politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » ChangeUK is learning the hard way that there’s more to running
Comments
-
Sounds like Gordon Brown got off lightly that time with Mrs Duffy!Recidivist said: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.
0 -
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?Ishmael_Z said:
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.Mysticrose said:
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.Charles said:
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.Mysticrose said:
A lot cheaper to buy a rifle and do it yourselfCharles said:
Rentokil quoted me £3,500 to shoot a fox that has taken to pissing in my front garden.TOPPING said:
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.viewcode said:
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?TOPPING said:The exhaustive Burns Report concluded that fox hunting was not cruel.
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.
Second the police don’t like it when I pull my big gun out on the streets of London
Taking down a fox is a piece of piss compared to game birds like woodcock.
Bit of practice down the ranges and you'll be ready to squeeze that trigger.
Don't sound like much of a socialist today, do I?
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.0 -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapotTOPPING said:It's actually very simple.
Killing foxes by hunting them was not found to be cruel ergo let's go with it's not cruel. I don't think this is a big leap to take.
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.TOPPING said: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.
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.TOPPING said: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.
0 -
A nice slice of game pie and a glass of port will sort you out. Tally ho!Mysticrose said:
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?Ishmael_Z said:
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.Mysticrose said:
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.Charles said:
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.Mysticrose said:
A lot cheaper to buy a rifle and do it yourselfCharles said:
Rentokil quoted me £3,500 to shoot a fox that has taken to pissing in my front garden.TOPPING said:
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.viewcode said:
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?TOPPING said:The exhaustive Burns Report concluded that fox hunting was not cruel.
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.
Second the police don’t like it when I pull my big gun out on the streets of London
Taking down a fox is a piece of piss compared to game birds like woodcock.
Bit of practice down the ranges and you'll be ready to squeeze that trigger.
Don't sound like much of a socialist today, do I?
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.0 -
The sadistic bloodthirsty fuckers on this forum are showing their true colours today. I'll come back when we are talking about politics.0
-
I use a .22 to shoot mistletoeMysticrose said:
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?Ishmael_Z said:
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.Mysticrose said:
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.Charles said:
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.Mysticrose said:
A lot cheaper to buy a rifle and do it yourselfCharles said:
Rentokil quoted me £3,500 to shoot a fox that has taken to pissing in my front garden.TOPPING said:
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.viewcode said:
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?TOPPING said:The exhaustive Burns Report concluded that fox hunting was not cruel.
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.
Second the police don’t like it when I pull my big gun out on the streets of London
Taking down a fox is a piece of piss compared to game birds like woodcock.
Bit of practice down the ranges and you'll be ready to squeeze that trigger.
Don't sound like much of a socialist today, do I?
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.0 -
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.TOPPING said:
That is not to understand countryside management.Mysticrose said: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.
Edit: but does prove my point about why people dislike it.
But I'm not suggesting anyway that there are absolutes. That's ERG country. Unfortunately, it's always more complex.0 -
O/T
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/0 -
Donald Trump like OGH thinks that his age is a serious vulnerability. (So do I)FrancisUrquhart said:
Sleepy Joe? Not Creepy Joe?Anorak said:0 -
Ill informed and chippy as ever.SandyRentool said:The sadistic bloodthirsty fuckers on this forum are showing their true colours today. I'll come back when we are talking about politics.
0 -
Hmmm... Paul Stains may see them as dynamic and fresh. They look pretty identikit to me.FrancisUrquhart said:https://order-order.com/2019/04/25/brexit-party-unveils-seven-new-candidates/
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.0 -
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.Stereotomy said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapotTOPPING said:It's actually very simple.
Killing foxes by hunting them was not found to be cruel ergo let's go with it's not cruel. I don't think this is a big leap to take.
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.TOPPING said: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.
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.TOPPING said: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.
Which of course matters not at all to the fox.0 -
SandyRentool said:
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.
0 -
I was starting to laugh, but you're probably serious? It's really difficult stuff to get down isn't it?Charles said:
I use a .22 to shoot mistletoeMysticrose said:
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?Ishmael_Z said:
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.Mysticrose said:
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.Charles said:
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.Mysticrose said:
A lot cheaper to buy a rifle and do it yourselfCharles said:
Rentokil quoted me £3,500 to shoot a fox that has taken to pissing in my front garden.TOPPING said:
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.viewcode said:
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?TOPPING said:The exhaustive Burns Report concluded that fox hunting was not cruel.
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.
