As to Blair's admission of regret at having supported the Hunting Bill, he certainly did so and the sporting press understandably seized upon it. I can't quote offhand when and where but you can find it on the net as well as I can.
Tony.
No. If you are making the claim it is for you to provide the evidence of it. That's how debates and discussions work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamcatbug
Also Tony, pretty sure Scotland's SMP's are also MP's down here so they are entitled to vote on the issue... But if I'm wrong feel free to declare how wrong I am.
No. Alex Salmond was an MP and an MSP at the same time, which was quite controversial, but as far as I know he is the only one to have been such. The MPs are completely different to the MSPs and cannot vote on the same issues or in the same parliaments. The constituency boundaries aren't the same either. Plus, the Scottish system means each constituency has about eight(?) MSPs to choose from, at least my constituency has about that many. With one main MSP for the constituency, with the others being for the wider "region". In theory as they are of the same party, they should have the same alignment on most principle issues, however.
OK, Iamcatbug, offence forgotten - and I've very rarely had cause to complain to the mods. And of course (no pun) I wouldn't enjoy seeing cats or dogs being hounded to death, though I have seen in the Middle East dog shoots intended to reduce the number of semi-wild dogs encroaching on urban areas and attacking pets and possibly spreading disease - I did not take part myself since I have more regard for dogs than many have. And since there were no hounds out there, the only other option would have been poison, which I find repellent as a solution (again, no pun).
As to SNP votes in the Commons, of course they're allowed to vote on any issue which arises - they are after all members of our joint parliament. But, as I understand it (as someone who is not at all knowledgeable on political issues - I was only ever a soldier) there has been considerable recent kerfuffle about English Votes for English Laws (EVEL) and some sort of acknowledgement that the SNP would not interfere in purely English matters. This was blown apart by their willingness to oppose the government over the amendment of a Bill which had nothing whatever to do with Scotland and would have brought English law into line with the existing law in Scotland. What an unprincipled shower they are!
So far on this thread I've seen little constructive as to the best ways of controlling fox numbers, even though there does seem to be a reluctant acknowledgement on the part of some to actually admit that numbers must somehow be controlled. I challenge those who may still be interested to tell us just how, in their opinion, that that control should be effected in both town and country ...
Gosh, the One Who, I'll try to find the quote when I can - but I'm satisfied it was made, otherwise it wouldn't have been quoted as it was in the sporting press, who of course seized upon it ...
OK, The One Who, there's tons of evidence if you google it, which I've now done on your behalf. Including a quote from Jack Straw's memoirs in which he cites Blair as saying "if I'd proposed solving the pension problem by compulsory euthanasia for every 5th pensioner I'd have got less trouble for it" (that is the Hunting Bill). He also admitted that he didn't know enough about the issue to really make a decision about it and that he was tricked into supporting it on Dimblebum's Question Time. So he was prepared to see an issue which had led half a million country people to come to London to protest (at considerable expense for many, I was one of them) - about something which he later admitted he didn't understand, nevertheless to go ahead. What a sorry admission from someone who had been responsible for really important decisions such as those which led to the Iraq war.
At the time of the protest I watched some arrogant and brainless Labour Minister try to dismiss it on television as "only half a million out of the whole country". These were people, many from the north, who were prepared to give up two working days and pay a good deal of money in an attempt to save what they regarded as their long-standing rights in the countryside in which they lived. They were of course swept aside by a government majority of ignorant Labour MPs who were determined upon what was no more than a blatant act of class warfare.
But the countryside does not forget easily and nor will it. And those Labour supporters who may wonder why most rural constituencies consistently vote Conservative should perhaps be asking themselves why (it's surely not that wealthy landowners are twisting their arms up their backs - we're all free to vote as we wish). And whatever you may feel about the rights or wrongs of hunting you can be pretty sure that the Hunting Bill (now 10 years old) has set many of those who live in the country firmly against any future Labour government.
But why should it be a right? They are not banned from hunting foxes, just banned from doing it with large packs of hounds... Why is it a right to hunt in that manner.
Also, the majority of people dont vote for a party simply because of one thing they agree with. Do you know for a fact that all these people vote what they do or have you simply looked upon statistics saying that they vote conservative, talked to a few people saying a reason they do is the fox hunting law and assumed that the rest surely do it for that reason? Do you have statistics showing that fox hunting ban is the reason these people vote as they do.
You keep saying that the ban is made due to emotions etc. Yet, if people care that much about the ban on hunting foxes with large amount of hounds taht they take time off work etc. Surely they are emotional about the subject but simply in regards of being for it. And that means that they are not objective about the matter either. So had they been the ones to make the decision it would have been just as much affected by emotions.
Again, its not even illegal to hunt a fox. It is simply the manner in which you do it. It is about tradition, dont pretend that it is out of interest in the well being of the fox ebing killed.
