs to be a good reason. For example, the harm is minor and incidental (fishing) or the offence would be impossible to police (insect abuse).
Although on this latter, perhaps it would be a good use of police time. It's well known that boys who like to pull the legs of spiders grow up to be serial killers or, at best, police officers.
Ahem. As a child, I never deliberately harmed animals, or insects, or other humans. It just wouldn't have occurred to me to do so. Mrs J, by contrast, admits to having done nasty things to insects for 'fun' as many kids do (then again, she grew up in a place with mosquitoes)
She became a veggie and very interested in animal rights. I didn't.
The sadistic bloodthirsty fuckers on this forum are showing their true colours today. I'll come back when we are talking about politics.
It might not be a bad thing though if some of the Metropolitan elites (not you) got out into the country. And I mean real country not just in their Range Rovers. Countryside management is really complex and I'm not claiming to be an expert, despite having spent a lot of my life in it. I hunt and fish but I don't have solutions. I do try to listen though. It's not easy for farmers at the moment.
Maybe a few trials of hunting them with dogs and shooting at them may change their minds about how lovely a pastime it is for rich twats. See if they still think it is not cruel.
Re the Nick Timothy article - can someone on here tell me what "Cultural Conservative" actually means in terms of actual specific policies that such a Government would actually carry out.
I've asked this on here before about the phrase "Social Conservative" and nobody is ever able to point to very much specific.
In the US I know the biggest specific is abortion but almost nobody here is seriously proposing a big change to abortion laws.
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.
There are a lot of pastimes that I have contempt for, but I have no desire to ban. I am a liberal, and while I disapprove of both foxhunting and the Niqab, I have no desire to ban either.
Killing animals is sadly nessecary at times, but to take pleasure in the task shows a sick soul.
Unless you are a vegan in which case props, why do you say killing animals is "sadly" necessary? How sick does someone's soul have to be if they enjoy dead animals? Eating them for example.
It is enjoying the primary act of killing that is sick. Most people prefer to be further removed from the act. Hypocritical to a degree, I agree.
Well indeed. Hence my earlier reference to the frozen meat counter in Waitrose, or even the one in Tesco's in Melton.
People who eat meat enjoy animals being killed for their pleasure. Hunting folk enjoyed hunting foxes. Both are deriving pleasure from, as Burns put it, seriously compromising the welfare of animals.
Fantasy comparisons there, bit different being killed instantly in an abattoir compared to being torn apart by a pack of dogs. You must know some strange people if they go into supermarkets thinking oh what pleasure look at all those animals killed just for me.
Ahem. As a child, I never deliberately harmed animals, or insects, or other humans. It just wouldn't have occurred to me to do so. Mrs J, by contrast, admits to having done nasty things to insects for 'fun' as many kids do (then again, she grew up in a place with mosquitoes)
She became a veggie and very interested in animal rights. I didn't.
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 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.
I'm not really sure what your point is? Are you asking if I'm an American? What's the problem with that? And who said I'm a man?
I tend to agree: rifle for a fox, shotgun for game birds. Rifle for venison too every time for me. .22 for pigeon with a clean shot through the head.
Blimey this is bloodthirsty stuff today. I need a lie down.
I use a .22 to shoot mistletoe
I was starting to laugh, but you're probably serious? It's really difficult stuff to get down isn't it?
We used to have a lime avenue when I was growing up and the stuff was 50 ft up in the air! A .22 was the most efficient way - and a huge amount of fun as a pre-Christmas party
Ahem. As a child, I never deliberately harmed animals, or insects, or other humans. It just wouldn't have occurred to me to do so. Mrs J, by contrast, admits to having done nasty things to insects for 'fun' as many kids do (then again, she grew up in a place with mosquitoes)
She became a veggie and very interested in animal rights. I didn't.
Re the Nick Timothy article - can someone on here tell me what "Cultural Conservative" actually means in terms of actual specific policies that such a Government would actually carry out.
I've asked this on here before about the phrase "Social Conservative" and nobody is ever able to point to very much specific.
In the US I know the biggest specific is abortion but almost nobody here is seriously proposing a big change to abortion laws.
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.
Really? The only pest species?
That kind of hyperbole just undermines any point you want to make. And no, I dont support fox hunting..
Comments
I tend to agree: rifle for a fox, shotgun for game birds. Rifle for venison too every time for me. .22 for pigeon with a clean shot through the head.
Blimey this is bloodthirsty stuff today. I need a lie down.
What they do say is that the question of whether hunting compromises a fox's welfare is one that is scientifically answerable (cruelty is, obviously, not since it involves a legal judgement), and that it does in fact seriously compromise their welfare.