Second the police don’t like it when I pull my big gun out on the streets of London
Taking down a fox is a piece of piss compared to game birds like woodcock.
Bit of practice down the ranges and you'll be ready to squeeze that trigger.
Don't sound like much of a socialist today, do I?
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.0 -
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.0 -
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/long_reads/fox-hunting-uk-britain-mobs-driving-communities-apart-a7948516.html sounds charming to be living amongst that lot when it's going off...0
-
Some vegetarian game-substitute for me, pleaseAnorak said:
A nice slice of game pie and a glass of port will sort you out. Tally ho!Mysticrose said:
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?Ishmael_Z said:
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.Mysticrose said:
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.Charles said:
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.Mysticrose said:
A lot cheaper to buy a rifle and do it yourselfCharles said:
Rentokil quoted me £3,500 to shoot a fox that has taken to pissing in my front garden.TOPPING said:
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.viewcode said:
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?TOPPING said:The exhaustive Burns Report concluded that fox hunting was not cruel.
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.
Second the police don’t like it when I pull my big gun out on the streets of London
Taking down a fox is a piece of piss compared to game birds like woodcock.
Bit of practice down the ranges and you'll be ready to squeeze that trigger.
Don't sound like much of a socialist today, do I?
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.
0 -
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.Stereotomy said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapotTOPPING said:It's actually very simple.
Killing foxes by hunting them was not found to be cruel ergo let's go with it's not cruel. I don't think this is a big leap to take.
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.TOPPING said: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.
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.TOPPING said: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.0 -
Huge loss.SandyRentool said:The sadistic bloodthirsty fuckers on this forum are showing their true colours today. I'll come back when we are talking about politics.
0 -
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.TOPPING said:
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.Stereotomy said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapotTOPPING said:It's actually very simple.
Killing foxes by hunting them was not found to be cruel ergo let's go with it's not cruel. I don't think this is a big leap to take.
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.TOPPING said: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.
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.TOPPING said: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.
Which of course matters not at all to the fox.0 -
Europe Elects, on Twitter, (https://twitter.com/EuropeElects) has Kantar polls from each EU country on Leave/Remain.
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.0 -
Bit rich though, coming from the septuagenarian-pussy-grabber-in-chiefAlastairMeeks said:
Donald Trump like OGH thinks that his age is a serious vulnerability. (So do I)FrancisUrquhart said:
Sleepy Joe? Not Creepy Joe?Anorak said:0 -
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.TOPPING said:
You have put your finger on it.Foxy said:
I have no particilar view on banning fox hunting, though I deplore people wanting to do it.matt 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 am quite happy for Tories to bang on about it. It lost them a critical few seats last GE!
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.
Killing animals is sadly nessecary at times, but to take pleasure in the task shows a sick soul.0 -
If you live in the UK then I'm guessing you don't hunt.Mysticrose said:SandyRentool said: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.
Go and tell the Iroquois Hunt your views that said.0 -
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.Foxy said:
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.TOPPING said:
You have put your finger on it.Foxy said:
I have no particilar view on banning fox hunting, though I deplore people wanting to do it.matt 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 am quite happy for Tories to bang on about it. It lost them a critical few seats last GE!
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.
Killing animals is sadly nessecary at times, but to take pleasure in the task shows a sick soul.0 -
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.Theuniondivvie said:
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.0 -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFwOe3jOoQ8Charles said:
I use a .22 to shoot mistletoeMysticrose said:
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?Ishmael_Z said:
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.Mysticrose said:
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.Charles said:
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.Mysticrose said:
A lot cheaper to buy a rifle and do it yourselfCharles said:
Rentokil quoted me £3,500 to shoot a fox that has taken to pissing in my front garden.TOPPING said:
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.viewcode said:
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?TOPPING said:The exhaustive Burns Report concluded that fox hunting was not cruel.
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.
Second the police don’t like it when I pull my big gun out on the streets of London
Taking down a fox is a piece of piss compared to game birds like woodcock.
Bit of practice down the ranges and you'll be ready to squeeze that trigger.
Don't sound like much of a socialist today, do I?
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.0 -
Makes me all nostalgic for when divide and conquer was one the major components of the Brexiteers' gentle jog to victory.Anorak said:Europe Elects, on Twitter, (https://twitter.com/EuropeElects) has Kantar polls from each EU country on Leave/Remain.
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.0 -
Is there any topic on God's Green Earth that you are not expert on?Ishmael_Z said:
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.Mysticrose said:
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.Charles said:
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.Mysticrose said:
A lot cheaper to buy a rifle and do it yourselfCharles said:
Rentokil quoted me £3,500 to shoot a fox that has taken to pissing in my front garden.TOPPING said:
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.viewcode said:
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?TOPPING said:The exhaustive Burns Report concluded that fox hunting was not cruel.
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.
Second the police don’t like it when I pull my big gun out on the streets of London
Taking down a fox is a piece of piss compared to game birds like woodcock.
Bit of practice down the ranges and you'll be ready to squeeze that trigger.
Don't sound like much of a socialist today, do I?0 -
At the rate we’re going, Norway will join while we’re in our 10th Article 50 extension.Theuniondivvie said:
Makes me all nostalgic for when divide and conquer was one the major components of the Brexiteers' gentle jog to victory.Anorak said:Europe Elects, on Twitter, (https://twitter.com/EuropeElects) has Kantar polls from each EU country on Leave/Remain.
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.0 -
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._Anazina_ said:
Is there any topic on God's Green Earth that you are not expert on?Ishmael_Z said:
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.Mysticrose said:
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.Charles said:
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.Mysticrose said:
A lot cheaper to buy a rifle and do it yourselfCharles said:
Rentokil quoted me £3,500 to shoot a fox that has taken to pissing in my front garden.TOPPING said:
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.viewcode said:
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?TOPPING said:The exhaustive Burns Report concluded that fox hunting was not cruel.
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.
Second the police don’t like it when I pull my big gun out on the streets of London
Taking down a fox is a piece of piss compared to game birds like woodcock.
Bit of practice down the ranges and you'll be ready to squeeze that trigger.
Don't sound like much of a socialist today, do I?0 -
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.Foxy said:
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.TOPPING said:
You have put your finger on it.Foxy said:
I have no particilar view on banning fox hunting, though I deplore people wanting to do it.matt 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 am quite happy for Tories to bang on about it. It lost them a critical few seats last GE!
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.
Killing animals is sadly nessecary at times, but to take pleasure in the task shows a sick soul.0 -
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.Anorak said:Europe Elects, on Twitter, (https://twitter.com/EuropeElects) has Kantar polls from each EU country on Leave/Remain.
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.
0 -
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.Foxy said:
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.TOPPING said:
You have put your finger on it.Foxy said:
I have no particilar view on banning fox hunting, though I deplore people wanting to do it.matt 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 am quite happy for Tories to bang on about it. It lost them a critical few seats last GE!
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.
Killing animals is sadly nessecary at times, but to take pleasure in the task shows a sick soul.
But it's rather sickening if people then roll it into a pastime for pleasure.
0 -
Glad to hear it.Ishmael_Z said:
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.Theuniondivvie said:
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.
Was blooding dying out even before the ban?0 -
Well, I was being deliberately sarky.Ishmael_Z said:
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._Anazina_ said:
Is there any topic on God's Green Earth that you are not expert on?Ishmael_Z said:
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.Mysticrose said:
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.Charles said:
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.Mysticrose said:
A lot cheaper to buy a rifle and do it yourselfCharles said:
Rentokil quoted me £3,500 to shoot a fox that has taken to pissing in my front garden.TOPPING said:
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.viewcode said:
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?TOPPING said:The exhaustive Burns Report concluded that fox hunting was not cruel.
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.
Second the police don’t like it when I pull my big gun out on the streets of London
Taking down a fox is a piece of piss compared to game birds like woodcock.
Bit of practice down the ranges and you'll be ready to squeeze that trigger.
Don't sound like much of a socialist today, do I?
I know that you are pig ignorant about apartheid for example, we established that several days ago.
0 -
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?0 -
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.TOPPING said:
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.Foxy said:
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.TOPPING said:
You have put your finger on it.Foxy said:
I have no particilar view on banning fox hunting, though I deplore people wanting to do it.matt 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 am quite happy for Tories to bang on about it. It lost them a critical few seats last GE!
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.
Killing animals is sadly nessecary at times, but to take pleasure in the task shows a sick soul.0 -
Chortle. Indeed.Theuniondivvie said:
Makes me all nostalgic for when divide and conquer was one the major components of the Brexiteers' gentle jog to victory.Anorak said:Europe Elects, on Twitter, (https://twitter.com/EuropeElects) has Kantar polls from each EU country on Leave/Remain.
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.
Would be interesting to see the numbers for Scotland – interesting development today that France is making noises about automatic entry for you guys.
0 -
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.Theuniondivvie said:
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.TOPPING said:
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.Stereotomy said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapotTOPPING said:It's actually very simple.
Killing foxes by hunting them was not found to be cruel ergo let's go with it's not cruel. I don't think this is a big leap to take.
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.
"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.TOPPING said: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.
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.TOPPING said: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.
Which of course matters not at all to the fox.
Plus eating animals is worse than fox hunting as the enjoyment from the latter does not require the fox to die.0 -
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"Foxy said:
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.TOPPING said:
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.Foxy said:
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.TOPPING said:
You have put your finger on it.Foxy said:
I have no particilar view on banning fox hunting, though I deplore people wanting to do it.matt 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 am quite happy for Tories to bang on about it. It lost them a critical few seats last GE!
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.
Killing animals is sadly nessecary at times, but to take pleasure in the task shows a sick soul.0 -
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2133919826655995&set=a.193895230658474&type=3&theater
Plainly, the owner of the land on which these advertising hoardings have been put up has a dark sense of humour.0 -
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._Anazina_ said:
Chortle. Indeed.Theuniondivvie said:
Makes me all nostalgic for when divide and conquer was one the major components of the Brexiteers' gentle jog to victory.Anorak said:Europe Elects, on Twitter, (https://twitter.com/EuropeElects) has Kantar polls from each EU country on Leave/Remain.
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.
Would be interesting to see the numbers for Scotland – interesting development today that France is making noises about automatic entry for you guys.0 -
OT: Paul Waugh confirms that Laura Murray has been appointed as Head of Complaints for Labour.0
-
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?Foxy said:
Well, I was being deliberately sarky.
I know that you are pig ignorant about apartheid for example, we established that several days ago.
0 -
They're just trolling now. Arseholes, the lot of them (Corbyn's inner circle, that is).AramintaMoonbeamQC said:OT: Paul Waugh confirms that Laura Murray has been appointed as Head of Complaints for Labour.
0 -
Shortages of whitewash at B&Q....AramintaMoonbeamQC said:OT: Paul Waugh confirms that Laura Murray has been appointed as Head of Complaints for Labour.
0 -
Has Lord Falconer resigned yet?AramintaMoonbeamQC said:OT: Paul Waugh confirms that Laura Murray has been appointed as Head of Complaints for Labour.
0 -
Well indeed. Hence my earlier reference to the frozen meat counter in Waitrose, or even the one in Tesco's in Melton.Foxy said:
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.TOPPING said:
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.Foxy said:
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.TOPPING said:
You have put your finger on it.Foxy said:
I have no particilar view on banning fox hunting, though I deplore people wanting to do it.matt 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 am quite happy for Tories to bang on about it. It lost them a critical few seats last GE!
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.
Killing animals is sadly nessecary at times, but to take pleasure in the task shows a sick soul.
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.0 -
The political genius that is Nick Timothy.
0 -
LABOUR MEMBER SUSPENDED OVER ‘JEWISH DONORS’ REMARK IS NOW A LABOUR SPOKESMANAnorak said:
They're just trolling now. Arseholes, the lot of them (Corbyn's inner circle, that is).AramintaMoonbeamQC said:OT: Paul Waugh confirms that Laura Murray has been appointed as Head of Complaints for Labour.
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.0 -
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._Anazina_ said:
Chortle. Indeed.Theuniondivvie said:
Makes me all nostalgic for when divide and conquer was one the major components of the Brexiteers' gentle jog to victory.Anorak said:Europe Elects, on Twitter, (https://twitter.com/EuropeElects) has Kantar polls from each EU country on Leave/Remain.
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.
Would be interesting to see the numbers for Scotland – interesting development today that France is making noises about automatic entry for you guys.0 -
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!TOPPING said:
Well indeed. Hence my earlier reference to the frozen meat counter in Waitrose, or even the one in Tesco's in Melton.Foxy said:
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.TOPPING said:
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.Foxy said:
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.TOPPING said:
You have put your finger on it.Foxy said:
I have no particilar view on banning fox hunting, though I deplore people wanting to do it.matt 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 am quite happy for Tories to bang on about it. It lost them a critical few seats last GE!
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.
Killing animals is sadly nessecary at times, but to take pleasure in the task shows a sick soul.
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.0 -
Nope. You said apartheid never killed anyone.Ishmael_Z said:
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?Foxy said:
Well, I was being deliberately sarky.
I know that you are pig ignorant about apartheid for example, we established that several days ago.
Deeply ignorant.
