politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » NEW PB / Polling Matters podcast: Will May reach and deal and

Benpointer said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Anazina said:

You went on a march, supporting the rights of people to terrify a defenceless wild animal, then tear it to shreds with a pack of dogs. You did this for the lolz, and ‘by accident’. So now we know.

The cynical attack of Blair - for purely internal party-political purposes - on British rural culture was and remains a total disgrace, which completely blows apart the left's claim to the higher moral ground on being sensitive to the culture of immigrant groups. On Blair's part it was just red meat (if you pardon the expression) to throw to his party, and on their part it was motivated by class hatred*, pure and simple: nothing to do with animal welfare. Even those lefties who run the RSPCA had fox-hunting as a negligible issue in terms of animal welfare.

* And ignorance, of course: there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting.

There are many people, if not a majority, in rural culture who are against hunting.

I can say all my family oppose fox hunting and my eldest granddaughter will not eat any meat under any circumstances. It was another issue in the last manifesto that had no need to be in there

Quite correct - it was a complete misjudgement on the part of May (or those who advise her).

Richard N's assertion that "there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting" is laughable. These people from unprivileged households are passionate about supporting an elite hobby they themselves will never be able to afford to participate in? Dream on.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Benpointer said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Anazina said:

You went on a march, supporting the rights of people to terrify a defenceless wild animal, then tear it to shreds with a pack of dogs. You did this for the lolz, and ‘by accident’. So now we know.

The cynical attack of Blair - for purely internal party-political purposes - on British rural culture was and remains a total disgrace, which completely blows apart the left's claim to the higher moral ground on being sensitive to the culture of immigrant groups. On Blair's part it was just red meat (if you pardon the expression) to throw to his party, and on their part it was motivated by class hatred*, pure and simple: nothing to do with animal welfare. Even those lefties who run the RSPCA had fox-hunting as a negligible issue in terms of animal welfare.

* And ignorance, of course: there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting.

There are many people, if not a majority, in rural culture who are against hunting.

I can say all my family oppose fox hunting and my eldest granddaughter will not eat any meat under any circumstances. It was another issue in the last manifesto that had no need to be in there

Quite correct - it was a complete misjudgement on the part of May (or those who advise her).

Richard N's assertion that "there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting" is laughable. These people from unprivileged households are passionate about supporting an elite hobby they themselves will never be able to afford to participate in? Dream on.

I think there is a huge change in young people today who will not accept any blood sports, are 100% committed to the green agenda, are moving to being vegetarians or vegans. The also seem to be anti smoking, drinking and drugs.

It is certainly true of my eldest granddaughter (nearing 16) and her peer and social media groups .

And if so, good on them

JosiasJessop said:

NickPalmer said:

Anazina said:

JosiasJessop said:

I almost certainly had a better - if more expensive - time the night aforehand. we stumbled out of the hotel and got caught up in a wave of very pleasant people.

The venomous hate of the anti-hunt protesters was quite something to behold. Oddly, this conflicts with Nick Palmer's anecdote ...

Amazing, eh, that they felt so passionately about defending the rights of defenceless wild animals? How gauche!

I suspect that most mass events feel very different according to which side you're on. One's eye is drawn to the most virulent posters, the most abusive marchers, and one doesn't especially notice reasonable people just walking along indicating support. But the march, which featured lots of personal attacks on Tony Blair (who ironically was the Government MP least keen on the ban, apart from Kate Hoey and a couple of others) was very counter-productive if it was intended to influence the government and its MPs, since its effect was to polarise.

How to do a march that DOES change minds is an interesting question. As I've said before, the silent Tamil march did work for me - I'd thought of Tamils in Sri Lanka merely as one of two rival factions, and the Gandhiesque display of dignified silence was impressive and made me think that maybe they were the side that needed more sympathy.

The Saturday march is trying, I think, to answer the claim that the issue is settled and most people are shrugging and making the best of Brexit, by showing that there's still very substantial resistance. If only a few thousand turned up it would backfire, of course, but it doesn't look as though that'll happen.

I hadn't planned to be on the march. Some of the stuff the protesters on *your* side where shouting was obscene. You may not have seen some of that, as you were on the other side of the fence and could not be everywhere. Likewise, I may not have seen bad behaviour by marchers outside my immediate vicinity.

But we were 'taken in' by a lovely family, and ended up having strawberries and champagne in ?Hyde Park? at the end of the march. I reckon we probably had more fun.

Benpointer said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Benpointer said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Anazina said:

You went on a march, supporting the rights of people to terrify a defenceless wild animal, then tear it to shreds with a pack of dogs. You did this for the lolz, and ‘by accident’. So now we know.

The cynical attack of Blair - for purely internal party-political purposes - on British rural culture was and remains a total disgrace, which completely blows apart the left's claim to the higher moral ground on being sensitive to the culture of immigrant groups. On Blair's part it was just red meat (if you pardon the expression) to throw to his party, and on their part it was motivated by class hatred*, pure and simple: nothing to do with animal welfare. Even those lefties who run the RSPCA had fox-hunting as a negligible issue in terms of animal welfare.

* And ignorance, of course: there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting.

There are many people, if not a majority, in rural culture who are against hunting.

I can say all my family oppose fox hunting and my eldest granddaughter will not eat any meat under any circumstances. It was another issue in the last manifesto that had no need to be in there

Quite correct - it was a complete misjudgement on the part of May (or those who advise her).

Richard N's assertion that "there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting" is laughable. These people from unprivileged households are passionate about supporting an elite hobby they themselves will never be able to afford to participate in? Dream on.

I think there is a huge change in young people today who will not accept any blood sports, are 100% committed to the green agenda, are moving to being vegetarians or vegans. The also seem to be anti smoking, drinking and drugs.

It is certainly true of my eldest granddaughter (nearing 16) and her peer and social media groups .

And if so, good on them

Wise words, as ever Big-G!

And with that goodnight all!

Fysics_Teacher said:

On the subject of fox-hunting: anyone who lives with a cat is in no position to take a moral stance on this...

Richard_Nabavi said:

Benpointer said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Benpointer said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Anazina said:

You went on a march, supporting the rights of people to terrify a defenceless wild animal, then tear it to shreds with a pack of dogs. You did this for the lolz, and ‘by accident’. So now we know.

The cynical attack of Blair - for purely internal party-political purposes - on British rural culture was and remains a total disgrace, which completely blows apart the left's claim to the higher moral ground on being sensitive to the culture of immigrant groups. On Blair's part it was just red meat (if you pardon the expression) to throw to his party, and on their part it was motivated by class hatred*, pure and simple: nothing to do with animal welfare. Even those lefties who run the RSPCA had fox-hunting as a negligible issue in terms of animal welfare.

* And ignorance, of course: there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting.

There are many people, if not a majority, in rural culture who are against hunting.

I can say all my family oppose fox hunting and my eldest granddaughter will not eat any meat under any circumstances. It was another issue in the last manifesto that had no need to be in there

Quite correct - it was a complete misjudgement on the part of May (or those who advise her).

Richard N's assertion that "there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting" is laughable. These people from unprivileged households are passionate about supporting an elite hobby they themselves will never be able to afford to participate in? Dream on.

I'm glad to see you demonstrate so clearly my point that this is about class warfare, not animal welfare. And you are wrong on the narrow point as well.

History is on my side

It probably is. Genuine local culture is dying out throughout the Western world. Generally the left seek to protect it - or even more so if it's imported from far away - but for some reason they have a moral blind spot on this particular piece of our cultural heritage. And that's because they see it (wrongly) as exclusively a heritage of toffs.

SeanT said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Jonathan said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Anazina said:

You went on a march, supporting the rights of people to terrify a defenceless wild animal, then tear it to shreds with a pack of dogs. You did this for the lolz, and ‘by accident’. So now we know.

The cynical attack of Blair - for purely internal party-political purposes - on British rural culture was and remains a total disgrace, which completely blows apart the left's claim to the higher moral ground on being sensitive to the culture of immigrant groups. On Blair's part it was just red meat (if you pardon the expression) to throw to his party, and on their part it was motivated by class hatred*, pure and simple: nothing to do with animal welfare. Even those lefties who run the RSPCA had fox-hunting as a negligible issue in terms of animal welfare.

* And ignorance, of course: there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting.

There are many people, if not a majority, in rural culture who are against hunting.

That may be. So what? It doesn't make the culture of the minority invalid, does it? Or have you abandoned your most cherished principle of defending minority cultures?

It would be interesting to correlate people who fiercely oppose fox-hunting yet will happily tolerate traditional halal butchery, and also turn a very blind eye to FGM, because the last two are "aspects of a minority culture". At a rough guess more Muslim girls are "cut" every year in Britain than foxes run to ground by dogs.

These people, like Jonathan, are vile and contemptible hypocrites. Foxes matter more to them than girls. Moreover fox hunting is part of our age-old way of life, and a justifiable form of vermin control.

That, of course, for many of them, is why they hate it. It's British, so wrong. If it's a minority culture, please go ahead and mutilate your children.

Anazina said:

SeanT said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Jonathan said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Anazina said:

You went on a march, supporting the rights of people to terrify a defenceless wild animal, then tear it to shreds with a pack of dogs. You did this for the lolz, and ‘by accident’. So now we know.

The cynical attack of Blair - for purely internal party-political purposes - on British rural culture was and remains a total disgrace, which completely blows apart the left's claim to the higher moral ground on being sensitive to the culture of immigrant groups. On Blair's part it was just red meat (if you pardon the expression) to throw to his party, and on their part it was motivated by class hatred*, pure and simple: nothing to do with animal welfare. Even those lefties who run the RSPCA had fox-hunting as a negligible issue in terms of animal welfare.

* And ignorance, of course: there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting.

There are many people, if not a majority, in rural culture who are against hunting.

That may be. So what? It doesn't make the culture of the minority invalid, does it? Or have you abandoned your most cherished principle of defending minority cultures?

It would be interesting to correlate people who fiercely oppose fox-hunting yet will happily tolerate traditional halal butchery, and also turn a very blind eye to FGM, because the last two are "aspects of a minority culture". At a rough guess more Muslim girls are "cut" every year in Britain than foxes run to ground by dogs.

These people, like Jonathan, are vile and contemptible hypocrites. Foxes matter more to them than girls. Moreover fox hunting is part of our age-old way of life, and a justifiable form of vermin control.

That, of course, for many of them, is why they hate it. It's British, so wrong. If it's a minority culture, please go ahead and mutilate your children.

A fucking stupid post. I doubt that he does tolerate FGM at all. You are drunk and making that up.

TOPPING said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Benpointer said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Anazina said:

You went on a march, supporting the rights of people to terrify a defenceless wild animal, then tear it to shreds with a pack of dogs. You did this for the lolz, and ‘by accident’. So now we know.

