Hunt Ban Protest Kicks Off

Redleslie2

Anyone watching sky news? Bizarre scenes of class war. The hunt ban protests outside parliament have turned a bit nasty. The toffs and what appears to be a forelock tugging working class lickspittle element, started on the cops who gave them a few whacks back in return. Explosive bangy things have been chucked at and over the police lines. Sky news reporter says he found empty shotgun cartridges on the ground, some toff said people just had them in their pockets. Why drop them on the ground I wonder? A threat?

Redleslie2

Protesters in the commons. Parliament suspended. Mental. BBC report.

Manach

forelock tugging working class lickspittle element
In other words, rural folk protesting against Big government steamrolling through a bill, just to please the looney Labour left wing, nearly totally opposed by the countryside dwellers.

luckat

Ah yes, it's wonderful to see thousands of people out shouting and roaring and protesting at an attempt by their government to take away their God-given right to tear a little animal to pieces.

mycroft

The four hour protest has been mostly peaceful but police have used their batons against a small minority of protesters.

Well nice to know you don't have to be left wing to get a baton in the face.

nearly totally opposed by the countryside dwellers.

Hunt supporters can happily produce statistics that will say everything from;

99% of the population oppose the ban

30,000 dogs will be slaughtered

thousands of people will lose their jobs

Fox populations will explode

A decline in hedgerow will lead to destruction of rural habitats and huge 30 mile wide fields leading to desolation and a rural wasteland devoid of scenery.

The very fabric of society will be torn assunder and it will be only a matter of time before the ghost of cromwell and his roundheads will rise up....

---

I may have made up/exaggerated some of the above points.

Simple facts it's barbaric and cruel, is an ineffective way of population control and is the hobby of the rich and powerful.

---

We Did not see this kind of outcry when they banned oh cockfighting and dog fighting.

On a local level fox hunting still exits in this country (there are over three hunts in wicklow) and it's likely that some refugees from the UK will come over to join our hunts.

Hmmmmm hunt sabotage, I have been meaning to take up an outdoor hobby.

dublinario

Who gives a f*ck if it is opposed by a bunch of rich, wealthy, aristocratic, monicle wearing, land owning toffs who just so happen to live in the country? I'm far from a libertarian tree hugging hippy, and yet I'm still stunned that there is still a place in modern society for a sport which gets it's kicks from ripping a fox apart.

And how is "but it's tradition" an argument? It used to be traditional for Black people to act as slaves to in-bred rednecks in America, but that tradition was thrown out when society progressed and deemed Slavery morally bankrupt.

I have always found it interesting that Fox hunting is met with, at best, apathy, and at worst, revulsion by the working classes. Why is it that the w*nkers who indulge in this barbaric nonsense are predominantly aristocratic and bourgeois morons, oblivious to reason?

There are probably a million ways to recreate. Find one that doesn't involve torturing and disembowling an animal for fun.

The Corinthian

dublinario wrote:

Who gives a f*ck if it is opposed by a bunch of rich, wealthy, aristocratic, monicle wearing, land owning toffs who just so happen to live in the country? I'm far from a libertarian tree hugging hippy, and yet I'm still stunned that there is still a place in modern society for a sport which gets it's kicks from ripping a fox apart.

The hunting debate in the UK is simply another leg in an ongoing clash of cultures between urban and rural Society. The UK Labour party’s support is overwhelmingly urban based and so it’s not too bothered where it comes to introducing laws that will be unpopular with people who won’t vote for them regardless.

Additionally, to argue that only toffs support hunting would be a fairly ill-informed and idiotic opinion. After all, hare coursing is hardly the mainstay of “wealthy, aristocratic, monocle wearing, land owning toffs”, is it?

On which point, I don’t think I’ve ever met an aristocrat who wore a monocle. Perhaps you should be waving a red flag about somewhere, although I suspect you’ll be almost ninety years too late.

sceptre

The Corinthian wrote:

After all, hare coursing is hardly the mainstay of “wealthy, aristocratic, monocle wearing, land owning toffs”, is it?

To be fair, it's not as though you need a horse to go coursing. Just a hare, a dog and a wall. You can even use someone else's hare, dog and wall if you're the voyeur type. Harder to do that with fox hunting unless you're used to jumping over fences and running through the woods without a horse.

Sparks

What's bothering me about this is that the same style of arguments are being used here that were used during the pistols ban in the UK after Dunblane. And that's one of the reasons that there's so much support from non-hunting quarters for the pro-hunt protesters in the UK right now - Labour just isn't trusted by minorities who can be villanised with a bit of spin...

The Corinthian

sceptre wrote:

To be fair, it's not as though you need a horse to go coursing. Just a hare, a dog and a wall. You can even use someone else's hare, dog and wall if you're the voyeur type. Harder to do that with fox hunting unless you're used to jumping over fences and running through the woods without a horse.

So what? My point was simply that class is irrelevant in the question of blood sports.

The implication by dublinario and some of the other ‘intellectuals’ in this thread is that there is some sort of monopoly by ‘toffs’ in blood sports. This, other than being laughably untrue, detracts from the real debate which has more to do with a difference in cultural and moral values between urban and rural Society, than some adolescent attempt to tie it all into class war.

Lennoxschips

Batons? They should set the dogs on them.

Sparks

Darn right Lennox - due process and civil treatment is only for people we agree with and like, after all!

Redleslie2

Where I grew up it was common for kids to hunt cats and dogs and kill them through various means for fun. So recreational sadistic cruelty is not necessarily a class issue no, but fox hunting is just a hobby of the landed classes and the saddos who aspire to that class. Hardly needs to be said but considering that hunting has been the preserve of the ruling class since the Normans and vast swathes of the country have been their private playgrounds, anyone who says it's not a class issue is quite obviously talking total bollocks. Especially since even some Countryside Alliance spokestoff or tory MP (indistinguishable) accused Tony Blair of fomenting class war today.

monument

Redleslie2 wrote:

So recreational sadistic cruelty is not necessarily a class issue no, but fox hunting is just a hobby of the landed classes and the saddos who aspire to that class.

While I would support a ban, I have to say that is complete ill-informed non-sense.

therecklessone

I have to say, from the footage I saw from outside Westminster, the police went fairly full pelt with the batons on the protesters.

T'was strange to see them employ tactics usually reserved for footy hooligans and crusties.

Redleslie2

monument wrote:

While I would support a ban, I have to say that is complete ill-informed non-sense.

And your one line "argument" is inarticulate non-sense.

monument

Redleslie2 wrote:

And your one line "argument" is inarticulate non-sense.

My argument? Over your ill-informed views, mostly amounting to name-calling?

therecklessone wrote:

T'was strange to see them employ tactics usually reserved for footy hooligans and crusties.

It is most likely that a hooligan element of the protest sparked off the police, while the majority were peaceful – as is the case with most protests that happen to get out of hand. It's not like the police went at them for no reason.

Redleslie2

monument wrote:

My argument? Over your ill-informed views, mostly amounting to name-calling?

You've put up two posts about my "ill-informed" views without being able to explain why they're ill-informed so here's a direct question.

Why is saying that fox hunting is a hobby "ill-informed"?

Answer or shurrup and go away. Good lad.

monument wrote:

It is most likely that a hooligan element of the protest sparked off the police, while the majority were peaceful – as is the case with most protests that happen to get out of hand. It's not like the police went at them for no reason.

Now this is what I call ill-informed nonsense. You obviously don't know what went on at the protest but you're more than happy to say what "most likely" happened. Why don't you just go away and try find out how things actually happened at the protest before coming out with this useless speculative garbage please.

monument

Excuse me, I was meaning to just highlight ‘of the landed classes and the saddos who aspire to that class’, which is like saying scum bags are the only ones who like boxing, amounting to – as I’ve said – nothing more then name calling. Hunting is just a hobby.

Redleslie2 wrote:

Now this is what I call ill-informed nonsense. You obviously don't know what went on at the protest but you're more than happy to say what "most likely" happened. Why don't you just go away and try find out how things actually happened at the protest before coming out with this useless speculative garbage please.

Scotland Yard says a small section of the crowd tried to break through the police cordon but it was "in the main... a peaceful demonstration". - BBC (as linked above)

I can only talk, or clearly speculate about what I have read or seen on the box with moving pictures. My conclusion of such is a few pushed the police (thus becoming hooligans) and the main crowd was peaceful. Do you have a different account of events?

Big Ears

Redleslie2 wrote:

Where I grew up it was common for kids to hunt cats and dogs and kill them through various means for fun.

Ive heard of lots of terrible things done to cats but people seriously hunted dogs where you grew up ?

I know its equally cruel to kill both animals , but a huge amount of people love dogs(compared to cats) , was there no outrage at any dog killing that was known to be going on ?

Lennoxschips

Batons? They should set the dogs on them.

Darn right Lennox - due process and civil treatment is only for people we agree with and like, after all!

In your rush to be cynical you missed my originial cynicism.

Sparks

Not my fault Lennox - you didn't have your sarcasm hand held up high enough!

Victor

Redleslie2 wrote:

Protesters in the commons. Parliament suspended. Mental. BBC report.

Good on them, at least they didn't disturb nap time in the Lords.

Big Ears wrote:

Ive heard of lots of terrible things done to cats but people seriously hunted dogs where you grew up ? I know its equally cruel to kill both animals , but a huge amount of people love dogs(compared to cats) , was there no outrage at any dog killing that was known to be going on ?

It's OK the dogs were of the fox breed.

Chucky the tree

this was a great afternoons entertainment i must say. brightened up the usually boring mid day tv no end!

Optikus

protesters are scumm,,, GET A LIFE YOU SADLITTLE PEOPLE !!!

chewy

"It is most likely that a hooligan element of the protest sparked off the police, while the majority were peaceful – as is the case with most protests that happen to get out of hand. It's not like the police went at them for no reason.2

police don't need a good reason to hit people that there job, its funny this type of crowd getting the treatment this time, it was just like rnc nyc protestors in new york

policeman1: go that way
policeman2: go t'other way,
policema1 move back move back
hunter: i can't physical move back theres 10,000 people behind me!!!
policeman3 4 5 and 6 tough! - twack twack thack!!!

from my, sorta crustie, perspective i find it ironic but again its just like fathers for justice they aren't getting responded to enough by how politics works today so are forced to use other ways... (well i trying to figure that thought out)

on uk indymedia somebody suggested along with the giggles and "haha, see how they like it"s that in a liberarian/anarchist world they wouldn't want a nationwide ban handed down by the government on _anything_ (even hunting for sport?), but then again they wouldn't be a need/function for killing for entertainment in that hypothetical situation or now

but it is a quandry people who don't want a big governement handing down laws from up on high being gleeful when one is handed down on an issue they don't like

dublinario

The Corinthian wrote:

The hunting debate in the UK is simply another leg in an ongoing clash of cultures between urban and rural Society. The UK Labour party’s support is overwhelmingly urban based and so it’s not too bothered where it comes to introducing laws that will be unpopular with people who won’t vote for them regardless.

So what? I'm not trying to sound glib, but seriously, so f*cking what? The will of the people, is the will of the people. There is overwhelming support for a ban on Fox Hunting in Britain. What are you suggesting, that we set up a new government for rural society so that the 'clash of cultures' won't occur? Or should rural folk be able to veto any laws made by 'urban' folk which tread on their idyllic, country-woven sensibilities?

Let me enlighten you to a simple tenet of democracy in a country such as England Corinthian. Most people live in city and suburban areas. Therefore, most voters live in urban areas. The corollary of this is that laws, effectively, are determined by urban dwellers, and some of those laws (shock, horror), will infringe upon our rural brethren.

The Corinthian wrote:

Additionally, to argue that only toffs support hunting would be a fairly ill-informed and idiotic opinion.

All generalisations by their very nature will dilute slightly under scrutiny Corinthian, but it doesn't make it entirely groundless. I would stand firm in my belief that Fox Hunting is a past time, predominantly, of the upper and middle classes. I'm astonished you would try to suggest otherwise. Don't be disingenuous.

Incidentally, did you see the part of last nights coverage when one protester was asked by a reporter how the violence started, and he said, in his finest Prince Charles-esque Toff accent '"I think there were some Football supporters up the front who started it". Did you see anybody wearing Football jerseys? Will you be disingenuous a second time and suggest that this moron didn't use 'football supporters' as a euphemism for 'working class'? Because that is exactly what he meant.

This debate is starting to feel reminiscent of the Smoking ban debate. The Smokers got up in arms saying "nobody can tell me not to smoke", silmilar to the Fox hunters in Britain saying "nobody can tell me what hobby to have". Both are intellectually dishonest arguments. The smoking ban stated that people cannot smoke in places where it will adversely effect the health of others. Similarly, the country toff's in Britain have been told that they cannot have a hobby that adversely effects the health of a Fox. It isn't rocket science, and I'm sure both the anti-smoke ban and anti Fox hunt ban lobbies will live to fight another day, hopefully for a more worthwhile cause

The Corinthian wrote:

On which point, I don’t think I’ve ever met an aristocrat who wore a monocle.

Jesus, develop a sense of humour. If you can't discern between the literal and the farcical, then kindly p*ss off and let the grown ups talk.

Redleslie2

Big Ears wrote:

Ive heard of lots of terrible things done to cats but people seriously hunted dogs where you grew up ?

Yeah, they used to hang them from trees, set them on fire, that kind of thing. The kids didn't abuse dogs half as much as cats because dogs, being friendlier, were easier to catch, no fun there. Dogs also have nasty bites so they were able to fight back. The kids outgrew this kind of hobby reasonably quickly though, unlike their social betters.

I know its equally cruel to kill both animals , but a huge amount of people love dogs(compared to cats) , was there no outrage at any dog killing that was known to be going on ?

Yeah there was but if you were part of the gang it was probably good craic.

ReefBreak

Good article here in the UK Times which I generally agree with.

Why, then, do opponents of hunting feel so passionately about saving foxes, but do not worry about the suffering of fish, cows and sheep? Why do many of the same activists attack women wearing mink or sable, but do not give a damn about leather shoes? The difference is not about morality but about class and tribe. Hunting, like fur, is identified with the rich and the toffs. Fishing, like leather and hamburgers, is an indulgence of the urban working class.

Oppenents of foxhunting should admit what they are really about - they hate the toffs. If it's not about that, why is there no ban on fishing?

Victor

ReefBreak wrote:

If it's not about that, why is there no ban on fishing?

Speciesism, out and out. We have to stick together with our fellow mammals. Them that fish could have entered the EU anyway they wanted, you just never know.

ReefBreak

I'm probably more anti-fox hunting that pro. However, in recent months I've begun to feel some sympathy for the pro-hunt lobby. I simply can't reconcile the fact that it's being banned when people still go out and snare fish with with hooks before battering them to death with a stick.

luckat wrote:

Ah yes, it's wonderful to see thousands of people out shouting and roaring and protesting at an attempt by their government to take away their God-given right to tear a little animal to pieces.

Are you also opposed to fishing?

mycroft wrote:

We Did not see this kind of outcry when they banned oh cockfighting and dog fighting.

On a local level fox hunting still exits in this country (there are over three hunts in wicklow) and it's likely that some refugees from the UK will come over to join our hunts.

Hmmmmm hunt sabotage, I have been meaning to take up an outdoor hobby.

Are you also opposed to fishing?

dublinario wrote:

There are probably a million ways to recreate. Find one that doesn't involve torturing and disembowling an animal for fun.

Are you also opposed to fishing?

I also have to say that I get very annoyed when I see clueless city people such as dublinario spouting on about the countryside, when they the only piece of grass they ever see is while watching the football on sky.

Rabies

I think I am one of a few on boards that is pro hunting. I have hunted many times in the past and loved it. There is a thread about it some where in Animals/Pet Issues.
The ban of fox hunting in England will certainly increase the amount of tourists to this country purely to hunt. Local riding schools will make money from the hiring of horses and hunting organisations will get more international members.
Some people have said that fox hunting is for the "toffs", that isn't true. If you ever follow a hunt or take part you will notice that many of the members are farmers or just regular working people. Of course there are members that are from the richer end of the scale, upper middle and upper class. But they would probably be a minority in Irish hunting circles.
The protest in England did get out of hand. If the police needed to use force to control the front of the crowd then so be it. Very few protests go ahead without any incidents.

mycroft

Are you also opposed to fishing?

Am I opposed to fishing? Hmmmmmmm

Dragging myself to a lake at dawn to throw a line into the river in the freezing cold, and stand there all day......

Then yes I'm morally opposed to fishing if you expect me to do it.

However if a fisherman is going to eat what he catchs then no I'm not. We've hunted and killed for food since recorded time. It's part of human nature.

Fox hunting is chasing, hunting, and dismembering an animal for pleasure. It's morally abhorant.

So yes I see a difference.

Some people have said that fox hunting is for the "toffs", that isn't true. If you ever follow a hunt or take part you will notice that many of the members are farmers or just regular working people. Of course there are members that are from the richer end of the scale, upper middle and upper class. But they would probably be a minority in Irish hunting circles

In order to hunt, you'll need at least one horse, membership of a hunt, clothes, a 4x4, and a horse box, you'll need to be able to pay stable fees. This is the hobby of the wealthy and the powerful.

ReefBreak

mycroft wrote:

So yes I see a difference.

So you're against fishing where they throw the fish back? Correct? But not when they eat it. What if they eat it, but still get loads of fun out of it and call it a sport? Are you also against using leather for sport?

I'm not trying to be nit-picky, but a bit of consistency wouldn't go astray among the foamy-mouthed anti-hunt lobby - who, by no coincidence, are generally very left-wing.

Rabies

mycroft wrote:

In order to hunt, you'll need at least one horse, membership of a hunt, clothes, a 4x4, and a horse box, you'll need to be able to pay stable fees. This is the hobby of the wealthy and the powerful.

No you don't.

Horses can be hired and transported to the hunt for you.

The riding clothes you see people where on most hunts on TV are not worn by everyone. Some wear jeans, riding boots and a waterproof jacket.

Membership to a hunt club is about the same as gym membership (but more fun ). Some hunts will allow people to take part in hunts even if they are not members, just pay a fee for the day and that will do.

It definitly is not a hobby of the wealthy and powerful. It is a hobby for all social classes if they wish to take part.

dublinario

ReefBreak wrote:

Are you also opposed to fishing?

ReefBreak wrote:

Are you also opposed to fishing?

ReefBreak wrote:

Are you also opposed to fishing?

Well, I'm not opposed to fishing, but you certainly seem to have the memory of a Goldfish the way you repeat yourself.

I have heard this whole "why don't you support the cows/chickens/sheep/fish?" argument countless times, and it is sheer sophistry. Firstly, you purposely fail to recognise that Fish have long been a part of the diet of Humans. Yes, people fish recreationally too, but it is abundantly apparent that, as any dietician would tell you, Fish are a source of nourishment and a worthy addition to a balanced diet, and this is the reason why it has become largely acceptable. This is not comparable to a stylised ritual wherein a bunch of horse-mounted morons salivate as a pack of hounds tear a frightened animal limb from limb. And for the record, Vegans would deem Fishing morally reprehensible, so let's not pretend that everybody loves fishing.

But then there is the more glaringly obvious flaw in your dismal Fish analogy:
what if we agree with you that Fish are treated disgracefully? Is that then a reason not to hate the plight of Foxes? Because there is another creature that is treated equally as badly if not worse, is that any reason to stop caring about the first creature? That is analogous to saying "well I think the the Prevention of Cruelty to Children is a great cause, but because there are charities that are even more worthwhile, I've decided to help NONE of them." Pathetic logic.

ReefBreak wrote:

I also have to say that I get very annoyed when I see clueless city people such as dublinario spouting on about the countryside, when they the only piece of grass they ever see is while watching the football on sky.

Actually ReefBreak, my family are from the country, and my best mate partakes in the Fox Hunts (he assures me that an already dead fox is dragged through the fields to provide the scent for the Hounds, but I'm skeptical about his claim) in Wicklow and other parts of Ireland, which is a source of much debate between us.

I do find it interesting though, that you, just like the British Toff I mentioned earlier, would make disparaging, bizzarly irrelevant comments about Football fans. Rest assured ReefBreak, Football, as the most popular sport in the world, will survive long past the inevitable time when the barbarous niche sport of the rich that you seem oh so moved to support, has been rendered illegal in all civilised democracies.

The Corinthian

Redleslie2 wrote:

anyone who says it's not a class issue is quite obviously talking total bollocks.

I’m sure any topic could be turned into a class issue if one looks long enough - the SWP has made a career of that. However, the ban on hunting is not being proposed on a basis of class war, but on the basis of cruelty. You’ll also find that rural lower classes broadly support it too, while most of the opposition to hunting will tend to come from middle class urbanites rather than Joe ‘Salt-o-the-Earth’ Bloggs from the council estate.

So the reality is that it’s primarily an urban-rural divide, as opposed to a class one. Ascribing it to class war is little more than superficial PR or wishful thinking on the part of twenty-something teenage rebels who haven’t grown up.

dublinario wrote:

So what? I'm not trying to sound glib, but seriously, so f*cking what? The will of the people, is the will of the people. There is overwhelming support for a ban on Fox Hunting in Britain. What are you suggesting, that we set up a new government for rural society so that the 'clash of cultures' won't occur? Or should rural folk be able to veto any laws made by 'urban' folk which tread on their idyllic, country-woven sensibilities?

I wasn’t making a moral judgment, I was making an amoral observation. Nonetheless, are you suggesting that a democracy should not consider or protect the rights of minorities?

All generalisations by their very nature will dilute slightly under scrutiny Corinthian, but it doesn't make it entirely groundless. I would stand firm in my belief that Fox Hunting is a past time, predominantly, of the upper and middle classes. I'm astonished you would try to suggest otherwise. Don't be disingenuous.

To begin with, you’re now being disingenuous as you only suggested it was the preserve of toffs and never mentioned the middle classes until now. Secondly, it’s something I’ve already pointed out enjoys broad support in rural areas from all classes. Finally, there are plenty in the lower classes who have adopted the activity. Ever come across the nouvelle riche? Who do you think pays for many of these hunts?

Will you be disingenuous a second time and suggest that this moron didn't use 'football supporters' as a euphemism for 'working class'? Because that is exactly what he meant.

As opposed suggesting they were hooligans? After all, hooligans are to be found in which particular sport? Perhaps if he’d called them skittles players or pigeon fanciers I’d take your point more seriously.

Jesus, develop a sense of humour. If you can't discern between the literal and the farcical, then kindly p*ss off and let the grown ups talk.

I heard someone who was cracking nig*er jokes once use that same excuse. So I suspect you’ve overestimated your position of maturity in this discussion by a decade or two.

Gizzard

Redleslie2 wrote:

Where I grew up it was common for kids to hunt cats and dogs and kill them through various means for fun. So recreational sadistic cruelty is not necessarily a class issue no, but fox hunting is just a hobby of the landed classes and the saddos who aspire to that class. Hardly needs to be said but considering that hunting has been the preserve of the ruling class since the Normans and vast swathes of the country have been their private playgrounds, anyone who says it's not a class issue is quite obviously talking total bollocks. Especially since even some Countryside Alliance spokestoff or tory MP (indistinguishable) accused Tony Blair of fomenting class war today.

are you serious?, kill dogs and cats?, is this some kind of redneck joke?, where do you come from? so I can avoid it :eek:

Gizzard

Redleslie2 wrote:

You've put up two posts about my "ill-informed" views without being able to explain why they're ill-informed so here's a direct question.

Why is saying that fox hunting is a hobby "ill-informed"?

Answer or shurrup and go away. Good lad.

Now this is what I call ill-informed nonsense. You obviously don't know what went on at the protest but you're more than happy to say what "most likely" happened. Why don't you just go away and try find out how things actually happened at the protest before coming out with this useless speculative garbage please.

Speaking of ill informed nonsense, see your own sig

mycroft

I'm not trying to be nit-picky, but a bit of consistency wouldn't go astray among the foamy-mouthed anti-hunt lobby - who, by no coincidence, are generally very left-wing.

I think you'll find that the miltant anti hunt lobby generally consistents of a mixture of ALF types and old dears.

So you're against fishing where they throw the fish back? Correct? But not when they eat it. What if they eat it, but still get loads of fun out of it and call it a sport? Are you also against using leather for sport?

Okay this is what I call the spluttering "you like this...but how can you condone that" You'll try to argue me into a corner where the next thing you'll try to have me saying "everything barring militant veganism is morally wrong".

Okay, I can't condone or prove that someone who kills and eats fish enjoys the killing more the catching and eating.

Just as I can't condone or support someone who enjoys the fighting and hacking aspects of say hurling over the team sport and winning.

I don't see an inconsistency is condemning once practice which cannot demostration that there is more enjoyment in it than simple sadism.

So a question back at you, is there anything moraly redeming or justifibly in hunting aside from the pleasure and enjoyment in the hunting and killing of a defenseless animal?

Fishermen don't daub the blood of the fish onto the cheeks of their children after their first "kill"

Merrion

The hunting debate in the UK is simply another leg in an ongoing clash of cultures between urban and rural Society.

As someone who was raised in rural Lincolnshire I'd have to disagree with this. A large number of those involved in our local hunts were recently wealthy townspeople from Lincoln and Sheffield and a large number of those opposed to the "sport" were local land owners fed up with having their land trashed by these visiting hordes.

dublinario

The Corinthian wrote:

I wasn’t making a moral judgment, I was making an amoral observation. Nonetheless, are you suggesting that a democracy should not consider or protect the rights of minorities?

Not at all Corinthian. But nor can the minorities ignore the law. The majority has not illegally subjugating the minority. The majority have voted Labour into power, and forced them to make banning Fox Hunting a policy issue. That's democracy. If you don't like it, then why don't you make a donation to the British Conservative party. They are bound to repeal the ban if and when they ever get back to power anyway.

And I find it amusing that you want to wax lyrical about the "...right of minorities", because this whole issue comes down to rights, specifically the amorality that the right of a Human to have a bit of fun could supercede the right of an animal to live. Let's not act like some fundamental, constitutionally protected right has been taken away from Rural dwellers. All that has occured is the enactment of a law to say Foxes can't be savagely murdered for kicks.

The Corinthian wrote:

To begin with, you’re now being disingenuous as you only suggested it was the preserve of toffs and never mentioned the middle classes until now.

Untrue. Reread my posts, and you will find that I explicitly mentioned that Fox Hunting was the persuit of the Upper class and bourgeois. Look 'bourgeois' up in the dictionary. Also, why do you assume that I don't include middle class people as 'toffs'. A middle class person could quite easily be a Toff, just as easily as an upper class person may not be one. It isn't all about wealth. It's about attitude and actions too.

The Corinthian wrote:

Secondly, it’s something I’ve already pointed out enjoys broad support in rural areas from all classes.

Pointing something out is not the same as proving it Corinthian. I have already pointed out that Fox Hunting is predominantly the persuit of the middle and upper classes. Neither of us have produced statistics to support our theories, so don't try and take the moral highground in that respect.

The Corinthian wrote:

As opposed suggesting they were hooligans? After all, hooligans are to be found in which particular sport? Perhaps if he’d called them skittles players or pigeon fanciers I’d take your point more seriously.

That is your perception of the intended meaning, and it is valid opinion. But I think there is more intent beneath the surface. I think the protestor meant to suggest that those who initiated the violence, were more 'common' than himself, and probably like Football, which could be generalised to be the sport of the working class, just as Rugby could be generalised to be the sport of the middle/upper class. I think you are partly right in your inference, but I just read a little deeper into it.

The Corinthian wrote:

I heard someone who was cracking nig*er jokes once use that same excuse. So I suspect you’ve overestimated your position of maturity in this discussion by a decade or two.

Definately, not just your own, but overall, thee most ludicrous, baseless, and histrionic comment of the whole thread. To try and equate a humerous joke I made about people wearing an inanimate piece of eyewear to "nig*er jokes" is absolutely disgusting. You had been arguing well until this point Corinthian, but you made yourself look like a total f*cking knobend with this particular comment.

The Corinthian

dublinario wrote:

Not at all Corinthian. But nor can the minorities ignore the law. The majority has not illegally subjugating the minority. The majority have voted Labour into power, and forced them to make banning Fox Hunting a policy issue. That's democracy.

I don’t think you understand the principle of protecting the rights of minorities. If the majority voted for a law that saw to the sterilization of the Traveling community in Ireland, are you seriously suggesting that this would simply be democracy?

And I find it amusing that you want to wax lyrical about the "...right of minorities", because this whole issue comes down to rights, specifically the amorality that the right of a Human to have a bit of fun could supercede the right of an animal to live.

Irrelevant. I’ve not commented at any stage on whether such a ban is just or not, only on the definition of the roots of this issue as being fundamentally class based or that blood sports are the preserve of the upper class.

Untrue. Reread my posts, and you will find that I explicitly mentioned that Fox Hunting was the persuit of the Upper class and bourgeois.

Apologies - I must have missed it buried under all your references to monocle wearing toffs.

Look 'bourgeois' up in the dictionary.

I’ve no need to do so. I probably understood the word before you were born.
Also, why do you assume that I don't include middle class people as 'toffs'. A middle class person could quite easily be a Toff, just as easily as an upper class person may not be one. It isn't all about wealth. It's about attitude and actions too. [/QUOTE]
The term toff is exclusively used as a derogatory term to describe affected upper class aristocrats. And I never said or even implied that class was based upon wealth, so where did you get that from?

Pointing something out is not the same as proving it Corinthian. I have already pointed out that Fox Hunting is predominantly the persuit of the middle and upper classes. Neither of us have produced statistics to support our theories, so don't try and take the moral highground in that respect.

So it’s all right that you and other teenage rebels in this thread take the moral high ground and claim the issue as a battleground in the class war, then? Because, that’s exactly what you were doing.

I think you are partly right in your inference, but I just read a little deeper into it.

I think you’ve read too much into it. Your assertion is extremely tenuous, not mention fanciful.

Definately, not just your own, but overall, thee most ludicrous, baseless, and histrionic comment of the whole thread. To try and equate a humerous joke I made about people wearing an inanimate piece of eyewear to "nig*er jokes" is absolutely disgusting.

Yet such people would be equally convinced that they were just being humorous. What makes it all right to abuse one group for the sake of humour and not another? Other than your own conviction, that is?

You had been arguing well until this point Corinthian, but you made yourself look like a total f*cking knobend with this particular comment.

Well, that’s a cogent argument. Of course, I should not have expected anything else when pointing out that you may in fact be guilty of those things that you would most likely claim to despise. Ironic, innit?

Redleslie2

The Corinthian wrote:

So the reality is that it’s primarily an urban-rural divide, as opposed to a class one. Ascribing it to class war is little more than superficial PR or wishful thinking on the part of twenty-something teenage rebels who haven’t grown up.

Zzzzzzz. Both the tory and labour press as well as the countryside alliance have stated repeatedly over the years that this is a class issue. It is. As much as the miners' strike was, except the miners' strike was about something a bit more important than a hobby. Deal with it.

Title of The Times article posted by Reefbreak - "Labour will regret reigniting class war."
Guardian article - Class War On The Hoof.

And it seems that every time you disagree with someone, instead of providing any decent argument, you instead instinctively go on about how they're obviously much younger than you (and therefore immature or thick?) and they should just grow up. That in itself does not seem to be a very mature attitude to the likes of me but if it's bred into you then there's not much to be done. Anyway if being grown up means adopting loony political views and supporting kitsch military dicatorships over any sort of democracy then personally I'm with Tom Waits on the whole growing up issue.

emaherx

I was wondering if any of the people who partake in fox hunting could tell me how many hunts they have been on that actually catch the fox.

