The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
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!
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!
Page:
Grix Thraves wrote:
> Chav hunting! Now there's a sport I'd enjoy.
>
> All you'd have to do would be to park a Nova in a carpark, play some
> music with a heavy bass nice and loud.. and then just wait
> patiently...
Extra points would be rewarded if you bag a Burberry cap wearing tracksuited moped rider.
> Chav hunting! Now there's a sport I'd enjoy.
>
> All you'd have to do would be to park a Nova in a carpark, play some
> music with a heavy bass nice and loud.. and then just wait
> patiently...
Extra points would be rewarded if you bag a Burberry cap wearing tracksuited moped rider.
Frankly I lost any sympathy with the pro-hunt brigade with the dead horse dumping. What considerate people they obviously are...
I admit that my original rant may seem like I have something against various classes. But just like you got angry over my biased post, I got angry about the rediculous comments coming from the toffs interviewed on TV. There were no working class/farmers interviewed when I was watching (other channels may have), but the only people I heard points of view from were upper class individuals caring only for their status.
I don't have anything against any individual unless they give me reason to.
Those five plonkers storming parliament, realising there was no one there and shouting, "You've messed things up" was hardly a well planned protest. It's like purposely going to the supermarket with no intention to buy anything. There's just no point. "You've messed things up" is hardly going to get people to stop and think, "My god, he's right you know!"
Just like those pro-hunt protestors getting into the Labour conference yesterday. Wow, like a bit of shouting and yobbery is going to make Tony Blair take them seriously. He laughed and made a joke out of them. I'm no supporter of the Labour government, but I say "Good on you, Blair!" Do these pro-hunt supporters really believe scenes of police carting them away whilst the politicians are laughing like a bucket of water has just fallen on their heads is going to do their cause any good? I doubt it.
I was angry at the redicule of the protestors. I was angry at the rediculous way they protested. I was angry at the way they feel they were the huge majority, when it is quite simply the exact opposite.
There is no reason to hunt foxes with dogs. It's an ancient and barbaric tradition of old. It's like they're living in the 1900s, so I feel I can be excused for seeming like my own beliefs are that of a 1900s working class citizen.
And because I have made such an impact, I wont apologise for any stereotyping. The media only showed me the upper class, and so I am only going to take my anger out on the upper class aren't I.
I once again reiterate my point that I don't feel hatred to any class of people. Individuals in certain classes maybe. But everybody hates someone.
I don't have anything against any individual unless they give me reason to.
Those five plonkers storming parliament, realising there was no one there and shouting, "You've messed things up" was hardly a well planned protest. It's like purposely going to the supermarket with no intention to buy anything. There's just no point. "You've messed things up" is hardly going to get people to stop and think, "My god, he's right you know!"
Just like those pro-hunt protestors getting into the Labour conference yesterday. Wow, like a bit of shouting and yobbery is going to make Tony Blair take them seriously. He laughed and made a joke out of them. I'm no supporter of the Labour government, but I say "Good on you, Blair!" Do these pro-hunt supporters really believe scenes of police carting them away whilst the politicians are laughing like a bucket of water has just fallen on their heads is going to do their cause any good? I doubt it.
I was angry at the redicule of the protestors. I was angry at the rediculous way they protested. I was angry at the way they feel they were the huge majority, when it is quite simply the exact opposite.
There is no reason to hunt foxes with dogs. It's an ancient and barbaric tradition of old. It's like they're living in the 1900s, so I feel I can be excused for seeming like my own beliefs are that of a 1900s working class citizen.
And because I have made such an impact, I wont apologise for any stereotyping. The media only showed me the upper class, and so I am only going to take my anger out on the upper class aren't I.
I once again reiterate my point that I don't feel hatred to any class of people. Individuals in certain classes maybe. But everybody hates someone.
Light wrote:
> I'd add
> the caveat that the upper classes would do well to let this one slide
> as they're open to all sorts of accusations that they're trying to
> impose their will on the majority.
--
Aye, it just opens up resentments that had been simmering nice and quiet without being brought into the open since the 80s.
