The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Foxhunters: A much maligned and victimised bunch of whining pr!cks, or spoilt and selfish cocksocks who excite all the public sympathy of a paedophile campaigning for access rights to his attractive, pert-bottomed 6 year old son?
I've been half-heartedly following the whole debate about banning foxhunting in this country, and I've found myself increasingly astounded at some of the things that the Countryside Alliance have been saying. At first I thought that their bleating about how banning foxhunting would lead to a breakdown in society, or how a ban would infringe their human rights, must have been a joke. You know, like when Hitler signed Neville Chamberlains Piece of Paper for Peace, and was afterwards heard to say "Well, he seemed like such a nice old gentleman. I thought I would give him my autograph."
But no, there was no hint of a smirk on their collective face. They were serious. Or at least, they wanted everyone to think that they were. So why are they so absolutely hellbent on preserving an archaic and bloodthirsty practice that even they agree is rife with cruelty? And why are we being bombarded with messages from the Alliance that this is the first step on the slide to a brutal and totalitarian government who ride roughshod over the rights of the people? Well, as is always the case in these matters, it's about money and priviledge. And, of course, politics.
On the side of the Pro-Hunt supporters, we have the Countryside Alliance. Supposedly a confederation of people who are concerned with the raw deal that rural folk are getting from the government, they claim to be fighting on behalf of Farmers, huntsmen, shepherds, Forestry commision workers; pretty much any and all issues relating to the countryside will be dealt with by the Alliance. On the Anti-Hunt side, we have pretty much the entire rest of the country.
If you were to believe the Alliance, the public have been lied to by the government when it comes to foxhunting. We're just ignorant and uninformed souls who don't understand their country ways, and why it's absolutely VITAL that foxes are chased down and slaughtered by braying Sloane's rather than shot or trapped by farm workers. And rather than interfere, we should just let them get on with the hunt. Because if they're shot, they'll suffer far more than they would if they were chased for hours before being torn to pieces by a pack of baying hounds, and we urban types are only concerned with cute ickle animals and we don't want anyfink nasty to happen to 'em, oo we?
Which is, of course, a remarkably patronising piece of nonsense on their part. I think the main objection that most people have to foxhunting is that it simply doesn't sit right with us that, in this day and age, a certain section of society are getting their kicks from an activity that is rooted in bloodthirst and deliberate cruelty. The whole attitude of the Alliance is one of condescending patronisation to anyone who doesn't hunt. And I'm rather glad about this as it means that they have no chance whatsoever of their various lies and half truths having any effect on the general public. Why am I so adamant that the Alliance has no case in favour of Fox hunting? Well, it's because the whole Countryside Alliance is a sham. It's a piece of sleight-of-hand to distract attention from the fact that this whole storm in a teacup is about nothing more than a tiny percentage of wealthy people fighting tooth and nail to preserve an ancient method of distinguishing themselves from the common herd.
And just what do I mean by that suspiciously rabble-rousing statement? Well, the Alliance claim to fight for all countryside issues. Yet the only thing you'll hear them scream loudest about is foxhunting. Has anyone heard any complaint that it will be illegal for farm workers to go Hare Coursing? Nope. Have you opened your morning paper to read a shrieking denounciation of the inevitable end of taking terriers out Ratting? Nuh uh. Yet both of these activities are covered by the ban on hunting with dogs. So why no hue and cry about them? Could it be because that these activities are the exclusive preserve of people at the lower end of the social spectrum (or "oiks" to give them their official Countryside Alliance title)?
And what about other rural issues? Why aren't the Alliance marching on London to demand that Supermarkets be forced to pay farmers the full value of their produce, rather than forcing them into a position where they sell their stock for peanuts and thus unable to eke out even a basic living? How about hearing them complain about the lot of the average sheep farmer who is forced to support himself and his family on an income of less than £5,000 per year? Strangely, the leading lights of the Alliance stay quiet about that, and I'm sure it's got absolutely NOTHING to do with their being shareholders (and in some cases, boardmembers) of the companies that profit out of this rural misery. Where are their frenzied demands for decent compensation for the farmers forced into utter despair because of the Foot and Mouth epidemic? Could it be because the Alliance leaders tend to be major landowners who have received ample government compensation and care not one bit for the (fewer and fewer) small landowning farmers and tenant farmers?