And even beyond that you have a further problem that you're not just asserting that I should support fox hunting, you're asserting that people who are opposed to it aren't opposed because of cruelty. Which means that for the Burns Inquiry to be relevant, a huge swathe of the UK population would have to be convinced by the fact that it didn't explicitly call fox hunting cruel (only that it seriously compromised their welfare). Obviously this isn't the case. "There are plenty of deaths which are horrible" is clearly not an argument for justifying inflicting a horrible death. Just try applying it in any other situation and add a dash of common sense, it's really pretty obvious. Yes, protracted killing for entertainment is viewed differently to killing for practical necessity. Note again that this seems to apply to all killing for entertainment of animals that humans naturally sympathise with (e.g. dog-fighting), not just that done by "poshos". Again, it's really very easy to see the pattern here if you're not tying your neurons up in knots trying to find your own different pattern.
But I'm not suggesting anyway that there are absolutes. That's ERG country. Unfortunately, it's always more complex.
FiveThirtyEight have an interesting piece based on repeated interviews with a small group of Democratic activists. Notably:
a) Harris has the broadest appeal and the lowest number of activists actively against her
b) Buttigieg has made significant inroads in a short space of time
c) Biden and Sanders are not the big winners among this group, in contrast to the polling.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/we-asked-democratic-activists-who-theyre-backing-and-who-theyd-hate-to-see-win/
Which of course matters not at all to the fox.
It might not be a bad thing though if some of the Metropolitan elites (not you) got out into the country. And I mean real country not just in their Range Rovers. Countryside management is really complex and I'm not claiming to be an expert, despite having spent a lot of my life in it. I hunt and fish but I don't have solutions. I do try to listen though. It's not easy for farmers at the moment.
The country has formally banned fox-hunting, expressing its disapproval, but fox-hunting continues with cosmetic changes.
Let's pretend that we've left the EU, declare associate membership, which is the same as membership but our EU Commissioner is called something else, and then forget about it, except for periodic arguments online about whether we are a colony of the EU.
Every country, including the UK, has increased it's support for the EU, or is flat at worst. Except France which is 5% down. Interesting stuff. Many countries in the mid-80s for EU approval.
Comparison is to 6 months ago.
Killing animals is sadly nessecary at times, but to take pleasure in the task shows a sick soul.
Go and tell the Iroquois Hunt your views that said.
But it's rather sickening if people then roll it into a pastime for pleasure.
Was blooding dying out even before the ban?
I know that you are pig ignorant about apartheid for example, we established that several days ago.
Mr uniondivvie: Unless you are that rare beast (excuse the pun) a vegetarian Nationalist, do you ever think about the gassing or shooting and dismemberment of a frightened sheep when you tuck into that insult to gastronomy known as haggis?
Would be interesting to see the numbers for Scotland – interesting development today that France is making noises about automatic entry for you guys.
Plus eating animals is worse than fox hunting as the enjoyment from the latter does not require the fox to die.
Plainly, the owner of the land on which these advertising hoardings have been put up has a dark sense of humour.
People who eat meat enjoy animals being killed for their pleasure. Hunting folk enjoyed hunting foxes. Both are deriving pleasure from, as Burns put it, seriously compromising the welfare of animals.
Not only did Labour reinstate McManus after just eight weeks, they’ve actually made him a local election candidate and a Labour spokesman in the East Riding of Yorkshire.
https://order-order.com/2019/04/25/labour-member-suspended-jewish-donors-remark-now-labour-spokesman/
Tough on antisemitism, tough on the causes of antisemitism.
Deeply ignorant.
PETA members kill animals in order to "save" them from life with humans.
https://www.zmescience.com/science/peta-killing-campaign-28032019/
On this one, I start with a value judgement. I think that harming animals for fun is wrong.
All animals? Yes. Including insects and fish? Yes.
So, should it be a criminal offence?
Yes as a default answer. If No there needs to be a good reason. For example, the harm is minor and incidental (fishing) or the offence would be impossible to police (insect abuse).
Although on this latter, perhaps it would be a good use of police time. It's well known that boys who like to pull the legs of spiders grow up to be serial killers or, at best, police officers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyPFQKpRnd0
Burn is obviously a moronic townie.
She became a veggie and very interested in animal rights. I didn't.
I've asked this on here before about the phrase "Social Conservative" and nobody is ever able to point to very much specific.
In the US I know the biggest specific is abortion but almost nobody here is seriously proposing a big change to abortion laws.
So what is it all actually about?
:-)
As someone who believes in equality, it really isn't.
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1121394713364434945
Generalizing obviously. We are all unique.
That kind of hyperbole just undermines any point you want to make. And no, I dont support fox hunting..