I’m listening to David Cameron on BBC3 Dermot Meets David Cameron and realised a Conservative ‘untruth’. David Cameron is talking about a Big Society (which is total waffle IMO) and said they want to listen to the people and if they gain power after May 6th they’ll bring in the ability for the British people […]
Continue Reading Election 2010 Conservative Petitions and Banning Fox Hunting
Who the hell cares about Fox hunting when this country is facing economic meltdown!
Priorities!
According to polls around 75% of the country care about fox hunting, they wanted it banned.
Why didn’t you understand the real message of my post above, it’s not specifically about fox hunting, it’s about a silly Tory idea to listen to the people via petitions that will force them to put through new legislation.
Political parties put forward a manifesto every 5 years and we vote for the party we want in power. General elections is when we get our say.
The concept in itself is fine, politicians should listen, but we have to be realistic, if it were up to the people in a vote the country would collapse into anarchy as we’d be selfish when voting on single issues.
Imagine if we all had a vote on things like:
Should income tax be banned?
Should we have council tax?
Should VAT be scrapped?
should we give multi-millionaires a tax break?
Should we pull out of Afghanistan now?
Should we pay for smokers cancer treatment on the NHS?
Should all politicians be hung drawn and quartered?
Either the Conservatives don’t expect many petitions to hit the required 5% of support (over 3 million signatures) or they will have to ignore the people when the subject of the petition doesn’t match what the Conservatives plan to do (like fox hunting).
Basically they will ignore the petitions they don’t like.
At best people will spends lots of time creating petitions, the Tories will debate the subject in parliament and nothing will happen unless the Tories like the idea: if they like an idea why would they need a petition with 5% of the population signing a petition?
David
View Comment
David i think you might be missing the point slightly; if the petition gets the required 5% it will be DEBATED; thus if we had petitions regarding any of the points you raised:
Should income tax be banned?
Should we have council tax?
Should VAT be scrapped?
should we give multi-millionaires a tax break?
Should we pull out of Afghanistan now?
Should we pay for smokers cancer treatment on the NHS?
Should all politicians be hung drawn and quartered?
It would be a very quick debate wouldn’t it as none of the parties would agree to such nonsense…the fact is it would create a mechanism for sensible issues to be raised and debated.
View Comment
And yes the poll may show that 75% of people agree with the ban.
You poll shows the Lib Dems winning…..
What poll are you referring to, i would like to see the amount of participants and the forumn in which it was raised.
Fox hunting is not the question so much as what else are they going to bring back from the 1980’s?Poll Tax, more foreign companies buying our utilities? Who do we have to thank for the closing of the mines and most heavy industry? Wake up.
stupid comment,do we ignore morality because we have an economic problem?
It is incredibly important to realise that despite economic problems and international wars fox hunting in this country is STILL an issue. David Cameron is hoping to ignore the majority of the democratic public so not to annoy his chums who he hunted with. He needs the votes of these people and is hoping that people care little about the welfare of foxes. To be honest I understand why some people think why bother but Anti-Hunting campaigns really need the support of the public. A return to hunting would see a return to hunters dragging animals into schools, domestic pets being mauled to death, monitors being attacked by hunters. The ban may not have been successful in its first part but that is no reason to reintroduce it. David Cameron cares very little about this cause but it is a cause that is very close to many people’s hearts.
View Comment
MORI. Was done via telephone poll by a 2000+ group of nationally representative British public. There is generally a 3% margin for error, so at least 70% of the population disagree with fox hunting.
And if you seem to think that this poll is ‘false’ or ‘done wrong’ then your saying that every survey and poll everywhere is done wrong. This is how statistics work. The odds that this is more then 3% wrong are astronomical (anyone who does AS level maths can tell you this.)
View Comment
The poll showing that 70% of people in the uk disagree with fox hunting is probably very accurate.
but if you took a poll of people who live in rural areas and see the outcome, it will probably be 70% for hunting. This ban affects these people, so why are we not polling them first?
The people that support fox hunting aren’t toff’s and eton boys that you all seem to think they are, they are farmers, farm labourers, breeders, trainers and people who have lived in the countryside and experience rural life. Most of them are actually quite poor. The idyll of the country gent riding out in a top hat and red coat is a bit of a myth at least in modern times.
I am neither pro nor anti hunting, I just believe that people should be allowed to decide whether things affect them or not, and have a voice.
View Comment
That’s an interesting argument on pro fox hunting.