> I'd add
> the caveat that the upper classes would do well to let this one slide
> as they're open to all sorts of accusations that they're trying to
> impose their will on the majority.
--
Aye, it just opens up resentments that had been simmering nice and quiet without being brought into the open since the 80s.
As long as we can use dogs.
Chav hunting! Now there's a sport I'd enjoy.
All you'd have to do would be to park a Nova in a carpark, play some music with a heavy bass nice and loud.. and then just wait patiently...
All you'd have to do would be to park a Nova in a carpark, play some music with a heavy bass nice and loud.. and then just wait patiently...
Stryke wrote:
> Didn't know that urban fox hunting exists, heh. Sounds like something
> you'd see in a post-apocolyptic film like Mad Max
Heh. If Urban Chav Hunting existed, no-one would give a damn about hunting foxes...
> Admittedly I can't. My views on this stem from mainly girls of my age
> on my course at uni and some friends of my parents who are anti
> fox-hunting and then can't explain why when I ask.
Fair enough.
>
> Didn't know that, and I agree that the upper-classes aren't exactly
> conducting themselves with the utmost dignity in the whole issue. The
> pro-hunt arguments of fox control are ridiculous.
Absolutely. I think the reason the issue arouses the class issue is because, behind it all, there is a simple battle taking place; the desires of the excessively moneyed versus the desire of the majority. In a democracy, the majority should win. But the money helps distort things. That's my take on it anyway.
> Oh yes, totally. The claims of undemocratic procedure are ridiculous,
> and it definitely should be banned. Heh, I do agree with everything
> you've said about fox-hunting being barbaric, and I realise now my
> argument appears to be defending the upper-classes. I'm not, they're
> at fault here. I just got angry at Edgy's original post and seem to
> have got unintentionally into arguing against a ban I've supported.
>
> Just to sum up my views :)
>
> 1 - Fox-hunting bad, hunting with aniseed trails e.t.c good
> 2 - Class hatred from Edgy e.t.c bad
>
> All I'm trying to get at here is that it's transformed from an
> environmental issue to a social issue. I just think people should say
> their piece about fox-hunting without feeling obligated to drag class
> into it. Hope I'm clear on this, I'm not actually defending the
> upper-class at all here.
Yup, fair enough. I pretty much entirely agree with you, but I'd add the caveat that the upper classes would do well to let this one slide as they're open to all sorts of accusations that they're trying to impose their will on the majority.
> Didn't know that urban fox hunting exists, heh. Sounds like something
> you'd see in a post-apocolyptic film like Mad Max
Heh. If Urban Chav Hunting existed, no-one would give a damn about hunting foxes...
> Admittedly I can't. My views on this stem from mainly girls of my age
> on my course at uni and some friends of my parents who are anti
> fox-hunting and then can't explain why when I ask.
Fair enough.
>
> Didn't know that, and I agree that the upper-classes aren't exactly
> conducting themselves with the utmost dignity in the whole issue. The
> pro-hunt arguments of fox control are ridiculous.
Absolutely. I think the reason the issue arouses the class issue is because, behind it all, there is a simple battle taking place; the desires of the excessively moneyed versus the desire of the majority. In a democracy, the majority should win. But the money helps distort things. That's my take on it anyway.
> Oh yes, totally. The claims of undemocratic procedure are ridiculous,
> and it definitely should be banned. Heh, I do agree with everything
> you've said about fox-hunting being barbaric, and I realise now my
> argument appears to be defending the upper-classes. I'm not, they're
> at fault here. I just got angry at Edgy's original post and seem to
> have got unintentionally into arguing against a ban I've supported.
>
> Just to sum up my views :)
>
> 1 - Fox-hunting bad, hunting with aniseed trails e.t.c good
> 2 - Class hatred from Edgy e.t.c bad
>
> All I'm trying to get at here is that it's transformed from an
> environmental issue to a social issue. I just think people should say
> their piece about fox-hunting without feeling obligated to drag class
> into it. Hope I'm clear on this, I'm not actually defending the
> upper-class at all here.
Yup, fair enough. I pretty much entirely agree with you, but I'd add the caveat that the upper classes would do well to let this one slide as they're open to all sorts of accusations that they're trying to impose their will on the majority.
Strafio wrote:
> It's not being rich that makes you a snob.
>
> Methinks Mr working class Edgy is snubbing uppper class values! :-P
--
Right then, you get the torches and I'll hand out maps to the Winter Palace.
I really don't think class has anything to with equality in our society. It used to, no doubt about it, but Edgy seems stuck in the 1900s. If you're worried about inequality, Edgy, which you obviously are, you little battler you, then I'd suggest you restrict your bile-flecked rants to racists and sexists, eh? Progressive taxation not enought for you?
> It's not being rich that makes you a snob.
>
> Methinks Mr working class Edgy is snubbing uppper class values! :-P
--
Right then, you get the torches and I'll hand out maps to the Winter Palace.
I really don't think class has anything to with equality in our society. It used to, no doubt about it, but Edgy seems stuck in the 1900s. If you're worried about inequality, Edgy, which you obviously are, you little battler you, then I'd suggest you restrict your bile-flecked rants to racists and sexists, eh? Progressive taxation not enought for you?
Light wrote:
>> Incidentally, they ARE pushing for a ban on Urban fox hunting; the
> ban is on hunting with dogs of all kinds.
--
Didn't know that urban fox hunting exists, heh. Sounds like something you'd see in a post-apocolyptic film like Mad Max
--
>> I think you're being unfair to the anti foxhunting debate. Can you
> give any evidence that most people want it banned because of how
> cuddly foxes are?
--
Admittedly I can't. My views on this stem from mainly girls of my age on my course at uni and some friends of my parents who are anti fox-hunting and then can't explain why when I ask.
--
Maybe I'm biased, but my eldest brother was a
> shepherd and I take his view on the matter; foxes are a pest, and the
> easiest way to get rid of them is by shooting.
> As a matter of fact, Coarsing and Ratting would also be banned; the
> law will be against hunting with dogs. The only reason they're not
> lobbying against coarsing is because the upper classes don't care
> about it, only their right to fox hunting.
--
Didn't know that, and I agree that the upper-classes aren't exactly conducting themselves with the utmost dignity in the whole issue. The pro-hunt arguments of fox control are ridiculous.
--
>
> Fair enough, as I'm not overly keen on it myself. But can't you see
> that the whole argument against banning fox hunting hinges on the
> fact that it's a sport enjoyed almost exclusively by the upper
> classes and their complaints about it not being
> "democratic" are utter lies?
--
Oh yes, totally. The claims of undemocratic procedure are ridiculous, and it definitely should be banned. Heh, I do agree with everything you've said about fox-hunting being barbaric, and I realise now my argument appears to be defending the upper-classes. I'm not, they're at fault here. I just got angry at Edgy's original post and seem to have got unintentionally into arguing against a ban I've supported.
Just to sum up my views :)
1 - Fox-hunting bad, hunting with aniseed trails e.t.c good
2 - Class hatred from Edgy e.t.c bad
All I'm trying to get at here is that it's transformed from an environmental issue to a social issue. I just think people should say their piece about fox-hunting without feeling obligated to drag class into it. Hope I'm clear on this, I'm not actually defending the upper-class at all here.
>> Incidentally, they ARE pushing for a ban on Urban fox hunting; the
> ban is on hunting with dogs of all kinds.
--
Didn't know that urban fox hunting exists, heh. Sounds like something you'd see in a post-apocolyptic film like Mad Max
--
>> I think you're being unfair to the anti foxhunting debate. Can you
> give any evidence that most people want it banned because of how
> cuddly foxes are?
--
Admittedly I can't. My views on this stem from mainly girls of my age on my course at uni and some friends of my parents who are anti fox-hunting and then can't explain why when I ask.
--
Maybe I'm biased, but my eldest brother was a
> shepherd and I take his view on the matter; foxes are a pest, and the
> easiest way to get rid of them is by shooting.
