politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Legalising fox-hunting: A vote winner for the Tories or a

Perhaps a more apposite question would be

Do you want your police to chase red faced men in red coats doing silly things, or islamic terrorists?

steve_garner said:

This subject appears a bit trivial given current events in France.

Agreed but it is hard to see what a thread could be about.

SandyRentool said:

They are vermin, pure and simple.

I am, of course, referring to the pro-hunting morons, not the foxes.

It's about time the police took some action on the lawbreakers, instead of spending their time patrolling Twitter.

Don't you think that's ridiculously strong language to describe supporters of fox hunting?

@MikeSmithson
Circle health backing out of running a general hospital?, Drop in industrial output?.... There are plenty of options under the main headlines.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Hmmm - I've been of the belief people who were already voting Tory support it, whereas it could lose the support of floating voters who hate fox hunting.

As cunning as a fox who's just been appointed Professor of Cunning at Oxford University?

We're a nation of animal lovers, and seeing animals torn apart for sport is UnEnglish/UnBritish.

Look at the love that poor dog has received, and the silly woman who abandoned it has finally come forward.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11335107/Woman-who-left-Kai-the-dog-at-Ayr-station-comes-forward.html

The european elite are like City traders when the market turns savagely against them for the first time.

Real rabbit in the headlights stuff. Total brain freeze.

Very instructive for voters.

4x4s kill more foxes than hunts. Let's ban 4x4s.

How does fox hunting keep down the suburban foxes?

There are more important issues like not rigging contracts with private firms to force them to stop providing services to the state. The Hinchenbrooke hospital stuff reminds me of the East Coast Railway franchises for some odd reason.

taffys said:

Perhaps a more apposite question would be

Do you want your police to chase red faced men in red coats doing silly things, or islamic terrorists?

Do you think all laws should be enforced, or just ones that are in the papers at the moment?

Murali of this parish will like this one:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-30738671

MikeSmithson said:

Smarmeron said:

@MikeSmithson
Circle health backing out of running a general hospital?, Drop in industrial output?.... There are plenty of options under the main headlines.

This is not a general news site and my specialities are polling and political betting.

On Wednesday when I switched to the Paris killings I was accused of diverting attention from EdM's plan to "weaponise the NHS".

Fox hunting is a news story today

Tally no-go! Cars forced to stop as huntsman rides wrong way down busy road

Drivers do double take on A5 in Shropshire as huntsman on horse trots along busy dual carriageway after confused hounds stray from field

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/countryside/11334933/Huntsman-rides-wrong-way-down-A5-near-Shrewsbury..html

Do you think all laws should be enforced, or just ones that are in the papers at the moment?

I absolutely do, which is why I think its high time we decriminalised fox hunting.

Its a moral issue, not a legal one. I don;t like fox hunting idiots myself. But they are not crims.

rcs1000 said:

@Socrates, et al, re continued discussions about the prophet.

I regard freedom of speech and freedom to offend as fundamental. The idea the state should have any kind of power over what I do or do not say is abhorrent and repellent.

I also believe that the state should not criminalise who people sleep with. (Assuming its between consenting adults!)

Those cartoon are like cheating on your wife. Something whose legality should be defended to the death. But they are also something which is rather impolite. While I would tweet my abhorrence with the acts of the murderers and my absolute defence of free speech, I would not retweet the cartoons themselves. Not because it should be illegal to do so, but because I regard them as offensive.

What about cartoons depicting very young girls - should they be illegal

I want it repealed. Big time. But I think it'd only pass with a Conservative majority of 50 or so. There'd be a couple of dozen Tory MPs who'd vote against it, and a few more who'd abstain.

I remember losing my rag with Marcus Woods PPC on this when he welched on it before the election. It's not a surprise he lost if he was that fickle.

I don't think there are many floating voters who'd change their vote away from the Conservatives over the issue of fox-hunting. However, those that do feel that way are very vocal and extremely emotional about it.

EDIT: I just saw SandyRentool's post. I rest my case.

Pulpstar said:

rcs1000 said:

@Socrates, et al, re continued discussions about the prophet.

I regard freedom of speech and freedom to offend as fundamental. The idea the state should have any kind of power over what I do or do not say is abhorrent and repellent.

