The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
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
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
Page:
I'ts hard to appear balanced when half the scales are caked in solid gold bumfodder.
Quite an interesting read there, Light. I do think that the "oo we" bit didn't really work. I think "do" would have sufficed, but what do I know?
"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)?"
AHAHA!
"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)?"
AHAHA!
Heh. Well, no not as such. The whole argument is mainly a justification of that opening paragraph...
The opening paragraph gives me the sense that this is going to be a fair, well-balanced opinion, Light. :D
*Reads on*
*Reads on*
Meh; my (repeated) two cents...
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.
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.
Bongobabe wrote:
> OH by the way......as far as your argument goes on it just being a
> sport and the fox is terrified when chased.....what do you suggest i
> do next time my cat is chasing a terrified rat round the barn.....
leave them to it... THAT'S THE FOOD CHAIN!!
sweet jesus you're hard work!
have you even taken in a word anyone here has said, or is your idea of debate screaming as loud as you can and then putting your fingers in your ears while everyone else speaks?
you've got nothing to say and you're saying it too loud.
be quiet.
> OH by the way......as far as your argument goes on it just being a
> sport and the fox is terrified when chased.....what do you suggest i
> do next time my cat is chasing a terrified rat round the barn.....
leave them to it... THAT'S THE FOOD CHAIN!!
sweet jesus you're hard work!
have you even taken in a word anyone here has said, or is your idea of debate screaming as loud as you can and then putting your fingers in your ears while everyone else speaks?
you've got nothing to say and you're saying it too loud.
be quiet.
FinalFantasyFanatic wrote:
> People hunt because they enjoy it.
> That's the end of it.
Yep.
I hate it when people go on the television to moan about how their "life is going to end because fox hunting has been stopped". Do they not know that there are other ways to earn money in life, like even, getting a job?
One of my friends from college is a horse rider and she is soon destined to go on a hunt, sorry, a "casual canter with an accidental fox killing at the end". She admits that she is only going 60 miles into the country just for the thrill of riding her horse with other people.
Pest control, pfft.
> People hunt because they enjoy it.
> That's the end of it.
Yep.
I hate it when people go on the television to moan about how their "life is going to end because fox hunting has been stopped". Do they not know that there are other ways to earn money in life, like even, getting a job?
One of my friends from college is a horse rider and she is soon destined to go on a hunt, sorry, a "casual canter with an accidental fox killing at the end". She admits that she is only going 60 miles into the country just for the thrill of riding her horse with other people.
Pest control, pfft.
People hunt because they enjoy it.
That's the end of it.
All this stuff about keeping populations down and being humane and providing work for loads of people ... it's all just counter-arguments against the protestors.
: Attempts to validate out-dated behaviour so it fits with modern values.
That's the end of it.
All this stuff about keeping populations down and being humane and providing work for loads of people ... it's all just counter-arguments against the protestors.
: Attempts to validate out-dated behaviour so it fits with modern values.
Bongobabe wrote:
> In most peoples eyes it is the most humane way.
Our survey said...
> If someone could come up with an alternative I would (and many others) would stop hunting.
Again, here I don't agree. I've known quite a few people that hunt and most of them did it for the sport. The fact that they thought they were helping the countryside just gave them a moral high as they picked up the mangled carcass'.
> In most peoples eyes it is the most humane way.
Our survey said...
> If someone could come up with an alternative I would (and many others) would stop hunting.
Again, here I don't agree. I've known quite a few people that hunt and most of them did it for the sport. The fact that they thought they were helping the countryside just gave them a moral high as they picked up the mangled carcass'.
English_Bloke wrote:
> I can't tell you that. If I had all the answers to life, I would be
> Richard Whitely and therefore would not be talking to you on an
> Internet forum.
So therefore if you have no alternative, but agree they need to be controlled, how can you state that hunting is wrong? In most peoples eyes it is the most humane way. If someone could come up with an alternative I would (and many others) would stop hunting.
> I can't tell you that. If I had all the answers to life, I would be
> Richard Whitely and therefore would not be talking to you on an
> Internet forum.
So therefore if you have no alternative, but agree they need to be controlled, how can you state that hunting is wrong? In most peoples eyes it is the most humane way. If someone could come up with an alternative I would (and many others) would stop hunting.
Page: