The comic, whose owners think the Prime Minister is a wet pinko, says that he's given up trying to re-legalize fox hunting as well as losing grass-roots support by forcing gay marriage on the nation.
Will he abandon the trivial issue of gay marriage to curry support on fox hunting? It doesn't seem to fit, but politics is so peculiar that one never knows. Anyway I hope he will use it to pull some sort of stroke. Eton is a competent establishment. But is he leaving it a bit late? Perhaps not because there ought to be two more years of the coalition barring catastrophes. And we wouldn't want those. Democratic politics is generally best when boring.
|
He would gain mores support from the extreme right wing element of his party by legalising the hunting of gays and giving fox-hounds the right to marry.
|
But will he over-ride the rights of the church to determine who gets hitched in their church, and allow the place to go to the dogs?
|
|
What business is it on anybody else who people get married to? It doesn't have the slightest effect on the rest of us, and if the church want to carry on performing a legally binding union between two people they should obey whatever laws apply at the time or butt out.
|
>> if the church want to carry
>> on performing a legally binding union between two people they should obey whatever laws apply
>> at the time or butt out.
>>
Errr no.
The church answers (in their opinion, not mine) to a higher power than the law of the land.
As we've seen recently on the gay/femal clergy debates.
The church and state must surely be separate.
Which leads me to ask the question - how can Cameron now demand that churches allow gay marriages? Surely it is down to the individual church and congregation and cleric?
What censure does he think he has the right to give to those who don't fall in to his way of thinking?
Here's how churches work - if you don't like the message they preach, stop going. Go elsewhere, or give it up.
|
>
>> Which leads me to ask the question - how can Cameron now demand that churches
>> allow gay marriages?
He cant and he isn't. The proposed law will allow them to do so if they wish, but does not oblige them to offer the service. Unless they are CoE that is, then they wont be allowed to.
Thats the silly bit.
|
>> He would gain mores support from the extreme right wing element of his party by
>> legalising the hunting of gays and giving fox-hounds the right to marry.
>>
I never thought I would camp in your camp CG, but hilarious or what. In total agreement. Very funny. Smiley from me.
|
Marriage is IMO pretty debased now, and diluting the concept to be whatever is convenient to any group of voters is just making it worse. Invent something equivalent by all means (oh yes, we did - I forgot).
Weddings now seem to be regarded as rite of passage incorporating the party and holiday of a lifetime, rather than signifying the start of a serious commitment - hence the idiocy of couples in long term relationships with children who plan to get married "when we can afford it", who have obviously missed the point.
We went to the Register Office (I'd like to say on the bus, but it was in my brother's ancient Hillman Minx) and to the pub afterwards. That was in 1977, still waiting to see how it works out.
I hold no brief for fox hunting but it seems OK to me. Banning it was just pandering to the mob, otherwise it wouldn't still be legal to hunt rats and rabbits with dogs.
Last edited by: Manatee on Wed 26 Dec 12 at 16:55
|
|
Fox hunting is despised only by town dwellers or displaced ones..!
|
|
I hope you've got your tin hat ready Rob.
|
I can assure you I'm neither a town dweller or displaced.
pat
|
Never done it and wouldn't want to - don't get on really with horses. But it's an admirable spectacle as well as being an inefficient way of keeping Bre'r Fox down. I could never understand what any sane adult could object to in it, and I still don't. Animal rights people are completely doolally and dangerously self-righteous with it.
But some surprising people seem to have feelings against it, not always to do with the welfare of little Foxy. I reckon they are of Saxon descent and Norman customs like fox hunting elicit a visceral hatred in them.
The historical mishmash of culture... don'tcha just love it?
|
Just as a matter of interest, would gay marriage have the same associated rules as at present?
Non-consumation?
Consanguinity?
Incest?
Bigamy?
Polygamy?
Breach of promise?
Could gays marry at 16 with parents' consent?
|
|
Probably all of those except incest, for obvious reasons.
|
|
You wouldn't be implying that DC hasn't thought this one through? If you were, I'd agree.
|
>> would gay marriage have the same associated rules as at present?
It's exactly because of the problems of definition you mention that gay marriage is a marginal issue. If it gets onto the statutes it will be through a special piece of legislation that evades all of that - a sort of second-class arrangement that contradicts the declared purpose of those campaigning for it: to ensure that gays have identical rights to everyone else's.
I'm not against it - why should I be? - but I can't understand any sane adult, gay or not, being especially in favour of it. More trouble than it's worth, a lot more.
|
>>
>> I'm not against it - why should I be? - but I can't understand any
>> sane adult, gay or not, being especially in favour of it. More trouble than it's
>> worth, a lot more.
>>
>>
You can't pick which minorities you confer with equal rights. Supposing a religion were to refuse to marry non-whites, for example? If the church wants to perform a ceremony which has legal status they can't pick and choose which groups they include or exclude.
|
>> You can't pick which minorities you confer with equal rights. Supposing a religion were to
>> refuse to marry non-whites, for example? If the church wants to perform a ceremony which
>> has legal status they can't pick and choose which groups they include or exclude.
>>
It is pantomime season, but I'll be deadly serious here:
OH YES THEY CAN!
They answer to what they believe is a higher power than that held by parliament.
And parliament has to respect their right to hold said beliefs, and has no power to change said beliefs whatsoever.
|
>> OH YES THEY CAN!
>>
>> They answer to what they believe is a higher power than that held by parliament.
>> And parliament has to respect their right to hold said beliefs, and has no power
>> to change said beliefs whatsoever.
>>
THEY believe.
Just as certain right wing groups believe all immigrants should be deported. Parliament respects their right to hold such beliefs, but otherwise tells them to get stuffed.
|
Yes, Robin, but don't try to force a change of their beliefs.
Let's look at the C of E - the head honcho is HerMaj. Can cameron change their rules, without consulting the senior clerics, or HerMaj?
Mmmm - bit of a crisis on this one.
|
>> Yes, Robin, but don't try to force a change of their beliefs.
>> Let's look at the C of E - the head honcho is HerMaj. Can cameron
>> change their rules, without consulting the senior clerics, or HerMaj?
>> Mmmm - bit of a crisis on this one.
>>
But DC is falling over himself to ensure the CofE cannot 'do' gay weddings. Unlike the other churches it will be barred by primary legislation from marrying peolpe of the same gender. There are other 'locks' as well to preserve the rights of individual clergy with scriptural objections.
Unless one sees this as a step down the road or are sensitive to the potential incompatibility with European Convention rights then it's difficult to see why CofE need to get bothered. Actually the latter is (to my mind) the big issue and may be just maybe DC's game plan is to make this the issue over which he can engineer withdrawal.
As for foxhunting I'm not that enamoured of the unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable. I've also once been subjected to some dangerous behaviour with horses and cars by people who took us for sabs while out walking. OTOH I've watched the Lakeland hunts where the farmers turn packs loose on the fells. No redcoats or horses, just followers mostly in the valley bottom with binoculars.
None of it was remotely worth the time and effort Blair's govt devoted to getting the legislation through.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 26 Dec 12 at 20:08
|
No skin off my nose, but if marriage (and we have to distinguish between civil and several religious versions) is defined as being between a man and a woman, then something similar between two people of the same sex must be something else.
Rights are already conferred by civil partnerships. The main distinction between marriage and CPs seems to be that you can't have a civil ceremony in church. But since churches presumably define for themselves what they are about, how can the civil law dictate to them? Is my marriage, solemnised in a Register Office, inferior too? To a religious person, possibly, but I am not such.
Do the promoters of homosexual marriage think that anybody, religious or not, should be entitled to, for example, a CofE wedding? For my wife and me it would have been the height of hypocrisy, which was the principal reason for not having one.
I have a four-times married friend who takes the view that churches are just service providers (sic) who should be obliged to provide the ceremony on payment of the fees for the church, the choir and the organist. I disagree.
Marriage between two people of the same sex isn't marriage. It might be equal in status, and why not, but it isn't marriage any more than a cat is a dog, because it wants to be.
It's an irresolvable argument actually, since the premise of the promoters is that a cat is a dog if the cat says so. As AC implies, DC would have been better to stay well out of it. But he probably thought Labour would hijack it.
|
A number of years ago when the 'Sabs' were all the rage and we were a bit thin on the ground I got sent to a hunt where there was a bit of friction between the 'Sabs' and the Toffs. As I have difficulty in understanding why enjoyment can be gained from seeing a fox ripped apart my impartiality was tainted - but 'without fear or favour' and the ever professional I arrived to be met by a Toff on his horse looking down on me. He informed me that the 'Sabs' had sprayed one of the hounds with anti mate spray and indicated to the rear of a van where there was a Beagle caughing and sneezing. I found this highly amusing and had to walk away in a fits of laughter to compose myself.
I did manage to bring some order to the situation despite the Toffs making all sorts of unrealistic demands and allegations of Criminal Damage.
The Old Boy Network came into place some days later when I was called in to see a rural governor who covered the locality of the main player in the hunting scene who tried to dress me down at my apparent lack of action. Not very often have I shown a lack of disrespect to rank particularly to their face but he got both barrels and nothing more was ever said.
|
|
I just can't begin to care about any of this I'm afraid. I'm highly unlikely to want to marry another bloke or to kill a fox but I really couldn't care less if either activity is legal or otherwise.
|
Isn't it the case that legalisation of same sex marriage simply means one obstacle is removed? Until its legal, the Church can say no, because they don't believe it's right and anyway, it's illegal. Now they can stiil just say no because they don't believe it's right, even if it's legal. No big deal. They still can't be forced to do it if they don't want to.
|
I'm with Humph really, don't give a toss. But offensive though they can be, I slightly favour hunters over sabs. They aren't all toffs just for a start. What they do is harmless and picturesque. What's to object to?
Sabs are sentimental about foxes, but often not at all about humans, and are just as arrogant as those toffs and lumpish farmers charging through your back garden on carthorses and ripping your innocent moggy to shreds without so much as an apology or by-your-leave.
I don't think much of mimsers, but I don't think they should really be banned. After all hopeless twerps have to be able to do their shopping too. Live and let live, while gritting your teeth a bit sometimes.
|
|
I suppose, on balance, I generally look at most things from the point of view that we probably have enough rules to be going on with. Broadly speaking, the ten ( or was it actually 15 ? ) commandments or their equivalent cover most of the important stuff. The rest mainly serve our propensity to embrace bureaucracy.
|
|
Exactly AC - what got caught up in the Toffs v. Serbs propaganda was that there is/was a small countryside industry in Fox control by decent sons of the land types - working class (for want of a better description) men who did it as a means of pest control in a proper humane way. They became demonized overnight.
|
|
Wish a hunt would spring up round here, we have very large very brazen very noisy urban foxes.
|
>> Until its legal, the Church can say no, because they don't believe it's right
>> and anyway, it's illegal. Now they can stiil just say no because they don't believe
>> it's right, even if it's legal. No big deal. They still can't be forced to
>> do it if they don't want to.
>>
I must ask my mum, who is a church organist and has probably played at thousands of weddings, what her attitude is about this, and what is the general feeling is amongst the clergy she works with.
I'm sure, though, that whereas the church would have no problem with gay members of their own congregation, there'd be a few quibbles regarding those who are 'not of the church' who still want a 'traditional' church wedding - same as it is for heterosexual couples.
|
>> can't pick which minorities you confer with equal rights.
Is a civil partnership, topped with a religious blessing, not 'equal' to marriage?
Perhaps this could be solved at a stroke by renaming civil partnership and just changing the word in all documents. Couple of new clauses perhaps and Bob's your uncle, surely?
|
>> >> can't pick which minorities you confer with equal rights.
>>
>> Is a civil partnership, topped with a religious blessing, not 'equal' to marriage?
>>
>> Perhaps this could be solved at a stroke by renaming civil partnership and just changing
>> the word in all documents. Couple of new clauses perhaps and Bob's your uncle, surely?
>>
>>
Ah, but that's not enough, you see. Many gay people would doubtless agree with you; feedback from an old friend of mine is that a goodly number of what you might call the "silent majority" of gay people are rather embarrassed by all this and feel that pressure from the equality fashionistas has made their public image worse rather than better, by making it seem as though they are never satisfied until their version of Orwell's famous lines on equality is realised.
|
>> >> would gay marriage have the same associated rules as at present?
>>
>> It's exactly because of the problems of definition you mention that gay marriage is a
>> marginal issue. If it gets onto the statutes it will be through a special piece
>> of legislation that evades all of that - a sort of second-class arrangement that contradicts
>> the declared purpose of those campaigning for it: to ensure that gays have identical rights
>> to everyone else's.
That's what I'm getting at. There are restrictions at present on who someone can marry, eg on the grounds of consanquinity, because of fears of genetic consequences for the offspring of brother/sister, or male/aunt, or even half-aunt.
So are gays equally to have these prohibitions? Why? But if not, why should they get rights denied to different sex couples?
|
I would have thought the whole thing foundered on the issue of consummation alone. In any case marriage as an institution is hinged on the production of children and the correct transmission of property. Perhaps from the property point of view gay marriage covers everything: a child whether adopted, in vitro or surrogated would count as a child if acknowledged as such by the parties.
It's impossible to see a law on gay marriage as having an identical meaning to existing marriage law though. Perhaps that doesn't matter.
|
Recall saying this at the time, but what gets me about this (and other issues that polarise opinion so strongly) is the sheer waste of effort on both sides. Of all the wrongs in the world (and this country in particular) that are in need of righting, the legality (or otherwise) of fox hunting isn't even in the top hundred, at least not for me. I have often wondered that if they hadn't brought in the ban, would it still be as popular as it now appears to be?
And as for church leaders, particularly R.C., pontificating about gay marriage: come back when you've sorted out all the nonces, misogynists and general nutters, lads. Matthew 7:1-5 (King James version, for preference) sums up the required attitude quite neatly.
|
|
Exactly - and the amount of sex scandals in their own back yard that they constantly fail to even acknowledge....bunch of hypocritics.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 2 Jan 13 at 00:36
|
|
Having been brought up a Catholic both during my early years in Eire and over here till I left school I've always believed the church share their DNA with the SS.
|
Fullchat: I've never understood why the hunts get special, pre-planned attention. Get on with it and call in like everyone else if you have a problem, or otherwise pay for private hire. We'll prioritise the call along with all the others.
R.P.: I live in a hunt village and I despise it. Well, the people that partake rather than the act itself, if I'm honest. Untaxed horseboxes, unleashed dogs and park wherever the hell you like. Ride wherever you like as well. Get drunk and drive home.