The cynical attack of Blair - for purely internal party-political purposes - on British rural culture was and remains a total disgrace, which completely blows apart the left's claim to the higher moral ground on being sensitive to the culture of immigrant groups. On Blair's part it was just red meat (if you pardon the expression) to throw to his party, and on their part it was motivated by class hatred*, pure and simple: nothing to do with animal welfare. Even those lefties who run the RSPCA had fox-hunting as a negligible issue in terms of animal welfare.

* And ignorance, of course: there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting.

There are many people, if not a majority, in rural culture who are against hunting.

I can say all my family oppose fox hunting and my eldest granddaughter will not eat any meat under any circumstances. It was another issue in the last manifesto that had no need to be in there

Quite correct - it was a complete misjudgement on the part of May (or those who advise her).

Richard N's assertion that "there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting" is laughable. These people from unprivileged households are passionate about supporting an elite hobby they themselves will never be able to afford to participate in? Dream on.

I think there is a huge change in young people today who will not accept any blood sports, are 100% committed to the green agenda, are moving to being vegetarians or vegans. They also seem to be anti smoking, drinking and drugs.

It is certainly true of my eldest granddaughter (nearing 16) and her peer and social media groups .

And if so, good on them

Tell that to the Banwen Miners Hunt, Big G.

Benpointer said:

That's because the toffs (increasingly now urban incomers) sit on the horses; the oiks traipse along behind. Today's oiks are less inclined to know their station.

SeanT said:

NickPalmer said:

SeanT said:

I hope he thinks the million quid a year is worth the hatred coming his way. Even the Guardian called his explanation for abandoning Remainerism "weak". If he's lost the Guardian, you can imagine the bilious contempt he will receive elsewhere.

It's a grievous moral error. It's much worse than Miliband taking that absurd refugee job, It's closer to Blair cosying up with Kazakh oligarchs. It totally stinks, and I think he will suffer for it. He will be hated, most of all, I suspect, by dedicated Remainers who will now think he has abandoned the cause at THE crucial time.

Tut. And LOL

I'm not sure many people will react that strongly. Many centre-left people have written off his cohort of LibDems as people who became hopelessly compromised by coalition with the Conservatives, to the point that their distinctive identity became shrouded in mist. Getting a job with Facebook is exactly the sort of thing that's consistent with that, and such people will just feel their prejudices confirmed.

That, incidentally, is why the LibDems are not flourishing in apparently propitious circumstances. Vince is very much identified with the same era - they need someone young, dynamic and different.

You have a reasonable point there. The Lib Dems (unlike Blair or Blair's Labour) have become so unimportant people may not care.

However I think the timing (on the weekend of THE march) and the symbolism of the move (Facebook? Really?? They're now seen as the Saudi Arabia of data) will be crippling for him, personally. But hey, he's making one mill a year. Every man has his price. We now know his.

AndyJS said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

SouthamObserver said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Anazina said:

You went on a march, supporting the rights of people to terrify a defenceless wild animal, then tear it to shreds with a pack of dogs. You did this for the lolz, and ‘by accident’. So now we know.

The cynical attack of Blair - for purely internal party-political purposes - on British rural culture was and remains a total disgrace, which completely blows apart the left's claim to the higher moral ground on being sensitive to the culture of immigrant groups. On Blair's part it was just red meat (if you pardon the expression) to throw to his party, and on their part it was motivated by class hatred*, pure and simple: nothing to do with animal welfare. Even those lefties who run the RSPCA had fox-hunting as a negligible issue in terms of animal welfare.

* And ignorance, of course: there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting.

I followed the Warwickshire Hunt with my father-in-law who was working class to his bones. There was cruelty involved in flushing out the foxes and chasing them until they could run no more before being torn to shreds by the dogs, but I am unapologetic in saying that it was utterly thrilling and deeply rooted in the countryside - even though it past most country people by. The sight of the hunt in full flight streaming across a frosty field was breathtaking. I’m afraid to say that I always saw foxes as pests - still do - that need to be controlled. Why not do it via one of the few things that still binds us to the land and to our past?

It's not something I would personally do, but living in deepest Sussex I of course know lots of people who are really, really passionate about it, and I can see why. Not only does it bind them/us to the land and to our past - all over the world you see reproductions of English hunting scenes - but it's also a magnificent cultural and social event, wonderful to see, and as important to those who participate as religion is to many other people: I've known people, good people, for whom it's the centre of their lives. But what do townies, looking at this in abstract terms, care about that?

I wonder how many anti fox hunting campaigners are happy to holiday in rural France where hunting still takes place without restrictions (as far as I know).

Stereotomy said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Benpointer said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Benpointer said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Anazina said:

You went on a march, supporting the rights of people to terrify a defenceless wild animal, then tear it to shreds with a pack of dogs. You did this for the lolz, and ‘by accident’. So now we know.

The cynical attack of Blair - for purely internal party-political purposes - on British rural culture was and remains a total disgrace, which completely blows apart the left's claim to the higher moral ground on being sensitive to the culture of immigrant groups. On Blair's part it was just red meat (if you pardon the expression) to throw to his party, and on their part it was motivated by class hatred*, pure and simple: nothing to do with animal welfare. Even those lefties who run the RSPCA had fox-hunting as a negligible issue in terms of animal welfare.

* And ignorance, of course: there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting.

There are many people, if not a majority, in rural culture who are against hunting.

I can say all my family oppose fox hunting and my eldest granddaughter will not eat any meat under any circumstances. It was another issue in the last manifesto that had no need to be in there

Quite correct - it was a complete misjudgement on the part of May (or those who advise her).