If you use professionals to shoot a fox for culling, it is not that likely that it will get away. Then it would be inhumane to shoot a deer as well yet here that is how they go about culling deer. And you are allowed to bring a dog to help locate the wounded animal in case it doesnt die straight away.
I have read statements from vets telling exactly what happens to the fox during these hunts and its not just a matter of how they die but how their body reacts when being chased in that manner. And the death when hunting with hounds is often not quick and it is in no way controlled. When shooting an animal it is a much more controlled manner cause you dont rely on an animal. Its much easier to control that an animal actually dies straight away with a gun. Too often the dogs dont bite so that it kills fast as you say. But you seem blind to all statements made by people with knowledge on the subject that doesnt back up what you are saying and you refuse to back up your own statements with documentation 99% of the time even when asked for it. Which makes me doubt whether this is facts or simply your own biasedand emotional opinion.
Den fuldkomne kærlighed,
Kan ikke eksistere blandt ufuldkomne
Well, Morpheus, I would suggest that if something has been going on unhindered for hundreds of years, it does qualify as a right - just as does the use of a footpath over the same sort of time. You are of course free to disagree, if only because the use of free speech over the same number of years has arisen in accordance with just the same principle!
If you accept (as your answer implies) that hunting foxes to cull them is an acceptable practise then why shouldn't a full pack of hounds be used to ensure that it is done most efficiently. To limit the hunt to just two hounds just bears out that the whole Bill is a hotch-potch of supposed limitations imposed by an ignorant and uncaring government, who were only really concerned with shafting the supposedly wealthy toffs who, they imagined, had nothing better to do than chase down poor harmless foxes.
As to voting because of the ban, I entirely accept that there are large numbers of countryfolk who are not in favour of hunting. But the majority are in favour and will join me in deeply resenting the urban "solution" which has been imposed upon them for shallow and easy political purposes. Of course I can't produce tables of statistics, but I'm confident that most are unhappy about the urban majority's attitude towards them. And I'm pretty confident that there won't be many rural seats falling to Labour when the next election comes round.
You suggest that emotionalism plays a large part in all this. I think you're right. Ordinary country people don't want to be dictated to by an urban majority who they feel don't understand the realities of rural life. And the urban majority feel that they're somehow superior to the country clod-hoppers and can therefore dictate whatever terms they like.
All this leaves everyone as divided as ever about fox hunting, so I'm happy to call it a day ...
Tony (though the thread was actually about the SNP's behaviour in parliament).
OK, The One Who, there's tons of evidence if you google it, which I've now done on your behalf.
Tony.(now go google for yourself!)
N. Tony, it is up to you to provide us with links to, ideally, a reputable source that backs up your assertions. It is not for me to hunt around on Google to prove your point! Please provide links which detail why hunting with a pack of hounds is the most effective means of population control.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonychat
As to voting because of the ban, I entirely accept that there are large numbers of countryfolk who are not in favour of hunting. But the majority are in favour and will join me in deeply resenting the urban "solution" which has been imposed upon them for shallow and easy political purposes. Of course I can't produce tables of statistics, but I'm confident that most are unhappy about the urban majority's attitude towards them. And I'm pretty confident that there won't be many rural seats falling to Labour when the next election comes round.
Prove it. Or are you simply making things up to suit your own point. Anecdotal stories mean nothing.
I can answer all your points, Secrets Hurt, and indeed drafted a reply doing so. But I won't send it since I said in the very first sentence of the thread that it was not intended that we should get into the controversial subject of the ethics of hunting. We seem to have certainly done so and it is my fault for not having killed the thread dead much earlier.
As far as I'm concerned the thread is now closed and I'm sorry it got so badly off topic ...
If I've read it right, he mainly regrets he didn't research it properly before picking a side to be on. So not South he regrets the fox hunting ban. Again though it appears he media put him on the spot.
I can answer all your points, Secrets Hurt, and indeed drafted a reply doing so. But I won't send it since I said in the very first sentence of the thread that it was not intended that we should get into the controversial subject of the ethics of hunting. We seem to have certainly done so and it is my fault for not having killed the thread dead much earlier.
As far as I'm concerned the thread is now closed and I'm sorry it got so badly off topic ...
Tony.
Tony, I've been afraid to even come here, I owe you an apology, I got way carried away (as usual) and too personal, in things I said about you and in bringing my own issues into it, which have nothing to with anything.
You know that I do like you as a person and respect you, I shouldn't have replied so impulsively and hotheadedly. You are entitled to your views of course too.
I hope we can be ok. I'll delete my post now. I dont even know what else to say, but peace to everyone.
Of course we'll be OK, Secrets Hurt. The site is intended to be kind and helpful, not to stir up antagonisms. My moan about the SNP probably wasn't appropriate, though I felt quite strongly about it - and still do.
But use the site, enjoy the site - and let the site hopefully help you ...
Oh Gawd, I must revert to my original username. TonyChat was only devised to allow me to get into chat in response to an earlier request which actually came to nothing.
