UK Pro-Hunt Demonstrators 'Invade' Parliament

Ozymandias · Postby **Ozymandias** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 10:56 pm

The hunt protesters will challenge the bill with the Human Rights Act which states they have a right to defend their property, and also using the part about causing job loss to subsiduary industries after just three months. They will also claim that the Parliment Act was illegitimate or something similar because it was not signed with the consent of the Lords. They have every right to do this and I wish them the best of luck. I know that many of you disagree with me on this and I am ready to accept criticism and arguments, and treat them with respect, so long as it is not merely a personal attack on my character. If they lose in the courts, there is the almost futile hope that the Queen will refuse to sign the bill, and after that still, there is the fact that the law will not reasonably be enforcable.

Ankaris · Postby **Ankaris** » Sat Nov 20, 2004 12:27 am

Well, if I were a judge... "Right to defend your property?! Are foxes threatening to kick you out of house and home and claim ownership?" "Job loss? Switch to drag hunting. The only difference to your job is a rider instead of a fox." "Not signed by the Lords?! The Parliament Act was drawn up because of cases JUST like this! When the House Of Lords continually threw out Bills wanted and approved by the people! Specifically, the People's Budget in 1909/11 was the last straw, and the Act then was APPROVED by the House of Lords. What they didn't approve was an amendment in 1949 to lessen the time required before the Act could be used. From 2 years with 3 parliamentary sessions, to one year and two sessions. This issue has been going on and been voted for for well over both those periods, and a Bill for the alloted 2 years, in an <a href='http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.p ... number=199' target='_blank'>evolving form</a>." If I were a judge, of course <img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /> EDIT: Well, it's a little more complicated. Editing final point... Also! A reply to the pro-hunting points made, from an anti-hunting organisation. <a href='http://www.league.uk.com/pro_hunt_propaganda.htm' target='_blank'>Right here.</a> As I tell anyone in a serious debate, remember to practise intelligent reading, as this could contain its own slant on the matter. But it seems accurate when you remove said slant.

Ozymandias · Postby **Ozymandias** » Sun Nov 21, 2004 3:45 pm

I was mistakenly informed about the non-signing of the Parliament Act itself by BBC News. Firstly, I would like to call point #4 into question: 4. Country sports are beneficial for natural habitats because they keep species in natural balance WRONG! Foxes naturally self-regulate their populations; if there are too many foxes in an area then food becomes scare and numbers fall. Pro-hunt extremists have damaged rather than benefited the countryside in the past. English Nature recently criticised hunt supporters who wrecked a Site of Special Scientific Interest by burning the words "No Ban" into the grass near the Long Man of Wilmington in East Sussex. I do not see what burning "no ban" has to do with hunting. Hunts do not routinely go around burning "no ban" into the landscape as part of their sport. I would also like to highlight the use of the word "extremists", which, in any group, there will be. I would imagine that there are not a lot anti-hunt protestors that go around attacking hunt parties violently, but it has happened in the past. As for self-regulating populations, there is an amount of truth in this; foxes will die if food gets scarce. But food will not get scarce if a poultry farmer is keeping chickens in the vicinity. The farmer will need to keep his stocks high in order to make money. This will give any foxes essentially a never-ending food supply, thus rendering the afforementioned "natural control" impossible. Then there is point #5: 5. The Hunting Bill threatens to destroy thousands of livelihoods. WRONG! Hunts can switch to drag hunting. Both the independent UK-wide study on the subject commissioned by the BBC and completed in 1998 by Dr Neil Ward and the Burns inquiry found that there were fewer than 1,000 people directly employed by hunts. I would like to pull out the word "directly" and refer to my earlier mention of subsiduary industries. Whilst very few people in the hunt itself are paid, there are thousands that require the business from the hunters (i.e. farriers, those who own stable blocks, those who provide food to the animals) for their business to be able to sustain itself. Many of these people have only the one skill and so will be forced out of the one job they know how to do without significant retraining. Also vetenarians, whilst unlikely to become unemployed, will be hit rather hard by the ban, especially in rural areas. Point 7 states: Hunts have the support of the rural community. WRONG! Every year hunt havoc brings the death of family pets, numerous cases of trespass, and distressing scenes witnessed by innocent by-standers. Those brave enough to complain may even face intimidation and violence from pro-hunt extremists I would like to know more about where this information is from, especially about the violence to bystanders complaining. But even so, consider the reverse: A farmer is going to shoot a fox. Little Timmy, aged 5, is on a nature walk in the woods with his mother. They are watching a fawn and its mother at a distance. The farmer, as it is a chilly day, is shivering, and as a result the bullet flies above the fox and into the trees. The bullet catches Timmy at about top-lip level and severs his spinal cord. There is also a dog nearby, Rover. Rover is a good family pet, and has deterred burglers on numerous occasions as well as being faithful and loyal to the children. Now, everyone knows to keep their pets inside when there are fireworks going off everywhere. But why should the family who own Rover know that Farmer will be shooting today. It is perfectly within noise pollution laws to shoot on your land, especially between 9am and 4pm using subsonic ammunition. The gun, nevertheless, makes a loud noise. Famer is alright; he has ear defenders. But Rover is badly traumatised, becomming shy and withdrawn, and the deer will not be seen in the woods for a long time. In response to point 8, which says: 8. Fox hunting is less cruel than shooting which would increase with a ban on hunting. WRONG! The fox isn't killed quickly with a bite to the back of the neck. Foxes not only endure long exhausting chases, but also the terror and pain of being savaged to death - usually by disembowelment. Foxes that escape can die from trauma. Foxes that go to earth can be attacked by the terrier men's dogs and a vicious and stressful fight can ensue. I would again like to inquire as to their sources. I shall qoute now from "A veterinary opinion on hunting with hounds" (which can be found <a href='http://www.huntfacts.com/veterinary_opi ... nting_.htm' target='_blank'>here</a>) : "We accept that hunting with hounds has, at present, a variable impact on the culling of foxes across the country but this is not because hunting is less efficient than other methods of culling rather that it is not exploited to its full potential (Heydon and Reynolds 2000). Given the full support of all land owners and using a combination of "mounted" packs, terriers and sporting dogs, hunting could probably achieve near 100% control of the fox population. But more important from the veterinary point of view we hold that of the culling methods considered above by Thomas, Allen and others (1999) hunting is the most humane. Whereas "Lamping" or shooting foxes by night by experienced marksmen with rifles can be as humane and perhaps more efficient it carries with it an inherent risk of wounding, especially in the hands of unskilled operators. The risk is also greatly enhanced when shotguns are used. It is probable therefore that a large proportion of foxes shot by rifle and shotgun per year are wounded and left to suffer and many of these will be vixens wounded in the spring months when they are pregnant or nursing. No such risk of failure occurs with hunting, foxes are not injured and abandoned, the fox either lives or dies and if it escapes the worst it has suffered is a test of its stamina and cunning (Thomas, Allen and others 1999). There is also with shooting a not inconsiderable risk through accident to the human operator and to bystanders." Point 9 is, quite frankly, irrelevant: 9. The number of people involved in country sports is equal to the numbers who play football. WRONG! When pro-hunt lobbyists use this argument they are including angling and shooting in this number. Less than 17,000 people participate in hunting with hounds in England and Wales (Countryside Alliance figure submitted to Burns inquiry), whereas 12 million adults and children play football in England. The CA have never claimed that the numbers involved in hunting was 12 million. Such a figure is unrealistic and would readily be dismissed by an "ordinary" (a term which I hate) member of the public. However, Angling can easily be classed as cruel - after all, you take a creature out of its natural environment and batter it mercilessly to death, as it suffocates and writhes - and shooting Game Birds is also frowned upon by animal rights groups - but they seek to encourage farmers to shoot foxes? I should be very much obliged if a little clarification was given. Finally, there is point 10: Banning hunting will not help a single fox. WRONG! Banning hunting would not only prevent 20,000 foxes being unnaturally hounded to exhaustion and/or bitten to death annually, but would also outlaw the brutal killing of at least another 50,000 foxes tormented and killed by gangs of men with terriers and lurchers. Now, I agree to the first statement - which can be nothing but true - and so, I fancy, is put in to lure the reader into believing the whole passage. Banning hunting will stop people chasing foxes with dogs. But foxes are not hunted to exhaustion, nor is it unnatural ("As members of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons we submit therefore that hunting by hounds is the most natural and humane way of controlling the fox population in the countryside. Humane, since at all times the animal remains in its natural environment and the relatively short period of physiological stress that may be suffered in the final phase of the chase, followed by the almost instantaneous kill is not only acceptable but is the preferred method of culling a wild animal. By analogy similar conclusions may reasonably be drawn on the humane aspects of deer, hare and mink hunting. Hunting is the only method of culling that selectively maintains the health and vigour of a species. Hunting is environmentally friendly.") The fact remains that the government is looking to please the majority, as in any democracy. However, 59% of people in this country support hunting and so the government is not doing its job

Ankaris · Postby **Ankaris** » Sun Nov 21, 2004 5:41 pm

Excellent, I have well thought out points to consider now <img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... iggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /> On Point 4... While it's true that this is the act of extremists (burning No Ban) pro-hunt supporters must realise that if they are associated with... over-excitable groups they will be tarred with the same brush. And that this group of extremists would take this action, on a Site of Special Scientific Interest? Absolutely mindless, and helps give ammunition to those who would ban hunting. Ozy, do you know if the CA and others condemned this? I just wanna know before I jump to conclusions about them. On the topic of self-regulating populations, red foxes do not climb to a great degree, so enclosing said chickens in a sturdy enough mesh fence would be sufficient to protect them, so long as it was deep enough into the soil. Farmers cannot complain about natural predators attacking their livestock if they take no steps to protect the livestock, and instead hunt the predator with a passion.They should live within nature, not exclude themselves from it. On Point 5... I'm sorry, I see this as a non-issue. As I've said, drag hunting is almost identical to normal hunting, in that the only difference is a horse+rider is chased rather than a fox. I fail to see how this change would result in any less people being employed, or animals being used, unless the hunters lower the amount they use for sheer spite. Could you explain how subsidiary jobs would be affected by this change? <img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... unsure.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='unsure.gif' /> On Point 7... So a farmer wouldn't have the common courtesy to tell those who could be at risk that he would be using a deadly weapon? Or that the farmer would be so ill-trained as to allow the cold to affect him to such a degree? Reading through your other arguements, for points 8 to 10, I readily concede them in the face of reliable evidence, only to take issue with point 9 and say that angling and game bird hunting can be used as a way to obtain food. And I certainly haven't heard of fox hunting used as such <img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... /blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /> I'm not saying that hunting isn't a reliable and useful method of culling the population. What I AM saying is that the way in which it is performed is unnecessarily brutal, over-the-top and part of a culture which should readily be condemned, which is to say, killing for sport, and this has become intwined with hunting as pest-control. If hunters would change their MO, then I would be happy, but as it stands they do not appear to wish to, and if a ban, or the threat of one, must be employed to either stop or change the practise... I'm not advocating class warfare. Indeed supporters and opposition to hunting come from all of Britain's classes. I also realise that the benefits argued for banning hunting are all inter-dependent; they must all be worked for, or none / very few will be obtained. But change does not come from preserving the status quo, and I believe eliminating killing for sport will, in its own small way, help better society. Am I an idealist in this matter then? Perhaps. But I am a citizen of the UK, hence I am allowed to be <img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... /smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /> And finally... to those who say this is not the right time, nor the right issue to be fighting for, I say, I cannot choose the battles that are waged, nor when they take place. All I can do is weigh the sides, choose accordingly and argue for my side.

Ozymandias · Postby **Ozymandias** » Sun Nov 21, 2004 6:50 pm

I'm more than happy to point you in the direction of their <a href='http://www.countryside-alliance.org/our ... ience.html' target='_blank'>Civil Disobedience Policies</a>, and say freely that I am an upper-middle class teeneager living in a rural area, surrounded by farms, and whilst I am not related to any farmers in any way, or a member of the Countryside Alliance, or have ever been on a hunt or wish to take part in one, for that matter, I share their point of view. Point 4: I cannot say whether they knew if the site was of special scientific interest. All I can say is that it is not for me to defend them, nor is that the issue. That issue is one of commiting an illegal activity, rather than banning a legal one. It was not the pro-hunt supporters that were associated with a group that went around damaging the beautiful landscape of this country, but the extremists that operated under the name of a perfectly upstanding group. The Pro-Hunt supporters do not want this, and would be happy to have their numbers reduced if only to weed out those who are not good people. On the note of adequate defenses, whilst it would be amiable to, as you say, live within nature, the Red Fox can jump about two metres up in the air, and, quoting from a <a href='http://co.essortment.com/informationont_rhpl.htm' target='_blank'>PageWise</a> source, "Fox have memorialized the saying Sly as a Fox for good reason. They have even been called the Houdinis of the animal family. Farmers throughout the ages have built better and more secure pens for their animals, simply to try to keep out the fox, often failing. Fox can seemingly get into the best handiwork a farmer can build. They can scale over, dig under, and go through, varied constructions. If a farmers barn happens to be in their home range, chickens and ducks often become part of their daily diet. Eggs seem to have a draw for them also, with them eating them right in the pen." Point 5: I am afraid that I must link this back to pest control: Fox hunting is primarily a pest-control measure rather than a sport, and so if it is banned, then those who treat it as a sport will probably drag hunt, yes, but those who use it as pest control will have to stop. There will be far more that control rather than do it as a recreational hobby, and so the industries will still be hit by large losses, even if they aren't total. Point 7 isn't just a matter of common courtesy; the wildlife will still be affected and most farmers won't actually train with a firearm, that's the reality of it. The point of my argument was that using guns would be more detremental to the enviroment than hunting, as well as being a public nusiance - after all, Rover isn't going to be kept inside all day, and people will have to avoid the woods - and less effective and more cruel. On point 9, the vast majority of this is for sport, not food. By your own argument, you have intimated that you also like to see angling and shooting banned. Is this the case? (I won't argue with any answer to this as it is just my curiosity of your opinion, rather than gaining material for an argument <img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... /smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' />) May I ask what you mean when you say MO? I also do not see this as a class issue - it has clearly been shown that it is not. I believe in the upholding of Society and Environment, and all that it entails. I aim to support the best for everyone, and, failing that, the majority. For me, the end justifies the means, to a large extent, unless there is a better method. So far, such a method has not been presented. Your last point is very true:  <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'>Quote: </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> And finally... to those who say this is not the right time, nor the right issue to be fighting for, I say, I cannot choose the battles that are waged, nor when they take place. All I can do is weigh the sides, choose accordingly and argue for my side</td></tr></table>  This is a stance that should be taken by everyone, with every issue in life.

Ankaris · Postby **Ankaris** » Sun Nov 21, 2004 11:14 pm

MO - Modus Operandi (I think that's it...) Basically, how they go about what they do. As for game hunting and angling / fishing, I'm no fan of the sporting aspect of it, but would not wish a ban, partially as it might throw up as many issues as this Hunting Bill. I mean, mass fishing goes on in the seas... As for my personal history with angling, I caught a hefty rainbow trout when I was about 10 (with help from my dad, come on, I was just a kid, couldn't reel it in <img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /> ) and yes, I ate it afterwards. Quite nice, shame about the bones. But I digress. As for the link you posted, the CDP, mmrrrrrr... while they (just about) say they are against such action, nor do they condemn it, in as many words. Seems more like covering their own backs, but I'm cynical like that when it comes to organisations <img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /> For now I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. On the topic of pest-control and foxes' eating habits, I don't believe it's sufficient for farmers to simply throw their hands up and say "No, we tried, they're too smart." For just one example of a (possible) solution, mark out the area you wish to keep your chickens confined to. Dig a narrow but deep trench around this area, taking care to avoid breaching pipes and cabling. Now. Pour concrete / cement into this trench, and into this place your fence. Top the fence with a suitable deterrent (low yield electric fence? Sharp edges?). Voila. And that took me all of 5 minutes to think up, so forgive any wooly bits <img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /> Lastly, back to the guns. We are meant to be a relatively gun-free nation, with licenses handed out only to those who need them. With these licenses should go certain checks. If these checks are insufficient, make them better. If a farmer cannot be bothered to spend a few hours in one week and 50 (I'm making this up, but you get the jist of it) to show he can handle a shotgun and has a need for one, he does not deserve one. The same goes for other means of pest control.

Ozymandias · Postby **Ozymandias** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 10:37 pm

Sorry guys, but I'm gonna need to put this on ice for a while. This is not related to the hunting debate, but just so you know... My position on the matter - it took me many months to come to a decision anyway - has shifted slightly. I'm not pro-hunt, as anti-anti-hunt: That is to say, if a method that was as effective and efficient and as humane as hunting is was presented, then I would fully vote for a ban on hunting. I'll be back soon, y'all.