Richard N's assertion that "there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting" is laughable. These people from unprivileged households are passionate about supporting an elite hobby they themselves will never be able to afford to participate in? Dream on.

I'm glad to see you demonstrate so clearly my point that this is about class warfare, not animal welfare. And you are wrong on the narrow point as well.

History is on my side

It probably is. Genuine local culture is dying out throughout the Western world. Generally the left seek to protect it - or even more so if it's imported from far away - but for some reason they have a moral blind spot on this particular piece of our cultural heritage. And that's because they see it (wrongly) as exclusively a heritage of toffs.

Maybe we should let people living in rural areas decide...

http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2015-01-08/huntrur.png

So, keep the ban, then?

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TOPPING said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Benpointer said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Anazina said:

You went on a march, supporting the rights of people to terrify a defenceless wild animal, then tear it to shreds with a pack of dogs. You did this for the lolz, and ‘by accident’. So now we know.

The cynical attack of Blair - for purely internal party-political purposes - on British rural culture was and remains a total disgrace, which completely blows apart the left's claim to the higher moral ground on being sensitive to the culture of immigrant groups. On Blair's part it was just red meat (if you pardon the expression) to throw to his party, and on their part it was motivated by class hatred*, pure and simple: nothing to do with animal welfare. Even those lefties who run the RSPCA had fox-hunting as a negligible issue in terms of animal welfare.

* And ignorance, of course: there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting.

There are many people, if not a majority, in rural culture who are against hunting.

I can say all my family oppose fox hunting and my eldest granddaughter will not eat any meat under any circumstances. It was another issue in the last manifesto that had no need to be in there

Quite correct - it was a complete misjudgement on the part of May (or those who advise her).

Richard N's assertion that "there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting" is laughable. These people from unprivileged households are passionate about supporting an elite hobby they themselves will never be able to afford to participate in? Dream on.

I think there is a huge change in young people today who will not accept any blood sports, are 100% committed to the green agenda, are moving to being vegetarians or vegans. They also seem to be anti smoking, drinking and drugs.

It is certainly true of my eldest granddaughter (nearing 16) and her peer and social media groups .

And if so, good on them

Tell that to the Banwen Miners Hunt, Big G.

It may not go down well but life is changing sometimes for the good, other times not so good

Benpointer said:

SeanT said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Jonathan said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Anazina said:

You went on a march, supporting the rights of people to terrify a defenceless wild animal, then tear it to shreds with a pack of dogs. You did this for the lolz, and ‘by accident’. So now we know.

The cynical attack of Blair - for purely internal party-political purposes - on British rural culture was and remains a total disgrace, which completely blows apart the left's claim to the higher moral ground on being sensitive to the culture of immigrant groups. On Blair's part it was just red meat (if you pardon the expression) to throw to his party, and on their part it was motivated by class hatred*, pure and simple: nothing to do with animal welfare. Even those lefties who run the RSPCA had fox-hunting as a negligible issue in terms of animal welfare.

* And ignorance, of course: there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting.

There are many people, if not a majority, in rural culture who are against hunting.

That may be. So what? It doesn't make the culture of the minority invalid, does it? Or have you abandoned your most cherished principle of defending minority cultures?

It would be interesting to correlate people who fiercely oppose fox-hunting yet will happily tolerate traditional halal butchery, and also turn a very blind eye to FGM, because the last two are "aspects of a minority culture". At a rough guess more Muslim girls are "cut" every year in Britain than foxes run to ground by dogs.

These people, like Jonathan, are vile and contemptible hypocrites. Foxes matter more to them than girls. Moreover fox hunting is part of our age-old way of life, and a justifiable form of vermin control.

That, of course, for many of them, is why they hate it. It's British, so wrong. If it's a minority culture, please go ahead and mutilate your children.

Only in the deep recesses of your warped imigination Sean.

Stereotomy said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Stereotomy said:

Maybe we should let people living in rural areas decide...

http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2015-01-08/huntrur.png

So, keep the ban, then?

Yes, as a practical political matter I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole. That's a different point.

Okay, but as a non-practical matter, you'd overturn the ban against the wishes of the majority of people living in rural areas?

Stereotomy said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Stereotomy said:

Maybe we should let people living in rural areas decide...

http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2015-01-08/huntrur.png

So, keep the ban, then?

Yes, as a practical political matter I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole. That's a different point.

Okay, but as a non-practical matter, you'd overturn the ban against the wishes of the majority of people living in rural areas?

SeanT said:

To throw a techno-cat amongst the pigeons, I wonder how PB-ers would feel about humans, dogs and horses hunting an entirely robot fox? This will be very do-able very soon.

I cannot see any moral argument against this. No one suffers, everyone has fun, an unfeeling piece of electronics is "killed". The human instinct to hunt is satisfied. Win win.

It's the same argument (which we will soon be having) about pedophilia. We will soon be able to create child sex-bots, with no brains or consciousness, who could slake the appetites of pedophiles, so they wouldn't have to go to jail for attacking real kids. That means real kids go unmolested, yet pedos don't have to be locked up, expensively, for life.

Surely this, too, is win win. Yet I've heard people arguing that we shouldn't allow child sex bots, as this somehow "encourages" pedophilia. To me this seems insane. No human will suffer, many real kids at risk will be saved. And they OBJECT??

It speaks of a puritan agenda hidden within the anti-sex, anti-hunting ethos: they don't object to the act, it's the pleasure taken which annoys them.

Stereotomy said:

AndyJS said:

Anazina said:

SeanT said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Jonathan said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Anazina said:

You went on a march, supporting the rights of people to terrify a defenceless wild animal, then tear it to shreds with a pack of dogs. You did this for the lolz, and ‘by accident’. So now we know.

