Fox Hunting is Ridiculous

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

A bill banning fox hunting was not in the Queen's speech. Good. I find fox hunting pretty ridiculous but even more ridiculous is the fact that there are many more things that could improve animal welfare in far more dramatic ways. For example: banning battery farming of Poultry and the importation of factory farmed meat or the Re-establishment of regional slaughterhouses so animals don't have to be transported hundreds of miles to be killed or the banning of antibiotics in animal feeds. If just half the effort was put into one of these that was put into banning fox hunting we might actually get somewhere.

― Ed (dali), Sunday, 30 November 2003 10:12 (twenty-one years ago)

But foxes are cute!

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Sunday, 30 November 2003 10:18 (twenty-one years ago)

But Ed, none of those were in the Queen's speech either! What sort of reasoning is this?

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Sunday, 30 November 2003 19:17 (twenty-one years ago)

Think of the 255 hours of parliamentary time that has been wasted on this and all those sanctimonious sabs who could be fighting for something worthwhile.

― Ed (dali), Sunday, 30 November 2003 19:19 (twenty-one years ago)

There is definitely something to be said for the Bill Oddie and the Goodies' approach to stamping out fox-hunting.

― Fred Nerk (Fred Nerk), Monday, 1 December 2003 05:54 (twenty-one years ago)

Rupert Murdoch hunting...now THAT'S a sport.

― Girolamo Savonarola, Monday, 1 December 2003 05:56 (twenty-one years ago)

what do y'all think of the trust fund idea? is this considered a pipedream? regular legislation? radical?

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Monday, 1 December 2003 05:59 (twenty-one years ago)

I tend to agree Ed. A ban on fox hunting is merely class war dressed up in hunt sab dreads.

― Pete (Pete), Monday, 1 December 2003 10:11 (twenty-one years ago)

i am glad that these ppl put the time & effort into campaigning for fox hunting to be banned. It is barbaric & unneccessary. The argument for fox hunting to be used as a method of culling is ridiculous. I have no problems with a farmer shooting a fox if it is worrying his livestock. The rspc@ is campaigning for the outlawing of battery farms, it just isnt as high profile. They have just completed a survey of vegetarian foods in supermarkets, which scarily shows that most vegetarian food in supermarkets contain battery farmed eggs. Even well known veggie brands such as qu0rn contain some battery farmed eggs. Now that is ridiculous.

― Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Monday, 1 December 2003 10:20 (twenty-one years ago)

I agree with Ed/Pete. Zoe Williams in last weeks Grauniad made the obv but necessary point that the buying off of Labour MPs on the PFI-NHS bill with the promise of a hunt ban was absolutely insane.

I'm not mad keen on the idea of fox-hunting, but as a carnivore it's hard for me to be anti. I don't find it barbaric.

― Nu-Enrique (Enrique), Monday, 1 December 2003 10:23 (twenty-one years ago)

You don't think 20 hounds chasing a fox & then ripping it to pieces for sport is barbaric?

― Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Monday, 1 December 2003 10:28 (twenty-one years ago)

i've never seen the 'ripping to pieces' bit, just the silly costumes and lots of running around the countryside (which is a fabulous concept and would be fine would it not be for the fact these people are utter twats and should be hunted down themselves just for being horse-bred and uber-privileged).

― stevem (blueski), Monday, 1 December 2003 10:31 (twenty-one years ago)

I have no problems with a farmer shooting a fox if it is worrying his livestock

I too think foxhunting is cruel and unneccessary, but I certainly don't think farmers should ever be allowed to shoot foxes. Certainly very few farmers are trained marksmen, so it is likely that the farmer would shoot the fox, say, in the leg, so that it dies a slow lingering death through starvation as it is unable to get around and feed itself, which is as cruel and causes as much unnecessary suffering as foxhunting itself! No, the solution is for the Government to licence trained marksmen skilled in identifying the old and diseased foxes to go round and shoot these dead, cleanly, as it is these foxes which go into poultry farms and kill the livestock as they are not fit enough to kill wild animals for food.

― MarkH (MarkH), Monday, 1 December 2003 10:37 (twenty-one years ago)

You don't think 20 hounds chasing a fox & then ripping it to pieces for sport is barbaric?

Compared to what? I suppose it's the 'for sport' bit which makes it unpalatable.

Among countless other things maybe it's barbaric. I think class war posturing is the only reason this barbarity, among the millions perpetrated daily, is singled out.

― Nu-Enrique (Enrique), Monday, 1 December 2003 10:38 (twenty-one years ago)

If it truly is for the thrill of the chase, these ppl can follow a pre placed scent, which does not involve any killing at the end.

― Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Monday, 1 December 2003 10:39 (twenty-one years ago)

doesn't the fox escape 2 out of 3 times anyway?

― stevem (blueski), Monday, 1 December 2003 10:41 (twenty-one years ago)

Well i see your point about farmers not being marksmen, but this is one of the arguments that will keep fox hunting going. The farmers will say that the fox is a nuisance & hunting is the best way to keep the numbers down.

Fox hunting doesnt need to be compared to anything to be barbaric. It is not a race issue for me, merely the fact that i am sickened that is a society such as ours this inhumane, violent sport should be allowed to exist.

― Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Monday, 1 December 2003 10:42 (twenty-one years ago)

Steve - is it true that the foxs do get away alot of the time, but this is not until they have been chased to within an inch of their life, being scared & in pain.

― Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Monday, 1 December 2003 10:43 (twenty-one years ago)

Sure, but it isn't for the thrill of the chase, it's a macho ritual all about blood and guts. No two ways. Either you find that barbaric or you don't, I guess; but much as I think it unpleasant, and would not take part in a hunt, and in my experiecne have not much liked huntspeople, I'm not sure that that is what the law is for.

There's plenty that sickens me about society too, but maybe I'd rather see the arguments won at a sub-legal level.

― Nu-Enrique (Enrique), Monday, 1 December 2003 10:44 (twenty-one years ago)

Maybe the foxes should think how the chickens like it.

― Markelby (Mark C), Monday, 1 December 2003 10:45 (twenty-one years ago)

of course it's what the law is for. Just beacuse it is not as important as say trying to deal with homelessness or whatever, but it is just as important. how would you feel if someone was regularly beating their dog, would it bother you? Would you want there to be a law to protect this animal?

― Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Monday, 1 December 2003 10:46 (twenty-one years ago)

They should ban it, and then have televised Nuremberg-type trials of participants, who can then explain to the world just why they get such a big fuckin' thrill out of it

― dave q, Monday, 1 December 2003 10:48 (twenty-one years ago)

I love the way that participants will argue that it is tradition. We used to burn witches, but there was a reason we stopped that aswell.

― Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Monday, 1 December 2003 10:53 (twenty-one years ago)

I think it looks quite fun.

― Sam (chirombo), Monday, 1 December 2003 10:59 (twenty-one years ago)

And why is that?

― Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Monday, 1 December 2003 11:02 (twenty-one years ago)

Dressing up in stupid clothes and jumping over hedges? How is this not fun?

― Sam (chirombo), Monday, 1 December 2003 11:03 (twenty-one years ago)

You can do that anytime, nobody is stopping you, but just don't kill the fox at the end of it!

― Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Monday, 1 December 2003 11:10 (twenty-one years ago)

Of all the things to get het up about, foxhunting is very low on the list. IMHO.

― Markelby (Mark C), Monday, 1 December 2003 11:10 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah in your opinion, it is something that means alot to me & I stupidly thought it might be a serious debate on the subject.

― Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Monday, 1 December 2003 11:11 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, how can you have a serious debate about it? You're looking at it on absolute terms, i.e. it is wrong to brutally kill an animal for sport. From a pragmatic viewpoint, there are all kinds of arguments, but you're not going to listen to any of them. So you win - how can we compete?

― Markelby (Mark C), Monday, 1 December 2003 11:13 (twenty-one years ago)

Surely it is a necessary part of any serious debate to investigate why the debate is happening? Why is fox-hunting such a big deal when unfair trade terms, religious intolerance, simple exploitation, preventable illnesses, government corruption, drug wars, etc etc ad inifnitum, are killing thousands of humans? It seems impossibly far down the list.

― Nu-Enrique (Enrique), Monday, 1 December 2003 11:17 (twenty-one years ago)

Seems to me there are similarities between the fox-hunting set in England and the marching Orangemen in Ireland, which go further than their dress sense. The traditions they cherish are mostly a whopping great gloat at their opponents, whose impotent fuming and cursing are a big part of the fun.

It's all about empowerment and entitlement. 'We can ban your leisure activities, you can't ban ours. Nyah nyah nyah!'

Markelby, when you use IMHO what does the H stand for?

― Fred Nerk (Fred Nerk), Monday, 1 December 2003 11:17 (twenty-one years ago)

'gloating' at foxes =! kneecapping your crime rivals

Most of the UK hunting aristocracy is sorta-kinda catholic, though politically they wd support the unionists.

― Nu-Enrique (Enrique), Monday, 1 December 2003 11:20 (twenty-one years ago)

Enrique that may be the case, but we arent talking about that on this thread, we are talking about foxhunting.
Mark, if you can put forward a valid argument for fox hunting, then of course I will listen. I have very strong views about this issue yes, but it doesn't mean I am so arrogant as to not listen to other ppl's views. I am a vegetarin aswell, but I don't ram these views down anybody else's throats here. It is not about who is 'winning' either.

― Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Monday, 1 December 2003 11:22 (twenty-one years ago)

I know ppl that hunt who would be offended at the fact that you assumed they are catholic. In my experience they are very much c of e.

― Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Monday, 1 December 2003 11:23 (twenty-one years ago)

H'authoritarian. (ee's a cockney inneee).

I think it is certainly true that the tradition of fox hunting is all bundled up in class and land owning privilige, and as such is a display of hereditary power. I think was was interesting about the bill as it was originally tabled was a ban on hunting with dogs. As if to say, well its okay if the humans want to be barbaric, but forcing the poor little doggies to do something unnatural like hunt is beyond the pale. In this case there is a double dose of anthropomorphacizing:
a) Foxes have the capacity for fear and pain and hence the hunting of them violates their right to live and die in a natural manner
b) Dogs are by their nature docile domesticated animals which would never hunt a fox and/or viciously rip its throat out left to its won devices.

Both arguments seem flawed.

― Pete (Pete), Monday, 1 December 2003 11:23 (twenty-one years ago)

(Especially if the arguments are bundled with spelling mistakes like that).

― Pete (Pete), Monday, 1 December 2003 11:24 (twenty-one years ago)

I know ppl that hunt who would be offended at the fact that you assumed they are catholic. In my experience they are very much c of e.

Yeah, I said 'kinda-sorta' catholic for a reason. Catholic in the Evelyn Waugh/Chales Moore sense. C o E is the broadest church out there!

― Nu-Enrique (Enrique), Monday, 1 December 2003 11:26 (twenty-one years ago)

(Many many xposts)
Well I don't fox-hunt. It's not part of my tradition, I can't ride a horse and I don't know anyone likely to ask me on a hunt. So I don't really feel very strongly about it. But it seems to me to be a perfectly useless and harmless thing to do. I get the impression that it's all a bit chaotic and ineffective as a vermin-disposal technique, and it just a day out with the pooches most of the time. It strikes me as very different from, say, bullfighting, which relies on the audience watching every step of the torture. Logistically, I can't believe that many people on a hunt get a glimpse of a fox, even if the hunt is successful. So I'm not sure if the bloodthirstiness accusation sticks.
On the sport blog Tim linked to an anti-rugby rant which was a complete mystery to me. The writer was going on about Range Rovers and Tories, and things which were totally irrelevant to whether rugby was a worth while game or not. A lot of the anti-hunt arguments seem to follow this pattern.
Thinking about the bloodthirstiness for a sec again though, is it wrong to enjoy killing an animal? The main prob anti-hunt people have with hunting (if they're not going on about Barbour jackets) is that people have the temerity to enjoy it. Is that the issue? Conceding that vermin need to be controlled, and saying that whoever does this MUST FEEL BAD about it seems a bit much to ask.