The simple fact is that these people don't give a damn about the countryside. They don't care about the job losses, the death knell of families' way of life, the hardship, or the human suffering caused by the Government. They care about keeping their social calender intact. Do you really think that Simon Hart, the head of the Countryside Alliance, will lose his livlihood and home when hunting with dogs is finally banned? Or will it be the people who work on the Hunt who are turfed out and left to fend for themselves? And were the Lords and MP's who opposed the compromise yesterday (a compromise which would have delayed the ban until 2006 to give huntsmen time to find other jobs) doing so in the interests of the people who will undoubtedly suffer as a result of the ban? Or by guaranteeing it will be banned in February 2005, were they just looking to cause problems for the government, who will now face civil disobedience and protests from those living in rural areas throughout the election campaign next year?
If we want evidence that our government are unrepresentative bullies, we need look no further than Blair's slithering denial of any blame for lying to us in the lead up to the gulf war. Or their refusal to acknowledge the fact that our pensions are screwed, and we'll need to work longer for a smaller pension whilst they retire wealthy and happy. Or that the NHS is dying a gradual death and all they can do is invite private industry to pick at it's corpse. I'm happy to fight for those rights that affect an overwhelming majority. But fighting for the right of a few to sate their bloodlust? Put it this way; if packs of chavs started hunting urban foxes with packs of rottweilers, does anyone seriously doubt that these same people demanding that their right to hunt be preserved would be screaming in Daily Mail-inspired fury at the behaviour of 'uncivilised ruffians'? There are more important government policies for us to be worried about, and more important rural issues to fight for. Let the hunt, and foxes, die a comparatively quick and painless death.
[URL]http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/pages/Countryside_Alliance.html[/URL]
Gives some more detail about the main motivations behind the Countryside Alliance.
I've been half-heartedly following the whole debate about banning foxhunting in this country, and I've found myself increasingly astounded at some of the things that the Countryside Alliance have been saying. At first I thought that their bleating about how banning foxhunting would lead to a breakdown in society, or how a ban would infringe their human rights, must have been a joke. You know, like when Hitler signed Neville Chamberlains Piece of Paper for Peace, and was afterwards heard to say "Well, he seemed like such a nice old gentleman. I thought I would give him my autograph."
But no, there was no hint of a smirk on their collective face. They were serious. Or at least, they wanted everyone to think that they were. So why are they so absolutely hellbent on preserving an archaic and bloodthirsty practice that even they agree is rife with cruelty? And why are we being bombarded with messages from the Alliance that this is the first step on the slide to a brutal and totalitarian government who ride roughshod over the rights of the people? Well, as is always the case in these matters, it's about money and priviledge. And, of course, politics.
On the side of the Pro-Hunt supporters, we have the Countryside Alliance. Supposedly a confederation of people who are concerned with the raw deal that rural folk are getting from the government, they claim to be fighting on behalf of Farmers, huntsmen, shepherds, Forestry commision workers; pretty much any and all issues relating to the countryside will be dealt with by the Alliance. On the Anti-Hunt side, we have pretty much the entire rest of the country.
If you were to believe the Alliance, the public have been lied to by the government when it comes to foxhunting. We're just ignorant and uninformed souls who don't understand their country ways, and why it's absolutely VITAL that foxes are chased down and slaughtered by braying Sloane's rather than shot or trapped by farm workers. And rather than interfere, we should just let them get on with the hunt. Because if they're shot, they'll suffer far more than they would if they were chased for hours before being torn to pieces by a pack of baying hounds, and we urban types are only concerned with cute ickle animals and we don't want anyfink nasty to happen to 'em, oo we?
Which is, of course, a remarkably patronising piece of nonsense on their part. I think the main objection that most people have to foxhunting is that it simply doesn't sit right with us that, in this day and age, a certain section of society are getting their kicks from an activity that is rooted in bloodthirst and deliberate cruelty. The whole attitude of the Alliance is one of condescending patronisation to anyone who doesn't hunt. And I'm rather glad about this as it means that they have no chance whatsoever of their various lies and half truths having any effect on the general public. Why am I so adamant that the Alliance has no case in favour of Fox hunting? Well, it's because the whole Countryside Alliance is a sham. It's a piece of sleight-of-hand to distract attention from the fact that this whole storm in a teacup is about nothing more than a tiny percentage of wealthy people fighting tooth and nail to preserve an ancient method of distinguishing themselves from the common herd.
And just what do I mean by that suspiciously rabble-rousing statement? Well, the Alliance claim to fight for all countryside issues. Yet the only thing you'll hear them scream loudest about is foxhunting. Has anyone heard any complaint that it will be illegal for farm workers to go Hare Coursing? Nope. Have you opened your morning paper to read a shrieking denounciation of the inevitable end of taking terriers out Ratting? Nuh uh. Yet both of these activities are covered by the ban on hunting with dogs. So why no hue and cry about them? Could it be because that these activities are the exclusive preserve of people at the lower end of the social spectrum (or "oiks" to give them their official Countryside Alliance title)?
And what about other rural issues? Why aren't the Alliance marching on London to demand that Supermarkets be forced to pay farmers the full value of their produce, rather than forcing them into a position where they sell their stock for peanuts and thus unable to eke out even a basic living? How about hearing them complain about the lot of the average sheep farmer who is forced to support himself and his family on an income of less than £5,000 per year? Strangely, the leading lights of the Alliance stay quiet about that, and I'm sure it's got absolutely NOTHING to do with their being shareholders (and in some cases, boardmembers) of the companies that profit out of this rural misery. Where are their frenzied demands for decent compensation for the farmers forced into utter despair because of the Foot and Mouth epidemic? Could it be because the Alliance leaders tend to be major landowners who have received ample government compensation and care not one bit for the (fewer and fewer) small landowning farmers and tenant farmers?
The simple fact is that these people don't give a damn about the countryside. They don't care about the job losses, the death knell of families' way of life, the hardship, or the human suffering caused by the Government. They care about keeping their social calender intact. Do you really think that Simon Hart, the head of the Countryside Alliance, will lose his livlihood and home when hunting with dogs is finally banned? Or will it be the people who work on the Hunt who are turfed out and left to fend for themselves? And were the Lords and MP's who opposed the compromise yesterday (a compromise which would have delayed the ban until 2006 to give huntsmen time to find other jobs) doing so in the interests of the people who will undoubtedly suffer as a result of the ban? Or by guaranteeing it will be banned in February 2005, were they just looking to cause problems for the government, who will now face civil disobedience and protests from those living in rural areas throughout the election campaign next year?
If we want evidence that our government are unrepresentative bullies, we need look no further than Blair's slithering denial of any blame for lying to us in the lead up to the gulf war. Or their refusal to acknowledge the fact that our pensions are screwed, and we'll need to work longer for a smaller pension whilst they retire wealthy and happy. Or that the NHS is dying a gradual death and all they can do is invite private industry to pick at it's corpse. I'm happy to fight for those rights that affect an overwhelming majority. But fighting for the right of a few to sate their bloodlust? Put it this way; if packs of chavs started hunting urban foxes with packs of rottweilers, does anyone seriously doubt that these same people demanding that their right to hunt be preserved would be screaming in Daily Mail-inspired fury at the behaviour of 'uncivilised ruffians'? There are more important government policies for us to be worried about, and more important rural issues to fight for. Let the hunt, and foxes, die a comparatively quick and painless death.
[URL]http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/pages/Countryside_Alliance.html[/URL]
Gives some more detail about the main motivations behind the Countryside Alliance.
I don't care what the hunters themselves are. The truth is that fox-hunting is a barbaric, murderous activity.
Most of the hunters don't do it to "protect" the countryside or their animals, either - most of them just do it for some kind of sick, evil "sport".
Of course, if a fox killed a human, it would be seen as murder. However, if a fox has a clear disadvantage to its opponents and is forced to run for miles, scared out of its mind and knowing that there is very little chance of it escaping death by being ripped apart, that's just "sport", isn't it?