The cynical attack of Blair - for purely internal party-political purposes - on British rural culture was and remains a total disgrace, which completely blows apart the left's claim to the higher moral ground on being sensitive to the culture of immigrant groups. On Blair's part it was just red meat (if you pardon the expression) to throw to his party, and on their part it was motivated by class hatred*, pure and simple: nothing to do with animal welfare. Even those lefties who run the RSPCA had fox-hunting as a negligible issue in terms of animal welfare.

* And ignorance, of course: there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting.

There are many people, if not a majority, in rural culture who are against hunting.

That may be. So what? It doesn't make the culture of the minority invalid, does it? Or have you abandoned your most cherished principle of defending minority cultures?

It would be interesting to correlate people who fiercely oppose fox-hunting yet will happily tolerate traditional halal butchery, and also turn a very blind eye to FGM, because the last two are "aspects of a minority culture". At a rough guess more Muslim girls are "cut" every year in Britain than foxes run to ground by dogs.

These people, like Jonathan, are vile and contemptible hypocrites. Foxes matter more to them than girls. Moreover fox hunting is part of our age-old way of life, and a justifiable form of vermin control.

That, of course, for many of them, is why they hate it. It's British, so wrong. If it's a minority culture, please go ahead and mutilate your children.

A fucking stupid post. I doubt that he does tolerate FGM at all. You are drunk and making that up.

Why have there been fewer protests against FGM than against fox hunting over the years?

You think just maybe we might see more protests against FGM if it was legal, or the PM was pledging to give a vote on legalising it?

Stereotomy said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Benpointer said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Benpointer said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Anazina said:

You went on a march, supporting the rights of people to terrify a defenceless wild animal, then tear it to shreds with a pack of dogs. You did this for the lolz, and ‘by accident’. So now we know.

The cynical attack of Blair
* And ignorance, of course: there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting.

There are many people, if not a majority, in rural culture who are against hunting.

I can say all my family oppose fox hunting and my eldest granddaughter will not eat any meat under any circumstances. It was another issue in the last manifesto that had no need to be in there

Quite correct - it was a complete misjudgement on the part of May (or those who advise her).

Richard N's assertion that "there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting" is laughable. These people from unprivileged households are passionate about supporting an elite hobby they themselves will never be able to afford to participate in? Dream on.

I'm glad to see you demonstrate so clearly my point that this is about class warfare, not animal welfare. And you are wrong on the narrow point as well.

History is on my side

It probably is. Genuine local culture is dying out throughout the Western world. Generally the left seek to protect it - or even more so if it's imported from far away - but for some reason they have a moral blind spot on this particular piece of our cultural heritage. And that's because they see it (wrongly) as exclusively a heritage of toffs.

Maybe we should let people living in rural areas decide...

http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2015-01-08/huntrur.png

So, keep the ban, then?

Foxy said:

Stereotomy said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Benpointer said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Benpointer said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Anazina said:

You went on a march, supporting the rights of people to terrify a defenceless wild animal, then tear it to shreds with a pack of dogs. You did this for the lolz, and ‘by accident’. So now we know.

The cynical attack of Blair
* And ignorance, of course: there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting.

There are many people, if not a majority, in rural culture who are against hunting.

I can say all my family oppose fox hunting and my eldest granddaughter will not eat any meat under any circumstances. It was another issue in the last manifesto that had no need to be in there

Quite correct - it was a complete misjudgement on the part of May (or those who advise her).

Richard N's assertion that "there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting" is laughable. These people from unprivileged households are passionate about supporting an elite hobby they themselves will never be able to afford to participate in? Dream on.

I'm glad to see you demonstrate so clearly my point that this is about class warfare, not animal welfare. And you are wrong on the narrow point as well.

History is on my side

It probably is. Genuine local culture is dying out throughout the Western world. Generally the left seek to protect it - or even more so if it's imported from far away - but for some reason they have a moral blind spot on this particular piece of our cultural heritage. And that's because they see it (wrongly) as exclusively a heritage of toffs.

Maybe we should let people living in rural areas decide...

http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2015-01-08/huntrur.png

So, keep the ban, then?

Yes, plenty of countryfolk that I meet see foxhunting as pointless cruelty, and remember the arrogance of the hunt (Cottesmore being my local one) forcing itself where it was not welcome.

Personally, it is not an issue that bothers me, but it may well have cost May her majority.

SeanT said:

To throw a techno-cat amongst the pigeons, I wonder how PB-ers would feel about humans, dogs and horses hunting an entirely robot fox? This will be very do-able very soon.

I cannot see any moral argument against this. No one suffers, everyone has fun, an unfeeling piece of electronics is "killed". The human instinct to hunt is satisfied. Win win.

It's the same argument (which we will soon be having) about pedophilia. We will soon be able to create child sex-bots, with no brains or consciousness, who could slake the appetites of pedophiles, so they wouldn't have to go to jail for attacking real kids. That means real kids go unmolested, yet pedos don't have to be locked up, expensively, for life.

Surely this, too, is win win. Yet I've heard people arguing that we shouldn't allow child sex bots, as this somehow "encourages" pedophilia. To me this seems insane. No human will suffer, many real kids at risk will be saved. And they OBJECT??

It speaks of a puritan agenda hidden within the anti-sex, anti-hunting ethos: they don't object to the act, it's the pleasure taken which annoys them.