Holyman83 · Postby **Holyman83** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 12:26 am

Personal I just dont see the point of hunting Mine not against it but an also not for it either. I'd rather play with the animal then let it go home <img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... /smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' />

Ankaris · Postby **Ankaris** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 12:42 am

Nooooooooooo! Come back! Intelligence! Thought-out discussion! Why must these things be so fleeting?! <img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /> Seeya soon Ozy, hope it's nothing too serious that's keeping you away <img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... /smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' />

Ozymandias · Postby **Ozymandias** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 11:40 pm

Dammit I shoulda got back to this sooner. I'd just like to say I'm not out to 'win' this - it is as much an evaluation of my beliefs as it is, I'm sure, an issue that must be defended or argued against against all logic. I'll soon get around to the rest of the points, but can you tell me what happened during Foot And Mouth (and how long it lasted - you can't judge an ecosystem's structure on a few weeks)? This was suggested by a friend of mine (anti-hunting) as a point against it, and for once, I had no immediate response. In short, I'd like to know what you turn up as opposed to what I turn up.

Gizensha · Postby **Gizensha** » Sat Dec 04, 2004 12:27 am

The pest control issue came up a couple of times in this discussion. I presume you're refering to the raiding of a chicken-coup by foxes? If so, then I have yet to encounter satisfactory evidence that foxes are responsable for the biggest complaint of that, which according to someone who seemed well-informed, the biting off of the heads of chickens and leaving the corpses, rather than eating a couple and going away. This is... Curious... Considering the fact the same arguement is used for hunting cyotees in certain areas of the US. I hear that it's actually dogs with in-breeding issues in those cases, and I find the similarities between the two cases too coincidental for my liking. Or, to put it another way "foxes aren't responsiable for everything they get blamed for". This is, to my knowledge, a fact. For the record - I'm a 19 year old who lives in a semi-rural area of the north-west of england, there are a couple of farms within a five mile radius, though one has been partially converted into a petting zoo, though also within five miles is the tourist town 'larger than some cities' of Blackpool. The definition of the socio-economic classes confuses me somewhat, but I wouldn't be embarassed to say if someone would be able to give me clarifications of the class 'boundries'.

Ozymandias · Postby **Ozymandias** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 10:59 am

For class boundary definition I'd use something like <a href='http://www.checkmyfile.com' target='_blank'>www.checkmyfile.com</a>

Gizensha · Postby **Gizensha** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:12 pm

...I... Um... Find that site cumbersome and unnavigatable, and though checking my credit info is.. Interesting... I'm unsure how that helps me figure out the class boundary definitions...

Ozymandias · Postby **Ozymandias** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 10:24 pm

The social classification of the residents of W12 6PA is C2DE and is shaded blue below. Please note that if your area contains more than one group, the shading can cover several classifications: <img src='http://www.creditreporting.co.uk/checkm ... s/C2DE.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' /> What the letters mean... A Professionals such as doctors, lawyers and dentists, chartered architects and engineers. Individuals with a large degree of responsibility such as senior executives and senior managers, higher grade civil servants and higher ranks of the armed services. B University lecturers, heads of local government departments, executive officers of the civil service, middle managers, qualified scientists, bank managers, police inspectors and senior ranks of the armed services. C1 Nurses, technicians, pharmacists, salesmen, publicans, clerical workers , clerical officers within the civil service, police sergeants and constables and senior non commissioned officers within the armed services. C2 Skilled manual workers who have served apprenticeships; foremen, manual workers with special qualifications such as long distance lorry drivers, security officers and other non commissioned officers within the armed services. D Semi-skilled and unskilled manual workers, including labourers and people serving apprenticeships; clerical assistants in the civil service, machine minders, farm labourers, laboratory assistants, postmen and all other members of the armed services. E Pensioners, casual workers, long term unemployed people, and others with relatively low or fixed levels of income.

Gizensha · Postby **Gizensha** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 1:13 am

I may be being dense here, but I'm not sure how that equates to classes of upper, middle, lower, etc. Especially considering it just looks at profession, which is just one of a miriad of factors. And considering I'm a student, which isn't listed on their...

Define Cynical Fan Forums

UK Pro-Hunt Demonstrators 'Invade' Parliament

Who is online