Ban both Fox Hunting and Football

[Dominic]

The sole purpose of government is to legislate. It is, in truth, all they can do.

Yes, but whatever happened to legislating for education? Teaching people why they should or shouldn't do something is far more effective than just passing down an edict of "Thou shalt not!"

But no, we live in a world where politicians think the answer to underage pregnancy is to make birth control available to the people having underage sex.

Mind you, that's partially understandable when you look at how difficult it is to educate these days. Was chatting to a couple of people who work in schools yesterday. All they can do is moan about how bad all the latest legislation is making life in schools.

Anyone else hear that they aren't allowed to put plasters on children that hurt themselves in school anymore? There's so much terror about being labelled a paedophile, they can't risk touchign an injured child - they just have to hand the kid a plaster and let them do it themselves.

Leaving an injured child to fend for itself is, in my book, child abuse. They have to do it, because otherwise, they might be accused of child abuse. How insane is that?

[Fiji Dave]

Originally Posted by Porg

Stopping fox hunting is a start, why try to stop it claiming that this should be extended to all species? Fishing for gods sake - we eat the fish. You do not eat a fox.

Actually a great many fishing lakes INSIST on a catch and return policy. The fish are NOT eaten.

Ok so the fish doesn't die, it just gets returned to the lake to once again have the stress, fear and pain caused by having a large metal spike driven through it's jaw, dragged around on the end of a line until it's hauled, exhausted, out of the water, gasping, unable to breathe properly whilst the victorious 'hunter' poses for photographs before being thrown back - only for the cycle to start all over again. But apparently that's acceptable?

Shooting foxes with a gun - ok, a nice clean hit and you're right it's lights out, but can you guarantee it's a clean hit 100% of the time? No you can't. If someones aim is off then yes, they shouldn't be shooting, but if they can't use dogs they have to use guns and some foxes are still going to suffer greatly because of that.

And what on earth does the financial status of farmers have to do with this argument? Perhaps you'd like to come round and talk to the family left behind when a one of the neighbouring farmers shot himself because the strain of trying to make ends meet finally got too much for him. Would you care to explain to them just how well off they are?

Don't get me wrong, I am not a supporter of fox hunting, as I said before I haven't fully made up my mind, but what I don't understand is the attitude of "Ban this vile sport - but don't ban this other one that I quite like doing, even though it still causes pain and suffering". Smacks of hypocrisy to me.

[Helen F H]

The (ahem) Countryside Alliance bring fishing into this to scare the people who fish into supporting them. If being hooked and landed was so damaging to the fish then why do reservoirs stocked with fish remain so popular. If it was detrimental to the fish surely it would show and you would be catching poor quality animals.

The farmers wealth is all part of the hypocrisy in this debate. You cannot plead poverty with a range rover on your driveway, and in my opinion this debate is one of the most damaging things ever to occur in british farming. I for one certainly do not go out of my way to buy british - why should i? They stand for something i am against.
Farmers come in all shapes and sizes. Among the ones around here there are the rich farmer boys - they made my life hell at school since i had chosen an environmental course. As soon as they hit 17 they had a brand new car, money was not an issue for them, and yes, there are a hell of a lot of them out there. Then there are the other farmers who struggle as they have smaller plots of land and cannot compete with the big boys. Farming is a business, and if you cant cope, then get out. I know of all the shit that went on during foot and mouth - farms being deliberatley infected so they could claim the compensation on offer.

I think the degree of suffering involved in shooting a fox is a lot less than being chased and ripped to bits. Do you honestly think that if it wasnt a clean hit they leave the animal to die? No, they follow it and finish the job (or at least the decent ones do).

[Mr T.]

Originally Posted by Porg

Oh god Bren has descended into big words r us territory. Someone fetch me a horse and a pack of hounds. I have the perfect replacement for fox hunting - Pedant Hunting. Mwhahahaha

Ah, the clarion call of those with an apparent inability to express themselves or debate effectively: "BIG WORDS!"

OK, here's some monosyllabics for ya:

If you can't stand the heat....

[Helen F H]

Originally Posted by Bren Tierney

Ah, the clarion call of those with an apparent inability to express themselves or debate effectively: "BIG WORDS!"

OK, here's some monosyllabics for ya:

If you can't stand the heat....

I know lots of big words - atomic absorbtion spectrophotometer is a big word.

However, i feel that the small herbacious shrub you are agitating is in severe peril of being defoliated.

As Ms Mutter said in another thread, if you cant attack the question attack the questioner......

[chrisch]

Originally Posted by Dominic

Yes, but whatever happened to legislating for education? Teaching people why they should or shouldn't do something is far more effective than just passing down an edict of "Thou shalt not!"

But no, we live in a world where politicians think the answer to underage pregnancy is to make birth control available to the people having underage sex.

Are you saying that birth control should be replaced by "thou shalt not (bonk each other)"?

TB's three priorities were education, education, education. Just before putting up student loans.....