― Sam (chirombo), Monday, 1 December 2003 11:27 (twenty-one years ago)

Pinky, that's my problem. I can't give you an argument because I don't have one that would have a chance on your terms. The only way I could is if you ignored the cruelty of the sport and viewed it on a sociological level. Understandably, this isn't going to work for you.

I think the whole "there are worse things to worry about" concept (which I know I invoked myself earlier) is flawed because if something is inherently bad then it's useless to judge it against other things unless you're specifically only able to solve certain problems and not others. Murder is worse than GBH, but does that mean the latter should be ignored? Of course not. So pro-hunting arguments are screwed unless you can ignore the emotive issue of cruelty at the heart of it.

The H stands for "humble", which it obviously very seldom is :)

― Markelby (Mark C), Monday, 1 December 2003 11:29 (twenty-one years ago)

how much of an industry has been built on fox-hunting? there's often some sort of fund-raising nonsense in tandem with it isn't there?

― stevem (blueski), Monday, 1 December 2003 11:32 (twenty-one years ago)

Fox hunting is not an effective method of vermin control. What gives humans the right to kill a wild animal? It's not as if they are going to eat what they have killed. It is purely for pleasure purposes that they continue to hunt. Yes they should feel bad about killing these animals for sport. There would be a public outcry if domestic dogs were released to run in the street & then ppl take potshots at it, to see if they could kill it for the sheer hell of it.

― Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Monday, 1 December 2003 11:35 (twenty-one years ago)

But surely you cannot remove cruelty from the argument. I have no issue with the class of these ppl, I just have issue with what they do & perceive as fun.

― Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Monday, 1 December 2003 11:36 (twenty-one years ago)

But they don't think it's 'fun', they think it is something greater and grander, hence problematic symbolism perceived by pro's and anti's. Were it 'fun' only, then nobody would care if it were legal or not, like drugs or something.

― dave q, Monday, 1 December 2003 11:39 (twenty-one years ago)

fox hunting may not be effective but fox killing IS, the 'right' to kill them is as a means of preventing them killing and eating chickens. in this respect the METHOD of how it is done becomes less important - mark h made good points about the problem with bequeathing the responsibility to farmers for example. i would suggest spending money on better security for chicken coups rather than on fancy hunting outfits and subscriptions to Horse & Hound however.

― stevem (blueski), Monday, 1 December 2003 11:39 (twenty-one years ago)

but if questioned they rarely will give other excuses than 'it is tradition' 'it's the thrill of the chase' 'it's keeps the fox population down'. All of these reasons are complete rubbish.

― Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Monday, 1 December 2003 11:41 (twenty-one years ago)

Well other things are relevant if that's the case. Do you think it acceptable that ppl find drinking and drug-taking fun?

Oh, Dave Q's on to that already. My point is that drug-taking causes untold pain around the world to humans -- it isn't just fucking fun for the Columbians/Afghans caught up in it!

― Nu-Enrique (Enrique), Monday, 1 December 2003 11:41 (twenty-one years ago)

but if questioned they rarely will give other excuses than 'it is tradition' 'it's the thrill of the chase' 'it's keeps the fox population down'. All of these reasons are complete rubbish.

well, it *is* tradition, it *is* (presumably) thrilling and it *does* (inefficiently) keep the vermin down -- so how are these reasons rubbish? You have your conception of 'rights' for animals, they believe in the 'right' to hunt. It's kind of irreconcilable at that level.

― Nu-Enrique (Enrique), Monday, 1 December 2003 11:43 (twenty-one years ago)

Whether it's effective or not isn't the issue. Even if it was 100% effective it would still be a massive outlay of resources for 1 fox. What I'm saying is that if you concede that vermin do need to be controlled (do you? you seem to, but you also say that humans have no right to kill wild animals), surely it would be better to find a pleasurable way of doing this? Or should anyone doing something you find distasteful find it distasteful?

― Sam (chirombo), Monday, 1 December 2003 11:46 (twenty-one years ago)

The Colombians and Afghans would be fine if the fucking DEA just left them alone. Buy smack, give a poppy farmer's children presents this Xmas.