Socially, it was taboo to state that you didn't support the hunt, until I did so very publicly and then found I was anything but alone here in the village. It does seem to have surprised some of them who thought they enjoyed the support of the locals.
|
|
As I say it's the cottage industry side of it that I don't object to. Very strong Working Class roots around here.
|
>> As I say it's the cottage industry
I thought they burned cottages?
|
|
Only in Wales if the marauding English owned them.
|
>> Fullchat: I've never understood why the hunts get special, pre-planned attention.
Presumably you turn out wherever you know there is the likelihood of a breach of the peace?
|
|
One question re fox hunting. Why do they use such slow hounds? Nothing at all to do with prolonging the "fun" I suppose. Just tradition..... If they were serious about killing the fox swiftly, they'd use something a little faster, surely. Lurcher? Greyhound? Saluki? Rifle?
|
|
Lurchers, greyhounds and the like are fast, but no stamina. A fox would run a speed dog into the ground. Plus the speed dogs have rubbish noses.
|
|
Dachsund. Even slower, as it's a scent hound. Maybe not. Dalmatian would do just fine, but so few. Answer therefore must be a rifle. No need for pink jackets. DC can just go to the pub and await results of the war against vermin. That is the idea I believe?
Last edited by: NIL on Wed 26 Dec 12 at 21:47
|
In London last weekend a pale ratty little fox fled down a darkish street in front of my car, jinking in and out of the parked vehicles at the kerb. He was going like the clappers, more than 20mph I thought. And foxes aren't just fast, they can be as sure-footed as cats. I've seen one in London running along the top of a matchboard wooden fence after jumping four or five feet from the ground onto it without even a scrabble.
I note that two of our serving police officers are a bit sour about fox hunters. Perhaps I would be too if they asked me to do special work for them without offering to pay. The only person I actually know (not well though) who certainly hunts foxes seems charming and no-nonsense to me. But he passes for a county grandee elsewhere so perhaps he seems different when he is chivvying the fox.
What could RP mean about this cottage industry full of honest salt-of-the-earth trappers, poisoners and shooters to keep the number of foxes down? Of course they are demonised. If they had their way there wouldn't be any foxes for people to chase drunk on horseback blowing bugles and wearing picturesque clothing. I'd much rather have them than these poachers-turned-bounty-hunters. Each to his own of course.
|
|
I'm fortunate enough never to have had the pleasure of policing a hunt, so I speak as a resident where I live, and pass a general comment from my professional perspective about the generic planned responses that existed for some time. Those responses are much reduced now since many in my occupation share my view. As for 'turning out when there's a likelihood of breach of the peace' - the officers under my command are out as much as possible. They don't sit in waiting for a call. No use to me or anyone else sitting in a station.
|
Number of years ago the anti hunt lobby was quite strong and like the hunters who exercised their legal rights the anti hunt lobby exercised their legal right to protest. Mixed in amongst them were the militant hardcore who were in to fight the establishment - better known as 'rent a mob'. They were there just for the scrap. Very difficult to Police because of the vast open area hunting covers.
The law was in the middle and had a duty to protect everyone's legal rights. The hunts became confrontational and the Police attended en mass to prevent a Breach of the Peace an other Public Order offences.
To a degree they were successful in that fox hunting per se was outlawed so it is no longer an attraction for mass public disorder. Anyway there is other fish to fry in the guise of nuclear power stations and animal experimentation labs.
|
Now I'm really confused. Something about gay foxes not being allowed to marry?
Did Sam Fox ever marry?
|
>> Now I'm really confused. Something about gay foxes not being allowed to marry?
>> Did Sam Fox ever marry?
Turned out she thought she was lez-bean.
|
>> honest salt-of-the-earth trappers, poisoners and shooters to keep the number of foxes down?
On reflection, one wouldn't want them to be put out of work, and urban foxes are a bit of a pest I am told. So there should always be a place for them.
I'm not surprised that the very mention of these causes and anti-causes, and their variously arrogant and shrill supporters, makes policemen sigh wearily. All that clamour and faff to so little effect and for such piffling reasons!
No doubt overtime is some consolation though.
|
>>I live in a hunt village and I despise it. Well, the people that partake rather than the act itself, if I'm honest. Untaxed horseboxes, unleashed dogs and park wherever the hell you like. Ride wherever you like as well. Get drunk and drive home.
<<
Living on the borders of Leicestershire and Rutland we were plagued by the Cottesmore, Fernie and Quorn hunts so there was ample opportunities to observe their behaviour and general attitude.
I couldn't have put it better myself Woodster.
Pat
Last edited by: pda on Thu 27 Dec 12 at 04:52
|
>>I live in a hunt village and I despise it. Well, the people that partake rather than the act itself, if I'm honest.
My eldest hunts, whereas I do not, nor do I have any interest in it. I find hunting people very pleasant and I trust them with the child. I usually meet them afterwards to collect daughter and they are always good company.
Certainly I've had a few pints with them, but I find them no more nor less likely to drink and drive than anyone else.
I live in the next village and haven't noticed untaxed vehicles, or obstructive parking. They only ride on farms where they have permission or anywhere else its legal.
They generally attract a crowd, who do park a bit indiscriminately, and its typically a convivial, lively atmosphere.