They say the fox isn't ripped apart, and it just has its neck broken by the hounds - yes, if ONE hound went for the fox, that could be possible. Unfortunately, scores of hounds go for an individual fox, and in the ensuing melee, the fox is ripped apart.
People say that it would be cruel on the hounds to stop - in that case, they shouldn't have made the houdns this way anyway.
Most of the hunters don't do it to "protect" the countryside or their animals, either - most of them just do it for some kind of sick, evil "sport".
Of course, if a fox killed a human, it would be seen as murder. However, if a fox has a clear disadvantage to its opponents and is forced to run for miles, scared out of its mind and knowing that there is very little chance of it escaping death by being ripped apart, that's just "sport", isn't it?
They say the fox isn't ripped apart, and it just has its neck broken by the hounds - yes, if ONE hound went for the fox, that could be possible. Unfortunately, scores of hounds go for an individual fox, and in the ensuing melee, the fox is ripped apart.
People say that it would be cruel on the hounds to stop - in that case, they shouldn't have made the houdns this way anyway.
They should hunt people with bows inside york.
So they can't hunt with dogs, why not find an alternative?
Young children raised by wolves? Wild (then tamed) boars? A panther?
Or they could just shoot them?
Young children raised by wolves? Wild (then tamed) boars? A panther?
Or they could just shoot them?
Hmmm. On both sides, people are completely guilty of hypocrisy and ignorance, this is the trouble - you get the standard 'you don't understand' country attitude, and you get the standard 'it's for elitists' from the city. Both statements are crap, as anyone can see - people who live in cities aren't actually all that dumb, and people who live in the country aren't just rich landlords. Personally, I feel hunting is an uneccessary thing - but as you said, it's such a 'storm in a tea-cup' - the whole issue is a distractant, if that makes sense.
However, the ban will affect a lot of people who are involved in hunting in a professional sense, and this isn't good (as you recognise). But then said people say 'oh but we'll have to kill all the hounds!'........which they did ANYWAY after they became 'too old' and consequently and expired in their use. Bleurgh..............sorry, not really CA-related, but my feelings on the matter.
The Countryside Alliance is guilty of the above - and yes, why don't they complain about other countryside issues that have a far, far, far greater impact on the country.....like supermarkets, as you pointed out. I live in the countryside, and they certainly don't represent me. They seem to like a black and white world, city vs country. The city will always win, so that's a slight flaw....and hell, hunting is a cruel sport.........bla bla.
OH, funniest thing. The 'major landowners' are begginning to deny access rights to water/electricity companies etc. Because of the hunting ban, they've decided the best thing to do is to p*ss people off and try to get Swebb to lobby the government.....over an outmoded but ingrained part of country life.......
However, the ban will affect a lot of people who are involved in hunting in a professional sense, and this isn't good (as you recognise). But then said people say 'oh but we'll have to kill all the hounds!'........which they did ANYWAY after they became 'too old' and consequently and expired in their use. Bleurgh..............sorry, not really CA-related, but my feelings on the matter.
The Countryside Alliance is guilty of the above - and yes, why don't they complain about other countryside issues that have a far, far, far greater impact on the country.....like supermarkets, as you pointed out. I live in the countryside, and they certainly don't represent me. They seem to like a black and white world, city vs country. The city will always win, so that's a slight flaw....and hell, hunting is a cruel sport.........bla bla.
OH, funniest thing. The 'major landowners' are begginning to deny access rights to water/electricity companies etc. Because of the hunting ban, they've decided the best thing to do is to p*ss people off and try to get Swebb to lobby the government.....over an outmoded but ingrained part of country life.......
We had this a few months back, when the toffs donned their tweed hunting jackets and stormed Parliament. It just seems like such a bizarre hobby: "Just going out to rip up some foxes with dogs, dear. Have the bulter prepare supper for my return." Ok, ok, I'm making a huge sweeping statement that all fox hunters are wealthy mansion-owners with butlers and stables an...hang on...