I wholeheartedly agree with your observations about being labeled a kiddie fiddler. Society has lost the plot in recent times, partly driven by the lies and twaddle printed in some parts of the press. If it sells newspapers then its OK - even if it means putting kids at risk from measles etc.

We do need a review of why things are going this way, but I don't know how to achieve that. (Suggestions welcome).

What scares me is we will become like the US. Everyone living in fear of their neighbour and private patrols of guards on the streets, communities cut off from one another and big business running the politicians. Some of that is already here to some extent.

Anyway that's off topic so I'll shut up for a bit!

Chris

[Mr T.]

Originally Posted by chrisch

You are correct.

Well, that's certainly an opinion.

Originally Posted by chrisch

This is one of many diversionary tactics (such as the comparison with angling) used by the hunt lobby.

Just as the above is just one of the many casually dismissive tactics used by those who fail to grasp that the parallel is valid and can't answer the question.

Originally Posted by chrisch

Its a pretty simple decision.

Quite possibly: for those who choose to be simplistic and see this issue in simple, black and white terms.

Originally Posted by chrisch

Either humans can treat other animals any way they see fit, or we have a "responsibility" to act in a civilised manner.

And when those same 'humans' can be drag there attention away from what is a rather deeper matter of civil liberties - ironically so beloved of the Guardianistas - and recognise that, in the case of Darfur, about 10,000 'humans' a month are being killed, raped, butchered, starved, pillaged and ethnically cleansed, then hopefully their "responsibilities" might be put into stark and much needed contrast.

10,000 foxes - regardless of how they are killed - are not worth the life of one African baby. But then, if we do discuss the Sudanese genocide, we run the risk of highlighting Blair's, ahem, "Ethical Foreign Policy" - so it's just easier to target a bunch of chinless wonders on horseback chasing something that they, by their own admission, 99 times out of a 100, never see, let alone catch. The unspeakable chasing the inedible.

Originally Posted by chrisch

The latter would include not cutting shark's fins off and returning the animal alive to the water for example.

On that you'll get no argument from me.

Originally Posted by chrisch

Start with the basic principle and work back. There will be grey areas for sure. Hunting with dogs IMHO is not one of them....

Chris

And there's the rub: it rather depends on 'what' and whose that basic principle is. For you it's as stated above; for others it's their - as they see it - right to do as they and their forebears have done for generations and exercise their freedoms as citizens in a democracy.

For my part, I have never 'rode to hounds' - any hunting I have done has been with firearms, both here and abroad. That said, I do not see this as merely a matter of the methodology of killing a fox - especially, as outlined above, there are other, far more pressing issues which demand our attention.

This is nothing more than a poorly disguised attack - perhaps the last 'class-based' battle - by the PC socialists against that target on which they've long been champing at the bit (if you'll pardon the pun) to impose their will. They can't provide proper body-armour for UK forces on live ops or prevent the genocide in Darfur, but they can 'save the fox'. So be it. History will judge them on that basis: the bland leading the bland.

I have no problem with the local farmer getting out his shotgun and blowing the head off every fox on his/her land unless some evidence is produced to say they shouldn't for any reason.
What I do have a problem with is folk going out and killing animals for fun. I see a major difference between killing things to get rid of a pest and doing it for jollies.

[Helen F H]

Originally Posted by Bren Tierney

They can't provide proper body-armour for UK forces on live ops or prevent the genocide in Darfur, but they can 'save the fox'. So be it. History will judge them on that basis: the bland leading the bland.

If we tried to target what people consider to be the most important issues all of the time then things like this will never be sorted out and we would spend our whole time trying to mend the woes of the world.
Every problem facing a government has to be discussed at some time, and this ones time is now, like it or not. The world cannot simply stop when a new crisis turns up.

[Dominic]

Are you saying that birth control should be replaced by "thou shalt not (bonk each other)"?

Nope. Just that it shouldn't be the only visible solution applied to the problem.

"thou shalt not (bonk each other)" is already law for under-16s, and has been for years. It's clearly not enough any more. So what's being done about it?

Other than trying to make it look like the problem is being solved by reducing the number of underage pregnancies, not a lot that I've heard about. Instead of trying to promote the message "Don't have sex yet", the message is "If you have sex, go to the chemist and you can do it safely - aren't we nice?"

How is that supposed to help?

I wholeheartedly agree with your observations about being labeled a kiddie fiddler. Society has lost the plot in recent times, partly driven by the lies and twaddle printed in some parts of the press

Y'know, when I visit my gf's parents, and I get bored (fairly synonymous events ) I sometimes have to resort to flicking through the women's mags that are lying around to stave off brain atrophy.

In every fecking one that I've read over the last year or so, there's a story written by a guilt-ridden mother about how her daughter was molested by her stepdad, or something similar.

What's next, the monthly Diver column about the latest guilt-ridden mother who discovered her daughter's instructor had a kids-in-neoprene fetish?

Proportion seems to have gone out the window.