0 -
Let us hope that he inspires Rees Mogg, Francois et al to do just that, and leave the Conservative Party to proper Conservatives.williamglenn said:The political genius that is Nick Timothy.
0 -
What an absolute helmet.williamglenn said:The political genius that is Nick Timothy.
0 -
That's nothing.Nigel_Foremain said:
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!TOPPING said:
Well indeed. Hence my earlier reference to the frozen meat counter in Waitrose, or even the one in Tesco's in Melton.Foxy said:
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.TOPPING said:
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.Foxy said:
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.TOPPING said:
You have put your finger on it.Foxy said:
I have no particilar view on banning fox hunting, though I deplore people wanting to do it.matt 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 am quite happy for Tories to bang on about it. It lost them a critical few seats last GE!
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.
Killing animals is sadly nessecary at times, but to take pleasure in the task shows a sick soul.
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.
PETA members kill animals in order to "save" them from life with humans.
https://www.zmescience.com/science/peta-killing-campaign-28032019/
0 -
...or tough on anti-antisemitismFrancisUrquhart said:
LABOUR MEMBER SUSPENDED OVER ‘JEWISH DONORS’ REMARK IS NOW A LABOUR SPOKESMANAnorak said:
They're just trolling now. Arseholes, the lot of them (Corbyn's inner circle, that is).AramintaMoonbeamQC said:OT: Paul Waugh confirms that Laura Murray has been appointed as Head of Complaints for Labour.
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.0 -
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")TOPPING said:
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.viewcode said:
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?TOPPING said:The exhaustive Burns Report concluded that fox hunting was not cruel.
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.0 -
Did it? I didn't know. My attitude was always rather ‘I ain’t got no quarrel with them Vietcong’._Anazina_ said:
Nope. You said apartheid never killed anyone.Ishmael_Z said:
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?Foxy said:
Well, I was being deliberately sarky.
I know that you are pig ignorant about apartheid for example, we established that several days ago.
Deeply ignorant.0 -
Will the Chinese be listening in on the call?williamglenn said:0 -
What kind of cretinous arsehole punches a woman though.Slackbladder said:
you can't underestimate there's a lot of angry people out there on all sides. That is not good, and all parties have blame for this.isam said:0 -
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 FFSSean_F said:
That's nothing.Nigel_Foremain said:
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!TOPPING said:
Well indeed. Hence my earlier reference to the frozen meat counter in Waitrose, or even the one in Tesco's in Melton.Foxy said:
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.TOPPING said:
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.Foxy said:
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.TOPPING said:
You have put your finger on it.Foxy said:
I have no particilar view on banning fox hunting, though I deplore people wanting to do it.matt 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 am quite happy for Tories to bang on about it. It lost them a critical few seats last GE!
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.
Killing animals is sadly nessecary at times, but to take pleasure in the task shows a sick soul.
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.
PETA members kill animals in order to "save" them from life with humans.
https://www.zmescience.com/science/peta-killing-campaign-28032019/0 -
Some vegetarian haggis for me, pleaseNigel_Foremain said:
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? 0 -
They had the Wong number...brokenwheel said:
Will the Chinese be listening in on the call?williamglenn said:0 -
Turned out to be a rank bad un.TheScreamingEagles said: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.
https://stv.tv/news/politics/1437263-natalie-mcgarry-admits-embezzlement-charges/0 -
Urrrm, the other day you called for some people to be strung up ...SandyRentool said:The sadistic bloodthirsty fuckers on this forum are showing their true colours today. I'll come back when we are talking about politics.
0 -
I think you answered your own question...malcolmg said:
What kind of cretinous arsehole punches a woman though.Slackbladder said:
you can't underestimate there's a lot of angry people out there on all sides. That is not good, and all parties have blame for this.isam said:0 -
True. Absolutes vs nuance. Slippery slopes. Hypocrisy. Drawing the line. Logic. Coherence. To law or not to law? All of that.JosiasJessop said: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.
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.0 -
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.Nigel_Foremain said:
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 FFSSean_F said:
That's nothing.Nigel_Foremain said:
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!TOPPING said:
Well indeed. Hence my earlier reference to the frozen meat counter in Waitrose, or even the one in Tesco's in Melton.Foxy said:
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.TOPPING said:
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.Foxy said:
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.TOPPING said:
You have put your finger on it.Foxy said:
I have no particilar view on banning fox hunting, though I deplore people wanting to do it.matt 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 am quite happy for Tories to bang on about it. It lost them a critical few seats last GE!
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.