It's barbaric, and I'm not one of those "heal the dolphins" people. My Uncle hunts game, and I used to work at an animal research facility. No, there weren't any mutants...but 2 male monkeys did once bum another male monkey. I'll never forget that, he was so embarrassed.
It's barbaric, and I'm not one of those "heal the dolphins" people. My Uncle hunts game, and I used to work at an animal research facility. No, there weren't any mutants...but 2 male monkeys did once bum another male monkey. I'll never forget that, he was so embarrassed.
Foxhunters: A much maligned and victimised bunch of whining pr!cks, or spoilt and selfish cocksocks who excite all the public sympathy of a paedophile campaigning for access rights to his attractive, pert-bottomed 6 year old son?
I've been half-heartedly following the whole debate about banning foxhunting in this country, and I've found myself increasingly astounded at some of the things that the Countryside Alliance have been saying. At first I thought that their bleating about how banning foxhunting would lead to a breakdown in society, or how a ban would infringe their human rights, must have been a joke. You know, like when Hitler signed Neville Chamberlains Piece of Paper for Peace, and was afterwards heard to say "Well, he seemed like such a nice old gentleman. I thought I would give him my autograph."
But no, there was no hint of a smirk on their collective face. They were serious. Or at least, they wanted everyone to think that they were. So why are they so absolutely hellbent on preserving an archaic and bloodthirsty practice that even they agree is rife with cruelty? And why are we being bombarded with messages from the Alliance that this is the first step on the slide to a brutal and totalitarian government who ride roughshod over the rights of the people? Well, as is always the case in these matters, it's about money and priviledge. And, of course, politics.
On the side of the Pro-Hunt supporters, we have the Countryside Alliance. Supposedly a confederation of people who are concerned with the raw deal that rural folk are getting from the government, they claim to be fighting on behalf of Farmers, huntsmen, shepherds, Forestry commision workers; pretty much any and all issues relating to the countryside will be dealt with by the Alliance. On the Anti-Hunt side, we have pretty much the entire rest of the country.
If you were to believe the Alliance, the public have been lied to by the government when it comes to foxhunting. We're just ignorant and uninformed souls who don't understand their country ways, and why it's absolutely VITAL that foxes are chased down and slaughtered by braying Sloane's rather than shot or trapped by farm workers. And rather than interfere, we should just let them get on with the hunt. Because if they're shot, they'll suffer far more than they would if they were chased for hours before being torn to pieces by a pack of baying hounds, and we urban types are only concerned with cute ickle animals and we don't want anyfink nasty to happen to 'em, oo we?
Which is, of course, a remarkably patronising piece of nonsense on their part. I think the main objection that most people have to foxhunting is that it simply doesn't sit right with us that, in this day and age, a certain section of society are getting their kicks from an activity that is rooted in bloodthirst and deliberate cruelty. The whole attitude of the Alliance is one of condescending patronisation to anyone who doesn't hunt. And I'm rather glad about this as it means that they have no chance whatsoever of their various lies and half truths having any effect on the general public. Why am I so adamant that the Alliance has no case in favour of Fox hunting? Well, it's because the whole Countryside Alliance is a sham. It's a piece of sleight-of-hand to distract attention from the fact that this whole storm in a teacup is about nothing more than a tiny percentage of wealthy people fighting tooth and nail to preserve an ancient method of distinguishing themselves from the common herd.
And just what do I mean by that suspiciously rabble-rousing statement? Well, the Alliance claim to fight for all countryside issues. Yet the only thing you'll hear them scream loudest about is foxhunting. Has anyone heard any complaint that it will be illegal for farm workers to go Hare Coursing? Nope. Have you opened your morning paper to read a shrieking denounciation of the inevitable end of taking terriers out Ratting? Nuh uh. Yet both of these activities are covered by the ban on hunting with dogs. So why no hue and cry about them? Could it be because that these activities are the exclusive preserve of people at the lower end of the social spectrum (or "oiks" to give them their official Countryside Alliance title)?
And what about other rural issues? Why aren't the Alliance marching on London to demand that Supermarkets be forced to pay farmers the full value of their produce, rather than forcing them into a position where they sell their stock for peanuts and thus unable to eke out even a basic living? How about hearing them complain about the lot of the average sheep farmer who is forced to support himself and his family on an income of less than £5,000 per year? Strangely, the leading lights of the Alliance stay quiet about that, and I'm sure it's got absolutely NOTHING to do with their being shareholders (and in some cases, boardmembers) of the companies that profit out of this rural misery. Where are their frenzied demands for decent compensation for the farmers forced into utter despair because of the Foot and Mouth epidemic? Could it be because the Alliance leaders tend to be major landowners who have received ample government compensation and care not one bit for the (fewer and fewer) small landowning farmers and tenant farmers?
The simple fact is that these people don't give a damn about the countryside. They don't care about the job losses, the death knell of families' way of life, the hardship, or the human suffering caused by the Government. They care about keeping their social calender intact. Do you really think that Simon Hart, the head of the Countryside Alliance, will lose his livlihood and home when hunting with dogs is finally banned? Or will it be the people who work on the Hunt who are turfed out and left to fend for themselves? And were the Lords and MP's who opposed the compromise yesterday (a compromise which would have delayed the ban until 2006 to give huntsmen time to find other jobs) doing so in the interests of the people who will undoubtedly suffer as a result of the ban? Or by guaranteeing it will be banned in February 2005, were they just looking to cause problems for the government, who will now face civil disobedience and protests from those living in rural areas throughout the election campaign next year?
If we want evidence that our government are unrepresentative bullies, we need look no further than Blair's slithering denial of any blame for lying to us in the lead up to the gulf war. Or their refusal to acknowledge the fact that our pensions are screwed, and we'll need to work longer for a smaller pension whilst they retire wealthy and happy. Or that the NHS is dying a gradual death and all they can do is invite private industry to pick at it's corpse. I'm happy to fight for those rights that affect an overwhelming majority. But fighting for the right of a few to sate their bloodlust? Put it this way; if packs of chavs started hunting urban foxes with packs of rottweilers, does anyone seriously doubt that these same people demanding that their right to hunt be preserved would be screaming in Daily Mail-inspired fury at the behaviour of 'uncivilised ruffians'? There are more important government policies for us to be worried about, and more important rural issues to fight for. Let the hunt, and foxes, die a comparatively quick and painless death.
[URL]http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/pages/Countryside_Alliance.html[/URL]
Gives some more detail about the main motivations behind the Countryside Alliance.
I've been half-heartedly following the whole debate about banning foxhunting in this country, and I've found myself increasingly astounded at some of the things that the Countryside Alliance have been saying. At first I thought that their bleating about how banning foxhunting would lead to a breakdown in society, or how a ban would infringe their human rights, must have been a joke. You know, like when Hitler signed Neville Chamberlains Piece of Paper for Peace, and was afterwards heard to say "Well, he seemed like such a nice old gentleman. I thought I would give him my autograph."
But no, there was no hint of a smirk on their collective face. They were serious. Or at least, they wanted everyone to think that they were. So why are they so absolutely hellbent on preserving an archaic and bloodthirsty practice that even they agree is rife with cruelty? And why are we being bombarded with messages from the Alliance that this is the first step on the slide to a brutal and totalitarian government who ride roughshod over the rights of the people? Well, as is always the case in these matters, it's about money and priviledge. And, of course, politics.
On the side of the Pro-Hunt supporters, we have the Countryside Alliance. Supposedly a confederation of people who are concerned with the raw deal that rural folk are getting from the government, they claim to be fighting on behalf of Farmers, huntsmen, shepherds, Forestry commision workers; pretty much any and all issues relating to the countryside will be dealt with by the Alliance. On the Anti-Hunt side, we have pretty much the entire rest of the country.
If you were to believe the Alliance, the public have been lied to by the government when it comes to foxhunting. We're just ignorant and uninformed souls who don't understand their country ways, and why it's absolutely VITAL that foxes are chased down and slaughtered by braying Sloane's rather than shot or trapped by farm workers. And rather than interfere, we should just let them get on with the hunt. Because if they're shot, they'll suffer far more than they would if they were chased for hours before being torn to pieces by a pack of baying hounds, and we urban types are only concerned with cute ickle animals and we don't want anyfink nasty to happen to 'em, oo we?