> As a matter of fact, Coarsing and Ratting would also be banned; the
> law will be against hunting with dogs. The only reason they're not
> lobbying against coarsing is because the upper classes don't care
> about it, only their right to fox hunting.
--
Didn't know that, and I agree that the upper-classes aren't exactly conducting themselves with the utmost dignity in the whole issue. The pro-hunt arguments of fox control are ridiculous.
--
>
> Fair enough, as I'm not overly keen on it myself. But can't you see
> that the whole argument against banning fox hunting hinges on the
> fact that it's a sport enjoyed almost exclusively by the upper
> classes and their complaints about it not being
> "democratic" are utter lies?
--
Oh yes, totally. The claims of undemocratic procedure are ridiculous, and it definitely should be banned. Heh, I do agree with everything you've said about fox-hunting being barbaric, and I realise now my argument appears to be defending the upper-classes. I'm not, they're at fault here. I just got angry at Edgy's original post and seem to have got unintentionally into arguing against a ban I've supported.
Just to sum up my views :)
1 - Fox-hunting bad, hunting with aniseed trails e.t.c good
2 - Class hatred from Edgy e.t.c bad
All I'm trying to get at here is that it's transformed from an environmental issue to a social issue. I just think people should say their piece about fox-hunting without feeling obligated to drag class into it. Hope I'm clear on this, I'm not actually defending the upper-class at all here.
Stryke wrote:
> I'd say class is already dragged into it by the fact that hunting is
> a sport enjoyed by the moneyed classes. I ask again; if urban foxes
> were hunted by the the hoi polloi with their dogs, d'you really
> think
> that it'd still be legal.
>
> --
>
> If it'd been done in suburbia for generations, then yes, I think it
> would. If the upper classes were pushing for a ban on urban
> fox-hunting, do you think the House of Commons would put on the same
> sort of front that the Lords did? Practically every politican, when
> it comes down to it, is going to be biased towards the class of their
> upbringing.
Well, yes they are. And their upbringing, if it's a true reflection of society, will be mainly middle to lower class. Which forms the overwhelming majority of the nation. And the overwhelming majority want foxhunting banned. Yet the upper classes insist on saying that, somehow, this isn't democratic. It sucks that a large number of people are going to be put out of work, yes. But have their employers (their wealthy, upper class employers) made much in the way of plans to ease the pain of unemployment?
Incidentally, they ARE pushing for a ban on Urban fox hunting; the ban is on hunting with dogs of all kinds.
The reason I raise the point about my personal conviction that the sport would already have been banned if it was predominantly urban and enjoyed by the lower and middle classes stems from the views of the upper classes (and of course, I'm generalising but I hope you get what I mean) about Football.
I live in Newcastle, and when United applied for permission to relocate their ground in order to make it bigger, their was opposition across the board, and so the plan was rejected. However, they then applied for permission to extend the existing stadium. The only opposition came from (you've guessed it) the upper classes. They remained oblivious to the howls of fury this provoked from the overwhelming majority of people, caring only about how it might affect their view from their rather expensive houses.
To be clear, not all of the upper and moneyed classes complained. But the only complaints there were came from that class.
> Fsir point, but I still think that's what the informed know.
> Seriously, and I'm not bringing class into this, I hope, but most
> anti-hunt protesters are against it because they think the fox is
> cuddly. No-one bats an eyelid at coarsing or ratting, and don't you
> think if it was just about the animal cruelty angle these practises
> would be attacked as much? After all, coarsing and ratting aren't
> upper-class pursuits, are you? It just annoys me that all these
> saintly protesters, all thinking about the wildlife, aren't lobbying
> against hare coarsing as well. I'd love to see this protest being
> about conservation, and that's what I try and support. I just don't
> like it being seen as an angle to kick the upper-classes when they're
> down.
>
I think you're being unfair to the anti foxhunting debate. Can you give any evidence that most people want it banned because of how cuddly foxes are? Maybe I'm biased, but my eldest brother was a shepherd and I take his view on the matter; foxes are a pest, and the easiest way to get rid of them is by shooting.
As a matter of fact, Coarsing and Ratting would also be banned; the law will be against hunting with dogs. The only reason they're not lobbying against coarsing is because the upper classes don't care about it, only their right to fox hunting. And that says it all; they don't give a proverbial about "ancient rights and traditions". They care about preserving their status. I've got all the time and sympathy in the world for those people who are going to lose their livlihood. I've none for a few wealthy folk losing the right to have an animal torn to shreds.
> I'm coming off as elitist here, and I swear I'm not. I just really
> hate the bias between classes.
Fair enough, as I'm not overly keen on it myself. But can't you see that the whole argument against banning fox hunting hinges on the fact that it's a sport enjoyed almost exclusively by the upper classes and their complaints about it not being "democratic" are utter lies?
> I'd say class is already dragged into it by the fact that hunting is
> a sport enjoyed by the moneyed classes. I ask again; if urban foxes
> were hunted by the the hoi polloi with their dogs, d'you really
> think
> that it'd still be legal.
>
> --
>
> If it'd been done in suburbia for generations, then yes, I think it
> would. If the upper classes were pushing for a ban on urban
> fox-hunting, do you think the House of Commons would put on the same
> sort of front that the Lords did? Practically every politican, when
> it comes down to it, is going to be biased towards the class of their
> upbringing.
Well, yes they are. And their upbringing, if it's a true reflection of society, will be mainly middle to lower class. Which forms the overwhelming majority of the nation. And the overwhelming majority want foxhunting banned. Yet the upper classes insist on saying that, somehow, this isn't democratic. It sucks that a large number of people are going to be put out of work, yes. But have their employers (their wealthy, upper class employers) made much in the way of plans to ease the pain of unemployment?
Incidentally, they ARE pushing for a ban on Urban fox hunting; the ban is on hunting with dogs of all kinds.
The reason I raise the point about my personal conviction that the sport would already have been banned if it was predominantly urban and enjoyed by the lower and middle classes stems from the views of the upper classes (and of course, I'm generalising but I hope you get what I mean) about Football.
I live in Newcastle, and when United applied for permission to relocate their ground in order to make it bigger, their was opposition across the board, and so the plan was rejected. However, they then applied for permission to extend the existing stadium. The only opposition came from (you've guessed it) the upper classes. They remained oblivious to the howls of fury this provoked from the overwhelming majority of people, caring only about how it might affect their view from their rather expensive houses.
To be clear, not all of the upper and moneyed classes complained. But the only complaints there were came from that class.
> Fsir point, but I still think that's what the informed know.
> Seriously, and I'm not bringing class into this, I hope, but most
> anti-hunt protesters are against it because they think the fox is
> cuddly. No-one bats an eyelid at coarsing or ratting, and don't you
> think if it was just about the animal cruelty angle these practises
> would be attacked as much? After all, coarsing and ratting aren't
> upper-class pursuits, are you? It just annoys me that all these
> saintly protesters, all thinking about the wildlife, aren't lobbying
> against hare coarsing as well. I'd love to see this protest being
> about conservation, and that's what I try and support. I just don't
> like it being seen as an angle to kick the upper-classes when they're
> down.
>
I think you're being unfair to the anti foxhunting debate. Can you give any evidence that most people want it banned because of how cuddly foxes are? Maybe I'm biased, but my eldest brother was a shepherd and I take his view on the matter; foxes are a pest, and the easiest way to get rid of them is by shooting.
As a matter of fact, Coarsing and Ratting would also be banned; the law will be against hunting with dogs. The only reason they're not lobbying against coarsing is because the upper classes don't care about it, only their right to fox hunting. And that says it all; they don't give a proverbial about "ancient rights and traditions". They care about preserving their status. I've got all the time and sympathy in the world for those people who are going to lose their livlihood. I've none for a few wealthy folk losing the right to have an animal torn to shreds.
> I'm coming off as elitist here, and I swear I'm not. I just really
> hate the bias between classes.
Fair enough, as I'm not overly keen on it myself. But can't you see that the whole argument against banning fox hunting hinges on the fact that it's a sport enjoyed almost exclusively by the upper classes and their complaints about it not being "democratic" are utter lies?
Page: