Hunting ban 'set to be repealed'

[Questions]

The Scots have killed and eaten all the foxes on Scotland. It was a delicacy up there until they wiped them out. They eat Cats in the Orkneys as well.

 

[Eeyore]

Something like 80% of the public (RSPCA figures) support the ban. In a free vote, there will be plenty of Tories vote to keep the ban in place.

But a few in marginals who will vote against. The re-introduction of this bill would be merely revenge on the Labour Party, whatever folk feel about it.

 

[drew]

Well, the facts are that Labour spent huge amounts of Parliamentary time in the lat 90s up to 2004 banning fox hunting which would not be on most of the electorate's top 10 issues.

I didn't think it warranted the time then, and feel the same way about this proposal now.

However people whining about the tories plans now after Labour spent the time they did banning it is laughable.

Time will tell whether the time they spend on this minor point of political detail can be linked back to other policy failures, as it will no doubt will by some of the hypocrites on here.

It may seem a minor issue and perhaps they would do well to leave alone but it seems they (or maybe the press) are bringing it to the fore. I agree that it has taken a lot of parliamentary time but part of that is down to opposition MPs filibustering. It has also been an issue for over 50 years and I suppose the amount of time spent was a hope to put the matter to bed once and for all. Some hope.

 

[cunning fergus]

OTE]


Exactly...........and in 1997 it was.........

Look, lets get the fox hunting banned first, then we can deal with the immigrant nurse murderers after that is done.

Anyone throwing party political stones is a nut job.

Shows the power a minority interest group can have on the workings of a Government............don't get me started on the smoking ban.

 

[Bold Seagull]

............don't get me started on the smoking ban.

It's not like you need a lot of prompting to get you started.

 

[cunning fergus]

It may seem a minor issue and perhaps they would do well to leave alone but it seems they (or maybe the press) are bringing it to the fore. I agree that it has taken a lot of parliamentary time but part of that is down to opposition MPs filibustering. It has also been an issue for over 50 years and I suppose the amount of time spent was a hope to put the matter to bed once and for all. Some hope.

Fair enough.

Personally perennially divisive issues like this (and abortion) should be carefully managed by Governments, (of any flavour), exactly the kind of issue that can be kicked down the road to another parliament with commissions and enquiries.

Making an absolute political commitment to one side or the other creates a definitive winner, sometimes it's not that simple unless politically you are willing to **** off the antis/pros.........

I'm sure some 24 year old SPAD would disagree.

 

[Goldstone1976]

Still, I bet the toff knows it's not pronounced Mo-ay.

Na. It's Mo-ett, innit?

 

[Diego Napier]

Well, the facts are that Labour spent huge amounts of Parliamentary time in the lat 90s up to 2004 banning fox hunting which would not be on most of the electorate's top 10 issues.

I didn't think it warranted the time then, and feel the same way about this proposal now.

However people whining about the tories plans now after Labour spent the time they did banning it is laughable.

Time will tell whether the time they spend on this minor point of political detail can be linked back to other policy failures, as it will no doubt will by some of the hypocrites on here.

You are rather missing the point. You might think that it was a waste of parliamentary time but that is irrelevant, over 60% of the electorate supported the motion in 2004 and felt passionate enough not to care about the time taken.

A considerable amount of Parliamentary time is wasted. Much of the time taken to get the bill onto the statute books was the oppositions' futile attempts to stem the tide of the inevitable however, the time taken get the bill through was a relative drop in the ocean compared to the duration of the outmoded procedures that are still being conducted in both houses. You would appear credible if you advocated Parliamentary reform rather than employing melodrama through specious suggestions that acts of terror could have been averted.

Given the major issues that need to be addressed by the new government, people are naturally concerned about the inappropriate prominence that Cameron has given to this elitist and niche pursuit. To suggest as you do that opposition to the reintroduction of fox hunting is laughable because of the length of time taken to ban it and to qualify that statement by using the term "whining" says as much about your inability to construct a logical argument as it does about your insensitivity.

 

[pb21]

Fair enough.

Personally perennially divisive issues like this (and abortion)

Fox hunting should not be divisive at all, it is 100% wrong, abortion is a much more grey area IMO, you cannot compare the two, they're like apples and oranges.

 

[cunning fergus]

You are rather missing the point. You might think that it was a waste of parliamentary time but that is irrelevant, over 60% of the electorate supported the motion in 2004 and felt passionate enough not to care about the time taken.

A considerable amount of Parliamentary time is wasted. Much of the time taken to get the bill onto the statute books was the oppositions' futile attempts to stem the tide of the inevitable however, the time taken get the bill through was a relative drop in the ocean compared to the duration of the outmoded procedures that are still being conducted in both houses. You would appear credible if you advocated Parliamentary reform rather than employing melodrama through specious suggestions that acts of terror could have been averted.

Given the major issues that need to be addressed by the new government, people are naturally concerned about the inappropriate prominence that Cameron has given to this elitist and niche pursuit. To suggest as you do that opposition to the reintroduction of fox hunting is laughable because of the length of time taken to ban it and to qualify that statement by using the term "whining" says as much about your inability to construct a logical argument as it does about your insensitivity.

Nope, you are wrong, absolutely and unequivocally.

I don't doubt that generally speaking a majority of people would support the ban, however do they passionately support it, no, it wouldn't register on the vast majority of the electorate's top 10, even 20 issues.

That over 700 hours of parliamentary time was needed previously at a cost of millions of pounds to get this legislation through is outrageous, and not least when with the benefit of hindsight we can see the things Labour DIDN'T do when in power.

The background story is that this legislation was the bone thrown to baying class war Labour back benchers so that they would back the introduction of tuition fees, a pathetic quid pro quo requested by bigoted Labour MPs who should know better, and yet this political dichotomy neatly encapsulates the debate we are having.

As for the effects of this debate on the introduction of other more important bills.......

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3629294.stm

The real point that should be front and centre about this debate though, and why after all the time and money spent it's such a waste of time, is..........wait for it..........the law itself is shit.

There have been a mere 250 or so prosecutions, most ending in limited punishment, which carry disproportionate costs to the public purse, whether police, CPS or court time. They have better things to do frankly..........ask the public a question on where the Police/CPS should devote resources and hunting wouldn't even register.

http://www.findlaw.co.uk/law/criminal/other_crime_and_justice_topics/500460.html

And does the law protect foxes, no.....they are still killed.

I was informed about a situation relating to the RSPB a few years ago, when after the ban they had a legal/moral difficulty in East Anglia with their ground nesting birds. Before the ban foxes used to be controlled not by a hunt but some 'orrible working class types with dogs...........

The irony was delicious........like those ground nested birds must have been to the foxes.......after the ban they tried everything to not kill or harm foxes, however as the genocide of ground nesting birds continued they became desperate, even trying to gas the buggers (more delicious irony).

The full story was a bloody hoot, I tell you........last I heard the foxes were being controlled again..........shhhh. Today the RSPB kill hundreds of foxes every year on reserves up and down the country, killing foxes being the "most effective solution"........in their own words.

http://www.rspb.org.uk/community/ourwork/b/martinharper/archive/2014/04/16/managing-predation.aspx

Seriously, I could not give a flying **** about the ban, however unless you are honest enough to state this law was all about an indulgence to a minority of bigots you are deluding yourself.

 

[fat old seagull]

Cameron is going to turn the country into a playground for his chums basically while the rest of us live our lives in a penniless Hellscape populated by White Dee and the ***** off of Gogglebox while Cameron orders crates of Moet and threatens to hand us over to the man who told architects to "design the homeless out of London".

You wanted a referendum on the EU, you got the scrapping of the human rights act and fox hunting back.

And that's just for starters.......

 

[cunning fergus]

Fox hunting should not be divisive at all, it is 100% wrong, abortion is a much more grey area IMO, you cannot compare the two, they're like apples and oranges.

That's probably on this matter you are are a bigot, the bloke who ran the country at the time and was responsible for the bill thinks otherwise....

http://www.fwi.co.uk/farm-life/fox-hunting-ban-deliberately-sabotaged-says-blair.htm

Not having a pop, I appreciate it's a black and white issue to many, on either side.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

I suppose if I absolutely had to choose I'd ban it, but I really can't get too stressed about this issue either way.

When the ban came in I was quite in favour of it, but now I reckon there are far more important issues for the Government to be meddling with.