I guess it depends on the hunt. And the perspective.
|
|
I don't hunt foxes. Just trap them for my next door neighbour to shoot.
|
|
Not a question of perspective but one of observation. I'd happily swap huntspeople with you from your account.
|
>>Not a question of perspective
I meant that I suspect that I am more inclined to like them because they are good to one of my children, whereas I suspect they represent no such advantage to you and simply represent inconvenience.
|
I must say it's a bit unsporting of Woodster to object to people parking all over the place and driving home drunk (no doubt as usual). Who cares on a bank holiday well known as a hunt day? It's a bit of an urban attitude.
But talking of attitude, I find a lot of people cite 'attitude' as part of a spoken or unspoken objection to people who hunt. I've read a few stories of hunts failing the attitude test with flying colours, but on the one occasion I have spoken to a hunt it behaved with exemplary courtesy, even though being outflanked by the fox which was extending its lead in a bewildering spiral as we spoke.
I suspect there is a tendency to attribute rudeness and arrogance to people because they are looking down from the backs of tall horses, wearing formal clothing and perceived as rich. People are silly like that.
|
|
Why don't they just go for a ride on a horse what is it with these foxes.
|
As far as I'm concerned for hunting to be hunting and not simply animal cruelty, the subject of the hunt should be eaten (either by the hunter or by someone willing to buy the meat), be it fish, deer, rabbit or bird.
When it comes to culling populations of vermin I'm pretty sure a skilled rifleman can do a better and cleaner job than 20 horsemen and 50 hounds.
Then again maybe the Italians blasting away at thousands of migrating birds flying overhead have reached the zenith of human supremacy over other species.
Rural Britain isn't going to die out because the hunts go away - and if it does then it deserves to die out as being incapable of changing with the passing millenia.
|
Hunting, coursing and so on are not 'simply' animal cruelty. They are sporting pursuits involving animal cruelty. Something that matters more to some than to others, and in different ways.
You don't have to do them, but why object to others doing them, closing everything down and making it more boring? Seems crap to me.
|
What next Lud?
Bring back bear- and bull-baiting?
|
>> Bring back bear- and bull-baiting?
There's no demand. Public executions would be a better draw probably.
I was just complaining quite mildly about this wish to end something that is still going on merely because it involves animal cruelty. That seems hypocritical to me for a host of boring reasons. Never mind that the devotees seem heartless. Why spoil their fun?
|
>>There's no demand
Considering the substantial demand for dog-fighting, badger baiting, hare coursing, rare egg stealing, and other delightfully useless activites, I think if there was a ready supply of bears and little or no risk of being caught someone would be doing it.
|
>> substantial demand for dog-fighting, badger baiting, hare coursing,
All illegal, perhaps only since recent times. I don't think I would have favoured illegalizing those either. But I can understand why others do favour these bans and even sympahise up to a point.
But if I think something is ugly I don't watch it. I don't want everyone else to be forced to ape my point of view.
|
>> >>There's no demand
>>
>>
>> Considering the substantial demand for dog-fighting, badger baiting, hare coursing, rare egg stealing, and other
>> delightfully useless activites,
There is no "substantial" demand for any of those activities. It goes on for sure, but not to te levels you are trying to suggest. Certainly considerably less than fox drag hunting.
|
>>Certainly considerably less than fox drag hunting
I think you mean hound training sessions or Cubbing.
|
>>Considering the substantial demand for dog-fighting, badger baiting, hare coursing, rare egg stealing, and other delightfully useless activites <<
A handful of countryside weirdos in Shoguns does not constitute substantial demand.
|
>>Rural Britain isn't going to die out because the hunts go away <<
It died out some time ago when it became overpopulated with city folk who are afraid of mud ( and church bells ).
|
>>It died out some time ago when it became overpopulated with city folk who are afraid of mud ( and church bells ).
No, it's been dying out for 200 years since landowners and farmers decided that the acquisition of money was more important than the welfare of those who lived on their estates.
And also because those who did live in abject poverty at the back and call of their masters realised that education and urban life offered them greater opportunity of prosperity.
Townies moving into rural areas is because of the massive vacuum caused by the lack of opportunity in the green spaces.
|
>> The best episode -
>>
>> www.youtube.com/watch?v=riMHp28_cqw
Tee hee.
I spotted the other post in the right thread.
;>)
|
I think I've done all the angles from hunting.
As a child and youth I used to go to hunts and have been a beater etc for the bird shoots ...and thought nothing of it.
Over 30 years working in a city and maturing (possibly) my viewpoint has changed, I now find myself thinking we as supposedly intelligent humans, should treat our surroundings with respect and that includes other living creatures. So if you want to eat it...fair game (pun intended), if you just fancy killing something living, for the hell of it, then I don't approve.
But.
Fox hunting causes me a difficulty...because...it was there for a reason, i.e. to get rid of foxes. The reality of it is the only foxes a hunt ever got (if they did get any) were the old or infirm. The young fit ones would get away, every time.
Guess which foxes are the nuisance ones? The ones that will kill the whole hen coop, rather than just nick one. The ones that are too old or unwell to catch their normal prey, so become a nuisance to livestock holders...(why does no one consider the health and well being of a shed full of frightened hens being torn to death by a mangy fox?)....the ones that need to be eradicated as humanely as possible.
Shooting or poisoning isn't as straightforward as it sounds, that can cause terrible cruelty, so whilst being chased to death won't exactly be pleasant, at least it's either 'get away' or 'a quick death'.... a partial shooting or slow poisoning isn't very pleasant at all.
So on the whole, I think fox hunting should have been left alone, it was there for a reason and had become a legitimate country past time, enjoyed by many. Those that banned it did it out of ignorance and/or petty jealously about so called 'toffs'...whereas most country folk (and hunt followers) are not necessarily well off at all.
|
>> Those that banned it did it out of ignorance and/or petty jealously about so called 'toffs'...
Hmm. The 'sports' banned before foxhunting (eg. badger baiting, hare coursing,egg collecting) were the ones that were usually performed by the plebs so I don't think the 'toffs' were being picked on - the fact that a free HoP vote was avoided for so long gives an idea of the influence the 'toffs' could exert for so long.
|
Don't quite see the animal cruelty thing myself. All wild animals die a cruel and often painful death being predated by other animals, injury, or starvation when no longer able to catch their prey. All around us is agony and death and even us humans with all our modern medicines often die a painful and lonely death. Why do we care so much about a few hundred foxes caught by hounds.
A fox caught by hounds dies no worse a death than a mouse of blackbird being caught by that loveable household moggy or the rat being shaken to death by a terrier. Nobody cares about these things. Why do they care so much about the way a fox dies.
Personally I have no wish to hunt or shoot but I used to fish and didn't feel any compunction about knocking a trout on the head and that seems no difference in principle.
|
>> The 'sports' banned before foxhunting (eg. badger baiting, hare coursing,egg collecting) were the ones that were usually performed by the plebs so I don't think the 'toffs' were being picked on
That's certainly true Lygonos. But the public support for the foxhunting ban has certainly been partly fuelled by a rather mean and specious sort of modern class hatred, featured in saboteur and animal rights papers and sheets. And if you remember the ban was passed under I think the first Blair government with its big majority, a facile sop to Labour voters to make the govt look properly Labour...
|
>>No, it's been dying out for 200 years since landowners and farmers decided that the acquisition of money was more important than the welfare of those who lived on their estates.
And also because those who did live in abject poverty at the back and call of their masters realised that education and urban life offered them greater opportunity of prosperity.<<
Landowners always worked on the aquisition of money, that is why they had land in the first place, there was never a golden age.
200 years ago there was no great opportunity available for the working poor in urban areas, just poverty in a different place - only the lucky few managed to rise above their beginnings, most simply exchanged one master for another. The idea that leaving the countryside for the city was some sort of journey for a better life is absurd - they made the journey for survival when work wasnt available, not for some dream of education. The only thing most poor people could change in 1812 was whether they had food to eat.
|
I didn't partake in the hunt but i've followed once in a while, used to see more foxes in the countryside when hunting was allowed, i expect they are killed quite ruthlessly now there is no reason to let them live, ironically the townies that wanted the cuddly little things now have them in increasing numbers.
On the other subject of gay marriage in churches.
Those who are jumping on the church gay wedding badwagon are presumably committed Christians or those of other equally important beliefs?...not hypocrites surely, hate the church and all it stands for, non believers but feel they have a right to a church wedding whatever their preferences, this applies equally to hetero couples.
We couldn't and didn't do it, i'm a terrible lapsed but still believing Catholic, SWMBO isn't a believer anyway so what right would either of us have to ask for a church wedding?
Last edited by: gordonbennet on Thu 27 Dec 12 at 23:15
|
Oh what fun it would be to hunt this with hounds and rip it to shreds while it's still alive.
www.bing.com/?PC=BNHP
Tally Ho!
|
That doesn't even deserve a scowly face Dog.
Pat
|
>> That doesn't even deserve a scowly face Dog.
>>
>> Pat
>>
Agree Pat
Hunting is too good for them.
Trap and shoot is the way to go...
|
>> Oh what fun it would be to hunt this with hounds and rip it to
>> shreds while it's still alive.
My mate's wife lives in a barn on a farm and grew up on a farm as a child. She is very animal orientated.
She was not at all comfortable with her husband 'shooting things' (he is a farmer's son) and didn't wish him to shoot foxes....
.....until her coop of 12 chickens was annihilated for the second time...and all their entrails were left up the garden.
He now shoots the foxes.
|
I wasn't actually referring to the message of Dogs post, more the provocative manner it was posted.
I don't actualy believe that Dog means that at all, he's just trying to provoke some reaction.
Must be bored on Bodming today.
Pat
|
Foxes are vermin because they are clever predators (so eat our poultry, pet rabbits and new-born lambs). But they are pretty animals too although not as cute as people think, especially at close quarters. One can quite see that sentimentalists (as nearly all bunny-hugger types are at heart) who don't farm or keep chickens would object to culling them in any way. Indeed it must have been their 'opinion', if you can call it that, which enabled the first Blair government to court easy popularity with the mean-spirited hunting ban.
Those (like Lygonos) who say one should only hunt what one is going to eat and that animal suffering can only be justified in that way should consider whether they ever eat factory-farmed meat. That involves very considerable animal suffering, for the noble purpose of keeping prices down.
I don't accuse opponents of hunting of hypocrisy because I don't think most of them are clear enough in their minds on these matters to be called hypocritical.
|
I don't eat meat or poultry Sire, and haven't done since I witnessed a magpie eating a young chick,
I thought of myself when picking over a cooked chicken, holding its leg or wing while devouring it - just like that magpie ... do I want to behave like an animal, or do I want to be something better than that.
If I kept chickens (and I have the land) I would make damn sure that as sly and cunning as Mr Fox is,
my chickens were kept out of harms way at night.
|
>> I don't eat meat or poultry Sire, and haven't done since I witnessed a magpie
>> eating a young chick,
>> I thought of myself when picking over a cooked chicken, holding its leg or wing
>> while devouring it - just like that magpie ... do I want to behave like
>> an animal, or do I want to be something better than that.
You are, at the end of the day, just another breed of evolved animal. Had your ancestors decided to be vegetarian you would have evolved into a cow.
|
>> do I want to behave like
>> an animal, or do I want to be something better than that.
Sorry Perro, but you can't be better than that, because it's what you are. Apart from cooking the meat and eating it off a plate with a knife and fork, there's not a lot of difference.
I sympathise with people who are squeamish, but not to the extent of not fancying roast beef.
|
>>I sympathise with people who are squeamish, but not to the extent of not fancying roast beef<<
I can assure my learned friend friend it's got nothing to do with being squeamish in my case,
it's just that I no longer have a fancy for eating dead animals.
|
"it's just that I no longer have a fancy for eating dead animals."
Curious inclusion of the word "dead". Would they be more acceptable alive? You could try an oyster.
|
>>Would they be more acceptable alive? You could try an oyster<<
Are they eaten alive then? (I didn't know that) I'll get my zinc via pumpkin seed butter thanks!
|
>> an oyster<<
>> Are they eaten alive then?
They sometimes squirm a bit in their death throes when the lemon juice goes on. But having your two shell-halves forcibly cut at the hinge with a sharp knife wouldn't do you much good. Not that oysters are especially chatty or animated even in their natural habitat.
It's quite important (to you) that they, or any shellfish, should be alive until you eat or cook them though. It's very important to check that mussels are alive - they open slightly when you put them in water to wash them - by tapping them on a hard surface. If they don't then close they're dead and have to be discarded. And if they won't open even in water they are dead. Or if they seem heavier than their fellows (can mean they are full of rotting mud). Shellfish are a bit of a minefield, nice though they are from time to time. They say eating a bad one is a very nasty experience, life-threatening even to those of delicate constitution.
|
"Not that oysters are especially chatty or animated even in their natural habitat. "
"The Walrus and the Carpenter
Walked on a mile or so,
And then they rested on a rock
Conveniently low:
And all the little Oysters stood
And waited in a row.
"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things:
Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax--
Of cabbages--and kings--
And why the sea is boiling hot--
And whether pigs have wings."
"But wait a bit," the Oysters cried,
"Before we have our chat;
For some of us are out of breath,
And all of us are fat!"
"No hurry!" said the Carpenter.
They thanked him much for that."
|
>> If I kept chickens (and I have the land) I would make damn sure that
>> as sly and cunning as Mr Fox is,
>> my chickens were kept out of harms way at night.
>>
...and if the sly and cunning Mr Fox does manage to get your chickens?
|
>> >> If I kept chickens (and I have the land) I would make damn sure
>> that
>> >> as sly and cunning as Mr Fox is,
>> >> my chickens were kept out of harms way at night.
>> >>
>>
>> ...and if the sly and cunning Mr Fox does manage to get your chickens?
Thats part of the rich tapestry of living in the country, as is the rabbits eating your fresh food, fly strike in your sheep, as its been for hundreds of years.
|
>> Thats part of the rich tapestry of living in the country, as is the rabbits
>> eating your fresh food, fly strike in your sheep, as its been for hundreds of
>> years.
>>
Indeed..as is man taking measures to prevent it...such as hunting foxes. Only now they are not allowed to.
|
When I leave my owse, I make sure Mr B Burglar cant get in, if I kept chickens I'd do the same about Mr F Fox.
I've known plenty of peeps in Cornwall who keep chickens, they make sure Mr Fox cant get them at night.
A cottage within walking distance of here keep all manner of feathery things - safe from Mr Fox.
|
>> When I leave my owse, I make sure Mr B Burglar cant get in, if
>> I kept chickens I'd do the same about Mr F Fox.
>>
>> I've known plenty of peeps in Cornwall who keep chickens, they make sure Mr Fox
>> cant get them at night.
>>
>> A cottage within walking distance of here keep all manner of feathery things - safe
>> from Mr Fox.
>>
Yes, as does my mate who's as pedantic as I am...only there can be eventualities that are difficult to manage...their last annihilation was when the electric fence failed.
|
>>Yes, as does my mate who's as pedantic as I am...only there can be eventualities that are difficult to manage...their last annihilation was when the electric fence failed<<
I'll have to ask the folk in the cottage down the lane what they do to keep Mr Fox at bay.
(and buy some of their free range eggs)
|
Foxes can climb, burrow and gnaw Perro. Perhaps they know how to disconnect electric fences as well. They'll bide their time, then one day yr neighbour's birds will be gone...
Second time our close neighbours lost their chickens here there were no feathers or blood, no sign of a struggle: just no hens or cockerel. People were puzzled. Suspicion even fell on, harrumph, the Polish builders who had been working nearby until about then... but there was no proof of course. A mystery.
Perhaps chickens just evaporate suddenly into another universe.
|
>Suspicion even fell on, harrumph, the Polish builders..
I thought he was in the fashion biz?
|
>>Foxes can climb, burrow and gnaw Perro. Perhaps they know how to disconnect electric fences as well. They'll bide their time, then one day yr neighbour's birds will be gone<<
I'll have to do some research on the matter Sire, ave a word with the pasty crunchers, like.
Mussels! - I had a plate of em at a fish restaurant in Tenerife many moons ago, one of the critters wasn't opened.
I opened it.
Taken ill is an understatement :-(
|
>> Foxes can climb, burrow and gnaw Perro. Perhaps they know how to disconnect electric fences
>> as well. They'll bide their time, then one day yr neighbour's birds will be gone...
>>
>>
They don't need to disconnect them - they listen to the pulses and time their jump.
They will be watching your place nightly for months, observing your routines, waiting for you to make a slip. Then the one night the hen coop latch isn't quite shot far enough, or you forget to roll the rock against the door, they'll be in and take the lot.
They don't waste time taking the chickens one at a time straight back to the lair - they drag them to the first bit of ground cover, stash them all there, and then at leisure take them away unnoticed.
If you can spot the stockpile, that's a good moment to lie in wait for his return.
|
>> >>Yes, as does my mate who's as pedantic as I am...only there can be eventualities
>> that are difficult to manage...their last annihilation was when the electric fence failed<<
>>
>> I'll have to ask the folk in the cottage down the lane what they do
>> to keep Mr Fox at bay.
>> (and buy some of their free range eggs)
>>
So not really vegetarian, then?
|
From Dog's earlier ruminations on diet, I assumed him to be a pescatarian and ovo-lacto vegetarian.
Am I right, Dog? Please tell me I'm right about something before NF starts on me.
;-)
|
>>So not really vegetarian, then?<<
They're veggie eggs silly :)
>>Am I right, Dog? Please tell me I'm right about something before NF starts on me<<
Affirmative comrade Alanović ... Mackerel salad last night (again!)
|
I was right about something. I'm going to tell the wife. She won't believe me.
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!
Watch out NF, it might happen again in 6 years or so.
|
|
Mackerel have rights too!
|
>>Mackerel have rights too!<<
And lefts apparently (yum yum!)
|
>>Fish murderer!<<
No m8, I get other people to do the killing for me, like you carnivores do, mostly ;)
Now, if I was to eat a live bivalve mollusc ...!
|
Drink deep to Uncle Uglug
That paleolithic human
The first to swallow an oyster,
The first to marry a woman.
A curse on him who murmurs
As the banquet waxes moister,
'Had he only swallowed the woman!
Had he only married the oyster!'
Ogden Nash Stag Night, Paleolithic
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Thu 3 Jan 13 at 17:09
|
>>Ogden Nash<<
His demise was hastened by coleslaw, raw egg see :(
|
>> Fish murderer!
>>
If fish could scream, angling would be so much more fun.
|
>> >> Fish murderer!
>> >>
>> If fish could scream, angling would be so much more fun.
>>
>>
Apparently another thing we can blame immigrants for is not playing the angling game and assuming that it's acceptable to eat the fish they catch.
I love the shooting story of the brash newcomer who was seen aiming his gun at a bird running along the ground.
"Good lord, you're not going to shoot it running are you?" cried the host, aghast.
"Of course not, I'm waiting until it stops".
|
>> If fish could scream, angling would be so much more fun.
What were they called, parrot fish or something? Handsome tropical fish with big vertical black and white stripes and orange lips and fin edges, as I remember them. One could see them down there when bottom-fishing in clear Indian Ocean waters, and they had a knack of sucking the bait off your hooks without getting hooked. But they did sometimes, and when taken out of the water they didn't scream exactly, but gave fairly loud pathetic squeaks.
They were bony and not worth eating.
|
>>They were bony and not worth eating<<
They probably formed the same opinion about you Sire.
:+)
|
>>and if the sly and cunning Mr Fox does manage to get your chickens?<<
I'd give he both barrels!
|
Foxing Day - CGNorwich