Killing animals is sadly nessecary at times, but to take pleasure in the task shows a sick soul.
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.
PETA members kill animals in order to "save" them from life with humans.
https://www.zmescience.com/science/peta-killing-campaign-28032019/0 -
A fascist or a communist. It is why I detest both, and why extremist politics is cancerous. Thank you Nigel Farage and Jeremy Corbyn.malcolmg said:
What kind of cretinous arsehole punches a woman though.Slackbladder said:
you can't underestimate there's a lot of angry people out there on all sides. That is not good, and all parties have blame for this.isam said:0 -
Not Disney, but Looney Tunes, but still funny:Nigel_Foremain said:
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"Foxy said:
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.TOPPING said:
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.Foxy said:
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.TOPPING said:
You have put your finger on it.Foxy said:
I have no particilar view on banning fox hunting, though I deplore people wanting to do it.matt 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 am quite happy for Tories to bang on about it. It lost them a critical few seats last GE!
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.
Killing animals is sadly nessecary at times, but to take pleasure in the task shows a sick soul.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyPFQKpRnd00 -
They probably leaked it!brokenwheel said:
Will the Chinese be listening in on the call?williamglenn said:0 -
Does that mean we should be hunting down lions, tigers , bears , etc etc etc.Cyclefree said:U
SandyRentool said:
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.TOPPING said:
The exhaustive Burns Report concluded that fox hunting was not cruel.OnlyLivingBoy said:
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.Richard_Nabavi said:
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?OnlyLivingBoy said:
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.
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.
Burn is obviously a moronic townie.0 -
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)kinabalu said:
True. Absolutes vs nuance. Slippery slopes. Hypocrisy. Drawing the line. Logic. Coherence. To law or not to law? All of that.JosiasJessop said: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.
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.
She became a veggie and very interested in animal rights. I didn't.0 -
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.Mysticrose said:SandyRentool said: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.0 -
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.
So what is it all actually about?0 -
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.TOPPING said:
Well indeed. Hence my earlier reference to the frozen meat counter in Waitrose, or even the one in Tesco's in Melton.Foxy said:
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.TOPPING said:
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.Foxy said:
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.TOPPING said:
You have put your finger on it.Foxy said:
I have no particilar view on banning fox hunting, though I deplore people wanting to do it.matt 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 am quite happy for Tories to bang on about it. It lost them a critical few seats last GE!
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.
Killing animals is sadly nessecary at times, but to take pleasure in the task shows a sick soul.
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.0 -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLDFG5vm5kAJosiasJessop said: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.
:-)0 -
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 partyMysticrose said:
I was starting to laugh, but you're probably serious? It's really difficult stuff to get down isn't it?Charles said:
I use a .22 to shoot mistletoeMysticrose said:
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?Ishmael_Z said:
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.Mysticrose said:
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.Charles said:
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.Mysticrose said:
A lot cheaper to buy a rifle and do it yourselfCharles said:
Rentokil quoted me £3,500 to shoot a fox that has taken to pissing in my front garden.TOPPING said:
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.viewcode said:
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?TOPPING said:The exhaustive Burns Report concluded that fox hunting was not cruel.
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.
Second the police don’t like it when I pull my big gun out on the streets of London
Taking down a fox is a piece of piss compared to game birds like woodcock.
Bit of practice down the ranges and you'll be ready to squeeze that trigger.
Don't sound like much of a socialist today, do I?
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.0 -
kinabalu said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLDFG5vm5kAJosiasJessop said: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.
:-)
As someone who believes in equality, it really isn't.0 -
-
Immigration is certainly prominent in the mix.MikeL said: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.
So what is it all actually about?0 -
Support for the EU is dropping in Ireland.
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/11213947133644349450 -
Not rights or value - the psyche and the life experience. Some big differences.JosiasJessop said:As someone who believes in equality, it really isn't.
Generalizing obviously. We are all unique.0 -
Holy moly, that is catastrophic. End of the EU on that basis.williamglenn said:Support for the EU is dropping in Ireland.
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1121394713364434945
0 -
Really? The only pest species?SandyRentool said:
Pests. Abject nonsense. The only pest species on this planet is humankind.Cyclefree said:U
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.SandyRentool said:
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.TOPPING said:
The exhaustive Burns Report concluded that fox hunting was not cruel.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Be.Richard_Nabavi said:
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?OnlyLivingBoy said:
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.
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.
That kind of hyperbole just undermines any point you want to make. And no, I dont support fox hunting..0