 

[pastafarian]

Given the major issues that need to be addressed by the new government, people are naturally concerned about the inappropriate prominence that Cameron has given to this elitist and niche pursuit. .

Im sure people hope that any newly elected government will address major issues,that is why they are elected in the first place.
Why do you consider it prominent over other legislation? Some legislative matters are more complicated than others,just because it might be voted on in the Autumn with a free vote does not make it a priority issue for Tory thinking,its much more likely its simply an issue that can be resolved quickly through a free vote easier than others.
And its hardly inappropriate if it was written in black and white in the manifesto for all to see,i suspect many lefties would go postal if the Tories did not honour this manifesto pledge......"cant trust them etc etc etc".....repeated ad nauseum
As for elitist bit dear oh dear oh dear, that is a very worn out badly quoted cliche given the support it holds across the social and political spectrum.


Surely people should save their opinions until the legislation is written. It would appear there are some NSC insider experts on what is going to be in the new proposed legislation?
Is the legislation entirely about the hunting of a fox with hounds or is it to be more about specifics of Trail Hunting and Drag Hunting,I havnt got a clue as it hasnt been written yet........perhaps some of the vocal know it alls could shed some light.

 

[drew]

Nope, you are wrong, absolutely and unequivocally.

I don't doubt that generally speaking a majority of people would support the ban, however do they passionately support it, no, it wouldn't register on the vast majority of the electorate's top 10, even 20 issues.

That over 700 hours of parliamentary time was needed previously at a cost of millions of pounds to get this legislation through is outrageous, and not least when with the benefit of hindsight we can see the things Labour DIDN'T do when in power.

The background story is that this legislation was the bone thrown to baying class war Labour back benchers so that they would back the introduction of tuition fees, a pathetic quid pro quo requested by bigoted Labour MPs who should know better, and yet this political dichotomy neatly encapsulates the debate we are having.

As for the effects of this debate on the introduction of other more important bills.......

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3629294.stm

The real point that should be front and centre about this debate though, and why after all the time and money spent it's such a waste of time, is..........wait for it..........the law itself is shit.

There have been a mere 250 or so prosecutions, most ending in limited punishment, which carry disproportionate costs to the public purse, whether police, CPS or court time. They have better things to do frankly..........ask the public a question on where the Police/CPS should devote resources and hunting wouldn't even register.

http://www.findlaw.co.uk/law/criminal/other_crime_and_justice_topics/500460.html

And does the law protect foxes, no.....they are still killed.

I was informed about a situation relating to the RSPB a few years ago, when after the ban they had a legal/moral difficulty in East Anglia with their ground nesting birds. Before the ban foxes used to be controlled not by a hunt but some 'orrible working class types with dogs...........

The irony was delicious........like those ground nested birds must have been to the foxes.......after the ban they tried everything to not kill or harm foxes, however as the genocide of ground nesting birds continued they became desperate, even trying to gas the buggers (more delicious irony).

The full story was a bloody hoot, I tell you........last I heard the foxes were being controlled again..........shhhh. Today the RSPB kill hundreds of foxes every year on reserves up and down the country, killing foxes being the "most effective solution"........in their own words.

http://www.rspb.org.uk/community/ourwork/b/martinharper/archive/2014/04/16/managing-predation.aspx

Seriously, I could not give a flying **** about the ban, however unless you are honest enough to state this law was all about an indulgence to a minority of bigots you are deluding yourself.

You are of course right, it might not be in people's top 10 or 20 so that begs the question why is it so prominent in the governments minds.

As for the class thing, personally it I think it is a diversion. I know people who are far from blue blooded that used to hunt. What I think most people don't like is the thought that people are getting pleasure from the suffering of an animal. However, if you allow hunting, then why do we not allow badger baiting or dog fighting and other sports.

 

[8ace]

 

[glasfryn]

View attachment 65411

"are you a steak and kidney pie"
"no now **** off"

 

[Steve in Japan]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3086946/I-feed-urban-foxes-let-curl-sofa-says-Joanna-Lumley-Actress-explains-cares-completely-charming-animals-live-garden.html

Why can't we be more like Joanna darlings?

 

[Diego Napier]

Nope, you are wrong, absolutely and unequivocally.

That is simply your opinion, about what you haven't made clear.

I don't doubt that generally speaking a majority of people would support the ban, however do they passionately support it, no, it wouldn't register on the vast majority of the electorate's top 10, even 20 issues.

You are wrong because it is a subject that people are passionate about; over 50% of the electorate support a ban, this would naturally increase and passions would rise the as the vote approaches. You seem to believe that this isn't important because you don't think that it would appear in the electorates' top 20 issues. Illogical. I doubt whether most people would list a top 5.

That over 700 hours of parliamentary time was needed previously at a cost of millions of pounds to get this legislation through is outrageous, and not least when with the benefit of hindsight we can see the things Labour DIDN'T do when in power.

The background story is that this legislation was the bone thrown to baying class war Labour back benchers so that they would back the introduction of tuition fees, a pathetic quid pro quo requested by bigoted Labour MPs who should know better, and yet this political dichotomy neatly encapsulates the debate we are having.

As for the effects of this debate on the introduction of other more important bills.......

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3629294.stm

The real point that should be front and centre about this debate though, and why after all the time and money spent it's such a waste of time, is..........wait for it..........the law itself is shit.

There have been a mere 250 or so prosecutions, most ending in limited punishment, which carry disproportionate costs to the public purse, whether police, CPS or court time. They have better things to do frankly..........ask the public a question on where the Police/CPS should devote resources and hunting wouldn't even register.

http://www.findlaw.co.uk/law/criminal/other_crime_and_justice_topics/500460.html

To suggest that the time taken to get this bill through Parliament has prejudiced other legislation is simplistic and crass. Firstly there can be no one-to-one correlation and secondly you've completely ignored the points I made that a) the futile opposition caused the length of time it took to become law and b) if you were looking to seriously improve parliamentary efficiency then reform of the process is the logical objective.

If there have been only 250 prosecutions then that is a good thing, people are largely obeying the law.

And does the law protect foxes, no.....they are still killed.

Really? I cannot believe you wrote that and expect to be taken seriously.

Does the Criminal Justice Act stop people being killed? Does the Theft Act stop people being robbed? Does the Road traffic offences Act stop people driving badly?

I was informed about a situation relating to the RSPB a few years ago, when after the ban they had a legal/moral difficulty in East Anglia with their ground nesting birds. Before the ban foxes used to be controlled not by a hunt but some 'orrible working class types with dogs...........

The irony was delicious........like those ground nested birds must have been to the foxes.......after the ban they tried everything to not kill or harm foxes, however as the genocide of ground nesting birds continued they became desperate, even trying to gas the buggers (more delicious irony).

The full story was a bloody hoot, I tell you........last I heard the foxes were being controlled again..........shhhh. Today the RSPB kill hundreds of foxes every year on reserves up and down the country, killing foxes being the "most effective solution"........in their own words.

http://www.rspb.org.uk/community/ourwork/b/martinharper/archive/2014/04/16/managing-predation.aspx

Ah, the old "I know someone" ploy. Again, you miss the point completely. In a natural state, animals kill other animals. Humans have evolved higher reasoning and have also developed emotional intelligence, patently to a greater or lesser extent. A majority of people in this country oppose the hunting of foxes by hounds, why not accept it rather than wriggle on the hook with some of these facile counters.

The ban was never going to be a miraculous, all foxes are saved success but it's existence has prevented unnecessary suffering at the hand of a bigoted minority.

Seriously, I could not give a flying **** about the ban, however unless you are honest enough to state this law was all about an indulgence to a minority of bigots you are deluding yourself.

Yet again to miss the point. How it came onto the statute books is neither here nor there, it's potential removal is the issue, opposed as it is by a "minority of bigots" but the majority of the populace.

 

[alfredmizen]

I had a hunt pestering me to let them run on my land a few years back. I have the. A definite no with a lengthy diatribe on my thoughts on the "sport". They were rather nasty people. I built an electric fence and some bolt holes for foxes to get in but not dogs. Perfect little haven for them if they got run that way and an absolute delight to confound the "hunters". If it did an effective job of culling it would be done by working class groundskeepers not monied toffs who see it as pleasure. Nobs.

Like people who went to private boarding school ??