Viewing Thread:
"Edgy's view on the fox hunting situation."

Well it seems a bunch of toffs who do very little to contribute to society other than allow their dogs to crap on the pavement because they're too rich to have to pick it up and dispose of it have decided that they are the only people in Britain who count and that a democracy involves attacking the government they voted in. Ironic really.
So what's this all about then? Well it seems that the final reading of the bill to ban fox hunting has been read today. A unanimous vote (as far as I am aware) by the MPs of the House of Commons has passed it and all is left is for the snobs in the House of Lords to say yay or nay. Unfortunately, they have said 'nay' the past couple of times, and so the House of Commons have threatened to use one of those ancient laws, such as being allowed to kill a man in Yorkshire on a Sunday with a bow and arrow (I wouldn't test that law if I were you...if I have quoted it right) , which allows them to overturn the ruling by the House of Lords which in this case would result in a complete ban on fox hunting.

This news has caused a huge minority of people large enough to be beaten off by those paid to protect democracy in their flourescant uniforms brandishing truncheons. Right this minute (at time of writing), plenty of homes throughout the UK are left unprotected as a large mob of toffs have stormed London hoping to change the situation by means of violence and terrorism. This I'll get back to.

So what is fox hunting?

Fox hunting is what some of these toffs consider a 'sport', or a means of recreation. Others consider it a 'livelyhood', as a means of pest control. It involves a bunch of rediculously dressed snobs on the back of horses blowing a horn that is hardly going to unite the people of Gondor, which commands a huge pack of dogs to chase after a defenseless animal in order to rip it to shreds. This method was used a long long time ago and is still used today. These snobby toffs still believe that this is the most humane way to control the population of foxes in the countryside. They also claim that they shoot the animals so they don't actually suffer. Is that before or after they've chased them across various distances and allowed a pack of dogs to sink their teeth into them?

That isn't the entire story though. Fox Hunting, should it be allowed to continue, should only take place on the land owned by the person who hires the hunters. However, once a fox has been spotted, the toffs don't care who's land they violate, who gets in their way, as long as they get their trophy. A dead piece of fur. Over the years there have been articles on kids being frightened incredibly by toffs trampling their horses across gardens, articles on pets being killed by the dogs, and so on. It only takes a search on the various news websites to find stories like this.

So what do the toffs say about it?

One toff on the news expressed his views along the lines of this pathetic cry for sympathy, "If fox hunting is banned, I will lose my home. I will lose my livelihood. The hounds will have to go. I'm not trained for anything else, so I will have to train to work."

Oh my! Welcome to the life the rest of us lead. We have to work for a living. We don't get to play a barbaric sport for a living. We have to take part in training and earn a real wage, as opposed to riding horses and playing fetch with a fox instead of a stick. It's not that they're afraid they'll lose their jobs. It's that they're afraid to get jobs!

So how do these toffs plan to make things go their way? They turn a peaceful protest into a mob attack. Storm the houses of parliament and think a bit of shouting is going to change the minds of those listening to the majority view of the people. I wont deny that the majority view isn't always right, but I feel that in this situation, in this democracy, the same argument that the protesters were using, again ironic, that fox hunting should be banned if only to give these toffs a reality check.

On the news today, I saw a woman with a big cut around her eye shouting, "I wasn't even protesting! A policeman did this (points to eye)! And I'm a firm believer in the law! So tell me this: What was a non-protester doing in the middle of a huge crowd of protesters outside the Houses of Parliament? Somehow I doubt she was having a picnic. And the rest of them suprised that the police hit them with their truncheons. What did they expect the police to do? Hand them boxing gloves to batter the MPs they voted in?

Overall, this shows the utter rediculous nature of the inbred toffs. They're too afraid to work, and instead of having to find some other way to play, they're forced to find jobs that aren't quite a horse-ride in the park. The majority of people in the UK want an end to this barbaric sport and all agree there are plenty of other more humane ways of handling the overwhelming fox crisis. I mean, it's getting so bad that you can't even walk the streets now incase a fox runs away from you like a scared puppy! Disgusting!

I'm just trying to figure out what any of you described has to do with being a "snob".

Ooh, you keep stuff tidy. Tenner says you have tea with mumsy at 5 on a Sunday evening.

A snob to deny he is a snob is a snob in self denial.

I wont deny I have snobby ways. I like things to be perfect. I'm the only person in work to keep my desk perfectly organised. If I find something has been changed to my dislike, I'll immediately change it back.

I don't swear often, I don't drink often. I don't smoke and I don't dress like a chav.

I'd say there's some snobbery in me at the least.

But you don't need to come in constant contact with them, so why should you move?

"Where the snobs live"
Yes indeed. No class hatred there.

Stryke wrote:
That's my problem, and why I got so
> angry when I read Edgy's pathetic attempt to veil his class hatred
> behind the pretence of animal rights.

If I had class hatred, I wouldn't live in North Cardiff where the snobs live.

I live in a well off area. I'm not rich myself, but I do live in an area considered posh. I hate the horse crap being left all over the road and pavement. I hate the arrogant way these 'well off' people feel it is their right to block the roads with their huge cars just so they can park outside their properties whilst their driveway is left empty. I hate the way they feel they can push in front of queues in shops because they've got a 'gold card' because they spend too much.

But I also hate the habits of some of the poorer people. Those who drop litter everywhere. Those who shout and swear at random passers by for five seconds of enjoyment. I hate the way some of the parents don't give a damn about their pregnant 12 year olds and I hate the way they feel they're hard done by when they get tonnes of benefits and complain they're poor when they spend a fortune a week on fags and booze.