Would I be correct in saying not too many.
I would be only too happy if hunts kept the fox population under control, but they don't. I am a farmer and have lost plenty of lambs to fox's and I have no problem going out with a gun to shoot a fox or two to protect my livestock.

fox's are verman. I keep a terrier and cats to keep the mouse and rat population under control and they (espessially the terrier) tear small defensless animals apart. Dose any one object to keeping cats and dogs for the sole purpuse of tearing shreads out of rodents. (is it ok because its not for sport)

I am not completly pro hunt! many a hunt has caused damage to land and crops

emaherx

Redleslie2 wrote:

Zzzzzzz. Both the tory and labour press as well as the countryside alliance have stated repeatedly over the years that this is a class issue. It is. As much as the miners' strike was, except the miners' strike was about something a bit more important than a hobby. Deal with it.

Title of The Times article posted by Reefbreak - "Labour will regret reigniting class war."
QUOTE]

In england it is mostly upper classes who partake in hunts

In ireland it is not a class war. more people from lower and middle classes take part.

Redleslie2

emaherx wrote:

I would be only too happy if hunts kept the fox population under control, but they don't.

I am a farmer and have lost plenty of lambs to fox's and I have no problem going out with a gun to shoot a fox or two to protect my livestock.
fox's are verman. I keep a terrier and cats to keep the mouse and rat population under control and they (espessially the terrier) tear small defensless animals apart. Dose any one object to keeping cats and dogs for the sole purpuse of tearing shreads out of rodents. (is it ok because its not for sport)

Some of my family on my mother's side are farmers and have cats and dogs for the same reason. I don't think anyone objects to it. If fox numbers fell dramatically it wouldn't be long before the hunters would be importing this "vermin" from elsewhere as happened in the late 19th century, so they could continue to pursue their hobby.

dublinario

The Corinthian wrote:

I don’t think you understand the principle of protecting the rights of minorities. If the majority voted for a law that saw to the sterilization of the Traveling community in Ireland, are you seriously suggesting that this would simply be democracy?

No Corinthian, ethnic cleansing definately isn't democratic. What a totally spurious and ridiculous analogy. I repeat: the majority of people in Britain oppose Fox Hunting. They voted Labour into power, and forced them to make banning Fox Hunting a policy issue. The ban was then enforced, by vote, in Parliment. Instead of attempting to counter this point with a wholly surreal, ludicrously incommensurable hypothetical, why don't you instead simply tell me what was undemocratic about what actually transpired?

Of course the rights of minorities should also be protected. But unfortunately Corinthian, by definition, the losing side of any vote is a minority. Take referenda: when a matter is put to public ballot, every single person who votes on the losing side instantly becomes a minority group. Your crude, one-size-fits-all farcical analogy has no baring. Sometimes the will of the majority CAN override the right of a minority, especially if the right in question is as trivial and vulgar as the right to savage Foxes to death.

The Corinthian wrote:

Irrelevant. I’ve not commented at any stage on whether such a ban is just or not, only on the definition of the roots of this issue as being fundamentally class based or that blood sports are the preserve of the upper class.

Well I know you would like to make the argument thus Corinthian, to keep the debate abstract. But unfortunately, you cannot separate the causal factors of this debate. If you want to debate merely whether or not the issue is fundamentally class based, then perhaps start a new thread. As for the rest of us, I think we find it hard to debate the Fox Hunting ban without discussing......Fox Hunting!

The Corinthian wrote:

Apologies

Apology accepted.

The Corinthian wrote:

I’ve no need to do so. I probably understood the word before you were born.

I think that is the second time you have referred to my age. Corinthian, I don't presume to know if you are 15 years old or 150. Why do you presume to know my age? Not that it is relevant, but I am in my late 20's.

The Corinthian wrote:

The term toff is exclusively used as a derogatory term to describe affected upper class aristocrats.

Corinthian, I will bow to your pedantic, dictionary like definition of the term 'toff'. I would however argue, that it's perceived meaning, especially in my social circle, would trascend it's lexiphanic definition. To me, a 'Toff' is a middle or upper class person that displays a certain type of arrogant, lofty behaviour seemingly associated with their wealth. Therefore, neither middle nor upper class people are necessarily Toff's.

The Corinthian wrote:

And I never said or even implied that class was based upon wealth, so where did you get that from?

Who said you did?

The Corinthian wrote:

How teenage rebels in this thread.....

Again with the age jibes. How grotesquely patronising of you to assert that everybody who disagrees with you is some ill-informed youth. For somebody of your, presumably advancing years, it would appear to me you still have a lot of growing up to do.

The Corinthian wrote:

I think you’ve read too much into it. Your assertion is extremely tenuous, not mention fanciful.

Perhaps, but it is my opinion, and in and of itself is perfectly valid.

The Corinthian wrote:

Yet such people would be equally convinced that they were just being humorous. What makes it all right to abuse one group for the sake of humour and not another? Other than your own conviction, that is?

Corinthian, if you cannot discern between the comedic stereotype of an aristocrat wearing a Monocle, and the historical gravitas associated with the word "n*gger", then I genuinely feel sorry you. The Monocle is only one of a series of accessories applied to the stereotypical aristocrat, along with a top hat, handle bar moustache, and a cane, all of which I believe are present on the emblem of the board game Monopoly. Are you suggesting that the board game Monopoly is as offensive as the word N*gger? Once again Corinthian, I would implore you to drop a totally revolting and invalid analogy, because you are making yourself look like a complete idiot, which I DON'T believe you to be.

The Corinthian wrote:

Well, that’s a cogent argument. Of course, I should not have expected anything else when pointing out that you may in fact be guilty of those things that you would most likely claim to despise. Ironic, innit?

No. You should have looked up 'irony' while looking up 'bourgeois'.

chewy

"....but do not give a damn about leather shoes?"

this is a great example of of patronising reporting of the highest order, i know plenty the more committed hippy/punk friends who go out of there way to find plastic boots or whatever....