Which is, of course, a remarkably patronising piece of nonsense on their part. I think the main objection that most people have to foxhunting is that it simply doesn't sit right with us that, in this day and age, a certain section of society are getting their kicks from an activity that is rooted in bloodthirst and deliberate cruelty. The whole attitude of the Alliance is one of condescending patronisation to anyone who doesn't hunt. And I'm rather glad about this as it means that they have no chance whatsoever of their various lies and half truths having any effect on the general public. Why am I so adamant that the Alliance has no case in favour of Fox hunting? Well, it's because the whole Countryside Alliance is a sham. It's a piece of sleight-of-hand to distract attention from the fact that this whole storm in a teacup is about nothing more than a tiny percentage of wealthy people fighting tooth and nail to preserve an ancient method of distinguishing themselves from the common herd.
And just what do I mean by that suspiciously rabble-rousing statement? Well, the Alliance claim to fight for all countryside issues. Yet the only thing you'll hear them scream loudest about is foxhunting. Has anyone heard any complaint that it will be illegal for farm workers to go Hare Coursing? Nope. Have you opened your morning paper to read a shrieking denounciation of the inevitable end of taking terriers out Ratting? Nuh uh. Yet both of these activities are covered by the ban on hunting with dogs. So why no hue and cry about them? Could it be because that these activities are the exclusive preserve of people at the lower end of the social spectrum (or "oiks" to give them their official Countryside Alliance title)?
And what about other rural issues? Why aren't the Alliance marching on London to demand that Supermarkets be forced to pay farmers the full value of their produce, rather than forcing them into a position where they sell their stock for peanuts and thus unable to eke out even a basic living? How about hearing them complain about the lot of the average sheep farmer who is forced to support himself and his family on an income of less than £5,000 per year? Strangely, the leading lights of the Alliance stay quiet about that, and I'm sure it's got absolutely NOTHING to do with their being shareholders (and in some cases, boardmembers) of the companies that profit out of this rural misery. Where are their frenzied demands for decent compensation for the farmers forced into utter despair because of the Foot and Mouth epidemic? Could it be because the Alliance leaders tend to be major landowners who have received ample government compensation and care not one bit for the (fewer and fewer) small landowning farmers and tenant farmers?
The simple fact is that these people don't give a damn about the countryside. They don't care about the job losses, the death knell of families' way of life, the hardship, or the human suffering caused by the Government. They care about keeping their social calender intact. Do you really think that Simon Hart, the head of the Countryside Alliance, will lose his livlihood and home when hunting with dogs is finally banned? Or will it be the people who work on the Hunt who are turfed out and left to fend for themselves? And were the Lords and MP's who opposed the compromise yesterday (a compromise which would have delayed the ban until 2006 to give huntsmen time to find other jobs) doing so in the interests of the people who will undoubtedly suffer as a result of the ban? Or by guaranteeing it will be banned in February 2005, were they just looking to cause problems for the government, who will now face civil disobedience and protests from those living in rural areas throughout the election campaign next year?
If we want evidence that our government are unrepresentative bullies, we need look no further than Blair's slithering denial of any blame for lying to us in the lead up to the gulf war. Or their refusal to acknowledge the fact that our pensions are screwed, and we'll need to work longer for a smaller pension whilst they retire wealthy and happy. Or that the NHS is dying a gradual death and all they can do is invite private industry to pick at it's corpse. I'm happy to fight for those rights that affect an overwhelming majority. But fighting for the right of a few to sate their bloodlust? Put it this way; if packs of chavs started hunting urban foxes with packs of rottweilers, does anyone seriously doubt that these same people demanding that their right to hunt be preserved would be screaming in Daily Mail-inspired fury at the behaviour of 'uncivilised ruffians'? There are more important government policies for us to be worried about, and more important rural issues to fight for. Let the hunt, and foxes, die a comparatively quick and painless death.
[URL]http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/pages/Countryside_Alliance.html[/URL]
Gives some more detail about the main motivations behind the Countryside Alliance.