I also believe that the state should not criminalise who people sleep with. (Assuming its between consenting adults!)

Those cartoon are like cheating on your wife. Something whose legality should be defended to the death. But they are also something which is rather impolite. While I would tweet my abhorrence with the acts of the murderers and my absolute defence of free speech, I would not retweet the cartoons themselves. Not because it should be illegal to do so, but because I regard them as offensive.

What about cartoons depicting very young girls - should they be illegal

Depicting doing what? If it is depicting then doing an illegal act then possibly.
I assume you are referring to the manga "idols" stuff in Japan, and the recent decision not to ban...?

As a libertarian it is difficult to defend, but here in the west you would not find many places to publish that kind of image and we already have other laws that would cover outright pronographic/explicit content.

On topic, I can sort of see both sides of the argument and personally don't have a strong opinion either way on it.

Put me down as "Neither/Don't know"

If I was an MP I'd probably just follow the party whip on this one or abstein if it was a free vote.

Meh.

I used to be really anti-Fox hunting, coupled with my vegetarianism (which I "converted" too while still doing my GCSEs!), but nowadays I don't think I would really mind if it was "unbanned". Many, many more animals die annually in the meat industry!

weejonnie said:

DaemonBarber said:

Hunting foxes with dogs is barbaric.
However, is it something that the state should seek to ban? I would argue that yes is is, it is cruel and utterly unnecessary.

'The pursuit of the inedible by the unspeakable' IIRC - however culling foxes is necessary and no more cruel than your cat bringing a dead mouse into the house.

Since I am a firm believer that people have the right to do what they want - subject to respecting the rights of other people and their property then I am definitely in favour of allowing Fox-hunting to resume.

Culling foxes is necessary.
Culling foxes by means of a pack of dogs chasing a single fox down over the course of a morning once a week is both abhorrently cruel and grossly inefficient.

The ban is hunting foxes with dogs, not hunting foxes for the purpose of population control

DaemonBarber said:

Hunting foxes with dogs is barbaric.
However, is it something that the state should seek to ban? I would argue that yes is is, it is cruel and utterly unnecessary.

But shouldn't we tackle problems involving exclusively human beings first as a priority? The police only have limited time and resources, so any resources they spend arresting fox hunters are resources that could have been deployed on more important investigations.

steve_garner said:

This subject appears a bit trivial given current events in France.

Quite. It's beginning to feel a bit Bombay-like in Paris.

And horribly, sadly, inevitable that a Jewish target would be chosen.

Casino_Royale said:

I want it repealed. Big time. But I think it'd only pass with a Conservative majority of 50 or so. There'd be a couple of dozen Tory MPs who'd vote against it, and a few more who'd abstain.

I remember losing my rag with Marcus Woods PPC on this when he welched on it before the election. It's not a surprise he lost if he was that fickle.

I don't think there are many floating voters who'd change their vote away from the Conservatives over the issue of fox-hunting. However, those that do feel that way are very vocal and extremely emotional about it.

EDIT: I just saw SandyRentool's post. I rest my case.

A third of the UK are vermin, according to Sandy. Add in the anti-hunting Tories and Kippers (who no-doubt are also vermin from such a bonkers viewpoint) and it's a good half of us who are on a par with a rat.

What is the level of public support for gassing trapping shooting poisoning and garotting animal vermin?

AndyJS said:

DaemonBarber said:

Hunting foxes with dogs is barbaric.
However, is it something that the state should seek to ban? I would argue that yes is is, it is cruel and utterly unnecessary.

But shouldn't we tackle problems involving exclusively human beings first as a priority? The police only have limited time and resources, so any resources they spend arresting fox hunters are resources that could have been deployed on more important investigations.

How about the collection of bird's eggs or the poisoning of eagles? Should those crimes take a back-seat until there are no wife-beatings, drunk drivers, house break-ins etc, etc?

I take much the same view of foxes as I do of bats. Exterminate the Brutes.

I think that only 1-2% of the population would shift their votes over the issue anyway.

weejonnie said:

DaemonBarber said:

Hunting foxes with dogs is barbaric.
However, is it something that the state should seek to ban? I would argue that yes is is, it is cruel and utterly unnecessary.