Redleslie2

I'm wrong. Foxhunting is not a class issue at all, look at the pro-hunt protesters who staged that disgraceful display in the commons. They're a diverse social mix of rich polo players, rich rock star's sons, rich stud farm owners and other types of rich people according to the BBC.


Otis Ferry :: Master of the hunt in south Shropshire
The 21-year-old is the son of 1970s pop star Bryan Ferry. He gave up his public school education at the age of 16 to indulge his passion for countryside sports.

Luke Tomlinson :: Polo player from Gloucestershire
Eton-educated Luke Tomlinson, 27, has represented England at polo and is reported to be good friends with princes William and Harry. His family are close to Prince Charles and live near to the prince's Highgrove estate in Gloucestershire.

David Redvers :: Stud farm owner from Gloucestershire
Mr Redvers, 34, is married to Laura Montgomery whose father is a baronet. The father-of-one owns a stud farm at Hartpury in Severn Vale, near Gloucester.

The Corinthian

Redleslie2 wrote:

Both the tory and labour press as well as the countryside alliance have stated repeatedly over the years that this is a class issue.

Really? Where?

As much as the miners' strike was, except the miners' strike was about something a bit more important than a hobby. Deal with it.

Oh, I take it the Tories said that was a class issue too then? :rolleyes:

Guardian article - Class War On The Hoof.

An opinion piece. Like your post, but with a little bit more substance.

And it seems that every time you disagree with someone, instead of providing any decent argument, you instead instinctively go on about how they're obviously much younger than you (and therefore immature or thick?) and they should just grow up.

I notice that you’ve not levied a similar accusation against dublinario, even though he was the first to make maturity related comments. Wait, you agree with him so it’s different.

Anyway if being grown up means adopting loony political views and supporting kitsch military dicatorships over any sort of democracy then personally I'm with Tom Waits on the whole growing up issue.

Or Fidel Castro. More your type of kitsch military dictator.

dublinario wrote:

No Corinthian, ethnic cleansing definately isn't democratic. What a totally spurious and ridiculous analogy. I repeat: the majority of people in Britain oppose Fox Hunting. They voted Labour into power, and forced them to make banning Fox Hunting a policy issue. The ban was then enforced, by vote, in Parliment. Instead of attempting to counter this point with a wholly surreal, ludicrously incommensurable hypothetical, why don't you instead simply tell me what was undemocratic about what actually transpired?

How is the point spurious? You’ve argued that the will of the majority may impose it’s will upon the lives and values of a minority. Just because you personally disagree with one imposition and agree with another makes no odds as you’ve not shown how one is different to the other at all in terms of your definition of democracy.

Of course the rights of minorities should also be protected. But unfortunately Corinthian, by definition, the losing side of any vote is a minority. Take referenda: when a matter is put to public ballot, every single person who votes on the losing side instantly becomes a minority group. Your crude, one-size-fits-all farcical analogy has no baring. Sometimes the will of the majority CAN override the right of a minority, especially if the right in question is as trivial and vulgar as the right to savage Foxes to death.

So how are you judging what is moral or not? Were the majority to decide to sterilize the Traveling community tomorrow, by democratic vote, would that make it moral? According to popular opinion it would. Yet, such a case is magically different in your eyes for some, as yet undefined, reason. Enlighten us as to your logic.

Well I know you would like to make the argument thus Corinthian, to keep the debate abstract. But unfortunately, you cannot separate the causal factors of this debate. If you want to debate merely whether or not the issue is fundamentally class based, then perhaps start a new thread. As for the rest of us, I think we find it hard to debate the Fox Hunting ban without discussing......Fox Hunting!

And I have indeed discussed the issue of Fox hunting, and in particular the horseshìt that people will ascribe to the debate.

I think that is the second time you have referred to my age. Corinthian, I don't presume to know if you are 15 years old or 150. Why do you presume to know my age? Not that it is relevant, but I am in my late 20's.

It is the only time I have referred to your age. If you’re in your late twenties, you’re probably a little long in the tooth to still be waving the class war flag though.

Corinthian, I will bow to your ... definition of the term 'toff'.

Apology accepted.

I would however argue, that it's perceived meaning, especially in my social circle, would trascend it's lexiphanic definition.

So how you and your mates see it is more correct that the real meaning? Good way to develop an understanding of the World.

Who said you did?

It was the only possible reason for you to have brought it up. Otherwise it was just an irrelevant filler to your argument.

Again with the age jibes. How grotesquely patronising of you to assert that everybody who disagrees with you is some ill-informed youth. For somebody of your, presumably advancing years, it would appear to me you still have a lot of growing up to do.

Indeed. Your well crafted arguments (or your own grotesquely patronizing comments) have convinced me of this :rolleyes:

Perhaps, but it is my opinion, and in and of itself is perfectly valid.

Then state it as such, don’t state it as fact.

Corinthian, if you cannot discern between the comedic stereotype of an aristocrat wearing a Monocle, and the historical gravitas associated with the word "n*gger", then I genuinely feel sorry you.

The power of words to evoke emotion is entirely based upon what we ascribe to them. That you can consider it acceptable to deride on group and be offended when another is says more about your values than the words themselves.

Applying different standards because you agree with one discrimination but not with another is called hypocrisy. So have a good look in the mirror. And no, I don’t feel sorry for you.

No. You should have looked up 'irony' while looking up 'bourgeois'.

Should I ask your social circle for a better definition then?