I disagree with you believing 70% of rural areas would vote yes to fox hunting, but would generally agree with your point that foxes are more of an issue for rural areas compared to the country as a whole.
If there was a rural only poll I’m sure there would be less voting against the ban, though not as many as 70% (not everyone living in rural areas are farmers).
I think what you are doing is mixing a blood sport: fox hunting with dogs with people on horses wearing red jackets for fun (it’s not primarily pest control, it’s a blood sport). And farmers controlling the fox population in the odd problem area to protect their livelihood (rightly so as well).
I personally have no problem with a farmer protecting his livelihood and he has the option to shoot any foxes that are killing his stock.
I quite like to see a fox in the countryside, in fact I quite like to see them in our towns as well, we occasionally see a fox pass by outside (we live in a town) and they don’t cause any harm in a town (no more than a cat).
I admit it, I like foxes.
The hunting ban is not about stopping a farmer protecting his chickens, (I quite like chickens as well, especially on a Sunday around lunch time) it’s about stopping a barbaric blood sport that the majority of British people do not like.
Those for keeping this blood sport argue the foxes are killed humanely, the dogs are supposed to break the spine of the foxes with a single bite.
Those against fox hunting argue foxes killed by hounds are found with their insides ripped out, but with no killer spinal bite: suggesting the fox suffered unnecessarily during the actual kill.
Those pro fox hunting argue it helps control foxes, but then go on to say 10 times as many foxes are shot by farmers and you could also find man built earths for breeding foxes near fox hunt areas, which means it’s not an effective method for controlling foxes if they are breeding foxes for hunts!
Since the pro fox hunting side can not guarantee the majority of foxes will die humanly (no method will be 100% perfect, but we should use the most humane method), I don’t see how British people who care about animal welfare can support it.
A skilled marksman can shoot a fox humanely with one shot, some will argue foxes shouldn’t be killed, but as long as farmers consider foxes a pest on some farms they need the option to kill them humanly and the key is humanely.
“The people that support fox hunting aren’t toff’s and eton boys that you all seem to think they are”
I never said anything like that, I’ve seen pro fox hunting documentaries and have seen a wide variety of people follow the hunt, I would say there’s more than an average number of “toff’s and Eton boys” (as you put it, not I) than in the general population, but yes it’s a blood sport that all sorts of people have enjoyed in the past.
It used to be acceptable to have bear baiting in this country (popular between the 16th and 19th century) where dogs would try to kill a bear: we actually bred bears in England for this barbaric blood sport just like fox hunters bred foxes for their barbaric sport, so much for controlling foxes https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/feb/17/hunting.ruralaffairs, but we moved on as a society and as a society we’ve decided fox hunting is no longer acceptable in 21st century Britain.
Lets look to the future and not move back to the 19th century under the Tories.
David
View Comment
just like to point out the significant difference here – bear baiting, cock fighting etc IS cruel because these animals are kept in captivity. That is the essential difference.
I hate cruelty to animals – but you have to recognise animal cruelty is in keeping them from freedom and treating them with contempt – for example, battery farming of chickens, pigs etc where they have no natural possibility of escape.
Now fox hunting, as with hunting generally, when on species which aren’t endangered, as the fox very much isn’t, is the killing of animals which are free in the wild – they live natural lives – and nature’s way of killing is just as brutal – just watch a fox chewing a rabbit to death!
animals on many farms, providing food that we eat, have far worse lives than these foxes – they live domesticated destined lives.
View Comment
As David shows with the bear-baiting example, it is easy show many examples of activities in the past which we would now consider unethical, yet at the time many (most?) people would not have objected to.
If the opinion polls showed a 70% support for fox hunting, or even a 99% support for it, it would still be unethical. Frankly, most people do not have the biological knowledge and philosophical background to make informed decisions on issues such as these, which concern the well-being of other sentient creatures, not just humans.
View Comment
That the Tories wish to restore the right of the sadistic to inflict suffering on sentient creatures for no reason other than their own gratification reveals what kind of people they really are, and will certainly never receive my vote or support.
Cameron and particularly ex-Huntmaster Nick Herbert are committed to repealing the ban. They’re doing their best to keep it off the mainstream agenda but they won’t get away with it. Minority Pastime is an Independent Documentary feature film revealing the truth about hunting. See a trailer at
View Comment
Bring back fox-hunting, and repeal the smoking ban. While your at it, stop this global warming and recycling propaganda.