Viewing Thread:
"Fox Hunting"

So much for the ban on fox hunting. Even though the legislation is not due to become law until February, I found out today that the Country side alliance or someone are launching a legal fight to overturn the law. But get this.....they can continue to hunt until the matter is settled (could be 5 years).

Now imagine this, what if an individual launched a legal fight not to recognise the law on say armed robbery. Does this mean that person could continue robbing until the matter was settled? I think not.

This government has bowed under pressure, from a few toffs and upper class ninnies. What messages are you sending Blair.....why bother with laws when the rich and powerful just choose to ignore them anyway??? You muppet

So much for the ban on fox hunting. Even though the legislation is not due to become law until February, I found out today that the Country side alliance or someone are launching a legal fight to overturn the law. But get this.....they can continue to hunt until the matter is settled (could be 5 years).

Now imagine this, what if an individual launched a legal fight not to recognise the law on say armed robbery. Does this mean that person could continue robbing until the matter was settled? I think not.

This government has bowed under pressure, from a few toffs and upper class ninnies. What messages are you sending Blair.....why bother with laws when the rich and powerful just choose to ignore them anyway??? You muppet

Actually, it's so it doesn't interfere with the campaigns later in the year.

I'm sure you've posted this before... And I'm sure I thought the same thing the last time too.

forkboy68 wrote:
> So much for the ban on fox hunting. Even though the legislation is not
> due to become law until February, I found out today that the Country
> side alliance or someone are launching a legal fight to overturn the
> law. But get this.....they can continue to hunt until the matter is
> settled (could be 5 years).

It's a new law and not in practice people have the right to protest and try to stop a law that is being created if it's going to effect them.

> Now imagine this, what if an individual launched a legal fight not to
> recognise the law on say armed robbery. Does this mean that person
> could continue robbing until the matter was settled? I think not.

It's kinda a bad comparason as i think armed robbery has been around for a while and no-one wants to be robbed so everyone's for the law to be there. Where as this law will not effect alot of people and so many don't care either way.

> This government has bowed under pressure, from a few toffs and upper
> class ninnies. What messages are you sending Blair.....why bother
> with laws when the rich and powerful just choose to ignore them
> anyway??? You muppet

They haven't bowed under any pressure, it is the law that they can try to stop it coming in to action. If they just said this is the law like it or lump it.People would go crazy at it.

I don't think they should be allowed to hunt but it doesn't matter what i think, i'm not a fox and i'm not a hunter.

You don't understand, it's a ploy by Labour to stop civil unrest interfering with the election. There was talk of the hunt lobbyists trying to get the ban put forward, so they'd have a chance to demonstrate en-masse before the election and undermine Labour.

Foxs may be cute looking animals but does that in anyway stop it being a savage and a pest? You cannot denie something it is because it is "cute". You don't see any of you protesters setting up debates against "rat poisoning" or "fishing" surely these are being cruely dealt with but no, they're not cute looking so you wont. Its a British tradition that the up-tight society decide should be stopped because we are ruining a life stock. They are not in any way en dangered species and most of the hunting is done on the hunters land. When a cat brings down a mouse there is no debate on that, you say it's not in our nature to kill but what did our great ancestors do before ready made meals?

Erm, the argument about 'pest-control' holds no water at all -

1) Foxes are killed in other ways
2) They never ever overpopulate an area. So in that respect, they are far brainier than us.

I couldn't care less either way to be honest.

Lets look at the "Cute Badger" its protected now and is a menace here in my rural lands the Cute Badger can eat a Hedgehog and leave the skin in tackt! they undermine the road foundations, and generally run amock. They are often found lying at the road side apperently victims of hit and run?? I doubt it I reckon they are dumped after illeagal hunting, my point is if you make it illeagal it will still happen, these animals are not CUTE and they need controlled some how, left alone they will become a cute problem.

Keep it legal and at least you can control some elements of hunting make it illegal and you bring back to good old days of Poaching and poisins etc. the problem how ever cute will not go away.


Charleyann wrote:
> Foxs may be cute looking animals but does that in anyway stop it being
> a savage and a pest? You cannot denie something it is because it is
> "cute". You don't see any of you protesters setting up
> debates against "rat poisoning" or "fishing"
> surely these are being cruely dealt with but no, they're not cute
> looking so you wont. Its a British tradition that the up-tight
> society decide should be stopped because we are ruining a life stock.
> They are not in any way en dangered species and most of the hunting
> is done on the hunters land. When a cat brings down a mouse there is
> no debate on that, you say it's not in our nature to kill but what
> did our great ancestors do before ready made meals?

I say, make it legal if they don't use dogs.