SeanT said:

To throw a techno-cat amongst the pigeons, I wonder how PB-ers would feel about humans, dogs and horses hunting an entirely robot fox? This will be very do-able very soon.

I cannot see any moral argument against this. No one suffers, everyone has fun, an unfeeling piece of electronics is "killed". The human instinct to hunt is satisfied. Win win.

It's the same argument (which we will soon be having) about pedophilia. We will soon be able to create child sex-bots, with no brains or consciousness, who could slake the appetites of pedophiles, so they wouldn't have to go to jail for attacking real kids. That means real kids go unmolested, yet pedos don't have to be locked up, expensively, for life.

Surely this, too, is win win. Yet I've heard people arguing that we shouldn't allow child sex bots, as this somehow "encourages" pedophilia. To me this seems insane. No human will suffer, many real kids at risk will be saved. And they OBJECT??

It speaks of a puritan agenda hidden within the anti-sex, anti-hunting ethos: they don't object to the act, it's the pleasure taken which annoys them.

ReggieCide said:

TOPPING said:

Stereotomy said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Stereotomy said:

Maybe we should let people living in rural areas decide...

http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2015-01-08/huntrur.png

So, keep the ban, then?

Yes, as a practical political matter I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole. That's a different point.

Okay, but as a non-practical matter, you'd overturn the ban against the wishes of the majority of people living in rural areas?

A democracy is all about tolerating minorities.

paedophiles, rapists, terrorists .....

Foxy said:

SeanT said:

To throw a techno-cat amongst the pigeons, I wonder how PB-ers would feel about humans, dogs and horses hunting an entirely robot fox? This will be very do-able very soon.

I cannot see any moral argument against this. No one suffers, everyone has fun, an unfeeling piece of electronics is "killed". The human instinct to hunt is satisfied. Win win.

It's the same argument (which we will soon be having) about pedophilia. We will soon be able to create child sex-bots, with no brains or consciousness, who could slake the appetites of pedophiles, so they wouldn't have to go to jail for attacking real kids. That means real kids go unmolested, yet pedos don't have to be locked up, expensively, for life.

Surely this, too, is win win. Yet I've heard people arguing that we shouldn't allow child sex bots, as this somehow "encourages" pedophilia. To me this seems insane. No human will suffer, many real kids at risk will be saved. And they OBJECT??

It speaks of a puritan agenda hidden within the anti-sex, anti-hunting ethos: they don't object to the act, it's the pleasure taken which annoys them.

Child molesters rarely do it for sexual gratification (there being simpler means!), but because of the sadistic joy of controlling another person. Like all rape, it is about violence, with the sexual aspect being just the instrument. As such, I think child sex bots would merely legitimise paedos.

SeanT said:

Anazina said:

SeanT said:

To throw a techno-cat amongst the pigeons, I wonder how PB-ers would feel about humans, dogs and horses hunting an entirely robot fox? This will be very do-able very soon.

I cannot see any moral argument against this. No one suffers, everyone has fun, an unfeeling piece of electronics is "killed". The human instinct to hunt is satisfied. Win win.

It's the same argument (which we will soon be having) about pedophilia. We will soon be able to create child sex-bots, with no brains or consciousness, who could slake the appetites of pedophiles, so they wouldn't have to go to jail for attacking real kids. That means real kids go unmolested, yet pedos don't have to be locked up, expensively, for life.

Surely this, too, is win win. Yet I've heard people arguing that we shouldn't allow child sex bots, as this somehow "encourages" pedophilia. To me this seems insane. No human will suffer, many real kids at risk will be saved. And they OBJECT??

It speaks of a puritan agenda hidden within the anti-sex, anti-hunting ethos: they don't object to the act, it's the pleasure taken which annoys them.

I would have no problem with a robot fox hunt. The child thing is deeply disturbing.

Seting aside the happily abusive PB banter, I know what you mean. There is something disturbing about creating child sex bots to slake pedophile desires. I *get* the revulsion. I kinda share it.

And yet logically this revulsion is absurd. We should allow indeed encourage this tech development, as it would protect real human children from the predations of molestors.

I suspect our rational morality is coloured, here, by more atavistic emotions.

To complicate the argument, police forces are now creating online child sex tempters, entirely non-existent, to attract and then convict pedos. I also find THAT somehow disturbing.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24818769

Foxy said:

TOPPING said:

Foxy said:

Stereotomy said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Benpointer said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Benpointer said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Anazina said:

You went on a march, supporting the rights of people to terrify a defenceless wild animal, then tear it to shreds with a pack of dogs. You did this for the lolz, and ‘by accident’. So now we know.

The cynical attack of Blair
* And ignorance, of course: there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting.

There are many people, if not a majority, in rural culture who are against hunting.

I can say all my family oppose fox hsto that had no need to be in there

Quite correct - it was a complete misjudgement on the part of May (or those who advise her).

Richard N's assertion that "there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting" is laughable. These people from unprivileged households are passionate about supporting an elite hobby they themselves will never be able to afford to participate in? Dream on.

I'm glad to see you demonstrate so clearly my point that this is about class warfare, not animal welfare. And you are wrong on the narrow point as well.

History is on my side

It probably is. Genuine local culture is dying out throughout the Western world. Generally the left seek to protect it - or even more so if it's imported from far away - but for some reason they have a moral blind spot on this particular piece of our cultural heritage. And that's because they see it (wrongly) as exclusively a heritage of toffs.

Maybe we should let people living in rural areas decide...

http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2015-01-08/huntrur.png

So, keep the ban, then?