'The pursuit of the inedible by the unspeakable' IIRC - however culling foxes is necessary and no more cruel than your cat bringing a dead mouse into the house.

Since I am a firm believer that people have the right to do what they want - subject to respecting the rights of other people and their property then I am definitely in favour of allowing Fox-hunting to resume.

When the Twits in Pink run through some of the housing estates, chased by a varied selection of alsatians, dobermans, mastiffs, pit bulls, etc, with their respective owners following on their mountain bikes carrying baseball bats for mercy killings, then I think we should allow any of the TIP's who get away to have their fun going after foxes.

Sounds like it would be more fun to watch on TV than Big Brother!

DaemonBarber said:

AndyJS said:

DaemonBarber said:

Hunting foxes with dogs is barbaric.
However, is it something that the state should seek to ban? I would argue that yes is is, it is cruel and utterly unnecessary.

But shouldn't we tackle problems involving exclusively human beings first as a priority? The police only have limited time and resources, so any resources they spend arresting fox hunters are resources that could have been deployed on more important investigations.

How about the collection of bird's eggs or the poisoning of eagles? Should those crimes take a back-seat until there are no wife-beatings, drunk drivers, house break-ins etc, etc?

It's a matter of impact - poisoning eagles or stealing eggs can damage a tiny and fragile population of birds. I'd put fox-hunting in the same category as shooting crows.

Casino_Royale said:

SandyRentool said:

Casino_Royale said:

I want it repealed. Big time. But I think it'd only pass with a Conservative majority of 50 or so. There'd be a couple of dozen Tory MPs who'd vote against it, and a few more who'd abstain.

I remember losing my rag with Marcus Woods PPC on this when he welched on it before the election. It's not a surprise he lost if he was that fickle.

I don't think there are many floating voters who'd change their vote away from the Conservatives over the issue of fox-hunting. However, those that do feel that way are very vocal and extremely emotional about it.

EDIT: I just saw SandyRentool's post. I rest my case.

I reject the suggestion that I am a floating voter!

I reject the insinuation that I am vermin!

Which party do you support?

I've been a Labour member for 20 years...who 'tactically' (haha) voted LD in 2010 to my shame.

I oppose the ban.

Smarmeron said:

@DaemonBarber
An argument can be made that fox hunting with packs, while terrible for the individual fox, benefits the greater population.
This is because most cubs die of starvation in their first year anyway, and that fox hunting is inefficient, compared to other methods, and means landowners have to tolerate a certain amount of foxes on their land so that hunting can take place.
(personally, I think it is a nonsense, but hey ho....or tally ho?)

I agree; it is a nonsense argument.
There is no reasonable argument in favour of hunting foxes with dogs.

Sean_F said:

I take much the same view of foxes as I do of bats. Exterminate the Brutes.

I think that only 1-2% of the population would shift their votes over the issue anyway.

Bats?

"I don't want to kill you! What would I do without you?" - The Joker (The Dark Knight, 2008).

Edin_Rokz said:

weejonnie said:

DaemonBarber said:

Hunting foxes with dogs is barbaric.
However, is it something that the state should seek to ban? I would argue that yes is is, it is cruel and utterly unnecessary.

'The pursuit of the inedible by the unspeakable' IIRC - however culling foxes is necessary and no more cruel than your cat bringing a dead mouse into the house.

Since I am a firm believer that people have the right to do what they want - subject to respecting the rights of other people and their property then I am definitely in favour of allowing Fox-hunting to resume.

When the Twits in Pink run through some of the housing estates, chased by a varied selection of alsatians, dobermans, mastiffs, pit bulls, etc, with their respective owners following on their mountain bikes carrying baseball bats for mercy killings, then I think we should allow any of the TIP's who get away to have their fun going after foxes.

Sounds like it would be more fun to watch on TV than Big Brother!

You do realise that makes you sound like something of a [presumably vegan] nutter, don't you?

Sean_F said:

I take much the same view of foxes as I do of bats. Exterminate the Brutes.

Bats ? - living in the country as I do, don't often hear of them killing lambs and wiping out chicken coops very often - why the grudge?

The Daily Mash guide to satire for jihadists

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/the-daily-mash-guide-to-satire-for-jihadists-2015010994260

TheWatcher said:

RobD said:

isam said:

Apparently another incident in Paris... this is unreal. At the Trocadero nr the Eiffel Tower

As for Foxhunting.. seems wrong to me, I don't like killing of animals... but I am not from the countryside and wouldn't know the danger they pose I guess

Let's hope the police in Paris get this all under control. At least they know where the perps are.

They would appear to be everywhere.

I should say 'these' perps, then!

A_Man_Called_Horse said:

Whenever the topic of Christian terrorism is raised, out come the rhetorical salami-slicers which could put any Waitrose delicatessen to shame -- "Oh no, Breivik doesn't count. nor do the IRA!" etc.

Will people at least concede that the prolonged and atrocious crimes of the KKK and Eric Rudolph were motivated by a warped and sectarian interpretation of Christianity?

Even a religion as benevolent as Buddhism has proven capable of inspiring terrorism (Japan's Aum Shirikyo cult). Christianity does not have some magical exemption.

I think no religion is immune to criticism on this, but the numbers, widespread geography, persistence and systematic nature of Islamic terrorism puts all others into the also-rans, and then some.

Worth noting that the people most at risk of Islamic terrorism are Islamic liberals speaking out against violence.

MarkSenior said:

Casino_Royale said:

I want it repealed. Big time. But I think it'd only pass with a Conservative majority of 50 or so. There'd be a couple of dozen Tory MPs who'd vote against it, and a few more who'd abstain.

I remember losing my rag with Marcus Woods PPC on this when he welched on it before the election. It's not a surprise he lost if he was that fickle.

I don't think there are many floating voters who'd change their vote away from the Conservatives over the issue of fox-hunting. However, those that do feel that way are very vocal and extremely emotional about it.

EDIT: I just saw SandyRentool's post. I rest my case.

Out of interest , why do you want it repealed "Big Time" , why do you wish to impose your minority view on the population as a whole ? Why are you not calling for a referendum on this subject - presumably because you know it would lose heavily ?

I could say the same thing about you. I'm not imposing anything on anyone. I'm simply allowing those who live in the countryside to continue to be able to exercise their right to continue to do something they've been doing for centuries. It's a libertarian argument.

The welfare arguments are a red herring. You could make even stronger arguments against those who fish, trap, shoot and stalk - and those will never be touched. Fox hunting suffered not because it was cruel but because it was perceived to be exclusive. It was vindictive, divisive and ignorant and the ban should never have been passed.

Incidentally, I do have concerns over animal welfare. I think many abattoirs are absolutely appalling, as is the treatment by some of their pet cats & dogs, and I have reservations about mass badger culls too. But I'm the sort of person who'd (in principle) be happy to raise free-range pigs organically, and bond with them, as well as take them to the slaughterhouse when the time came to feed my family.

Incidentally, I live in the countryside. Everyone I've met who hunts are animal lovers, and passionate about countryside and effective land management. Whilst I wouldn't go so far as to say everyone is a supporter where I live, most are, the majority of opponents are urbanites.

I have no problem with it. I think it's a wonderful centuries old English tradition.

DaemonBarber said:

Anorak said:

DaemonBarber said:

AndyJS said:

DaemonBarber said:

Hunting foxes with dogs is barbaric.
However, is it something that the state should seek to ban? I would argue that yes is is, it is cruel and utterly unnecessary.

But shouldn't we tackle problems involving exclusively human beings first as a priority? The police only have limited time and resources, so any resources they spend arresting fox hunters are resources that could have been deployed on more important investigations.

How about the collection of bird's eggs or the poisoning of eagles? Should those crimes take a back-seat until there are no wife-beatings, drunk drivers, house break-ins etc, etc?

It's a matter of impact - poisoning eagles or stealing eggs can damage a tiny and fragile population of birds. I'd put fox-hunting in the same category as shooting crows.

Would you be comfortable getting a few neighbours round to corner the crow with your pet dogs and stand there cheering whilst your dogs tear it apart? Even if you go out on a limb and say yes to that, do you think it is the most appropriate method to use for population control?

DaemonBarber said:

Anorak said:

DaemonBarber said:

AndyJS said:

DaemonBarber said:

Hunting foxes with dogs is barbaric.
However, is it something that the state should seek to ban? I would argue that yes is is, it is cruel and utterly unnecessary.

