If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Outright Ban on Hunting
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
All I can say is ummm.... wow! Rather shocking development I just happened across on BBC from their Westminster correspondent. Seems the Commons has just carried a bill for the complete ban on hunting by a large majority.
Its expected to be resisted by the Lords but, without having any personal interest in the subect myself, Im curious to hear what our UK poster have to say on this breaking news.
Will we see massive uproar sweeping the countryside? Will politicians be losing their seats in the next election over this?
Interesting development given what I recall of my own consituency's views (years ago when I worked for a British MEP in the European Parliament) about animal welfare issues.
Its expected to be resisted by the Lords but, without having any personal interest in the subect myself, Im curious to hear what our UK poster have to say on this breaking news.
Will we see massive uproar sweeping the countryside? Will politicians be losing their seats in the next election over this?
Interesting development given what I recall of my own consituency's views (years ago when I worked for a British MEP in the European Parliament) about animal welfare issues.
0
Comments
I'm still not very familiar with the British parliamentary system but I get the impression that change is made very difficult indeed. The Lords can reject anything a number of times before the Parliament Act can be used. Pressure is put on the government as people accuse them of waiting lots of parliament time trying to pass a piece of legislation when there are more urgent issues at hand. On many occasions the government simply gives up on the issue or postpones it until the next term, by which time the opposition might be in power and the whole issue is forgotten about.
This is particularly infuriating with issues like fox hunting because a very sizeable majority of the Commons supports an outright ban, as does the majority of the public according to every poll conducted on the issue. Yet you get a chamber of elderly upper class toffs disconnected with reality and the pulse of the nation who refuse to vow to popular sentiment and keep blocking anything they don't approve of. Like for example the removal of the homophobic Section 28 legislation, which gets shot down at the Lords whenever it's presented there.
I don't know about other countries but I would imagine Britain passes fewer laws than any other democracy in Europe. It is frankly quite astonishing how many times can a proposed law be delayed, blocked or returned.
All I can say is show me an equestrian event...and I'll show you a horse's ass.
*bows*
What I recall is that the golf grounds staff loathed the hunters because they would spend weeks priming the green for the golf season only to have it torn apart by hordes of horses and dogs racing to and fro just to corner the damn fox.
The sound of the hounds constantly barking in their kennels was also an endless annoyance for those of us working in the clubhouse.
I much preferred when they used the horses for polo matches. Much more civilised Ive always thought.
Monocrat, do you believe in the right to burn a forest to the ground for entertainment purposes (provided no people are hurt and no private property destroyed)?
Good for you, I agree in a way, I've suggested to my MP that he put forward an amendment with bans huunting foxes etc with dogs (because basically it's barbaric and unnecessary) but to prevent job lossess etc (which the pro-hunting lobby claim will happen) they allow hunting of libertarians who make inane comments on discussion boards
Cant we use dogs for those???
Why is barbarity of consequence?
No one's rights are infringed by hunting (and before you say the animal's are, well animals don't have rights to be upheld).
Did my statement offend you? :rolleyes:
can't smoke this or that. can't hunt. can't fish. how about concentrating on protecting peoples rights first. how about building a working transport structure etc and while we're doing it have some weekend pursuits to enjoy ourselves with. you'll be banning rat catching next! oh no rats don't look cute so don't have rights. the fact a rat is far more inteligent and complex than a fucking wild dog doesn't count for much then?
Its a real clear, bad reflection on people that do this, support this and enjoy it.
we are being reduced to digital entertainment and psycoactive chemicals only ...
Good idea! Let's make the rich dress up in fox coats and hunt them. Now that's a sport matey!:thumb:
Not at all. I actually find it extremely funny.
You see, there might be valid arguments for keeping fox hunting legal, such as keeping the species under control and so on (although I don't agree with them) but to say that fox hunting should be kept legal out of the people's right to hunt is- no offence- frankly ridiculous.
So I'm just trying to establish whether you apply the same principle to other things, such as burning a forest, out of pure curiosity. To see whether you would draw the line at anything or you genuinely believe that human beings have undeniable rights to do everything they want.
So, tell me: I like fire and would find burning a forest to the ground very amusing and interesting. Can I count on your support to be allowed to exercise my ‘right’ to burn it down?
I've heard the argument before as well. Horses love all that running around and jumping over things. "It's all natural. They do it when running free in nature". But to have someone sit on their back, stick boots in their ribs and whip them. Hardly seems like fun to me.
And you stating what freedoms a person can or cannot have is equally ridiculous.
Well with freedom comes responsiblity.
Non sequitur.
Edited to add: Sorry for going so much off topic now. Fox hunting to nuclear weapons! Still, it all boils down to 'rights' doesn't it?
Me too. If it does get through though it's a good developement in our society. If it doesn't I think there will be an overwhealming response with protests all over the UK like were saw with the war portests, though maybe not as big.
they will end up being shot, gassed, poisoned so they will be killed by man anyway. we have to kill to stay healthily at the top. kill cockroaches, rats, wasps etc ...but if it's got a cute face ...
and how are they going to police it?
It is cruel and barbaric. The fox population is not kept "in check" at all by hunting with dogs. As the pro hunt lobby themselves claim, they do not always catch a fox. Therefore, I must question how this keeps the fox population under control. Simply put, it doesn't.
Pro-hunt campaigners argue that foxes kill chickens and other animals kept on farms etc. The simple anser to that is make sure they can't. A fox will kill - it is natural for it to do so, in the same way it is nautral for a dog to bark. If humans put wildlife where it can be got at by a fox then a fox will get at it. Who is to blame? The human who did not protect their wildlife.
I can see no reason whatsoever why fox hunting should continue. It is a sick and outdated "sport" and I really fail to comprehend why people advocate it. I really am puzzled.