My comments may have referred to the hunters as toffs, but by no means is my argument a class war.

My argument is this: We are all animals. To pretend that being 'more civilised and with a language' makes us any better is more arrogant than any other comment on these forums. If I were being chased by a mob of thugs with knives trying to shred me to bits, I'd be so scared I'd consider the trauma before the painful death to be more than any creature should have to put up with in a lifetime.

So, for the same situation to happen, trained by humans, in the animal kingdom is no different? By classing animals as different to humans, you again are turning this into a class war argument.

I'm not denying foxes can be pests. But I'm sure a bullet is much more quick and humane than having the living flesh torn apart.

You're right, ratting is just as cruel as fox-hunting. What I'm trying to get across here is that a sizeable number anti-hunt protesters aren't in it for the sake of the fox, it's another excuse to dig up the class battle and use it as a standard for inequality in our society. If they were realistically out for a stop to cruelty, it should be ALL animal cruelty and not just the fox because it's plight is the most publicised.

I haven't actually conveyed my views on this. I'm dead-set against animal cruelty, honestly. I've been raised by in an environmentalist family and I've always wanted to work in British conservation. I also like the sight of the hunt. I live in the countryside, but I think it can be managed just as easily without a fox. There are a number of options, and hunt teams are well aware of them. So yes, I'm against fox-hunting.

But what I hate about the whole is dragging class into it. People hate that it's being done by the upper-classes and the animal issue has almost fallen by the wayside. That's my problem, and why I got so angry when I read Edgy's pathetic attempt to veil his class hatred behind the pretence of animal rights.

A while back, I watched a programmme with Clarissa (can't remember her second name) about country persuits. Now, the item in question was showing Jack Russell terriers being used to hunt rats. The rats were smoked out of their riverside burrows (sic?) and the dogs set onto them.

Now, my parents couldn't understand why I was so angry. They are both from a small village near Hexham, and despise foxhunting. (A fox was caught in a garden in the village. The hunt ignored the owners pleas, and killed the fox in full view of her children, who were extremely upset. A number of witnesses viewed the appalling attitude of the hunt towards the owner. That's another story though...)

The people on the programme weren't "upper class", they simply lived in a village.

It was the bloodlust and joy that these people took in the suffering of another animal. Wild rats are vermin, yes. Disease carrier, yes. Pest, yes. Entitled to be torn to shreds for the entertainment of a crowd? No. You ever heard a terrified rat? It's an utterly distressing noise.

On a slightly different note, the most laughable argument I've heard from the Countryside Alliance for the continuation of foxhunting is that if it were made illegal then the foxes "would die of starvation and disease"

I.e. They would die naturally.

Stryke wrote:
> No, I'm not dismissing the opinions of city-dwellers. I didn't really
> get my point across there at all, sorry. It's just that they seem to
> think they're informed on the issue just because of pressure-groups
> screaming about cruelty as they march through London. If it was
> countrysiders who were doing this, people who see the hunt and see
> the cruelty to the fox and all it entails, then I'd be fine with them
> expressing a well-informed opinion. It just seems to me that a lot of
> anti fox-hunt people are against it simply because it's Flavour of
> the Month on Panorama or something.

Okay, fair enough. But does one even have to be informed on the complexities of an issue when the crux of the argument is that the vast, overwhelming majority of people are opposed to a practice and their opposition is based on the fact that a small minority of wealthy people maintain an anachronistic practice for no other reason than to derive pleasure from meaningless and needless killing?

I disagree with it being "flavour of the month"; this has been an issue since the early 90's, so it's not as if this has crept up on anyone. Nor is it as if the media have dedicated much space to the issue. And if we want to talk about pressure groups screaming, well one only has to point to the restrained behaviour of those pro-hunt chaps invading parliament. I've yet to hear an argument in favour of hunting that doesn't revolve around the phrase "you don't understand", followed by precisely no explaination of just what it is we're meant to understand.

No, I'm not dismissing the opinions of city-dwellers. I didn't really get my point across there at all, sorry. It's just that they seem to think they're informed on the issue just because of pressure-groups screaming about cruelty as they march through London. If it was countrysiders who were doing this, people who see the hunt and see the cruelty to the fox and all it entails, then I'd be fine with them expressing a well-informed opinion. It just seems to me that a lot of anti fox-hunt people are against it simply because it's Flavour of the Month on Panorama or something.

Stryke wrote:
> What argument? That it's cruel to foxes? Just as hypocritical as
> 'traditional'. I'm sure someone in this thread will have said it, but
> because a fox is cuddly and looks kinda cute means suburbia gets all
> angry because The Natural World on BBC1 showed them in a nice burrow
> getting food for their young or something.

Not so much the cruelty itself, no. More the savage joy and pleasure taken in that cruelty.

Let me put it this way; if urban foxes were regularly hunted through the city streets by a bunch of council estate dwellers and their dogs, and the fox was torn to bits as the mob brayed and whooped with joy, do you honestly believe that it wouldn't have been banned already?

Incidentally you're also showing the standard approach of the pro-hunt lobby; trying to mock and mis-characterise the arguments against hunting, thus showing the utter disdain of the opinion of 'oiks'. Guess Edgy isn't the only one bringing class into this...


[edit]

The comparisons to child abuse and murder come from the very obviously sadistic pleasure derived from the slaughter of an animal for pleasure.