But shouldn't we tackle problems involving exclusively human beings first as a priority? The police only have limited time and resources, so any resources they spend arresting fox hunters are resources that could have been deployed on more important investigations.

How about the collection of bird's eggs or the poisoning of eagles? Should those crimes take a back-seat until there are no wife-beatings, drunk drivers, house break-ins etc, etc?

It's a matter of impact - poisoning eagles or stealing eggs can damage a tiny and fragile population of birds. I'd put fox-hunting in the same category as shooting crows.

Would you be comfortable getting a few neighbours round to corner the crow with your pet dogs and stand there cheering whilst your dogs tear it apart? Even if you go out on a limb and say yes to that, do you think it is the most appropriate method to use for population control?

Let#s think : foxes are a pia. Killing them is boring often cold and dirty work.

Any thing that encourages people to keep their numbers down is to be encouraged..

Yes: I live adjacent to several fox dens.. Create havoc on domestic pets and chickens...

Socrates said:

rcs1000 said:

@Socrates, et al, re continued discussions about the prophet.

I regard freedom of speech and freedom to offend as fundamental. The idea the state should have any kind of power over what I do or do not say is abhorrent and repellent.

I also believe that the state should not criminalise who people sleep with. (Assuming its between consenting adults!)

Those cartoon are like cheating on your wife. Something whose legality should be defended to the death. But they are also something which is rather impolite. While I would tweet my abhorrence with the acts of the murderers and my absolute defence of free speech, I would not retweet the cartoons themselves. Not because it should be illegal to do so, but because I regard them as offensive.

Some of the cartoons were offensive, others were not. I hope you're not taking the position that all images of Muhammad are offensive.

However, when the right to free speech is under attack, I am happy to retweet even offensive images if those are the ones people are seeking to ban.

I didn't find them offensive - and I looked at some of the ones attacking Jews and Christians. And have sent them to people.

But, frankly, I take a rather Hogarthian/John Wilkes approach to most things. Living life with a thin skin is intolerable. Do not be afraid: that seems to me to be a good motto for life.

isam said:

I still say if 5% of UK residents were Jews, Hindus or Mormons, there would be problems with extremists of whichever religion it was,

Based on what evidence?

Why hasn't this odious man been arrested for inciting hatred?

If we're going to defend Hebdo, shouldn't we also let him say what he wants? Knock yourself out, f8ckwit

@britainelects: There was a council by-election yesterday, and we only just heard about it. Awkward...

AndyJS said:

Why hasn't this odious man been arrested for inciting hatred?

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/01/08/london-preacher-who-called-for-gays-to-be-killed-defends-paris-charlie-hebdo-shootings/

Inoring him would hurt him far more than locking him up.

isam said:

A_Man_Called_Horse said:

Whenever the topic of Christian terrorism is raised, out come the rhetorical salami-slicers which could put any Waitrose delicatessen to shame -- "Oh no, Breivik doesn't count. nor do the IRA!" etc.

Will people at least concede that the prolonged and atrocious crimes of the KKK and Eric Rudolph were motivated by a warped and sectarian interpretation of Christianity?

Even a religion as benevolent as Buddhism has proven capable of inspiring terrorism (Japan's Aum Shirikyo cult). Christianity does not have some magical exemption.

Any religion which has a significant enough number of followers to have meaningful conflict with another that is nearby will find trouble.. its not necessarily the religion, it is the distribution of power

The reason there is trouble with Islam in Europe is because it is the 2nd biggest religion in Europe, not because of anything particular to Islam

I still say if 5% of UK residents were Jews, Hindus or Mormons, there would be problems with extremists of whichever religion it was, and if the Muslim population was 0.5% we would have little or no trouble with Islamic fundamentalism

I find your final supposition extremely unlikely, and I highly doubt that any "extremists" of another minority would be murderous like Islamic fundamentalists are. The fact that you think this is quite telling tbh and I hope you just haven't thought it through properly.

Can we separate the need to control a pest, and the need to satisfy blood-lust?

@Mr_Eugenides: http://t.co/ecsBWBkM3u

I'm on