― dave q, Monday, 1 December 2003 11:47 (twenty-one years ago)

Skipping 127 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

I dont even begin to understand what that means.

― Spinktor the Unmerciful (mawill5), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 13:37 (twenty-one years ago)

Sarah is otm, pretty much, building a better world is not about making a prioritised list, more about a series of goals working in harmony with each other.

Mind you this is a good way to justify your life goals being parasitic things like writing alot about music.

― Ronan (Ronan), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 13:38 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, perhaps the reason you haven't been eaten is because you taste bad - see the toad thread for further details.

― Markelby (Mark C), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 13:39 (twenty-one years ago)

Damn, i see what you're saying. What the fuck was I thinking? Ive only kicked back 1/2 cup of coffee as of yet...slow to wake up this morning i guess.

Yeah, im too skinny...and i prolly dont taste good.

― Spinktor the Unmerciful (mawill5), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 13:43 (twenty-one years ago)

This thread jumped the shark.

Fuck animals.

― Spinktor the Unmerciful (mawill5), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 13:46 (twenty-one years ago)

Stupid animal.
http://www.hat.net/album/middle_east/003_jordan/001_highlights_of_jordan/027_dead_animal_in_the_desert.jpg

― Spinktor the Unmerciful (mawill5), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 13:46 (twenty-one years ago)

i'm just surprised that there is a need for any laws specifically for fox hunting.. i mean shouldn't the existing laws concerning animal cruelty already cover killing foxes as a past time? like, if i set fire to my dog and my neighbour saw it, she'd be horrified and call the RSPCA and i'd be on the news.

and it serves the purpose of reducing the population of dogs so that they don't cover the streets with their POO at the fucking time.

― ken c, Wednesday, 3 December 2003 13:47 (twenty-one years ago)

Id slap this tiger. He's lazy.
http://schmode.net/tigerdad013.jpg

― Spinktor the Unmerciful (mawill5), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 13:49 (twenty-one years ago)

Spinktor who are you talking to??

ken your pyro ways have done their magic because London is blessedly free of dogs and their poopy ways. It's very civilised.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 14:08 (twenty-one years ago)

Does it matter? I get ignored most of the time anyway.

― Spinktor the Unmerciful (mawill5), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 14:09 (twenty-one years ago)

i like the idea of banning fox-hunting purely on bureaucratic grounds rather than from a moral perspective

― stevem (blueski), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 14:11 (twenty-one years ago)

traditional fox hunting should be kept legal but only on the basis of denying the practioners access to horses & dogs

either
they have to use helicopters and be armed with machine guns and heat-seeking rockets
or
they have to chase the thing across the fields by themselves, on foot, in full costume, and kill it with their own teeth

both the self-affirming darwinian-brass-tacks wry congratulatory back-slapping of ourselves as top-of-the-food-chain humans capable of ceremony/tradition/culture supreme over mere animals and the dignity of back-to-nature primitivist authenticity via hunting/killing and fear/fascination with blood/death would remain plain for all to enjoy in either case

― Snowy Mann (rdmanston), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 14:12 (twenty-one years ago)

apart from last week when in the middle of CAMDEN ROAD (the bit where it's 3 lanes wide) my shoes had the unfortunate encounter with a stinker. :-( clearly I charcoaled one dog too little.

I can just imagine this dog/fox whatever, staring the oncoming 50mph traffic in the face, having a leisurely dump. I hope it died a unpleasant death.

― ken c, Wednesday, 3 December 2003 14:13 (twenty-one years ago)

dog/fox

Hahaha...SMASH!

― Spinktor the Unmerciful (mawill5), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 14:14 (twenty-one years ago)

i knew they aren't REAL potatoes... but I never knew it was made from dogs and foxes!

― ken c, Wednesday, 3 December 2003 14:16 (twenty-one years ago)

'either they have to use helicopters and be armed with machine guns and heat-seeking rockets

they have to chase the thing across the fields by themselves, on foot, in full costume, and kill it with their own teeth'

Two separate and distinct schools of fox hunting. The Tarantino school and the Hemingway school respectively.

― Fred Nerk (Fred Nerk), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 14:16 (twenty-one years ago)

We should retrain hunting dogs so that instead of chasing down foxes and killing them they can operate a toilet on their own.

i saw a fox on my street yesterday by the way. i immediately hid behind a tree so i didn't get trampled by a cavalcade of fox hunters. but they never showed, wouldn't ya know. me fox just sat there smoking cigarettes and making long-distance calls

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 14:18 (twenty-one years ago)

Urban foxes are way cocky about the lack of foxhunters. They just kind of sit there, staring at you going "wot you looking at?" in BROAD DAYLIGHT. It's all a bit silly.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 14:20 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, this has seriously gotten out of hand. Lets reclaim what is ours.

― Spinktor the Unmerciful (mawill5), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 14:23 (twenty-one years ago)

i thought you said they get way cockney. They'd be saying things like "dog and bone" and that'd be wrong.

― ken c, Wednesday, 3 December 2003 14:24 (twenty-one years ago)

Fox hunting is awesome.

― Spinktor the Unmerciful (mawill5), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 14:28 (twenty-one years ago)

Fox hunting is bollox.

― Fred Nerk (Fred Nerk), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 14:32 (twenty-one years ago)

Threads on fox hunting are awesome. Sorry.

― Spinktor the Unmerciful (mawill5), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 14:32 (twenty-one years ago)

Most of this thread is bollox. Especially my bits towards the end.

― Fred Nerk (Fred Nerk), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 14:33 (twenty-one years ago)

If i had a tiger, id send it after you Fred.

― Spinktor the Unmerciful (mawill5), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 14:34 (twenty-one years ago)

Thanks Ken.

I'd send it on to Calum for a good slap.

― Fred Nerk (Fred Nerk), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 14:36 (twenty-one years ago)

Why do you keep calling me Ken? I cant figure that out. I just figured you were talking to someone else...but here it is again...that 'KEN' word. Why?

― Spinktor the Unmerciful (mawill5), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 14:37 (twenty-one years ago)

You said on the other thread your name wasn't Spinktor, which surprised me greatly, so I tried to guess what it was by looking at your email tag.

― Fred Nerk (Fred Nerk), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 14:39 (twenty-one years ago)

Ah, ok. I understand now. Its Matt if you really want to know. Dont matter though.

― Spinktor the Unmerciful (mawill5), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 14:40 (twenty-one years ago)

For a moment I half suspected you may have been Calum.

― Fred Nerk (Fred Nerk), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 14:43 (twenty-one years ago)

Nah. Ally can verify my identity. Plus my thread entries are way to short and immature.

― Spinktor the Unmerciful (mawill5), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 14:44 (twenty-one years ago)

(I'd like to put down the banner of species superiority for a second to put "We Are All Made Of Calum" by Moby into the heads of the three people still reading this thread. Nothing can stop us now!)

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 14:47 (twenty-one years ago)

WAH

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 14:48 (twenty-one years ago)

This thread roxors. It makes me want to commit animal brutality like a mofo.

― Spinktor the Unmerciful (mawill5), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 14:49 (twenty-one years ago)

I think you guys should make a list of the power chain. For example, are snakes better than rats because they eat them?

Ready. Set. Go!

― Sarah McLusky (coco), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 14:49 (twenty-one years ago)

Does this apply?
http://mediaservice.photoisland.com/auction/Dec/20031231640862093536425.jpg

― Spinktor the Unmerciful (mawill5), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 14:53 (twenty-one years ago)

2am in Australia. Time to assume a horizontal attitude.

(If I have nightmares about Bengal tigers, or foxes, or dogs crapping, or Calum, or all or any combination of the above, I'll know EXACTLY who to blame, won't I?)

― Fred Nerk (Fred Nerk), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 14:53 (twenty-one years ago)

the food chain from the 'Lisa goes veggie' Simpsons is classic

― stevem (blueski), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 14:55 (twenty-one years ago)

Me?

― Spinktor the Unmerciful (mawill5), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 14:55 (twenty-one years ago)

"i'm a fifth-level vegan - i don't eat anything that casts a shadow"

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 15:07 (twenty-one years ago)

So, foxes....yeah......

― Spinktor the Unmerciful (mawill5), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 15:07 (twenty-one years ago)

eleven months pass...

So the govt invoked the Parliament Act. What a mess.

― beanz (beanz), Thursday, 18 November 2004 22:37 (twenty years ago)

I'm very anti-hunting btw.

― beanz (beanz), Thursday, 18 November 2004 22:40 (twenty years ago)

And, now, the Countryside Alliance is going to go to court and say "The Parliament Act is illegal because it was never passed by the Lords". However, if the judiciary (ultimately, the House Of Lords themselves, in other words) agree, then all that means is a return to the informal pre-Parliament Act arrangement where the government can force a manifesto bill to pass if the Lords reject it three times within three years (instead of the Parliament Act's two years)

― caitlin (caitlin), Friday, 19 November 2004 08:18 (twenty years ago)

I'm getting more and more offended by the focus on fox-hunting whilst battery pig and chicken farming continue. It's a drop in the ocean in animal cruelty terms, and a waste of parliamentary time. It seems now to be being played as a political gambit to make the Tories like foam mouthed blood speckled red-coated loonies, once again stifling any proper progressive political debate.

― Ed (dali), Friday, 19 November 2004 08:27 (twenty years ago)

That's true, but at the same time I'm happy with the ban – and if battery farming had been banned instead I'd be wondering why hunting with dogs was still allowed. The hunt ban is a much stronger social statement. Labour doesn't want to be anti-industry and especially anti-agriculture. Something like banning battery farming would make the farming industry suffer much more unless they adapted, which I think they could - but it would nonetheless write off Labour's countryside vote altogether. But the hunt ban is supported by an awful lot of the rural population who just aren't as vocal as the CA. Anyway, in 5 years hunting will be seen as relevant to the UK as bear-baiting or cock-fighting. Maybe.

― beanz (beanz), Friday, 19 November 2004 09:57 (twenty years ago)

I think you're wrong their. An end to battery farming would hurt the large industrial battery farms but would go some way to assisting smaller family run concerns who have the space to take on extensive pig and chicken rearing. In a well managed way it could be a shot in the arm for the everyday working farmer especially as we'd have to ban non-extensively reared imports.

As for the social side of things; it seams to me that this debate has morphed from an animal rights debate into anything but an animal rights debate. A proxy class war because no-one is minded to tackle the real injustices in british society. A petty revolution whilst the welfare state is weakened, nationally important public services and industries are destroyed, rights are eroded. Given the choice, if I were an MP, I would have voted against hunting with dogs but in order to clear the decks.

I agree with your final sentence though.

― Ed (dali), Friday, 19 November 2004 10:42 (twenty years ago)

By "final sentence" do you mean the bair-baiting bit or the "Maybe"?

I think you're probably right about an end to battery farming = helping small farming businesses - I meant that fear of the short-term damage it would do to the big industrial ones puts the govt off doing it, rather than that I believed it was a bad thing. Even if individual small farmers became better off, Labour would still have confirmed the belief that they are anti-rural.

And if the hunters among the landed types think it's a class war - well, it isn't because there are upper class anti-hunting people and working class pros. It suits the toffs to portray themselves as the victims and it makes the old Labour MPs feel like they're not betraying their younger selves.

― beanz (beanz), Friday, 19 November 2004 13:16 (twenty years ago)

two months pass...

so it's the last legal hunts today. are there lots of people out there celebrating? after eight years of new labour is this the payoff?

i agree with ed's initial post. this whole thing is out of proportion. i don't 'like' foxhunting, but i just don't get what government is for if it feels increasingly 'hands-off' about finance, public services and so on, but more and more hands-on about petty aspects of behavious like this.

― NRQ, Thursday, 17 February 2005 15:58 (twenty years ago)

I'm getting more and more offended by the focus on fox-hunting whilst battery pig and chicken farming continue.

Battery pig farming doesn't continue tho. At least not in the UK. We have stricter laws concerning pig farming than anywhere else in the EU. These were introduced at considerable cost to the pig farming industry; quite a few pig farms went out of business as a result.

― MarkH (MarkH), Thursday, 17 February 2005 18:26 (twenty years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.