Yes, plenty of countryfolk that I meet see foxhunting as pointless cruelty, and remember the arrogance of the hunt (Cottesmore being my local one) forcing itself where it was not welcome.

Personally, it is not an issue that bothers me, but it may well have cost May her majority.

You are very unlikely to have experienced arrogance from the Cottesmore.

Plenty of folk in East Leics were happy to see the back of them.

ReggieCide said:

TOPPING said:

ReggieCide said:

TOPPING said:

Stereotomy said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Stereotomy said:

Maybe we should let people living in rural areas decide...

http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2015-01-08/huntrur.png

So, keep the ban, then?

Yes, as a practical political matter I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole. That's a different point.

Okay, but as a non-practical matter, you'd overturn the ban against the wishes of the majority of people living in rural areas?

A democracy is all about tolerating minorities.

paedophiles, rapists, terrorists .....

It is interesting that you immediately reach for an analogy with cruelty to humans. Foxes are pests and it is legal to kill them.

I reached for nothing. You equated (hopefully inadvertently) democracy with tolerance of FGM

Cyclefree said:

The fact that Labour spent more time debating fox hunting than the war in Iraq shows what a skewed moral compass they had.

They focused on relative trivialities that made them feel good rather than on stuff that really mattered and whose consequences we - and Iraqis and others - are feeling to this day.

ReggieCide said:

TOPPING said:

ReggieCide said:

TOPPING said:

ReggieCide said:

TOPPING said:

Stereotomy said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Stereotomy said:

Maybe we should let people living in rural areas decide...

http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2015-01-08/huntrur.png

So, keep the ban, then?

Yes, as a practical political matter I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole. That's a different point.

Okay, but as a non-practical matter, you'd overturn the ban against the wishes of the majority of people living in rural areas?

A democracy is all about tolerating minorities.

paedophiles, rapists, terrorists .....

It is interesting that you immediately reach for an analogy with cruelty to humans. Foxes are pests and it is legal to kill them.

I reached for nothing. You equated (hopefully inadvertently) democracy with tolerance of FGM

Hmm quite a stretch. The point was made that because a majority of people don't like something then it should be made illegal.

For the record, I don't give a shit about fox hunting, either way. I do give a shit about FGM.

ReggieCide said:

TOPPING said:

ReggieCide said:

TOPPING said:

ReggieCide said:

TOPPING said:

ReggieCide said:

TOPPING said:

Stereotomy said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Stereotomy said:

Maybe we should let people living in rural areas decide...

http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2015-01-08/huntrur.png

So, keep the ban, then?

Yes, as a practical political matter I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole. That's a different point.

Okay, but as a non-practical matter, you'd overturn the ban against the wishes of the majority of people living in rural areas?

A democracy is all about tolerating minorities.

paedophiles, rapists, terrorists .....

It is interesting that you immediately reach for an analogy with cruelty to humans. Foxes are pests and it is legal to kill them.

I reached for nothing. You equated (hopefully inadvertently) democracy with tolerance of FGM

Hmm quite a stretch. The point was made that because a majority of people don't like something then it should be made illegal.

For the record, I don't give a shit about fox hunting, either way. I do give a shit about FGM.

Very pleased to hear it.

What about you?

ReggieCide said:

TOPPING said:

ReggieCide said:

TOPPING said:

ReggieCide said:

TOPPING said:

ReggieCide said:

TOPPING said:

ReggieCide said:

TOPPING said:

Stereotomy said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Stereotomy said:

Maybe we should let people living in rural areas decide...

http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2015-01-08/huntrur.png

So, keep the ban, then?

Yes, as a practical political matter I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole. That's a different point.

Okay, but as a non-practical matter, you'd overturn the ban against the wishes of the majority of people living in rural areas?

A democracy is all about tolerating minorities.

paedophiles, rapists, terrorists .....

It is interesting that you immediately reach for an analogy with cruelty to humans. Foxes are pests and it is legal to kill them.

I reached for nothing. You equated (hopefully inadvertently) democracy with tolerance of FGM

Hmm quite a stretch. The point was made that because a majority of people don't like something then it should be made illegal.

For the record, I don't give a shit about fox hunting, either way. I do give a shit about FGM.

Very pleased to hear it.

What about you?

What about me what?

You left out the comma

ReggieCide said:

Stereotomy said:

AndyJS said:

Anazina said:

SeanT said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Jonathan said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Anazina said:

You went on a march, supporting the rights of people to terrify a defenceless wild animal, then tear it to shreds with a pack of dogs. You did this for the lolz, and ‘by accident’. So now we know.

The cynical attack of Blair - for purely internal party-political purposes - on British rural culture was and remains a total disgrace, which completely blows apart the left's claim to the higher moral ground on being sensitive to the culture of immigrant groups. On Blair's part it was just red meat (if you pardon the expression) to throw to his party, and on their part it was motivated by class hatred*, pure and simple: nothing to do with animal welfare. Even those lefties who run the RSPCA had fox-hunting as a negligible issue in terms of animal welfare.

* And ignorance, of course: there are many people from unprivileged households who are passionate about fox-hunting.

There are many people, if not a majority, in rural culture who are against hunting.

That may be. So what? It doesn't make the culture of the minority invalid, does it? Or have you abandoned your most cherished principle of defending minority cultures?

It would be interesting to correlate people who fiercely oppose fox-hunting yet will happily tolerate traditional halal butchery, and also turn a very blind eye to FGM, because the last two are "aspects of a minority culture". At a rough guess more Muslim girls are "cut" every year in Britain than foxes run to ground by dogs.

These people, like Jonathan, are vile and contemptible hypocrites. Foxes matter more to them than girls. Moreover fox hunting is part of our age-old way of life, and a justifiable form of vermin control.

That, of course, for many of them, is why they hate it. It's British, so wrong. If it's a minority culture, please go ahead and mutilate your children.

A fucking stupid post. I doubt that he does tolerate FGM at all. You are drunk and making that up.

Why have there been fewer protests against FGM than against fox hunting over the years?

You think just maybe we might see more protests against FGM if it was legal, or the PM was pledging to give a vote on legalising it?

It may as well be legal for all the effort put into enforcement.

SeanT said:

Anazina said:

SeanT said:

To throw a techno-cat amongst the pigeons, I wonder how PB-ers would feel about humans, dogs and horses hunting an entirely robot fox? This will be very do-able very soon.

I cannot see any moral argument against this. No one suffers, everyone has fun, an unfeeling piece of electronics is "killed". The human instinct to hunt is satisfied. Win win.

It's the same argument (which we will soon be having) about pedophilia. We will soon be able to create child sex-bots, with no brains or consciousness, who could slake the appetites of pedophiles, so they wouldn't have to go to jail for attacking real kids. That means real kids go unmolested, yet pedos don't have to be locked up, expensively, for life.

Surely this, too, is win win. Yet I've heard people arguing that we shouldn't allow child sex bots, as this somehow "encourages" pedophilia. To me this seems insane. No human will suffer, many real kids at risk will be saved. And they OBJECT??

It speaks of a puritan agenda hidden within the anti-sex, anti-hunting ethos: they don't object to the act, it's the pleasure taken which annoys them.

I would have no problem with a robot fox hunt. The child thing is deeply disturbing.

Seting aside the happily abusive PB banter, I know what you mean. There is something disturbing about creating child sex bots to slake pedophile desires. I *get* the revulsion. I kinda share it.

And yet logically this revulsion is absurd. We should allow indeed encourage this tech development, as it would protect real human children from the predations of molestors.

I suspect our rational morality is coloured, here, by more atavistic emotions.

To complicate the argument, police forces are now creating online child sex tempters, entirely non-existent, to attract and then convict pedos. I also find THAT somehow disturbing.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24818769

JohnRussell said:

I get the feeling if white men were systematically beating up black men, David Lammy would mention the colour of the perpetrators... but still an interesting question

https://twitter.com/davidlammy/status/1053400721700372481?s=21

SeanT said:

kle4 said:

JohnRussell said:

I get the feeling if white men were systematically beating up black men, David Lammy would mention the colour of the perpetrators... but still an interesting question

https://twitter.com/davidlammy/status/1053400721700372481?s=21

The BBC report Javid linked to commented on the race or ethnicity of the convicted too. I understand where Lammy is coming from on this, but I think he's gone a bit overboard in how he's attacking Javid about it.

Overboard??? It's a ridiculous piece of whataboutery, Lammy is a dick. Even the lefty judge saw fit to mention the ethno-religious origin of the perps several times.

It is an undeniable fact that 85% of "street groomers" are Muslim, mostly Pakistani, even though they are about 3-5% of the population. It is an undeniable if repugnant cultural phenomenon.

It does Javid great credit that he is prepared to confront this, honestly. I'd happily see him as PM: a self made man, from humble origins, clearly smart, with a bit of backbone, who turned himself into a millionaire with hard work.

He lacks a little charisma, but compared to a robot like Starmer he is Abraham Lincoln.

JohnRussell said:

I get the feeling if white men were systematically beating up black men, David Lammy would mention the colour of the perpetrators... but still an interesting question

https://twitter.com/davidlammy/status/1053400721700372481?s=21

Anazina said:

JosiasJessop said:

NickPalmer said:

Anazina said:

JosiasJessop said:

I almost certainly had a better - if more expensive - time the night aforehand. we stumbled out of the hotel and got caught up in a wave of very pleasant people.

The venomous hate of the anti-hunt protesters was quite something to behold. Oddly, this conflicts with Nick Palmer's anecdote ...

Amazing, eh, that they felt so passionately about defending the rights of defenceless wild animals? How gauche!

I suspect that most mass events feel very different according to which side you're on. One's eye is drawn to the most virulent posters, the most abusive marchers, and one doesn't especially notice reasonable people just walking along indicating support. But the march, which featured lots of personal attacks on Tony Blair (who ironically was the Government MP least keen on the ban, apart from Kate Hoey and a couple of others) was very counter-productive if it was intended to influence the government and its MPs, since its effect was to polarise.

How to do a march that DOES change minds is an interesting question. As I've said before, the silent Tamil march did work for me - I'd thought of Tamils in Sri Lanka merely as one of two rival factions, and the Gandhiesque display of dignified silence was impressive and made me think that maybe they were the side that needed more sympathy.

The Saturday march is trying, I think, to answer the claim that the issue is settled and most people are shrugging and making the best of Brexit, by showing that there's still very substantial resistance. If only a few thousand turned up it would backfire, of course, but it doesn't look as though that'll happen.

I hadn't planned to be on the march. Some of the stuff the protesters on *your* side where shouting was obscene. You may not have seen some of that, as you were on the other side of the fence and could not be everywhere. Likewise, I may not have seen bad behaviour by marchers outside my immediate vicinity.

But we were 'taken in' by a lovely family, and ended up having strawberries and champagne in ?Hyde Park? at the end of the march. I reckon we probably had more fun.

Swearing and obscenity vs tearing terrified defenceless animals limb from limb.

Still, you got strawberries.

As Sean says, every man has his price.